So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
 

Infernal Lawyer:
Look, you're clearly against guns in general, and I respect that. But my original comment was about ignoring the debate on how awful/brilliant guns are, because you can go back and forth on that all day (such as, say, whether or not we should be keeping guns on ourselves, like in our purses), and thinking more about focusing on keeping guns away from loonies, which aside from figuring out how it could be done, isn't really up for debate.

Actually, no. I have no problem at all with guns. I'm actually a fairly stalwart supporter of the right of law-abiding Americans to possess firearms: anything from a .22 right up to a fully-automatic machine gun... if they're of sound mind and acquire and use it lawfully, I see no problem with people possessing these things. I don't believe banning guns is a sound plan to reduce gun violence. All things considered I'm very pro-gun.

Infernal Lawyer:
Like I said, you made some very good points before, but I don't appreciate you setting me up for a childish toilet joke. I don't care how much you hate guns or guns laws or whatever, suggesting people shove guns up their asses after copy and pasting half a sentence from a comment you barely looked at, then somehow rationalizing it with your potentially legitimate beliefs is just bizarrely immature.

Look, it was indeed an asinine comment which I shouldn't have made, and was disrespectful, so I apologize. However I do wonder if you're reading for more into it than I ever actually put into it: all it was was an off-hand, childishly presented and (for the purposes of what I was actually discussing) totally irrelevant comment on something you said in your post which described an activity I would genuinely be concerned if anyone was actually performing (that is, carrying one's weapon in first thing on your person criminals are likely to try and take away... I have no idea where you're getting a suggestion that people insert weapons into their orifices from any of that)

It was really more of a "why would people do such a foolish thing?" comment than it was any attempt to make any sort of pertinent or thoughtful point as part of an organized discussion, but as you pointed out, it really was an obnoxious way to make such a statement in and of itself.

Infernal Lawyer:
Sorry for starting what could easily be a rage war, guys. Just keep it dignified, please.

No, no, I should take the blame for that one, I made a dumb comment that wasn't likely to lead to anything positive and then got all facetious when you called me on it. I should probably get some sleep so I can actually think coherently again and avoid doing that crap again.

It's our right as Americans to own any gun we want no reason neccesary it's In the second ammendement "the right to bear arms"

barrett .50cal lover:
It's our right as Americans to own any gun we want no reason neccesary it's In the second ammendement "the right to bear arms"

The 18th amendment states that alcohol should be illegal.
The 21st amendment states that the 18th should be ignored.

This is politics, not religion, it can change to suit the country's needs.

The gun debate will never get anywhere because nobody is willing to actually look at the statistics regarding gun violence for what they are. They are skewed by both sides of the argument, and it does no favors to anyone.

There are statistics to represent your case no matter which side of the argument you're on.

Let me rephrase that so it's absolutely clear: If you're against guns, there are statistics that show that gun ownership leads to more gun crime. If you're FOR guns, there are statistics that show that gun ownership leads to LESS gun crime.

Wait, how is that possible? How can both be true?

Because we're leaving out one VERY important variable that is far too often (read: always) overlooked in cases like Newtown or Aurora or even Columbine.

Some people are just fucking crazy, and nothing we do can stop them from being crazy.

That's scary. Nobody wants to accept that. Nobody wants to accept that it's out of our control. The ease of access to guns is irrelevant when you're a psychopath. Maybe if James Holmes hadn't had access to guns, he'd have used those explosives he rigged up in his apartment to perform his attack? Maybe if Eric Harris and Dylan Kelbold didn't have guns, they've have made more bombs, and done a better job and ensuring they'd detonate. Seung-Hui Cho had the foresight to chain up the exits, trapping everyone inside that Virginia Tech building... and what if HE'd used a bomb instead of a gun?

Wait, hold on... am I really saying that we should feel lucky that guns are available because it protects us from rampant bombings? No. I'm not saying that. That's ridiculous. I'm simply illustrating that crazy is crazy.

When someone has made the decision to slaughter countless innocent people, I highly doubt their access to a gun or guns will be the determining factor on whether they go through with it.

Maybe THAT is what we need to do more research on.

Smeatza:

barrett .50cal lover:
It's our right as Americans to own any gun we want no reason neccesary it's In the second ammendement "the right to bear arms"

The 18th amendment states that alcohol should be illegal.
The 21st amendment states that the 18th should be ignored.

This is politics, not religion, it can change to suit the country's needs.

Except that the second amendment is the one that ensures our ability to protect all of the others from a tyrannical government.

"Oh but that's paranoia, that will NEVER happen."

I hope not, but I'd like to have to means to ensure that it doesn't. I mean, have a look at New York/ The mayor of New York City, and the governor of New York state are both doing everything they can to restrict the freedoms of the citizens, from banning large sodas, trans fats, kick ball and freeze tag. Things that are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS AT ALL. And you would suggest that it's not possible for a government in America to run wild?

