is it safer to own a gun or not own a gun
own a gun
23.9% (116)
23.9% (116)
not own a gun
52.4% (254)
52.4% (254)
there both equally safe
12% (58)
12% (58)
no opinion...more bacon?
11.1% (54)
11.1% (54)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: is it safer to own a gun or not own a gun

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

okay so this is a follow up thread to my earlier which got allot of feedback on many main points and i fought the best way to have a good and meaningful debate would be to break down the debate into different questions and let people have their say on more specific topics and also vote in polls.

so lets get to it is it safer to own a gun or not

in my opinion i know for a fact i wont shoot myself im 99.9% sure no one will shoot me so i dont see my safety being affected much by owning a gun, the stupid moped i own is more likely to kill me than any gun (i hate having to drive it with a passion its so unsafe) and ive done plenty of things in my life that could kill me but life is impossible to live risk free and im glad i took all those small risk's

in terms of gun crime the way i see it is that if you have a gun and some one attacks you with any weapon other than a gun you can fend them off, if they come at you with a gun you'd be stupid to fight back (unless of course for some messed up reason they were trying to kill you) if your unarmed and you get attacked period you cant fight back at all so id rather be armed. also as mentioned previously its abundantly clear that even in parts of england criminals do get guns regardless of how legal they are so why should law abiding citizens (and even the police) be unarmed when criminals have access to fire arms after all the law abiding citizens are not the ones committing gun crime

im hoping you don't get bored of these or think im posting to much or to quickly, the next thing i want to have a in depth discussion on is should guns be a hobby so that will be my next post on the subject and hopefully the anti gun and pro gun groups can at least find some understanding and make some progress toward some sort of agreement even if it is just on one website :)

That really depends on where you live.

If you live in America, where guns are an ingrained part of their culture, then you're much more likely to have to defend yourself against someone with a gun, and the best way to do that, is with a gun.

While here in the UK, it's very rare to hear about gun crime and I believe letting the public get their hands on them would cause more harm than good.

Useing a gun in self-defense will go two ways:
1.it deters the criminal
2.It escalates the situation (IE he criminal either pulls a gun, or shoots)

They're both equally safe as this mostly depends on who it is that owns the gun

if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe.

this is why we have very few firearms crimes in australia.

i would give my opinions as to the americans laws involving guns but last time i tried i was suspended.

The question is way too broad. It is perfectly safe for me to own a gun but it is also perfectly safe for me not to own a gun. The gun is not going to hurt me and whether it is present or not. The only real question is would it be helpful to me to have the gun. In my case the answer would be yes because I need the gun for pest control and to protect myself. Far too many drunk guys can't find their way home and apparently I some sort for sign that can only be seen by drunk people telling them to come here. Also for a person living in Detroit it would certainly be helpful given the average 25 minute response time of the PD.

Overall though if a person is trained in the use of a firearm and takes proper precautions there is no particular danger to owning a firearm.

Tanksie:
if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe.

Uh huh.....you want to run that by me again? In Aussieland people are killed by guns in only 1/3 cases. The other 2/3 is by something other than a gun. In Lithuania 7/8 murders are preformed without a gun.

I'd say owning a gun and knowing gun safety is safer than not owning a gun. The only potential scenario I see in which owning a gun would be unsafe is if you tried to stop a criminal but somehow botched it up, and the criminal killed you when he saw you were armed.

farson135:

Tanksie:
if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe.

Uh huh.....you want to run that by me again? In Aussieland people are killed by guns in only 1/3 cases. The other 2/3 is by something other than a gun. In Lithuania 7/8 murders are preformed without a gun.

I think he means "if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe from gun violence" :P

Owning a gun is perfectly safe, provided that you know how to use a gun and know and practice firearm safety. I would not recommend somebody that has never used a gun in their life to go out and buy a pistol for self-defense. That's just idiotic.

However, I don't know that a gun would be all that useful in most self-defense situations. The best course of action for just about any self-defense situation is to get out of there ASAP. If that isn't possible, then a gun might be useful, but then you're probably screwed anyway.

As for whether or not not having guns will make things safer, I think it depends on many more factors than just if people are allowed to own guns. Where I live in the US, a very large percentage of people own guns, yet we have very few gun related crimes. And not having guns doesn't guarantee that there will be no violent crime.

You have to learn the rules of gun ownership, otherwise you'll shoot Marvin in the face. So, take the needed classes and follow the rules. That makes owning a gun perfectly safe.

Em.. It's like nuclear weapons in a way. If you were able to be the only country with a nuke you're a safe country indeed. But if everyone had them everyone becomes less safe than if they didn't.

So, in the UK, where guns are very very rare you'd be safer as an owner but in the US it could go either way, since if you're pointing a gun at a robber holding a shotgun you'll probably get blasted away. If you're not a threat to them and let them do their business they probably won't shoot you because they came to steal, not to murder.

Baneat:
Em.. It's like nuclear weapons in a way. If you were able to be the only country with a nuke you're a safe country indeed. But if everyone had them everyone becomes less safe than if they didn't.

So, in the UK, where guns are very very rare you'd be safer as an owner but in the US it could go either way, since if you're pointing a gun at a robber holding a shotgun you'll probably get blasted away. If you're not a threat to them and let them do their business they probably won't shoot you because they came to steal, not to murder.

Or you could make the deterrence and mutually assisted destruction argument.

If everyone has nuclear weapons, people will be too scared to attack anyone for fear of nuclear war. If no one had nuclear weapons there wouldn't be as much of a risk in waging war with someone.

Same with the store example. A pistol can be as deadly as a shotgun.

If a lot of people have guns, robbers have two major problems to face. One is that someone may fight back and kill them. The other is that the robber may kill or heavily injure someone, and get sent to jail for the rest of their lives instead of a few years.

usmarine4160:
They're both equally safe as this mostly depends on who it is that owns the gun

Exactly. If you know what you are doing and aren't a moron they are perfectly safe.

Baneat:
Em.. It's like nuclear weapons in a way. If you were able to be the only country with a nuke you're a safe country indeed. But if everyone had them everyone becomes less safe than if they didn't.

Interesting and insightful point, and I totally agree. However, I feel that sort of thing generally applies to all weapons, it's just that the "big guns" so to speak tend to be a little bit scarier.

No, no one should own a gun.
Yes, Police should have access (not carry them at all times) to guns.
But people, everyday normal Joe's, should not own guns.

Burst6:

Baneat:
Em.. It's like nuclear weapons in a way. If you were able to be the only country with a nuke you're a safe country indeed. But if everyone had them everyone becomes less safe than if they didn't.

So, in the UK, where guns are very very rare you'd be safer as an owner but in the US it could go either way, since if you're pointing a gun at a robber holding a shotgun you'll probably get blasted away. If you're not a threat to them and let them do their business they probably won't shoot you because they came to steal, not to murder.

Or you could make the deterrence and mutually assisted destruction argument.

If everyone has nuclear weapons, people will be too scared to attack anyone for fear of nuclear war. If no one had nuclear weapons there wouldn't be as much of a risk in waging war with someone.

Same with the store example. A pistol can be as deadly as a shotgun.

If a lot of people have guns, robbers have two major problems to face. One is that someone may fight back and kill them. The other is that the robber may kill or heavily injure someone, and get sent to jail for the rest of their lives instead of a few years.

Armed robbery happens often in the USA, though, definitely more than the UK. Thieves don't really consider things correctly, to be honest.

They are both equally dangerous. Well, more or less equal, anyway. If you don't own a gun, you are less likely to get shot, as you don't pose much of a threat. If you do own one, and you pull it out, you are immediately rising the stakes from "We can both walk off this" to "At least one of us would be badly hurt".

That is assuming that you know how to handle a gun. If you don't, owning a gun is a really, really dangerous prospect. You may not mean to hurt others but you still could. Case in point - Marvin in Pulp Fiction.

Unless, you live somewhere where it's usual for people to shoot random strangers, I'd say owning a gun doesn't add much to your safety. Besides, a martial art or just some self-defence training could be just as protective, if not more so, as pulling out a firearm.

putowtin:
No, no one should own a gun.
Yes, Police should have access (not carry them at all times) to guns.
But people, everyday normal Joe's, should not own guns.

You're so not American are you?

I'm with you though. I don't think all cops should carry guns. Just heavily trained rapid response units.

That or we could just ban dark skinned people with backpacks from tube stations.

...what?! too soon?

mikey7339:

usmarine4160:
They're both equally safe as this mostly depends on who it is that owns the gun

Exactly. If you know what you are doing and aren't a moron they are perfectly safe.

I'm with these guys. A gun is a tool. There are lots of dangerous tools, most of them don't hurt their owners unless their owners are not careful.

captainfluoxetine:

putowtin:
No, no one should own a gun.
Yes, Police should have access (not carry them at all times) to guns.
But people, everyday normal Joe's, should not own guns.

You're so not American are you?

Oh no... someone saw through my disguise! Quick Robin, back to the Batcave!

Daystar Clarion:

If you live in America, where guns are an ingrained part of their culture, then you're much more likely to have to defend yourself against someone with a gun, and the best way to do that, is with a gun.

Gun crime is really low in a good chunk of the country.

First: I am an American and I own several guns. Second: In regards to your question, statistically you are safer not owning a gun. Strictly from a mathematical point of view anyway. If its home protection you're interested in I suggest a dog.

Daystar Clarion:
That really depends on where you live.

If you live in America, where guns are an ingrained part of their culture, then you're much more likely to have to defend yourself against someone with a gun, and the best way to do that, is with a gun.

While here in the UK, it's very rare to hear about gun crime and I believe letting the public get their hands on them would cause more harm than good.

"guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns defend people against people with smaller guns."

Blobpie:
Useing a gun in self-defense will go two ways:
1.it deters the criminal
2.It escalates the situation (IE he criminal either pulls a gun, or shoots)

Never pull a gun on a criminal if you aren't willing to use it. If you pull a gun on someone threatening you with a knife, and then he starts to draw his own gun, you drop him, don't hesitate just pull the trigger.

Zachary Amaranth:

Daystar Clarion:

If you live in America, where guns are an ingrained part of their culture, then you're much more likely to have to defend yourself against someone with a gun, and the best way to do that, is with a gun.

Gun crime is really low in a good chunk of the country.

Maybe because everyone has guns :D

Makes you question robbing someone if there's a chance you're gonna get shot up.

Lack of training is the real epidemic. Also, people need to learn how to lock their weapons up.

I'm sure statistically speaking, gun-related accidents are more frequent than break-in violence that could have been avoided with a firearm. That said, it does little to comfort those who have families to protect, and are diligent and careful. If there's a one in a million chance that you will need to protect your family, most people would at least like that option.

Edit: also, growing up 30 miles away from the Luby's Massacre has likely affected my gun views.

Owning a gun is never safe, who knows what you'll do when you are drunk and something major aggravates you.... Best to not bother

As long as there's a practical purpose for it, it should be permitted. The government agrees with me on this. pistols, guns, hunting rifles, and shotguns have useful applications outside it makes me feel more macho. There is no practical purpose for it, then you should regulate it.

I advocate forcing all citizens taking mandatory firearms training I get that 2nd amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, but it does not say your right is limitless. There are restrictions placed on free speech, as well as every other amendment. The Second does not deserve any special treatment cause you say so.

This is not one of those All or nothing debates. The gun nuts and the libertarian notion that you either let everyone have all the guns or you take the all away only works if you are mentally 5 years old. They want a black and white universe because that's the only way their argument works. Here in adult world, we understand concepts like that's okay, that's not okay, that should be regulated, that shouldn't be.

And that whole criminals don't obey the thing is a red herring designed to make you feel more afraid and distract everyone from the debate. So what if he or she can get a gun whenever he or she wants. That person is less likely to kill me than the one of my close relatives.

I'd say it's safer to not own a gun. If someone pulls a gun on me I'd much rather give in to their demands than start a firefight.

Get robbed and come back to me. Oh wait, you won't, because you'll be DEAD. Like that guy who got robbed like 3 times, then shot the fuckers when they came back for fourths.
When I get my own place, I'm getting a license, I'm getting a shotgun and I am putting a sign that says "WARNING: OCCUPANT IS ARMED!" outside my front door.

If you aren't pants on head retarded, then you can store and use a gun with more safety than you can use a kitchen knife. It is safer to own a gun, I will say that categorically and without doubt every time I am asked.

I actually live in a place where gun ownership is nearly universal and in my entire 21 years, one person was harmed by an accident involving a firearm, and that's because he was hunting with someone who was drinking(aka. pants on head retarded). On the other hand, 3 people have been seriously injured by accidents involving bows, and almost a dozen have been seriously injured in accidents involving knives. And, had that group of hunters not been dropped as children, there would have been no accidents involving firearms. I will admit that the consequences of stupidity increase when firearms are involved, but if you don't treat them with the respect they deserve, you deserve what you get. If you do treat them with the respect they deserve, they are 100% safe to own, shoot, and hunt with.

Easy answer: They are both equally safe, its a matter of the (non)owner of the gun in question. Obviously, if the possible owner of the gun is crazy and violent, well... you tell me whether he should be allowed a gun or not.

Really, I think the more probably question is if one needs a gun to feel safe. I own a shotgun and plan on getting a pistol, but neither are meant for self defense, cause I dont feel the need to own a gun to protect myself where I live. But if you fear for your life, and moving away isnt an option, a gun may be a possible idea. But lets not forget that a gun only protects you if you know how to use it, and the person seeking to harm you doesnt already have it themself.

Depends on where you live.
I'd prefer to own a gun in Somalia, but here in Norway, owning a gun is definitely a greater risk than not owning one.

Tanksie:
if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe.

this is why we have very few firearms crimes in australia.

i would give my opinions as to the americans laws involving guns but last time i tried i was suspended.

If no one owns a gun, they'll just find something else to kill/attack people with. The fantasy that safety comes from banning weapons is just that, a fantasy. The single most dangerous weapon is utterly impossible to ban without making lobotomies mandatory, everything else is just window dressing.

If you want to stop violent crime, the only way to do so is to make nobody want to commit violence, and that's impossible for all intents and purposes.

Really depends on who you are.

If you are someone who understands firearms as in how to hold, fire, clean, care as well as the responsibility for every round released, then absolutely you are safer with a gun than without.

If your some moron who bought a gun because playing too many rounds of CoD has made you think your a firearms expert then your likely to end up causing accidental mayhem with the gun and neither yourself or anyone around you is safe with you having a gun.

Look, ive said it before, Ill say it again. Guns are not weapons, they are tools. It is an automatic hole creator with a simple point and click interface. If used as a tool it is just as harmless as any other tool like a hammer, axe, nailgun, saw, etc But getting a hold of a gun because you think it makes you badass and no one will fuck with you, or because you have it in the back of your head that your going to fend off the 2012 zombie apocalypse, then the only tool involved is you.

to you as an individual

99% it is safer to not own one. You might have kids, for example. Even in a regular firing range guns can misfire and hurt someone. Shotguns misfire so often it's scary. People breaking into your house see you have a gun cabinet, pick the lock and now they are armed.
1% might be help by having a gun, an armed break in or a mugging can be turned around pretty fast just buy showing one.

to society

I would say it is always safer for civilians to be unarmed.

but what would I know, I'm just a limey communist.

Baneat:

Armed robbery happens often in the USA, though, definitely more than the UK. Thieves don't really consider things correctly, to be honest.

I tried to look at the actual statistics, but because the two websites for US and UK crime rates i looked at were arranged differently, and the countries gather information differently, i didn't bother trying to research it (not really worth it for an internet forum).

But i did a quick Google search and from what i can find Great Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S.

So yeah, UK has a smaller gun crime rate, but a higher crime rate in general.

EDIT: The captcha asked me to describe Gatorade. I typed in why is this a captcha and it accepted it. It's sort of missing the point if you can just type in anything isn't it?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked