Question for people Pro-guns....

[minimacker]

As a socialist swede, I hated the whole gun legality of the U.S. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. The problem is that it has to be an all or nothing law.

If you let people own guns, but don't let them carry their weapons in public (restaurants, cinemas, supermarket), then the psychopaths, thugs and outlaws that don't care about the laws will be able to easily get a gun and use it to do whatever the fuck he want.

He could go around executing people one by one. No one in the restaurant has a weapon but him.

If no one has any guns, then criminals will have a harder time to get weapons, but once they get some, no one could stop them.

So in my opinion, it weapons either has to be banned completely, or allowed everywhere.

 

[Raesvelg]

Eh? The murder rate is adjusted to be comparative. It's per 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is nigh on 5 times that of the UK because it is much harder to kill people. Because we don't have access to legal guns. Or ammo.

Oddly enough, your murder rate was largely unaffected by the increasingly restrictive gun laws your country has enacted. Much like Australia. Hell, during that buildup from the 60s to the late 90s, your murder rate was constantly going up, even as gun ownership became more difficult.

Fact of the matter is that while rampage killings may drop slightly with greater gun control, overall murder rates remain functionally unchanged. People that want to kill, will kill, by whatever means necessary.

There's a certain irony to me in UK politicians reporting that the murder rate is down to a 30 year low in the UK... when 30 years ago gun laws were vastly more permissive than they are currently.

 

[ecoho]

snip

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

Source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]

yeah well the UK has about 63,162,000 while the US has exactly 314,007,487 so yeah if taken as an average of both nations we have less then the UK.

Eh? The murder rate is adjusted to be comparative. It's per 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is nigh on 5 times that of the UK because it is much harder to kill people. Because we don't have access to legal guns. Or ammo.

.....yeah which is why it isnt right. you see the US has three times as many people so that scale does not work as the scale can only work till 63,162,000 then it falls off as one can not compare both populations acordingly. Now if they took the average of both murder rates you would find the US has about the same average ammount as the UK if not less.

 

[jklinders]

I'd prefer it if it was harder to get a gun.

Then everyone and their mother wouldn't become a mercenary that thinks that they can take on people like me, a trained, card carrying galaxy saver.

Im starting to see why all the human mercs in the galaxy speak with American accents.

Everyone in the galaxy has American accents, now that I think about it. Other then like...James and Traynor, and a few other guys.

Both Shepard's, the Vorcha and the Biotic God are all Canadian...going by their voice actors (Mark Meer and Jennifer Hale).

 

[Mike Fang]

Yep this thread had to get posted.

Spoiler

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony.

Well, I'll try to ignore this question's blatantly loaded tone, since it's clear you've already decided we're wrong and you're not actually interested in hearing our side of things. However, someone with a more open mind might actually read this.

First of all, as one person already said, gun crime isn't the only sort of crime out there; a lack of the ability to defend oneself against violent attack, especially if outnumbered, can lead to a lot of non-gun-related crimes. If someone really wants to kill another one, they're gonna use whatever method is available to them. I don't like this argument, I admit, because it's similar to the "they're gonna do it anyway" one used for handing out condoms to high school kids. However, the difference here is that we're talking about taking away a personal freedom as the alternative, and to me that makes a significant difference.

This leads me to my second issue with gun control. Gun control is the notion of taking away a personal freedom based solely on the argument that something -might- happen if a given individual legally owned a gun, because statistics show it's happened a bunch of times involving other people. On that same argument, one can say that cars shouldn't be allowed to be owned by private citizens because accidents cripple and kill millions so only government transportation should be allowed (and if what I've seen on some tv shows about world's worst car accidents is true, no offense, but I think the UK must have the worst drivers in history), household chemicals should only be allowed to be used by licensed cleaning agencies, landscaping companies, etc. 'cause someone might poison themselves accidentally or deliberately, and all drugs, even currently over-the-counter ones should be prescription only and all of them should be dispensed only by government-licensed medical facilities, 'cause somebody could conceivably overdose.

My third point is a bit more difficult to relate to the UK, since I don't know what UK laws about gun ownership were before the current ones were adopted. I can say this much, however. In the United States, purchasing a firearm requires a background check or a concealed carry license, and those licenses can only be obtained with a background check. If you were convicted of a felony, have a restraining order against you involving domestic violence, have been certified by a mental institution as being mentally unstable, you can't get a concealed carry license and you can't buy a gun. Ergo, there are numerous laws already in place to prevent guns from being legally sold to criminals. This means guns used by criminals are, by and large, ones bought from illegal sources. Because of this, banning legal gun ownership's only effect is going to be taking them away from people who abide by the law anyway. If the intent of the ban is to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals or the people most likely to use them for criminal intent, then it's an empty gesture that does nothing but put on a show to placate the public while having no significant impact.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Simply because while outlawing guns would take away firearms from law abiding citizens, criminals with the intent to use them will still have and find them. The argument is that taking away guns would put those law abiding citizens at a huge disadvantage when defending from criminals if necessary. If there wasn't already a huge circulation of guns then it would be a no brainer.

And no matter how redneck or foolish it may sound to people in other countries, the right for civilians to own weapons is a big deal in America. The original idea was if the government became tyrannical, the people had the ability to fight back and overthrow those in power if necessary. Not so much an issue nowadays, however that's the reason the right to bear arms was so important.

 

[willsham45]

If guns are easy to get everyone can have a gun.
If it is hard to get a gun those who want one will get one.
If had a gun and wanted to rob someone or break into a house which scenario would you prefer to be in?

 

[robot slipper]

I think we are forgetting something with the whole "if someone else in the theatre had a gun everything would have turned out alright" logic. When the nutcase started firing, the natural reaction of everyone would have been to get down or run away. I doubt that your average legal pistol-owning person in the US would have the guts to get up and start firing back at the attacker. That is movie action-hero stuff, and is very unlikely to happen in real life. Just ask someone who has been in firefights in Afghanistan,Iraq, or any war what it's like to be shot at. And those are people who are trained to do that job. I doubt that Joe Bloggs who works at Starbucks but legally carries a pistol would fare very well. Even if he was brave enough to shoot, if I were a nutcase with a rifle covered in riot gear, and someone popped a shot at me with a pistol I would make sure to drown that area in bullets and neutralise the threat.

 

[Chrisscogg_teh_Newbie]

Little know fact... Mexico has gun control laws. Look how easy it is to get a gun in Mexico. To say "Gun control will fix all of the U.S's crime problems" is naive. It's easy to control firearms in the UK because it is significantly smaller then the U.S... and an Island... Gun control would never work in the U.S. because of it's size and geographical location. And, tbh, I prefer to ensure the safety of me and my loved ones with the shotgun I keep locked up in the attic.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Legitimate argument for guns made by the constitution: They protect you from your own government.

Ironically this may be what some of the massacre perpetrators feel they are using them for.

In any case, you get 2 options.
1. Allow guns because America's free and all that, we do whatever we want. Allow guns, allow prostitution, allow child murder, and stop whinging every time something like this happens. Y'all allowed it.

2. Ban guns. Given time this will result in a similar scenario to other nations who have no guns like Japan. Massacres will consist of some dude wielding a kitchen knife. Even organized crime will have minute numbers of firearms. People buy guns in back alleys or steal them from their neighbor in America because they're all over. If we didn't manufacture them, they wouldn't be as easy to get.

I don't care either way; I'm not a gun guy, I'm a cynic.

 

[Hazy992]

snip

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

Source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]

yeah well the UK has about 63,162,000 while the US has exactly 314,007,487 so yeah if taken as an average of both nations we have less then the UK.

This isn't the actual number of murders as of course the US murder rate will be larger. It's the murder rate. In the US there are 4.8 murders per 100,000 people compared to 1.23 people per 100,000 for the UK. The raw population is irrelevant.

According to Wikipedia the country with the highest murder rate is Honduras with 87 per 100,000, yet the population is only around 8 million. It's not the number of murders in a country that is of interest, it's the percentage of the population that are murder victims.

 

[Adventurer2626]

*tosses two pennies* Ok, so no automatics for civilians? Rifles for hunting, pistols and shotguns for home protection? It wouldn't stop shootings but it would be harder to kill as many. Also it seems apparent to me we need a few more rolls of red tape. It sucks but this keeps coming up so maybe we need to do something. I say more thorough background checks, including plenty of character witnesses are needed. Concerned about shootings? Keep a closer eye on people you know and have contact with. Look for signs. Do they respect human life? Are they obsessed with guns, knives, explosives? Do they idolize shooters? Do they seem unhinged in any way? Best chance to catch a shooter is before they do it. Lots of them feel the need to plan. So follow your instincts.


The original reason for its inclusion in the constitution was to defend against a tyrannical gov't should an impromptu militia need to be organized. The world has changed since then. The army has bombs, automatics, aircraft, tanks, APCs, etc. Can we really defend against all that without armor piercing rounds and lots of explosives? Truth be told if the army wanted to conquer the states, it wouldn't take long. Holding it would be a different matter entirely (see Iraq). But that would only be token resistance. For the people still of the opinion that we need to be watching our gov't and army for domestic aggression considered...joining up? The best place to keep an eye on them is from the inside. Also do you think the entire army would be behind a crazy wannabe dictator? Every soldier I know would get in line to shoot him in the face. So I think the right to bear arms against the gov't is an outdated excuse. Also cops? You think they would take it lying down?

[Sorry to be one of those guys, I'm sure you're tired of this but I had to lol at my captcha: wax poetic. I feel like the website itself follows these conversations sometimes. I hope Skynet won't come of it.]

 

[mrgerry123]

In Britain gun control is incredibly tight so criminals have a tough time getting them. They also become phenomenally expensive (that's banned guns, not shotguns/rifles) so the chances of you getting mugged by someone with one is very slim.

The richer criminals can probably get hold of them but if they're that big it's easier for the police to track them. It helps that we're a small island.

