In an attempt to raise the activity of discussion…
Please do not make this thread about the USA only. There are more countries than that particular one.
Discuss the topic at hand. Make sure to cite sources, statistics and whatnot if you make claims.
There is no such thing as “it is obvious and common knowledge”.
I will delete may infract posts that are blatantly stupid.




Anyway, here is my personal opinion:

Lack of violence and lack of weapons go hand in hand. There are some distinctions that need to be made, however.
Weapons and guns are a product like any other. Prohibition can only be efficient as long as that product is low in demand. The country I live in (Germany) has a rather low demand for that product, therefore enforcing a prohibition on weapons is no big problem and does not cause much harm.
The USA, however, have a great demand for guns, therefore a prohibition would be harmful. Gun runners would make a lot of profit from a prohibition and that is something that should generally be avoided. Therefore a sophisticated gun control policy would be more efficient to ensure maximum security.
I realize that that is a rather weak compromise, considering how many guns are in circulation, but it's pretty much the best shot.

Wait what? Your opinion has nothing to do with the discussion question, you just spoke about gun prohibition in different countries due to the demand on the product of the weapon. Are we discussing prohibition of weapons or whether or not a weapon is okay to use as self defense against your attacker?

In Australia, you can get fined a large sum of money for using a weapon as self defense against an attacker if you attack them first, which I think is bullshit because for rape victims, if they try protecting themselves and cause injury to the attacker, they can get sued with no compensation for the trauma that they could've received from the attempted rape..

Edit: even using pepper spray is illegal tool as self defense in Australia

You are right, I should have been more precise.
I do not believe that it's a civilian's job to enforce laws. I do think that defending yourself against a criminal with violence should be the least of all options. The best thing you can do is 1. run away 2. call the police 3. stay out savely.
When those options are not available to you you may fight back, but to do that you do not need a loaded gun, you can use tools that you can improvise with other tools you can find around your house (yes, I realize that that sounds somewhat ignorant, but considering the potential dangers of owning a gun it seems more ignorant to me to arm people who never received proper training).
Guns have the potential to help both the criminals and the victims, leading to a vicious circle.
Therefore I am in favour of a prohibition if that can be enforced, as stated in my first post.

So you're against the use of weapons if you're the one getting assaulted?

Say you're getting sexually abused and the attacker is a much larger and stronger person than you are, you have a weapon available to you that is in accessible spot, or pepper spray, do you just stand there and let him/her have their way with you and they get away without getting caught or do you use that weapon as a way to protect yourself?

There is a great difference between lethal weapons and selfdefense weapons such as pepper sprays.
I would advocate against carrying a gun in order to protect yourself from assaults. Pepper sprays are reasonably save.

You ignored my point that lethal weapons can be used by both parties. :P
What would stop a rapist from abusing a gun to get his way? Acquiring a gun in a country where no prohibition is in place is significantly easier and criminals benefit from that.

Oh! Sorry I didn't mean the use of lethal weapons to kill the attacker xD, I meant just using a blunt object or something similar to subdue the assailant. I also got your point about the weapon being able to be used by both parties, but odds are if the person was truly serious about assaulting you, they'd most likely bring a weapon of their own, in which case the use of a spray would be a surprise and take the attacker of guard to let you have a chance to escape and get help.

Before they fire? I don't know this as a fact but rapists wouldn't want to rape a dead person unless they're just fully messed up in the head..

What I meant was that they'd be busy groping or whatever and wouldn't pay attention to your hand reaching inside of your pocket to get a small bottle of pepper spray. Also, you don't 'lock and load' a spray cannister, just squeeze it.

You two focus on one scenario too much. I suggest you try and generalize reasonably more. :P


Gun violence is essentially very dangerous. A criminal will have an initial advantage due to several factors. Surprise effect, planning and so forth. A criminal can be armed more easily when guns are not prohibited.
Gun violence can be avoided by getting rid of guns. Obviously not all acts of violence are commited with a gun, but reducing gun violence should be something to strive for.
Melee weapons are similar, but cannot be put into the same category as guns, as they are essentially omnipresent. They are also far away from being as lethal and they mostly serve purposes other than violence. Knives, for example, are mainly used as tools, not as weapons.

A prohibition essentially makes something less available, including for criminals.

Well, I suppose it all depends on what type of crime is being committed too.
Domestic violence, burglary, bank robbery, arson, etc.

I was mainly using the rape scenario because it's been coming up in the news a lot and it's a scenario where using weapons would be more acceptable than something like bank robbery.
Bank robberies rarely cause fatalities because everything is insured and the money is not yours to defend against an armed bod.
Domestic violence is between family, so a call to the police will solve that dispute.
Defending against an arsonist to protect property doesn't really happen often as far as I know due to the arsonist would plan out when to do it etc. Arson involving fire is a very hard case to solve as well.

Gun prohibition well, I agree that a restriction would have a small effect on reducing gun violence (not a large percentage though due to the criminal knows about the gun laws and wouldn't care for it).