Guns need to go...or do they?

[BlumiereBleck]

For guns! Also this would go better in politics thread.

 

[TimbukTurnip]

Gun threads have been done to death, but whatever, I'll say what I think.

I live in the UK and i dont give a crap about guns, but I seriously cannot understand these arguments in favour of guns. I could quote a whole bunch of them and point out obvious flaws. Right now though it's 1am and Im on my iPod so I'll make a quick list.

-Guns are not 'tools' they are weapons. Tools can be used to build and create, but guns are made only to destroy. You say "if we ban guns we should ban drills and hammers too etc", but that makes no sense. First of all, those are harder to conceal, and secondly, wouldn't you rather someone tried to attack you with a knife or hammer? Sure, it would bloody hurt if you got hit, but you've got a much better chance of avoiding that as you can run away. Hell, your chances of wrestling it off your attacker are also improved.

-(I could be completely wrong at this bit) "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns". Aside from police and military, this may well be true, however I think it would be a damn bit harder for criminals to get guns, as the laws would be strict and enforced (I would hope). Take my country for example. I very rarely hear about gun crime here. The last time I did was the Raul Moat thing that, though bad, got completely over used by the media. And the general crimnals (chavs, gangsters, etc) very rarely have the knowledge or connections needed to acquire guns, whereas in America, from what I understand, pretty much everyone has one, or can easily get one.

-(I think someone else said this also) If you're out and you have a gun at home, and your home is robbed, you have just armed a criminal who may very well have not had a gun before.

-"Defending your home". I think the occasions where this would work are fewer than those when it wouldn't. Say you wake up due to hearig a noise - there's a robber or two in your house and he has a gun. If you don't have a gun you can quietly get in your room, you're pretty much fucked. If you do, you might get lucky and scare him off or whatever, but this is unlikely. He will have his gun ready and will be alert, and might have a much better gun too. You on the other hand have just woken up and are tired. I just don't see it working.

-if youre a complete bloody numpty with guns, you could end up hurting yourself or someone else. Or you could just forget your gun, leave it lying around somewhere for a child or numpty friend to shoot themself with.

-Statistics. If I remember I'll check later, but I'm pretty sure the statistics for gun crime in america is much much higher than anywhere else, even the country following america in those statistics.


I'm sure there was a whole bunch of other points I was going to make but this took longer than expected and I'm tired.

 

[WolfThomas]

Yes, I think Australia's laws are pretty sound, sporting shooters can still have guns but they have to be sensible about their use and storage. Also no semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you just have to be a better hunter. One shot, one kill. It is the only thing Howard did that was decent, and even then he fucked it royally. In Australia you can still use a target pistol at a range, and there are special dispenations for collectors but really what do you need a handgun for anyway? Protection? From whom?

Crocodiles? Wild dogs? Now I'm Australian, I have a cat A+B license and I generally support our gun laws. But there are jobs that should be allowed to carry a handgun (with appropriate training and onsite storage). In the Northern territory and I believe Queensland tour boat operators and similar sorts of jobs are allowed to carry large calibre pistols to kill or deter crocodiles if they get into a dangerous situation. But this should trickle down to other jobs and areas, like anything involving working out in the bush. I think even farmers of very large properties should be able to get them (again with appropriate licensing, registration and training).

I have a family friend who works for the department of fisheries who got bailed up for 3 hours by wild dogs while checking on a lake. He literally had to stand on this tiny outcrop of rock swinging a branch at five half-dingo half-god knows what mongrels who were trying to kill him. Had he had a handgun and the appropriate training he could have driven off or killed these animals. This also isn't a situation where a rifle couldn't fill a handgun's place, as jobs like these require already carrying a large amount of equipment and the gun would most likely have been left in his range rover.

Also a few points about your above statements, semi-automatics are restricted not banned, easily obtainable if you own a large enough property. Likewise it's not necessarily a one shot, one kill scenario even now, lever, bolt and pump rifles can be used almost as effectively as semi-autos in sending a whole bunch of bullets towards an animal

It's a matter of escalation, I know a guy who worked two jobs, as a rent-a-cop on armoured cars and as an orderly in a psychiatric hospital. He much prefered the hospital where he was spat on, bitten and had shit thrown at him over the armoured car job. Why? because he had to carry a pistol on the armoured car and if anyone wanted what was in the truck they would have guns and he was much more likely to be killed.

I knew a guy who volunteered at our school who was a private security counsultant (basically he organised security guards), he loved doing jobs which required him to carry his gun, simply because he got to change a lot more and he knew he'd probably never need to use it. I guess it's not the same as an armoured car, but I don't get what your saying, that armoured cars shouldn't have armed guards? I'd rather the rare unfortunate incidence where they have to use their guns, then them having to fight off hoards of people with cricket bats trying to get the money at every stop.

I support the no guns policy of the UK. It prohibits the possession of ALL handguns, as the only reason for a hand gun is to point it at people.

As I mentioned above they can also be pointed at dangerous animals...which is probably not a huge problem in the UK.

I used to own a number of firearms, coming from a rural community in the Australian out back they could be claimed to be necessary, but after moving to the city I brought a couple of guns with me and joined the local range for target shooting (not that I actually did much, turns out there's a lot more stuff to do in town). A couple of years later I was cleaning an old .303 lee enfield bolt action of ww2 vintage when a visitor dropped by, before I could say anything upon entering my kitchen he had already snatched up the rifle pointed it at my chest pulled the trigger and yelled BANG!!
Now it was at this point that it dawned on me that I was taking it for granted that most people just are not educated in gun safety, as they are in say a shooting household, so after regaining my composure and explaining to my friend the many points of just how wrong his and my own actions had been and what the potential outcomes could have been. I decided to give up my fire arms licenses and disposed of my gun collection at the police station. So I guess I'm kinda sitting on the fence here. Personally due to that experience I am loathe to have gun around a family home, but then I also understand that some people really do enjoy using firearms both for recreation/land care and are educated in there storage and responsible use.

While your visitors behaviour was certainly incredibly dangerous and stupid. I've got to question how and why he was able to grab the gun. I'm intensely paranoid with my own guns and treat everyone like they're pants on head retarded until I know otherwise (even those with licenses). If I am not directly working on my gun or have to take a break I immediately return the gun to safe, and if that's not possible, to its bag zipped up with my eye on it. He should never have seen the gun, let alone been able to touch it.

But yes people are ridiculously stupid, I am happy to say I saw at a gun show a man refuse to sell a gun to another man, even though he had the appropriate licensing, because of the dangerous way he and his friend handling the gun (aiming at people in the crowd, pulling the trigger and other general disregard for safety). And this guy had a license.

 

[Talshere]

I support the no guns policy of the UK. It prohibits the possession of ALL handguns, as the only reason for a hand gun is to point it at people.

As I mentioned above they can also be pointed at dangerous animals...which is probably not a huge problem in the UK.

Not unless you consider pointing a handgun or automatic rifle at an adder or jellyfish a constructive means of pest control... All truly potentially dangerous animals native to the UK were wiped out hundreds of years ago, unless you believe the tales of mountain cats roaming the moors and highlands.

Also, I happen to know that there are several hunting rifles that lack the power to penetrate a bears skull, so I fail to see how a hand gun could be considered an effective method or animal control. Just as I cant really see how a automatic rifle isnt a tad overkill. In both of these cases a rifle or shotgun should be more than sufficient. I maintain that the only real reason for the possession of handguns and automatic rifles is to use them recreationally at a range or to point them at people. I cant see how either of these uses could be fobbed off in such a way to make them legal in the UK.

 

[WolfThomas]

Not unless you consider pointing a handgun or automatic rifle at an adder or jellyfish a constructive means of pest control... All truly potentially dangerous animals native to the UK were wiped out hundreds of years ago, unless you believe the tales of mountain cats roaming the moors and highlands.

Also, I happen to know that there are several hunting rifles that lack the power to penetrate a bears skull, so I fail to see how a hand gun could be considered an effective method or animal control. Just as I cant really see how a automatic rifle isnt a tad overkill. In both of these cases a rifle or shotgun should be more than sufficient. I maintain that the only real reason for the possession of handguns and automatic rifles is to use them recreationally at a range or to point them at people. I cant see how either of these uses could be fobbed off in such a way to make them legal in the UK.

Well fortunately we don't have bears in Australia, most dangerous wild animals such as dogs and pigs (as well as native snakes I guess) only require smaller calibres and a pistol would be suitable. Likewise these animals can be scared off by a gun shot. The portability of the guns is the advantage over rifles. I likewise agree that semi-automatics and full automatics are overkill. I just believe something such a single action revolver (quite different from say a semi-automatic glock) has it place in farming, hunting and wildlife based occupuations.

 

[moonlantern]

Whether guns are good or bad is irrelevant here(US). Our right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, nothing else matters.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

I don't give a slight damn about guns. I think the fact that every american has the right to keep a gun at home because of some ancient amendment just shows that there's no point for being radical if it takes away the right to "protect one's home". Sure, it must've seemed like a good idea at the time i.e. back in the late 18th century - when the country was ravaged by civil wars and whatnot, but nowadays it's just plain silly.

We manage just fine in our country and there're barely even any guns in law enforcement. If you don't allow people to get their hands on killing devices so easily then crime rates should go down and people wouldn't need to "protect their homes".

Augh... it just seems way too stupid to even be debating, and i'm ranting so i'll stop now.

I'm not normally one to call people out but you are dead wrong sir.
First I am an American living in Japan (Japan has a no weapons of any kind rule, and in general is very pacifist) Having said that there is a reason why the gun amendment comes right after free speach. It is the second most important right we have as American's. And i'll explain that right after this question, who do guns laws hurt? It is not the criminals since they are CRIMINALS!! They do not abide by the law in the first place. It hurts the normal every day citizen. Here's a thought game. Imagine if the government issue a gun to every female in the country, now one everyone would have to get behind gun safety educating, but even if only half kept their guns that would mean any potential mugger or rapist would have a 1 in 2 chance of being shot, not exactly the odds even depraved lunatics would play with their lives.

The main reason for guns in America is because we the current government was formed by a bunch of terrorist overthrowing the legitamite government, the British. Thats right we Americans were TERRORISTS. The basics tennents of governmwnt should be that a government should be afraid of its people, not the otherway around, ask anyone from the former Soviet bloc, or many of current countries where people "dissidents" are pulled of the streets and disappear. The founding fathers knew that at some point our government would get so corrupt that there would no solution but to overthrow it. And yes of course the government wants gun control, every gun they can get out of the hand of a citizen is one less citizen they have to care about.

No I do not own a gun and never would for recreation purposes, however if it happens in my lifetime I will fly back to the US and take part in the peoples revolution, gun in hand proud to be an American.

Are you even listening to yourself?

The government will get so corrupt that there's no other way to go about things than to shoot every current politican? Also - You'd fly back to the US from Japan to take part in a revolution like that?

You, good sir, have just lit the fire under the "All americans are crazed gun-nuts" stereotype.
To be perfectly honest i don't see how you could even imagine i'd change my mind about this.

Guns should be prohibited to wield by everyone outside law enforcement, and that's my opinion. Personally i think it'd take the crime rate down a lot seeing as the US has by far the most gun-related crimes in the whole world. (Or at least gun-related murders, but i think it's crime as an over-all)

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Guns should be prohibited to wield by everyone outside law enforcement, and that's my opinion. Personally i think it'd take the crime rate down a lot seeing as the US has by far the most gun-related crimes in the whole world. (Or at least gun-related murders, but i think it's crime as an over-all)

....and what happens to all those once legal guns? You guessed it. Crims get them. Crims who don't care about the laws, don't care that it's illegal to own them, don't care that it's illegal to use them on other people. Crime rates would absolutely skyrocket with the enaction of such a ban.

Oh yeah, 'cuz my idea was that everyone should just throw their guns straight out the window as soon as the law was made? How about sending every gun outside law enforcement to termination? Or didn't that thought even strafe you?

 

[Nunny]

Im more for Gun control rather then banning them outright.

The Australian System is probley the closest to my views on Firearms.
One needs a Proper reason to own a Firearm and they are limited to reasonable types.

Edit: also the whole "overthrow the currupt government thing" is crap, unless one has the support of the Armed forces a Revolution will almost always fail no-matter how well equiped Civilians are.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Oh yeah, 'cuz my idea was that everyone should just throw their guns straight out the window as soon as the law was made? How about sending every gun outside law enforcement to termination? Or didn't that thought even strafe you?

Right. You honestly believe that would work?

Banning guns in the US will cause gun crime rates to reach levels even the middle east would go "Holy shit!" at. It is the absolute worst thing you could possibly do. But I don't suppose you'd understand that since you live somewhere where common gun ownership doesn't exist.

Not only that but do you honestly think the crims are going to go "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted!" and hand in their guns? Hell no. They're going to keep their guns, and they're going to go on a robbing spree since now they're the only ones with guns. They're going to burglarize, terrorize, rape, pillage, sack and otherwise take whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want it and there isn't anything left to stop them. They don't care about the law. They'll just break the ban while they're breaking the pre-existing burglary laws. Doesn't phase them at all. "But TestE, what about the police?" Average response time is over ten minutes, a half-way decent burglar is in-and-out in three. Even if the police do catch up later 9 times out of 10 they don't recover a damn thing stolen.

Guns will most likely become even easier to get a hold of if you banned them in the US because the black market won't bother with background checks or anything like that. Not only that but, if all guns are illegal, the only people that own them are going to be the people the ban was enacted to prevent owning them in the first place. I honestly think you underestimate just how many guns are in this country. There's probably more boomsticks than people.

But let's ignore all of that and focus on the economic issues of an outright gun ban in the US. See, guns are one of the few things Americans actually manufacture. And good god do we build a lot of them. That's a lot of skilled Americans that would be thrown into unemployment. It would stagger our economy. Even in the best of economic times an outright ban on guns would absolutely trash the economy. Gun production would plummet and any US firearms company without a government contract would very quickly go bankrupt. With the economy in the shitter already, as it is now, such a ban would likely completely destroy the economy to the point we're back in 1931. If our economy collapses to that point yours will suffer as well, because this shit is all interconnected. If our economy slumps so does everyone else's.

A US weapons ban is the absolute worst thing one could do to combat gun crime in the US. With that being said I'm done. I don't feel like getting into a flame war over it, which I feel is inevitable. I've seen it on other forums, every time gun control comes up people in favor of it always get into a clusterfuck with people against it.

I couldn't be assed to read another one of you people's rants about how guns make everything sparkle with the divine perfectness of God so i'll just say screw you and ignore anyone who tries to change my mind from now on. I've got the flu and i hate arguing with people who can't accept other's opinions or ideas.

 

[Still Life]

Gun laws really, in the end, only hurt honest citizens.

Last time I checked, statistically speaking, gun related homicide was America's (arguably the world's most gung ho state) number one crime. If it isn't number one now, then it is pretty much near the top.

In my experiences with working in the Justice system in Australia, if some prat wants to commit a crime, he/she will, and quite often with disregard for the consequences.

 

[Cazza]

People don't need guns to protect their homes. Common sense like locking doors/windows is enough. A robber would just go else where. You don't need a gun to do that.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Oh dear, there seems to be a lot of the 'I need a gun to protect myself from every other gun out there' mentality. How about this, if it was harder to gain access to a gun (not impossible, but a more strict process, such as background checks, yearly license renewals, strict gun registrations, etc) then people who would normally rob a store becaus they are desparate and have a gun won't, because they don't have a gun. Whereas, if a real criminal, whom would have aquired a gun anyway, decides to rob a joint, having a bunch of 'heroes' try and save people is likely to put the rest of the peopl at risk through sheer stupidity and recklessness. Also, by having a tighter gun control system, it is easier to check who owns what gun, as there are less guns and it is less likely to be mixed up with someone else's down at the local target.

So yeah, sure, let citizens have guns, but make it significantly more difficult for them to do so, that way, if they are a psycholgoically approved, repsonsible individual, then them having a gun won't hurt anyone (and if they do something illegal with the gun, it's fairly easy to track them down). Whereas if they are an ex-bank robber, or have jail time, or whatever, then thye can be denied access, making it harder for the 'high risk' population from getting hold of the 'high risk' weaponry.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

If someone is going to go rob a store and/or shoot someone, they aren't so concerned with the illegal arms charge.

 

[strum4h]

I would definitely have one to protect myself if needed.

 

[danintexas]

If you outlaw all guns do you think criminals will decide to just toss them out?

I have my guns for defense. I also have my guns because going to the rifle range and target shooting is fun.

 

[DeeWiz]

I think that everyone who is anti-gun sees it as normal people getting guns and going vigilante. This is not what the pro-guns are about, it is about the right and freedom it represents and enables.

Please use real world example in arguements. For example Columbia:
"Nearly 14,000 firearms will be melted down on 9 July, International Gun Destruction Day. The event has been organized by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Colombia has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. In 2005, 70% of over 17,000 homicides registered were committed with firearms. Cities registering the highest numbers of legal firearms were also those showing the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, cities with the highest murder rates were those with the lowest number of legal arms. Most homicides in Colombia are connected with the illegal ownership, manufacture and trade of firearms, El Tiempo reports."
http://www.iansa.org/regions/samerica/documents/Colombia_9july07.pdf - A UN report

Basically in a country with the largest murder rate, those places with the most legal guns had the lowest crime rates over those with the lowest legal guns. This is direct evidence to my arguement.
Unfortuantley tried to compare a place like Japan (anti-weapon) to the US does not work becuase it is trying to compare to different societies, and their is no real legitimate way to do that. In a place like the US where the are there are as many different combinations of race, creed, culture, class, and locations as there are stars in the skies does not apply to other nations with only small variations. It is the nature of the human race, where there exist difference there exists conflict. If a person is motivated enough to go kill someone for whatever reason, food, shelter, psycho, etc. the availabilty of a gun vs. any other killing implents including bare hands will not stop them.

For further resaoned discussion please support you statement with at least one citation, other posts will be ignored, flame wars are not my thing, but i dont care about specific gun related crime in that I dont think I care wether or not my family member was murder with a gun or a vegetable peeler, they're still dead. Relative rates are what is statisticaly pertinent here.

I do believe in the citizen controlling the destiny of the nation, not the government (cops and soldiers are part of the government, and yes i was a soldier.) As for just the government having the guns, usually the first thing a totalitarian leader does it disarm its populace thus solidifiy his/her power base. -for an example read anything on Stalin's rise to power and subsequent gun ban in 1929. If the leader is corrupt that means the civil services like police (which are usually disbanded in favor of troops) and federal i.e. army are under control of same corrupt leader.
And yes Americans where just a bunch of civilians with guns during the revolutionary war, and the "Shot heard round the World" was in response to General Gage attempting to disarm the populace - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lexington.htm

So yes I believe any person who would give up their right to the power to protect themselfes from tyranny does not deserve the freedom he/she enjoys that allows them to even have that discussion with fear of the government coming for them in the middle of the night. Please try an tell your views to any person who has lived through those times, go ahead look them in eye while you tell them they do not have the right to determine their own future against a government who had taken away their loved ones and made them live in terror.