Gun Control

The shootings in Cumbria, North West England, United Kingdom as with all such events have come as a shock to everyone. No matter how many times it occurs the next one is always unexpected and such shootings seem to be the tragic results of firearms. Should there be gun control to try to prevent such killings?

Gun Control

Yes because... No because...

response to Scare factor no point: techno glitch; so typing as a separate point.

Accidents in households because of legally owned firearms(for self-protection) are common. Children have all too often been the victim in these situations, somehow getting a hold of, then mishandling a weapon and consequently; dying or acquiring fatal injuries.

An unloaded weapon can kill. A bullet shot in the air can drop down.

People who keep guns for their scare value alone; can injure/kill themselves for lack of expertise. That being said; no amount of safety gear even with expert training can provide 100% foolproof protection.

Victims who have complied with kidnappers/intruders/attackers have generally faced less injuries/fatalities than those who choose to fight(since the latter are usually less trained than attackers; if both parties have guns then a shootout is much more dangerous than if the victim would just comply.)

Counter-to-counter: There is a reason why rapists do not get capital punishment, there is also a reason why performing vigilante justice is a criminal offense. What about the trauma of seeing your mother/father murder someone who was trying to rape/kill/molest you?, the guilt of it? Is that not potentially a life-ruining travesty too?

People keep guns for their/our own protection; sometimes only to scare potential attackers/intruders rather than to use guns as weapons.

A gun shot in the air has scared off many an intruder and a gun pointed expertly at a potential rapist/criminal is just as effective. Guns are kept in households for their 'scare-value' and they have an incredibly high scare value.

Counter: But aren't some things worth risking your life for? Honor/honour is important even if you end up dying for it. If you have a gun and an intruder is attempting to rape your child you will shoot him/her thus protect your own from a life-ruining travesty.

Counter-to-counter-to-counter:
It is worse if you felt that your parents were around and were completely helpless in the situation.

Gun Control

Yes because... No because...

cut guns = escalation in knife crimes

Sacrifice the one for the many:

Warning:Parental advisory Content: certain murder-method- descriptions are graphic and might cause readers to regurgitate:

It is disgustingly defeatist/fatalist to claim that murders are inevitable or that being shot is relatively painless.

Gutting(or death by laceration) takes time(either for sufficient blood loss or to cut the right organs) ; mass gut-tings(or throat/wrist slits) are virtually unheard of and physically impossible to carry out (unlike 'mass' shootings: spraying/splaying ricocheting/streaming bullets alternatively bombing massacres from bombs set off in crowded public places.)

While the humanity of passing onto the other realm, is important (certainly suicide by barbiturate overdose is a lot less painful than being shot/bombed/burned/dying-by-laceration) ; the general rule is 'sacrifice the one for the many' we are interested in reducing numbers of murders/attacks/fatal-injuries and gun control is effective in this regard.

Let's face it, murders happen:bombings/shootings/guttings/poisonings all occur and have occurred historically often.
Gun control will only lead to a reversion to ubiquitous knife crime.

Yes; we look to America and think racially/penury motivated high-school shootings, muggings,mobsters, shootouts ; more specifically Columbine, V.T killer etc and also that Britain didn't have this problem until guns were legalised/legalized.

Now, we aren't trigger happy Texas rangers and certainly not attached to guns but let's put it this way:
If say, you had to be killed would you rather be shot or gutted with a sharp kitchen utensil? Personally, I prefer the former.

In fact, being bombed thus dying instantly is probably the best way to be killed.

Gun Control

Yes because... No because...

people keep guns for their own protection; sometimes only to scare potential attackers/intruders rather than to use guns as weapons

A gun shot in the air has scared off many an intruder and a gun pointed expertly at a potential rapist/criminal is just as effective. Guns are kept in households for their 'scare-value' and they have an incredibly high scare value.

Gun Control

Yes because... No because...

Gun Control Leads To More Crimes

This would simply lead to more deaths. Of course you cant rely on the police getting there in time, this is perhaps even more the case in Britain where we do not have many police officers with firearms. But still do we want to have situations where people are regularly shooting people who robbers? If you have a gun, and even more so if they have a gun too you increase the chances of a confrontation whereas if you (or better both sides) dont have a gun then the confrontation is much more likely to be avoided. Having firearms encourages people to reklessly take the law into their own hands.

-This post is based on laws in the USA-

Gun Control Laws are designed to prevent incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech from occurring. If an individual is so mentally unstable that they desire to shoot random classmates, it is not feasible to believe that a gun control law will stop them. If an individual truly wants to harm others, then they will try to do so regardless of laws or regulations. This greatly prevents the laws from serving their purpose (to prevent gun crime). If anything, gun control laws will increase crime.

A saying often muttered in the Southern United States is, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This statement is often ignored but it is true. Criminals rarely go through the legal channels to obtain their firearm so it is easy to conclude that criminals will barely be affected by gun control laws. The average citizen will be the one affected. The only real accomplishment gun control laws will have is hindering law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right [[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html]] If citizens are heavily hindered from getting guns they will have a harder time protecting themselves. I believe that citizens should rely on law enforcement, but on average Seattle's emergency crews took 8 minutes 46 seconds to respond (by respond, I mean arrive and begin helping victims), Oklahoma City 7 minutes 36 seconds, Tulsa 8 minutes 48 seconds, Columbus, Ohio, 7 minutes 49 seconds, Charlotte 6 minutes 56 seconds, and Fresno took 22 minutes 11 seconds [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm]] . If you have no protection, what could happen to you in that time?

In conclusion, I believe that gun control activists mean well but, in the end, these laws will cause more trouble than they're worth. If someone is determined to commit a crime using a gun, a law will not stop them. If they break one law (murder, robbery, etc.), they will not mind breaking another (gun control law).

Gun Control

Yes because... No because...

History repeating itself

Everybody knows about the small period of time were the United States banned alcohol. Now, putting aside personal opinions, lets look at facts. In that time, crime rates skyrocketed. Now, I'm not saying that we should just legalize everything society doesn't like, however, there are many highly opinionated factions who are waiting for an opportunity to snap at gun control laws strengthening. that, and the fact that our constitution permits defense of freedom, leeds me to believe that gun control should be left alone.

Debates > Gun Control