Question for people Pro-guns....

[spartan231490]

I'm sure it's been said, but to throw two more cents into the overflowing two cent pile...

Guns are used to kill people. Not every person buys a gun with the hopes of killing someone. I assume it gives them a sense of security in their lives, where anything can and does happen. It's a right that is given to American citizens and some people wish to take advantage of all of their rights.

Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment is a load of horse shit. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it was also written in the 18th century, when a gun fired 3 rounds a minute and missed brick walls from 30 feet away. This should really be a non-issue, but because some people feel that their freedom is imposed upon because "IT'S THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE", guns will probably be a part of American culture until that mentality is forcibly changed.

Gun control regulations are never going to be perfect, even if guns are made illegal. If someone wants to get something, they can, don't be naive enough to think they can't. Guns are tied to freedom in the US, and because of that, they're tied to good deeds instead of bad ones. Until Americans figure out that much more harm has been done with firearms, they'll always be legal.

"much more harm"? Really? As I've said twice before in this thread, even conservative estimates made by anti-gun committees have found that guns are used almost 43 times more often in self defense in the US than to take a life, and that's including suicides which make up almost 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US. Less conservative estimates are almost 72 times more likely, again counting suicides. More good has come from firearms than harm.

 

[Smagmuck_]

where firearms are illegal

No, they're not, heavily restricted yes. But not flat out illegal. UK citizens are allowed to own hunting rifles and hunting shotguns if they meet a specific criteria. Hell, they sell straight pull AR-15s in the UK.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

They police do use them, a lot of them prefer not to. But some carry semi-auto MP5s around important government buildings. For the most part or right, not every Johnny Blue there carries. 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?

We're allowed to have them because they're there to keep us, firepower wise, on par with our government. We're a young nation and we still have to work out a few kinks in the ability to acquire them.

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.

Self defense is a huge reason people carry firearms (mostly pistols) on them. Police reaction time here can vary between five minutes to a half hour. And your life can be ended or drastically changed in that amount of time. A lot of people don't or can't wait that long for a rescue when their lives are in jeopardy.

 

[J Tyran]

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?

Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.

 

[spartan231490]

Um... as somebody from the UK I have to say guns are not outright illegal.
Pheasant hunting is still a popular sport and guns are required obviously.

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.

I hunt deer with a handgun (.44 mag) and smaller game with smaller handguns (.357 and even a .40 cal glock).

I did read your entire post but your first line caught me.
You hunt Game with a handgun? That would require getting up close to the animal and point blank shooting - that is not very sporting.

How is it not very sporting? Needing to be closer is far far more sporting.

Australia heavily outlawed firearms in the 90's and we aren't getting overrun by gun toting criminals.

How many massacres will it take for you guys to think "yeah, giving every one a gun is a REALLY bad idea"
Answer: A lot it seems.

how many borders does Australia share with neighbors? We outlawed drugs, guess what? they are still everywhere. Do you have ANY idea how broad our border with Canada is? Most of it is undefended too. Hell, drugs keep getting through from Mexico which is a much smaller border with significantly more forces.

Even if outlawing guns was a magic bullet (pardon the pun), which nearly every study has shown otherwise, we could not enforce it. And like i said, the deep south would go apeshit because guns are a large part of their culture.

But hey, im sure a CIVIL WAR would be preferable to a few crimes.....

So tell me, why should we outlaw firearms when it will be impossible to enforce AND has potentially harsh backlashes?

Not seeing the logic in it.

Why not stop outlawing drugs and educate people about their pros and cons then.. Isn't that comparable to guns, apart from not being in the constitution?

No, firearms have far more benefits and they outweigh the risks. Third time's the charm, conservative anti gun estimates are that firearms are used over 42 times more often in self-defense than to take a life, and that is including gun suicides that make up almost 2/3 of gun deaths in the US. What illegal drugs save 42 times as many people as they kill? Say what you want about the benefits of marijuana, but it's basically a painkiller, it doesn't save lives.

Also, that's a bad argument since most people who are pro-gun rights(like me) support legalization of drugs in some way.

Further, as has been said and supported more times in this thread than my calculator can count, studies have shown that stricter gun control, even a total ban, doesn't reduce violent crime, or even murder rates.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Human population-

Spoiler

Pig population-

Spoiler

Aside from one part of the map it looks pretty fucking similar doesn?t it?

No, they really don't. But thank-you for on going ahead and proving my point.

The maps clearly show that pig populations reach their densest concentrations in areas of little to no human habitation present. All of the dark blue areas for instance occur over stretches of land that on average contain no more than 10 people per square kilometer and probably quite a deal less then that when rural population densities are taken into consideration. As much as you would like to make Australia's feral pig problem an argument in support of US-style gun control, there just isn't a case to be made for it. The range of the feral pigs in Australia covers an area roughly five times that of Texas, and stretches out over some very isolated places and a diverse collection of different terrains.

Or do you still seriously contest that Texans could achieve the exact same results, if they had to cover five times the land and do so with half the amount of people and that are currently available?

 

[spartan231490]

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?

Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.

It is not legal in any state to shoot someone for breaking into a neighbors property. In some states, you might get away with it if they were heavily armed, but not most. Hell, there was a woman locked in her bathroom for 10 minutes talking to 911 while armed robbers ransacked her house and when the thieves broke into the bathroom she shot them with a shotgun and she was charged.
also, here is a post where I said that international differences in crime rates are caused by cultural differences, and point out several extremely compelling reasons why a gun ban in the US is an awful idea.

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.

 

[gwilym101]

Firearm death rate per 100,000 people per year.

America = 10.27

England and Wales = 0.46.

So for every 200,000 deaths in a year in a America approximately 21 will be caused by guns, for every 200,000 deaths in a year in England and Wales combined approximately 1 will be cause by guns.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Firearm death rate per 100,000 people per year.

America = 10.27

England and Wales = 0.46.

So for every 200,000 deaths in a year in a America approximately 21 will be caused by guns, for every 200,000 deaths in a year in England and Wales combined approximately 1 will be cause by guns.

Er...for every 200,000 people alive in teh beginning of a year, you mean, not people dying.

 

[spartan231490]

Firearm death rate per 100,000 people per year.

America = 10.27

England and Wales = 0.46.

So for every 200,000 deaths in a year in a America approximately 21 will be caused by guns, for every 200,000 deaths in a year in England and Wales combined approximately 1 will be cause by guns.

UK: ~60 million people 763 thousand incidents of violent crime. year 2012
US: ~300 million people 1.25 million incidents of violent crime. year 2010

That is more than 3 times more violent crime per population in the UK, and the crime rates in the US have been dropping steadily. Just because you have fewer gun deaths, doesn't mean gun control is doing you any good.

 

[J Tyran]

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?

Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.

It is not legal in any state to shoot someone for breaking into a neighbors property.

So the Joe Horn shooting didn't happen then? If you are unfamiliar with it a neighbor shot two unarmed men in the back after they burgled a house. A court found him not guilty, not guilty means no crime was committed which makes his actions lawful.

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

UK: ~60 million people 763 thousand incidents of violent crime. year 2012
US: ~300 million people 1.25 million incidents of violent crime. year 2010

That is more than 3 times more violent crime per population in the UK, and the crime rates in the US have been dropping steadily. Just because you have fewer gun deaths, doesn't mean gun control is doing you any good.

Our violent crime rates are down to our broken criminal justice system. In most cases of violent crime an offender will not receive a custodial sentence, not unless they have a significant amount of prior violent convictions. Even when custodial sentences are handed out the actual sentence is incredibly short, only cases of "wounding with intent" and other serious cases will somebody get 4+ years.

Punching someone or causing a large brawl will generally only get someone with previous convictions 12 months or less, remember criminals only serve half of a sentence. If they get probation they can serve as little as one third of the sentence.

There are no deterrents and its formed a culture of not giving a fuck about the law.

 

[tehroc]

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.

That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

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.

 

[Daveman]

I've had a fair few discussions with pro-gun peeps and there are a few arguments used. Most of them are ripped right from Penn and Tellers Bullshit episode if you want a good proposal of the downsides, although to quote them, they're talking bullshit.

1) Criminals are not going to commit crimes when there's a chance people will have a gun.

The flaws with this argument are that firstly it suggests that if there's a chance people have a gun, people won't mug people. Well we know that's bullshit because there are people getting mugged right now. So maybe the criminals don't think that the proportion of people with guns is high enough to be a serious risk. It's possible I'll admit, but that does suggest that there's a group of people sat at home waiting for gun laws to become more strict before they go out and mug people.

I would say that there is already a lot of risk associated with mugging people regardless of gun laws, like a prison sentence. It's not a rational choice.

2) It's for hunting.

No animal requires an AK47 to take it down. Hunting rifles are fine in my opinion, just so long as people register for them and pass background checks etc to check they're not crazy. That is simple gun control. This also would mean handguns aren't justified either.

3) The second amendment.

There are two issues for me here. Firstly I take the fact that it's an amendment to be that the constitution isn't gospel, you can change it to reflect the times. Quoting an ancient law is hardly making your case seem sensible.

Secondly, holy shit! Am I reading this right? You have a clause that allows people to keep guns to overthrow the government? Oh, if it becomes tyrannical. You do realise it's a democracy? That's how you prevent tyranny. Really a better way to prevent it would be to make voting mandatory as a staggeringly low percentage of people actually vote. It worries me that the people trying to export democracy to the rest of the world have no faith in it themselves.

Final word

One thing that really struck me as odd on the episode of Bullshit on gun control was that I had just previously watched the episode on the Death Penalty, which they were against. The argument against the death penalty was that as long as there's a chance that you could kill one innocent person, it's wrong. Yet this runs completely counter to the argument against gun control. This allows people to kill, without any trial or jury, anyone so long as it is classified as "self-defence". Know what? Just hand over your fucking wallet.

 

[Grape_Bullion]

I'm sure it's been said, but to throw two more cents into the overflowing two cent pile...

Guns are used to kill people. Not every person buys a gun with the hopes of killing someone. I assume it gives them a sense of security in their lives, where anything can and does happen. It's a right that is given to American citizens and some people wish to take advantage of all of their rights.

Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment is a load of horse shit. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it was also written in the 18th century, when a gun fired 3 rounds a minute and missed brick walls from 30 feet away. This should really be a non-issue, but because some people feel that their freedom is imposed upon because "IT'S THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE", guns will probably be a part of American culture until that mentality is forcibly changed.

Gun control regulations are never going to be perfect, even if guns are made illegal. If someone wants to get something, they can, don't be naive enough to think they can't. Guns are tied to freedom in the US, and because of that, they're tied to good deeds instead of bad ones. Until Americans figure out that much more harm has been done with firearms, they'll always be legal.

"much more harm"? Really? As I've said twice before in this thread, even conservative estimates made by anti-gun committees have found that guns are used almost 43 times more often in self defense in the US than to take a life, and that's including suicides which make up almost 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US. Less conservative estimates are almost 72 times more likely, again counting suicides. More good has come from firearms than harm.

Okay, but the public conscious, in general, doesn't really care about how someone defends themselves, or when someone takes their own life. They care about when someone goes on a killing spree. Some woman who blew a guy away for stealing her purse won't have the same type of social impact as a massacre. Why? Because of the way a firearm was used. And that's what this argument comes down to. Can you trust every citizen in a population of 300+ million to use a firearm properly? Of course you can't. You couldn't trust every citizen if we went back to sharpened sticks. So which makes more sense, selling guns to everybody (outside of whichever restrictions) and crossing your fingers that nothing bad will happen? Or not selling guns to anybody?

Like I said, it's a national mentality issue. Personally, I have a gun. I like knowing that if someone has a gun and they come into my house, I'm not defending myself with something that I picked up out of the sink. If guns were illegal? I wouldn't have a gun. Because likely, said robber wouldn't have a firearm, and I could defend myself with something out of the sink.

As for all those stats you're throwing around, I'm sure that victims of gun related crimes see eye to eye with you. The US is ranked 12th in the world when it comes to gun-related deaths. We're the only first world country in the top 15, which is quite an honor.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm sure it's been said, but to throw two more cents into the overflowing two cent pile...

Guns are used to kill people. Not every person buys a gun with the hopes of killing someone. I assume it gives them a sense of security in their lives, where anything can and does happen. It's a right that is given to American citizens and some people wish to take advantage of all of their rights.

Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment is a load of horse shit. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it was also written in the 18th century, when a gun fired 3 rounds a minute and missed brick walls from 30 feet away. This should really be a non-issue, but because some people feel that their freedom is imposed upon because "IT'S THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE", guns will probably be a part of American culture until that mentality is forcibly changed.

Gun control regulations are never going to be perfect, even if guns are made illegal. If someone wants to get something, they can, don't be naive enough to think they can't. Guns are tied to freedom in the US, and because of that, they're tied to good deeds instead of bad ones. Until Americans figure out that much more harm has been done with firearms, they'll always be legal.

"much more harm"? Really? As I've said twice before in this thread, even conservative estimates made by anti-gun committees have found that guns are used almost 43 times more often in self defense in the US than to take a life, and that's including suicides which make up almost 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US. Less conservative estimates are almost 72 times more likely, again counting suicides. More good has come from firearms than harm.

Okay, but the public conscious, in general, doesn't really care about how someone defends themselves, or when someone takes their own life. They care about when someone goes on a killing spree. Some woman who blew a guy away for stealing her purse won't have the same type of social impact as a massacre. Why? Because of the way a firearm was used. And that's what this argument comes down to. Can you trust every citizen in a population of 300+ million to use a firearm properly? Of course you can't. You couldn't trust every citizen if we went back to sharpened sticks. So which makes more sense, selling guns to everybody (outside of whichever restrictions) and crossing your fingers that nothing bad will happen? Or not selling guns to anybody?

Like I said, it's a national mentality issue. Personally, I have a gun. I like knowing that if someone has a gun and they come into my house, I'm not defending myself with something that I picked up out of the sink. If guns were illegal? I wouldn't have a gun. Because likely, said robber wouldn't have a firearm, and I could defend myself with something out of the sink.

As for all those stats you're throwing around, I'm sure that victims of gun related crimes see eye to eye with you. The US is ranked 12th in the world when it comes to gun-related deaths. We're the only first world country in the top 15, which is quite an honor.

You're argument is that scare tactics and propaganda are more important that the truth and constitutional rights? Interesting.

If guns were illegal, the robber would still probably have a gun. The prohibition era and the war on drugs makes it pretty clear that banning something in the US doesn't stop people from getting it. Further, even if your attacker didn't have a gun and only had a knife, you would be very hard pressed to defend yourself without a firearm.

and I don't care if they're too emotional to see the truth. The truth is the truth. There's a reason we don't put the victims family on the jury, and we shouldn't allow them to sway our laws for the same reason.

 

[Whateveralot]

(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.

 

[Alexnader]

How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?

Wild pigs in the US- 4,000,000
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313597.pdf
Wild pigs in Australia- 23,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3308375/Australia-has-more-wild-pigs-than-humans.html

Wild pigs already do billions of dollars in damage every year in the US and we hunters are the only thing that actually prevents them from taking over like they have in Australia (and that is not the only species that is breeding out of control in Australia). In addition to that is just general pest control.

Uh, you do know that hunters in Australia can get access to guns right? It's not like our roo shooters are using compound bows or anything. Did you actually read the article you linked? It says right there "Pig hunting has been popular with rural Australians for decades." "Their high-powered rifles, hunting dogs and "pig rigs" - specially equipped trucks - are proving no match for an explosion in the number of feral pigs"

Even if every Australian citizen was given a gun to shoot wild pigs with it wouldn't do shit. Do you think we're just walking down the streets of urban Sydney shooing wild animals away? This isn't god damn crocodile dundee!

Australia is god damn huge, vast swaths of relatively uninhabited land are where these pigs make their homes.

I'd agree with you that it's almost impossible to implement gun restrictions in America like those in Australia, however not because of some trumped up conservation and feral animal management bullshit. It's because America is in many ways screwed. They share a border with Mexico, guns are absolutely everywhere apparently and culturally they just seem more inclined to shoot each other. (A habit noticeably absent from European countries with high gun ownership). If America never had a huge amount of guns, then they'd be better off not disseminating them, however in many ways it's too late to redeem them in this respect.

 

[BringBackBuck]

Firearm death rate per 100,000 people per year.

America = 10.27

England and Wales = 0.46.

So for every 200,000 deaths in a year in a America approximately 21 will be caused by guns, for every 200,000 deaths in a year in England and Wales combined approximately 1 will be cause by guns.

UK: ~60 million people 763 thousand incidents of violent crime. year 2012
US: ~300 million people 1.25 million incidents of violent crime. year 2010

That is more than 3 times more violent crime per population in the UK, and the crime rates in the US have been dropping steadily. Just because you have fewer gun deaths, doesn't mean gun control is doing you any good.

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

Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000:
UK: 1.33
US: 1.58

Overall homicide rate per 100,000:
UK: 1.45
US: 4.55

You my be right on the violent crime, I certainly wouldn't be surprised that you are more likely to get in a pub fight in the UK. Fist fights don't result in death quite like fights where people have guns.

 

[spartan231490]

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?

Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.

It is not legal in any state to shoot someone for breaking into a neighbors property.

So the Joe Horn shooting didn't happen then? If you are unfamiliar with it a neighbor shot two unarmed men in the back after they burgled a house. A court found him not guilty, not guilty means no crime was committed which makes his actions lawful.

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

UK: ~60 million people 763 thousand incidents of violent crime. year 2012
US: ~300 million people 1.25 million incidents of violent crime. year 2010

That is more than 3 times more violent crime per population in the UK, and the crime rates in the US have been dropping steadily. Just because you have fewer gun deaths, doesn't mean gun control is doing you any good.

Our violent crime rates are down to our broken criminal justice system. In most cases of violent crime an offender will not receive a custodial sentence, not unless they have a significant amount of prior violent convictions. Even when custodial sentences are handed out the actual sentence is incredibly short, only cases of "wounding with intent" and other serious cases will somebody get 4+ years.

Punching someone or causing a large brawl will generally only get someone with previous convictions 12 months or less, remember criminals only serve half of a sentence. If they get probation they can serve as little as one third of the sentence.

There are no deterrents and its formed a culture of not giving a fuck about the law.

As I said, you might get away with it, that doesn't mean it's truly lawful. The fact that he was charged but not convicted is probably better evidence that he had a good lawyer than the fact he didn't break the law.

As for your comments on violent crime, you are making my point for me, quite literally. Differences in crime rates are cultural, not related to gun control, that's exactly what I said, and that's exactly what you are saying: "and its formed a culture of not giving a fuck about the law."

I really like how you ignored the vast majority of my post because you had no answer for it, including my massive primary source supporting all of my points.

 

[spartan231490]

I've had a fair few discussions with pro-gun peeps and there are a few arguments used. Most of them are ripped right from Penn and Tellers Bullshit episode if you want a good proposal of the downsides, although to quote them, they're talking bullshit.

1) Criminals are not going to commit crimes when there's a chance people will have a gun.

The flaws with this argument are that firstly it suggests that if there's a chance people have a gun, people won't mug people. Well we know that's bullshit because there are people getting mugged right now. So maybe the criminals don't think that the proportion of people with guns is high enough to be a serious risk. It's possible I'll admit, but that does suggest that there's a group of people sat at home waiting for gun laws to become more strict before they go out and mug people.

I would say that there is already a lot of risk associated with mugging people regardless of gun laws, like a prison sentence. It's not a rational choice.

2) It's for hunting.

No animal requires an AK47 to take it down. Hunting rifles are fine in my opinion, just so long as people register for them and pass background checks etc to check they're not crazy. That is simple gun control. This also would mean handguns aren't justified either.

3) The second amendment.

There are two issues for me here. Firstly I take the fact that it's an amendment to be that the constitution isn't gospel, you can change it to reflect the times. Quoting an ancient law is hardly making your case seem sensible.

Secondly, holy shit! Am I reading this right? You have a clause that allows people to keep guns to overthrow the government? Oh, if it becomes tyrannical. You do realise it's a democracy? That's how you prevent tyranny. Really a better way to prevent it would be to make voting mandatory as a staggeringly low percentage of people actually vote. It worries me that the people trying to export democracy to the rest of the world have no faith in it themselves.

Final word

One thing that really struck me as odd on the episode of Bullshit on gun control was that I had just previously watched the episode on the Death Penalty, which they were against. The argument against the death penalty was that as long as there's a chance that you could kill one innocent person, it's wrong. Yet this runs completely counter to the argument against gun control. This allows people to kill, without any trial or jury, anyone so long as it is classified as "self-defence". Know what? Just hand over your fucking wallet.

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.

 

[spartan231490]

Firearm death rate per 100,000 people per year.

America = 10.27

England and Wales = 0.46.

So for every 200,000 deaths in a year in a America approximately 21 will be caused by guns, for every 200,000 deaths in a year in England and Wales combined approximately 1 will be cause by guns.

UK: ~60 million people 763 thousand incidents of violent crime. year 2012
US: ~300 million people 1.25 million incidents of violent crime. year 2010

That is more than 3 times more violent crime per population in the UK, and the crime rates in the US have been dropping steadily. Just because you have fewer gun deaths, doesn't mean gun control is doing you any good.

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

Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000:
UK: 1.33
US: 1.58

Overall homicide rate per 100,000:
UK: 1.45
US: 4.55

You my be right on the violent crime, I certainly wouldn't be surprised that you are more likely to get in a pub fight in the UK. Fist fights don't result in death quite like fights where people have guns.

A person in the US is about 42 times more likely to protect themselves with a firearm than to die because of one. Excluding suicide, a person is about 125 times more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than they are to die because of one.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm