Question for people Pro-guns....

[kickyourass]

My question has always been, if the cops in the UK don't have guns, what do they do when they go after someone who DOES? That's always puzzled me a bit.

As for gun control, with handguns and hunting rifles I see little problem with (as long as there is a reasonable amount of rules) since there are practical reasons for a normal person to have those, namely self-defense and hunting. Anything else, well unless they're living in close proximity to a warzone I can't think of a single justification why a civilian would need ANYTHING with an automatic setting or bullets stronger then a hunting round.

 

[godofallu]

Owning guns is like voting. Sure it seems like everyone else in the country is retarded and shouldn't be allowed to vote, but we all know that there shouldn't be just 1 guy who decided who gets to vote or not.

Hell the only way to make a situation like that worse would be to stop all voting. Just let the government monitor itself.

 

[illas]

Because Americans suddenly become stupid the instant someone utters the word "freedom".

Seriously, in my experience, Americans will defend and protect almost anything no matter how dangerous, ridiculous, or unfair it is simply on the grounds of "we're the land of the free and people must have the right to do x/y/z".

Rational argument, decades worth of statistics and common sense have minimal relevance.

Did you actually stop to read some of the posts in this thread?
They were actually well thought out.

"Well thought out" does not equal "objectively correct". People can think and argue all they like, but if they refuse to consider perspectives and statistics which contradict their opinion, they're essentially acting as their own echo chamber rather than actually engaging in an informed debate. Notably both the "pro" and "contra" gun camps do this.

My initial post was tantamount to saying that there is minimal correlation between how much people think about these things and how correct they actually are. People have firm opinions on such issues and aren't willing to deviate (regardless of whether or not doing so would be in their best interests).

Proof-reading this post I feel like a character out of Aaron Sorkin's "Newsroom".
Fuck.
Disregard everything I said

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

For one reason, because things like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders] happen. Good thing the police were there to prevent the rape and murder of a woman and two girls! ...wait, no they weren't.

But yeah. Let's say that, by some miracle, a law was passed tomorrow to where every last law-abiding citizen had to turn in all of their weapons and ammunition, and did so. What would that get us? At least twenty or thirty years of living in fear as unarmed citizens and a vastly overstretched police force had to deal with a criminal crowd who knew that any law-abiding citizen they chose to go after wouldn't have a gun. Add to that an exceptionally porous border with Mexico (through which it is ridiculously easy to smuggle human beings, let alone weapons) and that country's almost comically corrupt police departments, bad (or desperate) cops on this side of the border selling confiscated guns back to criminals... not only would guns not "magically disappear" overnight, but it's likely that they never would.

But we could depend on other countries to look at the chaos and say "So sorry, chaps, but this is the price you have to pay to become civilized like us!".

 

[ReadyAmyFire]

Out of curiosity, do you have the same two certificates as we do over here? A Shotgun certificate for any Shotguns with a capacity of 3 rounds or less, and a Fire Arms Certificate for everything else? (which is rather more difficult to get)

That's exactly how it works, although to be honest it's quite commonplace to remove the restrictor from the magazine to bring the capacity back up. It just screws out. Not as bad as some of the dodgy gunsmithing I've seen and heard about over the border though. Like a homemade pistol which fires 4 gauge cartridges

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Do you think those problems do not exist in the US? Your pig population is confined in relatively easy access territory, i.e. where everybody is. Our pigs on the other hand, well this is a picture that could come from my friend?s plot of land and there is only one road on his land-

Texas, eh?

So according to Wikipedia that's 25,674,681 people spread over 268,581 square miles of countryside. That's a cute effort.

My home state of Queensland alone measures 668,207 square miles of land, but in comparison only contains 4,580,700 people. And that doesn't even include the top half of the Northern Territory or the greater portion of the state of New South Wales, which both suffer from the presence of wild pig populations. The Northern Territory covers some 520,902 square miles of land and contains 229,675 people, while New South Wales is our most densely populated state at 7,303,700 people and is still bigger than Texas at 309,130 square miles. Other states have smaller feral pig populations as well, but nowhere near the range and depth of invasive penetration that is recorded in the states I have previously mentioned.

Australia, well Australia, she's a big place, mate. The states I mentioned alone cover an area of 1,498,239 square miles, five times larger than Texas, and still contains half the people who live in your state alone. Australia itself covers 2,967,910 square miles, could fit Texas within it's borders elven times and still, still, has less people standing on it than your state alone.

The information on the current ranges of feral pigs in Australia is widely available over the internet, as is the information regarding the highest human population densities. If you do so care to do your research, that information shows that the range of wild pigs just doesn't significantly overlap with that of Australia's densest areas of human settlement. Your argument also ignores the fact that anyone who has 'need' of a gun is still free to apply for a firearms license, reasons for which can include pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting.

There are restrictions on who can own what, and for what reason they can own it. Yet any primary producer who requires a semi-automatic rifle with which to conduct pest control should normally be well within their rights to get one. A lack of guns is simply not the problem, Australia is simply just too damn big for hunting to work like it very well might where you're from.

Not that I'm saying that your state isn't a good size or anything. I'm sure it's pretty big compared to your immediate neighbors.

 

[Virus0015]

Gun crime (along with knife crime etc.) should not be made distinct for 'regular' crime, the tool is very often not the root cause of the crime.

What you should be looking at is the overall murder/rape/whatever you please rate in the US compared to the UK, which will most likely be higher. The prevalence of guns can not be definitively identified as a major contributing factor, hell one could argue that they don't contribute at all.

I believe that the legal status of firearms in America has very little impact on crime rates. Prove me wrong.

 

[Wadders]

Out of curiosity, do you have the same two certificates as we do over here? A Shotgun certificate for any Shotguns with a capacity of 3 rounds or less, and a Fire Arms Certificate for everything else? (which is rather more difficult to get)

That's exactly how it works, although to be honest it's quite commonplace to remove the restrictor from the magazine to bring the capacity back up. It just screws out. Not as bad as some of the dodgy gunsmithing I've seen and heard about over the border though. Like a homemade pistol which fires 4 gauge cartridges

Ha! yeah I've heard of people (i.e. dodgy scally types) doing that. To be honest, I cant blame them, it makes semi-auto shotguns that much more fun when you have an extra 2 or 3 cartridges!

And that pistol sounds awesome. Dangerous, and likely to break your wrist. But awesome nonetheless.

See, this is why I don't understand people who hate guns or a scared of them; they are so much fun :-(

 

[SilverUchiha]

Here is my stance on guns. Making them illegal will result in the same problems drugs have while they're illegal. People who follow the rules won't have access to them while people who are willing to break the rules will be able to get them. they might go to jail for having them, but while they have the guns, they can do a lot of damage, and more so because people don't have any way to really fight back against a guy shooting up a place.

To take a recent event for an example, had someone else in the theater in Colorado been legally carrying a gun, then the bastard who was shooting up the place might have been stopped sooner, before we hit a 50 total injured and 12 dead, perhaps reducing it to little more than one.

Are guns the solution to every problem? No. But I think to simply write them off as devices that have to be illegal because of what a small percentage of people are willing to do is stupid. That'd be like making cars illegal because there is a series of hit-and-run incidents where a large number of people get killed. Punishing everyone by banning guns is just a bad idea on the whole. Perhaps better regulation is needed, but certainly not a ban.

 

[Aesir23]

I really have no issues with civilians owning guns as long as the appropriate measures are in place to prevent the wrong people from getting guns. What I do have a problem with in regards to guns in the U.S. is the TYPE of guns are made available the average joe. Obviously criminals will get their hands on guns in one way or another, but allowing greater ease of access to something like assault rifles only exacerbates the problem. Either that or it just means a greater amount of casualties when you have a civilian that goes nuts and decides to massacre a group of people.

I'm not even going to bring up the gun violence rates between the U.S. and my own country because you have way too many variables influencing it. Culture, ease of access, population, etc.

 

[The Funslinger]

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal

Guns aren't illegal in Britain. They're restricted.

I own a shotgun, for example. Admittedly, a double barreled one, however, my uncle keeps a semi-automatic eight round one. This is because we keep 3000 acres of moor, and there are often vermin that need to be dealt with.

