Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Spartan1362:
My stance on gun control is as follows:
It is probably better to not have guns avaliable to everyone in a society, though to try remove that from a society that has it, would be folly.

I agree.
I am mainly based in Japan where cult religions can gas you and earthquakes and tsunamis can wipe your town out, and radiation is leaking from power plants, but we never have to worry about guns.
I prefer that than living in the U.S. where everything is about "rights".

I also think that its impossible to take away the guns from a country that is already so used to having them around.

My solution is to not go live there, and leave them to shoot themselves.
It's all about preference really.

Well, if anything, it looks like actually requiring people to have guns would reduce the crime rate. Look into Kennesaw, Georgia. They passed a law in 1982 requiring people to have guns.

Granted, the population isn't that of a huge city, but still, the crime rate dropped significantly, whereas Morton Grove, Illinios, the first city in the state to ban guns, had a crime rate increase immediately after they inacted their ban.

Owen Robertson:
It's a rather long and arduous point that rarely, if ever, gets across. I'll summarize.
I like guns.
But guns are dangerous.
Guns are only dangerous when used by irresponsible people.
So can we make laws and systems that make guns accessible only to responsible people?
No.
Why not?
Because a 236 year old document says we can have them.
... you realize the world was a different place then, right? British invasion was a very real threat. Ensuring that the citizenry was armed almost guaranteed defeat for anyone. Now, you don't need a gun.
Yes I do.
Why?
Because everyone has guns, even irresponsible people like criminals.
... so then can we make guns harder to access?
No.
Because of the document?
Yes.
You're not willing to concede anything, are you?
No.
Fuck.

The guns are meant to empower the civilian population in extreme cases of governmental strife, like say if Obama decided to disband the senate and what have you and make America into an autocratic state. It might not be likely, but the possibility is always there. That's what the right to bear arms is about. It has nothing to do with preventing them damn redcoats from invadin'! It's about making sure the government doesn't try to take over our lives by providing a deterrent and a means of fighting back should they ever try. Really the fact that people don't seem to understand this is dumbfounding to me...

Nantucket:
Space saver

We're partners in ignorance then. I imagined there must be a difference, but I'd have thought it would be more difficult to get ones hands on a firearm here. It has become easier in recent years due to the end of the Troubles to privately buy more powerful weapons. Paramilitary activity though is pretty much limited to vigilantes punishing drug dealers. Last time I saw the IRA proper in the news was nearly 3 years ago:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219044/Echoes-past-hooded-republicans-pistol-salute-IRA-bombers-funeral.html

This seems to be one of knows arguments where no one can understand the other side. Everyone in Europe, Australia, Japan and a few other places are just like: "lolwtfAmericans." And everyone in America are just like: "lolwtfEuropeans/Australians/Japanese." And then the two sides inevitably end up throwing mud at each other, claiming their country is the better one. Rinse, repeat.

I have come to learn it's all to do with culture. You grow up in a country that doesn't allow guns and you will never understand why people want to own them. You grow up in a country that does own guns and you'll never understand why people wouldn't want to be able to own them.

I am not pro-guns or anti gun control, I just want to make that clear before i begin. I would be very glad to see universal gun control in all countries.

However that said I honestly believe that gun control in the US is a far more complex issue than whether people can get their hands on guns or not. For example, in Switzerland, all eligible males (approximtley 2/3 of the male population are found eligible for service, usually at 18 - women serve voluntarily) are required to undergo mandatory military service. Swiss reservisits are required to keep and maintain their own equipment, including weaponary.
This means that Switzerland has one of the highest rates of weapons held in private homes anywhere in the world, however, gun crime is virtually non-existant.

Now my point is that the big difference between America and Switzerland is culture. Obviously there is a huge difference between civilians purchasing guns and conscrips being presented with weapons as part of military service program, but set that aside for a moment.

We have two countries where people intent on comiting crime would find it relativley easy to obtain a weapon so why are Americans more likely to use them? In my view its education and training more than any other factors. The Swiss arm their citizens but they also teach them how to use them and they instill a sense of responsibility. And without a fundimental change in attitude towards weapons, i dont believe gun control can ever be truly effective.

Argument: Criminals will always get guns, we need to arm ourselves
I say:
Criminals get guns from a few sources.
10-15% are stolen from legal owners1, if these legal owners people did not own guns, 10-15% less criminals would own guns.
Around 45% of illegally owned guns come from "straw sales". This is easy as hell, a person with no criminal record buys a gun and gives it to a criminal.2. If these people could not buy a gun, you knock off another 45%
The vast majority of the remainder come from legal gun dealers, with dodgy "at home" deals where they don't care about licenses and will sell to anyone. About 8% of the 124,000 gun dealers in america are believed to run these kinds of operations. 3 If these dealers could not deal, then this source would also dry up.
There is a very small minority of illegal guns that I like to call "mastermind" guns. These are the "cool" guns, they are often imported, or bought ex-military, sometimes on a large scale. These are very expensive are are rarely seized for an odd reason, they are very rarely used at all. Professional criminals know the value of non-violence and shooting off your anti-materiel snipers rifle everyday is a very good way to get caught. I'm not really sure what could be done about this, maybe stop having armies? I'm sure that would prove popular.

1,3 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
2 http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

CNN reported this morning that over 300 people were killed in Syria yesterday. Quite a few of them civilians. Let's start with gun control there.

God, I don't even know why I'm doing this again. I hate these damn threads.

I'm going to bullet point some things I've never heard a good argument against, someone have a crack at them.

-Even if you took every illegal gun out of circulation, locked up every criminal and started all over again, a civilian can legally buy a gun, and then shoot his neighbor in the face. This cannot happen in a country without legal gun ownership.
-The US averages 20 mass shootings A YEAR. The number is not going down. Knocking one or two of that is probably more important than how much fun it is to shoot a handgun at the range.

jakeblues69:
CNN reported this morning that over 300 people were killed in Syria yesterday. Quite a few of them civilians. Let's start with gun control there.

Syria is in civil war. people die in wars, its a recurring theme. America is at peace, and people can still die in agony because a man can legally own a semi-automatic military rifle.

Doitpow:

jakeblues69:
CNN reported this morning that over 300 people were killed in Syria yesterday. Quite a few of them civilians. Let's start with gun control there.

Syria is in civil war. people die in wars, its a recurring theme. America is at peace, and people can still die in agony because a man can legally own a semi-automatic military rifle.

God bless America.

Go ahead and make it illegal. We all know no one will be able to get their hands on something illegal like moonshine or pot. If you want it bad enough you can get it.

edit sorry wrong thread

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.

First of, I just want to say that I am not one of those people who says "look at this gun massacure. If only someone there had a gun, this wouldnt have happened." Sometimes that works, most times it doesnt. (although I think some places that are "Gun-free zones" are kind of stupid) That clear? Good, now then...

I can think of at least 3 good reasons to own guns.

1) Self-Defense: This is the primary reason, and the ONLY reason I would own a gun, but I would be very careful about the type to make sure my children cant shot themselves with it. (this one to be exact. If you manage to shot yourself with a rifle like the M-1, let me know, because it takes skill/trying to fail that hard.) If I have a robber come into my house at 2AM, I want to be able to grab my rifle of the rack and either keep him there in my gun sites until the sheriff gets there, or shot him if he tries to shot me (and .30-06 is armor piercing, so no problems there). "But wait, why not just wait on the police?" Because I live in the country (and will NEVER live in the city). The average response time for the sheriff is 15 minutes, and as the old saying goes, "When seconds counts, the police are just minutes away." Id like to have the option to blow a crook away if he tries to attack me, my family, or my property. This can also include wild animals. I get coyotes at my house alot. Sure, thier cute, and I would only shot one if it tried to attack me or my property, but what else am I supposed to do with no guns? Throw my shoe at it? Fat chance, I'll stick to my guns.

2) Hunting: People in my family hunt. ALOT! Lets just go by my grandpa. He is out there every chance he gets. This is reflected by the fact that he has 20(!) different guns at his house. He does it to stay in shape, along with fishing. But he is old, in his late 50's. He isnt strong enough to use a bow, so he uses a gun. How will he stay in shape if you take his guns.

3) Collecting: People like the looks of guns. They will collect them. Simple as that. And some people will drop MAJOR money for them. Have you ever seen "Sons of Guns" or "American Guns"? I dought it, so here it goes. On "American", once they had a guy come in and ask them to build a Civil War Double-barreled cannon (erm...That actually worked). How much did he pay for it: $15,000 in cash. Or in "Sons", they had a guy bring in a Bofors 40mm AA gun (the largest machine gun you can legally own in the US) to get rebuilt so it could actually work. Final Price: $20,000 in cash. Those stores: Doing just fine.

farson135:
How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?

Wild pigs in the US- 4,000,000
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313597.pdf
Wild pigs in Australia- 23,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3308375/Australia-has-more-wild-pigs-than-humans.html

Wild pigs already do billions of dollars in damage every year in the US and we hunters are the only thing that actually prevents them from taking over like they have in Australia (and that is not the only species that is breeding out of control in Australia). In addition to that is just general pest control.

People have pointed out that the British, European and Australian posters are ignoring distinct differences in culture and geography, and so are you.

First of all, not as many people here are interested in hunting. If they were, there would be nothing stopping them provided they meet the requirements for a license which is essentially just proving that you can be a responsible gun owner.

Culturally people here just don't seem as interested in owning guns and shooting things as over there. Perhaps that is in part due to stricter gun laws being in place, however considering there aren't such restrictions on bow ownership and archery's lack of popularity here as opposed to the US, I'd say culture plays a big part.

Its also interesting that you haven't really referenced the article you linked to, which states that farmers and pig hunters have issues shooting pigs due to the dense forest. Not once does it mention gun control being an issue (except perhaps a reference to government inaction and squabbles with farmers) and it specifically mentions the animals being hunted and destroyed with the use of high powered rifles, rifles which it is legal for them to own.

Something that isn't mentioned in that article is the fact that we don't have a lot of predators that would take on something like a boar.
If we go by wikipedia (not always the best source but it'll do here) you have "Grizzly bear, American black bear, Gray wolf, Red wolf, coyote, American alligators and cougars". obviously not prevalent everywhere in your country but it still tops our list.
Dingoes and crocodiles could potentially take an adult pig, some snakes and wedgetail eagles (possibly some other birds of prey) could take piglets/juveniles. A dingo isn't likely to go for a pig, especially not if its in a group, and crocs are only really going to be a threat by the waters edge, so its situational.

Even the UK with its unarmed police hasn't made gun ownership 100% illegal. Most reasonable "anti-gun" folk are actually just pro "gun-control". I was only recently made aware of America having mandatory safety courses for gun ownership in some states, and that's great. Also, thanks to this thread, I've realised that it would in fact be difficult to regulate guns in a country that isn't also an island/islands. I still think that US gun laws are far too lenient and disagree with the entire concept of being armed in public, concealed carry or otherwise. However I've come to accept the fact that difference in culture makes it a slim possibility and then only in the distant future.

I do however take offence to the idea that the excessive numbers of feral animals in our country has anything to do with our reasonable level of gun control. As opposed to the simple fact that feral animals do incredibly well in our country at least in part to a lack of predators. Hell the main (largest) terrestrial predator we have is an introduced species, dingoes supposedly having been introduced by aborigines when they first came to Australia.
This is the second time I've heard this argument (though you could very well be the same person) and its still just as ridiculous.

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 don't personally believe that completely banning guns is necessary, so much as creating MUCH harsher regulations regarding them is.

I hate the usual "People need guns to defend themselves from evil dudes" line of justification, as it is laughably overused and over-idealized these days. For example, I'm glad no one in that Colorado theater had a gun, or tried to defend themselves with it if they did. Can you imagine how many more people would have died if you had two or three people shooting at each other in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of confused, screaming, panicking people?

However... a person saving their own life by using a self-defense weapon does happen occasionally, when the right circumstances line up, and banning guns altogether would result in at least a few deaths that might have been prevented otherwise.

Really though, the amount of leniency allowed in US gun-ownership laws has gotten to the point of being ludicrous. NO civilian-legal handgun needs to hold more than 6 rounds (I only set it that high because so many people own revolvers). I believe civilian shotgun laws limit it to 3 shells (and if not, they should), which is alright I suppose. Hunting rifles and assault rifles need a hard ammo-limit too. Something like 3 to 6 rounds. The fact is, most shooters get taken down, or start to run themselves, when they blow through their initial ammo, as they are fairly vulnerable during a reload cycle. Honestly, I'd even support some sort of mechanism made mandatory on all civilian magazines that makes them harder to reload. Like a latch you'd have to flip or something. Just something that keeps it from being a seamless one-step process.

There is no sane justification for 30-round assault rifle clips to be civilian legal. There's no sane justification for 30-round extended pistol clips to be civilian legal.

The 2nd amendment as a blanket statement for unlimited gun-rights is just silly these days. Its original purpose was to allow the people of the US to form militias and to be able to rebel if a government got out of hand. That is laughable these days, in the age of missile-spewing UAV's, AC-130 gunships, M1 Abrams MBT's and various other armored vehicles. All the civilian-legal guns in the country could not do a thing, and any armed insurrection would be crushed unless it had large-scale military backing. The 2nd amendment's original purpose is now impossible, and bringing that purpose up as justification is just silly (some people actually do bring up the "If we don't have guns, how can we protect ourselves from/potentially overthrow the government?" argument still).

But, I've rambled long enough. While I am against banning guns altogether (partly due to personal views, and because of the legal, cultural and logistical nightmare it would be to do so in the current US), I do feel that serious and hard-hitting gun-ownership reform is very important. You can own a pistol, that's fine, but you don't need a 30-round extended clip. You can own an AR-15, but you don't need a 30-round magazine to hunt deer.

Also, repeal "Stand your ground" nation-wide, because seriously, fuck that law. It's stupid, and broad, and easily abused if people actually know the letter of it.

Okay, I'll take a deep breath and go through the major thing many anti-gun people miss: They are incredibly widespread already. Say it becomes illegal to own a handgun. What are the police going to do? Bust down everyone's door, tear apart the house, and take all the guns? After that blatant disregard for rights, sure it would be harder to get guns, but people who really want one can still get one, fairly easily too because again, guns are everywhere. Being illegal doesn't necessarily mean overly difficult to get or prohibitively expensive.

Next part, gun crimes are always used as a separate thing, why? Gun crimes are still crimes. A homicide is a homicide whether with a gun, knife, or baseball bat. Often it's whatever weapon is readily available. For many, that is a gun. Without guns it would likely just be whatever else was handy. The overall rate may go down, but there would mainly just be a shift in weapon use.

P.S. I am not just pulling this out of my ass, I am in college for my Criminal Justice degree and am taking academy classes for law enforcement.

hawkeye52:

farson135:
How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?

Wild pigs in the US- 4,000,000
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313597.pdf
Wild pigs in Australia- 23,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3308375/Australia-has-more-wild-pigs-than-humans.html

Wild pigs already do billions of dollars in damage every year in the US and we hunters are the only thing that actually prevents them from taking over like they have in Australia (and that is not the only species that is breeding out of control in Australia). In addition to that is just general pest control.

Or how about because we still have dangerous (not just annoying) animals in the US like wild bear- http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

Or how about because we feel the need to protect ourselves? A friend of mine lives on the border, you can literally see the border from his home (or at least the place where the sign that is supposed to mark the border is). Drug runners regularly use his property to smuggle drugs in. If he called the police it would take them 20 minutes or better to get to him. Do you think it is a good idea for him to be disarmed? And before anyone says it, he cannot move, his grandparents bought the property, he cannot afford to purchase a new home, and no one in their right minds would buy that property. Then you have a friend of mine who was raped. She carries a gun on her because she doesn't want it to happen again. And of course you have incidents like this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31416285/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There are other things but let us focus on the economics for a moment.

The basic fact is that attacking the gun industry is harmful to the world's economy. You may not realize this but your police force and military practices with ammunition. That ammunition is cheap because the US produces a tons of it and exports. Either practice goes down or costs go up.

Plus, you are talking about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. You have gun shop owners, ammunition manufacturers (both large companies and small businesses), unrefined resource providers, military contractors, etc. Where do you think the materials to make these firearms and ammunition come from? What about all of the leather used in holsters? Where do you think the computer chips used in gun owners tech comes from? And on.

Your attack on the gun industry would send shock waves throughout the entire economy. There is no major part of the US and world economy that is not somehow connected to the firearms industry. How many ranchers are going to lose money when the demand for leather goes down? How many businesses built around firearms companies are going to survive if the largest business in the area goes under? How many mining companies are going to feel the effects of a fall in the brass market? How many ranges are going to go under and thereby force Police Departments to build actual ranges and how much money will that cost? Etc.

Then, in addition to that, you are going to have to get rid of the firearms somehow. Ignoring the how for a moment, let us instead focus on the cost to do that. First you are going to destroy hundreds of multimillion dollar businesses directly unless you pay them off (lots of money there). Then you have the 80 million gun owners in the US. If ever gun owner owns $300 in guns and firearms accessories that equals $24,000,000,000 you have to pay them (unless you are just going to take the guns and say fuck you to every gun owner). Of course that number is vastly underestimated. I myself own several thousand dollars in firearms and accessories and I am rather young. Plus, most bolt action rifles cost over $300, most semis cost over $600, and most pistols cost over $400.

In other words, firearms are necessary in the US and it would cause a huge harm to get rid of them. Not to mention the basic fact that it is impossible to get rid of them. 300,000,000 guns do not just disappear because you want them to (not to mention all of the guns outside of the US and all of the illegal guns).

BTW guns are not illegal in the UK, just heavily regulated.

I just find it a shame that a society has become so heavily reliant on an object which sole purpose is to kill other things. So much money pumped into an industry that could be put better use else where which could help further the human race or cure world wide problems.

Oh no, trust me, Guns definitely helped get the modern western world to the point where it is now. If it didn't exist, I have a gut feeling we would be setback quite a bit.

Why not improve tracking of gun sales rather than try to ban them altogether - surely we can all agree it's not reasonable that he should have been able to so easily collect so many guns, rounds of ammunition and explosives and who the hell typically needs an assault rifle?

maddawg IAJI:
snip to prevent huge paragraphs

Oh no, trust me, Guns definitely helped get the modern western world to the point where it is now. If it didn't exist, I have a gut feeling we would be setback quite a bit.

Oh yeah I won't deny their use in empire building and I will emplore their use in Governmental services. Just not in the hands of the people really unless some really fucked up shit is going on in the country like Syria.

Doitpow:
people can still die in agony because a man can legally own a semi-automatic military rifle.

Ya, you can also own a Semi-automatic rifle in most countries in Europe and the Americas. The only 1st world country that flat out bans a Semi-automatic rifle is pretty much Australia, or at least, that is the only one I can remember.

I don't like guns but that's because I grew up without them and survived just fine. Also their main purpose is to kill people and no-one wants that. Frankly, I find the idea of gun-glorification (yeah, that's a word now) in the US extremely frustrating, partially because it's just silly and partially because I know it'll never go away. But, for what it's worth, here are my ideas on the main arguments for and against gun control.

"Guns are bad and should all be banned!"
Definitely, but it's never going to happen. What happened when they banned marijuana? Did people stop smoking it? No. Although guns are much more expensive to make than marijuana, the market will never go away. Not to mention how old a tradition hunting is. It's not the nicest sport but people do still involve themselves in it.

"We need guns to protect ourselves from people who would want to hurt us with them!"
Well that's an okay point, so long as their is sufficient training and education in their proper use as well as when and where to fire to immobilise a threat. But even with that, guns aren't a magic sheild. If a person shoots you in the head, even if you have the gun in hand, you won't be able to protect yourself, you'll be dead. You may say "well at least someone could eventually stop them" and to that I say "Did anyone stop the gunman at Colorado?" People's natural response to someone pulling a firearm is and always has been duck and cover. Or in some cases scream and run around like a lunatic. Besides, the people who go on these shooting rampages will target somewhere where people aren't ready so they can have the best chance of survival, and to have the greatest impact. The only way to prevent this is to have everyone carry firearms all the time and that just seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

As a final point, I do think guns are bad but I don't expect everyone in America to have a collective epiphany on the matter. I would suggest something like what Canada has, still hunting firearms but nothing that is made for the express purpose of killing another human being. But I mean, I live in Australia, I haven't seen or heard a firearm my whole life and I don't think anyone I know has either. Guns aren't totally banned (I think) but there's no "We need to have guns to protect ourselves!" because no-one has guns. Shootings still happen and it's extremely out of the blue and tragic but even if we were like America, the chance that someone there would have had the "luck" to be carrying a gun and could stop them is pretty low.

Sorry for the long post! :P

Lunar Templar:

Moth_Monk:
snip

a few people have already said it, but I'm a be some what less subtle about it

"your not an American, you wouldn't understand"

we are despite similar languages, TOTALLY different groups of people. its kinda hard wired into every thing.

that's one reason anyway

another is, it won't change anything. you can take away guns, and as one would expect, gun crime will dip, but the crime rate it self won't change, they will just find other ways to kill people.

sides, dosen't the UK have an over all higher crime rate then the US? fix your own country before you bitch at mine

The USA have 730 people per 100000 in prison. The UK has 156. I know the US tends to be a bit more prison-happy than most, but that's a hell of a difference.

Source:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

Even if no American wants to give up the right to shoot animals because it's 'fun' or even to have one to defend their family, could we not at least agree that the ability to legally buy military assault rifles and combat shotguns is kind of a bad thing? The clues are in the names; they aren't called defense rifles or sport shotguns.

Some guns can exist for other purposes than to make murderers' lives easier, but when a weapon has been specifically designed by arms companies to give soldiers the edge in killing other similarly equipped enemies then ownership by a civilian becomes pretty questionable, even if the purpose of ownership is just to have it in the house so you can whip it out and rub one out over the mighty orphan generator you own.

There is no real reason for civilians to own or be able to own those kinds of guns; the best you can say is that you find finely honed instruments of death physically arousing. Own a shotgun, or a rifle, or even a semi-automatic pistol. Should you be allowed to bury a 2 megaton nuclear warhead under your house in case someone tries to rob you and you can say 'watch out, I have a nuke' or is that considered excessive? How about a tactical nuke? They're still technically arms, so as far as I can tell the constitution of the US is cool with it.

ReadyAmyFire:

Wadders:
Handguns and semi-automatic and automatic rifles are illegal.

I don't know the particulars of UK firearms legislation, but this has to be wrong, or there's a regional difference between NI and the rest of the UK. We have a semi-automatic rifle and 2 handguns (1 semi-auto, 1 revolver) all very legally owned.

Nope, it's correct.

The only semi-automatic rifles that are permitted on a Fire Arms Certificate are .22, anything over that is illegal, as are handguns over .22 that are not blackpowder, used for humane dispatch purposes, or fitted with a long barrel (even then they cannot be automatic/ self loading.)

In NI however, you must have different legislation to the rest of the UK for those to be legal if your rifle is a center-fire. Not sure what your laws say, but I might have a look :-)

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.

It doesn't. It does make them substantially harder to get. That said Anders Breivik obtained his even though Noway has quite strict gun laws.

What stricter guns laws do is reduce gun accidents. The same thing could be achieved by forcing people to be more responsible with their guns (ie locking them in gun safes, not dicking around with them, not storing them loaded etc.)

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/

The way I see it, it's not the gun itself that's the problem- it's the person using it. It's impossible to stop criminals from getting guns- if somebody needs a gun to commit a crime, it's generally easier for them to get it illegally. In the UK, I would need to go through background checks and psychological evaluation to be able to get a rifle (shotgun licenses are easier to get). The thing is, once I pass this, that's it- I just get a check-up from the police every once in a while to ensure I'm still staying in the law when it comes to storage and security. There are no regular checks for psychological problems- even if I am licensed to own a rifle. I can't comment for anywhere else, but the UK should make gun owners have regular psychological checks in case they do go on a rampage with legal firearms.
That said, I am pro-gun in the sense that people who are sane and sensible should be allowed to own guns if that's what they want. The problem here lies in people thinking that 'pro-gun' means they want every man and his dog to be running around with an AK-47.

Cars, Doctors, Rope, Knives, Water, Heat, Fire, Fists, Metal Bars, Wire, Planes, Rocks, Glass, Bow and Arrow, Electricity, Wild Animals, Sharpened Objects, Plastic Bags, Pens and Pencils, Sticks, Food, Cliffs, Nails, Tools, Feet.

Just a small list of dangerous things. Should we ban all these things too so no one can die from these as well?

Open question to Aussies, Europeans, Brits, Ect... You hear a knock on your door at 3AM, you open it to find a man asking to use your phone as his car is broken down. You do not know this man. He could truly be in trouble or are 2 of his friends waiting for the door to open enough to burst in and rob you? A situation that can happen to anyone, anywhere.

Should we ban alcohol again because of manslaughter cases? Should we ban cigarettes because second hand smoke can cause cancer? Should we ban forks because someone may go out and fork people to death?

It's a matter of freedom, and there's this whole thing about having to be capable of rising up if the government decides to go all power-hungry on us. Furthermore does everyone who owns or wants to own a gun plan on killing someone? If you really want to kill someone you'll find a way with or without guns. It'd cost me about 30-50 dollars to craft a make-shift bow strong enough to punch it's way into your chest cavity, what are you going to do to stop me when I kick your door down and fire an arrow into your chest?

J Tyran:

Civil rights are protected by law, in fact they where protected by law several hundred years before North America was even discovered by Europeans.

I've heard this fallacy before about the Magna Carta and English Civil Rights. You might want to take a minute and remember just whose rights the Magna Carta addresses, and just where power comes from in England.

Really all this argument is moot. My pro-gun argument basically boils down to this: it is a right guaranteed us by our Constitution. End of debate. This right is not government's to give or take away, they are given by God, or nature if you don't believe in God. A person has the natural right to have the ability to defend him/herself or to shoot cans/animals/targets to their hearts content.

Da Orky Man:

The USA have 730 people per 100000 in prison. The UK has 156. I know the US tends to be a bit more prison-happy than most, but that's a hell of a difference.

Source:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

interesting,
but,
people in prison =/= crime rate, as people don't always go to jail from crimes committed for different reasons.(like, not getting caught for one)

so ... ;) way to dodge the question

Why the hell would you even try to ban guns when all that accomplishes is putting guns in the hands of criminals while disarming responsible people?

Just try banning guns and you will see the crime rate skyrocket.

Because Americans suddenly become stupid the instant someone utters the word "freedom".

Seriously, in my experience, Americans will defend and protect almost anything no matter how dangerous, ridiculous, or unfair it is simply on the grounds of "we're the land of the free and people must have the right to do x/y/z".

Rational argument, decades worth of statistics and common sense have minimal relevance.

Da Orky Man:

Lunar Templar:

Moth_Monk:
snip

a few people have already said it, but I'm a be some what less subtle about it

"your not an American, you wouldn't understand"

we are despite similar languages, TOTALLY different groups of people. its kinda hard wired into every thing.

that's one reason anyway

another is, it won't change anything. you can take away guns, and as one would expect, gun crime will dip, but the crime rate it self won't change, they will just find other ways to kill people.

sides, dosen't the UK have an over all higher crime rate then the US? fix your own country before you bitch at mine

The USA have 730 people per 100000 in prison. The UK has 156. I know the US tends to be a bit more prison-happy than most, but that's a hell of a difference.

Source:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

The United States has some of the longest incarcerations, especially with drug cases. We have so many in prison comparatively because the same people that were sentenced five years ago for drugs are still there when someone gets sent for whatever other reason now.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked