Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 23 NEXT
 

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.

Haha, ok - cheers! Edited now :)

Raesvelg:

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.

The figures over time do not record how the victims died, drawing a conclusion like "turning gun murders into knife murders" is impossible from that data.

It could just as easily be down to guns not being used much in murders over the whole period in the first place, which would result in the increased firearm control not having much effect as well. Either way that data is not detailed enough to make any conclusion about the effect firearm control had over murder rates.

spartan231490:

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

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

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

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

Oh, I have not read the 16 pages worth of other comments here, so I am going to reply directly to the OP (if something I say has been said before my apologize but I did say I wasnt going to dig through all that right now).

Here it is, in America we have a national history of using/liking/needing firearms. Without firearms our country wouldn't be "our" country, we'd still be a summer home for another nation. So part of our national law became the right to own guns. There is a LOT of debate as to how far that right is supposed to go, but that isn't important. What is important is that for a long time we had them, and we Americans are big on our rights. If it is something that we've had as a right and someone tries to come along and say "Can't do that anymore for some arbitrary reason someone came up with!" we get into a big huff over it. We do this because it's part of our national psyche. Someone tries to stop one thing we're allowed to do? Clearly they're gonna go after other rights...(mind you, I'm not saying they WILL, just that is the feeling of it).

There are a lot of American firearms companies, importers, sporting events with firearms etc. That is a big business and it has enough fans to actually keep that industry going. Mind you those are all law abiding people, criminals are an entirely different issue. What it comes down to is people suddenly being told "Hey, we know you personally didn't do anything wrong, but now you can't keep that thing you've spent your hard earned money on." that is unreasonable to tell someone who has not been reckless with something. Sure, if someone drinks and drives a lot, you take away their car. They'v eproven they shouldnt have it. That's how our system works. You can have the internet until we catch you trading kiddie porn. You can have your guns until you kill tweleve people just trying to watch a movie (and of course whenever a newsworthy violent act comes up it will start this debate all over again)

I want to preemtively talk about one other issue that tends to pop up for no reason at all, if the guns were legally owned or not. The media LOVES to mention that firearms used in a violent crime were all legally owned, but never seem to bother mentioning it when the opposite is true. What never gets talked about is how if someone has a desire to cause death or destruction they will find a way. Even the most recent event the firearms we legal, but the explosive materials found in his home were not. Proof that even if he didnt have access to firearms he could have simply built an explosive to do the same thing. Clearly he was educated enough to do so. Killers will always find a way to be killers. They dont need to walk into Dicks and buy a hunting rifle if they can walk into Walmart and buy bleach, amonia and some...I don't know....baking soda? (I've never actually looked up how to build a bomb out of household stuff as I am not a lunitic)

J Tyran:
Either way that data is not detailed enough to make any conclusion about the effect firearm control had over murder rates.

Keep clinging to your delusions if it makes you happy, I suppose.

The data shows what the data shows, and if you want more in depth data, follow the link provided to the source.

Gun control increases -> homicides increase. Not that this is a causative link, just a correlative link, but the fact that that is the case definitely undermines the position that more gun control = fewer homicides.

Finding similar long-term data on method of homicide in the UK has proven somewhat difficult, to be honest, but what I have been able to find in the post-97 (handgun ban) data actually supports your idea that people in the UK mostly didn't use firearms for homicides anyway.

Though again, it showed a definite upward trend after the ban, corresponding with the general spike in murder rates in the UK for that period.

The point, however, is that even if you ban the guns, people will still find ways to kill each other.

FireDr@gon:

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"?

And what would you propose I wonder?

Pigs are pests because they ruin farmland which WE need to -you know- eat. To wit, they are also very aggressive, often attacking perceived threats that come into their territory. And if you think they're just harmless little piggies...Google is your friend.

They also have sex. A lot. So much so that 'their land' (as you call it) quickly expands into our land. And since pigs don't really understand things like 'property lines', 'keep-out signs', or fences (beyond horrendously expensive ones), they need to be culled.

Survival of the fittest, baby.

Captcha: Sharp Stick. Whatever works for you Captcha, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I live in a country where guns are illegal. You even need a hunting licence to buy an air rifle. But being a corrupt country where gangs pretty much control everything, yes they all have guns. But they don't show them. Most robberies are made with blades or replica guns. So our police is quite relaxed, they're almost pushovers, you can talk with them, you can argue with them, even if you spit one in the face they're not about to smack your face on the concrete or put 10 bullets in your head. In fact, whenever police shoot a runner in the leg (or worse, thanks to poor shooting skills), the media bashes them till doomsday.
One time however, an idiot started playing with a replica gun and threatening policemen. A bystander filmed the whole thing. Things got serious very very fast. Our police doesn't kid around when it comes to pistols. But... they didn't shoot the guy. He lived. I remember thinking about how you can get shot by police in America simply for putting your hand in your pocket. Here police doesn't treat civilians as potential murderers or terrorists. And I don't blame the american police for doing that.

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?

I didn't mean if the government screwed up. I meant that if they became to "powerful", so to say. Now, keep in mind I am speaking for guns in the USA.

the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

"The security of a free state" can be taken two ways, and they are both valid. The first way is the obvious "if we are ever attacked by another nation". The second is that the state remain "free". So, if the government ever threatened our freedom we could protect the security of our free state. When the the government actually threatens our "free state" I don't know. There are many things that could "threaten" our freedom, but where is the point that enough is enough? The wording is a bit to unspecific in that regard.

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?

You're forgetting the context for the 2nd amendment. Simply put, if not for the vast abundance of firearms in the US, we never would have won our independence from Great Britain. The fact that almost every citizen had a firearm allowed them to quickly and cheaply raise an army to fight the well trained, well equipped British army. If we didn't have the same access to firearms we -never- would have been able to stand up to the Brits. So yes, the Founders were kind of big on readily available firearms, as they were very concerned the new central government might end up as oppressive as the Monarchy was, and they wanted to be sure that if a revolution ever had to happen again the people would be prepared for it.

So yes, the second amendment exists -entirely- to allow for another revolution if the US government ever gets too batshit bananas.

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

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

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

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

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

All I have to say after that is: correlation does not equal causation.

I am not sure comparing UK to USA is really fair. UK has an area of about 250,000 sq km and population of 63,000,000, while the US has an area of about 10,000,000 sq km and a population of about 314,000,000.

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

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

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

Raesvelg:

J Tyran:
Either way that data is not detailed enough to make any conclusion about the effect firearm control had over murder rates.

Keep clinging to your delusions if it makes you happy, I suppose.

The data shows what the data shows, and if you want more in depth data, follow the link provided to the source.

Gun control increases -> homicides increase. Not that this is a causative link, just a correlative link, but the fact that that is the case definitely undermines the position that more gun control = fewer homicides.

Finding similar long-term data on method of homicide in the UK has proven somewhat difficult, to be honest, but what I have been able to find in the post-97 (handgun ban) data actually supports your idea that people in the UK mostly didn't use firearms for homicides anyway.

Though again, it showed a definite upward trend after the ban, corresponding with the general spike in murder rates in the UK for that period.

The point, however, is that even if you ban the guns, people will still find ways to kill each other.

You tried fudging the nature of the statistics to try and make a point. Your point is based on a completely flawed foundation, not only is the data is insufficient to make a conclusion from its actually irrelevant data to begin with.

Homicide under UK law is any unlawful killing and that includes things like causing death by negligence or recklessness and not just murder. I don't think its me clinging on to delusions here.

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

Simple, because a criminal (or someone who's soon to be, i.e. has no prior record) can't just walk into a store, or because someone who's already a criminal can't just ask his friend (who doesn't have a record) to buy one for him.

It also reduces the general count of guns in circulation (from whatever cause) therefore making them generally harder to acquire.

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

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

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

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

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

You realize how much KNIFE crime happens in the UK right?

And while i'm not exactly pro guns, tell me how putting a ban on firearms reduces the rate of crime/gun crime.

The only ones who will have the guns are the criminals, and they don't get their guns through conventional means anyway. If you're a convict or have any kind of record, you're not allowed a gun. And even if they do get their guns before having any kind of record, so many people in the US now have guns that putting a ban on them won't stop many people from having their guns.

You're in no place the criticize guns being legal in the US till you actually come to the US and see the process to obtain a gun.

MorganL4:

spartan231490:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enverex:

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

Simple, because a criminal (or someone who's soon to be, i.e. has no prior record) can't just walk into a store, or because someone who's already a criminal can't just ask his friend (who doesn't have a record) to buy one for him.

It also reduces the general count of guns in circulation (from whatever cause) therefore making them generally harder to acquire.

Which still doesn't reduce crime rate. It doesn't even reduce murder rate. I'll post links, but if you don't believe me or my links, go to google and type in "gun control reduces crime" I did this, and many other searches, trying to find scientific evidence that more gun control reduces crime rate, or murder rate, or suicide rate, and I couldn't.

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

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

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

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

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

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

I'm disabled. A handgun in my house would be the great equalizer during a break in. Otherwise, I'd be quickly overpowered.

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

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

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

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

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

If you make guns a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

The reason crime in the UK is much lower is not because guns are outlawed, but simply because there are less violent criminals there. In the US, there are reasons for our high crime rate, and it has to do with racial and socio-economic issues that aren't present in the UK.

Crime is about the people, not their weapons.

I don't care what other reasons others espouse. I can quote all kinds of statistics and people will argue or agree with them however they fucking want, but the fact remains that the right to bear arms holds one very important role in the constitution; it is supposed to provide a last recourse against a government that has gone out of control. Thommas Jefferson's own words on the matter were "At times it is required for the tree of liberty to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
We here in America have a government that is becoming increasingly militarized and a president who signed an executive order authorizing the military to round up American citizens "suspected of having terrorist connections" and detain them indefinitely without trial or official charge and you guys want to give up the only means the constitution gave us of resisting this kind of government behavior?
I'm sorry, if the shit really hits the fan, I want the American people to have the ability to go down shooting if they must, because an militarized authoritarian government is a far worse criminal than someone who just up and decides to rob a 7-11.

J Tyran:

You tried fudging the nature of the statistics to try and make a point. Your point is based on a completely flawed foundation, not only is the data is insufficient to make a conclusion from its actually irrelevant data to begin with.

Homicide under UK law is any unlawful killing and that includes things like causing death by negligence or recklessness and not just murder. I don't think its me clinging on to delusions here.

I fudged nothing; the data speaks for itself.

An increase in gun control was not accompanied by an decrease in homicide rates. Unless you're now asserting that the UK simply became increasingly negligent over the past 50 years.

The fact of the matter is that the data simply does not support the conclusion that gun control makes people's lives safer to any significant degree. Murderers will murder, regardless of the necessary hurdles they have to clear, and while it could conceivably be argued that gun control might mitigate the severity of the occasional rampage killing, such killings are just a blip in the overall statistics to begin with.

Kadoodle:

The reason crime in the UK is much lower is not because guns are outlawed, but simply because there are less violent criminals there. In the US, there are reasons for our high crime rate, and it has to do with racial and socio-economic issues that aren't present in the UK.

Crime is about the people, not their weapons.

That's just it: Crime isn't lower in the UK. Violent crime is four to five times higher, depending on which data sets you're using. Homicide is lower, but not crime in general.

We just like to kill each other a hell of a lot more, sadly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're just better at math than you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concealing your gun should be illegal, eh? Business owners should keep open carriers out, eh?

So anyone wont to cause mischief merely need to have a look around to make sure no one is armed (as will be likely in a place of business under your provisions), then make sure their own weapons are concealed.

Sounds good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

err...i may be wrong here but the movie shooter did not originally enter with any weapons. He propped the back door open, went into his car that was waiting right outside of the entrance, suited and geared up, then went back in through the rear entrance with the weapons.

Therefore even a "no guns allowed" policy would not have helped.

Actually a no guns allowed policy wouldnt help in nearly ANY case. I dont think a potentially crazy murderer is going to turn around just because of a SIGN, but you DO disarm the people inside making all of them easy targets. In fact, a smart person would TARGET business that have a no gun policy because then you are GUARANTEED that everyone in there is defenseless.

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

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

I rather be shot than stabbed though. Knife deaths look pretty gruesome and painful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xyliss:

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

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

We're just better at math than you are.

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

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

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

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

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

I lived on a farm in South Africa for a large part of my childhood to my early teens. So I pretty much grew up with them whether they were used for hunting of for clay shooting. There even some nights where we had to go out and look into the game reserve next door to us for would be invaders due to the amount of farms being broken into where people were being tortured for no reason (Look it up, see for yourself) Criminals don't follow the same rules normal people do, and the police cant do anything until they get to your area, by then it would already be too late and your loved ones would already have been raped, beaten, stabbed, burnt, gutted, you name it.

A gun can either be used to scare them off. Or in the most severe case, kill the attackers. If it comes to that, I would rather be responsible for the death of burglar than not being able to defend myself or my family from a horrible death.

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

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

We're just better at math than you are.

wow the level of smug is insane, just so you know that comment isn't very accurate, why is it two deaths in place of one ?

where is the logic and statistics to back your claim?

The US is the world leader is mass shootings. there have been 6 this year alone, in the UK there have been 0.

I think you need to do some research before you make wild claims... I know statistics can say what you want them to... but where there are stricter gun laws there are significantly less gun crimes i.e mass shootings and deaths....

senordesol:

FireDr@gon:

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"?

And what would you propose I wonder?

Pigs are pests because they ruin farmland which WE need to -you know- eat. To wit, they are also very aggressive, often attacking perceived threats that come into their territory. And if you think they're just harmless little piggies...Google is your friend.

They also have sex. A lot. So much so that 'their land' (as you call it) quickly expands into our land. And since pigs don't really understand things like 'property lines', 'keep-out signs', or fences (beyond horrendously expensive ones), they need to be culled.

Survival of the fittest, baby.

I propose we leave them the fuck alone and not cull them. If we need to expand endlessly at the expense of other animals to feed our spawn then i simply propose we have -you know- LESS BABIES.

It's sad that you think i only care about pigs because you assume (incorrectly) that i think they're 'cute' or because i'm ignorant. I care about pigs because they (and everything else on this planet) are connected via delicate and complex relationships to the massive ecosystem that every living thing depends on. It's not even about pigs - it's about the incorrect assumption that humans have more right to life than animals, period. Every organism is equally as important as the next. It's dangerous for people to foster the attitude that we are somehow above nature and natural systems or that "we can do fine without this-or-that species" because the simple fact is, we can't. Its irresponsible to just reproduce without caring about the consequences of overpopulation and it's irresponsible to eliminate animals because they're "pests" when we have little to no understanding of the big-picture reprecussions.

I think it's hypocrytical to consider a species to be cullable and not another, to whit - it's not considered ok to cull humans, but pigs are fine. Also you seem to have missed my point about ownership of land - the pigs don't own it, we don't own it. We just live on it, there's a difference. And as neither of us own it, they have as much right to it as we do, ergo they dont deserve to die just because you want to live there.

Your attitude towards animals and their rights is scarily similar to peoples' attitude towards Native Americans way back when everyone thought they had found a new land to exploit that was, inconveniently, already populated. I didn't want to bring up something that seems aimed at Americans so i will point out that this kind of behaviour can be found in virtually every nations' history - see spaniards and South America. By the way, and finally on topic; both conquests were made possible by the use of firearms since they would pretty much have been on equal terms without them - probably at a disadvantage because they were unfamiliar with the land and unprepared to deal with it.

I think i speak for more than just myself when i say i'm anti-gun because guns make killing easier and i'm against killing.

I dislike guns because they give an unfair advantage.

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

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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 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