Should Guns Be Outlawed?

[bishoujo 0]

This topic may seem similar to http://forums.xisto.com/topic/47172-the-united-states-gun-laws/, but that one is about US gun laws, I wanted to learn about gun laws and its effects all over the world, or whichever countries you all are from.

I spend most of my life living in Hong Kong and Singapore, which are countries that ban civilians from keeping firearms. I am glad for this ban, because although banning of guns does not completely prevent crimes from taking place (you don't need a gun to rob or rape someone), at least I don't have to worry about having my brains blown out when I turn a corner.
Those shootings in American schools really freak me out. Firearms supporters probably argue that banning guns is equivalent to taking away their rights for self-defense, but you can clearly see that in many cases, people shoot to kill, not to defend themselves. It doesn't help that the media portrays snipers as glamorous people, but we can't put all the blame on the media, because if the kids didn't have guns, they wouldn't have been able to act out their fantasies.

So what do you think? Should guns be banned? Let's hear about your country's firearms laws and your opinions.

[sonesay 7]

Over here in New Zealand there are fire arms but there are rules on what kind you can own I believe. You have to get a license to own one also and they must be locked up in a secure place at all times. You must keep the gun unloaded and separate from the bullets which I think is dumb because if you had a gun in the first place you'll want it loaded just in case you need it right away. Oh someone just broke in "Hold on please Mr Crazy Man while I go unlock my gun in the cabinet and load some bullets in OK?". Lately there has been more reported shootings and killing in New Zealand and I think we are catching up to the rest of the world with this problem. Too many crazy people out there with easy access to firearms will always result in people dying. I think in your country its good that guns are only permitted to people in authority. You can keep it that way without too many getting upset about not having access to firearms but for countries like USA where guns have always been around you cant just take away whats normal for them. I am referring to the gun owners and lovers over there. The problem with guns is its so easy to kill with where as if they had to resort to other methods it would most often be more harder to inflict as much damage. This would hurt people who depend on defending themselves with guns also. They would need to think about other methods of defending them selves. Crime will always be there if you take away guns you'll probably start seeing a trend of more stabbings happening or other kinds of offenses. So for countries with guns already you cant take them all away and for countries without don't introduce them in. I don't think its the guns to blame in a way because when you think about it who is the one pulling the trigger its the person behind it. I think in any country there are crazy people its just in bigger countries theres more crazy people.

[bishoujo 0]

You have to get a license to own one also and they must be locked up in a secure place at all times. You must keep the gun unloaded and separate from the bullets which I think is dumb because if you had a gun in the first place you'll want it loaded just in case you need it right away. Oh someone just broke in "Hold on please Mr Crazy Man while I go unlock my gun in the cabinet and load some bullets in OK?".

Haha yes it's a funny rule! Empty guns can still raise a huge lump in the head though. Thanks for your views! I've never known what it's like to have a gun, so I wouldn't understand what it's like to have it taken away from me. I suppose it will cause a lot of disagreements though, as the shown by the protests and criticisms from the NRA in American. I agree with you that just like we can't blame the media, we can't blame guns. Unfortunately there are too many crazy murderers around and giving them easy access to guns poses a threat to all the other innocent people around them. I think countries that has legalized guns should take gradual steps to ban it, or at least make it more difficult to access it such that only people who have a valid reason and who do not have records of crime, violence or psychological disorders can own it.
And people who own guns for a valid reason should keep them out of the way of people who have no reasons to be near guns. When I read reports of young children accidentally shooting their siblings or grandparents, it's really sad.

[tricky77puzzle 0]

First ban guns, and then slowly educate people about the dangers and slowly give them the guns back. It won't degenerate as quickly in those cases.

I think in your country its good that guns are only permitted to people in authority. You can keep it that way without too many getting upset about not having access to firearms but for countries like USA where guns have always been around you cant just take away whats normal for them. I am referring to the gun owners and lovers over there. The problem with guns is its so easy to kill with where as if they had to resort to other methods it would most often be more harder to inflict as much damage. This would hurt people who depend on defending themselves with guns also. They would need to think about other methods of defending them selves.

Guns are only permitted to people in authority... what if the authority abuses it? I think it's better to have pepper spray and teargas instead. It hurts more and doesn't kill. As well, I don't see how mob control works sometimes. It's a few officers against 300 people (or sometimes more). I don't see why mob control is necessary. Just arrest the people planning it and be done with it.

[KidzForCauses 0]

Making it a crime to possess a gun is essentially making it so only criminals will possess guns.

 

I personally believe that anybody whom knows how to properly operate a gun should be allowed to carry it at all times, regardless of age. To make up for the danger presented by this law I believe it should be the first to shoot that is the criminal, whether or not they miss.

 

Of course, then there is the problem of the second person shooting, shooting at an entirely different person. In this case if anyone whom has not fired a gun within the time of the incident is shot than the one whom shot said innocent person shall be charged as guilty as the first person to shoot.

 

But what if the person whom is shot seems to be raising a gun to you? In that case, it should be perfectly legal to shoot back.

 

Violators will be charged as needed, and have their gun privileges taken away.

 

I don't want my government telling me what I can and cannot possess, when they have no right to do so. Next thing you know we'll need special permits to own steak knives.

[etycto 0]

i could say yes because guns are a pretty big reason why there's so much violence especialy here in the US a lot of people can and do own guns. but i'll have to say no, remember prohibition when they outlawed drinking and any sorts of alchoholic beverages. crime rose and all the extra illegal activities. if they outlawed guns it would just start that again. i think it's very hard to take something away that is welcomed by a wide range of people. i've found whenever someone is used to something and use it a lot it's very difficult to take it away from that person(example:drug addicts). out of all things smoking should be illegal since pretty much an addictive drug, but i think it would be twice as hard to do. so i think of it this way if it's already cought popularity it'll be very hard to take it away.

[tricky77puzzle 0]

i could say yes because guns are a pretty big reason why there's so much violence especialy here in the US a lot of people can and do own guns. but i'll have to say no, remember prohibition when they outlawed drinking and any sorts of alchoholic beverages. crime rose and all the extra illegal activities. if they outlawed guns it would just start that again. i think it's very hard to take something away that is welcomed by a wide range of people. i've found whenever someone is used to something and use it a lot it's very difficult to take it away from that person(example:drug addicts). out of all things smoking should be illegal since pretty much an addictive drug, but i think it would be twice as hard to do. so i think of it this way if it's already cought popularity it'll be very hard to take it away.

Here's a thought... you know how you need to be born on or before "this day on 1990" (1989 in Canada) to be able to smoke? Well, on December 31, 2009, you can freeze that birthdate limit at December 31, 1991. Then smokers will eventually die out.

[dre 0]

As well, I don't see how mob control works sometimes. It's a few officers against 300 people (or sometimes more). I don't see why mob control is necessary. Just arrest the people planning it and be done with it.

I think they should focus more on why the mob is there in the first place rather than controlling it. Oh well, it's becoming a police state anyways.

[TheBlessedOne 0]

Well.. in our country in some cases ...mostly in the province I think there is still need of allowing weapons, because the people there should have something to protect from the gypsies and the local bandits that rage there, and this is some kind of comfort when you live in a house with farm and animals, I think it's part of the business, and you cannot just stay and wait to rob your estate...

[r0b-dog 0]

i think guns laws should be outlawed simply banned, if the public is given access to guns, just imagine.. it would be unsafe, but for police and authorties having guns are a yes, as its they role and job.but i do think there should be certain conditions when applying for getting a gun, e.g what are you going to do with the gun etc.. it be more easy to track people who kill or such..

[joeblogg 0]

what do you mean outlawed? like no guns at all are allowed in civilian life. so farmers and hunters can't have guns or do you mean the general public can't just buy a gun from the shop?my opinion is that the american system is the best. guns should be allowed. i mean we use them in war. and besides you go to jail if you hurt someone with a gun anyways. you can stab someone with a kitchen knife. you can get a sword and kill someone. you can use a rope to hang someone, you can use electricity to electricute someone., all of these are legal items. guns are worse but still you can kill someone with a laptop. wack them continuosly over the head. you can kill someone with a tissue - stick it in their mouth and their nose guns are the only killing tools.

[Diffusr 0]

For all the arguments about self defense and your right to bear arms etc, facts are facts. In countries where guns are allowed with loose laws, more people get shot and killed. In the case of the US, a LOT more people get shot and killed. It's really simple number crunching. There is also the argument of a defenseless population against a tyrannical government. In this day and age, that doesn't hold up either. US military vs armed US population? - no contest for a few reasons. reason A - the military has nukes. Reason B -the military has air support Reason C the military has vasst stores of ammunition Reason C the the military is trained in warfare, civilians generally are not. Reason D - the military controls the coastline. As you can see the list goes on and I could go through the alphabet a few times with reasons why the military will suppress the population even when armed.So that leaves the argument of self defense against your own countrymen. The trouble is all Americans think they have a license to kill (that is a generalisation of course and actually not true) what I mean to get across is that large numbers of the US population have watched so much violence that it seems second nature to them. So letting them have guns will only result in the state of the nation that you have today. People shooting each other in large numbers, every day.The UK has about one tenth the population of the US, guns are tightly restricted, and gun deaths are around the 10 per year mark, including accidental shootings. The US has around 4500 gun deaths per year if my memory serves me correctly. This is obviously far out of proportion.Guns for hunting will also kill people. The US allows civilians to own guns designed solely for killing people. What do you expect? The people have been conditioned to thinking it's their right. If the US military decided to remove firearms from the general population, they could do it easily. Charlton Hestons' "cold dead hands" will still be warm after the soldiers pop an airburst grenade through his room, walk in and take his gun away. Any pockets of resistance will be quickly nuetralised. Some lethally, some non lethally. In the end, the people will be left without firearms. The gun death rate would go way down, but the government would have tighter control.

[sknsoftwares 0]

Just outlawing guns just will not be able to solve any problem as such because guns are a means of protection as well protection from animals etc. So I dont think it should be outlawed. Such a policy will not be successfull unless and untill you go for a mind wash of people to convert their nature to being good. So Just outlawing hazardeous things may not solve the problem.

[networker 0]

In the United States it's very clear that gun control has gotten out of hand.I was reading an article on Chicago.This article said that August 2007 had a high total of 62 murders.A place such as Toronto,Canada has about thatmany murders a year. Why such a huge difference in the murder rate of two similiar size cities? Gun control of course.The right to bear arms has gotten out of hand.Something should be done about it.

[sheepdog 10]

NO WAY should gun ownership be denied!!!!To quote from my favorite bumper stick, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."I was just on the phone a few minutes ago talking to an elderly lady friend of mine. She lives out in the boondocks, is all alone. A few weeks ago her dog alerted her to a possible burgler tring to get inot her home via a back window. The dogs bark temporarily slowed the attempted break in, but when my friend went outside and popped off a round from her pistol, you can bet that thief decided right then and there that there were probably better houses t break into. They have not been back. Please keep in mind, this is an elderly woman. Very tiny, under 5"2" and probably doesn't weigh 100lbs soaking wet with rocks in her pockets. She is in no way capable of protecting herself without some sort of "equalizer." To deny her the right to protect her person and property is in itself a criminal act.