Question for people Pro-guns....

[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.

 

[ReadyAmyFire]

You guys get treated differently because the government knows what your country is capable of. Also i'm pretty sure the English government is a little scared of your populace

Edit: Whoops, I didn't realise this thread was so long, nevermind if its been answered.

By my reckoning, Ireland has had two decent military leaders in it's history in the form of Hugh Dubh O'Neill, and Michael Collins. The only two men in the history of the country who seemed to have a clue what they were at.

I'd say the English government's attitude is one of wishing we would go away.

Back on topic, I just read the Batman shooter bought 4 firearms in 60 days and 6300 rounds of ammunition on the internet. That strikes me as an incredibly irresponsible and lacking system.

 

[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.

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

That's right, it being a civil right is the main reason.

 

[woodaba]

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

This is the argument that really pisses me off. If you are a criminal in the UK, seeking a gun, you will have to access the Black Market, steal, or do some risky activity that is certainly illegal.

If you want to go on a killing spree in 'Murica, all you have to do is walk into a shop, buy a gun, and go crazy.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

About suicides, murder and similar situations. Most of them happen out of an unusal happening, a mood swing or anything like that, so they're spontaneuos.
So, if you've easily available weapons + ammunition around, it's more likely someone is going to something stupid because of his emotions.

Here in Switzerland we've these discussion kinda often, since we've a militia army every male citzien has his full automatic assault rifle at home. And they're getting more and more often used for crimes/suicides, so they want that every soldier in reserve has to give it back to the armory when they leave the service.

That argument has it's merits.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Better example would be Brazil that HAD strict gun laws and was geographically isolated from a country like the United States that has lax gun laws. The thing was the criminals got guns en mass and the people spoke that if the criminals and vagabonds were going to be armed regardless of the law, then they should legally be allowed gun for self-defence.

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.

Why would someone carry a gun and not be prepared to use it?

Accounts I have heard from war zones are the precise opposite, scared soldiers fire far too readily and quickly burn through their ammunition.

Gunman in a shooting can easily be hit on their flanks, you have to admit they stand better chances with someone trying to take shots at the mad gunman than nothing at all. It's not like you stand a chance of reasoning with the guy, and head-on charges don't work as evidenced from police reports of prior shootings... unless you are somehow able to charge them from behind.

 

[evilneko]

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.

Oh yeah, I'm threadhopping.

Also stealing that.

OP, you obviously haven't thought very hard about the reasons for owning a gun or even multiple guns. Please tell me, somewhere in these 13 pages, someone has educated you.

 

[Scow2]

*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.]

I'm against the "No Automatics for civilians" clause. Sure, some people present Cops and National Guard as defenders of society, but I've seen way too many abuses of power, where they act as tools of oppression at best, and murderous thugs at worst. We have so many laws and regulations protecting police from the repercussions of their actions (A civilian shoots someone unprovoked? A second degree murder charge. A cop shoots someone unprovoked? "Oops" A few days off pay if you're lucky). Sure, in theory cops and soldiers would stand against oppression... but in practice, they're conditioned to do what they're told. People say that our society's not lost yet. I hope they're right, but I have seen WAY too many good, innocent people killed or incarcerated by corruption in our 'justice' system, especially wrongful and excessive deployment of SWAT teams.

And on the other side of the fence, we have the drug cartels and gangs, who also pack heavy firepower that an average citizen cannot stand against even with friends. A militia without access to sufficient firepower is practically worthless. I think our nation has serious problems that need the feds to back off in some areas, hit others harder, and be able to tell friend from foe from victim.

 

[fletch_talon]

No, actually I said that the pig population is out of control AND y?all do not have the equipment to take care of it like we do here in the US.
...
Guns do not change people?s minds unless they are insane. Do guns talk to you? No?

Still ignoring the counterpoint made from my initial post. Claims of objective knowledge on how to solve a problem in a country your mostly unfamiliar with. I see.

Actually that would be bad for hunting pigs. They weigh so much that they can only be carried on vehicles (thus limiting their use), plus the cost to use one of those things far outweigh the very questionable benefits, plus they are rather inaccurate, plus their parts do not work well under many conditions (and before you ask, yes I have used one and it was a waste of money).

Sorry, but your extreme example is a failure.

Expended effort to break down exaggeration, mostly by pointing out it was exaggeration. And failure to acknowledge that another less extreme, more functional example could easily have been made.

How many follow up shots can you take in 10 seconds? I can take thirty. What about you with a bolt action rifle?

How many pigs can I shoot in 10 seconds? Around 30. How many can you? 5 if you are lucky.

Do I really need to explain this or are you hoping I am just ignorant?

Still completely missing the point. Namely that just because a tool makes a job easier, doesn't make it necessary. Nor does it solve a problem when other issues exist.

YOU stated quote-?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.?

In other words, you are deriding the equipment that I say is the best for the job AND claiming that my judgment is compromised. Sorry your own countryman has said I am right but stop with the bullshit.

False accusations of derision and claims of uncompromised judgement whilst simultaneously using a single pro-gun Australian (making up a whole 1/22,620,600th or so, of the population) as if it proves an objective truth.

Actually it is not a problem with open minded people. Hell, today I had a conversation with an Indian friend of mine and I told him that the religious extremism in his country is very bad. He agreed.

Last week I had a conversation with a friend who was visiting his family in Mexico on how shitty things are down there.

And I did not hesitate to tell my Australian friend exactly what I have told you about their lack of equipment. He knows that I know a shit ton more about hunting than he does and he also knows that I am highly proficient with many forms of firearms. Because of the knowledge gap he trusts my opinion. Once again, how much do you know about the large scale hunts I am talking about? Have you ever even used a semi, nevertheless the kind of rifle I use?

Can't seem to tell difference between pointing out a country's flaws, and outright deriding a country by stating its standards are something to live down to.

Your people seem perfectly happy to live in their current conditions. I view that condition as less than desirable. We are doing better than you country when it comes to limiting the pig population. Therefore I do not want to live down to your expectations by getting rid of the tools that are best for the job.

Failure to make mention of the fact that guns that kill multiple pigs in 10secs can do the same to humans. Failure to acknowledge that America also "does better" than Australia in gun based attacks involving large numbers of casualties.

How much experience do you have in these kinds of hunts? I have asked you before and you have not answered.

I can kill a hundred pigs in a week using my tactics AND my equipment. The guy in the videos fired 7 shots and got 3 pigs. I have killed upwards of 15 pigs in one group with my rifle. Do you want to match me?

Challenge issued despite 1st hand knowledge of hunting not being required to make judgement on cultural attitudes towards hunting. Comparison of own experience hunting in own country, with a country is mostly unfamiliar with.
Still fails to acknowledge that a tool can be more efficient, but not required and can have cons which outweigh the pros.

Look, I understand you are anti-gun. You do not like the firearms I use. However, that does not excuse you unwillingness to see that I have more experience than you do and therefore know more about the issue.

Starts with erroneous statement, ends with claim that first hand experience in own country gives inarguable insight into issues in another country.

Analysis: Not worth wasting time with. And I probably should have accepted that 2-3 posts ago. Overall bias and self assurance in the objectivity of your own arguments make this a pointless debate.