Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 22 NEXT
 

I do not own a gun. I used to be anti-gun, anti-second amendment. Yet, arguments written by Founding Fathers and Adams' "Federalist Papers", coupled with some reflection and contemplation had changed my views on the issue.

The government's function is to use it's powers to serve the citizenry. But it's naive to think that governments cannot turn sour and use their considerable power to oppress those who they are meant to serve. And if that does happen, unarmed citizens are helpless.
American Founding Fathers were very pragmatic in that regard, and left the people with the right to own the means of defending their lives and property.

Gun is great equalizer. Unskilled man can take down a professional who dedicated his life to warfare. I dare say, guns have been a significant factor in the fall on feudal/monarchic systems and the rise of the rule by the people.

Having said that, I in no way imply that this right to bear arms should be flaunted lightly, but used only in the direst of circumstances. But it is a duty of each and every citizen to be ready to defend the idea of government by the people for the people.

<<<[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.]>>>

GUN crime is lower on an island where nobody is allowed to have guns, as compared to a massive continent where guns are largely permitted? Well yeah. That's just common sense. I'm sure somewhere deep in the jungles of Amazon gun crimes are at zero, since any crime is committed with sharpened sticks and fists. That's beside the point.

Last time I've been to London, it had some pretty dangerous areas. Granted I may not get shot there, but there are other, worse possible outcomes than a gunshot wound.
Banning all guns in US is also impractical and dangerous, since there's large areas of wilderness, where many wild animals roam. I imagine there would be a some fatalities in areas like Alaska, where people would be forced to deal with bears with sticks and stones. Deep tradition of hunting is also very strong in US, taking that away will leave many people bitter and angry. Frankly, many of them will refuse to give them up.

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

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.

well that's fairly reasonable actually. a decent portion of the gun related crime is from people who aquired guns legally, which is very easy to do in the states. almost a crime of opportunity type affair, mmmmmnot quite though.

Blablahb:

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

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

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

hyperbole much? seriously, i live in the UK and it isn't just big criminals who have guns. they are usually available for less than 500, and they will happily use them on the public just to scare them.

also criminals have different reasons for being criminal, it isn't necessarily for the money. not trying to be a dick, but you generalized a lot there

Nantucket:
Um... as somebody from the UK I have to say guns are not outright illegal.
Pheasant hunting is still a popular sport and guns are required obviously.

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

I hunt deer with a handgun (.44 mag) and smaller game with smaller handguns (.357 and even a .40 cal glock). I also defend my family, my friends, and beneath those two things myself with one.I also carry when I go on backpacking trips if I'm going into areas with bears or large concentrations of wild boars and depending on the season Moose. Pepper spray works when the wind is going in the right direction and they are at the correct distance(2-8 yards), a .44 works within 100 yards and in the harshest weather conditions. (Its a revolver with a 5 inch barrel, its simple and reliable)
In Chicago they banned handguns and they have some of the strictest laws in the country surrounding guns/knives etc. but since the beginning of 2012 there have been more deaths in Chicago than in the last 10 years of US casualties in Afghanistan. All of those crimes were committed with illegally purchased firearms that were smuggled in.
Criminals don't give two shits about the law, that's why they are criminals. If guns are banned the only people that can't get a hold of guns are the ones who follow the law.
Norway also has strict gun laws but last year that didn't stop that guy from going and killing a bunch of unarmed citizens.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/aldi-customer-wont-be-charged-in-shooting-sk42et0-138688529.html
Wisconsin is my home state and Milwaukee is where I went to college for 4 years. We just passed our CC law that allows people with the proper training to CC. Its working here just fine.
Besides Chicago: Detroit, NY, and multiple cities in Southern California all have two things in common. They have the strictest gun laws and the highest concentrations of violence.

It's simple really. Outlawing the carry of firearms leaves the common population vulnerable to attack, from common thugs to serial killing maniacs to invasion by a hostile army.

Outlawing the carry of firearms is ineffective. Any crook can acquire any firearm, either by robbing homes, borrowing from family or friends, or from gangs on the street. When the only men and women legally licensed to bear arms are police officers, military, and politicians, the common man is at a severe disadvantage.

The United States government serves to protect three basic principles: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. When a government takes away the people's right to protect their lives, that government is unjust. In the States, gun crime occurs everyday in every major city. Firearms simply cannot be avoided.

The United Kingdom is a different story. Firearms are difficult to acquire for anyone outside of military. There are some guns on the street and in the hands of hunters and collectors, but gun crime is pretty low outside of London and Manchester. Be thankful you live in a country where you can be more worried about being stabbed than shot.

If a government cannot remove firearms completely and effectively, it must do all it can to educate the people on firearm awareness, on the use of firearms, and how to counter a gunman to defend themselves.

I'm not here to debate on whether guns are beneficial or detrimental. That is completely subjective. OP asked for why many people support gun rights. This is why.

Augustine:
Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

Preventing people from getting guns through legal means doesn't prevent people from getting guns through illegal means.

Guess which ones are more harmful?

J Tyran:

Augustine:
Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.

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 also live in England, and have been stabbed twice. It may be the case (I dont have any figures on any of this) that people are more likely to die in attacks in America as guns tend to do more damage, but I would put money (if I had any) on the proportion of violent crimes being higher here than in America. Or USA at least.

Zakarath:
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.

No, the 2nd amendment does not say that only militiaman have the right to bear arms, it says "the people's right to have and bear arms shall not be infringed." the meaning is obvious because this same document uses "the people" to mean every citizen. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union . . ."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
The second ammendment has upheld that the 2nd ammendment protects the individuals right to own a weapon regardless of militia involvement. I would have thought that obvious since none of the other ammendments in the bill of rights have a requirement for being eligible for it, and considering the wording of the declaration of independence: ". . . and are endowed by their creator with certaininalienable rights.

There was a federal ban on many "assault weapons" it didn't do a damn thing. More people in the US are killed by people using their hands and feet than with "assault weapons".

Further, guns like that are exactly the guns people need for self defense, and often hunting. Criminals carry weapons like this and even more dangerous fully automatic weapons, to try to stop them with a bolt action rifle is idiotic. Further, many dangerous game hunters like AR-15s because the quick follow up shots save their lives if they're charged by the bear/boar/moose/whatever they just shot. Also, the AR-15 is absolutely ideal for sport shooting because of the high accuracy, the massive selection of possible upgrades, and the extremely low recoil.

Try and find a hobby with less dangerous corollaries? What corollaries? There is no statistically significant link between gun control and reduced violent crime. Further, more children die in the US from playing school football than from guns. More people die of smoking, or obesity, or medical malpractice than from guns. Nearly as many people die in car crashes, and if you exclude suicides, cars kill almost 3 times as many people as guns. If you count just accidents, you get about 32,000 car deaths a year, compared to less than 1,000 gun deaths. Almost as many people are killed by drunk drivers as by gun crime. Even using anti-gun agenda estimates, guns are used for self defense almost 43 times more often than to take a life. The vast majority of gun crime is done using weapons that were not acquired legally. There is no reason to ban guns or to further restrict guns in the US, just scare tactics.

Name a country that doesn't allow guns...

Please.

rollerfox88:

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 also live in England, and have been stabbed twice. It may be the case (I dont have any figures on any of this) that people are more likely to die in attacks in America as guns tend to do more damage, but I would put money (if I had any) on the proportion of violent crimes being higher here than in America. Or USA at least.

You're correct. Well, i don't know about the death tolls from violent crime, but despite having 1/5 the population of the US(about) the UK has more than 1/2 the violent crime that the US does.

J Tyran:

Augustine:
Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

Oh really?:

RaNDM G:

J Tyran:

Augustine:
Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.

Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

Jegsimmons:

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.

An estimated more than 70 million gun owners in the US owning an estimated 300+ million guns. yeah, people just don't seem to get this, don't know why? It's pretty simple.

Ugh, sadly, this topic just doesn't surprise me. I can't think of a single argument against to OT that hasn't already been stated in this thread and thousands of others. Well, I guess I haven't seen anything about the difference between changing a law in the US versus changing a law in the UK. People seem awfully willing to take two single data points and draw a cause and effect relation. I thought this site was supposed to be filled with objective sciencey people.

But against the idea itself are so many reasons not to. We banned drinking and driving and it hasn't exactly stopped drunk driving, something that kills a ton of people every year, so banning guns without taking some sort of martial action to confiscate every gun in America probably wouldn't go that well. And besides that, cars seem to be a pretty bad deal, they're dangerous, they pollute, and they get used far more regularly than guns, but no ones scrambling to get them banned. I know it isn't a perfect analogy, but the fact that people are a lot more attached and familiar with cars does give them a bias towards them. If they were raised bay a dad that took them out hunting or to the shooting range, or even by a cop who taught them proper use and respect for a firearm, they'd probably see it differently.

Also, stop saying that handguns are only meant to kill. You obviously haven't gone to a shooting range. Any guns purpose is to expel bullets at what the operator wants. Handguns offer a unique challenge, different styles of shooting, and different cost options for a shooter. Saying a handgun's only purpose is to kill is like saying a computer's only purpose is to develop atomic weapons.

lacktheknack:

EclipseoftheDarkSun:

lacktheknack:

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?

D'oh you caught me out :).

thaluikhain:

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.

But one would recruit the other if the economics etc were right, no?

Ryotknife:

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.

Why not stop outlawing drugs and educate people about their pros and cons then.. Isn't that comparable to guns, apart from not being in the constitution?

J Tyran:

Augustine:
Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

Everything that needs to be said in response to this, had already been said.
One thing I'd like to point out is that out of a fairly lengthy post that I have written, you pick off the ONLY section that was neither thought of, nor written by me.

spartan231490:

There was a federal ban on many "assault weapons" it didn't do a damn thing. More people in the US are killed by people using their hands and feet than with "assault weapons".

Oh geez, I just read this. The assault weapons ban is dumbest piece of legislation I have ever heard of. The ATF did a study during that period and found that the top ten guns used in shootings were Saturday night specials, aka: cheapo pistols with low ammo capacities and shoddy construction. The Democrats then spent all their time trying to ban high end pistols and rifles that almost no one uses domestically. The assault weapons ban is stupider than the idea of banning guns altogether. It's like banning spoilers and spinning rims to lower gang violence.

EclipseoftheDarkSun:

thaluikhain:

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.

But one would recruit the other if the economics etc were right, no?

Not necessarily, the problem is very widespread, covering a massive area over several states, with very low population densities for much of it.

Big problems like that, it's very easy to decide against doing anything about it, and hope that someone else will instead, especially as the contributions of even a fairly large group would make little or no real difference.

Now, a government action, probably at the state or federal level, would seem to be the way to go about it, but state and federal governments have lots of more important things to worry about, and probably always will.

It doesn't help that you have feral pigs in very big national parks where hunting is illegal as well.

I'd prefer it if it was harder to get a gun.

Then everyone and their mother wouldn't become a mercenary that thinks that they can take on people like me, a trained, card carrying galaxy saver.

I'm sure it's been said, but to throw two more cents into the overflowing two cent pile...

Guns are used to kill people. Not every person buys a gun with the hopes of killing someone. I assume it gives them a sense of security in their lives, where anything can and does happen. It's a right that is given to American citizens and some people wish to take advantage of all of their rights.

Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment is a load of horse shit. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it was also written in the 18th century, when a gun fired 3 rounds a minute and missed brick walls from 30 feet away. This should really be a non-issue, but because some people feel that their freedom is imposed upon because "IT'S THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE", guns will probably be a part of American culture until that mentality is forcibly changed.

Gun control regulations are never going to be perfect, even if guns are made illegal. If someone wants to get something, they can, don't be naive enough to think they can't. Guns are tied to freedom in the US, and because of that, they're tied to good deeds instead of bad ones. Until Americans figure out that much more harm has been done with firearms, they'll always be legal.

Weentastic:

spartan231490:

There was a federal ban on many "assault weapons" it didn't do a damn thing. More people in the US are killed by people using their hands and feet than with "assault weapons".

Oh geez, I just read this. The assault weapons ban is dumbest piece of legislation I have ever heard of. The ATF did a study during that period and found that the top ten guns used in shootings were Saturday night specials, aka: cheapo pistols with low ammo capacities and shoddy construction. The Democrats then spent all their time trying to ban high end pistols and rifles that almost no one uses domestically. The assault weapons ban is stupider than the idea of banning guns altogether. It's like banning spoilers and spinning rims to lower gang violence.

Well, if the NRA weren't so paranoid about fighting every possible restriction on gun ownership, perhaps the Democrats wouldn't be 'spending all their time' trying to ban high end pistols etc.

Obviously assault rifles and sniper rifles result in greater numbers of deaths when they are used by the occasional person who snaps and is in possession of them. And yeah I think there could be more preventative measures taken to address the causes rather than the symptoms of the problem.

There's no real point even bringing up the discussion.

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.

How do criminals normally get guns? By buying them legally, getting them through a proxy (who can buy them legally), stealing them from legitimate owners, or from black market gun runners.

If guns are made illegal and all guns are turned in, you've immediately removed the first three means for criminals to get guns. As for black markets, which are the chief means for criminals to get guns in the UK, they still have to get their guns from countries that don't have heavy gun relation, meaning that if those countries also restricted guns, and better efforts are made to restrict the import of guns into the country, black markets struggle to find supplies.

So there is your answer. Note that I am not actually endorsing the removal of guns in America. Besides being utterly impossible to get it done for political and practical reasons, I really think that with just the right amount of gun control, Americans can keep their guns and stay safe.

Philosophically, however, guns place an extreme amount of responsibility and power on the owner. I don't think you'll be able to overthrow any tyrannical governments with it (contrary to what is commonly said), but it is enough to give you power over, say, the lives of a theatre full of people. Whenever you give any individual that much power, you're taking a huge risk. Back in the formative days of the early US, had guns been anywhere near as affordable and effective as they are in the modern US, I have doubts America would have ever seen the second ammendment. That's the consequence of basing people's rights off of a document written before the existance of drive-bys and shooting sprees.

Even if you wanted to take away guns from people in the U.S....could you? How many people would say, "Oh, the government is oppressing me by eliminating the second amendment--just what I got this thing for!"? I'm guessing it would be a sizable amount of people, even if only 1% of gun owners were to take this stance. The casualties for the police and military alone should be enough deterrent. Even if you were to quell the insurrection of gun owners, how many would stay silent while the streets (metaphorically) are littered with bodies?

If you try to take the guns, they'll give you the bullets, as that strange bumpersticker says.

Weentastic:
Oh geez, I just read this. The assault weapons ban is dumbest piece of legislation I have ever heard of. The ATF did a study during that period and found that the top ten guns used in shootings were Saturday night specials, aka: cheapo pistols with low ammo capacities and shoddy construction. The Democrats then spent all their time trying to ban high end pistols and rifles that almost no one uses domestically. The assault weapons ban is stupider than the idea of banning guns altogether. It's like banning spoilers and spinning rims to lower gang violence.

I personally suspect that was a political decision.

You have one group saying that want to restrict guns, you have another group that doesn't, so you make a law restricting a select bunch of random scary looking things that don't matter, so both groups are sort of happy.

pretty sure guns aren't illegal here, you just need a license

Weentastic:

spartan231490:

There was a federal ban on many "assault weapons" it didn't do a damn thing. More people in the US are killed by people using their hands and feet than with "assault weapons".

Oh geez, I just read this. The assault weapons ban is dumbest piece of legislation I have ever heard of. The ATF did a study during that period and found that the top ten guns used in shootings were Saturday night specials, aka: cheapo pistols with low ammo capacities and shoddy construction. The Democrats then spent all their time trying to ban high end pistols and rifles that almost no one uses domestically. The assault weapons ban is stupider than the idea of banning guns altogether. It's like banning spoilers and spinning rims to lower gang violence.

Wanna know what's even stupider? Several states maintain identical bans despite the fact that the very administration that enacted the ban, along with half a dozen anti-gun committees have said that it didn't fucking work and that it punished 0 actual criminals while criminalizing innocent gun owners. Can you believe that shit?

Gun rights as far as I understand are good in 2 ways, one in personal protection and secondly militia.

the "militia" is a last line of defense for a nation, suffice it to say an armed militia is far more effective then an unarmed one, and in the improbable event that a militia is ever needed in the united states I'm sure those that are anti gun will be happy the rednecks were stockpiling arms. (hows that for generalization)

The fact is gun restriction only works at preventing the legal element from purchasing a gun. In the tragic event in Colorado it wasn't the lack of gun restriction that caused the tragedy to happen. For the most part he bought all his ammunition online, (where by the way you can also purchase a gun) It was that he was a mentally disturbed individual that caused the crime, and had he started slashing people with a katana we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Gun rights in the end protect against tyranny.

At least thats my two sense.

Do I own a gun, no, would I in the future yes.

JWAN:

Nantucket:
Um... as somebody from the UK I have to say guns are not outright illegal.
Pheasant hunting is still a popular sport and guns are required obviously.

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

I hunt deer with a handgun (.44 mag) and smaller game with smaller handguns (.357 and even a .40 cal glock).

I did read your entire post but your first line caught me.
You hunt Game with a handgun? That would require getting up close to the animal and point blank shooting - that is not very sporting.

Grape_Bullion:
I'm sure it's been said, but to throw two more cents into the overflowing two cent pile...

Guns are used to kill people. Not every person buys a gun with the hopes of killing someone. I assume it gives them a sense of security in their lives, where anything can and does happen. It's a right that is given to American citizens and some people wish to take advantage of all of their rights.

Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment is a load of horse shit. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it was also written in the 18th century, when a gun fired 3 rounds a minute and missed brick walls from 30 feet away. This should really be a non-issue, but because some people feel that their freedom is imposed upon because "IT'S THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE", guns will probably be a part of American culture until that mentality is forcibly changed.

Gun control regulations are never going to be perfect, even if guns are made illegal. If someone wants to get something, they can, don't be naive enough to think they can't. Guns are tied to freedom in the US, and because of that, they're tied to good deeds instead of bad ones. Until Americans figure out that much more harm has been done with firearms, they'll always be legal.

"much more harm"? Really? As I've said twice before in this thread, even conservative estimates made by anti-gun committees have found that guns are used almost 43 times more often in self defense in the US than to take a life, and that's including suicides which make up almost 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US. Less conservative estimates are almost 72 times more likely, again counting suicides. More good has come from firearms than harm.

Moth_Monk:
where firearms are illegal

No, they're not, heavily restricted yes. But not flat out illegal. UK citizens are allowed to own hunting rifles and hunting shotguns if they meet a specific criteria. Hell, they sell straight pull AR-15s in the UK.

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

They police do use them, a lot of them prefer not to. But some carry semi-auto MP5s around important government buildings. For the most part or right, not every Johnny Blue there carries.

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?

We're allowed to have them because they're there to keep us, firepower wise, on par with our government. We're a young nation and we still have to work out a few kinks in the ability to acquire them.

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.

Self defense is a huge reason people carry firearms (mostly pistols) on them. Police reaction time here can vary between five minutes to a half hour. And your life can be ended or drastically changed in that amount of time. A lot of people don't or can't wait that long for a rescue when their lives are in jeopardy.

spartan231490:

RaNDM G:

J Tyran:
[quote="Augustine" post="18.382695.15118854"]Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?

Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.

Nantucket:

JWAN:

Nantucket:
Um... as somebody from the UK I have to say guns are not outright illegal.
Pheasant hunting is still a popular sport and guns are required obviously.

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

I hunt deer with a handgun (.44 mag) and smaller game with smaller handguns (.357 and even a .40 cal glock).

I did read your entire post but your first line caught me.
You hunt Game with a handgun? That would require getting up close to the animal and point blank shooting - that is not very sporting.

How is it not very sporting? Needing to be closer is far far more sporting.

EclipseoftheDarkSun:

Ryotknife:

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.

Why not stop outlawing drugs and educate people about their pros and cons then.. Isn't that comparable to guns, apart from not being in the constitution?

No, firearms have far more benefits and they outweigh the risks. Third time's the charm, conservative anti gun estimates are that firearms are used over 42 times more often in self-defense than to take a life, and that is including gun suicides that make up almost 2/3 of gun deaths in the US. What illegal drugs save 42 times as many people as they kill? Say what you want about the benefits of marijuana, but it's basically a painkiller, it doesn't save lives.

Also, that's a bad argument since most people who are pro-gun rights(like me) support legalization of drugs in some way.

Further, as has been said and supported more times in this thread than my calculator can count, studies have shown that stricter gun control, even a total ban, doesn't reduce violent crime, or even murder rates.

farson135:

Human population-

Pig population-

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

No, they really don't. But thank-you for on going ahead and proving my point.

The maps clearly show that pig populations reach their densest concentrations in areas of little to no human habitation present. All of the dark blue areas for instance occur over stretches of land that on average contain no more than 10 people per square kilometer and probably quite a deal less then that when rural population densities are taken into consideration. As much as you would like to make Australia's feral pig problem an argument in support of US-style gun control, there just isn't a case to be made for it. The range of the feral pigs in Australia covers an area roughly five times that of Texas, and stretches out over some very isolated places and a diverse collection of different terrains.

Or do you still seriously contest that Texans could achieve the exact same results, if they had to cover five times the land and do so with half the amount of people and that are currently available?

J Tyran:

spartan231490:

RaNDM G:

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?

Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.

It is not legal in any state to shoot someone for breaking into a neighbors property. In some states, you might get away with it if they were heavily armed, but not most. Hell, there was a woman locked in her bathroom for 10 minutes talking to 911 while armed robbers ransacked her house and when the thieves broke into the bathroom she shot them with a shotgun and she was charged.
also, here is a post where I said that international differences in crime rates are caused by cultural differences, and point out several extremely compelling reasons why a gun ban in the US is an awful idea.

spartan231490:

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.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked