Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Evilpigeon:
Any chance you can give me a good link? I can't seem to come up with anything helpful.

Gun ownership rates and laws- http://www.gunpolicy.org/

Crime, etc- http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

I have plenty of other sources but those are what I use the most for these topics.

I do agree that guns are not the sole reason, my argument in these threads tends to revolve about guns making crime more deadly, hence the big wodge of stats I posted.

Why would it? Few crimes in the US involve firearms (once you factor out the crimes that require firearms in order to be a crime). Plus, some of the safest areas in the country are well armed (and no I am not implying correlation). For example-

Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9

Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1

Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723

Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

The presence of guns does not make people more violent. Guns do not make violence easier, the mind makes violence easier (mindset, skillset, and dead last is toolset). Therefore if they are going to commit a violent act the presence or absence of guns is not going to change that. Killing a person is not as easy as the movies would have you believe. I have hunted for the better part of a decade and have been a competitive marksman for even longer and I can tell you that there is no such thing as a perfect shot. An amateur will only kill a person in one shot on accident. If you receive medical treatment within the first 10 minutes of being shot then your chances of surviving are high. It is not much different with a knife wound.

farson135:

Do you think those problems do not exist in the US? Your pig population is confined in relatively easy access territory, i.e. where everybody is. Our pigs on the other hand, well this is a picture that could come from my friend's plot of land and there is only one road on his land-

Texas, eh?

So according to Wikipedia that's 25,674,681 people spread over 268,581 square miles of countryside. That's a cute effort.

My home state of Queensland alone measures 668,207 square miles of land, but in comparison only contains 4,580,700 people. And that doesn't even include the top half of the Northern Territory or the greater portion of the state of New South Wales, which both suffer from the presence of wild pig populations. The Northern Territory covers some 520,902 square miles of land and contains 229,675 people, while New South Wales is our most densely populated state at 7,303,700 people and is still bigger than Texas at 309,130 square miles. Other states have smaller feral pig populations as well, but nowhere near the range and depth of invasive penetration that is recorded in the states I have previously mentioned.

Australia, well Australia, she's a big place, mate. The states I mentioned alone cover an area of 1,498,239 square miles, five times larger than Texas, and still contains half the people who live in your state alone. Australia itself covers 2,967,910 square miles, could fit Texas within it's borders elven times and still, still, has less people standing on it than your state alone.

The information on the current ranges of feral pigs in Australia is widely available over the internet, as is the information regarding the highest human population densities. If you do so care to do your research, that information shows that the range of wild pigs just doesn't significantly overlap with that of Australia's densest areas of human settlement. Your argument also ignores the fact that anyone who has 'need' of a gun is still free to apply for a firearms license, reasons for which can include pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting.

There are restrictions on who can own what, and for what reason they can own it. Yet any primary producer who requires a semi-automatic rifle with which to conduct pest control should normally be well within their rights to get one. A lack of guns is simply not the problem, Australia is simply just too damn big for hunting to work like it very well might where you're from.

Not that I'm saying that your state isn't a good size or anything. I'm sure it's pretty big compared to your immediate neighbors.

Gun crime (along with knife crime etc.) should not be made distinct for 'regular' crime, the tool is very often not the root cause of the crime.

What you should be looking at is the overall murder/rape/whatever you please rate in the US compared to the UK, which will most likely be higher. The prevalence of guns can not be definitively identified as a major contributing factor, hell one could argue that they don't contribute at all.

I believe that the legal status of firearms in America has very little impact on crime rates. Prove me wrong.

ReadyAmyFire:

Wadders:
Out of curiosity, do you have the same two certificates as we do over here? A Shotgun certificate for any Shotguns with a capacity of 3 rounds or less, and a Fire Arms Certificate for everything else? (which is rather more difficult to get)

That's exactly how it works, although to be honest it's quite commonplace to remove the restrictor from the magazine to bring the capacity back up. It just screws out. Not as bad as some of the dodgy gunsmithing I've seen and heard about over the border though. Like a homemade pistol which fires 4 gauge cartridges O_o

Ha! yeah I've heard of people (i.e. dodgy scally types) doing that. To be honest, I cant blame them, it makes semi-auto shotguns that much more fun when you have an extra 2 or 3 cartridges!

And that pistol sounds awesome. Dangerous, and likely to break your wrist. But awesome nonetheless.

See, this is why I don't understand people who hate guns or a scared of them; they are so much fun :-(

Here is my stance on guns. Making them illegal will result in the same problems drugs have while they're illegal. People who follow the rules won't have access to them while people who are willing to break the rules will be able to get them. they might go to jail for having them, but while they have the guns, they can do a lot of damage, and more so because people don't have any way to really fight back against a guy shooting up a place.

To take a recent event for an example, had someone else in the theater in Colorado been legally carrying a gun, then the bastard who was shooting up the place might have been stopped sooner, before we hit a 50 total injured and 12 dead, perhaps reducing it to little more than one.

Are guns the solution to every problem? No. But I think to simply write them off as devices that have to be illegal because of what a small percentage of people are willing to do is stupid. That'd be like making cars illegal because there is a series of hit-and-run incidents where a large number of people get killed. Punishing everyone by banning guns is just a bad idea on the whole. Perhaps better regulation is needed, but certainly not a ban.

Paradoxrifts:
The information on the current ranges of feral pigs in Australia is widely available over the internet, as is the information regarding the highest human population densities. If you do so care to do your research, that information shows that the range of wild pigs just doesn't significantly overlap with that of Australia's densest areas of human settlement.

Let us see-

Human population-

Pig population-

Aside from one part of the map it looks pretty fucking similar doesn't it?

How about Texas-

Human-

Wild pigs-

And guess where the highest population density is, central and southern Texas.

Your argument also ignores the fact that anyone who has 'need' of a gun is still free to apply for a firearms license, reasons for which can include pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting.

There are restrictions on who can own what, and for what reason they can own it. Yet any primary producer who requires a semi-automatic rifle with which to conduct pest control should normally be well within their rights to get one.

Really. How much would it cost? How hard would it be to get one? Etc.

It costs a shit ton more than it does in the US and the restrictions, as usual, bar the majority from getting the equipment. Plus, newer semis have to be imported and the importation requirements make it next to impossible to actually get them. Older semis are available (sometimes) but they usually suck.

A lack of guns is simply not the problem, Australia is simply just too damn big for hunting to work like it very well might where you're from.

Bullshit. The wild pigs may be concentrated in Texas but they are spread throughout the US and yet we still keep out population under control. If my team of 3 people can kill 500 pigs in the equivalent of 2 weeks, on foot, spread across several thousand acres, without any real tech or long term prep, in the middle of nowhere, in an area that has a lower density of wild pigs than many areas in your own country then y'all sure as hell can do it. Plus, y'all have the (dis)advantage of not having to worry about cleaning the bodies because the meat is no good anyway.

When was the last time you participated in a hunt that ended in taking over 500 animals? Would I be correct in assuming the answer is never? Honestly, what do you know about the equipment and tactics we use to perform this kind of task? How can you tell an experienced hunter and hiker that he cannot take out a bunch of animals because they are spread out?

I have participated in many large hunts of pigs. If it can be done here in Texas it can be done in your country. However, y'all have to decide to do something. The reason the pigs are more or less under control in Texas is because we keep up the attack. My home town is almost pig free. Why? Because for the longest time there were 5 teams numbering between 5 and 10 people in my immediate area that were almost constantly running out to one farm or another. Hell, there was one school day I jumped in my family's truck after school, drove out to a friend's farm, and stayed up the whole night hunting. Over time the pigs stopped coming in large numbers. Now a days the pigs are little more than a mild nuisance while other towns keep asking for my team's (and others) help. Actually, the biggest danger (aside from those people who like having them around) is in ranching territories around farms because the pigs can hide and get food by crossing a fence line, which is why a part of our job included setting up traps, and clearing brush. We also utilized night vision equipment, thermal vision, game cameras, alarms, high tech traps, tracking equipment, etc. The best tech we could afford or make combined with a high degree of skill went up against nature and we won. Are you trying to tell me that the people of Australia cannot figure out a way to make it happen? I can tell you exactly how to do it and it will cost a shit ton less than what y'all are doing now, which is nothing.

Look, this is something I actually have experience in. Do not be like the last guy who said what you said and assume that it cannot be done. I know it can be done. If you think it cannot be done then you have to provide better evidence than there are a lot of pigs spread out over a large area. Why? Because that is what we like to call a target rich environment, especially in open areas where we do not have to be as careful where we shoot.

I really have no issues with civilians owning guns as long as the appropriate measures are in place to prevent the wrong people from getting guns. What I do have a problem with in regards to guns in the U.S. is the TYPE of guns are made available the average joe. Obviously criminals will get their hands on guns in one way or another, but allowing greater ease of access to something like assault rifles only exacerbates the problem. Either that or it just means a greater amount of casualties when you have a civilian that goes nuts and decides to massacre a group of people.

I'm not even going to bring up the gun violence rates between the U.S. and my own country because you have way too many variables influencing it. Culture, ease of access, population, etc.

Moth_Monk:
The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal

Guns aren't illegal in Britain. They're restricted.

I own a shotgun, for example. Admittedly, a double barreled one, however, my uncle keeps a semi-automatic eight round one. This is because we keep 3000 acres of moor, and there are often vermin that need to be dealt with.

And I have literally used my gun to help Patrick Stewart. So, yeah.

While I don't really want to start a debate, I'm just going to say, since removal of guns from society is impossible (criminals still acquire guns via illegal means) then the better solution would be for every household to have firearms, or better yet, people to have carry weapons. This would be a massive public deterrent. Even somewhere like the USA, the chances a potential shooting/stabbing/mugging victim is carrying is extremely low.

An example I use is Switzerland. It is unique to Europe in that households are legally required to keep firearms.

EDIT: WAIT. MISREAD MY CHART xD

Arbi Trax:

Platypus540:
How come the UK policemen don't carry guns? If they have to respond to a 911 call and it escalates, wouldn't they need to be able to defend themselves and nearby civilians?

We have Armed Response Vehicles containing the equivalent of SWAT teams on patrol in major cities. It's just the standard police constables and PCSOs that don't carry firearms. With the exception of Nottingham, where I believe the rank-and-file carry handguns due to gang violence.

Also OP: You are not making enough allowances for the cultural differences between us and the Traitorous Colonial Separatists.

Is... is it Robin Hood's gang?

For the record, I am an American and I also do not know what a gun sounds like outside of video games and movies. No real opinion on gun ownership though.

The majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are not committed with legally owned/obtained firearms.

After reading all the US Pro-Gun nuts on the net saying shit like "we need less gun control" or "this wouldn't have happened if there were more guns/gun owners". I've decided to change my stance on the whole issue.
I now believe that there should be more guns in US not less and that at the age of 16 all US citizens should be given a gun and canister of nerve gas (randomly selected from a bag or something).
My reasoning is this, if some people having guns lowers crime then everyone having guns and nerve gas will stop all crime... right?? The best part is that if it doesn't work and people start gassing and killing others all willy nilly, it'll be okay because it'll mostly only be Americans dying. As a result of this the collective IQ of the planet would sharply move upwards.

lacktheknack:

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.

Hmm, thanks for the post, I hadn't thought about defending myself from an old lady carrying an arsenal :D

fletch_talon:

farson135:

That is not about hunting. It is about pest control and public health. Do you know how many diseases pigs can carry? Do you know how many crops are destroyed by pigs every year? Do you know how much property is destroyed by pigs every year? Do you know how many people and animals are attacked every year by pigs (like my friend)? Etc.

Yes it is pest control, you are controlling them through hunting. You are pursuing an animal with intent of killing it. You're doing it legally so its not poaching, therefore hunting. I never said there was anything wrong with it, just that there is a massive lack of interest in it when compared to your country (and even more so compared to your state).

Also, I live in this country, we are taught from early years the damage caused by introduced species. I'll thank you to stop lecturing me on the dangers of introduced species as if I'm ignorant to the need for their eradication.

Oh and please do keep on ignoring the cultural differences between our countries. For fuck sake, even other people from other states within your own country frequently describe your state as being excessively "pro gun". There's also the established point that wild pig meat here is inedible. this means there is no gain for non-farmers/landowners to hunt the animal, there's no meat or money involved.

Uh, eradicating a pest will lead to less economic losses (less damage done to crops by eating/treading on young plants etc), so money would actually be on the line.. And wild animals can be aggressive if you're sharing their territory..

If you could find a way to strip guns off every single person, criminals too, then I'd consider it. Banning guns for law abiding citizens won't stop criminals from getting weapons that they most likely get illegally anyways.

So no, until all criminals are stripped of their weapons i'll continue to practice my rights as an American and keep my hand gun. It's helped me once already fend off a mugging, and it'll help me in a life or death situation. Although I hope i'm never put in that position.

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. :-)

Because, the UK has low gun crime for various reasons, and just because the gun crime is lower, doesn't mean anything. Violent crime rates are far higher in the UK than the US, it's a cultural thing. Just like the violent crime in Switzerland is phenomenally low, despite having near universal firearm ownership. Finland, which has some of the least strict gun control in Europe also has one of the lowest violent crime rates, and Japan which is even stricter gun control than the UK has a very high violent crime rate as well. These are mostly unrelated to gun control, it's a cultural thing. Studies within the US have shown that the more people within a county who legally carry firearms, the lower the violent crime rates. Getting rid of guns won't reduce crime, especially since the vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who don't legally own guns(US).

Also, you have to understand that a huge number of people in the US own guns for various perfectly legal reasons. A great many private security workers have them for work, also there are a massive number of hunters and sport shooters. It is estimated that more than 70 million Americans own guns, and about 150,000 people were murdered in 2009 total. So, by restricting gun ownership, you are punishing over 69,850,000 who did absolutely nothing illegal, which is a violation of habeas corpus. And you are doing this when evidence is very inconclusive as to how this would effect violent crime rates, particularly as many studies suggest the violent crime rate would increase.

Our entire nation was founded on ideals. The ideal of personal freedom that cannot be taken away, unless you have done something illegal. The ideal that your rights cannot be taken away without due process of law. The ideal of in-born rights, which include the right to carry firearms. The ideal that our own government will eventually try to take away our rights, and that when that time comes we deserve the chance to defend ourselves through force. Now, regardless of what you think of these ideals, they are a part of America, and banning firearms is directly counter to each of the ideals I listed above.

All in all, there is not sufficient evidence to show that stricter gun control laws lead to fewer violent crimes, or even murders. Several comprehensive international and domestic studies have shown there to be no statistically significant correlation.

And frankly, the demonization of firearms is fucking ludicrous from a common sense prospective as well. Firearms don't make you a murderer, a murderer kills someone by their own choice.

It is mind-boggling to me that so few people seem to get this. In 2010, there were over 35,000 gun deaths in the US, almost 2/3 of these were suicides. Now, someone who is willing to use a firearm to commit suicide is certainly willing to use a knife or an overdose. so, not counting suicides, there were 11,615 or so gun deaths. Contrast this with over 32,000 deaths caused by cars. Almost 11,000 deaths were caused by drunk driving alone in 2009. Tobacco use causes an estimated 443,000 deaths every year. The common estimates for deaths caused by obesity in the US are somewhere around 300,000 every year. Hell, almost 200,000 people die every year in hospitals from errors by the staff. Twice as many children die playing football(American) in school than die from guns.

Yet, no one is clamoring for a ban on driving, or tobacco(at least not anyone in politics), or alcohol, twinkies, or school football. Further, the prohibition era and the war on drugs have shown rather conclusively that bans on something in the US are virtually useless, and may even increase their use. No one is clamoring for increased education or oversight for medical staff.

I suppose that is all reasons why there is no good reason to ban guns, not that there is good reason to keep them, and that's the difference between the UK and the US. In the US, we believe you need to have good reason to take something away from a person, not a good reason to give it to them.

tl;dr(god i hate tl;dr). The UK has fewer gun deaths than the US, but despite having 1/5 the population of the US, they have more than 1/2 the violent crime. There is no conclusive evidence that stricter gun control leads to fewer violent crimes or murders. Banning firearms would punish 70 million Americans who have done nothing illegal. Gun bans run directly counter to several ideals upon which this country was founded and in which that most Americans still believe today. Firearms don't murder, people do, that's why it's called homoside, and not gunocide. There are a great many causes of preventable deaths that kill far far far more Americans every year than guns, but there is very little or no push to illegalize these things. In the US, you need a good reason to take something away from someone, you don't need a good reason to give it to them.

However, if you really need a good reason to let the public have guns, firearms are used in self-defense more than 2.5 million times per year in the US, about 42.8 times more than they are used to take life, including suicides(as concluded by anti-gun research).

I'll leave you with these facts: "More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million-even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.(8)"
"A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" to stop a school massacre.(14)"
"Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.(18)"

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

I could go on, but I think I've made my point, and I'll stop there for the sake of brevity.

fletch_talon:
Yes it is pest control, you are controlling them through hunting. You are pursuing an animal with intent of killing it. You're doing it legally so its not poaching, therefore hunting. I never said there was anything wrong with it, just that there is a massive lack of interest in it when compared to your country (and even more so compared to your state).

Do you know how many people in my town like hunting? Do you know how many people who do not like hunting do it anyway because it is necessary for their survival? That was my point. It is not about liking hunting, it is about survival.

Oh and please do keep on ignoring the cultural differences between our countries.

Like what exactly?

For fuck sake, even other people from other states within your own country frequently describe your state as being excessively "pro gun".

They can describe it that way as much as they want but that does not make it true. Only about 35% of the population of Texas actually owns a firearm. As opposed to Montana with almost a 60% gun ownership rate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Best to not reference an article that specifically states that they can't just go after them with guns thus invalidating your argument.

Why can't they?

They do it all of the time.

But clearly a bigger gun is the solution. Can't see the prey? Can't chase it effectively? Just shoot wildly into the thick overgrown forest, that'll do the trick.

How do you think we hunt he pigs in dense brush? We do it effectively, why can't y'all?

BTW that is one area. Are you saying thick brush covers all of the wild pig's territory?

And there's where you make your overlying leap of flawed logic.
Suc a shame too, the only thing you're missing is a teeny tiny "/or".
It shows we do not have the equipment and/or the will to deal with the problem.

Nope, y'all do not have the equipment and y'all do not have the will. Y'all are not even trying to take on the pigs in a large scale manner. My home town took on the pigs and we won with far less resources that your entire country could bring to bear.

It would be nearly impossible for a person to get the same equipment I use to hunt pigs in Australia. So y'all do not have the equipment (and my equipment is more or less the standard for large scale hunts).

And y'all do not appear to even be trying to combat the pigs. Can you show anything more than a handful of hunters and companies trying to do the job? No? Then y'all do not have the will.

Awwww and you were doing so well, straddling that line between, intelligent though misguided debate, and outright provocative insult.

And what insult did I deal you exactly? What, because I do not find your country interesting enough to come back to? If I want to hike I can go to New Mexico. I am a historian specializing in Central and Eastern Europe so your area is not in my specialty or within my interest. I would love to go hunting in Australia but that would be too much of a pain in the ass.

Or is it because I do not like the fact that y'all are letting your animal population get out of control? Sorry, but I view it as a bad thing. If you like it then you can stew in it, just do not ask me to join you.

Look, I do not give a shit how you run your country. As I said in my OP we do not want to be like you. Sorry, we believe y'all fucked yourselves over and we do not want to be like that. If you want to maintain the status quo, go for it.

Go fondle your AR-10 and stop bringing your bias to these threads.

Bias? You have yet to prove anything and yet you call me biased?

BTW my AR-10 is locked up right now. I will fondle my brand new (never used) EAA .22 conversion kit while I finish cleaning it (right now I am letting the bore cleaner sit). Don't worry, I will be sure to think of your condescension as I do it. Not really, Kip Moore is playing and he is far more important (turns up radio).

EclipseoftheDarkSun:

lacktheknack:

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.

Hmm, thanks for the post, I hadn't thought about defending myself from an old lady carrying an arsenal :D

I presume you knew I meant "for self defense", and were being sarcastic?

thethird0611:
I dont know if anyone has mentioned this before... but...

A big thing about America is about how we revolted from England, violently at that. So one of the big things about being able to bear arms is the right to revolt against the government if we don't like the way its going. Its not just to protect ourselves from criminals, but its also to protect us from the government. Also, the whole ability to have a militia thing would be kinda useless without firearms.

Not to burst your bubble, but it's kind of useless without tanks, carrier battle groups, and nuclear weapons too. It's a nice principle, which just doesn't hold up when you consider the modern military vs the equipment available to a citizen.

fletch_talon:
Go fondle your AR-10 and stop bringing your bias to these threads.

Congratulations, you threw out all credibility you may have had.

You can't say "leave this conversation" because you don't like their preconceived notions. That makes you worse than any inflammatory commenter.

EclipseoftheDarkSun:
Uh, eradicating a pest will lead to less economic losses (less damage done to crops by eating/treading on young plants etc), so money would actually be on the line.. And wild animals can be aggressive if you're sharing their territory..

The people that is a concern to, and hunters, do not necessarily overlap, though.

fletch_talon:
snip

Awwww and you were doing so well, straddling that line between, intelligent though misguided debate, and outright provocative insult.
Go fondle your AR-10 and stop bringing your bias to these threads.

Yeah, cuz accusing the other guy of fondling his AR-10 isn't biased at all. Don't call people out on bias when your entire argument is based on bias. People in glass houses and all that.

I guess we just have to change our ways in other ways.
In other words, everywhere we go needs to have increased security everywhere.
In fact, everyone should be given a gun.
They should have the holster welded to their hips and
squelch their lips because nothing speaks
louder than a barrel.
In fact we should forgo our lips by teaching our children that they're only as good as their aim and
proclaim that if they died to a bullet then they did something wrong
because the other person clearly had the right to fire
when that argument got a little too heated.
We should always have to watch what we say
not out of respect for another's feelings,
but out of fear for the cases they're packing.
We should nullify our fists and trade in our pens for semi-automatics
because ink doesn't run as smoothly as blood does,
and, DAMN, we should put a gun in everyone's hand
because the fear of death is strong enough to stop every sane person dead in their tracks,
so at least we'll know who the crazy ones are by virtue of who's left standing
once the smoke clears from the town square turned okay corral.
We should let citizens know that their life
isn't worth as much as their peace of mind.

We should forget that a child who'd only seen
the moon fill up three times died
because it's easier to forget than to answer why.

We should forego facts and forget
that every gun used just recently was legally purchased.

We should be wary of every click we hear
Because this is the year
We decided to scrap facts
In favor of forgetting, yet

Some people will never forget
How their friends used to laugh
Before their voices were capped.

(Yes, this is hyperbole, and I know that taking away guns won't really solve anything. Our culture is kind of sick, and I don't know what the answers are, but we need discussion to occur. What will happen in the next few weeks is a campaign aimed at making people forget about what happened with tons of distracting factors. Conversations won't take place, so nothing will get the chance to change.)

I live in America and I've never heard a gunshot, hell the only time I've ever seen a gun was on a police officers hip.

It's not about making guns illegal, before you know it the government will start making sharp knives illegal, it's about making sure only certain people can get them. In my state (New Jersey) it's nearly impossible for people to get their hands on one, if you have a criminal record they wont even consider approving you, that's how it should be in my opinion.

We're not children who need the government to tell us what we can and can't do.

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 have never heard a gunshot in my life either and i live in the US (besides the one time i went to a gun range). I do not own a gun and will never own a gun because honestly im a terrible shot. If im trying to shoot you, you are probably the safest person within a 500 foot radius. I also live in a rather poor city (Buffalo, NY. A city that has been shrinking and declining for literally a century ever since the Erie Canal lost its importance)

That said, I still support the right to bear arms. It is in the constitution. Although i do NOT support militia style armaments. Yes, a part of the reason to bear arms is in case our government becomes corrupt and the people have to overthrow it. However, with airplanes and tanks and missiles, small arms are not going to do crap in a revolution. Therefore there is no real reason to allow people to carry a virtual armory, especially since it can still do damage against the regular populace.

That said, banning guns does not help. In a crime of passion, they will use whatever weapon is on hand anyways. As for criminals, they will always have weapons. So who does this help? no one. Who does it hurt? Law abiding citizens. And keep in mind you guys are on an ISLAND. Even if we did ban guns they would be smuggled into the US, just like drugs.

Not to mention you can not exactly tout the UK as a prime example of crime when you guys recently went through a pretty horrific RIOT. Hell your country is on the verge of rioting after the world cup nearly every year.

Also the deep south would go apeshit.

As an american who isn't particularly pro-gun, I have a few things to say; one is that the constitutional right to bear arms is as part of a well-regulated militia. It doesn't say that your average chap has the right to carry a gun, unless of course he wants to join the national guard or something.
That said, I can appreciate that some people may feel the need to have weapons for hunting or self-defense, but you shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun (i.e. the way things are now in some states. Pretty sure Colorado is one of them) without a licence that requires some form of psych eval.

Finally, there should be either an outright ban or very heavy regulations on weapons like the AR-15 the shooter used on Friday. It's a semiautomatic assault rifle that takes 5.56 STANAG magazines; guns like that are neither hunting weapons nor something someone needs for self-defense. Guns like that are for shooting people. There is no reason your average citizen should be able to buy one without a lot of examinations and paperwork.

Sports shooters: I'm sorry about advocating taking away your toys. Try and find a hobby with less unfortunate corollaries.

Ryotknife:
That said, I still support the right to bear arms. It is in the constitution. Although i do NOT support militia style armaments. Yes, a part of the reason to bear arms is in case our government becomes corrupt and the people have to overthrow it. However, with airplanes and tanks and missiles, small arms are not going to do crap in a revolution. Therefore there is no real reason to allow people to carry a virtual armory, especially since it can still do damage against the regular populace.

Hey? How does that work? You seem to be supporting and condemning the right at the same time.

...

Personally, I've always interpreted it as meaning everyone has the right to military service, and that DADT was unconstituional. Not to say the US can legalise guns somewhere else in their laws, just that it's not the relevant part.

Australia heavily outlawed firearms in the 90's and we aren't getting overrun by gun toting criminals.

How many massacres will it take for you guys to think "yeah, giving every one a gun is a REALLY bad idea"
Answer: A lot it seems.

To put it simply I support gun rights because making guns illegal does nothing. If someone decides they want a weapon to do illegal things making them illegal simply wont affect that because if people followed rules like that guns would never be a problem. A armed population is a safer population because they can protect themselves from people who will not follow laws. If someone invents a device that makes it impossible to operate a gun within the borders of a country without being part of the military or police then that would be a debate. Until then go guns.

Zenode:
Australia heavily outlawed firearms in the 90's and we aren't getting overrun by gun toting criminals.

How many massacres will it take for you guys to think "yeah, giving every one a gun is a REALLY bad idea"
Answer: A lot it seems.

how many borders does Australia share with neighbors? We outlawed drugs, guess what? they are still everywhere. Do you have ANY idea how broad our border with Canada is? Most of it is undefended too. Hell, drugs keep getting through from Mexico which is a much smaller border with significantly more forces.

Even if outlawing guns was a magic bullet (pardon the pun), which nearly every study has shown otherwise, we could not enforce it. And like i said, the deep south would go apeshit because guns are a large part of their culture.

But hey, im sure a CIVIL WAR would be preferable to a few crimes.....

So tell me, why should we outlaw firearms when it will be impossible to enforce AND has potentially harsh backlashes?

Not seeing the logic in it.

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

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. :-)

1. UK suffers more violent crime than the US, so HA.
2. we are bordered with mexico which is 40% drug state
3. most of out murders with hand guns are gang on gang
4. 2 million uses of a gun used in self defense are reported EACH YEAR, with another estimated at 2.5 going unreported, 99% of these dont require a single shot, this right here trumps all arguments because the good outways the bad.
5. assault weapons which is what will be the big issue, is both an ambiguous term and a bad one, any 'assault weapon' is nothing more than a fancy looking hunting rifle until made fully automatic which are so hard to get that in the past 40+ years only 4 people have died at the hands of full auto assault rifles that were legally bought.
6. as stated at the end of number five, MOST GUNS USED IN CRIMES ARE ILLEGALY ACQUIRED!
7. we have between 9-10 thousand homocides in america, when you remove police, accidents, and self defense, than guess what...we are on par with most of europe as having few murders with fire arms as you guys do.
8. explosives are illegal yet he made those and could have easily used them, i have no doubt he could have easily picked an illegal gun off the street which runs the risk of being capable of full auto.
9. Norway doesnt have guns, or at least heavily control, yet that one guy killed 70 people.
10. almost all mass shooting happen in gun free zones with little to no resistance.
11. three times as many possible mass shooting are actually stopped by a citizen with a gun.
12. gun banned cities suffer higher crime than cities with a shit ton of them being legal.
13. most gun crime is caused by gang on gang with most victims and suspects being under the age of 21 with a handgun...no where in the US can you buy or own a handgun under the age of 21.
14. these killing would happen regardless.
15. these threads are pointless, our rights to protect our selves dont end where your feeling begin. guns are used positively more than they are negatively, so much so in fact that it would be irresponsible (criminally) to actually ban them. Smoking, cars, and alcohol are more likely to kill you than guns are. in fact, a car wreck involving a deer is more likely.
16. Europe is not america, it will never be america, you cant compare with america, and for damn sure America want to stay like America. And you know what, mexico has gun control and they suffered more deaths in the past few years than Iraqi civilians in the entire war. They cant even protect them selves against the corrupt government officials and the cartels. We can. in fact we do on a weekly basis according to Stats.
17. 200,000,000 known legal guns are in the us, probably another 50-100 million legal guns not known, and about 20 million illegal in circulation on the black market. Good luck getting rid of them, more than half of America owns a gun, most of us support second amendment rights, and the stats FROM THE FUCK MOTHERING FBI suggest guns in the hand of civilians lower crime.
18. Yes crazy shit will happen, its sad, it sucks, im pissed at the guy (who ironically was a left wing extremest in league with an extreme OWS group called black bloc or some shit) but he made illegal bombs, he was going to kill regardless. SHIT FUCKING HAPPENS!
19. Fast and furious....need i explain further?
20. Iraqi citizens were allowed to keep a gun , a full auto assault rifle, in their homes, the Military promoted it. so why the fuck should we, a more civilized and logical nation, not be allowed weapons that are NOT full auto?
21. STOP MAKING THESE THREADS EVERYTIME SHIT GOES DOWN! i get tired typeing out the truth because people whine about their political agendas over whats fucking reality and what hurts their delicate little feeling every time something bad happens in the news.
you can not prevent it, it will always happen, their is always the possibility.
the only thing you can do, is stop whining, take a safety class like most gun owners (or at least read the Manuel and train while practicing good judgement) and be prepared for when the shit (god forbid) happens to you.

there, im done, im sick of gun threads when they are pointless and dont provide evidence other wise and are just people (not referring to OP necessarily) judgeing others over a different cultural life style or choice. Im tired of typeing statistics STRAIGHT FROM THE FBI REPORTS that will ALWAYS contradict an anti-gun position. Im tired of people going fucking nuts and making rash decisions because some fucker was a nut job. im tired of people being one dimensional in these threads, and im tired of not shutting up and watching the new batman movie which FUCKING KICKS ASS AND YOU SHOULD GO SE IT!

over and out.

The main reason we have the 2nd Amendment, which gives us the rights to bear arms, is because we we're a country the was born from bloody revolution against tyrants by armed civilians. The people who wrote the Constitution gave us that right so that we could have another armed uprising if our government ever got that out-of-hand again. So that's the rationalization for keeping guns legal; to keep our government afraid of its people. The way the 2nd Amendment is written ("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") makes it very clear that that's what it means; that because the government needs a militia to keep order in the nation, the people need the right to bear arms so that they never have to fear their own militia.

Loonyyy:

thethird0611:
I dont know if anyone has mentioned this before... but...

A big thing about America is about how we revolted from England, violently at that. So one of the big things about being able to bear arms is the right to revolt against the government if we don't like the way its going. Its not just to protect ourselves from criminals, but its also to protect us from the government. Also, the whole ability to have a militia thing would be kinda useless without firearms.

Not to burst your bubble, but it's kind of useless without tanks, carrier battle groups, and nuclear weapons too. It's a nice principle, which just doesn't hold up when you consider the modern military vs the equipment available to a citizen.

implying the military want revolt also, implying that you could pick out a militia men from a line up of citizens and implying these are perfect weapons that are all powerful even though we see them get beat by people 4,000 miles away.
revolutions are not one dimensional, during the civil war, the union lost HALF of its generals and half of their equipment.

also, 2 million military vs 300 million pissed offed armed citizens.
do thy math.

gun related deaths yearly average (keeping in mind the US's popularion is around 3 times that of Japan's):
United States: 29,569
Japan: 22

...no reason i chose japan, it's just the only country i really know that much about.
but yeah... something's very wrong there...
i don't support the second amendment either.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked