GUNZ !!! BANG!

[I Am Stoner]

Its quite easy to get a gun in the UK, just get a firearms licence, join a shooting club, then go out and by a shotgun. Easiest way really if ya wanna by one.

But you must remember, guns arn't evil, only as evil as thier users.

[Mirage]

Considering getting a license to carry it in my purse too.

I don't have a problem with people having firearms in their homes, but I think this is taking it too far, and i sort of hope you're joking, and that you can't actually carry a gun on the streets legally. I would never want to live in a country where that is allowed.

Guns are allowed in Norway if you have a license, and a reason for having one. Meaning, you need to use it for hunting or be in a gun club of some sort that does practice at firing ranges. Furthermore, it must be locked in a reinforced steel locker when not in use. Having it in your desk drawer or anything isn't allowed. I've wanted to try firearms at a firing range a few times, just to have tried it out, and to be prepared in case of an undead invasion.

[Madame Adequate]

So you are British; I was mistaken and I apologize. However, there must be better ways to lower gun ownership in Britian without having the whole population carrying guns for self-defence. To me, letting everyone have guns is completely side-stepping the problem.

Gun ownership in Britain is pretty low. And I don't consider everyone having guns to BE a problem, so I don't think there is one to sidestep.

First of all, do you really think that the innocents will stop dying when they now have the right to carry guns? A criminal is probably more likely to shoot someone who takes out a gun than stop whatever crime he is commiting.

First point; No, but fewer will. Second point; whilst that sounds reasonable enough, in fact it doesn't work that way and that criminals are dissuaded by the possibility of their targets, and other people around their targets, being armed.

Secondly, wouldn't it be better to actually address the problem (criminals with guns) than introduce something that, in the long run, will just make violence and deaths all the more likely? I'll say it again, in a gun fight between a criminal and an innocent who is protecting himself, who do you think will win? Someone with no experience and who is likely much less agressive, or someone who has experience and is already expressing agression?

I think a well-trained person with a direct, imminent interest in self-defense will be perfectly capable with a firearm and that arguments from ineptitude don't carry any weight anyway.

There must be a way to better cure the problem. You're suggestion is just a temporary treatment of the problem which could end up worsening it or having no effect.

You're suggesting it is a problem.

Principles, perhaps, but I've never heard of a moral that values innocent deaths over a rebellion. Besides, an American rebellion is pointless; if the rebellion you speak of was actually useful, I might agree that it's more important than a few deaths, but in this case I see no reason for American rebellion, and none in the forseeable future.

So... you presume that the future will continue exactly as today does? That there will never, ever be any circumstance where a government is corrupt, flawed, or downright evil, and thus there is no reason for any citizens to be concerned about that possibility?

Because not everyone has the right to trial by jury in Britain anymore. Seems to me like something to worry about.

Gandhi rebelled against the whole British colonizing forces in India wihout an ounce of violence. There is such thing as a passive rebellion.

Ghandhi's resistance was only one factor on the end of British rule in India (The massive economic harm caused by WW2 would be the main reason), and moreover do you think Ghandhi's methods would have been any use against a regime like Hitler's or Stalin's? No; he and everyone who sided with him would have been crushed under the treads of a T-34.

Yes I do. It's at least much better than the American democracy, which values a "melting pot" over multiculturalism and war over peace. Besides, I hardly think a Brit knows enough about our culture to really have a valid opinion on this.

I think it's facile to assume I'm incapable of knowing; whilst I admit I'm no expert everything I see about Canada suggests your government functions only because it DOESN'T function, and a stifled, inept government can't do much of anything. It's bizarre to suggest America values war over peace, they're one of the most pro-peace nations on the planet and if it weren't for that philosophy of theirs Europe would likely be fighting World War VII about now. Its fine, lrn20thC.history.

Of course I realize neither of you are planning one... but nik0tine has said at least twice that the power to rebel is a good reason for increased gun ownership in America. That is why I have adressed the futility and unlikeliness of an American rebellion.

And just the fact that you two are arguing with me over it shows that you value the possibility of one in your countries. To me, it's rather childish wishful thinking, and it would never pull through, nor does it need to.

Damn right I value the possibility of overthrowing a corrupt, evil government. Right now things aren't looking too great but those labels don't apply; they're tolerable and can be contested through legal means. Once again this does not guarantee they will always be so and it is jejune to believe otherwise.

Like Ultima Shadow said, guns save less innocent lives than they kill. In fact, if guns didn't exist that need for protection would already be much lower.

Guns exist. That cannot be undone, ever. Speculation about how good and peaceful the world would be without guns is wishful thinking at best, and overlooks that people would just use bows and arrows instead at worst. The only sensible recourse is to ensure ordinary, law-abiding citizens who want to go about their business in peace have the ability to do so. (And I've given a link which shows guns reduce crime rates. If you want to contest this, give me a source showing as much.)

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Well, I've nothing against guns. I've never actually fired one yet, though. I'd like to. Give me a coin and a sniper rifle and let's see what I can do...

[NorthernChaosGod]

Why don't we outlaw cars while we're at it? A number of people are killed in automobile related accidents every year.

Then after that, let's go ahead and outlaw alcohol and cigarettes completely, alcohol impairs one's judgment and cigarettes can lead to lung cancer.

Oh, let's get rid of any heavy machinery too. People are maimed or crushed because of them, and even one innocent life being saved is worth the suffering of everyone.

This is a democracy, the greater good for the majority is law.

Oh yeah, let's not forget a little thing called The Constitution of the United States.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why compare unrelated objects with the objects in question?

First of all, cars and machinery have another purpose than killing people. Guns don't.

And as much as I'm against the misuse of cigarettes and alchohol, there are already some laws in place restricting the use of them. In a perfect world, neither would exist, but it's much more difficult to "ban" those two (as you say) than it is to restrict gun use.

Why do you think Canada, a great democracry, has decided that better gun laws than yours are for our greater good?

Isn't it sort of odd that we in Canada have absoulutely no need for the protection a gun gives? Isn't it odd that you Americans still think that guns aren't just for killing people, and are worthy forms of protection, when your nation pays this ridiculous notion in full?

It's not for my greater good to have the concern that any pedestrian in Canada could have a gun; and I fail to see how it's for the greater good of Americans, when the only use for a gun is violence.

Besides, you people have been saying that a gun is necessary for your protection, but why don't you think about all those people who don't just want to use an easy-to-buy gun for protection? Wouldn't it just be better to know no one needs to protect themselves from the possibility of a criminal easily buying a gun, than wonder who might buy a gun and not just use it for protection? Will your gun save you when a criminal decides to rob a bank, and as you take your gun out he shoots you? Violence begets violence.

Personally I feel a whole lot safer not wondering who might easily buy a gun than I would with a gun. Besides, just having a gun might make someone think you're on the offensive, and shoot you when they see you have it.

You people are so paranoid it's actually making things worse.

Think about it for a second, protection from a criminal. Criminal, a person who breaks the law. Do you think that making it harder for the average citizen to own a gun will really stop a criminal from getting his/her hands on one? They already break the law in the first place, why not get a gun illegally to add a bit of flair?

And it is in the Bill of Rights to be able to bear arms, you don't like it, you don't have to live here.