Guns = Violence?
 

Here in my country theres a huge campaign against violence ( that reached high degrees on big cities) and because of that on next sunday will happen a 'referendum' for people choose if they are PRO or AGAINST the legal commercialization of guns and ammunition.

In true, that law already exists and says that this kind commercialization will be forbidden.

Some people thinks that this way, violence will reduce and will vote YES. But there are also people that claims that not allowing the right of having a gun, the governement will take the right of the citizens to protect themselves and it no means that crimes will reduce cause criminals doenst buy guns on shops and these people are going to vote for NO.

And the ironic line is that now, near the referendum date, the number of people that uses a gun, that was incredibly low(because its not easy to buy one)... is getting high.

What is your opinion? I am totally against guns, but forbidden them is not the same of stop violence.

"Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."

While appearing pejoratively racist (which is entirely possible, since I believe this quote is from King of the Hill, and was used as such), this comment can actually prove to be quite true if you take "minority" not to mean a racial minority, but any group in the minority. WASPs generally won't use violence to get what they want largely because they're able to easily & readily engage in the customary democratic means to acquire what they want/need. Any other minority--be they poor, Hispanic, what have you--is less-easily accepted by "the system" and therefore resorts to another means to get what they want: this other means generally tends to be violence, perpetrated largely by the "dangerous."

In any matter, I agree that outlawing guns won't stop violence. I find this debate actually parallels the debate over the legalisation of marijuana. Those in favor say that, in so doing, the government will be able to tax the sale of marijuna, and the FDA will be able to place regulations on the drug so as to keep it safer for users. Likewise, selling guns legally (albeit w/ strong restrictions, a mandatory waiting period, etc) will help to prevent people from subverting the system & buying thru the black market and such. I've gotta go to work, but I'll give more thoughts later...

I actually had a professor who said that when Australian outlawed guns, there was no decrease in the nation's murder rate. In fact, people simply used things like baseball bats and knives more frequently. I don't know how factual this statement was... but I tend to believe it. In the United States... gangmembers and mobsters don't even use the type of firearms that one could by at their local gunshop. More times than not, they obtain their weapons through illegal means. It's gotten to the point where local police forces don't have strong enough weapons to use when combating organized criminals. I think that if you take away a person's right to bear arms, you're going to see a lot more terror in the streets of L.A., New York, or any other major city. People can kill each other with their own bare hands... when they have a will, they find a way to do it...

Ditto

Exactly, Chase. I have the same opinion, but there are people that says that owtlawing guns we can avoid some accidents like children who unintentionally kills his brother or friend. Or maybe some group of rooters killing others (hooligans) in a fight after a game...Well, in my opinion these are examples of accidents that can happen in some way, not matter how... and its not the same of stopping violence.

And theres other problem that I can see, owtlawing guns will provoke the factorys closing, what means more people unemployed, and its clearly a social problem that contributes to the increase of violence.

I happen to own a gun (shot gun), so this is an interesting topic. In 1999 statistics showed that a child was far more likely to die drowning in the bath or a large bucket instead of an accidental shooting. I don't mean minimize any accidental injuries or people hurt/killed by criminals, but risks are part of freedoms package. I read that home invasions rose dramaticaly in Australia too. Politicians can pass all the gun laws they want. Only the law abiding citizen will obey them, that fact is an element of opportunity for criminals.

IMO, it's not up to the gov't to legislate something when the parents themselves can take greater precautions to prevent their child(ren) from gaining access to the weapons. i know it's a sticky issue, since if I'm not mistaken at least one of the school shootings was perpetrated by a student who stole his father's gun from the gun closet. but, as harsh as this may sound, that shouldn't be the sole reason for completely altering our laws on firearm purchasing and ownership.

Now, it seems some of you think it's a persons right to beare firearms as protection. If I'm mad, I'm not thinking, but I'm hardly ever mad... My friend on the other hand, when he's mad he can't think or see a thing, he just acts, when he snapps back to reality he thinks "what was I doing", he can controle it now but he coulnd't do it before... Had he had a gun he might have killed people, he hadn't so he didn't. If your not a minority your still more likely to kill someone if you have a gund, if you don't have one, you're more likely to hit someone... But they'll survive that more likely than if you have a gun.

How many get killed in sweden by firearms a year? Hardly anyone!

^Free law abiding citizens should not be legislated into a position of helplessness because of the actions of criminals.
I'll proudly choose my American liberties over the safety of Swedish socialism.

Eusabio's right... Americans would GLADLY take their right to bears arms over Sweden's left wing socialist policies.

<~~ again, ditto

The referendum will be tomorrow, but the public opinion poll made by an reputable institute says that the 'NO' (against the prohibition of selling/having a gun) is in bigger number and its a sign of a probable victory...

Here in the US a bill was just approved to prevent law suits against any gun manufacture. The President will sign it. This will protect the gun industry from lawyers who represent victims of gun violence. It's protection from those that have difficulty laying blame where it belongs, in this case with criminals.

We also have people that try to sue McDonalds for making them overweight, give me a break!! :banghead:

yeahhhhh... we definitely need some sort of tort reform here. some of the crap people get away with filing a civil suit over is absurd... and even more outrageous is the amount of financial compensation that the juries award them!

Finally I get the referendum result(by the way the result was available on the same day, since our votes are eletronics and the ellection is computerized so the counting is very quicly but I was completely tired to post here... :D sorry) : The "No" won what means the guns commerce keeps legall, but the result was interpreted as a protest made by people who is sick of that violence and blame our governement for not doing any practical thing to stop it...