Question for anti-gun:

[spartan231490]

I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing the UK to the UK.

I was more on about you insinuating that because of what happened in the UK it's evidence that it would happen in the US.

They're two completely different situations.

Also, you should be aware, I'm not arguing that their murder rates went up because of their gun control laws. I'm pointing out that their gun control laws did nothing to stop or slow the increase in their murder rate.

But guns were never a major factor in UK murders to begin with. There had already been strict gun control laws since 1901 and they got beefed up in the 20's.

The 60's I believe was about carrying handguns.

Apples and oranges.

I'm pointing out that this is evidence, one piece of many, that there is no correlation.

It's not because it's a completely different situation. Gun crime makes up a massive percent of crime in the US. If guns were to suddenly vanish of course this would impact that. Guns were never a large part of crime in the UK.

Cultural differences.

I'm not making any assumption, I"m just pointing out the obvious.

Actually you're dancing around it.

How are they so different? Really, why can I not compare the UK in the 1960s to the UK in the 1970s?

Not the comparison I was talking about and there was a lot of socio-economic change during that decade.

Why? Were you invaded and replaced by pod people with a completely different culture?

No but our culture was influenced by a lot of different variables.

I admit, my world history is a little lacking, severely lacking in recent times, but I think I would have heard if something had happened to the UK in the 60s that was so massive it made it completely incomparable to itself only a few years before.

Crime rates rise and fall. This isn't the issue.

The issue is that you're using what happened in the UK as rational as to why it would likely happen in the US. Or as evidence of why the opposite wouldn't happen.

They're two completely different situations.

I can only beat a dead horse so many times. you are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that don't belong there.

As I said, look at the justfacts source in the OP. It shows murder rates in UK from sometime in the 60s, not 1901. I can't get the specifics because justfacts seems to be not working right now.

Then it's irrelevant because there has been strict gun control in the UK since 1901. Which got bolstered in 1920 as a reactionary measure to the surplus guns from WWI.

I am making arguments that make sense. Gun control is instituted, murder rates don't decrease, either murderers aren't any less effective, or they try more. Either way, you end up with the same number of people dead. Gun control does not save lives.

Except that gun crime makes a large percentage of the murders in the US whilst it made up a strikingly small percentage in the UK.

Again, apples and oranges.

I never said correlation equals causation. I am the one arguing that there's no correlation at all, why on earth would I be arguing that correlation equals causation?

The correlation between gun control and an increase in crime. You're saying that crime went up in the UK therefore it is foolish to say it could go down in the US.

This ignores the reasons why it went up in the UK.

Further, I'm not ignoring other variables.

Yes you are.

The only variable you've mentioned is new legislation of gun control. You're ignoring the rest by omitting them.

I am looking at exactly the same place, identical to itself in every way, just examining the before and after of gun control.

Ignoring the fact that gun control wasn't the only change and that it was an extremely minor change to being with. Considering there had been very strict gun control since the 20's.

I suppose, you could say that this place became more or less prosperous over that time period, but I am looking at numerous places: UK, Australia, Detroit, Washington DC, Florida, and I believe Texas. The only one that had it's murder rate decrease after banning guns was Detroit, and it decreased by half the amount that the national rate did(2% vs 4%) All of the others had significant increases. I'm not even arguing that there is a correlation there. I'm arguing that it is pretty damn good evidence against the correlation between the enactment of these laws and reduced murder rates, and it is.

Except that what happened in one place isn't good evidence for what could happen in another. Especially when you're only considering one variable.

Don't assume "You've essentially got your own localised arms race. With everyone getting the bigger and badder toys so they don't feel powerless." This doesn't happen. We just want the best tool for the jobs we want it to do. That may include self-defense. That doesn't mean we need a bigger gun than the other guy, in fact usually smaller is better for self-defense. And, I've already pointed out that the evidence suggests that either gun control doesn't reduce the effectiveness of murderers, or it causes more of them to start murdering, because of the lack of any appreciable decrease in murder rates after gun control is instituted. Argue with the facts till you're blue in the face, I've made this point 3 times in a row now, I won't be doing it again.

The bigger and badder part wasn't meant to be taken literally.

And what you've done is said the same thing 3 times and ignored peoples response to it.

