Lord Ashtar, be fair. Car Nuts aren’t something bad.
I’m sorry, but either you are confusing my post with someone else’s, or you are putting words in my mouth-since it’s Easter, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
Czarcasm
Bad movie, science fiction, Saturday morning cartoon and scotch egg nut
I disagree. For one thing, owning a gun is not simply a matter of choice. I can’t decide i’d like to own a gun, and presto, my weapon of choice appears on my desk. Of course, here we are getting into the territory of whether gun trade would be significantly harmed were gun ownership made illegal, and my opinion that it would reasonable be but not hugely is mostly the reason why i’m not against gun ownership over there. But I think that illegalizing gun ownership would considerably affect actual gun ownership. Moreover, gun crimes are not committed solely by those who are deliberately out in their life to cause people harm; they are sometimes happy, ordinary people who are affected by a temporary rage and have access to something that they can act with, quickly and efficiently. And even those who would elect to do you harm may not be willing to risk owning something that can get them into trouble even before they can do any harm.
Nonsense. There are not two groups of people; those who obey all laws, and those who break all laws. Criminals, too, are willing to commit some crimes and not others. Non-criminals, too, can accidentally cause harm, or do so in a fit of anger.
Most certainly you are punishing others; by your action of supporting the right to gun ownership, you make your country less safe for others, whether they own guns too or whether they do not. Because you can have a gun to defend yourself, more people will have guns with which to break into your house. Not all criminals will elect to break the law in such a situation, just as not all non-criminals will choose to uphold the law - you yourself, for example, would elect to break it.
Are you a resident of the US?
Me? No.
Unfortunately, some people live in a black and white world where criminals are always worthless pieces of doggy-doo, and honest, decent people remain so for evah!
That’s not in the least what I said, and you, if you bothered to do anything other than live in your own little world where little Pauly broke into my home in order to steal jewelry for his grandma’s Chemo, would realize that.
People who have intention to do harm, which is to say, to break the laws which prevent one from causing another person bodily harm, murder, rob without regard for life, etc, will be far less likely to obey laws against firearms.
This is not an opinion, this is a basic and fundamental truth. If you disagree, I could point to one of a plethora of studies showing that people who break one law are likely to break multiple laws, or studies indicating those who break laws in harming people also break laws in the weapons of their choice in doing so (it’s pretty much illegal to use any weapon in harming someone, other than your fists, in which case it’s simply assault/murder, rather than assault with a deadly weapon).
However, all of that is a moot point, because my original statement, that those who don’t care about laws, are less likely to care about laws, is obvious and self evident. If someone doesn’t care enough about the law to prevent them from wanting to say, rape a family member, murder me (admittedly, both on the extreme side), etc, they’re less likely than I am to care about a law prohibiting the ownership of firearms.
Remind me where I addressed you in the post you quoted?
Remind me where you’re not a moron?
He directed his statement at me, your statement was saying ‘some people,’ in response to his statement at me.
If, in your convoluted world of criminals being victims, that’s not in any way meant to be implied toward me, I’d like to know how.
Even then, i’d tend to disagree. Oh, i’ll give you murder, but it’s not as though every thief is willing to murder, or every person willing to physically assault another is likewise. Less likely? Sure. But nowhere near providing no significant difference were there laws against gun ownership.
I do disagree to the extent to which this is true, so i’ll take you up on your offer, if that’s ok.
But how less? That’s the question. So yes, let’s take a look at the statistics; you seem very certain of them, so i’ll admit upfront i’m perfectly willing to be convinced by them.
But once again, you skip over the vital factor in that because a few may abuse a right, all should be disbarred its use.
I was hoping you wouldn’t take me up on the offer for statistics, because I don’t have any handy and I don’t have the ability to find all of them anymore (no more school access to certain catalogs).
I will look them up as soon as I can (yes, I’m putting it off out of laziness), IIRC it was a British Journal of Criminology report that I was most fond of for illustrating my point. I just can’t seem to find it after a cursory search, so it’ll probably take some more in depth digging, which is a major pain, because the system is somewhat difficult to navigate blindly.
Not all criminals, but you definitely and for certain.
I didn’t skip over it; my response was that you do a similar thing, by putting greater risk of death or injury on all people because of the actions of a few you feel you need protection from. You’re willing to risk people’s right to life because of the actions of a few.
No problem, i’m happy to wait - we can talk back and forth about the possible dangers or lack of with regards to guns, but I think we can both agree on the virulent grip that laziness can hold. 
I’m not willing to put anyone at risk. And, I’m not putting anyone at risk in the first place. The person abusing their rights is putting someone at risk, just as they could do if they could do if they had a car, or a knife, or a baseball bat.
I’d argue that point, but…
Certainly there are other methods with which to do harm, if that is one’s intention. But the reasons a gun is good for defence are also reasons it’s good for offence; it can be quicker and more efficient, it can allow even a weaker person to do considerable damage, it can be used at range to lessened risk to the user. To go with the old canard, guns don’t kill people, people kill people; but a gun makes things easier. In addition, in a lot of cases alternate means of harm require some time or planning to go about doing; that doesn’t matter to a person willing to put in that time or effort, but for someone with a sudden out-of-normal-character urge, whether affected by emotions or alcohol or so forth, drawing and firing a gun takes little time and even a ratarsed gun-wielder can do a lot of damage (not necessarily to their target, but still…). A gun is an extremely useful defensive weapon - superior to a car, or a knife, or a baseball bat. And by the same token, it is an extremely useful offensive weapon, superior to those things.
Then why are our gun laws important to you?
Ditto, apparently.
I disagree (that guns are more useful as offensive weapons).
Offensive weapons, by nature, are weapons used at a time and place of the offending parties choosing. Therefore, a baseball bat or gun would be equally effective, seeing as how the situation would be custom tailored to that of the offender.
The difference being, a gun can be used in almost any situation defensively (and yes, offensively, but that’s less relevant seeing as to the previous paragraph) in a larger range of situations, where a tireiron, baseball bat or knife cannot.
Once again, the offender benefits more from the banning of guns than the victim, assuming the offender chooses not to use a gun in his offensive actions.
If I may field this question?
I hate senseless death.
Also, I have to travel to the US fairly regularly, so even though I’m not a resident, the laws in your country are of some importance to me.
Because my caring for the general wellbeing of people doesn’t stop at the coastline. I tend to give a crap about Johnny Englishman just as much as I give a crap about Jack American. Should I be altering my respect for human life based on nationalities?
Ah, but guns provide a wider range of possible situations. If I attempt to kill someone, if I choose to use a baseball bat to do so I am still limited in that I must move close in to my target; I will likely need several swings, even assuming I am capable of both overpowering my target and if so actually being able to kill them; it’s possible the bat may break in the course of the extended melee; and due to my proximity I am likely to be spattered with blood and leave incriminating DNA on my target. If I elect to use a gun, I am not limited by these things, or at least am less limited. Not all things are within the offender’s control, and a gun is superior at overcoming a wider range of potential problems than is a bat (or knife, or car).
Yes, a gun is superior to those things in defense. And also in offense.