Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 22 NEXT
 

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. :-)

[quote="Moth_Monk" post="18.382695.15108236"]Yep this thread had to get posted.

I live in the UK too and our gun crime is limited, but even non-lethal preventative measures such as stun guns, mace and pepper spray are severely mishandled in the US. The amount of times there have been reports of death by these measures or abuse of them, both by police and the public are quite shocking.

Yes it is in the constitution that you have the right to own weaponry, but you can easily apply for a gun permit within the UK. The difference being that our government doesn't allow for semi-automatic machine guns because they are completely unnecessary. What do you use them for? Hunting? who the hell needs to kill a Deer with a machine gun?

But I will admit that although our gun crime is limited, Knife crime is an easy substitute, but even if you measure our yearly country wide rate in knife crime, it is still lower per population size against any state in the US.

That's very worrying

I hate guns and am totally against them but the problem with America is that there's already so many among the general populace that if you outlawed them and told everyone to hand their weapons in to be destroyed criminals would just laugh and keep theirs whilst everyone else hands in their only form of protection against said criminals.

It's very sad but I don't think making guns illegal in a country such as America would be feasible.

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. :-)

I'm from the UK and I think we should legalize them. I should have the ability to defend myself, because quite frankly, half the time I don't feel like the police are doing an adequate job.

Vault Girl:
But I will admit that although our gun crime is limited, Knife crime is an easy substitute, but even if you measure our yearly country wide rate in knife crime, it is still lower per population size against any state in the US.

Just this July there have been three rampage shootings in the US, leaving 15 dead and over 65 people wounded. We have not had a single rampage stabbing here this month, the most recent is a bit bizarre but still dangerous. A pupil ran around a school with an insulin needle, not likely to be immediately fatal but the risk of disease makes it just of frightening as a knife rampage.

Still there have been less rampage stabbings in the UK so far this year than mass shootings this month in the US.

Elate:
half the time I don't feel like the police are doing an adequate job.

The police are doing their job just fine, its the courts and prison system thats failing. What can the police do when murderers can walk free in less than 15 years and go out to kill again? What can the police do when they arrest someone for beating a random passerby up for no reason and the courts give them a non custodial sentence?

farson135:

Alexnader:
snip

If you read the follow up comments you would have seen that I said y'all do not have the same equipment I have. Getting the equipment I use into your country would be nearly impossible.

Listen mate (if you get to do the Texas drawl I get to sound like a nasal douchebag from the mid east coast), permits exist for Class 'D' weapons (centerfire semis) which are the ones shown in one of the videos you linked. Admittedly, it's hard to get them, though "hard to get" applies to those who aren't occupational shooters. So perhaps our casual hunters are under equipped relative to Texans, however I don't think any of us can claim to know that's the primary reason for their large numbers.

farson135:

snip

Have you ever been on a major pig hunt? This summer my team (key word there) has killed over 500 pigs in just under 2 weeks. And that is without setting up our normal equipment.

The areas we are in are also mostly uninhabited. Ranchland is usually very open and very uninhabited.

Let me tell you how we do it in my town and the surrounding towns. We have teams of people who go around taking care of hotspots. In our population of a few thousand people (if you include the larger town) we are able to put out about 30 people to go after the pigs. The pig population is virtually nonexistent in my area. Are you saying that is impossible in Australia?

I'm not expertised enough to say whether or not it's impossible, however unless you and your posse were accustomed to traveling days by FWD I'd say you aren't either. Keep in mind Australia is 11 times the size of Texas. (Mathspig) Pigs are absent from 50% of Australia which leaves 5.5 Texases. The most common form of pig distribution is "common" and "widespread" as opposed to localised. (feral.org) Texas has a population of 25-26 million, about 2-3 million more than Australia. Texas is 700,000 square kilometers. Queensland is 1.7 million square kilometers and has the largest tracts of land designated as "abundant" in pigs. Even if the entire population of Australia was relocated to Queensland and given your Texan equipment, we'd have a bit less than 90% of your population trying to cover more than twice the amount of land. You also have a culture of shooting anything that moves, one that has largely been replaced by drunkenness in rural Australia.

