Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 23 NEXT
 

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.

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.

This isn't the actual number of murders as of course the US murder rate will be larger. It's the murder rate. In the US there are 4.8 murders per 100,000 people compared to 1.23 people per 100,000 for the UK. The raw population is irrelevant.

According to Wikipedia the country with the highest murder rate is Honduras with 87 per 100,000, yet the population is only around 8 million. It's not the number of murders in a country that is of interest, it's the percentage of the population that are murder victims.

*tosses two pennies* Ok, so no automatics for civilians? Rifles for hunting, pistols and shotguns for home protection? It wouldn't stop shootings but it would be harder to kill as many. Also it seems apparent to me we need a few more rolls of red tape. It sucks but this keeps coming up so maybe we need to do something. I say more thorough background checks, including plenty of character witnesses are needed. Concerned about shootings? Keep a closer eye on people you know and have contact with. Look for signs. Do they respect human life? Are they obsessed with guns, knives, explosives? Do they idolize shooters? Do they seem unhinged in any way? Best chance to catch a shooter is before they do it. Lots of them feel the need to plan. So follow your instincts.

The original reason for its inclusion in the constitution was to defend against a tyrannical gov't should an impromptu militia need to be organized. The world has changed since then. The army has bombs, automatics, aircraft, tanks, APCs, etc. Can we really defend against all that without armor piercing rounds and lots of explosives? Truth be told if the army wanted to conquer the states, it wouldn't take long. Holding it would be a different matter entirely (see Iraq). But that would only be token resistance. For the people still of the opinion that we need to be watching our gov't and army for domestic aggression considered...joining up? The best place to keep an eye on them is from the inside. Also do you think the entire army would be behind a crazy wannabe dictator? Every soldier I know would get in line to shoot him in the face. So I think the right to bear arms against the gov't is an outdated excuse. Also cops? You think they would take it lying down?

[Sorry to be one of those guys, I'm sure you're tired of this but I had to lol at my captcha: wax poetic. I feel like the website itself follows these conversations sometimes. I hope Skynet won't come of it.]

In Britain gun control is incredibly tight so criminals have a tough time getting them. They also become phenomenally expensive (that's banned guns, not shotguns/rifles) so the chances of you getting mugged by someone with one is very slim.

The richer criminals can probably get hold of them but if they're that big it's easier for the police to track them. It helps that we're a small island.

I'd trust a trained policemen more with a gun than I would myself. Do you really believe that a mainly unarmed populace is more dangerous than a mainly armed one.

If a shit police force is the problem surely the best solution would be to improve it, rather than arming the civilians. It's quite regressive for each individual member of the population to equip itself for defense. Do you grow all of your own food?

Please reply, I am not dying to know thanks to strict gun control and the NHS!

jklinders:

Renegade Shepard:

Nikolaz72:

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).

I know I'm Canadian.

Thanks for reminding me though.

mrgerry123:
In Britain gun control is incredibly tight so criminals have a tough time getting them. They also become phenomenally expensive (that's banned guns, not shotguns/rifles) so the chances of you getting mugged by someone with one is very slim.

The richer criminals can probably get hold of them but if they're that big it's easier for the police to track them. It helps that we're a small island.

I'd trust a trained policemen more with a gun than I would myself. Do you really believe that a mainly unarmed populace is more dangerous than a mainly armed one.

If a shit police force is the problem surely the best solution would be to improve it, rather than arming the civilians. It's quite regressive for each individual member of the population to equip itself for defense. Do you grow all of your own food?

Please reply, I am not dying to know thanks to strict gun control and the NHS!

The thing is: a 'better' police force is not something one can stop by the market and just pick up. We're talking tens of thousands of officers, millions of dollars of equipment and salaries (in a time where some of our cities are filing for bankruptcy), and hundreds of thousands of man hours of retraining.

Even then that will be no guarantee of effectiveness (given how far millions of Americans live from unincorporated areas), you're looking at wait times of 5 minutes (best) to half-an-hour...assuming you can get through to 911 (I've been put on hold for about 4mins before I even got to tell anyone what my emergency was).

In short: you can't put a police man on every corner, every dark alley, or every home. But if the law abiding populace is armed, you may not need to.

The argument that some have brought up in this thread, that we should be allowed guns to get rid of animals, is absolute nonsense. First of all legalising all/most firearms under the excuse of pest control would be overkill just for some pests. As if you need automatic rifles and the like to kill a few annoying animals.

Besides that there's no point glossing over the fact that guns were made to kill PEOPLE.

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.

Big game hunters and non-hunters carry revolvers with them for protection against bears and other large predators when a black powder rifle or other hunting weapon would be hard to use properly.

"A powerful rifle is superior to any handgun in killing power, of course, and is the only sensible choice for protection against large bears. However, a rifle may not be very handy inside of a tent, beside a trout stream, or for a nature lover or mountain climber on a strenuous hike. For outdoorsmen not engaged in hunting, but never the less exposed to the threat of attack by large predators, a handgun is probably the only firearm that offers the requisite portability and leaves the hands free for other activities."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm

The ONLY reason why guns are legal in the US is because there's money to be made from selling them. The same way that here in the UK, they have the double standard of labelling cigarette packets with warning messages but still want the tax off the products. If the governments really cared about people developing lung cancer or being killed in a rampage, they'd ban the products.

Sectan:

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.

Big game hunters and non-hunters carry revolvers with them for protection against bears and other large predators when a black powder rifle or other hunting weapon would be hard to use properly.

"A powerful rifle is superior to any handgun in killing power, of course, and is the only sensible choice for protection against large bears. However, a rifle may not be very handy inside of a tent, beside a trout stream, or for a nature lover or mountain climber on a strenuous hike. For outdoorsmen not engaged in hunting, but never the less exposed to the threat of attack by large predators, a handgun is probably the only firearm that offers the requisite portability and leaves the hands free for other activities."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm

Yeah... we sort of lack bears in the United Kingdom. I suppose a fox could get in your tent and steal your sausages.

Moth_Monk:
The ONLY reason why guns are legal in the US is because there's money to be made from selling them. The same way that here in the UK, they have the double standard of labelling cigarette packets with warning messages but still want the tax off the products. If the governments really cared about people developing lung cancer or being killed in a rampage, they'd ban the products.

No, that is not the 'ONLY' reason.

Another reason is that the federalists would not sign the Constitution without certain provisions made with regard to limiting the power of government. The right to bear arms was one of those provisions, a provision upheld by the highest court in the land time and again.

Unless you're suggesting (and hopefully have proof) that the Supreme Court is on the take, then: NO, that is not the only reason.

senordesol:

Moth_Monk:
The ONLY reason why guns are legal in the US is because there's money to be made from selling them. The same way that here in the UK, they have the double standard of labelling cigarette packets with warning messages but still want the tax off the products. If the governments really cared about people developing lung cancer or being killed in a rampage, they'd ban the products.

No, that is not the 'ONLY' reason.

Another reason is that the federalists would not sign the Constitution without certain provisions made with regard to limiting the power of government. The right to bear arms was one of those provisions, a provision upheld by the highest court in the land time and again.

Unless you're suggesting (and hopefully have proof) that the Supreme Court is on the take, then: NO, that is not the only reason.

Okay I can accept that. But it is the main reason, obviously.

dogstile:
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.

By my reckoning, Ireland has had two decent military leaders in it's history in the form of Hugh Dubh O'Neill, and Michael Collins. The only two men in the history of the country who seemed to have a clue what they were at.

I'd say the English government's attitude is one of wishing we would go away.

Back on topic, I just read the Batman shooter bought 4 firearms in 60 days and 6300 rounds of ammunition on the internet. That strikes me as an incredibly irresponsible and lacking system.

Moth_Monk:

senordesol:

Moth_Monk:
The ONLY reason why guns are legal in the US is because there's money to be made from selling them. The same way that here in the UK, they have the double standard of labelling cigarette packets with warning messages but still want the tax off the products. If the governments really cared about people developing lung cancer or being killed in a rampage, they'd ban the products.

No, that is not the 'ONLY' reason.

Another reason is that the federalists would not sign the Constitution without certain provisions made with regard to limiting the power of government. The right to bear arms was one of those provisions, a provision upheld by the highest court in the land time and again.

Unless you're suggesting (and hopefully have proof) that the Supreme Court is on the take, then: NO, that is not the only reason.

Okay I can accept that. But it is the main reason, obviously.

That's right, it being a civil right is the main reason.

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

This is the argument that really pisses me off. If you are a criminal in the UK, seeking a gun, you will have to access the Black Market, steal, or do some risky activity that is certainly illegal.

If you want to go on a killing spree in 'Murica, all you have to do is walk into a shop, buy a gun, and go crazy.

Sectan:
Big game hunters and non-hunters carry revolvers with them for protection against bears and other large predators when a black powder rifle or other hunting weapon would be hard to use properly.

Then apparently big game hunters are either insane, or you're making that up. Because there's no way something like a wild boar is going to get stopped by low-powered pistol rounds. If anything it makes them more angry, and climbing a tree would've been a much safer alternative.

Actually, they're hunters. They choose to risk themselves to kill animals. We don't need to legitimize guns and sacrifice thousands of lives and society as a while so their reckless choices can be made less dangerous.

Also, such attacks are exceedingly rare. Can you name us even ten people who attacked by wild animals without seeking out a confrontation first by going hunting or something? Just people who were sitting in their living room quietly one day when suddenly they were killed by wild animals.

About suicides, murder and similar situations. Most of them happen out of an unusal happening, a mood swing or anything like that, so they're spontaneuos.
So, if you've easily available weapons + ammunition around, it's more likely someone is going to something stupid because of his emotions.

Here in Switzerland we've these discussion kinda often, since we've a militia army every male citzien has his full automatic assault rifle at home. And they're getting more and more often used for crimes/suicides, so they want that every soldier in reserve has to give it back to the armory when they leave the service.

That argument has it's merits.

Chrisscogg_teh_Newbie:
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.

Better example would be Brazil that HAD strict gun laws and was geographically isolated from a country like the United States that has lax gun laws. The thing was the criminals got guns en mass and the people spoke that if the criminals and vagabonds were going to be armed regardless of the law, then they should legally be allowed gun for self-defence.

robot slipper:
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.

Why would someone carry a gun and not be prepared to use it?

Accounts I have heard from war zones are the precise opposite, scared soldiers fire far too readily and quickly burn through their ammunition.

Gunman in a shooting can easily be hit on their flanks, you have to admit they stand better chances with someone trying to take shots at the mad gunman than nothing at all. It's not like you stand a chance of reasoning with the guy, and head-on charges don't work as evidenced from police reports of prior shootings... unless you are somehow able to charge them from behind.

Moth_Monk:

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

Oh yeah, I'm threadhopping.

image

Also stealing that.

OP, you obviously haven't thought very hard about the reasons for owning a gun or even multiple guns. Please tell me, somewhere in these 13 pages, someone has educated you.

Adventurer2626:
*tosses two pennies* Ok, so no automatics for civilians? Rifles for hunting, pistols and shotguns for home protection? It wouldn't stop shootings but it would be harder to kill as many. Also it seems apparent to me we need a few more rolls of red tape. It sucks but this keeps coming up so maybe we need to do something. I say more thorough background checks, including plenty of character witnesses are needed. Concerned about shootings? Keep a closer eye on people you know and have contact with. Look for signs. Do they respect human life? Are they obsessed with guns, knives, explosives? Do they idolize shooters? Do they seem unhinged in any way? Best chance to catch a shooter is before they do it. Lots of them feel the need to plan. So follow your instincts.

The original reason for its inclusion in the constitution was to defend against a tyrannical gov't should an impromptu militia need to be organized. The world has changed since then. The army has bombs, automatics, aircraft, tanks, APCs, etc. Can we really defend against all that without armor piercing rounds and lots of explosives? Truth be told if the army wanted to conquer the states, it wouldn't take long. Holding it would be a different matter entirely (see Iraq). But that would only be token resistance. For the people still of the opinion that we need to be watching our gov't and army for domestic aggression considered...joining up? The best place to keep an eye on them is from the inside. Also do you think the entire army would be behind a crazy wannabe dictator? Every soldier I know would get in line to shoot him in the face. So I think the right to bear arms against the gov't is an outdated excuse. Also cops? You think they would take it lying down?

[Sorry to be one of those guys, I'm sure you're tired of this but I had to lol at my captcha: wax poetic. I feel like the website itself follows these conversations sometimes. I hope Skynet won't come of it.]

I'm against the "No Automatics for civilians" clause. Sure, some people present Cops and National Guard as defenders of society, but I've seen way too many abuses of power, where they act as tools of oppression at best, and murderous thugs at worst. We have so many laws and regulations protecting police from the repercussions of their actions (A civilian shoots someone unprovoked? A second degree murder charge. A cop shoots someone unprovoked? "Oops" A few days off pay if you're lucky). Sure, in theory cops and soldiers would stand against oppression... but in practice, they're conditioned to do what they're told. People say that our society's not lost yet. I hope they're right, but I have seen WAY too many good, innocent people killed or incarcerated by corruption in our 'justice' system, especially wrongful and excessive deployment of SWAT teams.

And on the other side of the fence, we have the drug cartels and gangs, who also pack heavy firepower that an average citizen cannot stand against even with friends. A militia without access to sufficient firepower is practically worthless. I think our nation has serious problems that need the feds to back off in some areas, hit others harder, and be able to tell friend from foe from victim.

fletch_talon:
Actually you seem to have lost the plot a while ago. You were arguing that gun control is the reason (and the primary reason) our feral pig population is out of control.

No, actually I said that the pig population is out of control AND y'all do not have the equipment to take care of it like we do here in the US. I also said that we want our equipment so that we do not turn out like y'all.

You really need to stop making up strawmen.

When I claimed the lack of interest in hunting or (if it makes you feel better) "pest control" is the reason, you started going on about how people in Texas do it regardless of interest for the greater good.

No, they do it for themselves. They are farmers/ranchers too you know. However, the fact that the cow has to be milked does not make it any less of a chore.

If you want to argue that gun control is the reason for this, or that reduced gun control is the solution, then I'd be interested in how the hell you manage to justify that in your head.

Your strawman is still a strawman. I never said anything like that. I said that y'all do not have the proper equipment. We, in the US, want the proper equipment so that we do not end up like y'all.

Guns do not change people's minds unless they are insane. Do guns talk to you? No?

Again, your point was that gun control is the cause of the problem. My counter point was that hunting does exist, weapons are available and that the problem lies with a culture which for the most part is ignorant to the problem or doesn't care enough to be part of the solution, regardless of what weapons are available.

No, I said that y'all lack the equipment to take care of the problem. Later on I elaborated on how large scale the problem is but I did not talk about it initially because it is irrelevant to my point.

I hate to do this, since you'll start claiming I'm using a slippery slope fallacy, but you know what would be even better for killing pigs?
A vehicle mounted minigun.
screw your 700 bullets per minute, try up to 6000. The best part is, we can't eat the meat, so we might as well shred it up and spray it across the landscape as much as possible.

But no. I'd rather live in a society that doesn't give the public access to weapons which are primarily intended for military use.

Actually that would be bad for hunting pigs. They weigh so much that they can only be carried on vehicles (thus limiting their use), plus the cost to use one of those things far outweigh the very questionable benefits, plus they are rather inaccurate, plus their parts do not work well under many conditions (and before you ask, yes I have used one and it was a waste of money).

Sorry, but your extreme example is a failure.

With numbers and eagerness. Unless those problems are overcome by having a bigger gun, then your argument is irrelevant to the point your supposedly trying to make.
You've already said in this thread that these problems were overcome using equipment like sensors and organisation, we could do that here, but evidently nobody is interested in doing so. Is that a problem? Yes. Has it anything to do with gun control? Nope.

How many follow up shots can you take in 10 seconds? I can take thirty. What about you with a bolt action rifle?

How many pigs can I shoot in 10 seconds? Around 30. How many can you? 5 if you are lucky.

Do I really need to explain this or are you hoping I am just ignorant?

Wrong about what?
I haven't said that hunting wouldn't be easier with more powerful weapons, that would be a stupid argument. I've said that the weapons we have are sufficient and that the lack of participation in pig hunting, and the lack of organised effort is the problem.

YOU stated quote-"But no, all you can go on about is how we don't use the same guns you do and you cling to that idea as if it is the one and only possible truth."

In other words, you are deriding the equipment that I say is the best for the job AND claiming that my judgment is compromised. Sorry your own countryman has said I am right but stop with the bullshit.

Obviously you mustn't make a habit of telling people what their country does that makes it inferior to yours. Telling them their standards are too low and that you don't want your country to end up like theirs. And generally making out as if your extensive knowledge of your own country gives you a clear and indisputable insight into how to fix other's.
That's good, such things are generally frowned upon.

Actually it is not a problem with open minded people. Hell, today I had a conversation with an Indian friend of mine and I told him that the religious extremism in his country is very bad. He agreed.

Last week I had a conversation with a friend who was visiting his family in Mexico on how shitty things are down there.

And I did not hesitate to tell my Australian friend exactly what I have told you about their lack of equipment. He knows that I know a shit ton more about hunting than he does and he also knows that I am highly proficient with many forms of firearms. Because of the knowledge gap he trusts my opinion. Once again, how much do you know about the large scale hunts I am talking about? Have you ever even used a semi, nevertheless the kind of rifle I use?

Your statement that you don't want to "live down to [our] expectations" was clearly inflammatory. As is your repeated "argument" claiming we have "fucked up [our] country".

Your people seem perfectly happy to live in their current conditions. I view that condition as less than desirable. We are doing better than you country when it comes to limiting the pig population. Therefore I do not want to live down to your expectations by getting rid of the tools that are best for the job.

I believe, with the weapons currently available, with greater organisation and equipment (not including firearms) and with more people involved, we could achieve the desired results. None of this requires us to lighten our restriction on firearms, and as such we have to deal with less of the crap that spawned this thread, namely mass numbers of casualties due to easy access to weapons that can kill/injure 700 people in a minute.

How much experience do you have in these kinds of hunts? I have asked you before and you have not answered.

I can kill a hundred pigs in a week using my tactics AND my equipment. The guy in the videos fired 7 shots and got 3 pigs. I have killed upwards of 15 pigs in one group with my rifle. Do you want to match me?

Look, I understand you are anti-gun. You do not like the firearms I use. However, that does not excuse you unwillingness to see that I have more experience than you do and therefore know more about the issue.

fletch_talon:
Bias is indeed something everyone has, but if you intend to tell someone what their country is doing wrong, you'd damn well wanna pull your head out of your ass, and take note of the differences between cultures before doing so.

I did. You just are not paying attention. Glass houses and all.

What Farson is doing is looking at Australia as if it were just like Texas. Identical in everyway except one is further South. He assumes that because its done a certain way there, that that is the only way it can be done.

Why don't you explain to me why exactly hunting pigs is so different in your country than it is in mine. Go on, I dare you.

And yes his comment did insult my country, apparently you didn't see it that way, well then that's your interpretation I guess.

Fuck the American immigration system. How many Americans do you think are going to call me anti-American?

Alexnader:
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.

You know what else he said in those videos? It is hard to import. He is using an older model Mini-14. The older versions suck (the modern versions do as well but they are at least more accurate). What he said was that importation is extremely difficult. Because of that buying them is expensive and you get far lower quality than you get in the US.

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 are using the numbers from the cities. There are 5,000 people in my area. Less than 1/100th of 1% of my areas population is enough to control the pig population. In other words about 30 people. Are you saying you cannot find 30 people to hunt pigs in an area of about a hundred square miles? If so, then the pig population is irrelevant there anyway.

You also have a culture of shooting anything that moves, one that has largely been replaced by drunkenness in rural Australia.

Yo, fletch_talon are you going to call this guy an elitist? I doubt it.

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.

Open prairie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This could easily be my family's land-

This is near an area where I have hunted before-

And this is an actual area where a friend of mine has hunted-

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.

You are mixing terms. An assault rifle is not the same thing as an assault weapon.

Anyway, the ability to rapidly put out shots is necessary to take down large groups of pigs.

As a side note all the justifications for widespread gun ownership fall flat when it comes to automatics.

None of my firearms are automatics.

Moth_Monk:
The argument that some have brought up in this thread, that we should be allowed guns to get rid of animals, is absolute nonsense. First of all legalising all/most firearms under the excuse of pest control would be overkill just for some pests. As if you need automatic rifles and the like to kill a few annoying animals.

Have you ever tried to kill 500 wild pigs with a bolt action rifle? Go for it, I will see you in a couple of years. The ability to take rapid follow up shots is crucial when hunting large groups of pests.

BTW semi-automatic not automatic.

Besides that there's no point glossing over the fact that guns were made to kill PEOPLE.

I am a gunsmith. I have built firearms for the express purpose of hunting ANIMALS. Sorry, your argument fails.

Blablahb:
Then apparently big game hunters are either insane, or you're making that up. Because there's no way something like a wild boar is going to get stopped by low-powered pistol rounds. If anything it makes them more angry, and climbing a tree would've been a much safer alternative.

You do not think a 44 magnum or a 10mm round would stop a boar? My .45 is my backup and I have killed many a wild pig with one.

We don't need to legitimize guns and sacrifice thousands of lives and society as a while so their reckless choices can be made less dangerous.

So much for all human life being equal.

Anyway, wild pigs do BILLIONS of dollars in damage every year in the US. Hunters perform a necessary service.

Also, such attacks are exceedingly rare. Can you name us even ten people who attacked by wild animals without seeking out a confrontation first by going hunting or something? Just people who were sitting in their living room quietly one day when suddenly they were killed by wild animals.

Yup.

1. A friend of mine was attacked by a wild pig when he accidentally got too close to her babies (she was hidden and he was just walking around)

2. A friend of mine was attacked by a feral dog when he went to the bank.

3. A neighbor was also attacked by a wild pig when he moved some wood from his shack.

4. Another friend attacked by a feral dog when he was walking down the street.

5. Another friend attacked by a feral dog when he was taking a leek on the side of the road.

6. A friend of mine was attacked by a bear while hiking in Yellowstone.

7. My neighbor's cousin was attacked by a wolf pack but she managed to scare them off.

8. A friend of mine works at a zoo and one of his friends was attacked by a chimp.

9. A friend of mine was trampled to death by a bull.

10. I myself have been attacked by wild pigs and was trampled by a bull.

I can tell you plenty more if you want. Have you ever considered the fact that you live in an urban environment may have precluded you from such instances?

farson135:

No, actually I said that the pig population is out of control AND y'all do not have the equipment to take care of it like we do here in the US.
...
Guns do not change people's minds unless they are insane. Do guns talk to you? No?

Still ignoring the counterpoint made from my initial post. Claims of objective knowledge on how to solve a problem in a country your mostly unfamiliar with. I see.

Actually that would be bad for hunting pigs. They weigh so much that they can only be carried on vehicles (thus limiting their use), plus the cost to use one of those things far outweigh the very questionable benefits, plus they are rather inaccurate, plus their parts do not work well under many conditions (and before you ask, yes I have used one and it was a waste of money).

Sorry, but your extreme example is a failure.

Expended effort to break down exaggeration, mostly by pointing out it was exaggeration. And failure to acknowledge that another less extreme, more functional example could easily have been made.

How many follow up shots can you take in 10 seconds? I can take thirty. What about you with a bolt action rifle?

How many pigs can I shoot in 10 seconds? Around 30. How many can you? 5 if you are lucky.

Do I really need to explain this or are you hoping I am just ignorant?

Still completely missing the point. Namely that just because a tool makes a job easier, doesn't make it necessary. Nor does it solve a problem when other issues exist.

YOU stated quote-"But no, all you can go on about is how we don't use the same guns you do and you cling to that idea as if it is the one and only possible truth."

In other words, you are deriding the equipment that I say is the best for the job AND claiming that my judgment is compromised. Sorry your own countryman has said I am right but stop with the bullshit.

False accusations of derision and claims of uncompromised judgement whilst simultaneously using a single pro-gun Australian (making up a whole 1/22,620,600th or so, of the population) as if it proves an objective truth.

Actually it is not a problem with open minded people. Hell, today I had a conversation with an Indian friend of mine and I told him that the religious extremism in his country is very bad. He agreed.

Last week I had a conversation with a friend who was visiting his family in Mexico on how shitty things are down there.

And I did not hesitate to tell my Australian friend exactly what I have told you about their lack of equipment. He knows that I know a shit ton more about hunting than he does and he also knows that I am highly proficient with many forms of firearms. Because of the knowledge gap he trusts my opinion. Once again, how much do you know about the large scale hunts I am talking about? Have you ever even used a semi, nevertheless the kind of rifle I use?

Can't seem to tell difference between pointing out a country's flaws, and outright deriding a country by stating its standards are something to live down to.

Your people seem perfectly happy to live in their current conditions. I view that condition as less than desirable. We are doing better than you country when it comes to limiting the pig population. Therefore I do not want to live down to your expectations by getting rid of the tools that are best for the job.

Failure to make mention of the fact that guns that kill multiple pigs in 10secs can do the same to humans. Failure to acknowledge that America also "does better" than Australia in gun based attacks involving large numbers of casualties.

How much experience do you have in these kinds of hunts? I have asked you before and you have not answered.

I can kill a hundred pigs in a week using my tactics AND my equipment. The guy in the videos fired 7 shots and got 3 pigs. I have killed upwards of 15 pigs in one group with my rifle. Do you want to match me?

Challenge issued despite 1st hand knowledge of hunting not being required to make judgement on cultural attitudes towards hunting. Comparison of own experience hunting in own country, with a country is mostly unfamiliar with.
Still fails to acknowledge that a tool can be more efficient, but not required and can have cons which outweigh the pros.

Look, I understand you are anti-gun. You do not like the firearms I use. However, that does not excuse you unwillingness to see that I have more experience than you do and therefore know more about the issue.

Starts with erroneous statement, ends with claim that first hand experience in own country gives inarguable insight into issues in another country.

Analysis: Not worth wasting time with. And I probably should have accepted that 2-3 posts ago. Overall bias and self assurance in the objectivity of your own arguments make this a pointless debate.

fletch_talon:
Still ignoring the counterpoint made from my initial post.

Because your counter point is irrelevant. You still have not proven otherwise.

Claims of objective knowledge on how to solve a problem in a country your mostly unfamiliar with. I see.

You are claiming objective knowledge of a task that you have never done before with equipment you have never used. At the same time you continue to ignore the fact that what country it is is irrelevant to the hunt (aside from the laws, etc).

Expended effort to break down exaggeration, mostly by pointing out it was exaggeration. And failure to acknowledge that another less extreme, more functional example could easily have been made.

So in other words, because your extreme example was proven to be completely wrong you are going to back off of in and attempt to save face. Typical.

Still completely missing the point. Namely that just because a tool makes a job easier, doesn't make it necessary.

Right, a hammer makes pounding nails easier but why use a hammer when you can use a rock?

Nor does it solve a problem when other issues exist.

I never claimed it did. That was your strawman and not my argument.

False accusations of derision

YOU claimed my equipment is unnecessarily extravagant. What do you call that?

claims of uncompromised judgement whilst simultaneously using a single pro-gun Australian (making up a whole 1/22,620,600th or so, of the population) as if it proves an objective truth.

Your countryman, who actually does hunt pigs, and I both agree. My Aussie friend believes me because I know more about it than he does.

YOU are the odd man out and you have no experience in this issue.

Can't seem to tell difference between pointing out a country's flaws, and outright deriding a country by stating its standards are something to live down to.

Wow, you are just plan determined to make it seem like I insulted you. I never want to live down to the religious fanaticism of India. I will tell him that tomorrow. You know what he will say? Neither do I.

Failure to make mention of the fact that guns that kill multiple pigs in 10secs can do the same to humans.

Pigs are easier to kill than humans. A .308 bullet does a lot more damage in a pigs chest cavity than it does in a humans.

BTW it takes skill to do that. How many people do you think have that kind of skill?

Failure to acknowledge that America also "does better" than Australia in gun based attacks involving large numbers of casualties.

Failure to acknowledge that Switzerland does better than you when it comes to murder rates despite have far more guns.

Challenge issued despite 1st hand knowledge of hunting not being required to make judgement on cultural attitudes towards hunting. Comparison of own experience hunting in own country, with a country is mostly unfamiliar with.

In other words you do not have the capacity to match me and you are deflecting. Sorry, you are inadequate to the task of debating me. You are wrong.

Still fails to acknowledge that a tool can be more efficient, but not required and can have cons which outweigh the pros.

And you still fail to realize that I can take out more pigs than you can and do it easier. In other words, my equipment is far superior to your own. Also, what cons? My AR-10 has never failed me.

Starts with erroneous statement

You are against your people gaining proper firearms. You are anti-gun.

ends with claim that first hand experience in own country gives inarguable insight into issues in another country.

Can you prove that hunting pigs in Australia is different from hunting pigs in Texas? No?

Analysis: Not worth wasting time with. And I probably should have accepted that 2-3 posts ago. Overall bias and self assurance in the objectivity of your own arguments make this a pointless debate.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I expect you know damn well that you are cornered and that your opinion is far less substantial than my experience. I hope you will one day be able to debate me without feeling the need to save face at a loss.

We romanticize guns. Guns and rebellion. We have to have guns, because we're going to fight the next rebellion against the inevitable coming tyranny. We have to have guns because we're self-empowered cowboys out on the range, and we can't count on anyone but ourselves to protect our own. We are the action hero who will make the difference. We will blast that mugger, that psychopath, that rapist, and our guns will never ever be used against us, and we will never shoot the neighbor's kid or our spouse or a stranger by mistake in the dark.

Also, we're the good guys, and we will always be the good guys. We will righteously use our powers for good, unlike those people over there, the drug dealers and psychopaths and rapists, those guys who are easily recognizable by their ski masks, who all found their weapons on the widespread black market for guns that would most certainly exist even if there wasn't a never-ending supply of legal and quasi-legal fire-arms readily available. We shoot the bad guys before they can shoot us. We don't ever commit crimes of passion or desperation.

Also, if you're trying to take our guns away, you're a bad guy and it's okay to shoot you, or threaten to shoot you. You may be Hitler. You probably own a ski mask.

...

Please, pity us. We're fucking insane.

Treblaine:

Chrisscogg_teh_Newbie:
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.

Better example would be Brazil that HAD strict gun laws and was geographically isolated from a country like the United States that has lax gun laws. The thing was the criminals got guns en mass and the people spoke that if the criminals and vagabonds were going to be armed regardless of the law, then they should legally be allowed gun for self-defense.

So.. you agree?

You took the words right out of my mouth. I expect you know damn well that you are cornered and that your opinion is far less substantial than my experience. I hope you will one day be able to debate me without feeling the need to save face at a loss.

Its interesting. I had originally intended to have a whole paragraph at the end of my last post, predicting this very behaviour.
I decided not to for 2 reasons.

1. I mistakenly thought you had the integrity to not pull the "your leaving, that means I won" card.
and
2. I figured if I did put it in there, and you were that kind of person, that you would instead pull the "I would never do that, you're just paranoid and accusing me of trolling" card. And thus attempt to claim a moral high ground over me.

So you go ahead and enjoy your *cough* "victory".
I'll take comfort in the knowledge that if anyone decides to read through our exchange, they'll eventually see your lovely little post which does an absolutely brilliant job of exposing your true colours.

Enjoy the rest of your day, I know I will.

just throwing in my two cents worth here

why do we need guns? first off many people here in the good ole' U.S of A think the police are here to protect us which is a complete fallacy the police have no obligation to protect the public look at cases like Riss v New York or Warren V District of Columbia and there are many more cases brought to the supreme court which affirmed that there is no obligation to protect the public in Riss they outright said that it was her fault for not having a way to defend herself

second is the second (couldn't resist)was added to the bill of rights because the founders did not want the government to become too powerful and oppress the people it was a way of keeping the government working for the people and not the other way around and to those who say the amendment was only intended for a militia there are two arguments to be made the militia traditionally was every able bodied male capable of fighting and in the past it was a requirement of every citizen to supply their own weapon and also in a recent supreme court case District of Columbia v. Heller it was affirmed that the second amendment is referring to the individuals right to own a firearm

now with assault weapons there seems to be a large miscommunication somewhere there is literally NO difference between how a so called assault weapon and a semi auto rifle function why you may ask because assault weapons are just semi auto rifle that look "scary" people see an M1Garand and go that's a rifle show someone an M14 or M1A and they will probably say its a rifle put an AR15(note: the AR stands for ARmalite the company that holds the patent for it not assault rifle) there and its an assault weapon they function nearly the same but the AR15 is constantly villainized

I don't agree with guns, but I think at this stage, making them illegal won't change anything. Criminals will still have guns so all it will mean is that people don't have any self defense.

mrgerry123:
In Britain gun control is incredibly tight so criminals have a tough time getting them. They also become phenomenally expensive (that's banned guns, not shotguns/rifles) so the chances of you getting mugged by someone with one is very slim.

The richer criminals can probably get hold of them but if they're that big it's easier for the police to track them. It helps that we're a small island.

I'd trust a trained policemen more with a gun than I would myself. Do you really believe that a mainly unarmed populace is more dangerous than a mainly armed one.

If a shit police force is the problem surely the best solution would be to improve it, rather than arming the civilians. It's quite regressive for each individual member of the population to equip itself for defense. Do you grow all of your own food?

Please reply, I am not dying to know thanks to strict gun control and the NHS!

Your island is tiny, USA is LARGE with large parts of it barely inhabited (im not saying that to insult you, I like Britain). Where im sent for work in Alabama im a hour away (if not longer) from any town or city with a police force that consists of more than just a sheriff.

The only way your suggestion would work would be to spend a shitload of money that we dont have that would make our wars look like a hiccup and to force people from their homes into more populated areas.

It is pretty easy to suggest this when you do not have to pay for the costs nor deal with the consequences.

Why do we have to have these threads, they are mostly based on stereotypes of American culture.

Trying to liken us(in the US) to barbarians because we can legally own guns when apparently people in the UK were so barbaric and irresponsible with guns that you had to ban them outright is pretty absurd, look at the death rate verses the amount of people that own guns between the US and the UK and it kills the issue of guns causing more death.

Gun ownership in the US is an individual right and carries the individual responsibility that comes with it.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 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