Read and consider before you attack please.
😉
Oldmangamer_73 :
Yes, guns. The lack of them. Who is getting raped, murdered, and robbed in Africa? The people WITHOUT guns to defend their families and villages. Ahem, Darfur, Sudan ahem!!
My point is there, guns don't solve problems. More guns doesn't solve anything. Give a villager a gun, he now has power, both to defend himself and to exploit it for his own purposes. In a poor African community, you have gun? You get more food etc. then you become the same thing you wanted to stop. What do you want to do? Give every village a gun like the CIA in Cold War Afghanistan so that after they get rid of Soviet occupation they become a terrorist organisation?
Oldmangamer_73 :
Also if someone comes at you with a knife or a machete and you have a gun, guess who wins that fight?
"Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival. "
This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read. Are you kidding me? Have you ever tried to take a knife away from someone? Even a plastic practice knife? Are you pushing for everyone to be trained in hand to hand knife combat then? Sheesh Fangirl! I'm not trying to be mean here fangirl, but that just blew me away.
Please, I urge you to read, but read again because I don't know what you're going on about!
"Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival. "
Knife attacks (assailant with a knife) are much easier to defend against than gun attacks (assailant with gun). Higher chance of survival. (Links to previous statement)
If you still have trouble understanding the point we both agree with, let me rephrase it: if you get attacked by someone you would be much better off facing a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun.
Less guns = less gun attacks replaced by more knife attacks, more knife attacks = less people dead
Legal guns = more guns, more legal guns = more guns lost, more guns lost = bigger black market of guns
Oldmangamer_73 :
No. The 64 year old grandmother out with her 2 grand-children for ice cream won't have to defend against a man twice her size wielding a knife. Grandma can reach into her purse pull out Mr. Smith&Wesson .38 special loaded with +P hollow points and kill the SOB. Then she gets to go home with her grandchildren rather then bury them or someone have bury them all.
The crazy SOB dies, grandma and grandchildren live. How is this not a win and a bad thing instead?
Over 1 million crimes a year are thwarted in the USA due to a good person legally carrying, and that doesn't include the unreported events. The majority of those instances only required the firearm to be brandished and no shots were fired.
Even if grandma has a gun, the assailant would more than likely have a loaded one. If you're robbing a person or etc. you know you are robbing them, the victim doesn't, you can prepare, they can't. By the time grandma can actually take the safety off and shoot, the assailant who legally (at some point in the food-chain) obtained a gun already has bullet through grandma's brain.
If you say brandishing the gun is good enough, why not just have fake guns? We really don't need to equip each and every person with the capacity to kill another person.
You might be able to rob a bank with a fake gun, but you're not going to be able to directly able to kill someone with a fake gun.
Material goods can be replaced, the lives of others cannot.
Realise crime has reason, people are still people. Given the current economic climate, it wouldn't be hard to imagine an average lower-middle class person who has just gotten evicted from their home, already has a legal gun. Desperate to support his own family after the dole runs out. What does he do?
Oldmangamer_73 :
I did a real quick google search and one of the first hits was this and I found it perfect!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101220024407AAu3tbT
Ah, yahoo answers, the epitome of non-biased opinion.
Seriously, this thread is going nowhere and nowhere fast.