Question for anti-gun:

[Nikolaz72]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

Oh, you're one of those people.

But anyway- perhaps I should have clarified, that statistic didn't include all gun deaths, just homicides.
But, the only point I was attempting to make is if you don't give an idiot a gun, they won't be able to shoot it.

I was mostly joking when I said that. and it's still incorrect. It's about 12,000 gun homicides in 2010, and more than that in years previous.

Also, while idiots can't shoot guns if guns are banned, the evidence doesn't bear out that fewer guns means less crime.

Like was said earlier in this thread, comparing state to state doesnt really work because its so easy to take a gun from one state into another. You 'can' argue that guncontrol wouldnt work for the US. But you 'cant' argue that guncontrol wont work for anyone. Because as far as the rest of the west is concerned, its pretty much worked for everyone.

 

[Tsaba]

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

 

[spartan231490]

Head-shots aren't as hard as they're made out to be. The human head is comparable in size to the kill-zone on many game animals, hunters hit that target from 500 yards plus no problem. That's discounting arm and leg shots, which are even easier

This. The primary reason body shots are encouraged is because obviously, while it does increase chances of a hit, it also provides the most stopping power with all the momentum being driven into a person's center mass.

Not really. The two best shots for stopping power are pelvic girdle and CNS.
They say aim center mass cuz it's a bigger target, much bigger, and it's much easier to hit a moving target there, but if that doesn't work you should move to aim for headshot and one of them should have been able to pull it off by luck if nothing else.

 

[Kragg]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

bureau of justice statistics says you're wrong

It is probably going to be close to 9000, and most of these sources are from people with republican agendas, I hope you know that most of the sources have some sort of agenda because guns are big business.

also your sources indicate that gun control in certain states didnt work, which is very logical because all the states around it did not. it does work in the UK but would never work in the US, not anymore.

It is just crazy to just be able to walk into a store and walk out without a gun, no background checking, no waiting period, nothing. Anyway, it's an american problem, and frankly will not be solved in our lifetime. gl with that gun under your pillow though, must suck being in a constant state of fear

 

[Da Orky Man]

Even for what has been termed the Month of the Gun Control Threads, this is getting ridiculous. Simply put, the US is a very murdery place compared to nigh-on any other western country. It may be due to guns, it may be due to Bush, it may be due to dem commies.

 

[malestrithe]

I hear this argument a lot, and it makes no sense at all. You could say the same thing of a bow, but nobody's clamoring to ban bows. That aside, the overwhelming evidence proves you wrong. 1.5 million times each year(conservatively), in the US alone, a gun is used for self defense, the vast majority of the time not killing anyone. On the other hand, including suicides and accidents, only around 30 thousand people die because of firearms. This overwhelmingly shows that guns are used more often to defend people than they are to kill them, so of the two, self-defense is the more common "point" of firearms. Also, there are between 70 and 80 million American's that own firearms, and each of them uses it for something.

1. You are going to need a source on that 1.5 million number. It sounds a bit made up.

2. Still falls into a gun's primary function: to kill. It stopped the crime because the implication is that the person is going to get shot and killed if he does not back off. I've been taught by my gun toting father that, do not pull the firearm out of its holster unless your intend to kill someone with it. Giving an different purpose does not change that.

3. It is not a tool. It is a weapon and nothing else. Can you use a gun to prepare meat? Can you use it to transport things? Does it give you a million other uses besides killing things? No, it does not. For the record, Target practice, silhouette or clay pigeon, is practicing how to kill with the gun. Simply finding an alternate purpose does not change that.

 

[Kragg]

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

yeah if they had killed them all that would have been better of course... they are equiped for the type of situations they are used for, for big riots of course they aren't

 

[spartan231490]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

Oh, you're one of those people.

But anyway- perhaps I should have clarified, that statistic didn't include all gun deaths, just homicides.
But, the only point I was attempting to make is if you don't give an idiot a gun, they won't be able to shoot it.

I was mostly joking when I said that. and it's still incorrect. It's about 12,000 gun homicides in 2010, and more than that in years previous.

Also, while idiots can't shoot guns if guns are banned, the evidence doesn't bear out that fewer guns means less crime.

Like was said earlier in this thread, comparing state to state doesnt really work because its so easy to take a gun from one state into another. You 'can' argue that guncontrol wouldnt work for the US. But you 'cant' argue that guncontrol wont work for anyone. Because as far as the rest of the west is concerned, its pretty much worked for everyone.

Comparing on a state basis is the best way to do it because it minimizes other variables. Also, criminals don't take guns from one state to another, they don't have to, they can get them easily enough right there in state.

These two papers give their reasons for analyzing at a state level instead of a national. Further, there have been national studies, they also show no correlation.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Hagi]

Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

 

[Instant K4rma]

I'd respond, but no matter what anyone says, no one's changing their stance on the issue, and folks will just end up walking away agitated, having accomplished nothing. Yes, what happened in Aurora was tragic. Would someone with a civilian grade firearm be able to stop the fully protected gunman wearing full ballistics gear in a dark, panicked theater full of teargas? Debatable.

Don't we have a separate forum for these arguments? Isn't it that "Religion and Politics place that everyone is always complaining about?

 

[Tsaba]

yeah if they had killed them all that would have been better of course... they are equiped for the type of situations they are used for, for big riots of course they aren't

Don't be an idiot, they don't have to kill anyone, they could of done more than watch all those businesses get looted, people raped, murdered, mugged, beaten for their skin color, the list goes on.

 

[Kragg]

Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

yep thats the thing, and even better you can just spin those studies to make it sound good for you, 2+ million defence gun uses a year people !!!! ... or well 2% (these numbers are made up btw as an example)

people will be crazy and will try to kill people, guns just make it too easy to do so, its easy to point and shoot someone, its harder to stab someone and alot slower and easily stopped.

you know id rather be a european and hear about a shopkeeper shooting and killing a robber, some crazyman stabbing people or some razy eastern european gang with AK47s shooting at cops than the constant stream of guncrime coming from the US, from theatre shootings to a salesman getting executed for ignoring a no trespassing sign

 

[Kragg]

yeah if they had killed them all that would have been better of course... they are equiped for the type of situations they are used for, for big riots of course they aren't

Don't be an idiot, they don't have to kill anyone, they could of done more than watch all those businesses get looted, people raped, murdered, mugged, beaten for their skin color, the list goes on.

you realise it all started with a police shooting right ... I dont know what you are trying to say, if they all had guns it would be better, cept not shooting them. and I believe in a riot situation it is better to contain and control than to go in bashing people, not that mistakes weren't made, loads were.

If there are ever major riots in the US again with armed citizens that would be a mess bigger than harlems

 

[Tsaba]

you realise it all started with a police shooting right ... I dont know what you are trying to say, if they all had guns it would be better, cept not shooting them. and I believe in a riot situation it is better to contain and control than to go in bashing people, not that mistakes weren't made, loads were.

If there are ever major riots in the US again with armed citizens that would be a mess bigger than harlems

Yes I knew, but, before you go on, I'd like to listen to how criminals are justified in their actions......

 

[Gizmo1990]

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

I am not touching the Gun thing with a 100 mile pole I was just reading this thread becuase I was bored but I have to ask. Are you actually saying that the riots would have been better handeled by shoting everybody? Really?

EDIT: For what it is worth the above statment was not me. One of my ARSEHOLE friends was using my laptop, saw your post and desided to use my account to troll you. I do not agree with you but I do realise you are not saying that shoting the rioters would have made things better.

 

[Dastardly]

As for north Hollywood, the cops aim sucks then. Head-shots aren't as hard as they're made out to be. The human head is comparable in size to the kill-zone on many game animals, hunters hit that target from 500 yards plus no problem. That's discounting arm and leg shots, which are even easier

You usually say some okay stuff, but this is one that keeps coming up that's just ridiculous.

Target shooting =/= combat shooting. See, targets don't run around or move unpredictably. And arm/leg shots? Just as bad. There are reasons cops are trained to aim for center mass, and it has nothing to do with lethality, but everything to do with accuracy.

It would be wildly irresponsible for a cop or a citizen acting in self defense to aim for anything but center mass. Accuracy drops dramatically. What that means is now, you have NO CLUE where that bullet is going -- maybe into a nursing mother and her baby in the next room, for all you know. And even if you do hit an arm or leg, the odds of a pass-through (and thus collateral damage) also go up.

Hunters typically don't prefer to fire at deer in a full run. They also don't have to worry about accidentally hitting the child standing next to the deer, or whether or not the deer will fire back. And you mention that hunters "hit that target from 500 yards no problem." Okay. Some of those great hunters also miss sometimes. And that could be at less than 500 yards, against a stationary target, under perfect conditions.

Being a great marksman on the range doesn't guarantee a bullseye, it just greatly increases your chances. Even then, shooting ranges and hunting are not life-and-death situations, and unless you're an emotionless cyborg, that will have an impact on your body and mind.

its harder to stab someone and alot slower and easily stopped.

Another movie myth, there. It's easy to stop someone with a knife? Have you tried? Now, I'm not debating that guns are more effective and efficient -- that's why they were invented -- but don't trivialize knife violence, either. Talk to any folks that teach practical close-quarters combat (particularly with the military), and you'll likely hear them tell you that rule 1 in a knife fight is "You WILL get cut."

(Experiment for you. Get a buddy. Stand a little more than arms' length apart. Take turns just trying to reach out and tap each other. Anywhere -- arm, head, hip, toe, whatever. Notice how hard it actually is to avoid being touched at all. Now imagine that each touch is a knife wound, and you'll get the idea.)

I'm picking on these two posts because, in both of them, people are presenting their side (and this is on BOTH sides of the issue) with a lot of information that is good... but other information that is based on movie myth. We can't really fix the problem until we connect it to reality.

 

[monkey_man]

Guns can protect people, that's true. but even if for every 1000 protection guns one gun is used for bad intents, times the population of a country (the USA has what 300 million people?) that's 300 thousand guns used for bad intents.
and that won't do anyone good.

I don't think it's weird that America has the greatest incarceration percentage of the world, as it's the same as putting candy where children can reach it. If everyone can buy a gun, criminals can too. If no one can buy a gun (easily), criminals will have a harder time getting the guns, and I think that will do a lot of people good.

 

[BeanDelphiki]

but, to address your comment on body armor: body armor is far from universal bullet protection. Firstly, someone probably would have hit him in the head. Also, body armor doesn't protect the legs, and a leg shot will, if not stop a shooter, it will slow him down and distract him enough to let people escape. That's assuming he's on drugs, if he's not a few hits to the legs or arms will stop him.

If you seriously think that in a crowd of panicked, scrambling people in a dark room filled with tear gas that someone would have correctly identified the shooter and "probably would have hit him in the head," you're utterly insane.

I've seen multiple people suggest now that more guns would have somehow helped the situation, and I thought they were all idiots. But you're the very first to be confident that someone in that dark, gassy room would have actually gotten off a head shot on a guy wearing black from head to toe.

...I'm so thankful to live in a country where it's hard to get a gun and people don't immediately jump to the idea that "more guns" are EVER any kind of answer to violence. The U.S. must be a terrifying place to live. I will never move there, that's for sure.

 

[Kragg]

its harder to stab someone and alot slower and easily stopped.

Another movie myth, there. It's easy to stop someone with a knife? Have you tried? Now, I'm not debating that guns are more effective and efficient -- that's why they were invented -- but don't trivialize knife violence, either. Talk to any folks that teach practical close-quarters combat (particularly with the military), and you'll likely hear them tell you that rule 1 in a knife fight is "You WILL get cut."

(Experiment for you. Get a buddy. Stand a little more than arms' length apart. Take turns just trying to reach out and tap each other. Anywhere -- arm, head, hip, toe, whatever. Notice how hard it actually is to avoid being touched at all. Now imagine that each touch is a knife wound, and you'll get the idea.)

I'm picking on these two posts because, in both of them, people are presenting their side (and this is on BOTH sides of the issue) with a lot of information that is good... but other information that is based on movie myth. We can't really fix the problem until we connect it to reality.

i understand what you're saying, I was more going for a feeling of killing speed knife vs rifle and the fact that people would be more likely to go up to the guy to try to stop him

you realise it all started with a police shooting right ... I dont know what you are trying to say, if they all had guns it would be better, cept not shooting them. and I believe in a riot situation it is better to contain and control than to go in bashing people, not that mistakes weren't made, loads were.

If there are ever major riots in the US again with armed citizens that would be a mess bigger than harlems

Yes I knew, but, before you go on, I'd like to listen to how criminals are justified in their actions......

look im not even going to try and debate a guy who has "Explosives can solve any problem" as a motto, so just drop it