MichiganMuscle77:
Some people are just fucking crazy, and nothing we do can stop them from being crazy.

That's not true. People label murderers as crazy because it's easy, it's the one you use when they aren't gamers or Muslims or Marilyn Manson fans.

If it was a simple matter of some people just being born "evil" or whatever, you'd see much the same stats per capita across the entire world. Which is not the case.

Dismissing murderers as crazy does nothing but avoid the issue, and demonise people with mental health issues.

Murderers are a disparate group comprised of individuals, each with their own motivations and tolerances. "Psychopaths" aren't really crazy, for example, unless you're proposing some objective measure of value, in which case good luck proving that one. What looks "evil" to you is simply something that upsets your delicate sensibilities, a concern not everyone shares. From their perspective, the freedom to do whatever they need to in order to accomplish their goals is much, much more efficient than squandering time and energy on moral dilemmas.

In other words, if you want to hurt a lot of people, killing their children is a great way to accomplish that. Understanding that is the opposite of insanity.

Wanting to hurt a lot of people isn't necessarily crazy either.

Smeatza:

barrett .50cal lover:
It's our right as Americans to own any gun we want no reason neccesary it's In the second ammendement "the right to bear arms"

The 18th amendment states that alcohol should be illegal.
The 21st amendment states that the 18th should be ignored.

This is politics, not religion, it can change to suit the country's needs.

And does America need to allow its' citizens to keep assault rifles? Or even auto-chambered guns?

Guns in general might still be needed for defence, although other measures should be sorted out first, as having to shoot for life sounds like a frightfully close call.

I would think though, that if worse comes to worst and, god forbid, you have to shoot someone, a double action revolver would do, even against body armour, one could train to aim for the head after a body shot hits, and then shoot if it's still possible due to the target not falling.

Said revolvers might become obsolete if the cops get a good enough reputation for preventing civilians from deciding to aim at each other, (like on my side of the pond), but I think attempting to stop sensible, lawful citizens from bearing arms would be a step away from such an improvement.

I'll just stress again that I'm just giving humble opinion, being in the U.K I'm intrigued but disinterested.

Just had another thought: You sure it's just politics without religion? It seems like there is a pretty strong gun culture over in the U.S., an infectious obsession with the fantasy of shooting up the bad guys.

captcha: worship nothing

Coppernerves:
And does America need to allow its' citizens to keep assault rifles? Or even auto-chambered guns?

Guns in general might still be needed for defence, although other measures should be sorted out first, as having to shoot for life sounds like a frightfully close call.

I would think though, that if worse comes to worst and, god forbid, you have to shoot someone, a double action revolver would do, even against body armour, one could train to aim for the head after a body shot hits, and then shoot if it's still possible due to the target not falling.

Said revolvers might become obsolete if the cops get a good enough reputation for preventing civilians from deciding to aim at each other, (like on my side of the pond), but I think attempting to stop sensible, lawful citizens from bearing arms would be a step away from such an improvement.

I'll just stress again that I'm just giving humble opinion, being in the U.K I'm intrigued but disinterested.

Just had another thought: You sure it's just politics without religion? It seems like there is a pretty strong gun culture over in the U.S., an infectious obsession with the fantasy of shooting up the bad guys.

captcha: worship nothing

Legally owned civilian assault rifles are very rare in the US. Unfortunately, the media refers to almost any gun as an assault rifle.

If body armour doesn't work, what's the point of it? Even trained police officers have trouble with that, see the North Hollywood shootout, for example.

I own several guns, semi automatics included. I practice regularly at the range and I've never shot anybody :)

As a survivor of sexual assault, I just look at them as an insurance measure. I would never hurt anybody unless they were attacking someone else or myself. I'd take lethal force if necessary. I'm on the side of being prepared.

So, no. I do not agree that you don't need an assault rife as a civilian. Some people, I believe, truly need them. And no, not just officers or soldiers. I believe it is a right to have one. If you don't want a gun, don't purchase or own one.

It is not the fault of law abiding citizens that criminals choose to go and break the law. I've never understood how someone could honestly believe such a thing, that to remove firearms from a society will suddenly make criminals obey the law. That these criminals would cease to use firearms in their crimes. But, I'm up to see the argument. I'll admit, I haven't read the whole thread.

ShiningAmber:

It is not the fault of law abiding citizens that criminals choose to go and break the law.

Actually, you mean "it is not the fault of law abiding citizens that other law abiding citizens choose to go and break the law, becoming criminals in the process."

Nobody is born a criminal and the only people we can be sure will never break the law are the ones who can't break the law due to being deceased.

I've never understood how someone could honestly believe such a thing, that to remove firearms from a society will suddenly make criminals obey the law.

Every criminal was a law abiding citizen once.

That these criminals would cease to use firearms in their crimes. But, I'm up to see the argument. I'll admit, I haven't read the whole thread.

Again, how do you tell a criminal and a law abiding citizen apart at a glance, without seeing their records? How do you know which one the guy having a coffee across the street is?

Vegosiux:

ShiningAmber:

It is not the fault of law abiding citizens that criminals choose to go and break the law.

Actually, you mean "it is not the fault of law abiding citizens that other law abiding citizens choose to go and break the law, becoming criminals in the process."

Nobody is born a criminal and the only people we can be sure will never break the law are the ones who can't break the law due to being deceased.

I've never understood how someone could honestly believe such a thing, that to remove firearms from a society will suddenly make criminals obey the law.

Every criminal was a law abiding citizen once.

That these criminals would cease to use firearms in their crimes. But, I'm up to see the argument. I'll admit, I haven't read the whole thread.

Again, how do you tell a criminal and a law abiding citizen apart at a glance, without seeing their records? How do you know which one the guy having a coffee across the street is?

Oh, I'm not denying what you're saying about those who once abide the law becoming criminals. And sometimes, telling a criminal apart from others isn't as easy as a mere glance. So, I agree with you.

But, what I am saying is that to disarm those who do obey the law, will not make those who do not obey the law suddenly obey it. I believe that would do more harm to society than good. With the society being disarmed, I truly think crime would become more and more frequent. Whether you agree or disagree is your opinion. But, if I have the chance, I'm using my firearms to protect myself.

There's an interesting article my boyfriend sent to me not too long ago. It's an interesting read and a different way to think of things. I recommend it.

An excerpt:

There are the sheepdogs. They guard the flock. They are the protectors of our society. They are the soldiers, the police officers and the armed citizens who have accepted the responsibility for protecting themselves and others by the use of deadly force if necessary.
The sheep are not always comfortable with the sheepdog because the sheepdog looks a lot like the wolf. The sheepdog is armed. He has fangs (guns). This frightens the sheep. The sheepdogs run toward danger. The sheep find this confusing because they only run away from danger. Often the sheep do not like the sheepdog until the wolf comes. Then the sheep try to hide behind the sheepdog, begging for his protection.
Sheepdogs do not live life hoping that the wolf will select someone else. Sheepdogs are prepared to stop the wolf and have accepted their responsibility for confronting evil in our society. If the wolf attacks the sheepdog then there will likely be one less wolf. On occasion the best prepared sheepdog will lose, but he will go down fighting, killed on the spot doing his duty. He will not be drug off and tortured to death. There are things worse than death and those who surrender to the wolf often learn what those things are.
When the sheepdog hears of yet another horrible crime committed by the wolf he does feel relief because the wolf chose another for his victim. He does not hide his head and try to pretend that such a fate could never befall his family. Instead he is reminded to remain alert and reevaluate his own preparations to contend with such an occurrence.

The full read: http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=64

I was a victim once of a horrible crime. Sexual assault was the least of it. I have physical scars on my hands and face from the ordeal. I am not interested in being defenseless again or having that happen to any of my loved ones if I can help it. If that is found to be offensive, well I don't think apologies are in order. I won't lay down and let that happen again.

thaluikhain:

Coppernerves:
*snop*

Legally owned civilian assault rifles are very rare in the US. Unfortunately, the media refers to almost any gun as an assault rifle.

If body armour doesn't work, what's the point of it? Even trained police officers have trouble with that, see the North Hollywood shootout, for example.

*Looks it up*

Cops were using 9mm and .38 Special pistols, 12 gauge shotguns, and kevlar vests, while two robbers were using 7.62mm rifles, and aramid body armour.

The rifles pierced police vests and vehicles, while the body armour deflected the police pistols and shotguns.

So the cops got some 5.56mm rifles, and called in SWAT, who had similar guns.

It looks like the robbers outranged the officers, and had the rifles modified to fire fully automatic, as well as using drum magazines, making suppression fire possible.

This is intrigueing...

Apparently the cops, just as trained, aimed for the centre of mass, even when shots to the centre of mass failed, and the robbers' heads were unprotected.

I guess in that kind of situation, it's almost impossible to get at all creative instead of letting the training take over.

I would be interested to know whether anyone here has taken a .38 special round at rifle/carbine sort of range, while wearing aramid armour, did it hurt much? Would you be able to shoot back before whoever did it re-aimed for the head?

thaluikhain:

MichiganMuscle77:
Some people are just fucking crazy, and nothing we do can stop them from being crazy.

That's not true. People label murderers as crazy because it's easy, it's the one you use when they aren't gamers or Muslims or Marilyn Manson fans.

If it was a simple matter of some people just being born "evil" or whatever, you'd see much the same stats per capita across the entire world. Which is not the case.

Dismissing murderers as crazy does nothing but avoid the issue, and demonise people with mental health issues.

Calling them crazy isn't a dismissal in my opinion, it's a perfectly appropriate term for the type of person who has no problem slaughtering a room full of defenseless people.

ShiningAmber:

Oh, I'm not denying what you're saying about those who once abide the law becoming criminals. And sometimes, telling a criminal apart from others isn't as easy as a mere glance. So, I agree with you.

But, what I am saying is that to disarm those who do obey the law, will not make those who do not obey the law suddenly obey it. I believe that would do more harm to society than good. With the society being disarmed, I truly think crime would become more and more frequent. Whether you agree or disagree is your opinion. But, if I have the chance, I'm using my firearms to protect myself.

Really? because, statistically speaking, prohibiting guns is actually much safer. in my country, its completely illegal to own guns outside of sports and range shooting. the effect of this has not been to let the criminals run wild, but to make it very difficult and risky for criminals to own a weapon. most criminals don't have firearms, and those that do, (professional criminals, hitmen) are at risk of being arrested just by having them (meaning that they usually dont walk around armed, but have them hidden somewhere and only carry them when on a job). this makes it that much more unlikely that you will ever encounter a criminal with a gun. that doesn't mean it's impossible for some crazy gunman to get a gun, but it does men that the amount of criminals with firearms, and accidental gun deaths, is a fraction of what it is in america

ShiningAmber:

There's an interesting article my boyfriend sent to me not too long ago. It's an interesting read and a different way to think of things. I recommend it.

An excerpt:

There are the sheepdogs. They guard the flock. They are the protectors of our society. They are the soldiers, the police officers and the armed citizens who have accepted the responsibility for protecting themselves and others by the use of deadly force if necessary.
The sheep are not always comfortable with the sheepdog because the sheepdog looks a lot like the wolf. The sheepdog is armed. He has fangs (guns). This frightens the sheep. The sheepdogs run toward danger. The sheep find this confusing because they only run away from danger. Often the sheep do not like the sheepdog until the wolf comes. Then the sheep try to hide behind the sheepdog, begging for his protection.
Sheepdogs do not live life hoping that the wolf will select someone else. Sheepdogs are prepared to stop the wolf and have accepted their responsibility for confronting evil in our society. If the wolf attacks the sheepdog then there will likely be one less wolf. On occasion the best prepared sheepdog will lose, but he will go down fighting, killed on the spot doing his duty. He will not be drug off and tortured to death. There are things worse than death and those who surrender to the wolf often learn what those things are.
When the sheepdog hears of yet another horrible crime committed by the wolf he does feel relief because the wolf chose another for his victim. He does not hide his head and try to pretend that such a fate could never befall his family. Instead he is reminded to remain alert and reevaluate his own preparations to contend with such an occurrence.

The full read: http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=64

I was a victim once of a horrible crime. Sexual assault was the least of it. I have physical scars on my hands and face from the ordeal. I am not interested in being defenseless again or having that happen to any of my loved ones if I can help it. If that is found to be offensive, well I don't think apologies are in order. I won't lay down and let that happen again.

This is a lot of simplification. if only because sheepdogs dont bite themselves with their own fangs. all. the. time. I get that there is a lot of romanticism about the ordinary citizen bravely defending his fellows who rejected him for having a gun, but in reality, a lot more people accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones than protect their fellow men from armed criminals.

besides that, allowing guns to be available makes it easier for the wolves to have fangs. by arming yourself you are also arming a lot of criminals and terrorists that would find a lot harder and more dangerous to own guns if they were illegal.

regarding the final part of your post: i'm sorry that happened to you. I can only imagine the horror.For what it's worth, you have my sympathies. certainly i think anyone could understand why you would want to be able to protect yourself. But in the end, i still think more people would benefit from banning guns than from keeping them legal

Coppernerves:

*Looks it up*

Cops were using 9mm and .38 Special pistols, 12 gauge shotguns, and kevlar vests, while two robbers were using 7.62mm rifles, and aramid body armour.

The rifles pierced police vests and vehicles, while the body armour deflected the police pistols and shotguns.

So the cops got some 5.56mm rifles, and called in SWAT, who had similar guns.

It looks like the robbers outranged the officers, and had the rifles modified to fire fully automatic, as well as using drum magazines, making suppression fire possible.

This is intrigueing...

Apparently the cops, just as trained, aimed for the centre of mass, even when shots to the centre of mass failed, and the robbers' heads were unprotected.

I guess in that kind of situation, it's almost impossible to get at all creative instead of letting the training take over.

I would be interested to know whether anyone here has taken a .38 special round at rifle/carbine sort of range, while wearing aramid armour, did it hurt much? Would you be able to shoot back before whoever did it re-aimed for the head?

I'll say this - even our soldiers in the Army rarely use fully automatic functions on their weapons because of how inaccurate it is. There are very certain circumstances where sustained fire is necessary, such as providing cover fire, but as a means of efficiently dispatching targets, fully auto fire is not preferable to semi automatic. The cops in that Hollywood bank robbery situation were simply unprepared from a training perspective. The weapon/body armor would have been irrelevant if the police had a more tactical response ready.

Saxnot:
Really? because, statistically speaking, prohibiting guns is actually much safer. in my country, its completely illegal to own guns outside of sports and range shooting. the effect of this has not been to let the criminals run wild, but to make it very difficult and risky for criminals to own a weapon. most criminals don't have firearms, and those that do, (professional criminals, hitmen) are at risk of being arrested just by having them (meaning that they usually dont walk around armed, but have them hidden somewhere and only carry them when on a job). this makes it that much more unlikely that you will ever encounter a criminal with a gun. that doesn't mean it's impossible for some crazy gunman to get a gun, but it does men that the amount of criminals with firearms, and accidental gun deaths, is a fraction of what it is in america

I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is rife with an ignorant perspective. I don't mean to sound insulting, i just don't know how else to say it.

First, you can find statistics that show that more guns = more crime, AND ones that show more guns = LESS crime. There are certain key variables that are almost consistently left out when people cite these statistics, such as population density, demographics, as well as the TYPE of shootings - bad guys killing good guys, good guys killing bad guys, or police shootings. All of which make a huge difference as to how the statistics should be interpreted.

Second, you didn't say what country you're from, but here in America, there are more guns than people. Do you suppose that simply outlawing them will suddenly make those guns unavailable? No. Making them illegal creates a MARKET for them, just like illegal drugs. Prohibition did jack all to prevent drinking; in fact it created an entire criminal economy based on illegal alcohol. In your country, banning guns may have been easy because there may have not actually been that many guns around in the first place. In the US, it's too late for that. Too many guns already here, and you can be damned sure that criminals will still have no trouble gaining access to them.

Third, if someone is going to break into your house to steal something/rape you/hurt you, do you think they're too concerned about breaking an additional law, such as a gun ban? Your logic that criminals won't carry guns out of fear of being arrested for it is not logically sound. Sure, they're not going to carry them out in the open when they're not committing a crime... but then, if they're not committing a crime, what's to worry about anyway?

This is a lot of simplification. if only because sheepdogs dont bite themselves with their own fangs. all. the. time. I get that there is a lot of romanticism about the ordinary citizen bravely defending his fellows who rejected him for having a gun, but in reality, a lot more people accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones than protect their fellow men from armed criminals.

I would love to see some facts to back this up.

besides that, allowing guns to be available makes it easier for the wolves to have fangs. by arming yourself you are also arming a lot of criminals and terrorists that would find a lot harder and more dangerous to own guns if they were illegal.

I sort of addressed this above already... but I have to add that allowing guns to be available also evens the odds for the victims. A 100lbs woman is no longer an easy target for a 250lbs power house dude wanting to rape her. She pulls her gun and suddenly they're on equal ground. But you'd rather deny her that right because it makes you feel safer. Because you assume that a law will stop criminals from doing bad things, or slow them down. No... don't be foolish. Those laws have only made it harder for people to protect themselves.

But in the end, i still think more people would benefit from banning guns than from keeping them legal

And if you trust statistics, which I imagine you must, since you started off your post by mentioning them... statistics would prove you wrong on this, that banning guns, at least in the USA, tends to have absolutely no overall effect on gun crime - for better or for worse.

MichiganMuscle77:

Coppernerves:

*Looks it up*

Cops were using 9mm and .38 Special pistols, 12 gauge shotguns, and kevlar vests, while two robbers were using 7.62mm rifles, and aramid body armour.

The rifles pierced police vests and vehicles, while the body armour deflected the police pistols and shotguns.

So the cops got some 5.56mm rifles, and called in SWAT, who had similar guns.

It looks like the robbers outranged the officers, and had the rifles modified to fire fully automatic, as well as using drum magazines, making suppression fire possible.

This is intrigueing...

Apparently the cops, just as trained, aimed for the centre of mass, even when shots to the centre of mass failed, and the robbers' heads were unprotected.

I guess in that kind of situation, it's almost impossible to get at all creative instead of letting the training take over.

I would be interested to know whether anyone here has taken a .38 special round at rifle/carbine sort of range, while wearing aramid armour, did it hurt much? Would you be able to shoot back before whoever did it re-aimed for the head?

I'll say this - even our soldiers in the Army rarely use fully automatic functions on their weapons because of how inaccurate it is. There are very certain circumstances where sustained fire is necessary, such as providing cover fire, but as a means of efficiently dispatching targets, fully auto fire is not preferable to semi automatic. The cops in that Hollywood bank robbery situation were simply unprepared from a training perspective. The weapon/body armor would have been irrelevant if the police had a more tactical response ready.

By "a more tactical response" do you mean a better plan of action?

Would this better plan include any specialist equipment, like say, CS gas, or would it still be done with pistols and shotguns?

Maybe if the officers had managed to engage the robbers at a shorter range, the extra range of the auto-firing rifles could've been made irrelevant.

But what about the armour?
I don't see how better tactics, rather than better training (the robbers heads were unprotected, so I'm sure regular Mozambique drills could've helped) would counter the aramid plates.

MichiganMuscle77:

Saxnot:
Really? because, statistically speaking, prohibiting guns is actually much safer. in my country, its completely illegal to own guns outside of sports and range shooting. the effect of this has not been to let the criminals run wild, but to make it very difficult and risky for criminals to own a weapon. most criminals don't have firearms, and those that do, (professional criminals, hitmen) are at risk of being arrested just by having them (meaning that they usually dont walk around armed, but have them hidden somewhere and only carry them when on a job). this makes it that much more unlikely that you will ever encounter a criminal with a gun. that doesn't mean it's impossible for some crazy gunman to get a gun, but it does men that the amount of criminals with firearms, and accidental gun deaths, is a fraction of what it is in america

I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is rife with an ignorant perspective. I don't mean to sound insulting, i just don't know how else to say it.

First, you can find statistics that show that more guns = more crime, AND ones that show more guns = LESS crime. There are certain key variables that are almost consistently left out when people cite these statistics, such as population density, demographics, as well as the TYPE of shootings - bad guys killing good guys, good guys killing bad guys, or police shootings. All of which make a huge difference as to how the statistics should be interpreted.

What are you trying to say? we shouldn't use these statistics? Certainly, both sides manipulate the numbers, but if you reject statistics as unreliable it will be difficult to have a reasoned debate.

MichiganMuscle77:

Second, you didn't say what country you're from, but here in America, there are more guns than people. Do you suppose that simply outlawing them will suddenly make those guns unavailable? No. Making them illegal creates a MARKET for them, just like illegal drugs. Prohibition did jack all to prevent drinking; in fact it created an entire criminal economy based on illegal alcohol. In your country, banning guns may have been easy because there may have not actually been that many guns around in the first place. In the US, it's too late for that. Too many guns already here, and you can be damned sure that criminals will still have no trouble gaining access to them.

Certainly,it will be difficult to ban guns in America. And i'm not saying we should send in the army to take everyone's guns away. but by banning sales you've taken the first step in making them unavailable. No country started out with a gun ban. they instituted it, and, over time, guns became less and less readily available until posession could be prohibited outright. there will still be a lot of guns for a long time in america, but you have to start somewhere.

as for the creation of a market: that is true. and some criminals will always be able to get guns. but by making it illegal, you are taking the first step in making guns difficult and dangerous to get. by making it illegal you are making it much easier to punish the people supplying criminals with firearms.

i'm not saying that if we ban guns today, accidental gun deaths and posession of firearms by criminals will end tomorrow. it might take 20 or 30 years. but if you never start adressing problems, just because it's going to be hard and take a long time, you'll never solve anything.

MichiganMuscle77:

Third, if someone is going to break into your house to steal something/rape you/hurt you, do you think they're too concerned about breaking an additional law, such as a gun ban? Your logic that criminals won't carry guns out of fear of being arrested for it is not logically sound. Sure, they're not going to carry them out in the open when they're not committing a crime... but then, if they're not committing a crime, what's to worry about anyway?

Most criminals don't go out looking to rape or murder someone. they see an oppertunity, and they take it. most don't plan a break-in, they see an open window and take their chance. if it's illegal to carry weapons they are taking a chance at being caught every time they walk out the door armed. most criminals will just leave their guns at home. Again, i'm not saying criminals will stop having guns, but you are making it very risky for them to be armed comitting crimes of oppertunity (which most crimes are).

Professional criminals or those who have planned their crimes will probably still be armed, but that is something which can never be totally stopped. And by banning guns you are adressing a part of the problem which can be solved.

MichiganMuscle77:

This is a lot of simplification. if only because sheepdogs dont bite themselves with their own fangs. all. the. time. I get that there is a lot of romanticism about the ordinary citizen bravely defending his fellows who rejected him for having a gun, but in reality, a lot more people accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones than protect their fellow men from armed criminals.

I would love to see some facts to back this up.

besides that, allowing guns to be available makes it easier for the wolves to have fangs. by arming yourself you are also arming a lot of criminals and terrorists that would find a lot harder and more dangerous to own guns if they were illegal.

I sort of addressed this above already... but I have to add that allowing guns to be available also evens the odds for the victims. A 100lbs woman is no longer an easy target for a 250lbs power house dude wanting to rape her. She pulls her gun and suddenly they're on equal ground. But you'd rather deny her that right because it makes you feel safer. Because you assume that a law will stop criminals from doing bad things, or slow them down. No... don't be foolish. Those laws have only made it harder for people to protect themselves.

But in the end, i still think more people would benefit from banning guns than from keeping them legal

And if you trust statistics, which I imagine you must, since you started off your post by mentioning them... statistics would prove you wrong on this, that banning guns, at least in the USA, tends to have absolutely no overall effect on gun crime - for better or for worse.

I think we first need to establish what you think about statistics. in the frst part of your post you seem to find them unreliable, and now you're asking for them. do you or do you not find statistics reliable? because we can't debate any of this if we first have to spend 4000 words dickering about what constitutes a reliable source.

Saxnot:

ShiningAmber:

Oh, I'm not denying what you're saying about those who once abide the law becoming criminals. And sometimes, telling a criminal apart from others isn't as easy as a mere glance. So, I agree with you.

But, what I am saying is that to disarm those who do obey the law, will not make those who do not obey the law suddenly obey it. I believe that would do more harm to society than good. With the society being disarmed, I truly think crime would become more and more frequent. Whether you agree or disagree is your opinion. But, if I have the chance, I'm using my firearms to protect myself.

Really? because, statistically speaking, prohibiting guns is actually much safer. in my country, its completely illegal to own guns outside of sports and range shooting. the effect of this has not been to let the criminals run wild, but to make it very difficult and risky for criminals to own a weapon. most criminals don't have firearms, and those that do, (professional criminals, hitmen) are at risk of being arrested just by having them (meaning that they usually dont walk around armed, but have them hidden somewhere and only carry them when on a job). this makes it that much more unlikely that you will ever encounter a criminal with a gun. that doesn't mean it's impossible for some crazy gunman to get a gun, but it does men that the amount of criminals with firearms, and accidental gun deaths, is a fraction of what it is in america

ShiningAmber:

There's an interesting article my boyfriend sent to me not too long ago. It's an interesting read and a different way to think of things. I recommend it.

An excerpt:

There are the sheepdogs. They guard the flock. They are the protectors of our society. They are the soldiers, the police officers and the armed citizens who have accepted the responsibility for protecting themselves and others by the use of deadly force if necessary.
The sheep are not always comfortable with the sheepdog because the sheepdog looks a lot like the wolf. The sheepdog is armed. He has fangs (guns). This frightens the sheep. The sheepdogs run toward danger. The sheep find this confusing because they only run away from danger. Often the sheep do not like the sheepdog until the wolf comes. Then the sheep try to hide behind the sheepdog, begging for his protection.
Sheepdogs do not live life hoping that the wolf will select someone else. Sheepdogs are prepared to stop the wolf and have accepted their responsibility for confronting evil in our society. If the wolf attacks the sheepdog then there will likely be one less wolf. On occasion the best prepared sheepdog will lose, but he will go down fighting, killed on the spot doing his duty. He will not be drug off and tortured to death. There are things worse than death and those who surrender to the wolf often learn what those things are.
When the sheepdog hears of yet another horrible crime committed by the wolf he does feel relief because the wolf chose another for his victim. He does not hide his head and try to pretend that such a fate could never befall his family. Instead he is reminded to remain alert and reevaluate his own preparations to contend with such an occurrence.

The full read: http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=64

I was a victim once of a horrible crime. Sexual assault was the least of it. I have physical scars on my hands and face from the ordeal. I am not interested in being defenseless again or having that happen to any of my loved ones if I can help it. If that is found to be offensive, well I don't think apologies are in order. I won't lay down and let that happen again.

This is a lot of simplification. if only because sheepdogs dont bite themselves with their own fangs. all. the. time. I get that there is a lot of romanticism about the ordinary citizen bravely defending his fellows who rejected him for having a gun, but in reality, a lot more people accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones than protect their fellow men from armed criminals.

besides that, allowing guns to be available makes it easier for the wolves to have fangs. by arming yourself you are also arming a lot of criminals and terrorists that would find a lot harder and more dangerous to own guns if they were illegal.

regarding the final part of your post: i'm sorry that happened to you. I can only imagine the horror.For what it's worth, you have my sympathies. certainly i think anyone could understand why you would want to be able to protect yourself. But in the end, i still think more people would benefit from banning guns than from keeping them legal

First, I would politely ask for statistics about ' a lot more people accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones than protect their fellow men from armed criminals '

I would doubly ask for statistics about that statement regarding your country of residence and my country of residence.

Also, pardon me by saying, but our countries are drastically different. It's comparing apples to oranges. In the United States, there are more guns than people. Banning them will not make them go away. It simply hands them over to the black markets and criminals, in my honest opinion.

In the United States to prohibit guns would give the criminal populace what they want. An unarmed public.

Being a victim of a violent crime opened my eyes to a lot of things, including this topic. Myself being unarmed helps no one save the criminals.

Coppernerves:
And does America need to allow its' citizens to keep assault rifles? Or even auto-chambered guns?

Does the rest of the world need to lecture a nation on what it needs to do to address a problem A) they don't understand because they don't live here and B) by telling the people how to live?

Coppernerves:
Guns in general might still be needed for defence, although other measures should be sorted out first, as having to shoot for life sounds like a frightfully close call.

I would think though, that if worse comes to worst and, god forbid, you have to shoot someone, a double action revolver would do, even against body armour, one could train to aim for the head after a body shot hits, and then shoot if it's still possible due to the target not falling.

Said revolvers might become obsolete if the cops get a good enough reputation for preventing civilians from deciding to aim at each other, (like on my side of the pond), but I think attempting to stop sensible, lawful citizens from bearing arms would be a step away from such an improvement.

There are plenty of other measures for defense, but firearms in general don't cause the violence, so the point is meaningless to limit access to them at a basic level (about as effect as the prohibition of drugs). However, your assertion claiming universal effectiveness of revolvers combined with a bizarre notion that it's America's failed police force causing civilian gun violence is mildly offensive and highly provocative (you even claim cultural superiority).

Coppernerves:
Just had another thought: You sure it's just politics without religion? It seems like there is a pretty strong gun culture over in the U.S., an infectious obsession with the fantasy of shooting up the bad guys

And speaking of culture, you should realize that this is about as intellectually accurate as bemoaning English people as tea-drinking, crumpet-eating, Python-esque ninnies who worship a time lord. In other news, Russians aren't obsessive vodka-drinking, fur-hat wearing folk dancers with fantasies of taking over the free world.

We'll take these thoughts under consideration with the rest of the international peanut gallery, thank you.

Fisher321:

Pretty much sums it up

oh and here is what Feinsteins law really does..

You posted my 2 favorite videos on the subject *fistbump*

This has been said already but I'll put my spin on it: I am an American citizen. I have the right to bear arms. I do not need a reason to own an AR-15 and it's none of anybody's business what or how many firearms I own as long as I obey the law (which I have and always will).

1. First off you don't know what an "assault rifle" actually is. An AR15 for example is NOT an assault rifle, it is not full auto-machine gun. Those are already heavily restricted, I wish people would learn about fire arms first before they want to debate about them. And the term "assault weapon" is really just a political buzz word that refers to cosmetic parts (for example if you were to give you gun a black finish or a slightly longer stock it could be classified as an "assault weapon" even though it isn't full auto to begin with.

2. MSN is a left-wing version of fox news, I don't know why you would link to them.

3. Most guns (including your so called "assault rifles") are actually used more by law abiding citizens to STOP crime and protect themselves, rather than commit such crimes. Furthermore most gun crimes in the US involve guns that are illegally obtained through the black market.

4. I am a law abiding gun owner, I have NEVER been arrested before and I won't be shooting up any innocent people. So why must I be treated like a criminal then by not being allowed to own guns that I legally bought, registered, and store safely?

5. Back to point number 3, all you're doing by banning guns is making it harder for civilians to defend themselves while making it easier for criminals to obtain them and harm innocents. This is proven by the fact that cities with heavy gun laws and bans all have the highest crime rates in the US, just look at as New York, Chicago (Obama's home city), Los Angeles etc... Again criminals DO NOT follow the law, banning them does nothing to keep people safe.

Judging by many of the responses here, I often wonder if the anti-gun people here even have any experience with fire arms to begin with, or if they don't even live in the US to begin with (if you don't live here you shouldn't be talking about our gun laws because you can't understand them. Your country and our country are probably very different places and what works for one might not work for the other).

They often act as if guns are somehow going to turn everyone into a dangerous killer, which is not true. Can guns be dangerous? Yes. But so can cars in the wrong hands, should we ban them too? No didn't think so. If an individual drunk drives and kills 5 people do we blame the car? No we blame the indvidual, guns are the same thing. It's the person, not the gun it's self.

You can read all the US gun facts yourself here:

"www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp"

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked