Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Biosophilogical:

hulksmashley:
Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous, are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

Im guessing you never heard the saying "dont bring a knife to a gunfight" :)

Not to mention you are asking someone to put themselves at very REAL risk in order to eliminate the possibility that they MAY put someone else in risk despite the fact that the attacker is putting the person and others in REAL risk with his gun.

In fact, your situation is actually MORE dangerous than having the person defend him/herself with a gun, especially since you are putting the defender at a massive disadvantage.

Ryotknife:

Biosophilogical:

hulksmashley:
Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous, are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

Im guessing you never heard the saying "dont bring a knife to a gunfight" :)

Not to mention you are asking someone to put themselves at very REAL risk in order to eliminate the possibility that they MAY put someone else in risk despite the fact that the attacker is putting the person and others in REAL risk with his gun.

In fact, your situation is actually MORE dangerous than having the person defend him/herself with a gun, especially since you are putting the defender at a massive disadvantage.

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us or give us an unfair advantage. After all, rapists and home invaders deserve a fair fight!

yeti585:

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

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

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

GunsmithKitten:

Ryotknife:

Biosophilogical:
Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous, are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

Im guessing you never heard the saying "dont bring a knife to a gunfight" :)

Not to mention you are asking someone to put themselves at very REAL risk in order to eliminate the possibility that they MAY put someone else in risk despite the fact that the attacker is putting the person and others in REAL risk with his gun.

In fact, your situation is actually MORE dangerous than having the person defend him/herself with a gun, especially since you are putting the defender at a massive disadvantage.

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us.....

qft i do support less then lethal though my shotgun is loaded with salt rock... and some bird shot just in case

scully745:

yeti585:

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

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

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

yes that is the exact reason it was to prevent the government from overreaching in its power ill invite you to read up on what went into the constitution and why we have a bill of rights

gufftroad:

scully745:

yeti585:

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

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

yes that is the exact reason

I was under the impression it was introduced during America's fight for independence and then solidified later in the constitution, something to do with shooting British colonials as I recall. My American history's a little rusty due to me living an ocean away.

scully745:

gufftroad:

scully745:

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

yes that is the exact reason

I was under the impression it was introduced during America's fight for independence and then solidified later in the constitution, something to do with shooting British colonials as I recall. My American history's a little rusty due to me living an ocean away.

actually after the war was over and we were working on our second government after the articles of confederation we had a split in the founders the federalist and the anti-federalist the anti-federalist pushed for the bill of rights to guarantee the citizens rights they would not sign the constitution without the second as a countermeasure to the strong federal government being pushed by the federalists. they started with over 200 amendments which were narrowed to 17 only 12 were approved and only the 10 were ratified

Some quotes from the founders:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose rulers are afraid to trust them with arms." - James Madison

History is fun

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.

1) You can be pro-guns but please don't be stupid. You know the answer and its pretty obvious by the OPs statement of reduced gun crime that it does work.

By making guns illegal you make them exponentially harder to obtain, and overtime can work on shrinking the available pool of firearms from the market, legally obtained or otherwise. Yes you can obtain handguns still, but ONLY from illegal dealers and with no new ones being fed in, overtime it will only get harder to get them. Yes you can smuggle in whatever you like, but its a hell of a lot harder than just popping into a legal place of business and acquiring one. It doesn't take some genius intellect to figure out making an item illegal might not eliminate but certainly impedes it being available.

2) I have no doubt you may be very well versed in gun safety. I actually don't know if I believe handguns should be all the way outlawed, because there are smart people who go about things just as you've stated you do. The problem is it isn't safe to assume everyone treats them with the same respect you do. In fact, most don't. All criminals don't (see above making them harder to obtain).

According to your beliefs every common joe SHOULD be considered competent enough for a firearm, but in your eyes our trained law enforcement ISN'T? How do you assign trust like this? You can't defend firearms as a whole based on how you specifically would treat them.

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]

Keltrick:
You can be pro-guns but please don't be stupid. You know the answer and its pretty obvious by the OPs statement of reduced gun crime that it does work.

By making guns illegal you make them exponentially harder to obtain, and overtime can work on shrinking the available pool of firearms from the market, legally obtained or otherwise. Yes you can obtain handguns still, but ONLY from illegal dealers and with no new ones being fed in, overtime it will only get harder to get them. Yes you can smuggle in whatever you like, but its a hell of a lot harder than just popping into a legal place of business and acquiring one. It doesn't take some genius intellect to figure out making an item illegal might not eliminate but certainly impedes it being available.

Incorrect. A majority of weapons used in crimes are not regestered and often obtained through illegal means... Infact, you are less inclined to be shot by a regestered weapon obtained in a legal place of business then one would acctually think.

And it really isn't as simple as popping into a legal place of business and getting a firearm. All gun shops conform to a ridgid set of rules and regulations which demands the up-most responcibility in selling weapons with a several day waiting period, extensive background check, and regestration of that weapon into a national regestry.

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

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

You can acctually buy gun parts then construct the gun yourself... individual parts are not held to the same measure of control as an entire gun is. And all you need for that is a credit card and an internet connection.

And honostly... what gun are you buying?
At that price point i could buy a .50 BMG rifle (Anti-tank rifle).

Most pistols run for ~€100 in parts alone.
Rifles are not that much more expensive either.

Because if they do restrict gun laws, the terrorists would win.

Pyro Paul:

You can acctually buy gun parts then construct the gun yourself... individual parts are not held to the same measure of control as an entire gun is. And all you need for that is a credit card and an internet connection.

And honostly... what gun are you buying?
At that price point i could buy a .50 BMG rifle (Anti-tank rifle).

Most pistols run for ~€100 in parts alone.
Rifles are not that much more expensive either.

here in USA you cant buy the parts like that the lower receiver or receiver are actually considered the gun adn have to go through a licensed FFL store to be purchased you would be unable to purchase all the parts required to make a gun without going through an FFL and having an ATF background check

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 :-)

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 :-)

if ammunition cost that much people wouldn't buy it and the government would get less money not to mention it would kill the ammunition industry here and people would lose jobs putting more strain on the government. people would probably manufacture bullets themselves they would just save their brass and go out and salvage their lead and melt it down to form it into new bullets most of the people i know at the range already reload their own ammo and i'm willing to bet most would just salvage lead

I should probably don the flameshield for this, as the "guns are great!"-arguments are hailing left right and center. Looking from an outside perspective its actually a little scary to see to what extent people will argue and defend their "god-given rights!" to wear a lethal weapon that is primarily meant to fire projectiles into another human being.

So yeah, a few things that are fairly obvious if one just takes a deep breath and looks at this with a shred of sanity:

1: Gun laws and regulation help reduce gun-related crime. In fact according to most statistics it helps reduce most fatal crime-related incidents altogether. That's pretty much a no-brainer, as guns are generally A LOT more fatal then other substitute weapons.
True, if someone really wants to kill you they can do it with a knife or whatever, but its fairly obvious they'd have a much easier time doing it if they had a gun.

2: Regulating guns and making them harder to get makes them harder to get for criminals as well.
Seriously, the "If all people arent allowed to carry guns it'll be just the criminals doing it, since they dont care about laws!"-argument is stupid. Criminals are, in most cases, ordinary people that have ended up in a gang culture or are just really poor and desperate. If you open up a store that sells them guns, you can be pretty darned sure their access to it will be a LOT easier then if it is regulated and forbidden. Not all criminals have some sort of master-minded connection to a shady underground black market with AK-47's piled up for "buy 2 for the price of 1"-deals. This will highly vary on where you live of course, but usually gun-laws and regulation will mean the criminals have a much harder time getting firearms.

3: "Its in the constitution!" Really? Its written in a document that is over 200 years old, at a time of war and chaos, where an armed militia was pretty much the most effective ways to summon up an army quickly. Try to look at things with a bit of perspective.

4: Easy access to firearms does not only increase gun-related crime, it skyrockets the amount of gun-related accidents. Families keeping firearms at their homes are a cause of a great deal of accidents and deaths. USA being a primary example of this, especielly since they have more guns then people.

5: "Guns are good for your personal safety." Really? Imagine this then: If you walk down the street in a country with no gun-regulation and get robbed, chances are high that the thug has a firearm. Even if you have a firearm, you're in a fight where he's going to shoot you if you try to shoot him. Chances are high that someone's not going to walk out of that one alive, and that's never good, not even if the criminal gets killed. And the fact that you DO have a gun on you might even further increase the chance that you want to use it, despite the risks, and further increase the risk of you getting yourselves shot.
If you're in a country with good gun regulation and where its royally hard to get a firearm, and you get robbed, the thug probably has a knife. If you somehow get the idea to resist, he'll stab or cut you. And chances to survive a knife-stab or cut are -astronomicly- higher then to survive gun-shot wounds.

All this being said, I realize that in a country such as the states, there is such a hard-bred culture that "guns are good for you! and your personal safey!", all statistics be hanged, that changing it is going to take decades, if not centuries. It might be a good time to start gradually though, perhaps by starting to make it harder for people to access high-powered weapons.

After thinking this through, I can only think of one beneficial thing with the USA having such lax gun control and regulation: If there ever is a zombie apocalypse, you guys are in a slightly better position then the rest of the world.
And I dont see that happening anytime soon.

Britain still has some problems because they allowed farmers to buy shotguns which can be converted into concealed weapons. (Which is the only kind that crimes are committed with)

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.

Yeah, in most cases. Though, most hunters do carry a side arm in case they have to use it if something would happen to their long rifle.

Keltrick:

1) You can be pro-guns but please don't be stupid. You know the answer and its pretty obvious by the OPs statement of reduced gun crime that it does work.

Problematically, reduced gun crime is not necessarily reduced crime.

And most statistics don't support the conclusion that by getting rid of guns, you reduce crime, save for those instances where the process by which guns are taken off the streets is also accompanied by aggressive policing. Which definitely sheds doubt on any causal link between gun control and crime reduction.

Fact of the matter is that despite an ever-increasing set of gun control regulations, the murder rate in the UK remained more-or-less constant. There was no magical amount of gun control that stopped crime. And straight-up "violent crime", {ie assault, muggings, etc) is a much bigger problem in the UK than the US. Like four to five times bigger, depending on which set of statistics you use.

Gun are not a problem, When a 12 year old can pick up a gun for less then a new video game with out a problem, that is when it becomes a problem. Plus in the US they hate educating people and that just lead to more problems.

Moth_Monk:

senordesol:

Moth_Monk:

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

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

No. It's all about money dear boy. No need to delude yourself with fanciful romantic notions like that.

The reason it is a "right" (meaningless term, I quite like this commentary on the idea:

) is because they can make money from it. If the best quality heroin could be produced in the US you can be damn sure that would be a "civil right" as well....

Oh I have no 'fanciful' notions. I am, in fact, quite grounded in my reasoning.

Anyone in government who wants to remove the right (a quite meaningful term) to bear arms is going to face a political shit-storm. We Americans happen to be quite touchy about our Bill of Rights and do not at all appreciate it being infringed upon.

I am not saying the money is not a contributing factor, but to say it is the primary factor is specious. After all, the government could save more money if it eliminated the right to a public defender if you can't afford a lawyer.

It would salvage a lot of tanked cases if damning evidence couldn't be thrown out because it was obtained improperly.

Just so, Chicago and D.C. attempted to enact pistol bans only to be overturned for legal reasons, not monetary ones.

Raesvelg:

Keltrick:

1) You can be pro-guns but please don't be stupid. You know the answer and its pretty obvious by the OPs statement of reduced gun crime that it does work.

Problematically, reduced gun crime is not necessarily reduced crime.

And most statistics don't support the conclusion that by getting rid of guns, you reduce crime, save for those instances where the process by which guns are taken off the streets is also accompanied by aggressive policing. Which definitely sheds doubt on any causal link between gun control and crime reduction.

Fact of the matter is that despite an ever-increasing set of gun control regulations, the murder rate in the UK remained more-or-less constant. There was no magical amount of gun control that stopped crime. And straight-up "violent crime", {ie assault, muggings, etc) is a much bigger problem in the UK than the US. Like four to five times bigger, depending on which set of statistics you use.

as much as i hate citing this http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf page 3 has a wonderful graph proving just this

dexxyoto:
Gun are not a problem, When a 12 year old can pick up a gun for less then a new video game with out a problem, that is when it becomes a problem. Plus in the US they hate educating people and that just lead to more problems.

ok i need to know were i can get a gun for less then a game the cheapest one i have ever seen was $75 before DROS and ATF check and it was as close to nonfunctional as you could get and still have it be considered a gun the cheapest gun you can get that wont kill you when you try to fire it is more like $100+

senordesol:

Moth_Monk:

senordesol:

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

No. It's all about money dear boy. No need to delude yourself with fanciful romantic notions like that.

The reason it is a "right" (meaningless term, I quite like this commentary on the idea:

) is because they can make money from it. If the best quality heroin could be produced in the US you can be damn sure that would be a "civil right" as well....

Oh I have no 'fanciful' notions. I am, in fact, quite grounded in my reasoning.
I am not saying the money is not a contributing factor, but to say it is the primary factor is specious. After all, the government could save more money if it eliminated the right to a public defender is you can't afford a lawyer.

Total political contributions from firearm industry members, PACs and employees was
under $4.4 million in the 2002 election cycle, which made the industry the 64th ranked
contributor. Compare that to $33 million from the American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees

thought id add some facts to help you on this point

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.

In the UK too, bad people can get guns because bad people don't have rules, it's good that as a law abiding citizen you are granted the capacity to protect yourself, your family and others from these people wi- oh no wait, you can't.

My snarkiness aside the UK has a population of 62,641,000 (2011) and America has 311,591,917 (2011), comparing crime figures between those two numbers is almost pointless.
There is much more that needs to be considered before any comparison is made, history, immigration, gangs, low income areas etc etc...

Picking at one law as if that's the answer? i don't know about that.

cikame:

My snarkiness aside the UK has a population of 62,641,000 (2011) and America has 311,591,917 (2011), comparing crime figures between those two numbers is almost pointless.

Are you being willfully ignorant of the fact most these statistics are measured in quantified units, such as "per 100,000 people"? - The rate is higher no matter how you cut it; but yes as you say culture is a lot to do with it and is why the arguement is never as simple as "ban all guns", simply because the US is NOT Europe, it does not have the same history and guns have played an important roll in American culture from day 1, so there's a lot more hurdles and issues to address than merely saying "ok guys, hand in your guns we're going to start thinking logically like Europe"

America'd benefit from the change, but it'd never happen overnight

Keltrick:

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.

1) You can be pro-guns but please don't be stupid. You know the answer and its pretty obvious by the OPs statement of reduced gun crime that it does work.

By making guns illegal you make them exponentially harder to obtain, and overtime can work on shrinking the available pool of firearms from the market, legally obtained or otherwise. Yes you can obtain handguns still, but ONLY from illegal dealers and with no new ones being fed in, overtime it will only get harder to get them. Yes you can smuggle in whatever you like, but its a hell of a lot harder than just popping into a legal place of business and acquiring one. It doesn't take some genius intellect to figure out making an item illegal might not eliminate but certainly impedes it being available.

No, that is one of the arguments against gun ban. It is impossible to enforce a ban as they can be smuggled in with ease. That is just one of MANY reasons for not banning guns. We can not even enforce a drug ban, with illegal drugs being readily for anyone at their convenience. There nothing that proves without a shadow of a doubt that a gun ban will help, nothing.

This is coming from someone who does not own a gun nor has any desire to own one.

The following are the facts as copied from the sited sources. Do with them as you will( the per 100,000 stats mean that for every 100,000 people in the country that is how many fall into said category) :

Total homicides in US in 2005: 16,740

Total homicides with a gun 2005: 10,158

Unintentional gun related deaths 2005: 789

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 5.66

Total gun related homicides per 100,000 people: 3.43

US Population in 2005: 296 million

Total homicides in the UK 2005: 764

Total homicides with guns: 50

Total unintentional gun related deaths 2005 unavailable, last available year 1999: 6

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 1.3

Total homicides with a gun per 100,000 people: .1

England and Welsh Population in 2005 53.4 million

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Customs/questions/population.html

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

dexxyoto:
Gun are not a problem, When a 12 year old can pick up a gun for less then a new video game with out a problem, that is when it becomes a problem. Plus in the US they hate educating people and that just lead to more problems.

You can't buy a gun in the US till you're 18. And no gun is less than a new video game.

MorganL4:
The following are the facts as copied from the sited sources. Do with them as you will( the per 100,000 stats mean that for every 100,000 people in the country that is how many fall into said category) :

Total homicides us 2005: 16,740

Total homicides with a gun 2005: 10,158

Unintentional gun related deaths 2005: 789

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 5.66

Total gun related homicides per 100,000 people: 3.43

US Population in 2005: 296 million

Total homicides in the UK 2005: 764

Total homicides with guns 50

Total unintentional gun related deaths 2005 unavailable, last available year 1999: 6

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 1.3

Total homicides with a gun per 100,000 people: .1

England and Welsh Population in 2005 53.4 million

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Customs/questions/population.html

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

This means absolutely nothing. Comparing one country to another doesn't accomplish shit statistically. Statistically, there is no evidence whatsoever that increased gun control reduces gun crime. These are the results of my attempts to find evidence real scientific evidence that increased gun control reduces crime, I was unable to find even one such piece of evidence.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

How about I give you a few more useless facts that have no context or meaning:
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law.

Here's one about your English gun control that you seem so fond of(not implying you live there, just that's the data you were using): the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect.

Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect.

Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect.

In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.

In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents, constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.

In D.C. v Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

"This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil-at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐
den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐
cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.
To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

MorganL4:
[useful statistics]

Correspondingly, here's a few handy official graphs taken from the UK National Archives...

First, a graph on murder rates from 1957 to 2009. Notice the trend.
image

Second, a graph on murder weapons in the 2008/09 recording period.
image

Source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf

What can we draw from those graphs?

First, that increasingly restrictive gun control (major gun control measures in the UK were passed in 1968 and 1997) do not appear to have any significant effect on homicide rates.

Second, while the use of a firearm to commit homicide might be reduced by gun control measures, mostly you're just turning gun murders into knife murders.

*Sigh*

You make a good point and it gets buried amidst all the sensationalist arguments. Again, guys, the US is -full- of areas where police response time can be half an hour or more.

Compare:

http://www.crisishq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/z_us_population_density_map_2010.gif

And

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/maps/pdf/EUR_GB_THEM_PopDensity.pdf

(Misinterpreted the first map I posted. This is a better one)

On top of that, if there's only a sheriff and two deputies in your county, you're livestock getting taken by wolves or a rabid dog on your property isn't going to be his top priority. Even if someone is breaking into your house, you have to call the police, explain the situation, and then wait for him to wind his way down dozens of dirt roads to come save you. Meanwhile, whoever is breaking in is doing whatever the hell he wants. There was a woman in the county I used to live in that answered the door for a stranger. The stranger happened to be an escaped convict, and when she realized who he was and tried to call for the police she was beaten to death in the time it took for the police to get to her house. There's a reason several of my friends and neighbors kept a revolver near the door.

Out here, you're often on your own. The culture gap between urban and rural areas, especially in the US, makes it a hot button issue, as in urban areas guns tend to be used solely for violent crime and the police are always seconds away. It's hard for people who grew up like that to imagine what it's like to be relying on your firearm to stay alive and protect your life and property. Trust me when I say that taking guns from citizens in the US is both an impossibility and a death sentence for many, many people.

Here is how I see it, if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they will get a gun whether they are illegal or not.

So, when you make guns illegal, all you are doing is taking guns away from law abiding citizens who would be using them for recreation or self defense. This seems rather counter intuitive to me.

RyuujinZERO:

America'd benefit from the change, but it'd never happen overnight

So, are you going to have police also now be legally obligated to protect me (they currently are under no obligation to protect a civilian via Warren/DC), and be able to respond to calls for help within 2 minutes minimum.

Do that and I might consider giving up my firearms.

As Cris Rock said "all you have to do is make bullets cost $5000 - that would at least mean that there would never be any innocent bystanders killed" by the way this is a misquote but the gyst is the same.

This is semi-facetious as (although I am actually anti-gun) I actually agree with the points raised by farson 135.

I consider it a shame that it's got to this point at all though - guns may be tools to help us cope with our environment, but to mass-produce something that can so easily take a life, human or animal, is slightly sickening to me.

If guns were not around there would be other means of mass-destruction and there already is anyway - that's just human nature - we want to kill each other sometimes. To be honest we're probably not doing it fast enough either considering the vast, irreversible damage caused by overpopulation.

My suggestion is a non-lethal sterilisation gun, dont end a sukas' life; just stop their bloodline in it's tracks :D

EDIT: Does it occur to those talking about "pest control" that those bears and pigs might consider humans to be the pests? They have as much right to life as you do, they own the land just as much as you do - but at least they don't choose to be pests, they're there because people settled on their land - not the other way around. Besides, can't people resolve these problems of land ownership without resorting to "Kill, kill, kill"?

FireDr@gon:
As Eddie Murphy said "all you have to do is make bullets cost $5000 - that would at least mean that there would never be any innocent bystanders killed" by the way this is probably a misquote but the gyst is the same.

You're badly misquoting Chris Rock.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked