Question for anti-gun:

[elvor0]

t worked pretty well for the Viet Kong as well, until the US Government decided they were just going to Napalm suspected hold outs, which cost a LOT of innocent lives, these days they're not allowed to do that(for good reason), and are trying to avoid all out war. An army vs a guerilla group has very different combat dynamics and military strategy to say... WW2, which was armies fighting each other all over the shop.

Actually that's not how the Americans dealt with the Viet Cong (though they sure tried that at first) in the end they did get them well and truly stuffed.

-snip-

Fair enough, I stand corrected, my assumptions obviously got the better of me there ><

-snip-

You're completely right. Just meant in sheer numbers, we are so much larger than the US military. Heck, i'm sure some of the military would rebel and side with the civilians if this happened. But it won't

Yeah, that is a fair point, obviously it's all hypothetical, so doesn't really matter in the long run anyway, but I think we can agree that either one of our scenarios could play out, either the Government wins through sheer firepower, or the Civilians/rebels win through sheer numbers. It just seems a bit outdated to me as an argument is all, obviously it made sense at the time. For all the people who scream that America and the UK are orwellian police states, (Y'know as opposed to fucking North Korea or China, stop being a poster boy for white people problems) it's just never likely to happen.

 

[ElPatron]

1) Immigration disproves the original statement which was that no-one wants to live in the UK[/quote]

Okay, didn't read the other guy's post. But still, my country is in the shit and many still wish to live here.

It just proves that there are places worse to live than in the UK.

2) UK is nowhere near an Orwellian state, hence why I pointed out the indexes used for measuring freedom place it at a similar level to the USA. Different freedoms are valued over those in the US; however. An exampleis the freedom to not be insulted for a race or ethnicity while just going about your business is valued above free speech

Then I'll just disagree with the people that made that study.

I prefer freedom of speech and also the right to fuck up anyone who threatens you. It would sure make people think twice before bringing the hate.

Lets not be too hasty about using reactionary right wing news sources for our information perhaps?

I don't know shit about British news agencies, so don't criticize for being insensitive to those things. Honestly, from all the news sites that posted that piece this looked the most neutral.

The others were left-wing websites denouncing the racism in the arrest because the boy had a muslim name. Next time I'll put news from left-wing extremists.

3) Except something serious almost never happen so it's rare to see armed police, especially outside of London,

Doesn't change my point, they rush for the big guns when the S hits the F. I don't think that's natural, and I don't think that the normal police forces should have the need for that equipment unless they are under fire.

Most guns are illegal within Great Britain, shotguns are not

-bolt action centerfire rifles (including neutered semi-automatics converted for straight bolt-action)
-semi-auto rimfire rifles
-high capacity shotguns
-silencers

All attainable with a FAC - doesn't sound like most guns are illegal. However the SAC is easy to obtain (youngest child to ever be granted one was 7 years old) and sorry for the "circular logic" but a gun is a gun is a gun.

Shotguns are still guns.

there are very few

One point three million.

I don't call that "few".

about and that most of our police officers are not armed. That is a purely subjective statement, having lived in the UK for most of my life I am uncomfortable seeing armed police and they make me feel less safe.

Is there any logical reason? Otherwise I don't think it matters.

You claim that the UK couldn't solve the riots because they didn't have guns?
UK Police have armed response units. However, in this case since what sparked these riots was supposedly a shootout with the police (armed police mind you) I'm not sure that open-firing on a crowd full of citizens would be a very good idea.

Jesus Chirst... I'm glad their are stricter gun laws here in the UK... Imagine how much worse the riots would be if the angry mobbed had firearms.

If I was committing a crime and there was a load of policemen with weapons, and shop-owners with shotguns, I'd just drop any weapon I would have, run back home and suck on my thumb.

And so would a lot of criminals. Not "citizens". Citizens take part in protests. Criminals trash places and burn things down. They weren't even freedom fighters.

 

[AngloDoom]

Oh, for the love of Vishnu...

Look, different cultures and legal systems depend on or are deterred from guns in entirely different ways. Maybe removing guns in America would cause a rise in crime and maybe it would lower crime rates. All this is theoretical at best and in the end all these threads devolve into people using what they consider high-brow language to basically tell everyone else they are a psychopath or a wimp for thinking how they do.

American culture is far too steeped in its love of firearms and fear of 'the criminal' to really change overnight, and comparing crime-rates through other countries with different cultures is as meaningful as comparing murders across the animal kingdom.

 

[DancePuppets]

Then I'll just disagree with the people that made that study.

With this single statement you have proven that your opinion is meaningless, here are a nice list of agencies who are manned by people far more intelligent and informed than you (these are the ones utilised by pretty much everyone around the world).

Economist Intelligence Unit - publishes the Democracy Index
Freedom House - publishes Freedom in the World
The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation publishes Index of Economic Freedom
Polity - publishes the Polity data series
The Free Existence - publishes the Freedom Meta-Index
Reporters Without Borders - publishes the Worldwide Press Freedom Index
Economic Freedom of the World Index - Fraser Institute

Now, in most cases the studies are available online; however quick reference can be found at Wikipedia.

Plus the fact that you seem to think that being allowed to resort to violence for being insulted is a valid thing to happen in a civilised nation is extremely worrying and on top of that you seem to be proud that you know nothing about the press in the UK or the way we conduct law and order over here, yet you still insult it. I have yet to insult the USA, but individuals such as yourself do help to cause some of the anti-American feelings seen here and in Europe. Luckily I realise that the majority of Americans are at least willing to communicate without open hostility.

 

[ElPatron]

With this single statement you have proven that your opinion is meaningless, here are a nice list of agencies who are manned by people far more intelligent and informed than you (these are the ones utilised by pretty much everyone around the world).

(...)

Freedom House - publishes Freedom in the World

I went to their website and they also defend Freedom of Expression.

I said I would DISAGREE, that that's it. I am not claiming to be right or wrong. I am not here to engage in another pissing contest and honestly have no idea what I would do if you thought my opinions were important anyway.

Plus the fact that you seem to think that being allowed to resort to violence for being insulted

I said threatened. Not insulted. If you're jumping at the opportunity to take potshots at me, please calm down since I can feel you are becoming a little bit emotional and less rational.

and on top of that you seem to be proud that you know nothing about the press in the UK or the way we conduct law and order over here, yet you still insult it.

1. I am not proud. I simply have better things to do than memorize names of online news agencies and the associated newspapers. There are hundreds of them in every country.

2. I have not insulted the way law and order are conducted. I have respectfully stated that I feel that it is unnecessary to issue pistol caliber carbines and expensive optics if there are no people in immediate danger. And there weren't, not a single shot fired when I was in London. SHTF is not an offensive term, it means "shit hits the fan".

3. For the record, you insulted that news agency first. I kinda have the opening to trash-talk silly websites too, no?

I have yet to insult the USA

Nobody said you did. Stop saying that.

but individuals such as yourself do help to cause some of the anti-American feelings seen here and in Europe.

What did I do? I'm an European citizen, born and raised, that disagrees with how things are run in the US and in the UK. Heck, if you wind me up I will criticize the shit of any country. But I also see the good things.

Why the fudge should America get trashed for what I said?

Most of the anti-American feelings on Europe come from a very vocal minority. The majority people don't give a fuck, crack a joke or two about Americans being stupid or fat but beyond that nobody really cares about America. Yeah, we hated Bush before it was cool like the hipsters we are, but he was ONE person.

It's sad but some Americans have started the "everyone hates us, so we must be the best" and in the last decade it grew really well. But let's face it, most people who "hate" the US are uninformed idiots that think that in America it's legal to shoot black people and that every citizen carries a machine-gun with him all day.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

-snip-

I think we can be honest here, the whole situation would not of been improved with guns, hell the whole thing supposedly started by a shooting (used more as an excuse though) and would have perhaps spawned more riots through that use of terror.

 

[ElPatron]

-snip-

I think we can be honest here, the whole situation would not of been improved with guns, hell the whole thing supposedly started by a shooting (used more as an excuse though) and would have perhaps spawned more riots through that use of terror.

It's not terror. Terrorism is a whole different beast because no matter what definition you try to use, almost everyone can be accused of terrorism. Which also applies to the rioters.

Presenting arms as a display of force is simply a deterrent. I didn't say that every rioter should be shot on sight (that's more typical of Al-Assad - DOH-OH-OH, political satire!), but who the hell would voluntarily riot in front of armed policemen?

However, from what I have seen the police hardly scared the protestants away with their presence. It was like they knew no policeman/woman would anything.

This could be possibly unsafe if the officer was a schmuck, but a blank firing replica would scare the shit out of everyone.

 

[Spookimitsu]

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object.

lol wat? I almost compulsively stopped taking you seriously right here. People are killed by guns all over the place. What are trying to get at, that semantically that it is incorrect? Not it's not. it's the weapon. that fires the missile that kills the person. Are you going to say that it's not the gun that kills, but the bullet? or its not the bullet but the metal slug of the projectile? or Its not the projectile itself, but a direct result of the material and veloci...I'm starting to give myself a headache.

I would like to say (as I'm sure others within these nine or so pages of discussion have brought up) that we need to get rid of guns altogether in the USA much like it is in Japan (no guns, and no gun crimes. Hey would you look at that! Go figure, that almost abolishes any argument to the contrary) but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the mindset of the American people are very different from that of the Japanese: we Americans are obsessed with gun-culture, and it's starting to spread worldwide (thanks Hollywood, and propaganda! Population control?). And even though I think we should just take away all the civilian guns in America, I don't it would do much to correct our method of thinking; the problem is we believe that we actually NEED guns.

Everybody will just kill with stabbing implements, blunt objects, and high-stakes karate, just the way nature intended.

 

[omega 616]

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.

In that case, death from humans is fucking tiny! How many murders are done with hands? "Guns don't kill, bullets do!"

Did you kill him? No, the poison did.

 

[ElPatron]

I would like to say (as I'm sure others within these nine or so pages of discussion have brought up) that we need to get rid of guns altogether in the USA much like it is in Japan (no guns, and no gun crimes. Hey would you look at that! Go figure, that almost abolishes any argument to the contrary)

You just gave me the perfect solution to car accidents. Let's ban cars.

Getting rid of guns does not get rid of crime. And like I said before, Japan is more about social control than gun control. Gun control is just part of the big picture and not nearly the biggest factor in the low gun crime - several sources estimate from 50,000 to 100,000 illegal guns in the country.

Blow up bridges and ban rope and the number of Japanese citizens killing themselves with those methods will be near 0.

By the way, there are 59,000 licensed gun owners in Tokyo alone. What did you say about getting rid of guns?

(thanks Hollywood, and propaganda! Population control?). And even though I think we should just take away all the civilian guns in America, I don't it would do much to correct our method of thinking; the problem is we believe that we actually NEED guns.

Everybody will just kill with stabbing implements, blunt objects, and high-stakes karate, just the way nature intended.

"Hollywood" definitely has a few examples of gun-porn, but most Hollywood movies have liberal propaganda crammed into them. I mean, even Tears of The Sun, one of my favorite military films ever, has a few traces of the "liberal" mindset of the film-makers.

The Hurt Locker. Don't get me started.

And let's look at most TV series: they are mostly set in American cities/states with tighter gun control (DC, NY, Chicago/Illinois, LA/California) and make them appear as evil. They also give the impression that things such as registries actually work. Most of the anti-gun arguments come from movies: firing guns from the hip, "shoulder-thing that goes up", Glock pistols can pass trough metal detectors in airports, silencers/supressor make guns completely silent, even drowning the sound of the action cycling, etc.

And yes, a "gun" does not kill anyone unless the user actually bashes the victim to death. It's the bullets and the falls that kill. Collateral reference.

snip

You kill *with* guns.

It's a matter of semantics, you don't say "Assault weapons are responsible for 1% of gun crime" because guns have no responsibility of their own.

 

[mrdude2010]

snip

The reason gun control in the U.S. isn't working is because they're going about it all the wrong way, and it's probably too late to even attempt. There are already so many guns in the country that unless we went out of our way to round them all up, trying to stop people from buying them now won't work. Also, the U.S. tends to go about gun control in a more local sense- an individual state or city banning the use of certain weapons, and that's just stupid. If you can't buy a gun in one city, what's to stop you from going to the next city over?

Gun control laws by themselves aren't the problem, the way the laws are implemented are. If you wanted to reduce gun violence at this point, your best bet would be to make the penalties for owning an illegal firearm much harsher. It's not worth it for a criminal to brandish around an illegal weapon for a measly $150 from a gas station if he knows he might spend 20 years in prison because of it.
Besides, you could also point to the huge crime rate decrease from the early 90's to the mid 2000's when the Brady Bill was active as evidence that banning assault weapons can help reduce crime.

 

[Spookimitsu]

lots of stuff

I'm pretty sure my point was that it was the collective social mindset of those people that contribute to their low gun violence statistics. I know it may have been convoluted, but trust me its there. Oh there it is, I said quite plainly, I don't think it would help the general American consensus on guns.
And the hollywood obsession was less of some kind of political agenda, and more of the aesthetical framing of shots with guns in them, guns being carried, loaded, and pointed at people. Guns are made to be appealing, to make you feel safe and invincible, made to feel necessary for a variety of situations where you could solve your problems by shooting someone (or threatening).

you know what the difference between cars and guns are? Cars aren't made specifically to kill people. Just thought I'd point that out.

And yes, a "gun" does not kill anyone unless the user actually bashes the victim to death

And all of those fighter planes and tanks and other machines of war don't actually *kill* people either. I guess that's another way to look at the world. And to think, you could have saved time just by typing 'trollface.jpg' lol

Oh, I can see it's time for me to go home. Carry on.

 

[ElPatron]

you know what the difference between cars and guns are? Cars aren't made specifically to kill people. Just thought I'd point that out.

Ironically, cars are involved in more deaths than guns.

Jumping from bridges and hanging yourself have the sole purpose of suicide, even thought bridges and ropes don't. The purpose of things is used as an argument that purely falls flat - in this world there are more objects being "misused" to cause death than guns being used "properly" by civilians.

I am just saying that banning something will considerably drop any statistics related to them. Also, with the number of licensed gun owners in Japan (said to be 320,000) and the number of guns in circulation (710,000) completely destroys your argument - that banning guns in Japan is the cause of low number of gun deaths.

Let's not mention that banning guns in the US would involve searching for both legal and illegal guns that are not registered. And there are simply millions of them.

And yes, a "gun" does not kill anyone unless the user actually bashes the victim to death

And all of those fighter planes and tanks and other machines of war don't actually *kill* people either. I guess that's another way to look at the world. And to think, you could have saved time just by typing 'trollface.jpg' lol

Oh, I can see it's time for me to go home. Carry on.

I was just pointing out how the other post was pure semantics.

But tanks still require someone to give the order and fire. You can leave it out in the open and if nobody fires it, it will rust before it will kill anyone.

Besides, you could also point to the huge crime rate decrease from the early 90's to the mid 2000's when the Brady Bill was active as evidence that banning assault weapons can help reduce crime.

Except there is no way to prove it, and most guns involved in crimes aren't even assault weapons.

The Brady Bill was an emotional argument based on AESTHETIC features of guns apart from the "high capacity" thing. Folding/collapsible stocks, pistol grips, foregrips, and barrel-shrouds/heat-shields (for the love of Jebus, their purpose is to protect the hands of the user) have nothing to do with the killing capabilities of a rifle.

Let's not forget that the Mini-14 used by Breivik is far from being a state of the art "assault weapon" (stupid term invented to appeal to the emotions of people). And yet he killed 69 people trapped in an island.

 

[spartan231490]

snip
I would like to say (as I'm sure others within these nine or so pages of discussion have brought up) that we need to get rid of guns altogether in the USA much like it is in Japan (no guns, and no gun crimes. Hey would you look at that! Go figure, that almost abolishes any argument to the contrary)snip

And this is where I did stop taking you seriously. At least do a small amount of research before you try to completely invalidate something based on one data point. How about I counter your data point with one of my own. Switzerland has looser gun laws than many US states, and has the 4rth highest guns per capita in the world, yet their crime rate is phenomenally low. Does that "almost abolish any argument to the contrary" no, and the fact that someone thinks one piece of data could abolish any argument scares me, but does explain a great deal of what's wrong with our civilization.

Educate yourself:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf?new_window=1
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Captcha: How about that? Skynet agrees with me.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

The reason gun control in the U.S. isn't working is because they're going about it all the wrong way, and it's probably too late to even attempt. There are already so many guns in the country that unless we went out of our way to round them all up, trying to stop people from buying them now won't work. Also, the U.S. tends to go about gun control in a more local sense- an individual state or city banning the use of certain weapons, and that's just stupid. If you can't buy a gun in one city, what's to stop you from going to the next city over?

Gun control laws by themselves aren't the problem, the way the laws are implemented are. If you wanted to reduce gun violence at this point, your best bet would be to make the penalties for owning an illegal firearm much harsher. It's not worth it for a criminal to brandish around an illegal weapon for a measly $150 from a gas station if he knows he might spend 20 years in prison because of it.
Besides, you could also point to the huge crime rate decrease from the early 90's to the mid 2000's when the Brady Bill was active as evidence that banning assault weapons can help reduce crime.

Except that the crime rate decrease you're talking about started before the brady bill was passed and continued afterwards, long afterwards, those rates are still decreasing. Also, gun control doesn't reduce crime rates anywhere, it's not just a US problem.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

 

[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.

In that case, death from humans is fucking tiny! How many murders are done with hands? "Guns don't kill, bullets do!"

Did you kill him? No, the poison did.

I never said the bullets did it. People did it. People are killers, that's why it's called homicide.

 

[omega 616]

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.

In that case, death from humans is fucking tiny! How many murders are done with hands? "Guns don't kill, bullets do!"

Did you kill him? No, the poison did.

I never said the bullets did it. People did it. People are killers, that's why it's called homicide.

Using an item desgined to kill, every other thing used to kill has another purpose. Matches, are used to light cigs ... it is only when they are misused to they become dangerous, same for cars, knives, various poisonous substances (like bleach) ... a misused used gun doesn't kill.

You can't even use a gun defensively 'cos a defensive item would be a vest or something that stops wounds ... a gun inflicts wounds.

 

[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.

In that case, death from humans is fucking tiny! How many murders are done with hands? "Guns don't kill, bullets do!"

Did you kill him? No, the poison did.

I never said the bullets did it. People did it. People are killers, that's why it's called homicide.

Using an item desgined to kill, every other thing used to kill has another purpose. Matches, are used to light cigs ... it is only when they are misused to they become dangerous, same for cars, knives, various poisonous substances (like bleach) ... a misused used gun doesn't kill.

You can't even use a gun defensively 'cos a defensive item would be a vest or something that stops wounds ... a gun inflicts wounds.

This argument is pointless, a tool's purpose is defined through use, not design.
And far more importantly:
Guns have tons of other uses, just ask the almost 80 million gun owners in america who killed nothing with them yesterday.

 

[ElPatron]

Using an item desgined to kill, every other thing used to kill has another purpose. Matches, are used to light cigs ... it is only when they are misused to they become dangerous, same for cars, knives, various poisonous substances (like bleach) ... a misused used gun doesn't kill.

You can't even use a gun defensively 'cos a defensive item would be a vest or something that stops wounds ... a gun inflicts wounds.

1. So what is worse? An object being used for it's purpose or an object being misused? To me and object being misused is worse.

2. Misused guns kill. Assume your gun isn't loaded and pull the trigger? Not keeping the finger off the trigger? Not minding your backstop? Not caring about where the muzzle is pointed?

Your logic has killed people before.

3. Your "defensive" logic also means that any kind of punch or even military action can never be defensive. Think whatever you want, but you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense

 

[Bvenged]

I used to be intrigued by the gun/anti-gun argument, even weighing in on it myself, but now I don't really care what goes on in your country any more, as long as it doesn't affect mine.

Things are going as well as they could be in the UK at the moment (relating to gun crime), I'm sure legalising guns would throw the current status quo in the shitter. Where's my evidence?

Fucking common sense, that's where. If only a small minority own guns (including police forces), even fewer citizens will go out and do crime with them. So there's machetes and kitchen knives and bows, but none of them are as practical at killing as a gun. If you give everyone the power to kill, you're only raising the stakes and giving those who would maim or kill an easier tool to do it with. Sure, those who would want to kill/steal with the projected power of a gun could get their hands on it one way or another, could, but it slows them down if they're restricted/illegal/regulated more, and would likely raise suspicions with the regulator/law enforcement/gunsmith. You can't neutralise all gun crimes, but you would reduce them by reducing ease of access to them.

To top it off, it's no good of me to compare UK crime to US crime, they're completely different. It's much harder to stop weapons from getting into a country that's the size of multiple European countries than an island. Hence why, from this point forth, I no longer give a shit about this argument.

My apologies for throwing an opinion into things.