I'd trust a trained policemen more with a gun than I would myself. Do you really believe that a mainly unarmed populace is more dangerous than a mainly armed one.

If a shit police force is the problem surely the best solution would be to improve it, rather than arming the civilians. It's quite regressive for each individual member of the population to equip itself for defense. Do you grow all of your own food?

Please reply, I am not dying to know thanks to strict gun control and the NHS!

 

[senordesol]

In Britain gun control is incredibly tight so criminals have a tough time getting them. They also become phenomenally expensive (that's banned guns, not shotguns/rifles) so the chances of you getting mugged by someone with one is very slim.

The richer criminals can probably get hold of them but if they're that big it's easier for the police to track them. It helps that we're a small island.

I'd trust a trained policemen more with a gun than I would myself. Do you really believe that a mainly unarmed populace is more dangerous than a mainly armed one.

If a shit police force is the problem surely the best solution would be to improve it, rather than arming the civilians. It's quite regressive for each individual member of the population to equip itself for defense. Do you grow all of your own food?

Please reply, I am not dying to know thanks to strict gun control and the NHS!

The thing is: a 'better' police force is not something one can stop by the market and just pick up. We're talking tens of thousands of officers, millions of dollars of equipment and salaries (in a time where some of our cities are filing for bankruptcy), and hundreds of thousands of man hours of retraining.

Even then that will be no guarantee of effectiveness (given how far millions of Americans live from unincorporated areas), you're looking at wait times of 5 minutes (best) to half-an-hour...assuming you can get through to 911 (I've been put on hold for about 4mins before I even got to tell anyone what my emergency was).

In short: you can't put a police man on every corner, every dark alley, or every home. But if the law abiding populace is armed, you may not need to.

 

[Moth_Monk]

The argument that some have brought up in this thread, that we should be allowed guns to get rid of animals, is absolute nonsense. First of all legalising all/most firearms under the excuse of pest control would be overkill just for some pests. As if you need automatic rifles and the like to kill a few annoying animals.

Besides that there's no point glossing over the fact that guns were made to kill PEOPLE.

 

[Sectan]

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

Big game hunters and non-hunters carry revolvers with them for protection against bears and other large predators when a black powder rifle or other hunting weapon would be hard to use properly.





"A powerful rifle is superior to any handgun in killing power, of course, and is the only sensible choice for protection against large bears. However, a rifle may not be very handy inside of a tent, beside a trout stream, or for a nature lover or mountain climber on a strenuous hike. For outdoorsmen not engaged in hunting, but never the less exposed to the threat of attack by large predators, a handgun is probably the only firearm that offers the requisite portability and leaves the hands free for other activities."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm

 

[Moth_Monk]

The ONLY reason why guns are legal in the US is because there's money to be made from selling them. The same way that here in the UK, they have the double standard of labelling cigarette packets with warning messages but still want the tax off the products. If the governments really cared about people developing lung cancer or being killed in a rampage, they'd ban the products.

 

[Nantucket_v1legacy]

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

Big game hunters and non-hunters carry revolvers with them for protection against bears and other large predators when a black powder rifle or other hunting weapon would be hard to use properly.





"A powerful rifle is superior to any handgun in killing power, of course, and is the only sensible choice for protection against large bears. However, a rifle may not be very handy inside of a tent, beside a trout stream, or for a nature lover or mountain climber on a strenuous hike. For outdoorsmen not engaged in hunting, but never the less exposed to the threat of attack by large predators, a handgun is probably the only firearm that offers the requisite portability and leaves the hands free for other activities."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm

Yeah... we sort of lack bears in the United Kingdom. I suppose a fox could get in your tent and steal your sausages.

 

[senordesol]

The ONLY reason why guns are legal in the US is because there's money to be made from selling them. The same way that here in the UK, they have the double standard of labelling cigarette packets with warning messages but still want the tax off the products. If the governments really cared about people developing lung cancer or being killed in a rampage, they'd ban the products.

No, that is not the 'ONLY' reason.

Another reason is that the federalists would not sign the Constitution without certain provisions made with regard to limiting the power of government. The right to bear arms was one of those provisions, a provision upheld by the highest court in the land time and again.

Unless you're suggesting (and hopefully have proof) that the Supreme Court is on the take, then: NO, that is not the only reason.

 

[Moth_Monk]

The ONLY reason why guns are legal in the US is because there's money to be made from selling them. The same way that here in the UK, they have the double standard of labelling cigarette packets with warning messages but still want the tax off the products. If the governments really cared about people developing lung cancer or being killed in a rampage, they'd ban the products.

No, that is not the 'ONLY' reason.

Another reason is that the federalists would not sign the Constitution without certain provisions made with regard to limiting the power of government. The right to bear arms was one of those provisions, a provision upheld by the highest court in the land time and again.

Unless you're suggesting (and hopefully have proof) that the Supreme Court is on the take, then: NO, that is not the only reason.

Okay I can accept that. But it is the main reason, obviously.