For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

we're not just talking about muggers and petty criminals we're talking about genocide, khmer rouge didn't want to steal a few hundred pounds off the population they wanted to kill them all!

5) Think about the percentage or scaled number and realise it's still far higher in the US.

Well, sorry for that mistake. If you consider Scenario B (woman being raped is obviously more likely to be killed if one or more guns are involved), then the same logic can be applied to Scenario A.

The robber may indeed kill the clerk anyway, but usually people who rob shops are not doing so with murderous intent. Their only aim is to obtain money. It is unlikely that a robber in a situation where everyone is co-operative (i.e. when the robber uses a knife and everyone else is unarmed) will kill anyway for the sake of doing so.

So you are willing to increase the general death and gun crime figures in this country, for God knows how many years, just in case somewhere along the line we need to defend ourselves against the rabid government who for some reason decide to kill us all?

Sorry but your scenarios just seem false and inherently biased. It's like me saying

Guns illegal: a woman is raped by an attacker, the attacker then stabs her in the neck and she dies

Guns legal: someone attempts to rape the woman, the woman pulls out a gun and tells him to back off

So as you can see, there are too many possibilities to simply say "scenario A" or "scenario B".

It's common knowledge that if guns were legal in Nazi Germany, 6 million Jews would be here today. But of course, the first thing Hitler did was to ban guns. And they all trusted that the government would never harm them.

Sorry but your scenarios just seem false and inherently biased. It's like me saying

Guns illegal: a woman is raped by an attacker, the attacker then stabs her in the neck and she dies

Guns legal: someone attempts to rape the woman, the woman pulls out a gun and tells him to back off

So as you can see, there are too many possibilities to simply say "scenario A" or "scenario B".

How naive. This is a perfect example of the government-loving sheep that the government wants us all to be. No offence. Nobody in history has ever "expected" the government to turn sour.

It's common knowledge that if guns were legal in Nazi Germany, 6 million Jews would be here today. But of course, the first thing Hitler did was to ban guns. And they all trusted that the government would never harm them

I am not a government-loving sheep in any way, shape or form. If you had taken the time to read my original post entirely you would see that I support many things that the government have made illegal (euthanasia and drug legalisation being the two I mentioned). What I said was that while you can challenge the government about these things, you can't do the same for gun control laws. Making euthanasia and drug use legal brings no harm to anyone except those who choose to participate in euthanasia by killing themselves and those who choose to take drugs. Ergo, these things should be legal because they are a matter of personal choice and do not affect those who don't want to participate. If you don't support euthanasia, don't go to a euthanasia clinic and kill yourself. If you don't support drug use, don't take drugs. Simple as that.

However, gun control is not the same. If guns are legal, and you don't support guns, it still affects you. Criminals have guns and guns will be their weapon of choice if they attack you. You can't say "let people who want guns be able to buy them, and if you don't support it then just don't buy a gun", because whether or not people who are against guns buy them, they will still be affected by the change in law. Gun legalisation would bring harm to innocent people who either do not support it, or are neither here nor there regarding the issue. That is why I do not believe guns should be legal. I am actually a very liberal person and I believe that citizens of this country should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as that choice does not adversely affect others. Making guns legal will adversely affect everyone, and it is simply for that reason that I do not support it. If you deny that gun legalisation will have an adverse affect on people, you are wrong. To put it quite plainly.

What? Firstly, drugs adversely affect the whole population. I know people who have been burgled by drug addicts desperate for their next hit.
Secondly, guns do not adversely affect the whole population. For example, if I were mugged with a knife, I would hand over money. If I were mugged with a gun, I would hand over money. The outcome is still the same.

Saying you are a "very liberal person" but being anti-freedom, anti-choice and pro-government authority is a bit of a hypocrisy, IMO.

Sorry but your scenarios just seem false and inherently biased.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13003419

Tragic story.. criminals will always be able to get guns.. why deny them to law abiding citizens who could stop maniacs like this?

When I say drugs, I mean soft drugs such as cannabis and magic mushrooms. Clearly it would make no sense to legalise hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, which are very addictive and damaging to society. Cannabis and magic mushrooms, however, are legal in the Netherlands and both drugs have actually been tried by less minors than in this country. Both drugs are also less toxic and addictive than legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco... but I digress. This is an entirely different debate.

Also, people's natures vary from individual to individual. While you may hand over your money whether you had a gun or not, another person of a weaker disposition may panic and fire a shot. When speaking for the population in general, I would say that it is common sense to assume that people would kill more readily if they had a gun than if they didn't. Be it in self-defence, in anger, in a fit of passionate rage, or just due to stress and the inability to think straight, most people would be more likely to kill someone if they had a gun and were attacked. The earlier posts in this thread by the OP prove as much.

I have also already told you that I'm not anti-choice or anti-freedom, or pro-government authority. It is just that in this case, the choice to have guns legalised is a collective one - unlike with drugs or euthanasia, the individual cannot choose for themselves. If pro-gun campaigners achieve their aim of making guns legal, they effectively make everyone's choice for them. That choice being, guns are legal and a criminal will be more likely to shoot you. Now you have to decide whether to buy a gun or not and use it to kill them first. But hey, at least we're all set in case the government turns on us! I am all for questioning decisions about people's freedom of choice and the government's authority. I just find that when you analyse and question this issue, the logical conclusion is that guns are restricted for a reason and should remain so.

Because most criminals don't have guns at all... and making them legal means most of them WILL have them, making any attacks more dangerous and possibly fatal.

has strict gun laws really worked in this country?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371371/Stockwell-shop-shooting-Girl-5-critical-condition-gunman-fires-indiscriminately.html

**** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now, how was anyone on this street meant to defend themselves? and how does making it harder for law abiding sports shooters like me prevent shootings like this? I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right

So we have come in full circle? Like the OP, you are showing us a tragic story of gun crime and using it as a reason why MORE guns should be available? Way to reverse the 23 pages of discussion here. If you want an answer to your post, go back to the beginning and read the thread over again.

To address your question I have already stated that I do not see how more guns = less death. Even when well-meaning people or victims try to defend themselves or eachother, bystanders need to be taken into account. The killing power of a gun needs to be taken into account... the more guns involved in a violent situation, the more injuries or fatalities there will be.

I could also say again what has been repeated in this thread multiple times; that you will probably provoke an attacker into shooting you more quickly if you withdraw a gun yourself. But that would be beating a dead horse.

In addition, yes criminals will always have guns. But why not make it as hard as possible for them to obtain a gun? Why do you think that having people shoot back in response will help solve the situation and/or save anyone? If you heard a gunshot behind you, turned round and took out your weapon to try and subdue the criminal, how would you know who to shoot? What if you shot the wrong person? What if someone saw you with a gun and thought you were the criminal, and shot you? It really makes no sense. It is not logical to have people firing at eachother in public.