And I have literally used my gun to help Patrick Stewart. So, yeah.

While I don't really want to start a debate, I'm just going to say, since removal of guns from society is impossible (criminals still acquire guns via illegal means) then the better solution would be for every household to have firearms, or better yet, people to have carry weapons. This would be a massive public deterrent. Even somewhere like the USA, the chances a potential shooting/stabbing/mugging victim is carrying is extremely low.

An example I use is Switzerland. It is unique to Europe in that households are legally required to keep firearms.

EDIT: WAIT. MISREAD MY CHART xD

 

[Eldrig]

How come the UK policemen don't carry guns? If they have to respond to a 911 call and it escalates, wouldn't they need to be able to defend themselves and nearby civilians?

We have Armed Response Vehicles containing the equivalent of SWAT teams on patrol in major cities. It's just the standard police constables and PCSOs that don't carry firearms. With the exception of Nottingham, where I believe the rank-and-file carry handguns due to gang violence.

Also OP: You are not making enough allowances for the cultural differences between us and the Traitorous Colonial Separatists.

Is... is it Robin Hood's gang?

 

[RicoGrey]

For the record, I am an American and I also do not know what a gun sounds like outside of video games and movies. No real opinion on gun ownership though.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

The majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are not committed with legally owned/obtained firearms.

 

[The Tibballs]

After reading all the US Pro-Gun nuts on the net saying shit like "we need less gun control" or "this wouldn't have happened if there were more guns/gun owners". I've decided to change my stance on the whole issue.
I now believe that there should be more guns in US not less and that at the age of 16 all US citizens should be given a gun and canister of nerve gas (randomly selected from a bag or something).
My reasoning is this, if some people having guns lowers crime then everyone having guns and nerve gas will stop all crime... right?? The best part is that if it doesn't work and people start gassing and killing others all willy nilly, it'll be okay because it'll mostly only be Americans dying. As a result of this the collective IQ of the planet would sharply move upwards.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

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.

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/IMAGES/Pennsylvania/white_tailed_deer_buck2.jpg

http://www.shooterschoice.net/indoor_pistol_shooting.jpg

http://thedamienzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/old-lady-guns.jpg

There. Three more reasons why you might use a gun.

Hmm, thanks for the post, I hadn't thought about defending myself from an old lady carrying an arsenal

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

That is not about hunting. It is about pest control and public health. Do you know how many diseases pigs can carry? Do you know how many crops are destroyed by pigs every year? Do you know how much property is destroyed by pigs every year? Do you know how many people and animals are attacked every year by pigs (like my friend)? Etc.

Yes it is pest control, you are controlling them through hunting. You are pursuing an animal with intent of killing it. You're doing it legally so its not poaching, therefore hunting. I never said there was anything wrong with it, just that there is a massive lack of interest in it when compared to your country (and even more so compared to your state).

Also, I live in this country, we are taught from early years the damage caused by introduced species. I'll thank you to stop lecturing me on the dangers of introduced species as if I'm ignorant to the need for their eradication.

Oh and please do keep on ignoring the cultural differences between our countries. For fuck sake, even other people from other states within your own country frequently describe your state as being excessively "pro gun". There's also the established point that wild pig meat here is inedible. this means there is no gain for non-farmers/landowners to hunt the animal, there's no meat or money involved.

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..

 

[DugMachine]

If you could find a way to strip guns off every single person, criminals too, then I'd consider it. Banning guns for law abiding citizens won't stop criminals from getting weapons that they most likely get illegally anyways.

So no, until all criminals are stripped of their weapons i'll continue to practice my rights as an American and keep my hand gun. It's helped me once already fend off a mugging, and it'll help me in a life or death situation. Although I hope i'm never put in that position.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Because, the UK has low gun crime for various reasons, and just because the gun crime is lower, doesn't mean anything. Violent crime rates are far higher in the UK than the US, it's a cultural thing. Just like the violent crime in Switzerland is phenomenally low, despite having near universal firearm ownership. Finland, which has some of the least strict gun control in Europe also has one of the lowest violent crime rates, and Japan which is even stricter gun control than the UK has a very high violent crime rate as well. These are mostly unrelated to gun control, it's a cultural thing. Studies within the US have shown that the more people within a county who legally carry firearms, the lower the violent crime rates. Getting rid of guns won't reduce crime, especially since the vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who don't legally own guns(US).

Also, you have to understand that a huge number of people in the US own guns for various perfectly legal reasons. A great many private security workers have them for work, also there are a massive number of hunters and sport shooters. It is estimated that more than 70 million Americans own guns, and about 150,000 people were murdered in 2009 total. So, by restricting gun ownership, you are punishing over 69,850,000 who did absolutely nothing illegal, which is a violation of habeas corpus. And you are doing this when evidence is very inconclusive as to how this would effect violent crime rates, particularly as many studies suggest the violent crime rate would increase.

Our entire nation was founded on ideals. The ideal of personal freedom that cannot be taken away, unless you have done something illegal. The ideal that your rights cannot be taken away without due process of law. The ideal of in-born rights, which include the right to carry firearms. The ideal that our own government will eventually try to take away our rights, and that when that time comes we deserve the chance to defend ourselves through force. Now, regardless of what you think of these ideals, they are a part of America, and banning firearms is directly counter to each of the ideals I listed above.

All in all, there is not sufficient evidence to show that stricter gun control laws lead to fewer violent crimes, or even murders. Several comprehensive international and domestic studies have shown there to be no statistically significant correlation.

And frankly, the demonization of firearms is fucking ludicrous from a common sense prospective as well. Firearms don't make you a murderer, a murderer kills someone by their own choice.

It is mind-boggling to me that so few people seem to get this. In 2010, there were over 35,000 gun deaths in the US, almost 2/3 of these were suicides. Now, someone who is willing to use a firearm to commit suicide is certainly willing to use a knife or an overdose. so, not counting suicides, there were 11,615 or so gun deaths. Contrast this with over 32,000 deaths caused by cars. Almost 11,000 deaths were caused by drunk driving alone in 2009. Tobacco use causes an estimated 443,000 deaths every year. The common estimates for deaths caused by obesity in the US are somewhere around 300,000 every year. Hell, almost 200,000 people die every year in hospitals from errors by the staff. Twice as many children die playing football(American) in school than die from guns.

Yet, no one is clamoring for a ban on driving, or tobacco(at least not anyone in politics), or alcohol, twinkies, or school football. Further, the prohibition era and the war on drugs have shown rather conclusively that bans on something in the US are virtually useless, and may even increase their use. No one is clamoring for increased education or oversight for medical staff.

I suppose that is all reasons why there is no good reason to ban guns, not that there is good reason to keep them, and that's the difference between the UK and the US. In the US, we believe you need to have good reason to take something away from a person, not a good reason to give it to them.

tl;dr(god i hate tl;dr). The UK has fewer gun deaths than the US, but despite having 1/5 the population of the US, they have more than 1/2 the violent crime. There is no conclusive evidence that stricter gun control leads to fewer violent crimes or murders. Banning firearms would punish 70 million Americans who have done nothing illegal. Gun bans run directly counter to several ideals upon which this country was founded and in which that most Americans still believe today. Firearms don't murder, people do, that's why it's called homoside, and not gunocide. There are a great many causes of preventable deaths that kill far far far more Americans every year than guns, but there is very little or no push to illegalize these things. In the US, you need a good reason to take something away from someone, you don't need a good reason to give it to them.

However, if you really need a good reason to let the public have guns, firearms are used in self-defense more than 2.5 million times per year in the US, about 42.8 times more than they are used to take life, including suicides(as concluded by anti-gun research).

I'll leave you with these facts: "More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million?even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.(8)"
"A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" to stop a school massacre.(14)"
"Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.(18)"

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

I could go on, but I think I've made my point, and I'll stop there for the sake of brevity.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/IMAGES/Pennsylvania/white_tailed_deer_buck2.jpg

http://www.shooterschoice.net/indoor_pistol_shooting.jpg

http://thedamienzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/old-lady-guns.jpg

There. Three more reasons why you might use a gun.

Hmm, thanks for the post, I hadn't thought about defending myself from an old lady carrying an arsenal

I presume you knew I meant "for self defense", and were being sarcastic?