The gun control laws in the UK that I am talking about were instituted in 1968(gun control law) and 1997(handgun ban). I have no idea what laws you are talking about, but the one instituted in 1968 wasn't even that strict, so I strongly doubt that the UK had strict gun control since 1901.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

YOU are the one comparing the US to the UK. I am comparing the UK to the UK.

No, I am not ignoring the reason that it went up in the UK. I am saying that, regardless of the reason they went up, gun control didn't help, so there is no reason to assume it would work in the US because of this.

I'm not ignoring the other variables, I don't know how I can say this any way I haven't already.

There you go again, claiming that the UK has had strict gun control since the early 1900s, when they didn't. They had gun control, it was strict for the time, but overall until 1997 they had gun control laws comparable to what many states have now in the US. Ergo, the 1997 law is the one that had a significant impact, and it once again saw no impact on the increase of murder rates.

Again, I've said this about half a dozen times, I'm not basing my argument on just one place. The statistics in the US bear out the same thing.

I'm not ignoring what you say, I'm just pointing out that it has no impact on the data. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that just aren't there.

 

[crazyarms33]

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

Yes, because taking an accurate aimed shot with a revolver whilst under assault rifle fire is super easy to do and a very calm and relaxing time in one's life. I myself find it a great stress reliever and enthusiastically recommend it to everyone I come across.

OT: Guns are designed to kill people/animals. This is a fact. People use these guns. This is a fact. 99% of gun owners do not kill people. This is also a fact. I myself own 3 guns and use them all regularly. Am I against gun control? Yes and no. I think there is no reason for a person to be able to go out and buy a machine gun just because they can. I do think that rifles and shotguns and handguns should be allowed pretty much across the board, but no handguns with a magazine that exceeds 17 rounds, plus the chambered round.

 

[gwilym101]

I'm not against the idea of people being allowed to own guns, but I think it is too easy to buy a gun in America, particularly ones that are inordinate in what a person would need for home or self defence (what possible reason would you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, or a grenade launcher).

If a person wants to buy any gun they should be trained, tested and have full background checks (yes I know some guns you do need licences and such). Especially since the main amendment that advocates the ownership of guns actually says "A well regulated militia".

 

[RN7]

I feel that if a gun control law were implemented, it would be a good thing because people outside of law enforcement wouldn't be able to access guns. Granted, people could still get them illegally, and you couldn't really take away other peoples' guns, even if you did something drastic, such as...you know...repeal the 2nd amendment.

I'd really only be angered by the law is if it showed little improvement in crime rates dropping, because it would mean I'd have to resort to using a metal bat or large piece of wood to maim or otherwise seriously injure someone who broke into my house.

 

[AverageExtraordinair]

its like watching two snakes try to eat each other

 

[WaysideMaze]

You said guns would have solved the problem. His counter was that guns are what caused the problem, and therefore, without guns there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

that was what I took away from his posts anyway.

They would of done the same thing had he been hit by a police car, face caved in by a billy club, fist, etc.

no doubt. My point was just that kragg never excused criminal activity. Or I didn't read his posts that way anyway.

 

[A Distant Star]

Yeah, cuz the nut in that Norweigen shooter was legally allowed to buy that gun, oh wait, those guns are banned in that country.

Actually, guns are not banned in Norway.

The type of gun he used was.

Well yes, that much is true. But that's a different point entirely then.

 

[A Distant Star]

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

Yes, because taking an accurate aimed shot with a revolver whilst under assault rifle fire is super easy to do and a very calm and relaxing time in one's life. I myself find it a great stress reliever and enthusiastically recommend it to everyone I come across.

OT: Guns are designed to kill people/animals. This is a fact. People use these guns. This is a fact. 99% of gun owners do not kill people. This is also a fact. I myself own 3 guns and use them all regularly. Am I against gun control? Yes and no. I think there is no reason for a person to be able to go out and buy a machine gun just because they can. I do think that rifles and shotguns and handguns should be allowed pretty much across the board, but no handguns with a magazine that exceeds 17 rounds, plus the chambered round.

A reasonable position and one I entirely agree on. Though I no longer own or use guns I have in the past. Like I said before, I think we should treat guns like we do cars. You absolutely have the right to one, but first you need to go through proper training and accreditation before you are trusted with one.

 

[Royas]

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."

Arms length? The trainer that gave me defence against knifes showed that its almost impossible to defend against someone that suddenly charges towards you with a knife from ~10 meters away. (Almost impossible if you need to draw a gun).

OT:
The OP claims to have "facts" to back up his story. After checking out his sources I came to the conclusion he has not really any good sources. All his sources are from anti gun control organisations and not from any objective scientific sources. Which makes his sources unreliable and so I wont respond to any arguments that these sources back up.

As for the "guns dont kill people, people kill people" I have to respond with the quote of Eddie Izzard: "But guns help, not a lot of people would die if you just shout 'BANG'".

In my opinion it would be a lot harder to stab 77 people to death in a movie theater then it would be to just shoot them. If I could choose between a society without guns or with guns I believe one without is way saver then one with guns.

My training course used the "21 foot" rule for knife vs. gun. Namely, if your gun is holstered (even in an easily accessed holster), you probably won't be able to get the shot off before the attacker crosses 21 feet of distance. Which is why my trainer included hand to hand defense as part of his CQB course, so that one could hold off the knife wielding looney long enough to finish your draw and shoot him at point blank range. Defensive shooting is a gestalt of multiple combat forms, concentrating just on shooting will get you killed lickety-damned-split.

Regarding the "guns don't kill people" aspect of the discussion, I'm kind of a believer in that. If someone wants to kill a lot of people really quickly, and they didn't have a gun, why not an explosive? Easy to make with numerous recipes available online, easy to get ingredients and hey! shrapnel in the form of a bunch of easy to get nails or screws on the outside. Or how about poison? Mix some bleach with some acid (both not hard to get) and toss that into the theater. Instant chlorine gas poisoning. That's just two ideas off right off the top of my head, I'm sure that a determined psycho could come up with a hundred more.

If it were possible to have a society where it was guaranteed that nobody had guns, and I mean nobody, not the police, not the military, nobody, I'd be willing to give up my firearms. But that isn't going to ever happen, so I think I'll keep 'em for now.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Going to answer this.....again......for the 3rd time this week.

I live in a rural area. I want guns so that if a wild animal tries to attack me, I can kill it or at least drive it off. And I want a semi-auto rifle to do that with (Specifically, an M1 Garand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand]) because it would allow faster firing. .30-06 is also armor-piercing by nature so that in the 1:1,000,000,000,000 chance that some robber tries to attack my house with body armor, I can just blow straight through it. "But just wait for the cops." I hear you saying. I live/will always live in the country/small towns. The sheriff might take 30 minutes getting to me, and in this time, someone is stealing my shit and might try to attack me, my wife, and my family. Screw that, just let me put a bullet in the son of a ***** and be over with it.

As for handguns, I will most likely conceal-carry when I go out to get my real job. Stock trader, trucker, railroad engineer, doesnt matter. I want a gun (Specifically, an M1911 Colt .45 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol]) so that if the same "some guy trying to attack me or steal my shit" thing happens, I can just end him (if he doesnt back down anyway).

And for full-autos/machine-guns/high capacity mags...this is the only one I will listen to people on, but I dont agree personally. I live in a state where you can legally own everything I just listed if you jump through enough hoops and paperwork, and we havent had any mass killings in years. I am not saying that that is because "We have superior firepower! Screw you all!" but it shows that it isnt the machineguns that are the problem.

 

[elvor0]

-snip

Read even one of the links in the OP. Guns are used in self defense millions of times each year in the US alone.[/quote]

Well I see I've got a lot to answer in repose there. I'm not even quite sure what I'm supposed to say to that:

Okay, good, I never said they wern't. I still don't think people should be able to buy and take home automatic weapons. Civilians don't need access to that sort of hardware. I mean I like playing with them on shooting ranges sure, but people can't be trusted, so I have to accept that I can't buy them, it causes far too much harm in society for that sort of hardware to be readily available to buy.

Like I said, we don't get massacres in the UK, because people don't have access to automatic weapons to just go on a murderous killing spree, GTA style.

Unfortunetly, America is too saturated for any changes in law to make a difference, it's a stockpiling arms race out there, people get more guns, so criminals get better hardware, the people get scared and get /more/ guns, criminals get more guns, etc etc.

Having a handgun I can sort of accept, I don't like it, but it is sort of a necessity in America what with the amount of hardware that's floating about, but it shouldn't have been like that in the first place, why did the government feel it was a good idea to allow the easy sale of assault weapons and machine guns to be implemented? But then, it's no good talking about what could or should have happened, it's too far gone now. Something'll happen, a social upheaval or collapse due to the amount of guns constantly being poured into America.

And don't cite Norway, their society and justice system is completely different to the US, they somehow manage to have guns and a general amount of peace and I have no fucking idea how.

Going to answer this.....again......for the 3rd time this week.

I live in a rural area. I want guns so that if a wild animal tries to attack me, I can kill it or at least drive it off. And I want a semi-auto rifle to do that with (Specifically, an M1 Garand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand]) because it would allow faster firing. .30-06 is also armor-piercing by nature so that in the 1:1,000,000,000,000 chance that some robber tries to attack my house with body armor, I can just blow straight through it. "But just wait for the cops." I hear you saying. I live/will always live in the country/small towns. The sheriff might take 30 minutes getting to me, and in this time, someone is stealing my shit and might try to attack me, my wife, and my family. Screw that, just let me put a bullet in the son of a ***** and be over with it.

I'm going to agree with you on that one, "just phone the police" is such an obtuse point to make when you're being confronted by a guy with a gun, or a knife or a fist fight or any sort of confrontation. Are you fucking insane? "Excuse me good sir, could you stop threatening me so that I may call the old Po-lice station so that they may come and arrest you?"

"You wot?

"Yes, and then we will sit here until they arrive, that sounds perfectly reasonable don't you think? They'll be at least 20 minutes, I mean I'm sure by the time they arrive you will have mugged me, stabbed me and gone, but lets wait here and see if they make it in the next 30 seconds anyway shall we?"

Tangentally, I cut this bit but had it as an afterthought: Just out of interest, why would a handgun not be perfectly acceptable to fend off wild animals with? I assume you have at least some degree of training, an animal coming straight at you wouldn't be a massively difficult shot would it? What are you fending off that's immune to a shot in the face? As far as I'm aware most pistols have around 10-17 round magazines, more than enough to get the job done against one wild animal. Even a Bear would back down after having a few rounds put in it.

That sounds quite snide actually, it's not I'm just genuinely curious.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

While I'm against guns because I'm a wooly liberal and just 'feel' that way, and therefore no amount of facts or evidence is going to change my mind...

(That's saved me a lot of arguments if I just blanketly say I'm wrong to start with)

I absolutely can't see why anyone would be upset if we stopped people buying armour piercing ammo, assault rifles, machine guns and the like.

I can see above that if a wild animal attacks you, you'd want a semi auto rifle.

I'd suggest that if you can't shoot a wild animal with a pistol or shotgun, you need more training before you're allowed to own a gun. OF course, if you've got any footage recorded outside your home of you being overrun by badgers wearing kevlar body armour, I'm open to being convinced.

Pistols, handguns, rifles, shotguns, I'm sort of ok with people owning them, licenced and regulated.

I just don't feel anyone needs a roof mounted rocket launcher to visit the Dunkin' Donuts drive thru is all. Sometimes they'll run outta frosted bearclaws, and you're just gonna have accept it.

 

[Thyunda]

While I'm against guns because I'm a wooly liberal and just 'feel' that way, and therefore no amount of facts or evidence is going to change my mind...

(That's saved me a lot of arguments if I just blanketly say I'm wrong to start with)

I absolutely can't see why anyone would be upset if we stopped people buying armour piercing ammo, assault rifles, machine guns and the like.

I can see above that if a wild animal attacks you, you'd want a semi auto rifle.

I'd suggest that if you can't shoot a wild animal with a pistol or shotgun, you need more training before you're allowed to own a gun. OF course, if you've got any footage recorded outside your home of you being overrun by badgers wearing kevlar body armour, I'm open to being convinced.

Pistols, handguns, rifles, shotguns, I'm sort of ok with people owning them, licenced and regulated.

I just don't feel anyone needs a roof mounted rocket launcher to visit the Dunkin' Donuts drive thru is all. Sometimes they'll run outta frosted bearclaws, and you're just gonna have accept it.

I'm a Conservative and I'm anti-gun. I notice a lot of these studies being quoted have more violent crime in the UK than in the US. Except violent crime includes...well, violence, and is not limited to guns. The 2011 Summer Riot is the worst example to cite in terms of gun control.
Would the police have fared better if they possessed firearms?

That's not the right question.

Would the police have fared better if guns were legal and the rioters were in possession of legally purchased guns?

I assure you the death toll would have been insane. Guns serve only to escalate a situation. One gunshot during the riots, whether a shot fired into the air, from a policeman or at a policeman, and that'd be that. Guns turn a hostile situation into a powderkeg.

Unless you live in a farm, or someplace where animals are a danger, you don't need a gun. Your average suburb-dwelling family does not need a gun. If guns were controlled, the guys breaking into your house likely won't have guns either. I know I've never seen a civilian firearm. No I'm lying, actually, a family friend was into target shooting. However, regardless of the hobbies associated, a gun is there to kill. It has no other purpose. Sure, in the UK people get stabbed. I'd rather get stabbed than shot. Even if getting shot meant I had a chance of fighting back with my own gun.

 

[spartan231490]

Yeah, cuz the nut in that Norweigen shooter was legally allowed to buy that gun, oh wait, those guns are banned in that country.

Actually, guns are not banned in Norway.

The type of gun he used was.

Well yes, that much is true. But that's a different point entirely then.

No, it's not actually. He used a gun that was completely banned, thus it still holds up as pretty good evidence that it's not impossible to buy weapons that are completely banned and go on a killing rampage.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Tangentally, I cut this bit but had it as an afterthought: Just out of interest, why would a handgun not be perfectly acceptable to fend off wild animals with? I assume you have at least some degree of training, an animal coming straight at you wouldn't be a massively difficult shot would it? What are you fending off that's immune to a shot in the face? As far as I'm aware most pistols have around 10-17 round magazines, more than enough to get the job done against one wild animal. Even a Bear would back down after having a few rounds put in it.
That sounds quite snide actually, it's not I'm just genuinely curious.

Well, actually, the specific gun I want only has a 7 round clip (1 in chamber+6 mag). However, it makes up for it by being .05 inches short of a .50-cal. And while I would want to have the rifle for killing coyotes, its not so much "Theres a rabid coyote on the front porch. Let me just mosy on over and grab the ol' rifle and ammo." it would be more "Theres a rabid coyote on the front porch. Quick, grab the nearest gun and ammo even if its just the Colt."

Its not that I cant make due with a pistol, its that I would prefer something with more range.

I can see above that if a wild animal attacks you, you'd want a semi auto rifle.

I'd suggest that if you can't shoot a wild animal with a pistol or shotgun, you need more training before you're allowed to own a gun.

My wanting the Garand is 3 fold:

1) I like WW2. The Garand is the US infantry rifle from then, and after the war was put on military surplus to be purchased by civilans. Thus, they are very common, making them cheap, ammo cheap (.30-06 being one of the most common hunting rounds), and parts easy to find. I actually like the M14, the assualt rifle version of the M1, more, and in my state can legally own one, but I dont feel like jumping through hoops and paying out the nose for something that is just going to sit on my wall and look pretty most of the time. Ill just get an Airsoft version if I want it that bad.

2) I already have training with guns. My grandpa taught me and my brother to shot at a young age, but I havent touched a gun since he ripped it out of my hand for handling it improperly. I still know enough about guns to know the rules and can still be trusted, and will most likely go overboard with caution...especially when I have little ones around.

3) The reason I want a Rifle and not a shotgun is because a rifle has longer range, thus allowing me to pick off that pack of rabid coyotes without having to get too close. And since I dont hunt, I dont have to worry about getting a different gun for differnt animals, and I am pretty sure .30-06 will do fine against coyotes.

 

[Dangit2019]

snip

While I think that now is the time to discuss gun control, it still doesn't make sense to put a thread for it in off-topic instead of Religion & Politics.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

While I think that now is the time to discuss gun control, it still doesn't make sense to put a thread for it in off-topic instead of Religion & Politics.

It's not religious, and it's not political. I did not want to discuss the legality, or the political practicality of gun control. I wanted to discuss it's effectiveness. Hence, off-topic. If any mod has a serious problem with it being off-topic, I apologize and welcome them to move it, but since we're up to 6 pages now, and I posted the thread 3 days ago, I don't think it's that big of a problem.