Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . . . 23 NEXT
 

Daystar Clarion:

Amaror:

Daystar Clarion:
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.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?
In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

snip

Of course is the UK an island, i just don't think that it has very much to do with the fact that guns are illegal in the uk. Sure it's easier for them to regulate what comes into the country, but in most of Europe (maybe even all of it) guns are illegal too (That was my point) and Europe is no island for sure (That was what i meant by saying, you can't call that an island)

Amaror:

Daystar Clarion:

Amaror:

What has being an island nation has to do with it?
In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

snip

Of course is the UK an island, i just don't think that it has very much to do with the fact that guns are illegal in the uk. Sure it's easier for them to regulate what comes into the country, but in most of Europe (maybe even all of it) guns are illegal too (That was my point) and Europe is no island for sure (That was what i meant by saying, you can't call that an island)

I wasn't so much talking about why guns are illegal in the UK, but why it's easier to regulate them there.

Granted, mainland Europe does a decent job too, but again, being surrounded by a body of water does wonders for regulation :D

TheNamlessGuy:

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.

How would a male deer corrupt your daughters character?

Raesvelg:

FireDr@gon:
Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the pigs, or any other bloody animal, have to take another one for team human.

The fact of the matter remains that when a species, no matter how "cute" it might be, has no natural predators and an ample food supply, it will breed itself into starvation.

We're the apex predator of the planet. It's our freakin' job, in the oh-so-delicate circle of life, to shoot and eat the damn pigs. And the deer. And the cows. And the chickens. And pretty much all of the animals.

Because I have no interest in reintroducing wolves and mountain lions and coming home one day to find my children have been eaten.

Again, relatively minor point here, but wild pigs aren't really edible, unless you enjoy dying of parasites and disease.

MorganL4:

spartan231490:

MorganL4:

I just wanted to point out that I did not in fact make any argument one way or the other, I simply felt that it would help the debate if some reference-able facts were available, and you proceeded to get offended by the facts and started swearing at me.

Also, if I cannot compare a country to another country, what can I compare a country to? A tree?

I didn't get offended by the facts, I was not offended at all. I curse a lot, I wasn't cursing at you, "doesn't accomplish shit" is just the phrase I use when something doesn't accomplish shit.

I misspoke myself, you can compare one country to another all you want, but the results won't be significant because you have no way of controlling for other variables such as population density, cultural background, and economic stability, just to name a few. If you want to draw any meaningful conclusions about gun control, you need to look at how the implementation of gun control has effected the area that implemented it, or examine a very large number of nations in a statistical analysis. Every single one of my sources did one of these things. Also, why did you cut out the greater part of my post? It had some of the most relevant information, including links that would have told you all this.

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

Those similarities are superficial when compared to our cultural differences, otherwise, your violent crime rate wouldn't be so much higher than ours. You have a monarchy, even if it's mostly or entirely for show, it still impacts your culture, as does being a part of Europe. I imagine being on the receiving end of so much bombing in WW2 impacted your culture too. You can't just compare two countries and draw meaningful results. It is exactly like the thing news stations do saying how since one guy who went psycho played video games it obviously means playing video games makes you psycho. It's not even enough data to establish correlation, let alone causation.

And that's fair, I was just curious why you went through the effort of cutting out a large chunk of my post, but that makes 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.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Dan Steele:

spartan231490:

TheKaduflyerSystem:
As someone living in the UK, I personally think that our police should be armed more, if not every officer that at least one firearm per car, this is partially due to my "Do crime-Be Punished" stance, and I would much prefer to see more criminals dead than rotting in a jail cell; but per person? Hmmm... well, if the logic behind owning a gun is to protect the owner from burglars, the burglar is also armed, if no-one could by guns, some people may be less confident in burglary, and therefore not attempt it, it would at least prevent more people being injured during burglaries, bad enough that your stuff gets stolen, but you have to go to hospital? And don't you have to pay significant sums of money for healthcare in america? No guns for civilians could solve a few problems...

Please do correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.

Additional: I do go slightly off tangent, but less guns would mean less bullet wounds.

Increased gun control doesn't reduce the number of guns that criminals have, especially in a nation with such massive unsecured borders as the US. In fact, increased gun control doesn't reduce the rates of murder, violent crime, or overall crime in any way.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

so in short, less(Fewer) guns doesn't mean less(fewer) bullet wounds.

Alleged Despair:
Even if handguns are outlawed that still will not stop some people from acquiring them. However I think it will drastically reduce the number of people who do. I have not read this entire forum so I don't know if anyone has already brought this up yet but another issue with the average joe owning handguns is someone unintentionally shooting another person. It does not happen that often but I have seen it both on the news and know someone who someone who has that happened to them. For all you gun supporters out there I have a request. I'd like to see a story of something good that actually happened because of a civilian owning a gun. Or at the very least maybe sometime that could have been less tragic that was avoided because of a civilian owning a handgun. I for have never heard of such a thing.

how about the time when a vice principle stopped a school shooting, saving dozens of lives, because he had a gun?
What about the estimated 1.5 million Americans who use guns in self-defense every single year, about 500 thousand of which firmly believed that someone would have died if they didn't have that gun? What about the fact that police shoot innocent people 11% of the time whilst gun owners defending themselves do so only 2% of the time?
What about the time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, only to have some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant?
How about the time a group of gang members attacked a church with AKs and grenades and were scared off when an armed citizen within the church returned fire?
I could go on all day. The fact is that absolutely zero scientific evidence exists to support the assumption that more gun control reduces crime, and there is scientific evidence(though not conclusive) that suggests that more handguns actually means less crime.
http://www.beyourself.com/howtostp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_Massacre
You don't hear about it because it doesn't make good news, not because it doesn't happen.

Glass Joe the Champ:
I personally never saw the point in owning a gun, but it's such an integral part of our society and economy in America that attempting to get rid of them would be futile, even if the second amendment was overturned (which it won't be).

So in my opinion, people can keep their guns, but under these conditions:

1. No sale of weapons beyond hunting equipment or self defense pistols. I'll let gun experts decide what's what, but I know that no one will ever need a semi-auto assault rifle with 100 ammo capacity to defend themselves.

2. Concealing your gun should be illegal. If you really only want a gun in case shit hits the fan, you should have no problem leaving your gun out in the open.

3. Businesses should be allowed to keep gun holders off their property. I find it completely batshit insane that some politicians think businesses should be able to refuse service on grounds of race or sexual orientation, yet gun carriers can go wherever they please. Unlike the latter case, store owners actually have a reason to not allow gun owners. (i.e. keeping themselves and their customers safe) And not to point fingers or play what-if, but maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

Like many people have said, the US is a whole other beast from the UK in terms of gun culture, and an outright ban would never work, but I think the things above aren't unreasonable even to gun enthusiasts. If you disagree, let me know.

1) Because most times when you're attacked your attackers outnumber you and are drunk or high which makes them harder to stop, assault weapons with large clip capacities are the best defense weapons out there.

2) Most states that allow handguns to be carried require them to be concealed, this isn't a personal choice. I never understood it either, but I think it has something to do with police thinking the public would be scared by people openly carrying a pistol.

3) Horrible idea. Criminals won't respect that law, only the law abiding citizens who might stop them. It has been shown time and time again by the locations these psychos shoot up that gun-free zones actually put the people in them in more danger. One time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant? This law has since been changed largely due to the fact that one of the people there, one who had left a handgun in her car, lost both of her parents and then ran for the state assembly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

Xyliss:

Really? So America has very little crime other than gun crime? Also surely being mugged of 20 (though not very nice) is much better than getting shot...or is that just me?

Yeah, but the rape and dying by stab wounds aren't so kind. Hyperbole aside, there is no scientific evidence to support that gun control reduces crime, violent crime, or murder rates, and several studies have been done.

Dan Steele:
I am pro gun to an extent. Only pistols (Self defense) and rifles (for hunting) should be legal. No machine pistols or assault rifles. I do view this topic as a great way to show one of my favorite quotes though:

"I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."

Hyperbole, why was I expecting more. You do realize that machine pistols and assault rifles are already banned in the US because they are fully automatic yes? For self defense, semi-automatic and high capacity magazine is the only way to go. Firstly, you might be outnumbered badly in a self-defense situation. Second, expecting anyone to hit on the first shot when they're scared out of their minds is naive. Third, it takes multiple hits to stop an attacker, especially when using a handgun. People who are drunk or high have been shot as many as 32 times and still kept shooting back, expecting people to be able to defend themselves with a single action revolver is idiotic.

The Mac 10 is the perfect weapons for a drive by because of its 600 RPM bullet spray. What I mean by machine pistols is any handheld gun that can fire like a machine gun. I would be fine with guns like a 9mm or a glock, but anything rapid fire should be limited to the police or the military. Civilians have no need for a weapon like a Mac 10 or uzi.

