Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[Lucky Godzilla]

And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.

As Tornado said, most rifles can't handle a magazine that small.

And like I said, it's mostly them extending the Assault Weapon Ban even further, which is already ridiculous. Telescopic stock to make a longgun more comfortable to use? Gun is banned. Pistol grip for ease of use? Gun is banned. Do you know what a pistol grip is, even?

That is a rifle with a pistol grip.

That is a rifle without one.

But no, that's considered too dangerous to have on the streets. If only the Newtown shooter didn't have a pistol grip, think of all the lives that would have been saved!

Well considering one of those rifles is bolt action, I would say that it is considerably less dangerous then the more modern counterpart

Anyways, that isn't a ban on guns per say, nor is it an attempt to seize them. I agree with you, it's stupid, but ultimately irrelevant if you already own an assault weapon.
I can't think of any modern rifles or shotguns without a pistol grip; and most have telescopic stocks. The reason is that they're comfortable, convenient, and easier to use, Wouldn't increased ease of use make a gun deadlier?
so there's no reason not to use them. It's entirely possible to design a modern gun without those things, and they will be if the ban goes through, but it's retarded regardless.

I can think of a lot of reasons why you'd need more than seven rounds. Competition, hunting, pest control, self-defense.

Well let's address these one by one
Competition: fine, allow shooting ranges access to higher capacity mags on the ground that all participation return them pending the completion of said competition.

Hunting: Generally speaking, hunting relies on first shot accuracy. Once you startle every animal in a quarter mile radius of taking your shot, your chances of hitting anything becomes exponentially more difficult. There is a reason that the most popular hunting rifles in the U.S are bolt action, people prefer first shot accuracy over quick follow up shots.

Pest Control: Well this is an interesting reason, most people tend to hire an exterminator. I mean do you really need a 30 round magazine to kill a mouse when a mouse trap can do the job (and arguably better too) without giving your neighbors a heart attack?

Yes, self-defense. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people are not perfect shots and are panicking when they pull a gun; there are cases like these: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0

Self defense: Here's the thing, an effective use of a gun in self defense ideally involves no shots being fired. The threat of the gun itself serves as an deterrent, no matter what type or how much ammo is in the magazine. Besides, a gun is not defense. It's designed to kill, to maim, to puncture your flesh until you die. The widespread use of an actual defensive weapon, (say i don't know a taser) would potentially save more lives than a gun because, again, guns are for killing. True you can argue that a gun can be used defensively, but hey! If we all switched over to tasers maybe we wouldn't have an extra 32,000 deaths every year.

Seven bullets may not be enough to kill a normal person, much less, say, someone hyped up on certain kinds of drugs can take a lot of firepower to bring down. I wish I could have found the video, but there was a fairly recent instance of a man being shot by police outside of a McDonalds. One cop shot him 6~ times, and the guy only staggered back before righting himself, at which point the cop emptied the rest of the magazine into him, which finally put him down. Real life isn't like the movies; where people go down in a single shot and then that's it for them.

People can survive for a while even after being mortally wounded, so it's entirely possible that you can fire your seven rounds, hit with five of them, and then the other guy pulls a weapon and shoots/stabs you before he dies. That's also why, if the situation allows, you're supposed to empty your magazine into an assailant, to make sure they're dead.

Well buddy, real life isn't like your cherry picked articles either. Hell, the article itself states its all blind luck anyways. For crying out loud, it ends with the doctor saying, and i quote, "anybody who survives being shot is lucky to be alive." And yet you attempt to pass that off as a valid claim to cover every single encounter. Just as more widespread firearms lead to more potential to save a life, they have just as much potential to end one. And going back to my taser argument, those things can incapacitate in one shot anywhere to the body. And you don't need to kill anyone, or waste money on ammunition to boot.

If they actually gave a damn, then they would be more concerned with restricting calibers. Because a 7 round magazine with .45 ACP is more deadly than a 12 round magazine with .22. However, that would hurt hunting worse than it would anything else; since most large animals can take more punishment than most humans can. (Not that .45 is a hunting round, because I'm 90% sure that it isn't.)

Isn't that last statement you just made contradictory to the two paragraphs where you preached how woefully inefficient guns are at killing? Oh the only high capacity mags can be allotted to .22, a caliber so under powered that it would actually require repeated follow up shots to reliably kill a man. Yet the more powerful rounds should be capped, you know the ones that are better at killing?

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

People don't seem to understand why America needs to own guns. Our right to bear arms was not put into the Constitution so we could go do some hunting. We had to win our liberty through force of arms. We are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms ensure that the citizens always have enough power to protect themselves from threats, including the government. The government works for US. Not the other way around. I would also like to point out that NONE of the regulations the president put into place recently would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings. The killer stole the gun from his mother, who had the gun illegally in the first place. See the problem is criminals don't follow the laws. Not that long ago ( historically speaking ) America banned alcohol and we all know how well that worked.

Best of luck in dealing with the professional soldiers who are trained to keep their cool under fire, as well as being better equipped than you could ever hope to be.
Besides, last time I checked the second amendment stated: "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."
Well we certainly have the well armed part down, still have to work on that well regulated militia.
On top of that, it's called an AMENDMENT for a reason, almost as if it's not meant to be permanent or anything. I mean we got rid of the 14th amendment.
But don't take it from me, take it from Thomas Jefforson "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
Well we haven't rewritten our constitution in more than 200 years (read:ever)and this is ignoring the fact that the second amendment was talking about muskets for crying out loud. You know, those wildly inaccurate guns that fired one shot and required a minute to reload? Not exactly the type of weapon you can walk into a school with and kill 20 children in a matter of seconds.
That was a gun to the founding fathers, so if you want a musket, knock yourself out. Times change, an AR-15 can hold dozens of rounds, fire at a rate of 60 rpm, and reload in a matter of seconds. This law written over 200 years ago referring to a weapon that pales in comparison to our modern firearms in every single way.
You are so enamored in preventing a hypothetical Dystopian reality, in fighting an imaginary Hitler who wants to take our liberty that you stonewall any attempt to deal with our ACTUAL dystopian reality.
A reality in which 32,000 men women and children die every single year. Why don't you ask their families about the importance of owning guns to fight against the feds? tThis is a conversation we NEED to be having, and hiding behind the second amendment isn't helping anyone.

 

[Barciad]

Thankfully, I live in England. We (and not to mention many others) grew out of this particularly childish predilection many years ago. Thus it would be most satisfying to see you Americans join the rest of the civilised world on this certain topic. Who knows, in a few decades time you might start coming to agree with other basic principles. Like the fat that the earth is more than 6,000 years ago, or man-made global climate change is actually occurring before our very eyes.
Here's hoping.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Call up the ACLU, and get the law overturned in less than a week for violating the constitution.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

snip

At the time the Constitution was written "militia" meant every able bodied adult male pretty much every guy 15 or older with no major health problems. And "well regulated" meant they knew how to handle a firearm and could fight. With our cultural changes I would say militiwould now be every adult over 18. But that first sentence in the second amendment is not a "qualifier" as I have heard it called, its a preamble.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah I just looked up the case of D.C vs Heller [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller] in 2008 which was the first time the court had said it DOES apply to individuals, and that "The ?militia? comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

I get the whole "right to bear arms" thing, but its application in terms of a militia really shows the Amendments age in the modern time.

 

[bananafishtoday]

What does " a well regulated militia" mean?

I get the feeling that if a group of citizens rose up against the government's "tyranny" we'd end up with an IRA type situation, those people would be branded domestic terrorists and the Patriot Act would be invoked...doesn't sound like it'd really work post 9/11.

Not having a go, genuinely intrigued.

Forget the Patriot Act, we now have the NDAA. The power to detain for an indefinite period of time anyone the government labels a terrorist, including American citizens on American soil? Yes, please!

I think the ideal of a "well-regulated militia" in the context of the Second Amendment would mean that the majority of Americans own a rifle, they are trained in its operation (marksmanship, maintenance, safe handling and storage, etc), and should the unthinkable occur, they would be ready to take up arms and fight. "The ideal" because most of us fail the first two points and would probably fail the third if it came down to it, myself included. And "the unthinkable" being something that goes grossly beyond the pale, a la the Spanish Civil War. The Declaration of Independence sums it up well imo (though, for the record, I don't think even the American Revolution fit the description of throwing off "tyranny." It was essentially an economic dispute with amazing PR.)

[Whenever] any Form of Government becomes destructive of [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The likelihood of this happening, likely outcomes, etc is the kinda thing I could rattle off pet theories about for hours. But basically, I think the ever-vigilant patriot is an ideal most countries don't require or have much use for, but it's a mindset that would make the US a much better place to live and a far more reasonable actor on the world stage. Private ownership of firearms is a part of that.

 

[chadachada123]

Spoiler

What does " a well regulated militia" mean?

I get the feeling that if a group of citizens rose up against the government's "tyranny" we'd end up with an IRA type situation, those people would be branded domestic terrorists and the Patriot Act would be invoked...doesn't sound like it'd really work post 9/11.

Not having a go, genuinely intrigued.

Forget the Patriot Act, we now have the NDAA. The power to detain for an indefinite period of time anyone the government labels a terrorist, including American citizens on American soil? Yes, please!

I think the ideal of a "well-regulated militia" in the context of the Second Amendment would mean that the majority of Americans own a rifle, they are trained in its operation (marksmanship, maintenance, safe handling and storage, etc), and should the unthinkable occur, they would be ready to take up arms and fight. "The ideal" because most of us fail the first two points and would probably fail the third if it came down to it, myself included. And "the unthinkable" being something that goes grossly beyond the pale, a la the Spanish Civil War. The Declaration of Independence sums it up well imo (though, for the record, I don't think even the American Revolution fit the description of throwing off "tyranny." It was essentially an economic dispute with amazing PR.)

[Whenever] any Form of Government becomes destructive of [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The likelihood of this happening, likely outcomes, etc is the kinda thing I could rattle off pet theories about for hours. But basically, I think the ever-vigilant patriot is an ideal most countries don't require or have much use for, but it's a mindset that would make the US a much better place to live and a far more reasonable actor on the world stage. Private ownership of firearms is a part of that.

*Sniff* Your post was beautiful.

Thank you.

It truly sucks being an educated person that cares about civil liberties, in a country where the vast majority of citizens can't even educate themselves on things as important as Obama signing the NDAA 2012 and PATRIOT Act renewal, or, worse, not even caring when they find out. But, no, as soon as someone points out how absolutely disgraceful President Obama and Democrat Congressmen/Presidents of the past 20 years are towards civil liberties, people immediately assume that this is any sort of justification whatsoever towards the abuses that many Republican Congressman, Presidents, and Presidential candidates commit/support in the same time frame.

 

[AngloDoom]

Before coming to the thread:

"Gee, this is such a big issue that I really don't know my stance on this. Education and a change in culture is the way to reduce these deaths, but that's such a long-term solution...what about the now?"

After seeing poll results:

"lolfuck, no-one deserves a gun."

Seriously, 10% of people would shoot an officer if they tried to take your gun away from you?

As I said before, this is such a big issue that I don't want to tackle it (especially since the thread is absolutely bubbling with anti-American/anti-European hate) but I seriously think that American culture needs to shift in such a way that guns are not so much a right as they are a huge responsibility you have to earn.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Well considering one of those rifles is bolt action, I would say that it is considerably less dangerous then the more modern counterpart

I specifically said that modern guns are mostly made with those things out of convince. You can easily make a modern gun without either of those things, and it's lethality wouldn't have changed at all.

Pest Control: Well this is an interesting reason, most people tend to hire an exterminator. I mean do you really need a 30 round magazine to kill a mouse when a mouse trap can do the job (and arguably better too) without giving your neighbors a heart attack?

You must live in the city. I was raised on a farm for most of my life. Foxes, Boars, Crocs; and a lot of other critters do a lot of damage to livestock and crops. Crocs are hard to put down, and Boars tend to be very aggressive (They can kill a human without too much difficulty) and travel in very large packs. Shoot at them, and they're just as likely to rush you as they are to flee. It's also against the law to create laws that only affect certain groups or areas; so making a different set of laws for rural and urban areas can't be done; nor would it be a good idea anyway.

Well buddy, real life isn't like your cherry picked articles either. Hell, the article itself states its all blind luck anyways. For crying out loud, it ends with the doctor saying, and i quote, "anybody who survives being shot is lucky to be alive." And yet you attempt to pass that off as a valid claim to cover every single encounter. Just as more widespread firearms lead to more potential to save a life, they have just as much potential to end one. And going back to my taser argument, those things can incapacitate in one shot anywhere to the body. And you don't need to kill anyone, or waste money on ammunition to boot.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. Tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas, etc can all kill. Additionally, I never said it happened with every encounter; nor did I say that a few bullets couldn't kill. I said they don't kill immediately, and someone who is shot with something that isn't a shotgun can generally continue to function for a while. Despite the fact that it seems really easy to kill them at times; humans are pretty durable.

Isn't that last statement you just made contradictory to the two paragraphs where you preached how woefully inefficient guns are at killing? Oh the only high capacity mags can be allotted to .22, a caliber so under powered that it would actually require repeated follow up shots to reliably kill a man. Yet the more powerful rounds should be capped, you know the ones that are better at killing?

As mentioned above, I didn't say they're bad at killing. I said that they don't kill immediately; or even greatly inhibit someone who is hyped up on adrenaline or hard drugs. I also said it was a bad idea to restrict caliber.

Let's put it this way; "Are magazine sizes of 7 and under necessary?" Putting aside the arguments made so far; is it necessary for everyone to wear anything other than a cheap gray jumpsuit? Is a car an absolute necessity for most people as opposed to a convenience? Is alcohol absolutely necessary to drink, despite the fact that it kills 47,000 [http://recoveryfirst.org/alcohol-related-injuries-and-deaths-in-the-us.html/]-75,000 [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/] people a year and causes others serious injury compared to gun's 16,000 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm]?

If innocent deaths really bug you that much, push for more restrictions on alcohol.

 

[TornadoADV]

You need boots on the ground to hold the territory you claim is yours in a war. Just like how the Taliban/Czechian Rebels/Mujahideen fought back against the US and USSR/CIS Military, you don't go after the tanks and the IFVs or stand out in the open for air power to blow you away. You hide in the shadows, the forests, the mountains and ambush infantry patrols and thin skinned vehicles and bleed the enemy dry. Plus the US Military LIVES in the country they would be trying to subjugate by illegal force and I can tell you as a veteran of the USAF, our bases are protected by little more then a barbed wire fence and some HUMVEE Patrols.

This isn't even taking into account that some Police, National Guard/Air Guard and Active Duty units would flip to the resistance side. And to those who think the US Military are crack shots, a passing marksmen grade is 27 out of 40 shots against stationary targets, suppressive fire and asset support wins the day in modern wars.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Best of luck in dealing with the professional soldiers

Those soldiers are gun owners, would be affected by flagrant violations of the Constitution. Military/LE are some of the strongest supporters of gun rights because they use them every day, unlike the vast majority of people who want them outlawed, who are completely ignorant and naive. They are as fed up with government as civilians.

it's called an AMENDMENT for a reason, almost as if it's not meant to be permanent or anything. I mean we got rid of the 14th amendment.

We got rid of Citizenship Rights? You're probably talking about 18 which 21 repealed. Want to know what that repealed amendment was? It BANNED something. The scary part is that it actually passed.

Liquor was banned. Citizens turned criminals and criminals turned kings.
Many drugs are banned. The same thing has happened.
Do you really want to try this with guns?

this is ignoring the fact that the second amendment was talking about muskets for crying out loud.

..AR-15 can hold dozens of rounds, fire at a rate of 60 rpm, and reload in a matter of seconds.

A repeating rifle with a magazine predates the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nearly a decade. Facts aside, you're repeating a subjective point and invoking your own judgment to conclude what the framers intent was. It says "arms", it does not say "until arms can shoot fast enough to commit mass murder".

You don't get to make up the rules as you go, and if you believe rights just sit there collecting rust until we write a new Constitution, you better be careful because the next Constitution will guarantee half as much freedom as the current one does, 2700 pages long and would put any software agreement/patent law in history to shame. It will not empower the people and set up a government, it will be a list of rules we have to obey, written by them.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It's illegal for the average citizen to own a gun in the UK, just as it's illegal for the average citizen to possess medication that isn't prescribed to them (assuming prescription drug law in the UK is similar to the US).

If you're required to have a reason to own it...then it isn't really legal, not anymore than regulated medication that is only allowed for choice people that have a "valid" doctor-approved reason.

First off your reasoning is wrong. Totally wrong.

Your saying the average citizen cannot own a gun because they must first join a gun club. But the average citizen CAN join a gunclub.

The average citizen wants to own a gun. He/She:

Joins a gun club.
Recieves two people to vouch for his responsibility.
Can now get a gun for recreational use at home.

If you can point out what step is inaccessible to the average citizen tell me. Your argument makes as much sense as saying the average citizen cannot own a car since a test is required. We just have more Bureaucracy than you. The truth is the averge citizen in the UK does not own a gun because they do not want to. I personally DO since i have an interest in rifle shooting. Ive shot before and my gun lives down at the range. If the average citizen wanted a gun right now nothing would stop them following the above steps and getting one.

That's without even bringing into account how absolutely fucktarded it is that "defending my goddamned life" isn't considered a "valid" reason in the UK, and how, because of this, some 50% of robberies in the UK happen while the homeowner is present, compared to 13% of US robberies.

There was another eye-opening statistic on the chance of being harmed while having your home robbed: Unsurprisingly, you are far, far more likely to be hurt (specifically, stabbed) if you live in the UK and have your house burglarized than if you live in the US.

It is surprising. Nothing you stated suggests that introducing guns to our citizens would change this statistic.

Consider the following.

You stated that criminals do not fear their victims in the UK. Why would the introduction of guns change this dynamic? At the moment it works like this:

Criminals have knives - I have knives. And yet they dont fear me despite our potential fire power being the same.

If you change the situation to:

Criminals have guns - I have guns. What has changed in the power dynamic. Why would i be feared MORE now when relatively i have nothing over the burglar that i didnt before.

The real issue we are tackling now is to make our self defense laws FAR more generous to people defending their homes and to allow us to kill/wound invaders without fear of the law. THAT changes the power dynamic because now home owners have nothing to lose using lethal force. Criminals do not feel as if they cannot be stopped by the owner. Youve totally assumed correlation = causation and its not logical to do so. Especially when simply giving EVERYONE in the situation a more efficient weapon changes nothing in how much the criminal should fear me. Sure im armed better but so are they. Its the same amount of risk for both of us except with guns the shared risk is higher since its far far easier to kill eachother.

That said banning guns in your country would be fucking stupid since the dynamic would change from:

Burglar has a gun - I have a gun

To

Burglar has an illegal gun - I have a knife.

So in America i see no real reason to introduce a BAN on guns. Regulate who has them so the mentally ill or the criminal cannot possess them sure but banning them is silly. Dont presume to look at England and say "Air dropping a tonne of pistols into your country would improve everything" though. Our countries are not comparable enough in crime culture to do such a direct comparison.

 

[Vegosiux]

A repeating rifle with a magazine predates the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nearly a decade. Facts aside, you're repeating a subjective point and invoking your own judgment to conclude what the framers intent was. It says "arms", it does not say "until arms can shoot fast enough to commit mass murder".

It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...

Yes, yes, I heard that SCOTUS ruled that Amendment II only covers small arms but I wonder why then it's still written in a way that's ambiguous and easily misinterpreted, especially since not everyone's a lawyer and may not even be aware of the ruling.

Point is, it's an amendment, not one of the fucking 10 commandments...

Thankfully, I live in England. We (and not to mention many others) grew out of this particularly childish predilection many years ago. Thus it would be most satisfying to see you Americans join the rest of the civilised world on this certain topic. Who knows, in a few decades time you might start coming to agree with other basic principles. Like the fat that the earth is more than 6,000 years ago, or man-made global climate change is actually occurring before our very eyes.
Here's hoping.

if growing up means becoming a society where a rape victim recieves more prison time for hitting her rapist than her rapist recieves for raping her, I'd like to stay developmentally stunted, thank you very much.

So, care to point out where that happens on the European side of the Atlantic Ocean? Cause, seriously, first time I hear that.

 

[Vigormortis]

Looking through the thread, I see lots of speech about Americans objecting violently.

America is the only country in the western world that hasn't had truly violent protests about entitlements and money since the global depression began.

Funny how many of the countries that have had those violent protests seem to ignore that. The same countries that regularly look down on the USA and call it's citizens "violent, irrational idiots".

I would be pretty pissed off to see my collection of WW2 firearms thrown into the smelter. If such a law were passed there is no way anyone would be getting any compensation, I would expect $3000 alone. I would probably get them all deactivated before I would let the mounties take them, history deserves to be preserved. However, collecting these old relics would be far less interesting if I couldn't take them to range once in a while.


My Collection (Dear god 7 guns! I must be a sociopath...)

Lee Enfield No.4 Mk.1
Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.3
Mosin Nagant M91/30 Hexagonal
Mosin Nagant M91/30 PU Sniper
Mosin Nagant M44 Carbine
SVT-40
M1 Carbine

Pff, you're speaking nonsense.

You're a gun owner. Clearly you're an uneducated, bigoted, violent psychopath whose only intention with those guns is to kill people.

Or so most of the people on this forum would have you believe. After all, why else would you possibly own a gun, right?

 

[chadachada123]

snip

First off your reasoning is wrong. Totally wrong.

Your saying the average citizen cannot own a gun because they must first join a gun club. But the average citizen CAN join a gunclub.

The average citizen wants to own a gun. He/She:

Joins a gun club.
Recieves two people to vouch for his responsibility.
Can now get a gun for recreational use at home.

If you can point out what step is inaccessible to the average citizen tell me. Your argument makes as much sense as saying the average citizen cannot own a car since a test is required. We just have more Bureaucracy than you. The truth is the averge citizen in the UK does not own a gun because they do not want to. I personally DO since i have an interest in rifle shooting. Ive shot before and my gun lives down at the range. If the average citizen wanted a gun right now nothing would stop them following the above steps and getting one.

I still consider this an unnecessary restriction, since you shouldn't NEED a reason to own a firearm. It is on the same level as prescription medicine like Adderall in the US, or medical marijuana, where many doctors will sign off for anyone that vaguely fits one of the required symptoms, yet the standard citizen would not be able to purchase them without large (and as you said, bureaucratic) loopholes.

I'm only saying that guns in the UK are on the same level as prescription medicine, which the standard citizen cannot own "without reason," even if it's an arbitrarily small reason ("in a gun club," or "I'm having trouble focusing"/"my head hurts").

That's without even bringing into account how absolutely fucktarded it is that "defending my goddamned life" isn't considered a "valid" reason in the UK, and how, because of this, some 50% of robberies in the UK happen while the homeowner is present, compared to 13% of US robberies.

There was another eye-opening statistic on the chance of being harmed while having your home robbed: Unsurprisingly, you are far, far more likely to be hurt (specifically, stabbed) if you live in the UK and have your house burglarized than if you live in the US.

It is surprising. Nothing you stated suggests that introducing guns to our citizens would change this statistic.

Consider the following.

You stated that criminals do not fear their victims in the UK. Why would the introduction of guns change this dynamic? At the moment it works like this:

Criminals have knives - I have knives. And yet they dont fear me despite our potential fire power being the same.

If you change the situation to:

Criminals have guns - I have guns. What has changed in the power dynamic. Why would i be feared MORE now when relatively i have nothing over the burglar that i didnt before.

The real issue we are tackling now is to make our self defense laws FAR more generous to people defending their homes and to allow us to kill/wound invaders without fear of the law. THAT changes the power dynamic because now home owners have nothing to lose using lethal force. Criminals do not feel as if they cannot be stopped by the owner. Youve totally assumed correlation = causation and its not logical to do so. Especially when simply giving EVERYONE in the situation a more efficient weapon changes nothing in how much the criminal should fear me. Sure im armed better but so are they. Its the same amount of risk for both of us except with guns the shared risk is higher since its far far easier to kill eachother.

I didn't say that introducing guns would help the UK. I only pointed out that not having guns has made criminals far less fearful of losing their lives, enough that they have no issue breaking into a house while the homeowner is there.

Also, just because YOU could stand toe-to-toe with a knife-weilding criminal doesn't mean that the average citizen, let alone the weak ones most-likely to be victimized, would be able to.

Guns are an equalizer: It puts a frail woman on the same level as a strong thug, assuming both are armed with firearms, and puts her on a higher level if the thug is only armed with a knife.

With knives, the average victim is far worse off. Guns at *least* put them on level ground (likely higher, since those that own guns illegally tend to have very little practice with firearms for that very reason, while every responsible gun owner has at least a fair amount of practice with their weapon).

I agree that UK's self defence laws are the primary problem, but the introduction of guns in the home could (probably) further make criminals far less likely to invade homes while the homeowners are there, since they not only have to worry about the rare person that could take them in a knife/fist fight, but possibly ANY citizen whose home they are invading barring, say, quadriplegics. At the very least, you can see the effect that having a citizenry afraid of defending themselves has had.

This is not to say that everyone should own firearms. Of course not.

 

[Vegosiux]

Looking through the thread, I see lots of speech about Americans objecting violently.

America is the only country in the western world that hasn't had truly violent protests about entitlements and money since the global depression began.

Funny how many of the countries that have had those violent protests seem to ignore that. The same countries that regularly look down on the USA and call it's citizens "violent, irrational idiots".

I must have missed all those truly violent protests in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Canada...

See what I'm getting at?

 

[Evil Smurf]

As a pacifist, I hate guns. Yeah I'd give up the guns. Besides that happened here in Australia already.

 

[Snotnarok]

If someone came to take my guns away, I'd shoot them.

What better way to show that I'm a responsible individual than by shooting people?

'Oh, you want my gun?'

*Bang!*

By the way, I don't own a gun. Yeah, that's right. I killed that guy with my mind.

You freaking liar, you have a nerf gun and you did it with that. Stop trying to lie to us and just hand over your gun and your nerf darts.


OT: They can take my gun from my cold dead hands. I will shoot anyone who tries till I'm out of ammo, then I'll pick up my used ammo and use it again:

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Well considering one of those rifles is bolt action, I would say that it is considerably less dangerous then the more modern counterpart

I specifically said that modern guns are mostly made with those things out of convince. You can easily make a modern gun without either of those things, and it's lethality wouldn't have changed at all.

In case you failed to notice I was joking, I actually agree with you on this one, its stupid and doesn't really help anything.

Pest Control: Well this is an interesting reason, most people tend to hire an exterminator. I mean do you really need a 30 round magazine to kill a mouse when a mouse trap can do the job (and arguably better too) without giving your neighbors a heart attack?

You must live in the city. I was raised on a farm for most of my life. Foxes, Boars, Crocs; and a lot of other critters do a lot of damage to livestock and crops. Crocs are hard to put down, and Boars tend to be very aggressive (They can kill a human without too much difficulty) and travel in very large packs. Shoot at them, and they're just as likely to rush you as they are to flee. It's also against the law to create laws that only affect certain groups or areas; so making a different set of laws for rural and urban areas can't be done; nor would it be a good idea anyway.

Fair enough, still wouldn't it be better to just contact the humane society and have the animals relocated?

Well buddy, real life isn't like your cherry picked articles either. Hell, the article itself states its all blind luck anyways. For crying out loud, it ends with the doctor saying, and i quote, "anybody who survives being shot is lucky to be alive." And yet you attempt to pass that off as a valid claim to cover every single encounter. Just as more widespread firearms lead to more potential to save a life, they have just as much potential to end one. And going back to my taser argument, those things can incapacitate in one shot anywhere to the body. And you don't need to kill anyone, or waste money on ammunition to boot.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. Tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas, etc can all kill. Additionally, I never said it happened with every encounter; nor did I say that a few bullets couldn't kill. I said they don't kill immediately, and someone who is shot with something that isn't a shotgun can generally continue to function for a while. Despite the fact that it seems really easy to kill them at times; humans are pretty durable.

So? let me ask you this, out of 100 people shot with a taser, how many die? Now out of 100 people shot with a gun, how many do you think will die? I'm just going off intuition at this point, but my guess is that the former will be significantly lower. Are these weapons perfect? No, but they are a hell of a lot better than shooting someone.

Isn't that last statement you just made contradictory to the two paragraphs where you preached how woefully inefficient guns are at killing? Oh the only high capacity mags can be allotted to .22, a caliber so under powered that it would actually require repeated follow up shots to reliably kill a man. Yet the more powerful rounds should be capped, you know the ones that are better at killing?

As mentioned above, I didn't say they're bad at killing. I said that they don't kill immediately; or even greatly inhibit someone who is hyped up on adrenaline or hard drugs. I also said it was a bad idea to restrict caliber.

Let's put it this way; "Are magazine sizes of 7 and under necessary?" Putting aside the arguments made so far; is it necessary for everyone to wear anything other than a cheap gray jumpsuit? Is a car an absolute necessity for most people as opposed to a convenience? Is alcohol absolutely necessary to drink, despite the fact that it kills 47,000 [http://recoveryfirst.org/alcohol-related-injuries-and-deaths-in-the-us.html/]-75,000 [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/] people a year and causes others serious injury compared to gun's 16,000 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm]?

If innocent deaths really bug you that much, push for more restrictions on alcohol.

And we did take action on drunk driving. We took on much stricter blood achohol limits, increased the drinking age, ramped up enforcement and penalty, charged bartenders who serve drunks, and launched massive public awareness campaigns. And guess what happened. In 1982 26,173 fatalities in the U.S were related to alcohol. As of 2009, the death toll stands at 12,744, a more than 50% reduction.