GUNZ !!! BANG!

[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.)