They already are illegal for civilians, or the next best thing. Full automatics were restricted by the federal gun control act of 1934 and then virtually banned by the gun control act of 1968. You can still get them if you get the extremely difficult to obtain class 3 licence and pay $500 tax per item, but most states ban class 3 items anyway, so they are virtually illegal. Also, you can't own one that was manufactured after 1987, so very very few of them are being bought anymore, even by those who can. Also, since 1934 when these laws went into effect, only 2 homicides have been committed with legally owned machine guns, one of which was committed by a cop, not a civilian. You hear a lot about "assault weapons" being thrown around by news stations and politicians, but they are talking about semi-automatic weapons.

Trippy Turtle:

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.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

Trull:
I dislike guns because they give an unfair advantage.

I say we "illegalise" guns throughout the planet, and use the metal and resources to make other weapons, like swords and bows and arrows.

At least not every hit will be a deadly one, you can train how to dodge a sword (unless it's a real fast swordsman w/rapier), however bullets are a wee bit faster than that.

Firearms have often been called "the great equalizer". I guess it's a little different considered from the perspective of a twelfth century chevalier lol. Just so you know, gunshots don't work like in the movies. Victims don't necessarily become ineffectual right away, and most survive if they receive medical attention. Getting shot might not even break your stride- you know, if you're a badass lol.

Krantos:

yeti585:
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.

OK, I'm ambivalent about gun control. I was mostly just reading this thread out of boredom, but I have to comment here.

Please, please, PLEASE, stop using this argument to support the second amendment. That rationale ceased to carry any weight about 100 years ago. Back when that amendment was written it was entirely possible for any civilian to have weapons equal to what the military had (barring cannons). It meant that an armed populace could potentially stand up to military force. Not likely but possible.

Today's military has the civilian sector so out gunned it's not even worth commenting on. That 30-06 in your gun case isn't going to do a damn thing if they drop a cruise missile in your living room, and it certainly isn't going to penetrate any armored vehicles should they decide to waltz down your street.

There are plenty of arguably good reasons to support the right to bear arms, so please stop using the one that ceased to be true a century ago.

If rifles are obsolete, why do soldiers and marines carry them? It never ceased to be true and it will never cease to be true for the foreseeable future. By your rationale, there can be no sustained opposition to the United States military for any length of time and certainly no one could achieve political or military goals. Obviously neither of those things are true. There is more to military strategy than measuring the length of your gun barrels, and there is certainly more to civil insurrection. If the Second Amendment is out of date, it's because peaceful resistance is such a powerful tool in the West. But it's not because rifles are obsolete, because they aren't. Ask the Taliban if you don't believe me.

Besides, he didn't make an argument supporting the second amendment. He only described it's origins.

Devoneaux:

Raesvelg:

FireDr@gon:
Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the pigs, or any other bloody animal, have to take another one for team human.

The fact of the matter remains that when a species, no matter how "cute" it might be, has no natural predators and an ample food supply, it will breed itself into starvation.

We're the apex predator of the planet. It's our freakin' job, in the oh-so-delicate circle of life, to shoot and eat the damn pigs. And the deer. And the cows. And the chickens. And pretty much all of the animals.

Because I have no interest in reintroducing wolves and mountain lions and coming home one day to find my children have been eaten.

Again, relatively minor point here, but wild pigs aren't really edible, unless you enjoy dying of parasites and disease.

People cook meat. Quite a few people eat wild pig every year, they do just fine because they cook it first. In fact, you're probably safer eating a raw piece of wild boar than a raw piece of store bought chicken, since the tight quarters and feeding methods mean that disease in just one animal rapidly spreads to virtually all of them.

Devoneaux:

senordesol:

FireDr@gon:
Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the piggies have to take another one for team human.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective. Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? dont just kill them, there will always be more - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

Hehe. Okaaaay.

Yes, when there's an intruder in my home I'm going to try and go all Dr. Phil on my assailant. Good plan. /Sarcasm

Look, if it makes you feel better: the Earth will recover no matter what we do. Species come and species go, again birth rates in more developed countries are more or less stabilizing, and -hey- I'm not against vertical farming. But until we reach a point where that equalizes, we need our resources. So that means "So Long, Piggies, Thanks For Being So Delicious!"

Actually wild pigs are virtually inedible due to being infested with a variety of diseases and parasites.

A quick google search will show you that people eat wild boar all the time.

spartan231490:

Trippy Turtle:
Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

You can already walk down the street and buy all sorts of illegal things, including illegal firearms.

I would add to that police are notoriously careless and dangerous with firearms even compared to the average gun owner. An accidental shooting at a civilian range is almost a freak occurrence, like getting attacked by a shark. At the Sheriff Department ranges where I live it's a bi-yearly event. I've also heard of several accidental shootings at civilian ranges over the years, but I've literally never heard of one that wasn't perpetrated by an off-duty officer or deputy. I admit all this is anecdotal and specific to my region, but you won't catch me standing next to a cop at the range if I can help it.

Recently, an off-duty cop at a range dropped his pistol because it wasn't secured in his shoulder holster properly. So the idiot tried to catch it as it fell. Shot himself to death, of course. Just let it fall Hollywood, it's not going to fucking go off.

Lots of people outside of the UK don't know what a gun sounds like. Its not like they just go around shooting every animal everywhere like its the wild west man. Although I think that automatic weapons should be banned. You cant rationalize why those should be legal, or why they are necessary.

RaginDoomFire:
i actully dilike guns but it is inrooted in my system [from family] to dislike the idea of oulawing guns. SO the only reason i can think for them is: Its America ,in a red neck voice [not to be ofensive im american and several people in my family are rednecks]

This highly reminds me of "I'm not racist but black people need to go burn in hell. But its OK that I'm saying this because I have a black friend."

Rafael Dera:
Simple solution: legalise guns. Have bullets cost 10000$ each.
No harm having people walk around wielding what are in essense metal clubs.

Government gets the taxes, obviously :-)

Because, you know, criminals TOTALLY buy THEIR guns legit.

Three people have suggested [I'm still counting] and it doesn't stop being idiotic. So what would happen, if say, the criminal just bought a 9mm mag with ammo through say E-Bay for less then 10,000$?

RyuujinZERO:
How come I'm not seeing anyone bring up the point of availability.

Take for example a husband comes home, finds his best friend in bed with his wife... OH SHI- he's seeing red. In a country where firearms are not a typical household item, the offending gentleman is likely to get a punch in the face, maybe whalloped with a loose object; and it could well kill him. But... probably not.

In a country where a gun is close to hand, it's THAT much more likely in his moment of rage he's going to grab the gun out his bedside cabinet.

This is the sort've crime where the main difference occurs. When people are of diminished responsibility due to alcohol, drugs, or just plain old rage, having a lethal weapon close to hand makes it that much more likely it'll be used, as opposed to resorting to more primitive (And survivable) tactics like clobbering them with your bare fists.

How would the man in his rage not simply use the stone statue on the top of the computer desk and use it to break the mans skull in two, or what if the man strangles the other man to death, or what if the man bought his gun illegally, or what if he had a sword and sliced the man in two, or what if the man threw the man out a window, or what if the man took and threw him off the balcony, or what if the man smashed his face into the bathroom toliet, or what if he took the man and stabbed him with a kitchen knife after making himself a sandwich and coming up to bed, or what if the man is a heavy drinker and broke a bottle over the other mans head and any combination of the above?

How exactly would removing the gun from the scenario let that other man live? Banning guns does not mean guns won't EXIST. They still will, illegally of course, but they will still be there.

Aprilgold:

Rafael Dera:
Simple solution: legalise guns. Have bullets cost 10000$ each.
No harm having people walk around wielding what are in essense metal clubs.

Government gets the taxes, obviously :-)

Because, you know, criminals TOTALLY buy THEIR guns legit.

Three people have suggested [I'm still counting] and it doesn't stop being idiotic. So what would happen, if say, the criminal just bought a 9mm mag with ammo through say E-Bay for less then 10,000$?

It's a joke from a Chris Rock skit. Don't bother yourself over it.

What's alarming is that in the shooter's state, gun sales have balooned. Either people want to buy guns before potential gun control appears, or they think they're Charles Bronson, and plan to protect theatres from crazed gunmen. That latter one gets on my goat especially.

Do they honestly think another guy is going to attack a theatre? Now that every patron brings a gun in? Won't they do what they always do, and attack somewhere where people wouldn't have thought to carry guns? Like a swimming pool? Even if a gunman did attack another cinema, what are the odds that someone in the audience is going to pick them off in the dark, amoung a panicking crowd? Jesus people. Think about it for a minute.

spartan231490:

Trippy Turtle:

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.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

I've not really got much of an opinion either way in this argument, the US has got to a point where banning guns is not much of an option anyway due to how making them illegal would mean that no-one has guns except the police and the SHIT TON which would then be owned by criminal types. Not an ideal scenario.

Found it mildly humerous how the OP had never heard gunfire before whilst I hear assault rifle / LMG fire at least once a week, also being from the UK. Yay for military firing ranges.

Aprilgold:
Question to people who are anti-guns: What do you think happens when a criminal who wanted to shoot someone in the face does if he doesn't get a firearm?

I'll answer it, they either start doing things like creating highly-complex chemical bombs or they pick up a rock and smash the dudes head in with it. Take their rock away and they'll use a branch. Take their branch away and they'll use the fists. You could go down a endless list of ridiculous bans and you would still have crime.

WHEN THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY!

The pro to letting your citizens carry fire-arms is that they can stop people who are mugging / raping / trying to kill them without having to wait five or ten minutes for the cops if they get a phone in that time.

Also, banning guns doesn't mean that people won't get them or make them, look at the prohibition.

But in those cases it's easier to get a tip off that something is up. Massacres like this take planning, when you start bringing en-masse chemicals it's more likely to attract police attention especially in the age of Terror scares.

Just because it can't take away a problem completely does not mean that there should be no steps taken to reduce it. Otherwise you might as well have everyone the right to smoke pot.

Trippy Turtle:

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

senordesol:

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

t3hmaniac:

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

EDIT: Actually, the best case scenario is: NO ONE GETS HURT. It occurs to me that of the several thousand DGUs in the US per year, only a couple hundred end with shots fired.

I attribute this to assailants realizing that their victims are fielding weaponry that can't be defeated by a heavy jacket or a ski mask.

senordesol:

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

But in my best case scenario: No-one's dead. That's my point.

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

t3hmaniac:

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

But in my best case scenario: No-one's dead. That's my point.

It appears I edited that post too late. However, your best case relies on my assailant making the decision not to kill me. Frankly, I do not trust him to make that decision, not without help.

See, with tazers, you stop your assailant MAYBE -if he's not on drugs, if he's not wearing a heavy jacket, or if both prongs hit and attach. With pepper spray you can stop him MAYBE - if he is close enough, if he has no face protection.

With bullets, there's still a maybe -sure- but a lot of the uncertainty is lost when the only things that would really help him is tactical armor...which only protects sections of himself in any case.

Glass Joe the Champ:
maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

The movie theater did have a no guns policy. All Cinemark theaters have a no guns policy. The only thing a no guns policy accomplishes is making sure that all the law abiding citizens in the theater were completely and totally unable to defend themselves against that attack.

You see a good amount of these mass shooting in the US happen in places where guns aren't allowed. You think that's just a happy coincidence? It's not. It's far easier to go kill a bunch of people if you don't have to worry about anyone firing back.

Devoneaux:

Again, relatively minor point here, but wild pigs aren't really edible, unless you enjoy dying of parasites and disease.

That's why you cook them. o_O;

Wild pigs are entirely edible, just don't eat them rare. Which should pretty much be par for the course with any wild game. Or domestic livestock, for that matter.

J Tyran:

The data doesn't speak for itself at all, homicide is not murder under UK law. With no way of telling which of those unlawful deaths in the graph where actually murder its irrelevant as a source about murder rates.

I am not even saying you are wrong either, all I am saying is you cannot draw a conclusion from inaccurate data and present it as a fact.

The data, not the graphs. Read the report. The data is available there, if you're not overwhelmingly lazy.

America can not get rid of games. It would be in possible, like stopping people drinking alcohal, and we saw how that went. lol. My question would be, ok you say you want guns for protection. Fine. But do you really need a machine gun or whatever as protection? Cant we limit personal gun ownership to pistols.....and anything else is locked in a police station or a shooting clubs vault. Would this be better for everyone?

I do think this issue is huge and it maybe to late to fix it anyway. Criminals will always be able to get guns, thats a fact even in the UK. But if we are able to stop those people that go a bit mental and kill, like the guy in the cinema or those in schools, wouldn't that be worth it? They werent harden criminals until they killed people. Limit there access to guns. Make it so the pissed off students can't grab a machine gun from his dads gun cabinet because his dad can only have a pistol. An also change the law. Make the owner of the gun accountable for murder if he didnt put the gun in a secure place.

SonOfVoorhees:
America can not get rid of games. It would be in possible, like stopping people drinking alcohal, and we saw how that went. lol. My question would be, ok you say you want guns for protection. Fine. But do you really need a machine gun or whatever as protection? Cant we limit personal gun ownership to pistols.....and anything else is locked in a police station or a shooting clubs vault. Would this be better for everyone?

I do think this issue is huge and it maybe to late to fix it anyway. Criminals will always be able to get guns, thats a fact even in the UK. But if we are able to stop those people that go a bit mental and kill, like the guy in the cinema or those in schools, wouldn't that be worth it? They werent harden criminals until they killed people. Limit there access to guns. Make it so the pissed off students can't grab a machine gun from his dads gun cabinet because his dad can only have a pistol. An also change the law. Make the owner of the gun accountable for murder if he didnt put the gun in a secure place.

Who do you think has machine guns? Those are next to impossible to get. Licensing, paperwork, FBI scrutiny, fees, Jesus it's a freaking nightmare to get a machine gun in the US.

Oh, and for point of reference: the Aurora shooter DID NOT use machine guns, he used AR-15s, SEMI-automatic rifles (Read: NOT machine guns).

Also, there are already laws for negligence if your children take your guns and use them in any unsupervised capacity.

SonOfVoorhees:
Make the owner of the gun accountable for murder if he didnt put the gun in a secure place.

Sure, and then we can make the owners of cars accountable if someone steals their car and uses it to commit a crime. I mean, he didn't have it locked up in a hermetically sealed room, after all.

And then we can get people whose computers have been hijacked for botnets and hold them liable for spam. And knife manufacturers for not making knives impossible to kill with. And I think you get the idea by now.

That's a ridiculous idea, and terrifyingly enough, you're not the only one to come up with it. While one could argue negligence in, say, a parent who leaves a loaded firearm around and their child gets it and does something horrible to himself by accident, the instant intent enters the situation it gets a lot harder to draw the line as to where negligence kicks in.

It's kinda funny, how every time a story about some gun-involving massacre comes out from the US everyone's doing the whole "we need guns so that criminals are scared to shoot someone" routine. Somehow the possibility of "ANYONE in his immediate area and beyond packing" never stopped all those people.

senordesol:

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

But in my best case scenario: No-one's dead. That's my point.

It appears I edited that post too late. However, your best case relies on my assailant making the decision not to kill me. Frankly, I do not trust him to make that decision, not without help.

See, with tazers, you stop your assailant MAYBE -if he's not on drugs, if he's not wearing a heavy jacket, or if both prongs hit and attach. With pepper spray you can stop him MAYBE - if he is close enough, if he has no face protection.

With bullets, there's still a maybe -sure- but a lot of the uncertainty is lost when the only things that would really help him is tactical armor...which only protects sections of himself in any case.

There's a lot of uncertainty in either scenario. In any case, the guy could very well miss. But once you return fire in a lethal manner, one of you is going to the morgue.

Maleval:
It's kinda funny, how every time a story about some gun-involving massacre comes out from the US everyone's doing the whole "we need guns so that criminals are scared to shoot someone" routine. Somehow the possibility of "ANYONE in his immediate area and beyond packing" never stopped all those people.

Remember: Schools and theaters are 'gun free' zones. That doesn't seem to stop 'em either.

senordesol:
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.

yes, "your right to bear arms, as part of an organised militia", as the full statement is made.

Personally I don't think gun control is the answer. I shoot and I live in the UK, I have shot rifles, shotguns and pistols prior to the ban following the Hungerford tragedy. I have never once pointed a gun at a person (outside of my military service). I believe proper education and training is the key to proper and correct firearm use. Would help if you had to be a 25 or so before you could OWn your own gun though. at least by then you might have matured enough to know not to shoot people with it.

t3hmaniac:

There's a lot of uncertainty in either scenario. In any case, the guy could very well miss. But once you return fire in a lethal manner, one of you is going to the morgue.

Yes. So?

Let's break the scenario down.

A man breaks into my house. He has committed a crime. He has demonstrated he has no regard for the law or my safety or my family's safety.

I arm myself to repel the demonstrable threat. Either he has armed himself as well, which means he has no problem hurting people. Or he surrenders or runs away.

If he surrenders or runs away, the problems is solved.

If he arms himself, that means that he is an immediate threat to my life and my family's lives.

Since I like living and would much prefer my family continue living too, the question remains: what do I arm myself with? Logic dictates: the most powerful and effective weapon I can so that the margin for uncertainty is reduced when dispatching the threat. Because I do not know why he's here, I don't know if he's alone, I don't know what sort of armaments he has, I don't know what drugs he's on. So the more I can do to maximize my chances of neutralizing him quickly and effectively, the better off I'll be.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . . . 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