[Woolie Wool]

I personally believe that:

--You should be able to use deadly force on anyone who attacks you, poses any physical threat to you or those around you, or breaks into owned or rented land or housing of yours with intent or reasonable possibility of intent to commit crimes the persons or property of any occupants of the land or home. There are no exceptions and no "duty to retreat" clause.

--ou should be able to use non-lethal force (pepper spray, physical restraint, etc.) against those actually in the process of commiting a nonviolent crime against you or your property. Again, no exceptions.

--Certain types of small, compact automatic SMGs (HK MP7, Steyr TMP), etc should be legalized as self-defense weapons. There would be stricter gun-control laws for these weapons than for other firearms.

[Lonestar]

I agree with all but this:

--Certain types of small, compact automatic SMGs (HK MP7, Steyr TMP), etc should be legalized as self-defense weapons. There would be stricter gun-control laws for these weapons than for other firearms.

Reason being is those defending have access to guns, which means those attacking do to. Bigger guns means a bigger war.

People will say that a blunt or sharp object can kill just the same as a gun, but a gun is more impersonal then bludgeoning or stabbing someone to death, therefore i beleive that death counts would be lower and arrests would be higher if guns werent available to the mass market.

What the heck do you need a gun for besides defending yourself from someone else with a gun? Nothing IMO, therefore if its not available its not a problem on either side.

Kill someone with your bear hands too if you want to, just take the guns out of the equations im sure many will live longer.

[mikhael]

I figure anyone who breaks into my house or attacks me gets what they deserve. If I break your legs or ribs, or if I put out one of your eyes, well, you shouldn't have come after me or my posessions. Whilst I would refrain from outright killing anyone, if I could avoid it without putting myself or my wife in danger, there are cases where dropping the criminal dead is the best option. You shouldn't be punished for self-defense.

Non-lethal methods of dealing with a criminal should not be restricted. You're lucky you didn't get killed, don't complain about the pepperspray.

Now guns are an interesting issue. I've got a problem with certain classes of weapons as I don't beleive they have a legitimate use outside of a battlefield, but that's a different discussion.

[Tiara]

I believe lethal force should be applied if and when you see no other way (like clobbering him/her on the head instead of stabbing/shooting).

Non-lethal force is legal IIRC. At least it is here in Holland.

Small arms should not be legalized IMO cause then the possibility that an attacker posseses a gun is much higher. Besides, legalizing guns is bad thing IMHO. Like in the US. Basically everyone can get a gun. Now, most people are sane and won't use it very often or not at all. But at least a percentage will use it for other means then defence. And there are about a dozen other reasons why I think guns etc should not be legalized but I'm not in the mood to write an essay.

[Flipside]

I agree, if someone is in your house against your will then on their own head be it. I think guns etc only encourage the use of lethal force which is a pity, I find that long drawn out torture is far more effective on Burglars

[Kazan]

Gun control laws do not stop criminals from obtaining automatic weapons

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Lonestar
What the heck do you need a gun for besides defending yourself from someone else with a gun? Nothing IMO, therefore if its not available its not a problem on either side.

Ummm, maybe it's useful to kill someone with a knife or stone or bludgeon or whatever. Guns make an excellent self-defense weapon because those that DON'T have guns will be shot to pieces before they can launch a good blow. I in particular like guns for self-defense. because I'm not very strong and would never have a chance in hand-to-hand combat. The majority of muggers and other violent criminals of that sort are powerful, tough guys. You probably would not be able to last very long even if you had a knife, let alone a rock, club, or plain old fists.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Kazan
Gun control laws do not stop criminals from obtaining automatic weapons

\

Making them completely illegal doesn't either. What's your point?

[Kazan]

"Those who do not have swords can still die upon them"

[Zeronet]

I remember reading something quite assuming from discworld linked to weapon control laws hehe.

[Ghostavo]

No, but they make it harder to acquire them and smaller guns, which would or has (depends on the case you're talking about) saved a lot of lives.

[Woolie Wool]

If a criminal really wants an automatic weapon he can get one, just like if a junkie really wants a bag of snow, he can get one. You can't just solve a problem like this with legislation.

[kasperl]

uhm, we should give every civilian military issue weapons so they can defend themselves from criminals with military issue weapons?

[Ghostavo]

But legislation can make it harder for (example) delinquent teenagers get a gun.

[Woolie Wool]

No, we selectively choose weapons that work more as tools of defense than tools of offense (when you're trying to protect yourself, an MP7 is great. When you're trying to attack someone, a more accurate and powerful weapon is desired), and sell them with strict controls so that criminals and thugs can't get them from legitimate gun dealers. You can't stop a dedicated criminal from getting his hands on contraband weapons, but you can stop the small-time criminals who don't use the black market.

[vyper]

That's like saying better legislation would stop young neds getting bucky. Ain't gonna happen.

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
No, we selectively choose weapons that work more as tools of defense than tools of offense (when you're trying to protect yourself, an MP7 is great. When you're trying to attack someone, a more accurate and powerful weapon is desired), and sell them with strict controls so that criminals and thugs can't get them from legitimate gun dealers. You can't stop a dedicated criminal from getting his hands on contraband weapons, but you can stop the small-time criminals who don't use the black market.

so you say you wouldn't give up when someone stook an MP7 in your face in a bar?

there is no way to reliably defend yourself once a gun is pointed at you from point blank range.

that, and any gun is lethal from that same point blank range.

and what about a drunk in a bar being funny with a bullet in the chamber? with a semi, one guy would die, with a full autoamtic, half the bar is dead.

[Woolie Wool]

Young neds WILL use highly illegal and dangerous methods of procuring their drugs because they're addicted to them. There is much less incentive to use such methods to procure weapons because no one gets addicted to guns.

[Kazan]

im sorry, but i don't follow what you're saying in the queens english

neds is lads i assume, bucky ?= getting high?

[Woolie Wool]

Yes.

Besides, most dedicated criminals would want something with more accuracy, range, and punch than a stubby little MP7.

and what about a drunk in a bar being funny with a bullet in the chamber? with a semi, one guy would die, with a full autoamtic, half the bar is dead.

Actually, the damage potential for an MP7 in the hands of a drunkard really isn't that high. A gun like an MP7 requires a steady hand and careful technique to fire accurately farther than about 10 feet. Drunks are usually wobbly and not able to concentrate because of the influence of alcohol. A more likely scenario with an MP7 in a bar would be one or two people dead and the walls and furniture riddled with a random spray of bullets.