People should stop protecting guns

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I never have more bated breath than I do when I see a news report with the words 'Live' in bright red at the corner. I sometimes worry about a terrorist attack, another natural disaster, or a shooting. A lot of the times, it's a simple collision with a ferry in New York, or sometimes the odd crane will fall.

This sees like an aside, but it isn't.

There were around 16 mass shootings in 2012 [http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#].

Quote the Slate on the article How Many Assault Weapons Are There in America? How Much Would It Cost the Government To Buy Them Back? [http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html]

Get more specific, Peters! Well, it?s hard, imaginary exclamation-making reader, because the data are incomplete. A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf] in the United States: ?114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.? However, author William J. Krouse went on to note that ?data are not available on the number of ?assault weapons? in private possession or available for sale, but one study estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994.?

Now, I personally do believe every life should be honored. And there are 84 fellow Americans, and more over humans, that aren't with us today because of senseless acts.

But not because of guns. Senseless Acts. There is a difference. I don't own a gun. I used to dodge bullets to stay alive back in the 90's, as a large amount of my family lived in Brooklyn. I don't have any love loss for Guns. But I do want to interject some common sense. None of the shootings happened with a criminal mastermind trying to escape. They were sick people. With some messed up ideas about other races, or just so generally disturbed that they were one step away from being put into an asylum... but just too late.

As the numbers show, even though it's fuzzy for Assault weapons, at least 1.5 million were sold and owned by 1994. You can bet that number went up exponentially since then. There are millions and millions of semi automatic and assault rifles out there (Also, please do know the difference between the two [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/so-what-is-an-assault-rifle-really-we-look-at-the-definitions-and-how-the-term-is-demonized/]). If Guns make such cold hearted killers out of anyone who touches it, why is the US Population as high as it is?

Well, the reason is simple. Guns don't do that. They don't. People are lumping citizens who legally purchased these weapons (and yes, they are weapons. So are swords. And combat knives. I'm sure you know someone if not yourself that owns these) and never once used them for anything but recreational shooting and protection, and saying just by owning items similar to these already admittedly mentally deranged people, they are one step away from just busting loose and doing it as well.

Can people not see the faultiness of looking at sane people, looking at deranged people, seeing one item as the link and deciding its the item at fault and not the operator? We have uncountable, literally uncountable number of people being average citizens who aren't shooting up the club and don't have any need to, and just saying by virtue of owning the device they are just as bad as everyone else and we should fear them. And a lot of it is also driven by sheer distaste for the item at hand. It's silly. It's wrong.

How many of you would sit here and rail against me if I looked at the 9,878 [http://www.madd.org/blog/2012/december/drunk-driving-fatalities-fall.html] deaths of last year due to drunk driving or the averaged 342 deaths this year alone (13th day of the new year), pointed to alcohol and said "Well, why do we need this? It's leaps and bounds more deadly than mass shootings?"

The 'intended use' vs the facts is just as bad as the slippery slope argument. And the end of the discussion (and yes, if we're talking about mass shootings), drunk driving deaths end more lives than sick people in mass shootings.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

The problem is that when someone wants to kill people there's always a way to do it. I love gun's but they should be harder to get. But this isn't going to solve anything, as long as these killers are made famous from there actions there will always be killers. They'll use car's, poison, fire, we can't stop the method's we need to help these people before they commit these horrible crimes.

 

[BrassButtons]

I would like to put out there that shotguns and skeet-shooting are also not bad. Owning a shotgun for the purposes of shooting skeet is (unless I'm mistaken) considered an Olympic sport other than just being a regular sport.

There are quite a few gun sports [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics] in the Olympics.

Anyway that being said, I'm from Mur-ka and agree with the points on both side. I can see gun ownership being important to home and personal defense but at this point don't see why law abiding gun owners don't switch out to non-lethal ammo and/or electricity based weapons like tazers etc. A quick blast would incap someone long enough to restrain said person after all!

This assumes that guns are being kept to defend against PEOPLE. I know someone who keeps rifles to defend against black bears and moose--those are a bit harder to incapacitate than a human.

 

[nepheleim]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

Guns are safe the same way that hammers and blowtorches are safe. If I left any tool sitting in my toolbox it would just collect dust. Nobody would be harmed. The purpose of a gun is to move a small pin a fraction of an inch. A riot gun (police shotgun) loaded with rubber shot, or tear gas/OC powder, is not defective. It moved that pin forward a fraction of an inch, just like if it was loaded with tactical buckshot. This illustrates that it is the intent of the user that dictates what a gun does.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

I got to see and clean up the aftermath of a man, high and drunk, plow a car into a bus stop full of children and one pregnant woman. I also took him to jail. He logged something like 9 (ten if you count the unborn kid) casualties in a fraction of a second. Good luck topping that with any gun.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

Majority opinion rarely holds sway with me, but I'd point out that the general consensus everywhere but the "United States of Euhmericah" is that universal free speech is bad too. Your consensus is wrong.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

Let's look at Chicago where guns are banned, criminals still have them and average Joe can't get one. You have a city where the criminal element, who never gave a damn about any laws let alone gun laws, can act knowing they always have the monopoly on force. You can't uninvent the gun. I could build you a break open shotgun with scrap metal behind any Home Depot or similar store on the planet.

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

A shotgun in a secured gunsafe, like anything else in a secured gunsafe, cannot be accessed immediately and if you have time to mess about with locks you have time to call and wait for a police response.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

Anything you want to be a defensive weapon can be a defense weapon on the street. Your car can be a defense weapon. However, a shotgun or rifle are far more accurate, intimidating, and downright useful. Their only limitation is that it is difficult to carry one and go about your day, which is the only reason people rather carry pistols. If it were practical to lug my AR 15 around while I went grocery shopping I would, as it's the best weapon I know how to use.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.

You haven't seen an urban area infested with hogs have you? But I digress, what if you live and work in a city but enjoy hunting on your holidays? Where do you propose storing your hunting rifle?

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Well at least we've got some healthy discussion going.

 

[AgedGrunt]

These were not "facts", just a blanket of subjective, offensive (and hypocritically "ludicrous") statements. It's also very nice of you to say "EUHMERICAH" and then ask people to be "polite, calm and respectful".

1) Of course guns are safe. Tens of millions of guns did not kill, wound or even fire today. Millions of guns were used safely in ranges, outdoors, training exercises and engagements safely, as intended. A peaceful gun owner is safer with a gun than the average driver is with a vehicle.

2) Violence is reality. That people argue a firearm does its job too well is simply astounding. When a small person can be protected against a violent group with a simple tool that fits in the hand, yes, that is the intent and the meaning of the word "equalizer". Do not even bring up non-lethal tools, they are clumsy, come with their own risks and are insufficient.

3) No one took a consensus, let alone came to such an absurd conclusion. There is a stigma about firearms in the same way the mainstream has done it against pornography, violent video games and the like: through the use of propaganda and public ignorance.

4) Most arguments against a small arms ban are valid. They are basic, commonplace, can be used safely, effectively and serve a fundamental purpose to defending life, property and preserving freedom. Gun bans are not reasonable, rational or restrictive, they revoke and infringe upon all people with prejudice.

5-7) There are very strong carry laws in America. Nobody is walking around the city with a shotgun or rifle slung over the back. However, a pistol is versatile and effective in all firearm applications. Get some real facts...

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.


Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.


[sub]the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns[/sub]

People will stop appearing to "protect" this right when others quit attacking it and the people who defend it.

 

[barbzilla]

Gun control I like the idea of, gun bans I do not like. I think every gun we sell should be sold to someone trained to safely handle said gun, as well as someone who isn't in a mental state to do harm to themselves or others. I also think we need to start with small changes and work our way up. I do not think we need to ban guns of any sort currently legal.

Where I take issue with this thread is they are blaming the guns for problems created by the operators and not the guns. Unless there have been some major advances since I was in law enforcement, guns are not sentient. They have no control over their destiny. The gun itself is an inanimate object. Blaming inanimate objects is something that Americans have done well for many years. This is nothing more than creating a scapegoat to avoid placing responsibility on the shoulders of those creating the problem.

 

[101flyboy]

At the end of the day, a lot of people have a connection to guns that isn't logical. So there is no point in talking to gun hawks. They idolize guns, and a large portion of them simply live in fear.

 

[Texas Joker 52]

FFS, another. Okay been avoiding them but this is ridiculous. Nothing you have to say will add anything to this.

Guns are a tool intended to harm? Yeah we have a lot of tools intended to do harm. Whoopdee doo.

Everywhere except America hates them? Switzerland would like a word with you. Big time.

A semi-automatic weapon in a storage area is less of a home defense weapon than a shotgun?

Living in an urban area means you would never just drive to a hunting area with your rifle?

And for the love of god the restriction of them is impossible in America. You can't point to another country that has very tight gun laws and say "Look at them! They do it!" because in that country guns have not been as widespread as they are in America. They are everywhere. If someone wants one, they will get one.

See, I can make a list of my views too. Spoiler alert, what I say won't persuade you to what I believe. Good talk

Now, I am very glad someone mentioned Switzerland at the very least when it comes to foreign countries and their stance on firearm ownership. For those of you who would like some context, however, there is a unique reason as to why the Swiss have such widespread ownership among its citizenry: They have no standing army, and instead employ a militia, made up of civilians that are conscripted and undergo military and firearm training.

Here is the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland] for those who want to read about it in more detail, since I simply can't cut-and-paste the entire thing here, for fear of making a massive wall of text.

Now, to be more on point, the chances of firearms being banned outright in the U.S., or much less more controlled, are slim and laughable. The fact that they are widespread is only one reason behind why it's unlikely, as well as the fact that, yes, its a constitutional right. Yes, you can debate whether or not it still applies today, and in the way of owning a firearm for self-defense, but the fact of the matter is, until its amended in such a way that it no longer applies at all, it still still be a valid counter-argument, if something of a cop-out.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And the Wikipedia article on that as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]

Now, those points aside, I should point out that, one of the largest problems with firearm violence in America today is, most often, due to one or both of these two factors: Malicious Intent, and Irresponsible Firearm Handling.

Now, Malicious Intent can rarely be avoided, and when someone is truly determined, they will commit the crime they have set out to commit, regardless. Yes, a firearm will make murder easier, but a registered firearm will make it easier to catch the culprit. If it was an unregistered, illegally obtained firearm, then it's a moot point. Gun control laws will not stop illegal firearm acquisitions any more than DRM does for video game piracy. It only limits those who can legally acquire them.

However, Irresponsible Firearm Handling, can be prevented. You drill those who ever handle a gun with firearm safety until it becomes second nature, and then you prevent any accidental discharges, or other stupidity that can cause injury or death when it comes to guns.

Now, I won't say that more emphasis on firearm safety will solve everything when it comes to gun violence. The issue is much more complicated than that, and I won't even pretend to think that I know the first thing about solving it in it's entirety. But, being more responsible with firearms is a good place to start, as opposed to restrictive gun control laws, or outright banning them.

 

[thejackyl]

1. Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

This I agree with. Yes, I gun is a tool, mostly comparable to a knife in function, though knives aren't JUST weapons

2. People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

A knife to the jugular will kill you just as quickly as a bullet.

3. The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

Okay, I can't speak for the rest of the world since I haven't ever left the states, so I won't comment here.

4. The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

I understand, but most people who commit gun related crimes don't legally own a gun in the first place(or at least the one(s) they use in the crime. Taking guns away via legal means still wont completely eliminate the criminal element.

5. A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

I would prefer a pistol to a shotgun for self-defense purposes. Much less collateral damage that way, and much less cumbersome.

6. A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

I agree here

7. Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.

Are you referring to owning, or carrying? I know people who live in the city who like to hunt, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

It doesn't matter whether guns are safe. It doesn't matter whether guns have any use in self defense, recreation, or crime. It doesn't matter whether they kill people.

What matters is that Americans desire to own firearms. And the ownership of firearms does not trespass upon the rights of those who do not desire to own firearms.

This is America. I am an American. I've never owned a gun in my life. I don't really want to. But I will not allow my freedom to be stifled by cowards.

Nicely said, I agree with this 95%... the 5%? I do wish to own a gun, just not sure what kind I'm going to get for my concealed carry.

CAPTHA: Vegan diet
But my tasty tasty murder

 

[Vigormortis]

It doesn't matter whether guns are safe. It doesn't matter whether guns have any use in self defense, recreation, or crime. It doesn't matter whether they kill people.

What matters is that Americans desire to own firearms. And the ownership of firearms does not trespass upon the rights of those who do not desire to own firearms.

This is America. I am an American. I've never owned a gun in my life. I don't really want to. But I will not allow my freedom to be stifled by cowards.

Thank you.

Finally, someone who mirrors my opinion on the matter.

Besides, for every psycho douche-bag that uses a gun to kill there are thousands if millions that use them safely. Whether for self-defense or for recreation, the vast majority don't misuse firearms.

Look at it this way: a ban on guns is similar to Blizzard or Ubisoft level DRM for games. And, if many here at the Escapist routinely whine about that type of DRM, then I find it a bit hypocritical to demand a ban on firearms at the same time.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All that said, I'm still for some slightly stricter gun laws. Particularly in the form of background checks.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

I had to comment on this particular "fact".

General concensus everywhere but "Euhmericah"?

I believe much of the Middle East, North (and to a degree South) Africa, majority of South America, Mexico, and a slew of other regions and nations would like to disagree.

 

[Madara XIII]

*Facepalm* This again?

Guess this argument will be going for a roundabout as usual.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Well my guns help protect me so its really the least I can do for them.

OT: Firearms do not have a large effect on crime one way or another. Instead one should look to social and economic conditions of an area and how it relates to the crime. You could compare your own South Africa to the Czech Republic. The gun laws (at least what I gather from wikipedia) are fairly similar, yet South Africa has a murder rate about ten times that of the Czech Republic. This is due to conditions in South Africa that I imagine would exist without firearms.

Also, a shotgun in a safe is a pretty shitty home defense weapon. Have you ever tried to open a safe in the dark while someone is breaking/broken into your house? It seems like it be a little difficult. However I can get to my AKM or my Glock in seconds and can meet any threat quickly.

Why should where I live determine what I can own? What if I live in a city due to my job but I like to go out into the country to hunt?

Do you know in the US handguns kill about 15X as many people as rifles and shotguns? Baseball bats kill more then long arms.

Finally, the reason Americans often believe they should be able to own things like AR-15s is because we are a country born of rebellion and most believe the citizenry should be able to repeat the process if necassary. While no one thinks that we could defeat the US military with semi-automatic rifles, its been proven many times that these weapons would be the seed that allow a revolution to grow and acquire the tools necessary to fight. That and any popular rebellion in the US would be aided by elements if not a majority of the US military.

Captcha: Know your rights
Indeed.

PS, this should be in Religion and Politics.

 

[Mr F.]

Well...

Fuck it.

I am going to make my point, once, in this thread and this thread only.

I am a Brit. I have never held a gun. Whilst I would love to go target shooting at some point there are not very many shooting ranges around. If I could legally own a gun... I wouldn't. Just escalates everything way way too far. If someone came into my home, armed, and wanted to steal my shit? Take it. Its insured. If someone came into my home to kill me? Well, I just do not think that it is likely, at all, nor are any of the other home invasion scenarios. The world, or Britain at least, is somewhat empty of psychotic home invading killer rapists. And if I ever came across a psychotic home invading killer rapist I am pretty certain I would be fucked.

Just getting all of that out of the way.

Can people shut the fuck up about America and guns?

Its an American issue, not a global issue. It is not as black and white as many people think. The USA is fucking huge. It has motherfucking colossal borders, both land and sea. The bad guys WILL get guns. Disarming the American populace would both be incredibly incredibly difficult and utterly pointless. Oh, and damaging. Hell, has anyone even considered the economic damage that would be caused by removing the domestic gun market?

Do I think that it is mad that Americans are armed? Yes. I look at myself, realise I would never want a gun, realise I hate weaponry and realise that my reasoning is rational.

Do I think that guns should be outlawed in the states? Nope. There are way too many in circulation, way too many jobs in making them, all of those arguments actually hold true. With the Mexican border as porous as it is it would be impossible to remove the guns from America. You outlaw guns only outlaws have guns.

Leave the guns alone. The situation is pretty much unique. Pointing at crime figures for disarmed nations (Or other armed nations) is pointless.

 

[Rednog]

Stopped reading after "EUHMERICAH"
Yea, sorry but people really need to grow up, this 'Murica and various other concoctions need to stop. People who use nonsense like this and try to waggle their finger at the US need to realize that they're being childish cretins. Best way to start a discussion? Insult the person, fucking genius.

 

[BrassButtons]

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

I had to comment on this particular "fact".

General concensus everywhere but "Euhmericah"?

I believe much of the Middle East, North (and to a degree South) Africa, majority of South America, Mexico, and a slew of other regions and nations would like to disagree.

Just about every country, really. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics]

 

[Judas_Iscariot]

If you honestly believe banning weapons makes violent crime rates go down, you are deluding yourself. Guns do not turn people into killers, killers turn guns into weapons.

The legal right to possess a firearm is preserved to give American Citizens the ability to defend themselves against their government. Look what happened to Austria after it was annexed by Hitler's Third Reich. The first liberty taken away from the Austrians was gun ownership. After the guns were taken, then the Nazis began the genocide in Austria.

In addition, I just can't get over how poor your reasoning is in your initial argument. Guns aren't used for anything but malicious harm? Recreational target practice, hunting, self defense, and militia drilling are all uses.

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

Well i guess I can agree with you to some point there. My opinion: Hypothetically speaking, what if all the guns in the world just disappeared. what do you guys think will happen?

 

[Ryotknife]

Well i guess I can agree with you to some point there. My opinion: Hypothetically speaking, what if all the guns in the world just disappeared. what do you guys think will happen?

They will be rebuilt.

If all guns (legal and illegal) disappeared from the US overnight as well as any company that makes them in the US, all that will happen is that illegal guns will flood across the borders from pretty much every direction. Considering our track record for stopping illegal drugs.......

 

[The_Healer]

Woooooo lets all get wound up into hysterics by our love of guns!

I mean, seriously, you can't be safe unless you are surrounded by at least 6 firearms.
And a collection of landmines.

And don't talk to me about tasers either.
Those things are dangerous man.