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.
No, you haven't. A gun is still a gun. It's only to an American that it matters if someone shoots you with an assault rifle or a pistol. The rest of the world is going to be just as dead in any case.
sneakypenguin: 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.
Very true. But you miss one point. Even if a culture or country has a really violent population and lots of murders, it's much easier to kill someone with a gun. Sure, Britain or Sweden or Japan has much lower murder rates than America, and would have, with or without guns. But if we do have a violent country, like America undoubtedly is (and don't go arguing about that, please, you know it's true), then guns are going to help a lot in getting the numbers of deaths higher. That's what gun control is about.
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.
the lack of border security gives us a huge black market. See my post on page 5. Moreover, when the handgun ban in chicago was overturned by the supreme court, the crime rate droppped. Handguns are the only way to defend yourself in many situations, such as car jackings. Oh, and silver, We don't ENFORCE gun laws. Ergo, they only increase the crime rate. Also, feel free to read the lower half of page 6.
It has been statistically proven that in America, gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
also: You miss a point. Black Market. read my post on page 5. Second point you miss: defending oneself from corrupt, election rigging government.
nabaal: I can see most people believing that a handgun is a viable self defense option. But after several years in the infantry and firing a plethora of weapons, the pistol is nearly useless. The barrel is so short that even if you are a few millimetres off in your aim at a target 5 metres away this will usually result in you missing your target. On top of that most people are not trained in proper marksmenship principles which can take years to fully develop. Compounded with during a home invasion the stress level is high which causes the adrenaline to flow through the body which in turn causes the hands to shake further ruining your aim.
Most responsible handgun owners actually shoot/ practice MORE than the average police officer.
For instance, the average police officer has to qualify twice a year and thats about the only time they actually shoot, while I and many other handgun owners actually shoot nearly an average of 100 rounds every weekend. In addition to that, I and many other responsible gun owners have sought out training from professional which trumps what the average police officer's training. You also have to remember Cops are humans too and they tend to miss as much as or even more than the average responsible conceal carry permit wearing citizen. Look up nearly any shootings the involves the polices and you will see an extreme amount of ammo being shot at the perps while usually less than 10% hit their mark.
This arguing is going no where really. Even if the world was perfectly safe, I would still want a gun if for no other purpose than to hunt for survival if necessary and just for the hobby of shooting. In this perfect world tho, Police could/would respond in milliseconds to crime rather than 3-4 mins, at which point the crime is probably over with.
Ive seen alot of "holier than thou" type responses from people of other countries, of course no one will fesses up to what perfect country they live in Ive noticed. If you live in a society where you have zero chance of becoming a victim, bravo, let us all immigrate there. But for us Americans, we have the right to legally own and the privilege to carry firearms, and I for one will exercise that right as long as I can.
Edited to add: If you cannot shoot a pistol at 5 meters and keep it in the black, then yes you need to practice more. Handguns have plenty of use. In combat, they are backup for your primary weapon. In self defense, well they are small, concealable, and get the job done.
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.
Proactive about your safety? In London we just had a blitz on teenagers carrying knives as 'proactive safety' against knife crime. And we've already seen a fall in violence. "Proactive safety" is equivalent to going up to someone and punching them because 'you thought they might start something'.
Murder primarily, is not the fault of the gun, that I happily concede. Person on person violence is related on a large scale to social factors. Guns however are a facilitator, a tool. Handguns are designed to kill. You remove them from the hands of those eager to use them and you decrease the ease of killing. I would certainly not be comfortable going to a bar or the cinema with a friend who was carrying a gun.
What do you think is safer in a mugging situation? Giving them your wallet or pulling a firearm? Because they can have my wallet, I'll call my bank and cancel the cards. I'll lose a bit of money. No big deal. Raising the stakes is not a smart move with personal safety.
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?
Well its kind of hard to ban most knifes as there more tools than weapons. Also I have wittnessed a few. Couple of muggings, a few fights. Nothing too bad. Also a gun in a household is still a gun what someone has access to. Picture this; a guy splits up with his girl, maybe she was cheating on him. He gets andgry and decides to visit the guy. He takes his gun not to shoot, but to mess with him a bit. There is a problem, can you spot it?
Why would anyone need a firearm anyway? I've never heard of any crime being stopped by a victim holding a gun.
We have pointed out many times that if you take away the guns, criminals will still have them. I dont care what country you are from, I am willing to bet that a large portion of your criminal society has a gun or access. I am staring at you Australia, where handgun ownership IS legal with the right permits, and alot of criminals do have firearms.
I will concede: - That they are uneducated children accidently shooting themselves; however its a fact that accidental drowning in backyard pools kills ALOT more kids than guns. - There will be some asshats who didnt get enuff attention from daddy and/or cannot cope with their own issues, so they rampage through schools, malls and churches, however the amount of times this happens and the few people that are killed are sensationalized by liberal demo media. You never hear about the person who used a firearm in self defense, because it happens enough that the other democrats (no offence to gun loving demos) may actually realize guns save MORE lives than they destroy.
In a mugging situation? Hmmm. If I am already at gun point, sure... I will comply; however if I see it coming, I believe the perp will lose interest once he sees that I am carrying and if he doesnt, well ...
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.
Proactive about your safety? In London we just had a blitz on teenagers carrying knives as 'proactive safety' against knife crime. And we've already seen a fall in violence. "Proactive safety" is equivalent to going up to someone and punching them because 'you thought they might start something'.
Murder primarily, is not the fault of the gun, that I happily concede. Person on person violence is related on a large scale to social factors. Guns however are a facilitator, a tool. Handguns are designed to kill. You remove them from the hands of those eager to use them and you decrease the ease of killing. I would certainly not be comfortable going to a bar or the cinema with a friend who was carrying a gun.
What do you think is safer in a mugging situation? Giving them your wallet or pulling a firearm? Because they can have my wallet, I'll call my bank and cancel the cards. I'll lose a bit of money. No big deal. Raising the stakes is not a smart move with personal safety.
the lack of border security gives us a huge black market. See my post on page 5. Moreover, when the handgun ban in chicago was overturned by the supreme court, the crime rate droppped. Handguns are the only way to defend yourself in many situations, such as car jackings. Oh, and silver, We don't ENFORCE gun laws. Ergo, they only increase the crime rate. Also, feel free to read the lower half of page 6.
It has been statistically proven that in America, gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
also: You miss a point. Black Market. read my post on page 5. Second point you miss: defending oneself from corrupt, election rigging government.
Firstly, you defence from a car jacking is let them have the car. You should be insured anyway. What's worth the risk. If they were going to kill you, they'd kill you. Gun or no gun.
Secondly, we don't live in a repressive authoritarian regime. We live in a democracy. I hope to god that your first reaction to the (never ending) cases of american political corruption is not to go grab your gun.
"Gun control" is a misnomer. You can't prove a causal relationship between gun control and the crime rate. You can prove things happen at the same time not that they're caused by each other. The biggest rise in violent crime in urban environments of late, in the 90s, has been explained through economic and social factors. Not firearms. Likewise the early 2000s fall has nothing to do with guns.
I actually think that guns don't matter too much. They are more a symptom than a cause. Americans are violent/aggressive people. I'm not just being prejudice, this is based on a full year living with them. The whole society is more rigged around macho aggressiveness than any I've seen in the West (although I've not been to Italy). There's a complete lack of critical thinking and empathy amongst even college educated people and on both sides of the political divide.
I just think that for a society that is more inherently violent than others, taking away your guns might be a smart move. That's a whole 'nother debate though.
--- Last post. I have come to the realisation that no matter how much good it would do the country you're never going to actually be able to take guns away from Americans. No matter how many Columbines, Wacho or V-Tech shootings happen, Americans are going to believe they are safer than their European neighbours because they carry guns. Despite the fact that their European neighbours have massively lower levels of homicide and gun violence.
It all wonderfully ties in with the notion of American liberty. Free to live a happy life but more likely die in squalor if you're born in the wrong circumstances.
In a mugging situation? Hmmm. If I am already at gun point, sure... I will comply; however if I see it coming, I believe the perp will lose interest once he sees that I am carrying and if he doesnt, well ...
Just out of interest have you ever been mugged? Its not normal you see it coming. Or maybe British muggers are just more sneaky.
And actually the rate of gun ownership amongst British criminals is quite low. I believe we can be quite proud of this "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales." Admittedly its getting worse of recent but government and the police are pushing back.
In a mugging situation? Hmmm. If I am already at gun point, sure... I will comply; however if I see it coming, I believe the perp will lose interest once he sees that I am carrying and if he doesnt, well ...
Just out of interest have you ever been mugged? Its not normal you see it coming. Or maybe British muggers are just more sneaky.
And actually the rate of gun ownership amongst British criminals is quite low. I believe we can be quite proud of this "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales." Admittedly its getting worse of recent but government and the police are pushing back.
yes, England, the pinnacle of the gun control success story...where your criminals are more heavily armed than the police.
In a mugging situation? Hmmm. If I am already at gun point, sure... I will comply; however if I see it coming, I believe the perp will lose interest once he sees that I am carrying and if he doesnt, well ...
Just out of interest have you ever been mugged? Its not normal you see it coming. Or maybe British muggers are just more sneaky.
And actually the rate of gun ownership amongst British criminals is quite low. I believe we can be quite proud of this "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales." Admittedly its getting worse of recent but government and the police are pushing back.
yes, England, the pinnacle of the gun control success story...where your criminals are more heavily armed than the police.
the lack of border security gives us a huge black market. See my post on page 5. Moreover, when the handgun ban in chicago was overturned by the supreme court, the crime rate droppped. Handguns are the only way to defend yourself in many situations, such as car jackings. Oh, and silver, We don't ENFORCE gun laws. Ergo, they only increase the crime rate. Also, feel free to read the lower half of page 6.
It has been statistically proven that in America, gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.
also: You miss a point. Black Market. read my post on page 5. Second point you miss: defending oneself from corrupt, election rigging government.
Firstly, you defence from a car jacking is let them have the car. You should be insured anyway. What's worth the risk. If they were going to kill you, they'd kill you. Gun or no gun.
HAHAHAHA ever had someone try to carjack you?
I have, you know what I did?
I pulled out my Beretta 92FS and stuck it in their face.
In a mugging situation? Hmmm. If I am already at gun point, sure... I will comply; however if I see it coming, I believe the perp will lose interest once he sees that I am carrying and if he doesnt, well ...
Just out of interest have you ever been mugged? Its not normal you see it coming. Or maybe British muggers are just more sneaky.
And actually the rate of gun ownership amongst British criminals is quite low. I believe we can be quite proud of this "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales." Admittedly its getting worse of recent but government and the police are pushing back.
yes, England, the pinnacle of the gun control success story...where your criminals are more heavily armed than the police.
Enjoy your nanny state.
Enjoy your massive gun related death toll.
yea, I dont really care if criminals riddle each other with bullets.
Also, taking guns out of the hands of the population radically decreases their ability to kill each other. Something Americans haven't twigged yet.
WRONG. 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.
I'm sorry but I can't just let that stand. Do you honestly beleive this? your "proven fact" is so wrong I'm pretty sure I've just caught cancer from reading it. honestly, just look at the number of murders in countries where firearms are readily availiable compared to others, obviously isolated "hotspots" don't make a difference, as there is no challange associated with moving firearms in and out of the area. A blanket ban on firearms in America would, undeniably, lower the rate of violent crimes, but don't let these small speed bumps obstruct your "proven facts".
Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries. Some authors attribute both trends to the fact that criminals in America are more likely to have firearms
Fun fact, most violent crime is done on impusle, and is not thought through at all. honestly, it amazes me how people can use the logic of "it's safer for everyone to have guns, as criminals will have them anyway". No, this is not the case, legalizing firearms makes them much more accessable to people that would have them.
Whether you have a gun to defend yourself or not has nothing to do with if someone shoots you on impulse, it just means that at the end of the day, two people have been shot as the original shooter is likely to draw the fire of other people. I don't see any reason why this is a good thing, surely nobody having a firearm out of fear of being attacked is an infinately better option (and no, you can't counter that with the "criminals will have guns anyway" flawed logic, look at any other country, smuggling firearms is VERY difficult).
Not only is it completely unnecessary for average citizens to be armed, it is also 100% stupid.
if you're anti-gun, i'd love to know your level of experience with firearms.
As far as I'm concerned, you're only allowed to be anti-gun if you've grown up around guns and know them intimately.
In my opinion you're only allowed to be anti-rape if you've grown up in an environment rich in and know both sides of the crime intimately. Spot the problem with this logic.
Also, if all guns were banned, one could still go to certain places and buy an entire crate of brand spankin' new full auto Russian AK-47s(already banned for importation) on the cheap.
You see, Boris is in a financial slump, and has something of a coke problem. Because DRUG CONTROL has worked just as well as GUN CONTROL, one could provide him with some white and some green. Then one could walk away with lots o' fire power.
Also, taking guns out of the hands of the population radically decreases their ability to kill each other. Something Americans haven't twigged yet.
WRONG. 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.
I'm sorry but I can't just let that stand. Do you honestly beleive this? your "proven fact" is so wrong I'm pretty sure I've just caught cancer from reading it. honestly, just look at the number of murders in countries where firearms are readily availiable compared to others, obviously isolated "hotspots" don't make a difference, as there is no challange associated with moving firearms in and out of the area. A blanket ban on firearms in America would, undeniably, lower the rate of violent crimes, but don't let these small speed bumps obstruct your "proven facts".
Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries. Some authors attribute both trends to the fact that criminals in America are more likely to have firearms
Fun fact, most violent crime is done on impusle, and is not thought through at all. honestly, it amazes me how people can use the logic of "it's safer for everyone to have guns, as criminals will have them anyway". No, this is not the case, legalizing firearms makes them much more accessable to people that would have them.
Whether you have a gun to defend yourself or not has nothing to do with if someone shoots you on impulse, it just means that at the end of the day, two people have been shot as the original shooter is likely to draw the fire of other people. I don't see any reason why this is a good thing, surely nobody having a firearm out of fear of being attacked is an infinately better option (and no, you can't counter that with the "criminals will have guns anyway" flawed logic, look at any other country, smuggling firearms is VERY difficult).
Not only is it completely unnecessary for average citizens to be armed, it is also 100% stupid.
You are making assumptions. Please read the following. I would personally appreciate it if you read it all, simply for the sake of integrity.
"Actually, it has been statistically proven-PROVEN- that gun control INCREASES the crime rate in America. See, prohibition didn't take booze from criminals. Banning weed didn't take it away from criminals. In America, we have almost no border security. Which is both why so many mexicans can simply walk over the border and also why all bans and control laws fail here. Gun control solely determines whether or not victims can fight back. Michigan- which used to have the number one murder city(Detroit)had gun control. They decided to pass right to carry laws. Citizens suddenly had the right to carry guns everywhere. The crime rate dropped, and it has stayed low. In new england, the state with the lowest crime rate is Vermont. They have the least gun control. The state with the highest, (I believe it is massachussets) has the most gun control. What's more, while the states in New England with the highest crime rate aren't a COMPLETE inversion of the states with the least gun control, they are pretty close. Ultimately, Australia and Great Britain ENFORCE their borders. The USA does not because a bunch of actors in Hollywood and corporate lobbysists think it would be racist to treat Mexicans like everybody else, and pump up border security to deal with our problems. Ulimately, I LIVE in a state with high gun control, California. California does not recognize right to carry. I was recently robbed and my arm was broken.
Morever, when the Supreme Court overturned many of the gun control laws in Illinois, Obama's home state, the crime rate was LOWERED.
So, in conclusion, you anti-gun activists: DO FREAKING RESEARCH. The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control. The more gun control, the more crime. Britain might enforce it's borders, but in USA we don't, due to bigots who hate the idea of treating Mexicans equally. We should be increasing legal immigration, not simply letting them wander over the border and be exploited by wal-mart and home depot. But since that is what we are doing, all bans and control laws are an exercise in stupidity."
So... his statement is correct. Gun control and the crime rate in america are directly proportional. Get over it. One can argue that would change if we had border security, but it is the reality nonetheless.
yes, England, the pinnacle of the gun control success story...where your criminals are more heavily armed than the police.
Enjoy your nanny state.
I'll reiterate: "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales."
AFOs (authorised firearms officers) are equipped with H&K G36s, H&K MP5s and Stery Augs. Last time I checked that beats dodgy re-fitted revolvers shipped in from Eastern Europe.
Just remember that my nanny state will feed me, house me, heal me and teach me for free when I have nothing. And do it (reasonably well). Oh, that and we have all the same liberties you do. Except that of course we can drink, fuck and get elected to high office at a younger age.
Silver: Very true. But you miss one point. Even if a culture or country has a really violent population and lots of murders, it's much easier to kill someone with a gun. Sure, Britain or Sweden or Japan has much lower murder rates than America, and would have, with or without guns. But if we do have a violent country, like America undoubtedly is (and don't go arguing about that, please, you know it's true), then guns are going to help a lot in getting the numbers of deaths higher. That's what gun control is about.
No, Silver, that's not what "gun control" - a flawed title if ever there was one - is about.
Gun banning is about wishful thinking. It's about diminishing personal freedoms and self-defence options in favour of criminals; that may sound counterintuitive, but in reality that's effectively the case.
Let's say you live somewhere where private gun ownership is prohibited. You're accosted by a criminal with a gun, and he demands your wallet. You give him your wallet, and he runs off £500 richer. Or he takes the wallet and shoots you so you can't identify him to the police, whichever.
Or, the same scenario takes place, but you have decided to learn a martial art to defend yourself, because your government doesn't trust you with a gun. Thug pulls gun, demands wallet, you try the kotegaishi your teacher so merrily taught you last week. Then it turns out the criminal missed the part of the lesson where he's supposed to give up, the gun goes off accidentally, and shoots you, or the little old lady at the other end of the street.
On the other hand, if you have a legally-held concealed firearm and the training and skill to use it properly and safely, you feign getting your wallet out as a misdirection, then draw your weapon and invite the criminal to leave with all his insides on the inside. If he does, you reholster and call the police. If he doesn't, you shoot him and call the police. Okay, so you might still get shot, but at least you stand a fighting chance. At least your survival is partly up to you, rather than wholly up to the criminal.
I don't carry a gun; the government in the UK doesn't trust me to own a handgun, or even a .22 rifle if I don't live on a large enough estate. My government trusts 17-year-olds to drive vehicles that kill over three thousand people in the UK every year, and trusts people to have children without having any idea how to raise them, and trusts Tony Blair to not be locked up for being Tony Blair, but security-vetted people with military training mustn't be trusted to carry twenty rounds of .40 on their hip.
Personally, I believe I would be able to safely and effectively use a firearm to defend myself or my family. I don't want to ever have to - I love shooting as long as I'm not harming anything living - but I'm confident in my ability to do so should the need arise. If I were allowed to carry a gun, I could with some degree of confidence be responsible for my own defence at no cost to the taxpayer. But instead I have to rely on the police to react quickly enough to stop a criminal at considerable expense - at best - or investigate a murder in retrospect. Either way it costs the country money, and results in nothing but reduced personal safety.
I can understand the anti-gun arguments. For a long time - despite being a lifelong gun fan - I was very much in favour of "gun control"; however, with the benefit of a couple of decades of careful consideration, I simply can't accept the premise that gun control serves any genuine purpose.
Oh, and RetiarySword, you're right - no crime has ever been stopped by a victim holding a gun.
That's because when they pick up a gun, they stop being victims.
Hey you sound like a,.. oh wait its already been said. Guns or no guns, people are still gonna do stupid shit. Banks get robbed by people with pieces of paper that say bomb or boom maybe we should ban paper also.
XT: if you're anti-gun, i'd love to know your level of experience with firearms.
As far as I'm concerned, you're only allowed to be anti-gun if you've grown up around guns and know them intimately.
In my opinion you're only allowed to be anti-rape if you've grown up in an environment rich in and know both sides of the crime intimately. Spot the problem with this logic.
I can see one major problem with your logic - rape is a crime in and of itself. Your interpretation would be more accurately phrased as "You're only allowed to be anti-genitals if you've grown up with them."
As for your "No, it's really difficult to get guns, honest" assertion, it's simply wrong. With the right (wrong?) contacts and a bit of research, even in the UK or Sweden you can get an automatic weapon for a pittance. It's not anything I've ever had the urge to look into, but even I know of areas where the right questions can point you to your friendly neighbourhood car boot gun dealer. No gun-runner's going to try to get the guns through in his Ryanair carry-on - after all, how many countries can post a thoroughly secured border? In a perfect world there would be no reason to carry a gun, and no means to get one. But it's not a perfect world (and, arguably, can't be).
Also, taking guns out of the hands of the population radically decreases their ability to kill each other. Something Americans haven't twigged yet.
WRONG. 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.
I'm sorry but I can't just let that stand. Do you honestly beleive this? your "proven fact" is so wrong I'm pretty sure I've just caught cancer from reading it. honestly, just look at the number of murders in countries where firearms are readily availiable compared to others, obviously isolated "hotspots" don't make a difference, as there is no challange associated with moving firearms in and out of the area. A blanket ban on firearms in America would, undeniably, lower the rate of violent crimes, but don't let these small speed bumps obstruct your "proven facts".
Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries. Some authors attribute both trends to the fact that criminals in America are more likely to have firearms
Fun fact, most violent crime is done on impusle, and is not thought through at all. honestly, it amazes me how people can use the logic of "it's safer for everyone to have guns, as criminals will have them anyway". No, this is not the case, legalizing firearms makes them much more accessable to people that would have them.
Whether you have a gun to defend yourself or not has nothing to do with if someone shoots you on impulse, it just means that at the end of the day, two people have been shot as the original shooter is likely to draw the fire of other people. I don't see any reason why this is a good thing, surely nobody having a firearm out of fear of being attacked is an infinately better option (and no, you can't counter that with the "criminals will have guns anyway" flawed logic, look at any other country, smuggling firearms is VERY difficult).
Not only is it completely unnecessary for average citizens to be armed, it is also 100% stupid.
You are making assumptions. Please read the following. I would personally appreciate it if you read it all, simply for the sake of integrity.
"Actually, it has been statistically proven-PROVEN- that gun control INCREASES the crime rate in America. See, prohibition didn't take booze from criminals. Banning weed didn't take it away from criminals. In America, we have almost no border security. Which is both why so many mexicans can simply walk over the border and also why all bans and control laws fail here. Gun control solely determines whether or not victims can fight back. Michigan- which used to have the number one murder city(Detroit)had gun control. They decided to pass right to carry laws. Citizens suddenly had the right to carry guns everywhere. The crime rate dropped, and it has stayed low. In new england, the state with the lowest crime rate is Vermont. They have the least gun control. The state with the highest, (I believe it is massachussets) has the most gun control. What's more, while the states in New England with the highest crime rate aren't a COMPLETE inversion of the states with the least gun control, they are pretty close. Ultimately, Australia and Great Britain ENFORCE their borders. The USA does not because a bunch of actors in Hollywood and corporate lobbysists think it would be racist to treat Mexicans like everybody else, and pump up border security to deal with our problems. Ulimately, I LIVE in a state with high gun control, California. California does not recognize right to carry. I was recently robbed and my arm was broken.
Morever, when the Supreme Court overturned many of the gun control laws in Illinois, Obama's home state, the crime rate was LOWERED.
So, in conclusion, you anti-gun activists: DO FREAKING RESEARCH. The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control. The more gun control, the more crime. Britain might enforce it's borders, but in USA we don't, due to bigots who hate the idea of treating Mexicans equally. We should be increasing legal immigration, not simply letting them wander over the border and be exploited by wal-mart and home depot. But since that is what we are doing, all bans and control laws are an exercise in stupidity."
So... his statement is correct. Gun control and the crime rate in america are directly proportional. Get over it. One can argue that would change if we had border security, but it is the reality nonetheless.
Obviously gun control doesn't work if it is not standardized on a national scale, and if border security is not controlled, I don't recall claiming that guns alone cause the higher crime rate in America, simply that they are a factor that (significantly) adds to it. The whole american attitude towards guns is completely innapropriate, it should NEVER be somebodys right to own a firearm, especially high powered or semi-automatic. If they live in a rural area or have a (tightly controlled) permit, fine. Don't take my respect of firearms as blatant hatred of them, I have no problem with guns being used responsibly and enjoy hunting myself, I'd be something of a hypocrit if I said people shouldn't be allowed to use them, they should just have very strict rules regarding who can have them, what guns are availiable and how readily available ammunition is.
Just to clarify, a national, properly funded and enforced, gun policy in the U.S could only reduce violent crime (not to say it can be done, it's a hypothetical policy), that isn't to say that politicians should knee-jerk ban the sale of new guns to everyone. That is even more stupid than making them easily avaliable originially.
XT: if you're anti-gun, i'd love to know your level of experience with firearms.
As far as I'm concerned, you're only allowed to be anti-gun if you've grown up around guns and know them intimately.
In my opinion you're only allowed to be anti-rape if you've grown up in an environment rich in and know both sides of the crime intimately. Spot the problem with this logic.
I can see one major problem with your logic - rape is a crime in and of itself. Your interpretation would be more accurately phrased as "You're only allowed to be anti-genitals if you've grown up with them."
As for your "No, it's really difficult to get guns, honest" assertion, it's simply wrong. With the right (wrong?) contacts and a bit of research, even in the UK or Sweden you can get an automatic weapon for a pittance. It's not anything I've ever had the urge to look into, but even I know of areas where the right questions can point you to your friendly neighbourhood car boot gun dealer. No gun-runner's going to try to get the guns through in his Ryanair carry-on - after all, how many countries can post a thoroughly secured border? In a perfect world there would be no reason to carry a gun, and no means to get one. But it's not a perfect world (and, arguably, can't be).
mmmm, you're example was probably better, but my point still stands that it's naive to think only people with direct experience in something can have a valid opinion. And my point about it not being easy to get guns if they are illegal is perfectly valid, I live in Australia and know firsthand how difficult it is to get hold of a firearm (legally or otherwise). Do you honestly think that people sell guns on the street? Even if you could research names of gun dealers, they would have limited supplies and most likely not trust you. More to the point if their names are easily reserchable theres no point buying a gun from them because the blues will alreay be watching. We have a very highly funded, highly trained group of police watching for gangland activity where I come from. They are the only cog in the machine that is the police system that work.
DamienHell: ....calm down, you sound like a redneck.
I'm not a redneck I'm just motivated. And I speak the truth. The Clinton "Assault" weapons ban already showed that congressional dems are willing to ban a weapon based on it's looks alone, all functionality aside.
And what functionality would this be? A gun was MADE TO KILL THINGS, you retard. A shovel? Sure, you can kill people with it. But you can also use it to dig wells, irrigation channels, graves for people with guns, etc. A hammer? Sure, you can kill people with it. But you can also use it to build houses, in a smithy (not a gunsmithy, you nab) and other such CONSTRUCTIVE uses.
A gun? It can be used to, well, kill. Recreational hunting? You kill. Survival hunting? You kill. Home defense? You kill. If you use "it can scare people" as a reason for the yayness of guns, you might as well use a hammer. As long as you make enough noise with it, you can use a hammer and laugh as the idiot runs away.
RelexCryo: The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control.
Based on exactly what evidence. Any knowledge of sociology or economics, or even criminology will teach you that crime is related to economic and social poverty, not gun control. That's over simplifying the argument.
Silver: Very true. But you miss one point. Even if a culture or country has a really violent population and lots of murders, it's much easier to kill someone with a gun. Sure, Britain or Sweden or Japan has much lower murder rates than America, and would have, with or without guns. But if we do have a violent country, like America undoubtedly is (and don't go arguing about that, please, you know it's true), then guns are going to help a lot in getting the numbers of deaths higher. That's what gun control is about.
No, Silver, that's not what "gun control" - a flawed title if ever there was one - is about.
Gun banning is about wishful thinking. It's about diminishing personal freedoms and self-defence options in favour of criminals; that may sound counterintuitive, but in reality that's effectively the case.
Let's say you live somewhere where private gun ownership is prohibited. You're accosted by a criminal with a gun, and he demands your wallet. You give him your wallet, and he runs off £500 richer. Or he takes the wallet and shoots you so you can't identify him to the police, whichever.
Or, the same scenario takes place, but you have decided to learn a martial art to defend yourself, because your government doesn't trust you with a gun. Thug pulls gun, demands wallet, you try the kotegaishi your teacher so merrily taught you last week. Then it turns out the criminal missed the part of the lesson where he's supposed to give up, the gun goes off accidentally, and shoots you, or the little old lady at the other end of the street.
On the other hand, if you have a legally-held concealed firearm and the training and skill to use it properly and safely, you feign getting your wallet out as a misdirection, then draw your weapon and invite the criminal to leave with all his insides on the inside. If he does, you reholster and call the police. If he doesn't, you shoot him and call the police. Okay, so you might still get shot, but at least you stand a fighting chance. At least your survival is partly up to you, rather than wholly up to the criminal.
I don't carry a gun; the government in the UK doesn't trust me to own a handgun, or even a .22 rifle if I don't live on a large enough estate. My government trusts 17-year-olds to drive vehicles that kill over three thousand people in the UK every year, and trusts people to have children without having any idea how to raise them, and trusts Tony Blair to not be locked up for being Tony Blair, but security-vetted people with military training mustn't be trusted to carry twenty rounds of .40 on their hip.
Personally, I believe I would be able to safely and effectively use a firearm to defend myself or my family. I don't want to ever have to - I love shooting as long as I'm not harming anything living - but I'm confident in my ability to do so should the need arise. If I were allowed to carry a gun, I could with some degree of confidence be responsible for my own defence at no cost to the taxpayer. But instead I have to rely on the police to react quickly enough to stop a criminal at considerable expense - at best - or investigate a murder in retrospect. Either way it costs the country money, and results in nothing but reduced personal safety.
I can understand the anti-gun arguments. For a long time - despite being a lifelong gun fan - I was very much in favour of "gun control"; however, with the benefit of a couple of decades of careful consideration, I simply can't accept the premise that gun control serves any genuine purpose.
Oh, and RetiarySword, you're right - no crime has ever been stopped by a victim holding a gun.
That's because when they pick up a gun, they stop being victims.
There are martial arts techniques to push the gun to the side and punch the attacker in the face. Your hypothetical situation is also flawed in that you assume your feint will work, you assume they won't see through it and shoot as you reach for your gun because NRA propoganda went to your head and you think that you're a hero not a victim. You also fail to think that when the criminal gives up and you holster your gun, he can just pull his gun back out and shoot you now that he knows where your gun is. Finally we have the problem that if it all goes arse up and you shoot him, he will survive long enough to shoot back. Movies may tell you that gun instantly kill but they actually give the shot person more than enough time to kill the shooter before bleeding to death.
I also enjoy the paradox in being trained to use a gun safely, unless you bring a wall of bulletproof glass around a gun is never safe.
Cars and families that can't raise children have the purpose of continuing society with the side effects of ruining a small proportion of their user's lives. Guns have the purpose of destroying society with the side effects of giving people a false sense of security; as evidenced in your belief that a gun will help you rather than give a criminal a much better reason to shoot you before you fight back.
Finally of couse people that pick up guns are no longer victims, they become a danger to themselves and everyone they percieve as a threat, out of thought or heat of the moment.
Read the post above to see the evidence. Vermont: lower crime rate, Massachusetts: higher crime rate. and on a previous page, I stated out right that social issues, (like the glorification of rappers) and poverty are what matter most of all. But social and economic issues don't vary that much in America on average, hence we can observe the effects gun control has on a particular social/economic enviroment. And as I said, "The crime rate in AMERICA is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control."
I didn't say the crime rate in the WORLD was directly proportional to crime rate. I said in America. And in America, a lot of kids glorify gangbangers and the economy stinks pretty much no matter where you. Social/economic conditions in AMERICA are largely uniform from west coast to east coast, with admittedly some differences (Arkansas and California are way different) but on average it's all pretty much the same.
Hence, if social/economic conditions are almost identical (an oversimplification) from state to state, then the fact poverty/social values has more to do with crime rate is rendered irrelevant. Which in turn renders the statement "The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control." totally valid, since(to repeat myself) a lack of variation from state to state renders the fact that poverty/social issues are more important irrelevant.
I pulled out my Beretta 92FS and stuck it in their face.
You know what they did? They ran away.
What if he'd had a mate. Who'd shot you. I'm insured on my car. If they want it, they can have it. I'd get more money from the insurance than its worth and I've got one of those little tracking things in it anyway that means there'd be a good chance the thief were caught.
Also car jackings account for a small number of robberies compared to muggings. There were more muggings in one quarter in the UK than in a whole year in the US!
I've been mugged twice. No big deal. Once they pulled a knife and I said "fine, here's my wallet". Of course I was scared but I lost in total about £30. I didn't even know that they were a threat until they had me against a wall. I don't think having a gun at my leg would have helped as they probably would have just stolen that.
The other time it was two kids and they didn't have a weapon so I told them to fuck off.
RelexCryo: Social/economic conditions in AMERICA are largely uniform from west coast to east coast, with admittedly some differences (Arkansas and California are way different) but on average it's all pretty much the same.
Hang on, say what? From the travelling I've done in the States I call bullshit on first hand knowledge. I wouldn't walk out of LA's bus station if I was packing a shotgun, that place was like a demilitarized zone crossed with a refugee centre.
The picture is more complex that "X" = Crime. No scientific study would ever conclude anything to be the sole cause of criminality.
Branches of criminology:
1 Social structure theories -Social disorganization (neighbourhoods) -Social ecology -Strain theory (social class) -Subcultural theory 2 Individual theories -Trait theories -Control theories 3 Symbolic interactionism -Rational choice theory -Routine activity theory -Contemporary Cultural and Critical Criminology
meh, I've been through arizona, illinois, indiana....bunch of places. Granted, most places I was only passing through. Arkanasas and some other low gun control states, low crime. California? I live there. High crime rate. Been my experience that a lack of education, and bad economy plague us evevrywhere, though, as someone who lives in California, a high gun control state, yeah, this place is pretty fucked up. I got robbed last month, street mugging. Never happened to me in Arkansas. I spent about 5 years in Arknasas.
As I've already said. No. In America outlawing guns wouldn't help. You've got too many of them, and you're too violent.
Here, I don't go out afraid I'm going to get robbed. If I DO get robbed it's going to be by an unarmed gang, a person with a knife or someone with an airsoft gun.
If they do, I give them my wallet. They don't kill me. See, that's the difference. They wouldn't kill me just to keep me from identifying them. I might get beaten up, sure. If I had a gun, I probably wouldn't. But if I had a gun, all criminals would have them too. And pulling a gun on someone trying to mug you with a gun in his hand? You've watched too many western movies. Most of the western world is more civilised than that these days. We don't kill people for no reason, not even criminals, or robbers.
If I do get killed that would be because I decided to fight back, against too big odds, or if I beat the odds, and actually found the guy with a gun, and decided to pull one out myself. If I didn't do anything like that then no, I wouldn't get killed. I wouldn't be safer with a gun. In America, sure, there I need one. Just like I need one if I decide to run into a warzone carrying a poster saying "You all deserve to die". Here, I don't need one. Here gun laws work.
And no, I don't need a bloody gun to keep my government in check either. Unlike you I can actually choose who to vote for, instead of just having about 2 options. And just like you, I decide who sits on my government, and I don't use a gun to decide it.
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*
i find that... slightly offensive. im american, i have an iq of 125. i have to say that its just the loudmouth retards that make us all look bad.
RelexCryo: meh, I've been through arizona, illinois, indiana....bunch of places. Arkanasas and some other low gun control states, low crime. California? I live there. High crime rate. Been my experience that a lack of education, and bad economy plague us evevrywhere, though, as someone who lives in California, a high gun control state, yeah, this place is pretty fucked up. I got robbed last month, street mugging. Never happened to me in Arkansas. I spent about 5 years there.
You know California has a high crime rate because it has several high density cities with highly clustered poverty centres, right? That doesn't take a social scientist to work out.
No, you haven't. A gun is still a gun. It's only to an American that it matters if someone shoots you with an assault rifle or a pistol. The rest of the world is going to be just as dead in any case.
Very true. But you miss one point. Even if a culture or country has a really violent population and lots of murders, it's much easier to kill someone with a gun. Sure, Britain or Sweden or Japan has much lower murder rates than America, and would have, with or without guns. But if we do have a violent country, like America undoubtedly is (and don't go arguing about that, please, you know it's true), then guns are going to help a lot in getting the numbers of deaths higher. That's what gun control is about.