Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 23 NEXT
 

Yep this thread had to get posted.

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Um... as somebody from the UK I have to say guns are not outright illegal.
Pheasant hunting is still a popular sport and guns are required obviously.

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

I don't really want to get in to a debate about guns. I've already done that on this site and it was a complete waste of time. I just want to point out to people that there is a difference between legalising guns in a country that's not used to them, and banning guns in a country that is.

But the main reason I posted here was to say that gif is both awesome and hilarious.

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Also... it is worth baring in mind just how big America is in comparison to the UK.
I'm anti-guns as I live in the UK and we function fine without them but sometimes comparing crime rate with the UK is a little useless. We can fit three of us in just one of their states.

Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

The argument I hear most frequently is that bad dudes don't care 'bout laws so we need guns to protect ourselves from the baddies.

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

I don't think you'll ever be able to prevent real baddies from getting these kind of weapons, or diehard hunters.

I think the answer is education and having a license to own a weapon. I need a license to drive a car legally, but I can just go buy a shotgun? Though, that's more about personal safety and won't solve the issue of massacres.

That being said, my father owns a gun. It's a 9 mm and probably doesn't even work at this point. It's pretty much a bluff weapon.

I'm in Northern Ireland, would just like to point out we're in the UK too, most households I know have at least one firearm (we have 8), our police all get firearms, even traffic stops involve MP5's and G3's.

The illegality of weapons didn't stop paramilitaries getting their hands on enough firepower to force the army to be very careful about how they moved around the country, by air and ground.

I'll concede we do have to be considered an anomaly when weighing certain statistics though.

cotss2012:
Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

I'm gonna have to go with that. You see, with the issues of gun crimes, there's also the silver lining. We have the background checks, the waiting periods, the armed civilians who if pushed can fire back... A man with a gun in the UK could go on a rampage because he's one of the few packing. A man in the US with a gun has to worry about ANYONE in his immediate area and beyond packing as well.

Here's the thing, O UK-gun-control-question-man. It is true that there is the difference in the kinds of crimes committed and how bad things can get because of who has what guns, illegal or not. However, there is just as equally the consequence of trying to change that here. It's not the whole of gun-owning society that's doing this. It's the crazy, stupid shitheads. Everyone else just wants to use a gun properly. If you try to take that away, you'd have - I'm guessing - at least a solid billion saying NO, people who didn't DO anything wrong, and you would be wrong to take from them what's theirs.

Lucem712:
I think the answer is education and having a license to own a weapon. I need a license to drive a car legally, but I can just go buy a shotgun? Though, that's more about personal safety and won't solve the issue of massacres

A license is only required if you're driving on public roads. You can drive on your own private land without a license and the cops can't do shit about it.

Similarly, a license shouldn't be required for owning a gun and using it on your own turf, but if you want to take it onto government property, the government might want to make sure you're not a drug kingpin. Similarly, the owner of a nightclub or bookstore or anything else can say "no guns beyond this point" as easily as they can say "no skateboarding in my goddamn parking lot", and the Second Amendment can't say shit about it.

Oh dear lord this thread again.....

I'm going to say that I'm in support of greater gun control laws in America, but not necessarily against gun ownership. What I think is that people should probably get psychologically checked before they're allowed to handle a weapon. And don't tell me about the whole 'right to bear arms thing'. That was from a different era when it was basically a necessity.

Nantucket:
Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

Take this scenario:

Say you track this big buck to the outskirts of town, and you find that he as made himself a makeshift home in an abandoned warehouse. With a handgun you could easily sneak up on him and get a deathshot! That way he won't be running around with your daughter any more and filling up her head with ridiculous ideas and corrupting her character!

OT: Who gives a crap, it's not like the US government would change it.
Hell, I live in Sweden and even I know the president would get thrown out because of the second amendment.

cotss2012:

Lucem712:
I think the answer is education and having a license to own a weapon. I need a license to drive a car legally, but I can just go buy a shotgun? Though, that's more about personal safety and won't solve the issue of massacres

A license is only required if you're driving on public roads. You can drive on your own private land without a license and the cops can't do shit about it.

Well, no. You can drive anything on your own property. But for the safety of the public and yourself, you have to pass a test on the basics and show an intermediate knowledge of how to commandeer a vehicle and of your state's road rules. (At least while driving a street-legal vehicle on public roads.)

I know (most) people don't read their car's manual or read their state's driver's ed manual, but I read all of mine. Even the moto section. :D

Moth_Monk:
The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Guns are also used for sport. There are a lot of people who like hunting bucks with a rifle. The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

I'm a US citizen and largely pro-gun. Largely. I still think there's room for much improvement, but keep in mind that undoing the current system requires a massive cultural paradigm shift, and what works for a single European country does not apply when you're talking about a collective of States that is 15-100 times larger than a single European country and with a similar magnitude (or more) in population as well depending on which country you talk about. Combine the above with the effect of cultural indoctrination and additionally overcoming States'desires to outline their own rights are significant hurdles to overcome to even begin to discuss changing the system.

Yes, I think some things could use better control, in regards to high-powered handguns and easily modified semi-auto ARs. But at the same, I'm conflicted with the belief that the populace plays its minor vigilance role and even the thought of a well-armed retaliation may deter some violent crime, and do also worry about some NWO-style conspiracies that stripping the population of its arms is the first step into an oppressive death spiral we would then be ill-prepared to fight (again, this is an effect of cultural indoctrination, largely). These feelings are hard to reconcile, they are ingrained so deeply in the way we approach our "gun culture" around here.

It's such a tough two-way street. It really is.

So gun-control threads are going to be the hot topic again? Boy, this is going to be just as enjoyable a month as the last four have been.

I don't care about guns. I don't care if they're more strictly regulated than they currently are in the US, because it wouldn't have any effect on my life as it is right now.

I'm going to start avoiding threads about guns now, it seems...

EDIT: Also, I've never heard a gunshot outside of television or video games either, and I do live in the US. Maybe stop generalizing the entire population over here as crazy, gun-toting maniacs who spend all of their days shooting up the streets.[1]

In fact, the only gun I've ever actually seen is a hunting rifle that my friend's mom has.

[1] That was hyperbole, and meant facetiously.

This should go to religion and politics.

Head over to R&P Moth_Monk, all will be revealed.

But in short: What works in the UK won't work in the US. We Americans (Most of us, anyway) know this, which is why we are so adamant in our defense of the individual right to own firearms.

How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?

Wild pigs in the US- 4,000,000
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313597.pdf
Wild pigs in Australia- 23,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3308375/Australia-has-more-wild-pigs-than-humans.html

Wild pigs already do billions of dollars in damage every year in the US and we hunters are the only thing that actually prevents them from taking over like they have in Australia (and that is not the only species that is breeding out of control in Australia). In addition to that is just general pest control.

Or how about because we still have dangerous (not just annoying) animals in the US like wild bear- http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

Or how about because we feel the need to protect ourselves? A friend of mine lives on the border, you can literally see the border from his home (or at least the place where the sign that is supposed to mark the border is). Drug runners regularly use his property to smuggle drugs in. If he called the police it would take them 20 minutes or better to get to him. Do you think it is a good idea for him to be disarmed? And before anyone says it, he cannot move, his grandparents bought the property, he cannot afford to purchase a new home, and no one in their right minds would buy that property. Then you have a friend of mine who was raped. She carries a gun on her because she doesn't want it to happen again. And of course you have incidents like this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31416285/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There are other things but let us focus on the economics for a moment.

The basic fact is that attacking the gun industry is harmful to the world's economy. You may not realize this but your police force and military practices with ammunition. That ammunition is cheap because the US produces a tons of it and exports. Either practice goes down or costs go up.

Plus, you are talking about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. You have gun shop owners, ammunition manufacturers (both large companies and small businesses), unrefined resource providers, military contractors, etc. Where do you think the materials to make these firearms and ammunition come from? What about all of the leather used in holsters? Where do you think the computer chips used in gun owners tech comes from? And on.

Your attack on the gun industry would send shock waves throughout the entire economy. There is no major part of the US and world economy that is not somehow connected to the firearms industry. How many ranchers are going to lose money when the demand for leather goes down? How many businesses built around firearms companies are going to survive if the largest business in the area goes under? How many mining companies are going to feel the effects of a fall in the brass market? How many ranges are going to go under and thereby force Police Departments to build actual ranges and how much money will that cost? Etc.

Then, in addition to that, you are going to have to get rid of the firearms somehow. Ignoring the how for a moment, let us instead focus on the cost to do that. First you are going to destroy hundreds of multimillion dollar businesses directly unless you pay them off (lots of money there). Then you have the 80 million gun owners in the US. If ever gun owner owns $300 in guns and firearms accessories that equals $24,000,000,000 you have to pay them (unless you are just going to take the guns and say fuck you to every gun owner). Of course that number is vastly underestimated. I myself own several thousand dollars in firearms and accessories and I am rather young. Plus, most bolt action rifles cost over $300, most semis cost over $600, and most pistols cost over $400.

In other words, firearms are necessary in the US and it would cause a huge harm to get rid of them. Not to mention the basic fact that it is impossible to get rid of them. 300,000,000 guns do not just disappear because you want them to (not to mention all of the guns outside of the US and all of the illegal guns).

BTW guns are not illegal in the UK, just heavily regulated.

I wish I could post some pics of the guns I've modified over the past month. I just had a cop bring me a .308 FN rifle he'd like converted into a sniper variant.

Ex military gun enthusiast by the way. In my off time I compete in a lot of tactical shooting competitions, train with police and do some gunsmithing on the side. I've been referred to as "The Gun Whisperer" because I can make any piece of shit gun really bad ass with the right amount of modifications and cash.

farson135:
-Snip-

That was a lot of wasted effort. It's been scientifically proven that you can't teach ignorant people to believe things they have decided not to ever consider.

In any case I agree with you in large part.

The US and the UK are two very different places. America has a large gun culture and has always had access to them so the argument that 'if we outlaw guns only the criminals will have them' makes sense there. Everyone has guns, you suddenly try take them away and only the people who have them are those who are ignoring the law anyway.

The UK however has almost no gun culture. Hardly anybody has a gun in this country and if we suddenly had access to them we wouldn't know what we were doing and it could get pretty dangerous. Gun control makes sense for the UK.

In short what I'm saying is what works for the UK doesn't necessarily work for the US and vice versa.

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

Well obviously gun crimes will be lower since guns are illegal in the UK . But that doesn't mean crimes will be lower .

See that isn't an interesting comparaison . An interesting comparaison would be , "crimes resulting in death" in the US and "crimes resulting in death" in the UK. So what % of crimes in both areas result in at least 1 death . The methode is irrelevant . Is the crime rate really lower? Or are the methodes of commiting crimes different?

I don't think a gun crime is worst than a "knife crime" . If someone dies , someone dies . Rule of thumb , if someone wants someone else death , they will do it whatever the means . Sure guns make it slightly easier , but it doesn't mean if guns were illegal , people wouldn't die . Not to mention that real criminals will be able to get guns anyways.

Also take into consideration the amount of people living in the area . The more people living in a country , the more likely there is to be crimes . There is a bigger chance that the number of people that gets killed in a country with 50 million inhabitants is higher than one with 10 million. Althought you cannot neglect the fact that are many factors that affects the crimerate , like poverty for example .

krazykidd:
snip

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

Source

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Because they're, you know, illegal. That means you can't buy them without the right underworld connections and a shitload of money.

Generally only the big criminals can afford firearms, and those that do don't use them against the public, because after that the entire police force will be after them, and they've just wasted something worth € 3000+ on a lousy robbery that brings in € 10-50. Criminals are commercially oriented people; if it's not profitable, they won't do it.

edit

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

Of course they have guns, they wouldn't have been able to shoot that drug dealing gangster if they didn't. I also wouldn't be one to brag about the British law enforcement, considering how powerless they were in stopping last years rioting from going on for three days strait. I wouldn't argue that America has a very large violent crime rate for a developed state, but I wouldn't argue that gun-laws affect that rate, considering we allow all sorts of weapons in Canada and we have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

Moth_Monk:
I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that.

That's really nothing special. Many Americans have never personally heard a gunshot either (if you exclude black powder rifles, I've never heard a gunshot that wasn't on TV or in a game either).

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Or if they shoot competitively (I know someone who does this--she almost went to the Olympics). Or they have wild animals to deal with. Or they do reenacting. Or they collect them. Or they like to take them apart and fix them, then give them to members of the other groups. Or they're hunters.

ReadyAmyFire:
I'm in Northern Ireland, would just like to point out we're in the UK too, most households I know have at least one firearm (we have 8), our police all get firearms, even traffic stops involve MP5's and G3's.

The illegality of weapons didn't stop paramilitaries getting their hands on enough firepower to force the army to be very careful about how they moved around the country, by air and ground.

I'll concede we do have to be considered an anomaly when weighing certain statistics though.

You raise an interesting point I will elaborate on for people who might not be aware of the implications and effects the conflict in Northern Ireland had for UK gun crime. Criminal syndicates set up lengthy and elaborate supply chains through eastern Europe and the mainland UK in order to provide weapons for the paramilitaries on both sides.

The first effect was the gradual trickle of some of the weapons intended for Northern Ireland ending up on British streets, the second more serious effect was after the ceasefire. Paramilitaries stopped stockpiling firearms, the guns that where once destined for NI where now all ending up in the hands of criminals.

It took a long time for that supply to be broken up, luckily now most guns in the hands of criminals are either stolen from legal owners or converted replicas and reactivated decommissioned guns.

Yeah outlaw guns cause we all know how criminals just love to follow the law...

That works for you in the UK great, but don't assume it would work here too. We're just too different.

Because freedom, that's why.

My stance on gun control is as follows:
It is probably better to not have guns avaliable to everyone in a society, though to try remove that from a society that has it, would be folly.

So gun control is the next hot topic in the rotation huh? (After gender politics, feminism, and rape)

Well, in that case . . .

EVERYONE ...

image

...

OT: Different culture, attitudes, and values.

Blablahb:

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Because they're, you know, illegal. That means you can't buy them without the right underworld connections and a shitload of money.

Generally only the big criminals can afford firearms, and those that do don't use them against the public, because after that the entire police force will be after them, and they've just wasted something worth € 3000+ on a lousy robbery that brings in € 10-50. Criminals are commercially oriented people; if it's not profitable, they won't do it.

Yes because criminal really care about doing illegal things. I'm just going to assume you are being intentionally disingenuous here, its better for my own sanity that way. The fact here which you so willfully ignored is that if a criminal wants a gun badly enough a law isn't going to stop them. That you think criminals only care about money is as ludicrous as it is false.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 23 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here