I think that a major problem that everyone who is for gun control is ingoring is the massive amount of firearms in the country already. We in America, unlike Europe, have a long national history of gun ownership rights, and expect (and are guaranteed in our constitution, the people who think that this is only in a "Well regulated militia" are reading it syntactically incorrectly) and have expected the right to own these firearms. This has led to an incredibly high amount of firearms in the country. Because all these firearms are already present, some law saying that they are now illegal will not have all that much impact at all. The wester european countries have lived in "developed" society with adequate law enforcement and large government for longer, and so there was no need for them to have their own firearms over the last few hundred years.
As a side note, Japan is an awful example of this, because Japanese citizens were never allowed to own their own firearms to begin with, so why would taking away a right that they never had affect their country in any way?
Problem with guns - accidents can happen, from accidental discharge to kids playing with them. Good point - If my home is being broken into or my life threatened I want to be able to defend myself. As much as I am as non violent as them come, if my life or the lives of my loved ones are threatened, I will fight to kill. Problem with guns - They can run out of ammo... thats why my walls are decorated in swords. I have a friend who set up her appartment so that no matter where you are (except in the bathroom) you are 2 steps away from a deadly martial arts weapon that she is trained in. I pity the fool that breaks into her place.... In my opinion once someone breaks into your place they should lose all rights and whatever you do in self defence should be perfectly legal. Robert Heinlein wrote a book (Time for Love I think it was called) where in one part there is a city where if someone killed an armed robber they were awarded something and they could display the attackers head outside their shop. In my mind a dangerous life threatening criminal looses human status and is an animal that should be put down before they kill a worthwhile person, or preferably locked up if they can be safely apprehended.
Fruhstuck: HaHa lol the racism in this made me laugh so much, just, so much
Your stupid American IS NOT a race its a nationality just like Jewish and Muslim arnt races their religions.
What would you call it? Nationism? I doooooo apologise for incorrect terminology i just couldn't think of a better way of saying it
No I would call it stupidity or bigotry, that's also the terms I would use for you laughing at such things when they clearly are not used in a joking manner.
Now please just shut up, your not being funny, witty or intelligent, your just being moronic and annoying, please just go away.
It's moronic to ask your opinion because i don't know something? Riiiiiiiiiiight Anyways, i'm not trying to be funny or witty and i'm fully aware that i'm not particularly intelligent, i was just asking what you would technically call anti-american abuse, what gave the impression i was trying to be funny? Also: it's silly to say to someone to go away or shut up by quoting them, if you don't want me to "tap back" or anything why did you at all give a response to what i said?
EDIT: I laugh at all stupid things, whether they be serious or not, for example: Prince Charles asking a Chinese government official for a menu at a reception in Beijing - classic He didn't mean to cause offence, he thought the guy was a waiter, the social faux pas was still funny
I don't know maybe because you give the impression of someone trying to be sarcastic by typing stuff like "Riiiiiiiight" and "I doooooooooo apologise".
Laughing at all stupid things is not a defence, that Prince Charles thing, fair enough it was a genuine mistake on his behalf and can be laughed at, but laughing at a bigoted comment is only a testament to your astounding stupidity and makes you just as bigoted as the person that said it.
I quoted you because you asked a profoundly stupid question and answered yourself with an equally stupid answer that I felt compelled to correct you and maybe cause you to grow a few more brain cells, than I was hoping that with your answer you'd fuck off but it seems your even more than regular retarded your also a smartarse and keep replying and asking moronic questions when I much more politely than I am now told you to FUCK OFF!
hypothetical fact: The belief that guns can be used to keep the American government in check is complete bull. For far too long the American government has been destroying any and all rights of the American public, but where have the second ammendment supporters been? Sitting at home stroking their guns because you gun supporters can't face the idea of using the gun in a fire fight, you feel much tougher using the gun to threaten everyone.
Actually more people in this country have more liberties than anytime previous, any notion to the contrary is ignorant bullshit.
In my days we didn't have the governance listening in on our morse code unlike your fancy listening majiggers.
avykins: Good, you americans cannot even be trusted to handle vegetable peelers. You do not deserve firearms. However on the other hand it is your access to guns that helps keep your population in check thus preventing your stupidity from overrunning the world... come to think of it most americans have the same IQ, gait, smell, volcabulary and voracious appetite as the living dead... *flee*
Wow. Angsty much? I mean, the US isn't a shining paradise of a country, but hell if the rest of the world isn't just as fucked and retarded. I love the "holier than thou" attitude so many people take when comparing their country to another. It's always good for a laugh and helps to remind me of just how stupid and arrogant most of the world is. Oh, by the way, I'm an American, I regularly take long runs, I bathe daily, eat moderately, and I have an IQ of 164. You're welcome to make any judgments you want about my vocabulary.
As for the gun control malarkey, I think of it this way. If you take away guns from John Q Public, it has little to no effect on how easily any criminal can get their hands on any firearm via the black market or some other means. Sure, you figure, "If I can't get a gun, then I don't need to worry about anyone else having one." However, you're mind soon changes when someone shoots up a school, assassinates some VIP, or breaks into your home and robs you at gun point. (the latter, by the way, isn't likely to give you a chance to change your mind as you'll likely be dead) My point is, taking away the guns isn't the solution to gun violence. People will still get their hands on them if they really want to. The solution is the same as it is for something like, say, AIDS prevention. If you want to keep people from contracting HIV, you don't take away their sex organs, you teach them the hazards involved and ingrain the idea of safe sex. Apply the same principle to gun safety. If you truly educate people on the dangers and consequences of firearms, they're a hell of a lot less likely to do something stupid with them. I know there are programs like this now, but they're woefully under-funded and simply don't do enough to drive home the responsibilities involved with owning a firearm.
i say this as nicely i can, but you sir are an idiot, who think with his very very small genetalia,and thinks you can compensate that littel thing, with a Gun, i say take away the weapons from civilians, is the first step to minimize the innocent standby and the criminality and sure pull the NRA BullSH*T: Guns dont kill Peopel, Peopel dose... okey then should we get rid of the peopel and leave the guns? or should we take away the guns?
Fruhstuck: HaHa lol the racism in this made me laugh so much, just, so much
Your stupid American IS NOT a race its a nationality just like Jewish and Muslim arnt races their religions.
What would you call it? Nationism? I doooooo apologise for incorrect terminology i just couldn't think of a better way of saying it
No I would call it stupidity or bigotry, that's also the terms I would use for you laughing at such things when they clearly are not used in a joking manner.
Now please just shut up, your not being funny, witty or intelligent, your just being moronic and annoying, please just go away.
It's moronic to ask your opinion because i don't know something? Riiiiiiiiiiight Anyways, i'm not trying to be funny or witty and i'm fully aware that i'm not particularly intelligent, i was just asking what you would technically call anti-american abuse, what gave the impression i was trying to be funny? Also: it's silly to say to someone to go away or shut up by quoting them, if you don't want me to "tap back" or anything why did you at all give a response to what i said?
EDIT: I laugh at all stupid things, whether they be serious or not, for example: Prince Charles asking a Chinese government official for a menu at a reception in Beijing - classic He didn't mean to cause offence, he thought the guy was a waiter, the social faux pas was still funny
I don't know maybe because you give the impression of someone trying to be sarcastic by typing stuff like "Riiiiiiiight" and "I doooooooooo apologise".
Laughing at all stupid things is not a defence, that Prince Charles thing, fair enough it was a genuine mistake on his behalf and can be laughed at, but laughing at a bigoted comment is only a testament to your astounding stupidity and makes you just as bigoted as the person that said it.
I quoted you because you asked a profoundly stupid question and answered yourself with an equally stupid answer that I felt compelled to correct you and maybe cause you to grow a few more brain cells, than I was hoping that with your answer you'd fuck off but it seems your even more than regular retarded your also a smartarse and keep replying and asking moronic questions when I much more politely than I am now told you to FUCK OFF!
Aaawwr you're really getting wound up about this arntcha peaches? That's not sarcasm it's just how i talk and a type how i talk You can call it a profoundly stupid question if you want but you've been unable to answer it, what does that say about you? I'm no smartarse nor am i a moron i am simply not pretending to be better than anyone Also: i shan't fuck off so long as you keep coming back at me darlin' :D
Billiejean, if they take away our guns them terrorist will come bomb us all. Guns make you a man, the more guns the manlier you are. That terrorist in the white house is gonna take us over and stop us from our american rights, like shootin stuff..
That, my good sir, is what you sound like. Lets all be thankful rational people have taken over the thread. And I'm American, I take no offense in the fact that people think American's shouldn't be able to have guns or use vegetable peelers. They shouldn't, we shouldn't.(sorry I momentarily forgot my patriotism) I have actually seen people that think guns are power, a fellow classmate of mine did a report on who his hero was, it was his brother because "hes got a lot of guns". Let's all just hope that for the sake of the rational Americans things start to change. On a side note the dude above me has a great point, everyone saying that cars and stairs(what?) should be taken away then, I guess we should take away people.
why does everyone have to make this out to be such a polarized issued? they act like it's either all guns legal or no guns legal. there is such a thing as a grey area here...it's not black and white as people would like to think
LtSvensson: i say this as nicely i can, but you sir are an idiot, who think with his very very small genetalia,and thinks you can compensate that littel thing, with a Gun, i say take away the weapons from civilians, is the first step to minimize the innocent standby and the criminality and sure pull the NRA BullSH*T: Guns dont kill Peopel, Peopel dose... okey then should we get rid of the peopel and leave the guns? or should we take away the guns?
Making fun of someones "level of endowment" and then saying they own a gun to compensate for that. Hilarious, if pathetically unoriginal and childish. And you call me out on the NRA thing. Nice, even though I never once mentioned ANYTHING like that. (and coincidentally, I hate the NRA) I'm not going to say this "as nicely as I can", you, sir, are the idiot. If you had even half a sentient brain in your head you'd realize that just because the general public can't get guns (under these new laws), it doesn't mean the unlawful citizens can't. It just means there'll be more innocent people killed by illegally owned firearms. Also, I have to point out that, just because someone can use a gun to kill someone doesn't mean they need to use a gun to kill someone. Let's say, for example, we outlaw firearms. Suddenly, we'll see a drastic rise in killings and murders using knives. I guess, by your logic, we should then outlaw knives as well since, without knives, people can't stab each other. I'll grant you, firearms are designed to kill, but at the same time, they can serve to protect a responsible, intelligent owner who may need it to ward off some would-be attacker. The problem isn't the method of killing, it's the nature of humanity to irrationally want to kill. That's the problem. Most perpetrators of these kinds of crimes are either uneducated, mentally unstable, or just simply corrupt. These are the things that need addressing. So go ahead, take away the guns, but you fail to solve the real problem.
Oh, and LtSvensson, try to be a bit more coherent with your posts. Especially if you're trying to insult someone and make them look stupid.
joystickjunki3: I really don't think that there's really an actual argument going on here. At the core of all of this, I'm sure we all believe that if there were no guns at all, then we would be safer from guns. But guns do exist and somehow criminals always do seem to get their hands on them; I'm also sure that most of the "normal people" who own guns probably own a handgun for protection their house, and maybe a couple rifles or shotguns for hunting. Of those "normal people," how many actually commit robberies or shoot up a school or other public place? The answer, w/o providing hard facts, is somewhere in the very low percentages. And assuming that just because someone owns a gun that they will commit some sort of crime is not only mistaken, but also a little depressing. Depressing in the manner that you can't even trust your fellow man.
I'm all for regulation of guns to a point, but I think that everyone who wishes to prohibit guns of any kind, or even crossbows, w/o discrimination is a bit crazy (pardon my lack of a better word).
And to everyone who is hating on those who aren't open-minded, just remember that you're hypocrites now because you're being close-minded about the situation instead of listening to the other side.
Glad to see there's at least one other person on here who looks at the topic logically and not basing their post entirely on opinion or rhetoric.
Durhamster: why does everyone have to make this out to be such a polarized issued? they act like it's either all guns legal or no guns legal. there is such a thing as a grey area here...it's not black and white as people would like to think
Exactly. I'm glad someone's come out and said it. I felt it was obvious, but I guess I shouldn't have put so much faith in people thinking rationally about this topic. I'm all for tougher gun control and, frankly, demand tougher laws on ownership, but taking them away entirely doesn't solve anything.
It's not the Middle Ages anymore. If you live in the country (or anywhere else for that matter) you're not going to need a weapon to defend yourself against marauding bandits or some crap. Illegalizing guns would admittedly be futile, like illegalizing smoking would be. They tried it with the Prohibition, and that gave way to a huge rise in crime (and besides, the process would probably be in violation of the Constitution). Every citizen does have the right to defend themselves. However, no civilian needs a weapon designed for a battlefield. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons are not something anyone other than a trained soldier should be able to get their hands on.
Vigormortis: Glad to see there's at least one other person on here who looks at the topic logically and not basing their post entirely on opinion or rhetoric.
If you take away guns from John Q Public, it has little to no effect on how easily any criminal can get their hands on any firearm via the black market or some other means. Sure, you figure, "If I can't get a gun, then I don't need to worry about anyone else having one." However, you're mind soon changes when someone shoots up a school, assassinates some VIP, or breaks into your home and robs you at gun point. (the latter, by the way, isn't likely to give you a chance to change your mind as you'll likely be dead) My point is, taking away the guns isn't the solution to gun violence. People will still get their hands on them if they really want to. The solution is the same as it is for something like, say, AIDS prevention. If you want to keep people from contracting HIV, you don't take away their sex organs, you teach them the hazards involved and ingrain the idea of safe sex. Apply the same principle to gun safety. If you truly educate people on the dangers and consequences of firearms, they're a hell of a lot less likely to do something stupid with them. I know there are programs like this now, but they're woefully under-funded and simply don't do enough to drive home the responsibilities involved with owning a firearm.
I have to say you've driven the point home better than I ever could. You're absolutely right.
avykins: Good, you americans cannot even be trusted to handle vegetable peelers. You do not deserve firearms. However on the other hand it is your access to guns that helps keep your population in check thus preventing your stupidity from overrunning the world... come to think of it most americans have the same IQ, gait, smell, volcabulary and voracious appetite as the living dead... *flee*
HaHa lol the racism in this made me laugh so much, just, so much
Whatever do you mean racism? Americans aren't a race. They are a group of people united only by geographical borders and shared beliefs. That has nothing to do with race. Those shared beliefs, and the governments they generate is what is being attacked. That's not racism. In this case, it's common sense. Even many Americans can see that, your current president for example (and I can understand why he wants to outlaw the gun that is going to kill him during his reign). The cultural upbringing that connects Americans, and creates their shared belief has nothing to do with race. At least get your terminology straight.
Oh i do apologise for laughing at someone who was belittling american people using one word wrong, forgive my obvious inferiority to you my pretentious and misguided supreme, king overlord No their shared beliefs and the government they've generated is NOT what was being fuck-lucking attacked here, you Bell-End, avykins called Americans thick and smelly and said that it's a good thing that they die of gun-crime and it made me chuckle that s/he could generalise all americans as such
Also:
What is the equivalent of Anti-simitic for americans then Mr Fucking Know It All?
EDIT: i'm fully aware anti-american suffices in this case, i'm more going after a "what would be the word for being against a country as anti-simitic is for jews, as anti-simitic is for all jews what would be the equivalent all countires" kinda feel to the question And now that i've calmed down slightly i also apologise for the name-calling
It's queen, not king, and that comes after overlord, but Miss Silver works too, if you don't feel like writing it all out, this forum isn't too formal, you know.
And I would say that yes, it was the shared beliefs of the Americans that was being called into questions, since that's the only thing Americans have in common. Their upbringing, and their geographical location. That's it. No races involved. Americans are just that. So if anyone says "Americans sucks", you can bet your ass it's American culture, American beliefs that is being fucked with.
TMAN10112: I feel it is a person's right to own a gun with the right licences and safty corses. I grew up around guns, and I don't see any reason that the average law abiding person should be prohibited from owning any firearm(not including full-auto). guns don't hurt people, people hurt/mug/rob/kill people.
p.s. sorry for using that old phrase.
To quote a lovely comedian. The gun sure as hell helps though. If I walk up to you and say "Bang bang" you can just walk right along.
Edit: And as I've said before, I don't think that gun control is going to help your country. It's too far gone. In another country I would say that gun control helps reduce the dangers associated with tools designed to kill with. Gun control in America is more like trying to keep guns away from two opposing armies. Even if you get the guns away, people are going to kill each other. It's going to take a while longer, and more people are going to be in a lot of pain before they die, it takes quite a few punches to kill someone, but people sure as hell are still going to die.
There are a number of cultural issues that need to be dealth with first.
AntiThom: Gun Control in areas has provennot only to INCREASE violent crimes, but even GUN crimes in general. Why? That's because criminals don't obey laws, dipshit. And taking guns away from law-abiding citizens only makes them easier targets for said criminals. It's a proven fact, wise up.
Funny you should say that because according to offical figures the murder rate in the US is 200 times greater than in Japan. In Japan no private citizen can buy a handgun legally.
Also, just because a citizen is 'law-abiding' doesn't mean they are incapable of murder - the majority of murders are so called 'passion killers' who just get so enraged they end up killing someone out of heat of the moment. Anyone, law-abiding or not, can do this; taking away guns prevents this from happening, naturally. There was a case where a police sheriff (more than just a respectable citizen, I'm sure) ended up shooting his family out of heat of the moment.
I live in the UK where we aren't allowed to buy guns without a proper license and I am very glad of that fact; our police officers aren't given guns either (with the exception of the armed response units, obviously).
And avykins, that's an awfully big brush you're using there.
That being stated, what prevents the "passion killers" from using a knife.
A law won't stop a criminal, but it makes their job harder. How many people from the UK know anyone who could supply you with anything like a pistol. Shotguns farmers have, air rifles a few people have them but not a fucking semi-auto pistol! In your country most people have guns under their pillows. I've never seen an illegal gun in my life. The fact that I haven't sort of proves it works.
I ask you how many crimes have you witnessed? And don't be stupid and use generalizations and stereotypes to advance an argument. Only idiots keep guns under their pillows. Haven't you ever heard of a gun cabinet or a lock?
A gun is a tool, it should be used to kill an animal for a meal, deter/destroy pests and perhaps even for recreation (such as that game where you shoot flying disks).
I do agree with gun control, though I do believe that hunting weapons should remain legal. Whilst this will take weapons out of the hands of civilians, it also means there will be less guns for criminals to steal from civilians.
Now, it's still possible to kill someone with a hunting rifle, but I very much doubt it'd be feasible after the first 1-2 shots due to the police being better armed than you.
Also, I would like to argue that the entire point of the Government is to govern, as in rule over by right of authority. You don't like your laws? You don't like the people in charge? Get 'em outta there!
Personally, I think that limitations on the power, rate of fire and magazine size are the most logical ways to control guns. It's not a simple "yes or no" area, as there are advantages and disadvantages to having weapons made available to the public.
As an example of an advantage of legal civilian guns, were an assault to take place, a gun could be used to defend the victim, who is probably much less able to defend himself/herself than the perpetrator. However, the argument that criminals will always get guns, regardless of the law, is false. If the US (I use the US as an example because of it's high levels of gun saturation) government were to crackdown on smuggling at the same time as putting gun control laws in place, then criminals would find it extremely difficult to get firearms.
As an example of a disadvantage of legal civilian guns, what happens when they are treated as a toy, rather than as a tool? There are several overdone stories of children getting their hands on guns and doing horrific things to others, but at the same time, there are several stories of how people's lives were saved due to civilians with guns.
In my opinion, the limitations upon firearms for the US should probably be a variant of Australia's system, but with different sets of legal weapons and an extremely basic permit given to all civilians over the age of 18.
Details of permit system
This style of permit system satisfies their constitution's right to bear arms while reducing the amount of firepower given to people who are not already trained in the safe use of a gun.
LtSvensson: i say this as nicely i can, but you sir are an idiot, who think with his very very small genetalia,and thinks you can compensate that littel thing, with a Gun, i say take away the weapons from civilians, is the first step to minimize the innocent standby and the criminality and sure pull the NRA BullSH*T: Guns dont kill Peopel, Peopel dose... okey then should we get rid of the peopel and leave the guns? or should we take away the guns?
READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
Booze Zombie: A gun is a tool, it should be used to kill an animal for a meal, deter/destroy pests and perhaps even for recreation (such as that game where you shoot flying disks).
I do agree with gun control, though I do believe that hunting weapons should remain legal. Whilst this will take weapons out of the hands of civilians, it also means there will be less guns for criminals to steal from civilians.
Now, it's still possible to kill someone with a hunting rifle, but I very much doubt it'd be feasible after the first 1-2 shots due to the police being better armed than you.
Also, I would like to argue that the entire point of the Government is to govern, as in rule over by right of authority. You don't like your laws? You don't like the people in charge? Get 'em outta there!
how do you do that in a country where the government has become corrupt and rigs elections? You can't vote and peaceful protest doesn't necessarily work.
Yokai: It's not the Middle Ages anymore. If you live in the country (or anywhere else for that matter) you're not going to need a weapon to defend yourself against marauding bandits or some crap. Illegalizing guns would admittedly be futile, like illegalizing smoking would be. They tried it with the Prohibition, and that gave way to a huge rise in crime (and besides, the process would probably be in violation of the Constitution). Every citizen does have the right to defend themselves. However, no civilian needs a weapon designed for a battlefield. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons are not something anyone other than a trained soldier should be able to get their hands on.
then how do you take down a corrupt, election rigging government?
Cahlee: I personally think gun restrictions are a great idea. We have them in Australia and I think we're much better off for it.
READ MY POST. WHAT WORKS IN AUSTRALIA DOESN'T WORK HERE.
You do realise that it isn't illegal for Australians to have guns, dont you? Restrictions are that there are weapons that we cant have like super dooper kill-tastic semi automatics, and that if we do want a gun that we know how to use them. So, why cant america just restrict the horrible guns and make sure that those who decide that they would like a gun have gone through the proper procedures and know how to use them.
READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
I've read this too,but I don't necessarily think it gives support for less gun control. I discussed tis with a professor of mine one time and he gave an interesting perspective. He basically said that when people have guns, the criminals go to where they know there are less guns. But this doesn't say anything if everyone had guns or if no one did. Essentially, the crime would remain static, but the location would change.
To get more on topic, I don't think there is a correlation between number of guns and un fatalities on either side of the issue. Japan and Switzerland both have low gun violence and have opposite positions on gun control.
Gun control will ban automatic weapons, but the majority of deaths are from inner city handgun violence where the guns are obtained illegally, so getting rid of automatics and gun control will not do much. With that said, the idea of having a gun for your protection seems silly to me, because you're most likely to get killed in your house by some one you know and trust in a situation where you wouldn't think to have your gun.
To stop gun violence, we need to address the issues of poverty in America as it will do more than giving guns to people or banning them will do.
Cahlee: I personally think gun restrictions are a great idea. We have them in Australia and I think we're much better off for it.
READ MY POST. WHAT WORKS IN AUSTRALIA DOESN'T WORK HERE.
You do realise that it isn't illegal for Australians to have guns, dont you? Restrictions are that there are weapons that we cant have like super dooper kill-tastic semi automatics, and that if we do want a gun that we know how to use them. So, why cant america just restrict the horrible guns and make sure that those who decide that they would like a gun have gone through the proper procedures and know how to use them.
My advice, settle down.
I meant the post on page 5. I discussed the black market, prohibition, and border security. not much point to requiring a permit, when crooks can easily buy theirs off the black market
READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
I've read this too,but I don't necessarily think it gives support for less gun control. I discussed tis with a professor of mine one time and he gave an interesting perspective. He basically said that when people have guns, the criminals go to where they know there are less guns. But this doesn't say anything if everyone had guns or if no one did. Essentially, the crime would remain static, but the location would change.
To get more on topic, I don't think there is a correlation between number of guns and un fatalities on either side of the issue. Japan and Switzerland both have low gun violence and have opposite positions on gun control.
Gun control will ban automatic weapons, but the majority of deaths are from inner city handgun violence where the guns are obtained illegally, so getting rid of automatics and gun control will not do much. With that said, the idea of having a gun for your protection seems silly to me, because you're most likely to get killed in your house by some one you know and trust in a situation where you wouldn't think to have your gun.
To stop gun violence, we need to address the issues of poverty in America as it will do more than giving guns to people or banning them will do.
oddly enough, I agree with this. Poverty has a lot more to do with it. But then, so do social issues, like the glorification of gangsters. But guns are still necessary to protect the people from an election rigging govenment.
Y'know, I'm absolutely in favour of gun control. When I'm in control of a gun, it only points where I want it to point.
Gun *banning*, on the other hand, which is what the anti-gun lobby mean when they say "gun control", is a bad idea.
In the UK, gun crime has been steadily on the rise since the Dunblane Knee-Jerk Ban. Competitive shooters have been criminalised, while criminal shooters couldn't care less.
Meanwhile in the US, Washington DC with its strict firearms laws has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. Vermont, with largely unrestricted concealed carry, has one of the lowest.
The interesting thing about banning things is that the people who use them for criminal purposes generally don't care what the law says about them...
Personally, and speaking as a Brit with a possibly over-zealous affection for law and order, I'd prefer to be able to own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. I don't enjoy the idea of having to defend myself with a firearm, but I want the option to do so in an emergency. If the criminals can buy an assault rifle out of the back of a Transit van on a street corner for £60, I want to be able to carry a Sig on my hip in the event of things going tails-up. Police are by necessity reactive; however much they try, in most circumstances the best they can realistically do is investigate a crime once it has occurred. Before that, individuals must defend themselves.
There is one final point, of course.
It has become a grand tradition of totalitarian regimes that their accession is typically followed by bans on private ownership of firearms. An armed populace can fight back against oppression. Now, I don't see it being a problem in the civilised world for now - as long as elections are free and accurate, even Tony Blair holds little terror - but who knows what the future might bring? And if the day ever comes, it'll be too late.
LtSvensson: i say this as nicely i can, but you sir are an idiot, who think with his very very small genetalia,and thinks you can compensate that littel thing, with a Gun, i say take away the weapons from civilians, is the first step to minimize the innocent standby and the criminality and sure pull the NRA BullSH*T: Guns dont kill Peopel, Peopel dose... okey then should we get rid of the peopel and leave the guns? or should we take away the guns?
READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
Keep to one post, please?
And have you ever heard of the expression "Only in America"? I think that could very well be used here. Besides, those statistics you people are so very fond of, you know what's funny about them (apart from statistics being able to prove ANYTHING)? They're short term. You won't change America overnight. No matter how much you want to. Gun control isn't going to help straight away, just like better education takes AT LEAST, and that's at the very least, 12 years to kick in.
Disclaimer: Yes, I know there are a lot of other countries in which gun control wouldn't reduce crime too, but in those countries oppressive governments are more of a hot topic than gun control is.
awmperry: Y'know, I'm absolutely in favour of gun control. When I'm in control of a gun, it only points where I want it to point.
Gun *banning*, on the other hand, which is what the anti-gun lobby mean when they say "gun control", is a bad idea.
In the UK, gun crime has been steadily on the rise since the Dunblane Knee-Jerk Ban. Competitive shooters have been criminalised, while criminal shooters couldn't care less.
Meanwhile in the US, Washington DC with its strict firearms laws has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. Vermont, with largely unrestricted concealed carry, has one of the lowest.
The interesting thing about banning things is that the people who use them for criminal purposes generally don't care what the law says about them...
Personally, and speaking as a Brit with a possibly over-zealous affection for law and order, I'd prefer to be able to own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. I don't enjoy the idea of having to defend myself with a firearm, but I want the option to do so in an emergency. If the criminals can buy an assault rifle out of the back of a Transit van on a street corner for £60, I want to be able to carry a Sig on my hip in the event of things going tails-up. Police are by necessity reactive; however much they try, in most circumstances the best they can realistically do is investigate a crime once it has occurred. Before that, individuals must defend themselves.
There is one final point, of course.
It has become a grand tradition of totalitarian regimes that their accession is typically followed by bans on private ownership of firearms. An armed populace can fight back against oppression. Now, I don't see it being a problem in the civilised world for now - as long as elections are free and accurate, even Tony Blair holds little terror - but who knows what the future might bring? And if the day ever comes, it'll be too late.
You sir, are awesome. Check out my post on page 5. I tip my hat to you sir. :)
LtSvensson: i say this as nicely i can, but you sir are an idiot, who think with his very very small genetalia,and thinks you can compensate that littel thing, with a Gun, i say take away the weapons from civilians, is the first step to minimize the innocent standby and the criminality and sure pull the NRA BullSH*T: Guns dont kill Peopel, Peopel dose... okey then should we get rid of the peopel and leave the guns? or should we take away the guns?
READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
Keep to one post, please?
And have you ever heard of the expression "Only in America"? I think that could very well be used here. Besides, those statistics you people are so very fond of, you know what's funny about them (apart from statistics being able to prove ANYTHING)? They're short term. You won't change America overnight. No matter how much you want to. Gun control isn't going to help straight away, just like better education takes AT LEAST, and that's at the very least, 12 years to kick in.
Disclaimer: Yes, I know there are a lot of other countries in which gun control wouldn't reduce crime too, but in those countries oppressive governments are more of a hot topic than gun control is.
assault weapons- such as ak-47's- were first banned in the 60's- on a national level. That expired in the 80's, was passed again by clinton, I think, then expired again in like 2005. Point being, we have been doing this since the 60's. hasn't worked so far.
Nevins: We in America, unlike Europe, have a long national history of gun ownership rights.
Long history? If America has a long history of anything please let me know. My local pub has a longer history than your country.
I don't think anyone is realistically talking about banning all guns from the States. Rifles are fine. They can be used for hunting, sport shooting, evening defending one's house from scavenging hordes of crack/meth addled psychos. I fail to see the need to allow fully automatic weapons and handguns in the hands of the local population.
Wow peoples fear of guns, and willingness to give the right to have them up just mystifies me.
Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's(defensive gun use) annually. Other studies since then have yeilded yearly numbers between 800K and 2.5 million DGUs a year.
Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries
The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)
Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here(link removed). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.
The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.
Nevins: We in America, unlike Europe, have a long national history of gun ownership rights.
Long history? If America has a long history of anything please let me know. My local pub has a longer history than your country.
I don't think anyone is realistically talking about banning all guns from the States. Rifles are fine. They can be used for hunting, sport shooting, evening defending one's house from scavenging hordes of crack/meth addled psychos. I fail to see the need to allow fully automatic weapons and handguns in the hands of the local population.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to carry a handgun? 88%(1998 study) of violent crime happens away from the home. I fail to see how my carrying a gun endangers you or anyone around me. I promise you couldn't even tell I carry. Why deny me the option to be proactive about my safety? Am I ever going to have to use it? probably not but I'd rather be proactive about my safety rather than just rely on statistics and hope.
I think that a major problem that everyone who is for gun control is ingoring is the massive amount of firearms in the country already. We in America, unlike Europe, have a long national history of gun ownership rights, and expect (and are guaranteed in our constitution, the people who think that this is only in a "Well regulated militia" are reading it syntactically incorrectly) and have expected the right to own these firearms. This has led to an incredibly high amount of firearms in the country. Because all these firearms are already present, some law saying that they are now illegal will not have all that much impact at all. The wester european countries have lived in "developed" society with adequate law enforcement and large government for longer, and so there was no need for them to have their own firearms over the last few hundred years.
As a side note, Japan is an awful example of this, because Japanese citizens were never allowed to own their own firearms to begin with, so why would taking away a right that they never had affect their country in any way?