So you're welcome to pop down here and show our drunk rimfire shooters how it's done mate but you better bring a crap load of petrol and water. Just forgive me if I snort in derision at your notion of your state's wide open prairie when our country is about 80% the size of your entire country.

farson135:

I'd agree with you that it's almost impossible to implement gun restrictions in America like those in Australia, however not because of some trumped up conservation and feral animal management bullshit.

Right, because it is not like we need to take care of those animals before they destroy our property.

True blue mate, the pigs need to be dealt with. However I don't think the blokes up in Jigalong need assault weapons and support assault weapons to do it. We don't need an assault rifle with 200 round drum capacity to drop a few pigs, though if we had a mind to turn them into goop it could be useful. Mind you the shooters and fishers party would probably push for anti materiel rifles if they thought they could get away with it but the point is gun dissemination is unnecessary to conservation.

As a side note all the justifications for widespread gun ownership fall flat when it comes to automatics. A young student doesn't pack an assault rifle to uni each day to protect herself from rapists. A hunter doesn't need to suppress a buck so that his partner can flank the buck's position. This is tangential I know but it's the one form of gun restrictions I think the US really does need.

References
[Maths Pig](http://mathspig.wordpress.com/tag/how-big-is-australia-compared-to-texas/)
[feral.org](http://www.feral.org.au/feral-pig-distribution-national-map-200607/)

you kinda forgot to take into consideration that the USA is allot bigger
gun crime is about the same maybe the government should take precautions that not the wrong people get guns or maybe but a ban on automatic weapons

Moth_Monk:

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...

No. That is not the fact.

Firearms are not illegal in the UK, have you completely forgot about the Cumbrian Spree Shooting that happened barely a year go? That taxi driver who went crazy and shot dead 12 people, the same number as killed in that movie theatre in America? Derrick Bird who committed that mass shooting owned all his weapons totally legally, and no gun laws have been changed nor any proposal to change gun laws since. Not even registration procedure. Shortly after that shooting Raul Moat went on a more extended rampage targeting police officers with a shotgun that was sold in the UK legally.

And increasingly British police are armed with firearms and are forced to be armed, the trend with issuing Tazer pistol amongst UK police means by the end of this decade every police force in the country will have them. Firearms training is very common in the police even when they are not issued firearms, the British police are this close to being armed as a matter of necessity.

There is also the issue that the Derrick Bird on his rampage literally drove past a police station but not a single officer was armed so they had to flee. Bird only stopped when he got to his last round of ammunition that he used to take his own life. The police failed in their most basic duty to protect the public.

It's not so much that UK has lower gun crime, it has lower violent crime in general.

Guns don't cause crime, they just are used by murderers to commit crimes instead of other weapons as they are easier, you think a hardened criminal couldn't kill you with a kitchen knife if he wanted to. People murder for reasons other than "well I got a gun, I better use it to murder people".

Violent crime comes from dysfunctional individuals, which is a product of many factors other than guns such as relation to other violent criminals, poverty, poor education, lack of connection to community. Violent crime is falling in America while it is rising in UK. And the rate in the UK is high

Adjusting for population size, UK has an uncomfortably similar incidence of mass killings. Also consider China where firearms REALLY ARE illegal, you cannot own any sporting arms, not even an air rifle. Yet there has been a disturbing string of mass killings committed in sudden arson attacks and stabbing. Things like the Dunblane Massacre except committed by a guy with a machete.

I don't know how sheltered you are but I live in a small English town with a Waitrose and a high street full of charity shops yet there have been three murders outside the various clubs in your town. I know a girl personally who was suddenly kidnapped by a local gang, raped by the group and dumped on a random road to walk home. My associate at work was randomly pounced on and beaten unconscious as he stood outside a chippy, apparently a case of mistaken identity.

This is not some inner city London or Manchester, this is Dorset.

Nikolaz72:

Renegade Shepard:
I'd prefer it if it was harder to get a gun.

Then everyone and their mother wouldn't become a mercenary that thinks that they can take on people like me, a trained, card carrying galaxy saver.

Im starting to see why all the human mercs in the galaxy speak with American accents.

Everyone in the galaxy has American accents, now that I think about it. Other then like...James and Traynor, and a few other guys.

Vault Girl:
I live in the UK too and our gun crime is limited, but even non-lethal preventative measures such as stun guns, mace and pepper spray are severely mishandled in the US. The amount of times there have been reports of death by these measures or abuse of them, both by police and the public are quite shocking.

That's very true, they had to rename them "less lethal weapons" because they can kill, but hopefully won't. They aren't supposed to be used lightly, be people somehow assume they are safe to use for whatever reason.

Vault Girl:
The difference being that our government doesn't allow for semi-automatic machine guns because they are completely unnecessary. What do you use them for? Hunting? who the hell needs to kill a Deer with a machine gun?

No such thing as a semi-automatic machine gun, and machine guns are very heavily restricted in the US. Only ones registered before 1986 are legal

Alexnader:
True blue mate, the pigs need to be dealt with. However I don't think the blokes up in Jigalong need assault weapons and support assault weapons to do it. We don't need an assault rifle with 200 round drum capacity to drop a few pigs, though if we had a mind to turn them into goop it could be useful. Mind you the shooters and fishers party would probably push for anti materiel rifles if they thought they could get away with it but the point is gun dissemination is unnecessary to conservation.

As a side note all the justifications for widespread gun ownership fall flat when it comes to automatics. A young student doesn't pack an assault rifle to uni each day to protect herself from rapists. A hunter doesn't need to suppress a buck so that his partner can flank the buck's position. This is tangential I know but it's the one form of gun restrictions I think the US really does need.

I was agreeing with you up until this bit.

Automatic weapons, including assault rifles, are very heavily restricted in the US, you can't get ones that weren't registered before 1986. Assault weapon is a stupid term, and they are heavily restricted in the parts that use that definition. You don't get 200 capacity drum mags, though I know that was hyperbole.

The AR-15 mentioned by farson is a semi-automatic rifle, not an assault rifle. They are legal in Australia, but very rare. They happen to be the rifle used in both the Aurora and Port Arthur massacres, BTW.

Elate:

I'm from the UK and I think we should legalize them. I should have the ability to defend myself, because quite frankly, half the time I don't feel like the police are doing an adequate job.

That is because that is not actually in the Police's job description, their job is to enforce the law and keep the peace, protecting you is a distant third priority.

I understand the legal problems with firearms for self-defence, I understand and accept it is not so simple as permitting firearms for self-defence, but I think it is wholly inadequate to set a blanket prohibition on use of any firearms for self-defence.

The problem is simple: in the home people over-react to threats because they are scared and disoriented from the violation of their home being invaded and understandably angry, this is a very natural and human response. Classic case being Tony Martin who might have been within his rights to shoot those two armed burglars as they were climbing his stairs, but not shooting them in the back as they were trying to flee out of a window. It didn't help Mr Martin that he repeatedly refused to recognise he over-reacted with the latter shots or that he may have been excessive, he stuck to his gut reaction of if the first shot was justified then all subsequent shots were justified.

It only took a few cases of civilians (not police) going beyond the remit of self-defence when using weapons to say people cannot use weapon for self-defence at all. This is a blunt and inflexible measure that has left UK self-defence in limbo for decades now.

Police can have firearms only where there is a high necessity and only then with extensive training and restraint, but still tragedies keep happening but what is interesting is from the killings of Harry Stanley (table leg man) to Charles De Meneze, is that police have NEVER been prosecuted for over-reacting or going too far. And more recently the aquittal of that police officer who beat an old newspapaer salesman in the back and resulted in him dying seems to reaffirm that point that police can do what the average citizen cannot.

When I hear my fellow Brits rant about cases when American civilians carry guns and use them in justified and also less justified cases I always challenge them about UK armed police to spite their training and command structure seem to do just as badly and get off lighter. Yet they admit there is a necessity for UK police to be armed from the many and serious threats.

If Treyvon Martin had been in the UK and been shot under same circumstances by an armed police officer, then I doubt the policeman would ever even be questioned and definitely not be charged. George Zimmerman's case is lookign bad and I think he is on his way to a manslaughter conviction.

I mean an armed UK police officer shot a man in the back of the head without any warning. And the officer lied that he had called for him to stop and he turned around and reached into his bag. Not at all. De Menezes was shot repeatedly in the back with bullets round embedded in the floor of the carriage he was lying on his belly when shot.

Our police force are generally unarmed on the conceit that they are not set-apart from the UK population, yet the spectre of how police are armed by necessity and forgiven for such tragic transgressions undermine that and ask how Fair Britain really is?

Treblaine:
Firearms are not illegal in the UK, have you completely forgot about the Cumbrian Spree Shooting that happened barely a year go? That taxi driver who went crazy and shot dead 12 people, the same number as killed in that movie theatre in America? Derrick Bird who committed that mass shooting owned all his weapons totally legally, and no gun laws have been changed nor any proposal to change gun laws since. Not even registration procedure. Shortly after that shooting Raul Moat went on a more extended rampage targeting police officers with a shotgun that was sold in the UK legally.

The Derrick Bird rampage was a failure of existing legislation, no changes to the law where needed. Existing laws needed to be enforced better. A mentally ill taxi driver living in a terraced house with no land and was not a hunter or gun club member had no business being able stockpile weapons and ammunition the way he did.

J Tyran:

Treblaine:
Firearms are not illegal in the UK, have you completely forgot about the Cumbrian Spree Shooting that happened barely a year go? That taxi driver who went crazy and shot dead 12 people, the same number as killed in that movie theatre in America? Derrick Bird who committed that mass shooting owned all his weapons totally legally, and no gun laws have been changed nor any proposal to change gun laws since. Not even registration procedure. Shortly after that shooting Raul Moat went on a more extended rampage targeting police officers with a shotgun that was sold in the UK legally.

The Derrick Bird rampage was a failure of existing legislation, no changes to the law where needed. Existing laws needed to be enforced better. A mentally ill taxi driver living in a terraced house with no land and was not a hunter or gun club member had no business being able stockpile weapons and ammunition the way he did.

But he owned the guns legally. If the police had searched his whole property hours before the shooting and had a team of lawyers running background checks they could have done nothing to arrest him or confiscate is guns.

His mental illness or whatever was wrong with him (maybe he was just furious and inherently bad) was only obvious when he totally without any warning went on his killing spree, it was all entirely within his head, whatever motivated him to do this there was no provision of the law or any investigative authority to stop it. He didn't have land but he did have access to land to go shooting. He didn't stockpile ammunition, he had a very typical amount of ammunition that a shooting enthusiast might use.

Yet the people of these towns who saw their neighbours gunned down and executed, they did not call for gun legislations reform, or for it to be enforced more rigorously, they accepted that he owned his guns legally right up until he went homicidal. They did call on the police to do more to have stopped this, the police were forced to flee from the gunman and armed police were so far away they didn't catch up with him till he was long dead.

This is the thing. This is the level of gun ownership we accept as Britons, we accept shotguns, manual-action full-bore rifles and semi-automatic small-bore rifles, that is what the community where he murdered so many accepted. America is the same to a different extent, they accept semi-automatic full-bore rifles and pistols. Ultimately the actual perpetrator has to accept responsibility for what they did not the inanimate weapons they used.

There is a use to full-bore semi-automatic rifles, America is a VERY rural country. It has a lower population density than all of Africa (that includes the Sahara desert) and semi-auto rifles have been used for over 100 years in hunting en mass. USA has a huge feral pig problem, heards of 20-30 of them rampage through crops, a semi-auto full bore rifle is of use THERE. And have you seen the size of some of these Feral hogs:

http://www.myokyawhtun.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/hogzilla.jpg

Nothing like that in the UK. These are pest animals, not native they destroy crops and drive out local biodiversity.

Vault Girl:

I live in the UK too and our gun crime is limited, but even non-lethal preventative measures such as stun guns, mace and pepper spray are severely mishandled in the US. The amount of times there have been reports of death by these measures or abuse of them, both by police and the public are quite shocking.

Yes it is in the constitution that you have the right to own weaponry, but you can easily apply for a gun permit within the UK. The difference being that our government doesn't allow for semi-automatic machine guns because they are completely unnecessary. What do you use them for? Hunting? who the hell needs to kill a Deer with a machine gun?

But I will admit that although our gun crime is limited, Knife crime is an easy substitute, but even if you measure our yearly country wide rate in knife crime, it is still lower per population size against any state in the US.

That's very worrying

SO called "non-lethal" weapons exist in a legal paradox, as most cases under the law it is either "lethal force is proportional" or "Lethal force is not proportional".

Electro shock and chemical irritant weapons are in an uneasy middle ground between manhandling someone to get into cuffs and thrown into a cage (which is generally not lethal) and shooting them with a firearm (which is very lethal). Electro-shock and pepper spray are extremely painful and transgressive, arguably more painful than being shot, and can induce death from the pain alone as well as how they directly disturb the body's function. It turns out the tazer can effect the heart, some are extremely susceptible, others not. Pepper spray can cause the throat to swell up and suffocate.

These weapons as illegal as firearms in the UK (Pepper SPRAY is implausibly defined as a firearm) yet they have been used by UK police almost ubiquitously. Tazers are increasingly used and because of their ambiguous relation to force required are used for merely uncooperative people rather than violent ones.

The US constitution protects firearms ownership not for a reason as trite as hunting, but to empower the individual in personal defence and semi-automatic weapons are eminently suited to that. You've played a shooter video game, ever tried using a bolt action sniper rifle at close range? I'll tell you it is in fact EASIER to aim a virtual gun in a game with a mouse or thumbstick (with aim assist) than and actual gun. At the very least you need a semi-automatic weapons before some hardened street thug bum rushes you and uses greater strength and brutality to fillet your spine.

Semi-automatic weapons do have hunting purposes though, as with the many Hogzillas roaming around the US, a semi-auto hunting rifle is eminently suitable.

I think the UK can thank it's lower crime rate not to guns but to social engineering such as education especially in countering recidivism and community engagement. Too many american cops take a war-like attitude and don't have such strong links with the community. In part of America where the police are deeply embedded in the community, crime rates are very low.

Guns are needed in this modern society for several main reasons.

First off, basic self defense and confidence booster:
You never know when you may a firearm when somedude is in like your face n shit being mischievous, this confidence booster will make you a hit with the ladies. So, buy a gun and get laid.

Secondly, gun's help stimulate local economy, it helps gun shops, manufacturing plants, firing ranges and meat outlets.

Thirdly. Have you ever bullied at school? If so...BUY A GUN!

Fourth and foremost. You are fucking retarded if you don't see a apocalypse coming, so harden the fuck up. get over your 'humanity bullshit' Buy guns, ammo and prepare. Shits hitting the fan soon.

FalloutJack:

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.

See, its weird because in the USA the police are all seen as incompetent but here we do have an armed response team for each area and they are always out and about and they are actually trained amazingly well because our politicians are so scared of guns.

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.

"All members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have authority to carry a personal issue handgun as a matter of routine" - from wikipedia

You guys get treated differently because the government knows what your country is capable of. Also i'm pretty sure the English government is a little scared of your populace :P

Edit: Whoops, I didn't realise this thread was so long, nevermind if its been answered.

I am personally not against people owning guns; BUT I am strongly against the idea that EVERYONE should own a gun, that is madness. I can't believe people try to argue this claim when shootings happen with the usual: "well if the other people were armed this wouldn't have happened" That makes no sense!

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 think the thing is, if a criminal has a gun, and a civilian doesn't the criminal will not need to use the gun (Unless they are compeltely mental) Whereas if they are confronted by another amred person they are more likley to use it.

Oh god How have I let myself post in a gun control thread

I'm not really against firearms.

I just don't see why civilians would need to carry pistols (SIG P210, Glock 17, Colt 1911 whatever), nor do I think arming the populace with Assault Rifles is a good idea (Assault Rifles as in any rifle which fires an intermediate round like the 5.56x45mm or the 7.62x39mm, has a detachable magazine and is capable (sometimes if modified) of automatic fire).

Hazy992:

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

yeah well the UK has about 63,162,000 while the US has exactly 314,007,487 so yeah if taken as an average of both nations we have less then the UK.

DaKiller:
I am personally not against people owning guns; BUT I am strongly against the idea that EVERYONE should own a gun, that is madness. I can't believe people try to argue this claim when shootings happen with the usual: "well if the other people were armed this wouldn't have happened" That makes no sense!

I think that argument is more that if just one of a group was armed then they might have been able to wound or at least distract and delay the assailant on his rampage. Not that EVERYONE has to be armed.

It's like how you can't have one in ten of the general population as police officers, but you can have one in ten be armed and under instruction of the law to only use their weapon in the most dire circumstances such as to prevent murder or similarly serious crimes against an individual.

Also for when killers are targeting lone civilians they'd be much more reluctant as there'd be a good chance that their intended victim could fight back effectively.

ecoho:

Hazy992:

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

yeah well the UK has about 63,162,000 while the US has exactly 314,007,487 so yeah if taken as an average of both nations we have less then the UK.

Eh? The murder rate is adjusted to be comparative. It's per 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is nigh on 5 times that of the UK because it is much harder to kill people. Because we don't have access to legal guns. Or ammo.

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. :-)

Just correcting your post, I also live in the UK (England to be precise) and firearms are legal so long as you have a firearms license. I go clay pigeon shooting and live bird shooting as a sport when I can and I take great pleasure in it. Shooting is a social sport and through it I have met a lot of interesting and often very peaceful people. Of course a gun is required and some knowledge of firearms (not only brands and use but safety and etiquette) and one of the kindest people I know owns a gunshop. If firearms licenses where void in the UK I would be very sad to have a harmless and enjoyable sport taken away from me.

Personally, I'm fine with gun ownership. For sport, or for protection. But I think that there are certain weapons that are unreasonable for civilians to own. I think that there should be strict qualifications for purchasing and owning a gun.

Criminals are going to get their hands on weapons, no matter what. Just like hard drugs will always be accessible, no matter what drug laws come into effect. But I want it to be damn hard for them to get a gun. If they want a gun made for the purpose of killing a high amount of people efficiently, they should have to go through a seedy, shady-ass black market to do it.

Obviously, there'll be some sick fuck who follows all the rules and slips through the system and stockpiles enough legally-owned guns to go on a random killing spree. But I want them to have to really work to get to that point. I don't want to make their life any easier. Every inconvenience gives them another moment of pause, to wonder if they really want to go through all this trouble. Potentially, that in itself could deter just one or two people.

As a socialist swede, I hated the whole gun legality of the U.S. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. The problem is that it has to be an all or nothing law.

If you let people own guns, but don't let them carry their weapons in public (restaurants, cinemas, supermarket), then the psychopaths, thugs and outlaws that don't care about the laws will be able to easily get a gun and use it to do whatever the fuck he want.

He could go around executing people one by one. No one in the restaurant has a weapon but him.

If no one has any guns, then criminals will have a harder time to get weapons, but once they get some, no one could stop them.

So in my opinion, it weapons either has to be banned completely, or allowed everywhere.

Res Plus:

Eh? The murder rate is adjusted to be comparative. It's per 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is nigh on 5 times that of the UK because it is much harder to kill people. Because we don't have access to legal guns. Or ammo.

Oddly enough, your murder rate was largely unaffected by the increasingly restrictive gun laws your country has enacted. Much like Australia. Hell, during that buildup from the 60s to the late 90s, your murder rate was constantly going up, even as gun ownership became more difficult.

