Question for people Pro-guns....

[Conn1496]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Your logic is just wonderful. :| Not. I think many people commit gun crime because guns appeal to them as "cool", not because they want to break the law. Your comment about "We're just better at math." doesn't make much sense either, and is frankly pretty prejudiced. It's people like you that are actually not helping American stereotypes, so why don't you do your country a real favour, and stay quiet.

In all fairness though, while I'm not pro-gun, they're no more dangerous than knifes really, and if people want to own them, so be it. I don't mind people having guns for recreational or defensive purposes, but there should be guidelines in place to increase gun safety measures... and yes, I live in the UK.

 

[Schtoobs]

I'd like to have a say if I may (UK-based btw).If alot of law abiding citizens carry guns then the criminals must, at least, carry guns to be successful. Guns being legal means more guns available to criminals. Criminals will get guns anyway, this is true. The main benefit of criminalizing guns, I think, would be the reduction in shootings that occur in the heat of the moment. Gun-carrying person who generally doesn't break laws kills someone in a moment of madness because the gun was readily available, two lives ruined. Maybe it wouldnt have happened if the person had time to think or cool down. Also, the fact that anyone could be 'packing heat' is incentive for criminals to shoot first and ask for your wallet later. Murder instead of mugging.

This isn't a simple topic at all (crime is probably just a part of it) but the guns reduce crime argument is tosh. Swapping a victims stolen wallet for a muggers trip to the morgue is not a good deal.

That being said, removing guns from a country that is used to having them would be impossible. I wish people would stop excusing it or defending it though. Have one to defend yourself, by all means. But don't say that it's a good thing that lots of people own and carry firearms. At best it's a necessary evil. I'd like to hear people say "I own a gun, but I hate the fact that I feel I need to".

In the end it comes down to minimizing the amount of people that get shot. Reducing the number of guns and bullets available does this. But with so many in circulation this just isn't a possibility. So basically America... you're fucked on this one Try not to die please. *high fives all Americans*

 

[Emperor Nat]

Also... it is worth baring in mind just how big America is in comparison to the UK.
I'm anti-guns as I live in the UK and we function fine without them but sometimes comparing crime rate with the UK is a little useless. We can fit three of us in just one of their states.

That's under-estimating a little. You can fit the majority of the middle-east inside of Texas.

OT: I understand both sides of the argument. I'm English, and have never seen anyone with a gun in my life who didn't have a snazzy blue uniform on - so I feel fairly safe in that respect. Then again, if a man was in my house attempting to hurt me, I'd much prefer to defend myself with a gun rather than a knife or blunt household object.

 

[fletch_talon]

Uh, eradicating a pest will lead to less economic losses (less damage done to crops by eating/treading on young plants etc), so money would actually be on the line.. And wild animals can be aggressive if you're sharing their territory..

oney is on the line for farmers and safety is a potential issue for people who live and work in remote rural areas, farmers especially are the people who are hunting the animals for the reasons you mentioned.
People in more established and urban areas who aren't in direct conflict with wild pigs and other pests aren't as interested in their eradication. They aren't interested in purchasing a gun and hunting pigs.

Do you know how many people in my town like hunting? Do you know how many people who do not like hunting do it anyway because it is necessary for their survival? That was my point. It is not about liking hunting, it is about survival.

So are you suggesting people be forced to hunt pigs?
The majority of people don't want to hunt pigs, the majority of people are disconnected from the problem and don't care enough to do what is necessary. Especially since their survival is not what's at risk, its the survival of rural farms and communities and the environment. All things that the average joe notoriously lacks concern for.

Oh and please do keep on ignoring the cultural differences between our countries.

Like what exactly?

So we've been discussing it the whole time and you still remain ignorant?
There is a sever lack of interest in hunting, whether for sport, food or pest eradication. America is known for having hunting and the right to bear arms being ingrained into its culture.

Making more powerful weapons readily accessible in this country is not going to magically make people aware of the problem and want to help out.

If you want to argue that awareness of the issue needs to be raised, or that incentive needs to be offered to promote participation in the solution, I won't argue with you. But the fact that pig hunting exists here is proof that they have the equipment, the lack of numbers being killed could be attributed to a number of factors, the only one that we can confirm (which come from a source you provided might I add) is the geography of our country making it difficult.

But no, all you can go on about is how we don't use the same guns you do and you cling to that idea as if it is the one and only possible truth.

Or is it because I do not like the fact that y?all are letting your animal population get out of control? Sorry, but I view it as a bad thing. If you like it then you can stew in it, just do not ask me to join you.

No I'd have to say its got a lot to do with you being ignorant and elitist.
Plus I don't appreciate being told (presumably) with a straight face that my country isn't as good as yours because we don't think the general public should have an easy time getting hold of what is classed as a "battle rifle" which shoots 700 rounds per minute (assuming I'm looking at the correct firearm). Are there worse guns out there? Of course but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I could easily say that whilst we are "fucking up our country" with feral animals you are fucking up yours with gun crime.
But as I've already said, I recognise where you don't that our ability to have a lightly armed society, like your ability to deal with feral pigs is due to a difference in culture and geography and its not as simple a solution as removing/loosening gun restrictions.

Yeah, cuz accusing the other guy of fondling his AR-10 isn't biased at all. Don't call people out on bias when your entire argument is based on bias. People in glass houses and all that.

You really haven't been reading much of our exchange have you?
So my argument, which has already acceded the fact that America can not as it currently stands function under the same kind of restrictions that we have here, is biased?
No, unlike Farson, I acknowledge that what works for my country doesn't necessarily apply to his. On the other hand, Farson has consistently ignored any and all differences between his country and my own, instead insisting, in spite of all provided rebuttal, that Australia's problems would be solved by Americanising our gun laws.

The gun fondling comment was (as Farson has acknowledged) unveiled condescension, rather than bias. I try to remain sensible here, but when arguing with someone who ends their post with a well worded alternative to "my nation is better than yours" I'd hope people could forgive me for letting a relatively minor insult slip.

Congratulations, you threw out all credibility you may have had.

You can't say "leave this conversation" because you don't like their preconceived notions. That makes you worse than any inflammatory commenter.

Not hard to see which side you're on eh? Presumably you've followed the entire debate between myself and Farson and this is the part you choose to comment on?
And you don't happen to think that my oh so flawless and noble opponent lost credibility with the remark:

"Just, do not say that we have to sacrifice ourselves to live down to your [Australia's] expectations."

Because this shows no bias and is absolutely not in any way a blatant insult directed not against my arguments, or even myself, but my entire country.
I'm not usually hugely nationalistic, but when someone I'm trying to have a reasonable argument with claims they factually know better than an entire nation and culture of people. I'm liable to lose my temper a tad.

 

[DanDeFool]

The argument I hear most frequently is that bad dudes don't care 'bout laws so we need guns to protect ourselves from the baddies.

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

I don't think you'll ever be able to prevent real baddies from getting these kind of weapons, or diehard hunters.

I think the answer is education and having a license to own a weapon. I need a license to drive a car legally, but I can just go buy a shotgun? Though, that's more about personal safety and won't solve the issue of massacres.

[sub]That being said, my father owns a gun. It's a 9 mm and probably doesn't even work at this point. It's pretty much a bluff weapon.[/sub]

I think the idea is that if every law-abiding citizen in the US carried a gun, rates of gun crime would probably go up, while overall rates of violent crime would be significantly less. Basically, you're making things marginally less safe for everyone to make things significantly less safe for violent criminals.

For gun control to work in the US it would have to be a national ban with serious backing. You'd almost have to declare martial law and send the army in to be sure the citizenry (law-abiding and not) were effectively disarmed. And then what do you do about smugglers from Latin America?

Bottom line, I just don't think full-on gun control laws will work for the US, but I like the idea of licensing programs.

 

[freakymojo]

Even if the US wanted to make guns illegal, they couldnt really. they guns are already out there, it would take many many years to actually "collect" them.
the way i see it currently is that america can just deal with their guncrime, and i can be glad theyre illegal where i live.

let 'murrica be 'murrica people.

 

[jakeblues69]

Funny thing that I feel worth mentioning, I have a lot of friends in the UK, AUS & Europe, and one thing they all ask to do when they come visit, take a trip to the shooting range with me.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Tell me how owning a gun makes a person a potential criminal. If there is definitive proof that anyone who owns a handgun, rifle, assault rifle, shotgun, etc. will eventually commit a crime, then I would wholly support gun-control/bans. But since that type of thinking is exactly the same as saying "all Muslims are terrorists" it is stupid.
Also, outlawing guns in the US is an exercise in futility and would just mean that only criminals would have guns. Saying "oh but the UK outlawed guns and we're doing fine" only shows that you've no clue how much violent crime still goes on in your country.
Also, how exactly do you stop guns from being acquired in a country as big as the US? Moreover how would you enforce that law? Take it by force? How are you supposed to know who has a gun? Search every home in the US? Pretty sure thats a violation of civil rights and privacy.
All in all, taking away guns isn't going to deter criminal minds from doing what they do, and more importantly is just going to put guns in the hands of criminals ONLY.
Most people who own guns in the US aren't violent criminals anyway and you'd be punishing the majority for the sins of the minority and thats just ridiculous.

 

[Daveman]

some stuff I wrote...

1) Hyperbole. no one ever claimed gun carry stopped crime all together, but studies have shown that it does reduce violent crime, including armed robbery, rape, and even murder.

Here's a link to a primary source that confirms it: http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

2) It's not just about hunting, it's about self defense(and you don't want to defend yourself from an ak-47 wielding gang banger with a bolt action rifle). Further, fully-automatic weapons are already virtually illegal in the US, no one legally owns AK-47s, so you're again using hyperbole. The rifle you should be talking about is the AR-15, which is one of the best sport shooting rifles because of good accuracy, cheap ammo, and low recoil, not to mention a bunch of attachments. It's also a top choice for hunting certain game like bears and boars because a quick follow-up shot could save your life. Many hunters of these animals carry semi-automatic handguns for the same reason. Also, semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 are some of the best and only reliable home defense options. For example, in Arkansas, a police officer was fired upon by a drunk individual and it took 15 bullets from the officers handgun hitting the man to stop him from firing. Illinois police were fired upon by a junkie and it required a staggering 33 hits to prevent him from firing his weapon. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm As hunting rifles rarely carry more than 5 shots because it's often illegal to hunt with more than 5 loaded, they are not adequate for self defense.

3) Here you have to understand something, yes the constitution can be amended to adapt to changing times, but until it is amended by congress it is a binding document which protects our legal right to bear firearms. If you truly feel a ban is necessary, then do not argue for gun control laws which set precedents for violations of the bill of rights, but instead argue for an Amendment to the Constitution. So, while the 2nd amendment may not always be an argument against gun control, and individual who believes in the bill of rights should treat it as such until and unless it is amended out of the constitution.

Final word: It is wrong to allow innocent people to die, but as I've already said, a person is about 42 times more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than they are to be killed by one, including suicide. If you exclude suicide, a person is 125 times more likely to defend themselves with a firearm, than to be killed by one. So banning guns would cause many more deaths than it would stop, and by the it is wrong to kill an innocent argument, a gun ban is far worse than gun ownership.

Also: "readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ?error rate? for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high"
Maybe we should ban the police from having firearms and not the populace.


Shout out to any Australians on the forum, you might want to consider writing your politicians and asking them to re-legalize firearm ownership and use for self defense: * Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%." From the same primary source as above, if you want to fact check it.

Sure... lets stick with the numbered arguments.
1) I'm not clicking on that link. It's just for some reason I doubt "gunowners.org" is going to be the unbiased bastion of knowledge you might want it to be. I'll concede there are some studies that agree with your argument.

2) Well this numbering arguing thing clearly hasn't worked. I say some people argue it's for hunting, you say it's not just about hunting. That's obvious. That's why there are more points.

2)b) To actually respond to that argument... I'm not pro-hunting. I just think it's a different argument entirely. Frankly I think we should give the bear a gun at least to make it fair game. However the last line of your sentence makes my point exactly. Hunting rifles aren't meant for self-defence, and guns for "self-defence" is what I'm opposed to. I'm sure that drunk guy had his gun for self-defence from sober policemen.

3) What I got from what you were saying is it doesn't matter that the second amendment is (or isn't) a bad argument against gun control. It's law so it doesn't matter. I would agree with that, and I guess I would say they should get rid of it. It is a bit sad to just grab a convenient bit of legislation rather than actually argue from an actually justifiable standpoint.

I would question your use of statistics here but I really can't be bothered to look into them because I was gonna play some bulletstorm before I got distracted by responding to this post.

 

[Lucem712]

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

See, that's the problem. You are so "ok" with weapons being legal that massacre is fine, but you need to regulate the weapons more strictly so no more than 2-3 people get killed at the same time.

That's culture for you.

I'm not okay with the massacre, I was just being honest. There are many ways to kill people and people will always be crazy mo-fos.

Don't get me wrong, I probably wouldn't object to very strict gun laws and/or complete ban. I don't personally have a gun, nor do I felt the want to have one.

 

[GLo Jones]

People will always try to kill/threaten each other. Taking away methods of them doing that should NEVER be seen as a bad thing.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just outlawing them. The difference between the US and countries with strict gun control is that the regardless of any potential law changes, around 39-45% of American households have contain at least one gun. It would be practically impossible for any government to go and take the population's weapons away from them at this stage. You would simply create a black market.

 

[Xangba]

snip
Good example: Switserland. Their rate of family dramas is through the roof compared to the rest of the EU. Legal firearms are used in most cases. Swiss like all others have relationship problems. Except when things turn emotional and ugly, a Swiss citizen in their home is only a few seconds away from committing murder, because guns are readily available in all homes.

Take away the guns, and these crimes of opportunity will never happen. And if people go crazy, they can't do a lot of damage during the time they're freaking out, and a few black eyes will be the worst that happens.

Because that nice sharp kitchen knife couldn't be used, right?

The biggest fallacy is the idea that removing guns would get rid of gun crime and change nothing else, while the more logical idea is that removing gun crime would see an increase of other crimes. While the overall may drop (we don't know, very likely) crime will still happen with other tools. Gun crime is crime, they are not in two different categories.

Also to repeat something I said earlier, they are far too widespread for any kind of real banning or limiting to work in America. Short of tearing apart every single persons house to find the guns, people will still have them. This isn't to say we can't improve our gun laws, we most certainly can, but even anti-gun people in the States don't seem to understand that they are everywhere.

 

[jakeblues69]

I'm pretty sure Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun and look what he did.

 

[jakeblues69]

And, Charles Whitman didn't have an assault rifle.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

I'm not really pro gun or anti gun bit I do have to say that without a doubt it is far easier to kill someone with a gun then any other method. Especially face to face. Pushing a button, as it were, removes you from the crime more then feeling blood on your hands or the crunch of bone.

I am not saying taking guns away will lessen crime in general at all. I'm saying that it will make murder itself a little harder, and probably something one thinks about a bit more then simply pressing a button. Or, pulling a trigger.

 

[Xangba]

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

See, that's the problem. You are so "ok" with weapons being legal that massacre is fine, but you need to regulate the weapons more strictly so no more than 2-3 people get killed at the same time.

That's culture for you.

Could you interpret something worse? How can you read that as massacre is "fine" when it clearly was saying steps can be taken to mitigate it. Do you really think being in support of guns means a person is okay with people dying? People are going to be killed by other people, with or without guns. The question is how to reduce the amount of deaths, because stopping it isn't going to happen. Get off your high horse.

 

[Vankraken]

The more laws you put into place to restrict guns means it makes it harder for honest citizens to own guns while it does little to stop those who intend to commit crimes from still using them. There is no way to 100% stop the existence of guns in the US (hard drugs are 100% illegal and yet you can find somebody selling in almost every major city) and if the normal citizen can't own guns then it gives a criminal less fear to commit a burglary/home invasion because they know its very unlikely that the resident inside would have a gun to protect themselves. Another thing to point out is many of the criminals that engage in armed crime are illegally owning guns because there already felons who can't legally own guns.

More importantly is the reasons why people commit crime in general and making laws limiting weapons isn't going to stop people from stealing, mugging, burglarizing, murdering, rape, etc etc. The key to limiting crime is improving education, more jobs, better system to get those in need the help so they can be productive citizens, and equality. The whole issue about "guns are bad" is moot when its better to fix the conditions that lead people to commit crime instead of trying to restrict the tool set that people have for committing crimes.

In short criminals do not give a shit about laws, too many guns in America to remove, better to fix the conditions that cause people to commit crimes.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

The 2nd Ammendment grants the right for Militia to bear arms (As far as I recall) Plenty of European nations have militia's that can own firearms. Just that the US court at some point interpretated Militia as Everyone living in the country.

Wrong. The second Amendment grants all people the right to bear arms. "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." Notice how it doesn't say "People in the militia". They cite the Militia as the reason the right shall not be infringed. That's it.

[quote="tehroc" post="18.382695.15119716"

Unfortunately the 2nd Amendment is practically irrelevant now. What's your handgun going to do against a drone strike? You can own all the guns you'd want, it's not going to help you if the MIC comes busting down your door.[/quote]

You know, funny story, there have been wars where significantly better armed armies have been defeated by inferior armies due to Guerrilla Warfare. Just look at Vietnam. Its not impossible you know. After all, the Taliban could never win in a fight straight up with the U.S. Army, yet we are still fighting them after 10 years due to the fact that we cannot find them.