How do my fellow escapists feel about guns? (The real kind)

[erto101]

whenever guns are mentioned i always think 'i prefer swords' and i do

I would like to say "Mad Jack". Thought you might like him =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

Now in all seriousness:
USA, compared to the rest of "The West", has a high rate of gun related violence. I am aware that multiple factors are to be considered when I state this, but isn't that so for all countries?

I completely understand the need for safety and I respect that. But then again, I, for one, feel totally safe walking the streets any hour of the day in Denmark. I feel no need for a gun because no one else carries one. I know that there are guns in Denmark, but it's so few that it's hardly worth mentioning. Also, if I should be assaulted, I would most likely not have the guts to harm another human being, and even if I did, the assailant would most likely be poking me in the back with his weapon of choices.

I often hear that responsible, law abiding citizens should be allowed weapons. And it makes me wonder, who are responsible? I have often enough read the comment "I've lost faith in humanity" on this forum, to make me believe that at least some people on this site share my opinion. Some people are simply not "responsible". The human mind is unique and there can be no "one way" to judge a person. It would take a long analyzing process of the individual to judge whatever or not this person is "responsible" enough to carry a gun. Also this person might crack in the future due to some incident in his life, and become unsuitable for a gun.

Saying that strict gun laws doesn't help because the criminals will buy weapons on the black market anyway, is only partly true. It might not prevent your basic thug from buying a weapon. If he can afford it. The strict laws in countries like Denmark and Sweden* have caused the price of weapons on the black market to triple compared to the legally bought product. And the sort of person who might commit a school shooting, or similar event, will most likely have a hard time getting a weapon, if they are unable to interact with the society.

Looking back at my rant I see that I do take a rather one-sided stance and I would most likely fail badly in social study, but then again I like physics. It abides laws and do not behave out of the ordinary. Humans, on the other hand, are unpredictable. I do not like "The Human Factor" =/
?If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.? - Emerson M. Pugh (nice quote )

This is all my personal opinion and I'm no expert on the matter =)
TL: DR: I do not like guns to due to many variables
*Fun fact: In Sweden they not only have a strict gun-law but also a government monopole on alcohol, yet they are one of the biggest exporters of both in the world =)

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Stuff

stuff

stuff

I'm not saying it could happen to you, or that people who want to kill won't find a way, I'm just talking about that rare case where someone is JUST close enough to be willing to kill in anger, and a gun allows enough removal from the fact that a sword doesn't.

Honestly, the amount of people this would ever apply to is small enough that it's not really a point against guns, I'm just saying that there is one small niche I believe that would result in a death where bladed weapons wouldn't because they are so visceral.

then I conclude yes, it's a possibility. Though I honestly don't find it a point in favor towards swords.

 

[Danpascooch]

Stuff

stuff

stuff

I'm not saying it could happen to you, or that people who want to kill won't find a way, I'm just talking about that rare case where someone is JUST close enough to be willing to kill in anger, and a gun allows enough removal from the fact that a sword doesn't.

Honestly, the amount of people this would ever apply to is small enough that it's not really a point against guns, I'm just saying that there is one small niche I believe that would result in a death where bladed weapons wouldn't because they are so visceral.

then I conclude yes, it's a possibility. Though I honestly don't find it a point in favor towards swords.

Nor do I, it's really a moot point anyway since guns are in the hands of the population and nothing is going to change that, so we might as well arm up to defend ourselves.

I forgot why I brought about the point anyway, and I'm too lazy to go back and see what it was in response to.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Stuff

stuff

stuff

I'm not saying it could happen to you, or that people who want to kill won't find a way, I'm just talking about that rare case where someone is JUST close enough to be willing to kill in anger, and a gun allows enough removal from the fact that a sword doesn't.

Honestly, the amount of people this would ever apply to is small enough that it's not really a point against guns, I'm just saying that there is one small niche I believe that would result in a death where bladed weapons wouldn't because they are so visceral.

then I conclude yes, it's a possibility. Though I honestly don't find it a point in favor towards swords.

Nor do I, it's really a moot point anyway since guns are in the hands of the population and nothing is going to change that, so we might as well arm up to defend ourselves.

I forgot why I brought about the point anyway, and I'm too lazy to go back and see what it was in response to.

My guess is simply to prove that there is a niche. too lazy as well, but that's the only reason why I would persist.

 

[manaman]

Simple question. I live in Australia, where our murder rate (per person) is about one 90th (around 0.11) of the US rate. Most of the first world also has a murder rate around the same as Australia. Americans (as in US - Canada has about the same rate as Australia) kill each other at a rate that the rest of world find unimaginable.

I don't think you know your homicide rates. The US is pretty low compared to the rest of the world.

It's a social thing, even during the most restrictive period on handgun ownership the homicide rate in the US was about double the current rate (current 5.4, 1980s rates stayed between 7.8 and 10). The average rate across Europe as a whole is 5.4 (thanks in no small part to Eastern Europe which averages a rate of 11). Countries like South Africa have rates as high as 40, and Columbia has a rate of 65. In fact the world average is 9.8 nearly double the US rate, and the US rate continues to fall, something it has been doing since the 90s. Stricter enforcement of current laws has had more effect then any gun banning.

This [http://chartsbin.com/view/ueh] is an easy to use resource, except they 2004-2006 rates listed for countries, which have changed, but not dramatically enough that it doesn't help put this into perspective.

Some of those countries that have the highest homicide rates (Mexico, Russia, South Africa, etc) have out right banned guns, or restricted ownership in almost every capacity. There is almost no correlation between gun ownership levels and homicide rates.

 

[Deonysus]

I don't know if this have been said before but I'm just gonna put it out there

"Global Military Expenditure
Global military expenditure in a year is $1.464 trillion (1464 000 000 000).
In a month this means $ 122 billion
Every week this means $ 28 billion
Every day this means $ 4 billion
Every hour this means $ 167 million
Every minute this means $ 2,8 million
Every second this means $ 46.400"

Copy pasta from this: http://www.laromkarnvapen.slmk.org/ENG/economy.html

I'm just saying, that money could be spent on much greater things.

EDIT: spelling

 

[manaman]

whenever guns are mentioned i always think 'i prefer swords' and i do

I would like to say "Mad Jack". Thought you might like him =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

Now in all seriousness:
USA, compared to the rest of "The West", has a high rate of gun related violence. I am aware that multiple factors are to be considered when I state this, but isn't that so for all countries?

I completely understand the need for safety and I respect that. But then again, I, for one, feel totally safe walking the streets any hour of the day in Denmark. I feel no need for a gun because no one else carries one. I know that there are guns in Denmark, but it's so few that it's hardly worth mentioning. Also, if I should be assaulted, I would most likely not have the guts to harm another human being, and even if I did, the assailant would most likely be poking me in the back with his weapon of choices.

I often hear that responsible, law abiding citizens should be allowed weapons. And it makes me wonder, who are responsible? I have often enough read the comment "I've lost faith in humanity" on this forum, to make me believe that at least some people on this site share my opinion. Some people are simply not "responsible". The human mind is unique and there can be no "one way" to judge a person. It would take a long analyzing process of the individual to judge whatever or not this person is "responsible" enough to carry a gun. Also this person might crack in the future due to some incident in his life, and become unsuitable for a gun.

Saying that strict gun laws doesn't help because the criminals will buy weapons on the black market anyway, is only partly true. It might not prevent your basic thug from buying a weapon. If he can afford it. The strict laws in countries like Denmark and Sweden* have caused the price of weapons on the black market to triple compared to the legally bought product. And the sort of person who might commit a school shooting, or similar event, will most likely have a hard time getting a weapon, if they are unable to interact with the society.

Looking back at my rant I see that I do take a rather one-sided stance and I would most likely fail badly in social study, but then again I like physics. It abides laws and do not behave out of the ordinary. Humans, on the other hand, are unpredictable. I do not like "The Human Factor" =/
?If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.? - Emerson M. Pugh (nice quote )

This is all my personal opinion and I'm no expert on the matter =)
TL: DR: I do not like guns to due to many variables
*Fun fact: In Sweden they not only have a strict gun-law but also a government monopole on alcohol, yet they are one of the biggest exporters of both in the world =)

Responsible citizens are those that have not proved otherwise. Handgun ownership in the US is restricted to anyone over the age of 21. Felony convictions or an order from a judge is all it takes to ban a person from buying a gun, as background checks are required before you can purchase one (aside from private sales in most states, but more on that later). Basically you can purchase and own a firearm in the US until you show that you shouldn't be able to.

You also have to understand that trying to show difference in gun violence alone as a reason for banning guns is a ridiculous point. Suppose there where no guns, and a nation was arguing that all knifes aside from small knifes used in the kitchen are to be banned, and they point to Pointystickistan that has no knifes, and starts talking about how much more knife violence there is in his country compared to the other county, but fails to point out that social factors contribute more to the different rates of total crime, and the reason they uses knifes in his country is because they are available. They still commit crime in Pointystickistan they just use their pointy sticks.

The US is pretty safe, even for a western country. The worst crime areas arise from a pretty bad socioeconomic barrier that still exists within this country. It especially affects minorities and recent immigrants into this country. The homicide rate in the US among inner city (and poorer) blacks is as high as 20 across the country (that is 20 murders per 100,000) while the average murder rate in the suburbs is less then the average homicide rate of Canada or the UK. While Canada counts some non violent confrontations in their violent crime statistics that the US doesn't it still doesn't fully account for the fact that Canada has over twice the violent crime rate as the US, I wrote an entire long thread post about the comparison to the UK. It is only when you start limiting the comparison to those crimes that use guns the US starts to look bad.

I bring up the different homicide rates among the suburbs and inner city areas for another reason as well. The average homicide rate across Europe happens to match the rate across the US (5.4). The size of Europe as a whole is a much closer comparison of size to the US then any individual country as well (490 million vs 310 million). What I am getting at: There are bad parts to the US just like anywhere else, and the US is huge, it's almost unfair to compare it to several small countries with populations around the size of the two largest population centers in the US (18 million around LA, and 20 million around New York City).

 

[cjbos81]

It's worth pointing out that America's crime problems are probably more directly linked to the great social urbanization of the 19th and 20th centuries and not just the prevalence of gun ownership.

America has many more densely populated metropolises (where violent crime is more likely to occur) as compared to other western countries.

Just thought that should be pointed out.

 

[SilverUchiha]

whenever guns are mentioned i always think 'i prefer swords' and i do

<youtube=MsqmtCjBOuk>

And there's my answer. >

OT: I'm all for responsible gun use. For those deemed irresponsible, why not shoot em in the head... Of course, someone with the proper authority would do that or things would likely get out of hand.

 

[Bravo 21]

well in my opinion, having the right to carry an assault rifle around in public just feels a litle, unnessecary. I also feel that the US should consider having tighter control on firearms.

 

[cjbos81]

well in my opinion, having the right to carry an assault rifle around in public just feels a litle, unnessecary. I also feel that the US should consider having tighter control on firearms.

Define "assault rifle".

 

[Bravo 21]

well in my opinion, having the right to carry an assault rifle around in public just feels a litle, unnessecary. I also feel that the US should consider having tighter control on firearms.

Define "assault rifle".

well the first thing that comes to mind is an M-16, or other similar weapons

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

well in my opinion, having the right to carry an assault rifle around in public just feels a little, unnecessary. I also feel that the US should consider having tighter control on firearms.

common misconception - Americans do not walk around with fire-arms like it's a every day thing. Far from it. Really the most you can carry around in public is a pistol - and only with good reason (permit etc) and they don't hand those out to anyone.

 

[stompy]

Snip

Yet, our strict gun control laws were only instituted in 1996, after the Port Arthur massacre. I don't think we had a high level of crime before 1996.

That isn't to say that US culture is 'inferior'. They have a lot of problems that we don't have to deal with, including drug violence and higher levels of organised crime (not to say Australia doesn't have organised crime but it is pretty insignificant compared to the US).

I think that one 'cultural' aspect that lessens crime in Australia is that people generally don't care for guns in Australia. While a large proportion of the US believes guns are a necessity for self-defence and so all citizens should be armed, the vast majority of Australians are either abhorred by or apathetic to guns. Most people with guns in Australia are farmers who need them for protecting their livestock.

On-topic: I wouldn't mind firing a gun myself, just to see what it's like. To me, they're tools that should be available to those that can prove they are responsible enough to use them and trained in their proper usage.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

I don't really like them. I mean I think that they're cool, and it would be good to have one, but in Australia it's hard to get them, and I would never use it. I think that they cause more harm than good.

 

[WanderingFool]

As long as the person with the gun knows how to use it, and knows When to use it, I see no problem. What I see as a preoblem is that gun laws make it harder for honest citizens to own firearms, and the criminals just buy street pieces (illegal firearms).

If a person is responsible, intelligent, and capable of common sense and reasoning, than there shouldnt be a problem. Thats why I dont like living near republicans.

 

[xdom125x]

I like the guns. They should be legal with only a few restrictions. The person buying a gun should be properly trained in safely handling and firing that gun. There should be a thorough background check on any mental illnesses that that person has that can lead to violently attacking others.(not sure if these are already done but I think they should be if they aren't). I think that is pretty reasonable.

 

[TheSolemnHypnotic]

I HATE THEM...If I could I would ban everykind, except paintball. Can you imagine if all of the world's wars were just paintball fights? :')




I happen to like violent games and movies though.

 

[gurall200]

I'm cool with guns, not cool with the idea that only police can carry guns, cool with the government selling them to citizens as well.

I don't think guns themselves are the issue, but the people using them are, as the case of any tragic shooting (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona etc) it's the case of people that shouldn't have weapons, not sure about how one does go about preventing them from having them (we have background checks, so that's not helping it), short of encouraging people to give a damn about their neighbors (from what I gather, all the perpetrators of these incidents had severe bouts of depression or something like that, heck in the case of virginia tech, it was well known the man needed help) .