Fact of the matter is that while rampage killings may drop slightly with greater gun control, overall murder rates remain functionally unchanged. People that want to kill, will kill, by whatever means necessary.

There's a certain irony to me in UK politicians reporting that the murder rate is down to a 30 year low in the UK... when 30 years ago gun laws were vastly more permissive than they are currently.

Res Plus:

ecoho:

Hazy992:
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

yeah well the UK has about 63,162,000 while the US has exactly 314,007,487 so yeah if taken as an average of both nations we have less then the UK.

Eh? The murder rate is adjusted to be comparative. It's per 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is nigh on 5 times that of the UK because it is much harder to kill people. Because we don't have access to legal guns. Or ammo.

.....yeah which is why it isnt right. you see the US has three times as many people so that scale does not work as the scale can only work till 63,162,000 then it falls off as one can not compare both populations acordingly. Now if they took the average of both murder rates you would find the US has about the same average ammount as the UK if not less.

Renegade Shepard:

Nikolaz72:

Renegade Shepard:
I'd prefer it if it was harder to get a gun.

Then everyone and their mother wouldn't become a mercenary that thinks that they can take on people like me, a trained, card carrying galaxy saver.

Im starting to see why all the human mercs in the galaxy speak with American accents.

Everyone in the galaxy has American accents, now that I think about it. Other then like...James and Traynor, and a few other guys.

Both Shepard's, the Vorcha and the Biotic God are all Canadian...going by their voice actors (Mark Meer and Jennifer Hale).

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, I'll try to ignore this question's blatantly loaded tone, since it's clear you've already decided we're wrong and you're not actually interested in hearing our side of things. However, someone with a more open mind might actually read this.

First of all, as one person already said, gun crime isn't the only sort of crime out there; a lack of the ability to defend oneself against violent attack, especially if outnumbered, can lead to a lot of non-gun-related crimes. If someone really wants to kill another one, they're gonna use whatever method is available to them. I don't like this argument, I admit, because it's similar to the "they're gonna do it anyway" one used for handing out condoms to high school kids. However, the difference here is that we're talking about taking away a personal freedom as the alternative, and to me that makes a significant difference.

This leads me to my second issue with gun control. Gun control is the notion of taking away a personal freedom based solely on the argument that something -might- happen if a given individual legally owned a gun, because statistics show it's happened a bunch of times involving other people. On that same argument, one can say that cars shouldn't be allowed to be owned by private citizens because accidents cripple and kill millions so only government transportation should be allowed (and if what I've seen on some tv shows about world's worst car accidents is true, no offense, but I think the UK must have the worst drivers in history), household chemicals should only be allowed to be used by licensed cleaning agencies, landscaping companies, etc. 'cause someone might poison themselves accidentally or deliberately, and all drugs, even currently over-the-counter ones should be prescription only and all of them should be dispensed only by government-licensed medical facilities, 'cause somebody could conceivably overdose.

My third point is a bit more difficult to relate to the UK, since I don't know what UK laws about gun ownership were before the current ones were adopted. I can say this much, however. In the United States, purchasing a firearm requires a background check or a concealed carry license, and those licenses can only be obtained with a background check. If you were convicted of a felony, have a restraining order against you involving domestic violence, have been certified by a mental institution as being mentally unstable, you can't get a concealed carry license and you can't buy a gun. Ergo, there are numerous laws already in place to prevent guns from being legally sold to criminals. This means guns used by criminals are, by and large, ones bought from illegal sources. Because of this, banning legal gun ownership's only effect is going to be taking them away from people who abide by the law anyway. If the intent of the ban is to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals or the people most likely to use them for criminal intent, then it's an empty gesture that does nothing but put on a show to placate the public while having no significant impact.

ecoho:

Res Plus:

ecoho:

yeah well the UK has about 63,162,000 while the US has exactly 314,007,487 so yeah if taken as an average of both nations we have less then the UK.

Eh? The murder rate is adjusted to be comparative. It's per 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is nigh on 5 times that of the UK because it is much harder to kill people. Because we don't have access to legal guns. Or ammo.

.....yeah which is why it isnt right. you see the US has three times as many people so that scale does not work as the scale can only work till 63,162,000 then it falls off as one can not compare both populations acordingly. Now if they took the average of both murder rates you would find the US has about the same average ammount as the UK if not less.

What are you talking about? If the UK would consist of 100 000 people, there would be 1,23 murders. If the US consisted of 100 000 people, there would be 4,8 murders. Basic math.

Simply because while outlawing guns would take away firearms from law abiding citizens, criminals with the intent to use them will still have and find them. The argument is that taking away guns would put those law abiding citizens at a huge disadvantage when defending from criminals if necessary. If there wasn't already a huge circulation of guns then it would be a no brainer.

And no matter how redneck or foolish it may sound to people in other countries, the right for civilians to own weapons is a big deal in America. The original idea was if the government became tyrannical, the people had the ability to fight back and overthrow those in power if necessary. Not so much an issue nowadays, however that's the reason the right to bear arms was so important.

If guns are easy to get everyone can have a gun.
If it is hard to get a gun those who want one will get one.
If had a gun and wanted to rob someone or break into a house which scenario would you prefer to be in?

I think we are forgetting something with the whole "if someone else in the theatre had a gun everything would have turned out alright" logic. When the nutcase started firing, the natural reaction of everyone would have been to get down or run away. I doubt that your average legal pistol-owning person in the US would have the guts to get up and start firing back at the attacker. That is movie action-hero stuff, and is very unlikely to happen in real life. Just ask someone who has been in firefights in Afghanistan,Iraq, or any war what it's like to be shot at. And those are people who are trained to do that job. I doubt that Joe Bloggs who works at Starbucks but legally carries a pistol would fare very well. Even if he was brave enough to shoot, if I were a nutcase with a rifle covered in riot gear, and someone popped a shot at me with a pistol I would make sure to drown that area in bullets and neutralise the threat.

Little know fact... Mexico has gun control laws. Look how easy it is to get a gun in Mexico. To say "Gun control will fix all of the U.S's crime problems" is naive. It's easy to control firearms in the UK because it is significantly smaller then the U.S... and an Island... Gun control would never work in the U.S. because of it's size and geographical location. And, tbh, I prefer to ensure the safety of me and my loved ones with the shotgun I keep locked up in the attic.

Legitimate argument for guns made by the constitution: They protect you from your own government.

Ironically this may be what some of the massacre perpetrators feel they are using them for.

In any case, you get 2 options.
1. Allow guns because America's free and all that, we do whatever we want. Allow guns, allow prostitution, allow child murder, and stop whinging every time something like this happens. Y'all allowed it.

2. Ban guns. Given time this will result in a similar scenario to other nations who have no guns like Japan. Massacres will consist of some dude wielding a kitchen knife. Even organized crime will have minute numbers of firearms. People buy guns in back alleys or steal them from their neighbor in America because they're all over. If we didn't manufacture them, they wouldn't be as easy to get.

I don't care either way; I'm not a gun guy, I'm a cynic.

Raesvelg:

Res Plus:

Eh? The murder rate is adjusted to be comparative. It's per 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is nigh on 5 times that of the UK because it is much harder to kill people. Because we don't have access to legal guns. Or ammo.

Oddly enough, your murder rate was largely unaffected by the increasingly restrictive gun laws your country has enacted. Much like Australia. Hell, during that buildup from the 60s to the late 90s, your murder rate was constantly going up, even as gun ownership became more difficult.

Fact of the matter is that while rampage killings may drop slightly with greater gun control, overall murder rates remain functionally unchanged. People that want to kill, will kill, by whatever means necessary.

There's a certain irony to me in UK politicians reporting that the murder rate is down to a 30 year low in the UK... when 30 years ago gun laws were vastly more permissive than they are currently.

Well, that's an interesting angle, will have a look at the stats.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked