People should stop protecting guns

[Vigormortis]

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

Did you actually read through that list?

Quite a few allow their citizens to own firearms.

Besides, there are countries missing from that list. Unless we're just "not counting" them. Which just makes the whole argument hilarious.

 

[jovack22]

What is wrong with only having pistols for self defence?
If the sandy hook killer had only had pistols, you can make the argument that he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.

Or how about having contained areas where people can rent out whatever weapon they want within the confines, but return the weapons after they are done so everything is accounted for?

Actually, the rifle he used wasnt even the most efficient for what he was doing in the school, if he had wanted to do more damage he would have used a pistol.

Allow me to explain in my cold hearted logical way. Rifles are distance weapons, not ideal for close quarters work like you would encounter in a school, mostly because when you turn corners it is much easier for someone to take a rifle by the fore grip and move it out of the line of fire, where as you can hold a pistol much closer to your body and maintain control of the weapon.

Not only that but most bullets for his particular weapon of choice (Bushmaster AR15) are jacketed, which arent the ideal for killing unarmored targets, jacketed bullets are meant to punch through cover like tables, dirt and the like as well as body armor, you want hollowpoint which spread open to cause maximum damage when hitting an unarmored target and it is much easier to locate hollowpoint ammunition for pistols than rifles, particularly the AR15 he was using. Not to mention the weight and size, you can carry dozens more bullets for the pistol than the rifle as they are smaller, lighter and the magazines tend to be smaller as well.

So yeah, if he had chosen to go in with some well stocked pistols he could have made it much worse than it was already.

For the rental area, that could work, until the person renting the weapon turns it on the renter, kills em and goes to do what he wanted to do anyway ~.^

Fair enough. I'll have to admit, I have fired both rifles and pistols, but I suppose your considerations do raise some valid points.

Of course, these confines would have to be monitored, secure areas, something like banks (not just some lethargic high school part time kids working behind a counter haha ).

It's a difficult topic of course which goes down to our very freedoms... I mean, banning anything takes us one step closer to 1984... too much power in the hands of the government is never a good thing, but a fine balance is possible.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

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.

Funny enough I wouldn't mind owning a nuclear weapon. And if the harm it can cause doesn't matter, and if my use of it doesn't matter..and it doesn't affect non-nuclear weapon owners...whats the problem?

The fact of the matter is that it DOES matter that they cause harm, can kill people very easily in certain hands.

Its totally insane that like everywhere else...you require that people get a drivers license to drive a car, but do not(federally) require gun licenses. You are literally requiring that people have a liscense to operate a dangerous vehicle, but then allowing anyone(in some places) to buy an EVEN MORE DANGEROUS weapon, with no proof that they know how to safely operate or store it. The only reason you do this..is because its in the constitution, NO other reason.

 

[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

General consensus is and always will be irrelevant. Or did I miss the meeting where we now get to vote on reality. People in the middle ages voted that prayer could cure sickness. Did that mean it was true?

Also you do realize that 'everywhere else' includes countries that literally have AK-47s on their flags as well as countries that are in the middle of armed rebellions against dictators(which they believe is only possible with guns.) I'm going to go ahead and call a big fat bullshit on that statement. Europe/Canada/Australia/Japan aren't 'everywhere else.' Also even then, Switzerland waaaay disagrees. Heavy government control of guns does not mean people thing guns are bad, it just means the government want's to ensure that they are the only ones with guns.

Europe/Canada/Australia/Japan all seem to disagree as well--none of those regions have outlawed civilian ownership of guns, so clearly the consensus in those places is not "guns are bad and shouldn't be owned". There really aren't that many countries that have banned civilian ownership of guns (though to be fair some countries don't have stable enough governments to try).

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

Did you actually read through that list?

Quite a few allow their citizens to own firearms.

Yes; that's the point. Most countries would disagree with the claim that outside of the US guns are viewed as bad and shouldn't be owned.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Again, to each is own, but in a world without guns, senseless mass murders like these would not be possible by any misguided individual. Quebec, Norway, USA movie theatre, USA school, etc etc. This is not including any transgressions between nations.

I'd hate to bud in on your conversation, but this is simply not true, look up the Thuggee, they killed 2 million people with garottes, some of the worst mass killings in the U.S. were perpetrated without guns, the worst school-child killing has perpetrated by a man with a bomb. A gun is a means to an end, if you want someone dead you grab a gun, if one isn't available you grab a knife or a club or you make a bomb.

Nations fought long, bloody wars with spears and bows, people will kill people in the absence of a gun, or any other weapon for that matter.

OK... you're talking about a group of people which primarily operated hundreds of years ago. How about if they were armed with firearms instead of garottes.

Yes, wars were fought throughout history. Historically, World War 2 can be argued to have had the most casualties.

I realize you are probably playing devil's advocate so here's a simple argument.

If X, Y, and Z are all methods of killing someone, and you add them all up, the casualties amount to X+Y+Z.
Are you saying that removing or lessening one of these variables from the equation would not result in less deaths?

My point is instead of pointing at a thing and going "That thing was used to kill a person, it is evil and should be banned," we should point at the killer and say "Something led this man to kill someone, we should find out what it is and attempt to prevent it or educate people on how to avoid it." There are tons of problems that lead to gun crime, terrible education is a huge factor to the growth of inner city gangs, instead of trying to get rid of guns get rid of the gangs and get rid of the bad schools that churn out potential gang members. Instead of getting rid of guns when a crazy person shoots up a public place try to get more help for the mentally ill.

Guns can be used to provide for people, defend people, entertain people, and statistically they account for few deaths, at least in the U.S., I wouldn't be hanging around Jamaican ghettos anytime soon.

Would getting rid of guns prevent deaths? Yes, but only if I found a genie in a lamp, and even if I did I really want an Aston Martin DB5, so he better be one of those three wish genies.

 

[NiPah]

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 not safe, true, nor are knives, poisons, ect ect, lots of things can kill you. Only purpose is to wound or kill, false, they also are used for entertainment.
This is not to say we need guns, just that your argument is false, also there is the issue of the purpose of wounding or killing IE protection or safety from another.

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

There are quicker ways to kill people other then guns, poison gas, contamination of public use products, bombs, setting fire to a building. Yes guns are quick, but take them out of the equation and something else will take its place.
Take ammonia and bleach, two chemicals you have in your house that when combined would cause enough toxic fumes to potentially kill everyone inside your home.

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.

Tell that to the people who have an AK47 for their flag. Other countries allow gun ownership, and not all people thing guns are bad, they are powerful weapons that should be respected and handled like any object with the power to kill. Also the needless "EUHMERICAH" comment belittles your own argument and makes you look immature.

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).

Yes, you ban guns and less guns will be on the open market, or even the black market, it will mean less guns existing with the potential to do harm. I agree with you here.

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

A shotgun, assault rifle, and pistol can all be used as defense, as well as a weapon to kill or rob or murder.

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.

see above, also I see carrying around a pistol on your body as defense one of the stupidest/dangerous things you can do with a gun outside of illegal activity.

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

How would this be implemented?

I wouldn't say I am pro-guns, just wanted to argue the points you made.

 

[Strazdas]

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

Really. Then why do police have them? It's to help them serve and protect the community. Yes with guns.

Police use them to kill or, preferably, harm the criminal or to scare him into thinking they will do that (sometimes the perp gives up when police take out their guns). Yes, police officers do wound and even kill serving the community. So do soldiers. that does not validate the use of weapons for people whos job does not describe a right to harm other people.

People killed with guns in 2011: 11,101
People killed with cars in 2011: 32,310

Which is the more dangerous weapon there buddy?

And its actually a much harder check to get a gun than a drivers license, with the background checks and what not.

since guns is the only weapon you mentioned guns are the more dangerous of what you said. cars are not weapons. cars are tools intended to travel and when misused can kill. also note the extensive testing that is necessary for you to get a driving license as opposed to just buy in 5 minutes weapons.

 

[Miles Maldonado]

Within the United States, the only way you could actually enforce a full-on ban (revoking the 2nd Amendment) on all guns would be to get warrants to search ever single house in the country (the Constitution states that the Government, Federal or State, cannot search someone's home without a warrant), or completely dismantle the constitution as a whole.

So guns would at least have to stay on the grounds of it being too hard to get *rid* of them. Or one party could completely dismantle the constitution and basically commit political mass suicide, but that's a pretty unlikely option.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

People killed with guns in 2011: 11,101
People killed with cars in 2011: 32,310

Which is the more dangerous weapon there buddy?

And its actually a much harder check to get a gun than a drivers license, with the background checks and what not.

since guns is the only weapon you mentioned guns are the more dangerous of what you said. cars are not weapons. cars are tools intended to travel and when misused can kill. also note the extensive testing that is necessary for you to get a driving license as opposed to just buy in 5 minutes weapons.[/quote]

Cars as you say are a tool, guns are not, and are far more necessary and likely to be widely used. Cars and vehicles are used by businesses and people every day, multiple times generally.

The fact that guns have killed less is a pointless comparison, they has still killed -too many-. Lets look at some stats shall we?

Gun ownership per 100 in the US 88(highest in the world)
Gun ownership per 100 in the UK 6.7

Firearm related deaths per 100k in the US 10.2
Firearm related deaths per 100k in the UK 0.25

Last I checked the UK hasn't decended into anarchy through lack of guns or people to defned themselves. Oh..maybe because there arent as many guns...there are less people to protect yourself against.


And you mention background checks? They are incredibly easy to get around. It is legal to have a surrogate purchase a gun and gift it to you, meaning only the surrogate has their background checked. On top of that, gun laws vary state by state.

The facts are these. Guns are not required to protect yourself. The US has the highest gun ownership in the wolrd, and one of the highest developed nation gun death rates in the world. These things are related.

 

[BrassButtons]

Cars as you say are a tool, guns are not

How is a gun not a tool?

The fact that guns have killed less is a pointless comparison

Then why did you bring the issue up? This is your comparison--Strazdas is just disagreeing with your data.

The facts are these. Guns are not required to protect yourself.

Depends on what you're protecting yourself from.

The US has the highest gun ownership in the wolrd, and one of the highest developed nation gun death rates in the world. These things are related.

Correlation is not causation. Have you adjusted for factors such as overall crime rates? The prevalence of gangs? Economic disparity? Education levels? Mental illness rates (many gun deaths are suicides)? The quality of mental healthcare?

 

[tangoprime]

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.

It's easy to call people cowards for not thinking the same way as you, but it's not exactly productive or indicative of a strong argument.

It's nice to shout things like "freedom" and call people "cowards," but howabout some substantial argument? Freedom is such a loose thing.

All the argument I need:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason (co-author, 2nd Amendment)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ?"
Samuel Adams, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ? from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ? the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference ? they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

And regarding cowardice:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I shouldn't even have to cite this one, but -Benjamin Franklin, Feb. 17, 1775.

Although, I guess there were some fine historic statesman of other nations who had things to say about gun control as well:
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State"
Heinrich Himmler

They have some pretty strong gun restrictions, which isn't out of keeping with the US, where the states with the most gun laws tend to have the least gun violence.

Like Chicago? Or Baltimore? Yeah, those places don't have much gun violence *rolls eyes*

 

[tangoprime]

snip

See video in above post. Stats are a funny thing.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The facts are these. Guns are not required to protect yourself.

And if you want to protect yourself against a person who has a gun?

 

[acillies45]

Well, guns killed about 9300 people last year...I guess that's a pretty bi...

*GASP* but cars killed 32000 people! I'm starting a 'it's not statistically sane to drive a car' thread

 

[tangoprime]

The facts are these. Guns are not required to protect yourself.

And if you want to protect yourself against a person who has a gun?

Exactly, or to protect yourself against someone bigger, stronger, with evil in their mind?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

Doom, who are you, or anyone else, to tell this woman that she didn't need a gun to protect herself and her two daughters from this criminal? Police were on the way, but the criminal found her and her daughters in the crawl space before they got there. In your way of thinking, she and her daughters would have been at his whims until the police arrived, too late.

Also, fun fact, she shot him 6 times with a .38 revolver, including shots in the head, and he still managed to get up, leave, and drive away. So there's for all your "you don't need large magazines of more than 10 rounds / you don't need assault weapons to defend your home"

On that note, hows about this one:
http://www.inquisitr.com/477139/gun-control-15-year-old-defends-sister-from-burglars-with-ar-15-rifle/

15 year old boy defends himself and his 12 year old sister with one of those scary evil black assault weapons, shoots one of 2 intruders 3 times, intruder shows up in hospital later. So, these two children should've not been able to defend themselves, eh? Nah, they didn't need a gun to defend themselves from 2 grown men who previously robbed 2 other neighborhood houses.

 

[RandV80]

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).

This is something I've been interested in recently. Being Canadian I'm not too involved or affected by the whole gun debate, but for educational reasons I've been wondering how the black market price of a gun fits in with the other statistics.

A common rebuttal against gun control is that if you take guns away from honest law abiding citizens then only criminals will have them, but while that's true no on ever looks at or considers how much a gun actually costs for a 'criminal' and how legal availability or various gun control laws effect this. Using two opposite extremes would it cost $100 to buy a gun on the street in the US, but $10,000 in Japan? I have no idea, with Japan being an example of an isolated 1st world island country with the strictest of gun control laws the difference must be something like that. The reality of this difference is that in the US every gang banger or determined hobo can get a gone on the streets, while in Japan at that price you're more limited to only mob bosses or professional hitmen having them.

 

[bleys2487]

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]

I'm all up for people to stop feeling the need to protect guns.

How about, I don't know. People take responsibility for their actions?

Such a preposterous idea, I know.

 

[RedDeadFred]

People should stop protecting guns

People should stop making these threads.

Any reason why this warranted its own thread? Rather than posting it in the multitude of other threads we have floating around here?

This argument is completely pointless, since pro-guns people will continue to use slippery-slope fallacies, and anti-guns people will continue to use false equivalence fallacies.

No minds are ever changed, and no one ever gets anywhere.

Exactly. Everything that could be said on this subject has been said and I doubt a single person on these forums has converted their opinions on it.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

snip

I'm English, here are my thoughts on the matter.
1. Guns are indeed designed to kill people. However shooting is also a recognised sport, or rather category of sports. (Target and clay pigeon for example)
2. Agreed.
3. That is the general consensus but I disagree personally. Guns aren't bad. People do bad things with guns. Guns were designed to kill, but as I've mentioned shooting is a popular sport.
4. Trying to organise my thoughts on this point is very difficult at this moment in time because it's a complex issue. It's not as straight forward as most people think.
5. I don't understand how a shotgun is a self-defence weapon but any other firearm isn't. Also, pistols are generally semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are extraordinarily difficult to obtain in the US as far as I'm aware.
6. As far as I'm aware, anyone carrying anything other than a pistol they are licensed to carry is looking at a looooooooong prison sentence.
7. What if these people drive to wooded areas to hunt? Or drive to ranges to shoot?

And now some extra thoughts that have been rattling around.
Banning guns in the US will do nothing. For one, it's against the constitution and I actually think the 2nd amendment is a pretty intelligent piece of work. Also, the guns are already out there in wide circulation. Banning guns isn't going to make those already out there magically disappear. Sure, some people will hand in their guns. Others won't.

Part of my plan for the future is to get a firearms certificate and a solid, reliable rifle. Why? Should shit hit the fan and the U.K. is invaded, or civil war break out, or some other incredibly unlikely situation occur, I want to be armed. That is only part of the reason I desire a rifle however. I happen to enjoy target shooting, and have done so for years with an air rifle. I also happen to think that rifles are magnificent and fascinating pieces of design and engineering.

It is worth mentioning however, that I think civilians carrying pistols on the street is a terrible idea and that easy access to firearms is a bad idea. You should have to prove that you are sane and capable of handling a firearm before you are allowed to purchase them. However, the government should not be the regulatory power in this instance. It should be an independent entity with no political agenda.

and as an aside: despite saying you are neither for or against guns, you do come across as anti-guns. Personally I consider myself pro-sensible-gun-use.

If this post seems incoherent and/or nonsensical in part or in full, it's because I haven't slept for quite some time. At least 24 hours.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Anyone who tries to defend civilians owning automatic weapons, or allowing guns in public places is such a %^&&$# &&^%$ it's beyond belief.

US gun regulations are a joke, it's not violent games, it's not violent movies or music it's the fact you let anybody who can print his own name own a weapon that can mow dozens of people down in a matter of seconds. There is no reason why anyone outside the army needs to own an automatic weapon or take a hand gun on a public bus. NONE!