Question for people Pro-guns....

[Ryotknife]

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

There are certainly similarities between UK and US, but there are also a lot of differences.

-US is more diverse in both population and religions
-US has more serious organized crime both within the country and outside of its borders than UK. Out of all of the organized crime organizations in the world, the Cartels probably the most sadistic.
- UK is an island that shares no borders, making smuggling easy to combat. US shares two borders, both of which are nearly impossible to prevent smuggling through.

just to name a few.

 

[Sparkytheyetti]

It still is a necessity. Hence why it was written. The revolution was roughly 220 years ago (im not looking up for specifics) so what 4 lifetimes of an average human? We may be in a more "civilized" time in human history, but were still barely out of the jungle. Humans will always be assholes. Power and greed will always be in our bones. Also, this civilization we all love so much could easily be turned upside down. All that needs to happen is the electricity stops flowing. People are dumb, panicky and stupid. Id rather have a couple rifles leftover from WW2 just in case something bad happen. Even a natural diaster.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Here it is, in America we have a national history of using/liking/needing firearms. Without firearms our country wouldn't be "our" country, we'd still be a summer home for another nation.

Rubbish. The US wouldn't have won the War of Independance (arguably not have gotten into the position where it was necessary, but that's another matter), but would have gotten independance same as the rest of the Empire later on.

The AR-15 was never banned for civilian sale. Assault weapons, weapons in an automatic configuration were banned.

An assault weapon isn't an automatic weapon, it's a weapon which fulfills a number of weird criteria, the definition only carrying legal weight in some places.

In some states, AR-15s are banned, and it seems there are restrictions on them in certain parts of Colorado.

In most of the US, you can have one just fine, though.

[The Mac 10 is the perfect weapons for a drive by because of its 600 RPM bullet spray. What I mean by machine pistols is any handheld gun that can fire like a machine gun. I would be fine with guns like a 9mm or a glock, but anything rapid fire should be limited to the police or the military. Civilians have no need for a weapon like a Mac 10 or uzi.

You are fine with 9mm pistols and/or ones made by Glock, but not fully automatic weapons like MAC-10s and Uzis?

"9mm" refers to the calibre. There are Uzi's and MAC-10s (and any number of other SMGs) chambered to use 9mm rounds.

"Glock" refers to the manufacturer. They made the Glock 18, which is capable of fully automatic fire. It is also chambered for 9mm rounds.

...

I notice you say "rapid fire" instead of "automatic"...there's a big distinction, weapons manufacturers have been thinking of clever ways to get around the wording. Modifying your semi-automatic weapon so that the trigger bounces off your finger several hundred a minute is perfectly legal (at least in some areas in the US), it's not automatic that way.

 

[mad825]

Guns are legal in the UK...

Not really so much.

Anybody who owns a gun, no matter how old it might be must be recorded and hold a gun licence (firearm certificate issued by the police) otherwise the police will arrest you and be sentenced by judge.

Most guns are shotguns in the UK and there are different levels of certificates for less/more powerful shotguns with it's own thorough security checks which are not all available to every single person. If you carry the shotgun in your car or in public (must be concealed) the police have a right to stop and search then arrest you unless you can convince the officer you're carrying it for justifiable reasons (clay pigeon shooting or something along those lines)however it would be likely the case that you'll be sent to court to prove and convince the judge otherwise. This goes for all weapons.

Right. They'll use a different weapon. If anything guns make crime LESS fatal, because how often will someone argue with someone that has a gun? If I were a storeclerk and had to choose between a bullet between the eyes or being blugeoned to death with a baseballbat, I'd know what I'd choose, but there's not really a difference in the result, now is there?

What?

Ranged weapons easily outmatch melee weapons. The shopkeeper in this case will have a very good chance to defend himself, he could just run :/ or smash a bottle of gin over his head.

 

[Amaror]

Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?
In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

 

[PZF]

This guy had 4 firearms, ~6000 rounds of ammo, Tear gas, Swat Level body armor(not illegal I believe), booby trapped his own apartment with explosives, killed 14 people and wounds 58 others, Dyed his hair red and called himself the joker, but yeah, was probably the guns fault.

If he had stolen an 18 wheeler and crashed it into the line of people waiting to get into the theater, would there be a national calling for stricter laws on selling cars? Tougher to get a drivers license?

 

[Aprilgold]

Question to people who are anti-guns: What do you think happens when a criminal who wanted to shoot someone in the face does if he doesn't get a firearm?

I'll answer it, they either start doing things like creating highly-complex chemical bombs or they pick up a rock and smash the dudes head in with it. Take their rock away and they'll use a branch. Take their branch away and they'll use the fists. You could go down a endless list of ridiculous bans and you would still have crime.

WHEN THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY!

The pro to letting your citizens carry fire-arms is that they can stop people who are mugging / raping / trying to kill them without having to wait five or ten minutes for the cops if they get a phone in that time.

Also, banning guns doesn't mean that people won't get them or make them, look at the prohibition.

So gun control is the next hot topic in the rotation huh? (After gender politics, feminism, and rape)

Well, in that case . . .

EVERYONE ...

...

OT: Different culture, attitudes, and values.

Glad I am not the only one thinking this.

This guy had 4 firearms, ~6000 rounds of ammo, Tear gas, Swat Level body armor(not illegal I believe), booby trapped his own apartment with explosives, killed 14 people and wounds 58 others, Dyed his hair red and called himself the joker, but yeah, was probably the guns fault.

If he had stolen an 18 wheeler and crashed it into the line of people waiting to get into the theater, would there be a national calling for stricter laws on selling cars? Tougher to get a drivers license?

That's also a very good argument on this.

i actully dilike guns but it is inrooted in my system [from family] to dislike the idea of oulawing guns. SO the only reason i can think for them is: Its America ,in a red neck voice [not to be ofensive im american and several people in my family are rednecks]

This highly reminds me of "I'm not racist but black people need to go burn in hell. But its OK that I'm saying this because I have a black friend."

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?
In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

You don't call this an island?

Very strange indeed.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country legal or otherwise, when you're surrounded by a body of water because it makes any large scale smuggling operation that much more difficult.

America on the other hand...

Has several points of access as well as gun culture.

You tell me which one would be more difficult in terms of firearm regulation, legal or otherwise?

 

[Amaror]

Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?
In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

snip

Of course is the UK an island, i just don't think that it has very much to do with the fact that guns are illegal in the uk. Sure it's easier for them to regulate what comes into the country, but in most of Europe (maybe even all of it) guns are illegal too (That was my point) and Europe is no island for sure (That was what i meant by saying, you can't call that an island)

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?
In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

snip

Of course is the UK an island, i just don't think that it has very much to do with the fact that guns are illegal in the uk. Sure it's easier for them to regulate what comes into the country, but in most of Europe (maybe even all of it) guns are illegal too (That was my point) and Europe is no island for sure (That was what i meant by saying, you can't call that an island)

I wasn't so much talking about why guns are illegal in the UK, but why it's easier to regulate them there.

Granted, mainland Europe does a decent job too, but again, being surrounded by a body of water does wonders for regulation

 

[Stuart Buck]

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.

Take this scenario:

Say you track this big buck to the outskirts of town, and you find that he as made himself a makeshift home in an abandoned warehouse. With a handgun you could easily sneak up on him and get a deathshot! That way he won't be running around with your daughter any more and filling up her head with ridiculous ideas and corrupting her character!

OT: Who gives a crap, it's not like the US government would change it.
Hell, I live in Sweden and even I know the president would get thrown out because of the second amendment.

How would a male deer corrupt your daughters character?

 

[spartan231490]

The following are the facts as copied from the sited sources. Do with them as you will( the per 100,000 stats mean that for every 100,000 people in the country that is how many fall into said category) :


Total homicides us 2005: 16,740

Total homicides with a gun 2005: 10,158

Unintentional gun related deaths 2005: 789

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 5.66

Total gun related homicides per 100,000 people: 3.43


US Population in 2005: 296 million








Total homicides in the UK 2005: 764


Total homicides with guns 50

Total unintentional gun related deaths 2005 unavailable, last available year 1999: 6

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 1.3

Total homicides with a gun per 100,000 people: .1

England and Welsh Population in 2005 53.4 million


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Customs/questions/population.html


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

This means absolutely nothing. Comparing one country to another doesn't accomplish shit statistically. Statistically, there is no evidence whatsoever that increased gun control reduces gun crime. These are the results of my attempts to find evidence real scientific evidence that increased gun control reduces crime, I was unable to find even one such piece of evidence.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I just wanted to point out that I did not in fact make any argument one way or the other, I simply felt that it would help the debate if some reference-able facts were available, and you proceeded to get offended by the facts and started swearing at me.

Also, if I cannot compare a country to another country, what can I compare a country to? A tree?

I didn't get offended by the facts, I was not offended at all. I curse a lot, I wasn't cursing at you, "doesn't accomplish shit" is just the phrase I use when something doesn't accomplish shit.

I misspoke myself, you can compare one country to another all you want, but the results won't be significant because you have no way of controlling for other variables such as population density, cultural background, and economic stability, just to name a few. If you want to draw any meaningful conclusions about gun control, you need to look at how the implementation of gun control has effected the area that implemented it, or examine a very large number of nations in a statistical analysis. Every single one of my sources did one of these things. Also, why did you cut out the greater part of my post? It had some of the most relevant information, including links that would have told you all this.

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

Those similarities are superficial when compared to our cultural differences, otherwise, your violent crime rate wouldn't be so much higher than ours. You have a monarchy, even if it's mostly or entirely for show, it still impacts your culture, as does being a part of Europe. I imagine being on the receiving end of so much bombing in WW2 impacted your culture too. You can't just compare two countries and draw meaningful results. It is exactly like the thing news stations do saying how since one guy who went psycho played video games it obviously means playing video games makes you psycho. It's not even enough data to establish correlation, let alone causation.

And that's fair, I was just curious why you went through the effort of cutting out a large chunk of my post, but that makes sense.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

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

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

 

[spartan231490]

As someone living in the UK, I personally think that our police should be armed more, if not every officer that at least one firearm per car, this is partially due to my "Do crime-Be Punished" stance, and I would much prefer to see more criminals dead than rotting in a jail cell; but per person? Hmmm... well, if the logic behind owning a gun is to protect the owner from burglars, the burglar is also armed, if no-one could by guns, some people may be less confident in burglary, and therefore not attempt it, it would at least prevent more people being injured during burglaries, bad enough that your stuff gets stolen, but you have to go to hospital? And don't you have to pay significant sums of money for healthcare in america? No guns for civilians could solve a few problems...

Please do correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.

Additional: I do go slightly off tangent, but less guns would mean less bullet wounds.

Increased gun control doesn't reduce the number of guns that criminals have, especially in a nation with such massive unsecured borders as the US. In fact, increased gun control doesn't reduce the rates of murder, violent crime, or overall crime in any way.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

so in short, less(Fewer) guns doesn't mean less(fewer) bullet wounds.

Even if handguns are outlawed that still will not stop some people from acquiring them. However I think it will drastically reduce the number of people who do. I have not read this entire forum so I don't know if anyone has already brought this up yet but another issue with the average joe owning handguns is someone unintentionally shooting another person. It does not happen that often but I have seen it both on the news and know someone who someone who has that happened to them. For all you gun supporters out there I have a request. I'd like to see a story of something good that actually happened because of a civilian owning a gun. Or at the very least maybe sometime that could have been less tragic that was avoided because of a civilian owning a handgun. I for have never heard of such a thing.

how about the time when a vice principle stopped a school shooting, saving dozens of lives, because he had a gun?
What about the estimated 1.5 million Americans who use guns in self-defense every single year, about 500 thousand of which firmly believed that someone would have died if they didn't have that gun? What about the fact that police shoot innocent people 11% of the time whilst gun owners defending themselves do so only 2% of the time?
What about the time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, only to have some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant?
How about the time a group of gang members attacked a church with AKs and grenades and were scared off when an armed citizen within the church returned fire?
I could go on all day. The fact is that absolutely zero scientific evidence exists to support the assumption that more gun control reduces crime, and there is scientific evidence(though not conclusive) that suggests that more handguns actually means less crime.
http://www.beyourself.com/howtostp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_Massacre
You don't hear about it because it doesn't make good news, not because it doesn't happen.

I personally never saw the point in owning a gun, but it's such an integral part of our society and economy in America that attempting to get rid of them would be futile, even if the second amendment was overturned (which it won't be).

So in my opinion, people can keep their guns, but under these conditions:

1. No sale of weapons beyond hunting equipment or self defense pistols. I'll let gun experts decide what's what, but I know that no one will ever need a semi-auto assault rifle with 100 ammo capacity to defend themselves.

2. Concealing your gun should be illegal. If you really only want a gun in case shit hits the fan, you should have no problem leaving your gun out in the open.

3. Businesses should be allowed to keep gun holders off their property. I find it completely batshit insane that some politicians think businesses should be able to refuse service on grounds of race or sexual orientation, yet gun carriers can go wherever they please. Unlike the latter case, store owners actually have a reason to not allow gun owners. (i.e. keeping themselves and their customers safe) And not to point fingers or play what-if, but maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

Like many people have said, the US is a whole other beast from the UK in terms of gun culture, and an outright ban would never work, but I think the things above aren't unreasonable even to gun enthusiasts. If you disagree, let me know.

1) Because most times when you're attacked your attackers outnumber you and are drunk or high which makes them harder to stop, assault weapons with large clip capacities are the best defense weapons out there.

2) Most states that allow handguns to be carried require them to be concealed, this isn't a personal choice. I never understood it either, but I think it has something to do with police thinking the public would be scared by people openly carrying a pistol.

3) Horrible idea. Criminals won't respect that law, only the law abiding citizens who might stop them. It has been shown time and time again by the locations these psychos shoot up that gun-free zones actually put the people in them in more danger. One time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant? This law has since been changed largely due to the fact that one of the people there, one who had left a handgun in her car, lost both of her parents and then ran for the state assembly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

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

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

We're just better at math than you are.

Really? So America has very little crime other than gun crime? Also surely being mugged of £20 (though not very nice) is much better than getting shot...or is that just me?

Yeah, but the rape and dying by stab wounds aren't so kind. Hyperbole aside, there is no scientific evidence to support that gun control reduces crime, violent crime, or murder rates, and several studies have been done.

I am pro gun to an extent. Only pistols (Self defense) and rifles (for hunting) should be legal. No machine pistols or assault rifles. I do view this topic as a great way to show one of my favorite quotes though:

"I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."

Hyperbole, why was I expecting more. You do realize that machine pistols and assault rifles are already banned in the US because they are fully automatic yes? For self defense, semi-automatic and high capacity magazine is the only way to go. Firstly, you might be outnumbered badly in a self-defense situation. Second, expecting anyone to hit on the first shot when they're scared out of their minds is naive. Third, it takes multiple hits to stop an attacker, especially when using a handgun. People who are drunk or high have been shot as many as 32 times and still kept shooting back, expecting people to be able to defend themselves with a single action revolver is idiotic.

The Mac 10 is the perfect weapons for a drive by because of its 600 RPM bullet spray. What I mean by machine pistols is any handheld gun that can fire like a machine gun. I would be fine with guns like a 9mm or a glock, but anything rapid fire should be limited to the police or the military. Civilians have no need for a weapon like a Mac 10 or uzi.

They already are illegal for civilians, or the next best thing. Full automatics were restricted by the federal gun control act of 1934 and then virtually banned by the gun control act of 1968. You can still get them if you get the extremely difficult to obtain class 3 licence and pay $500 tax per item, but most states ban class 3 items anyway, so they are virtually illegal. Also, you can't own one that was manufactured after 1987, so very very few of them are being bought anymore, even by those who can. Also, since 1934 when these laws went into effect, only 2 homicides have been committed with legally owned machine guns, one of which was committed by a cop, not a civilian. You hear a lot about "assault weapons" being thrown around by news stations and politicians, but they are talking about semi-automatic weapons.

 

[spartan231490]

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

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I dislike guns because they give an unfair advantage.

I say we "illegalise" guns throughout the planet, and use the metal and resources to make other weapons, like swords and bows and arrows.

At least not every hit will be a deadly one, you can train how to dodge a sword (unless it's a real fast swordsman w/rapier), however bullets are a wee bit faster than that.

Firearms have often been called "the great equalizer". I guess it's a little different considered from the perspective of a twelfth century chevalier lol. Just so you know, gunshots don't work like in the movies. Victims don't necessarily become ineffectual right away, and most survive if they receive medical attention. Getting shot might not even break your stride- you know, if you're a badass lol.

The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

OK, I'm ambivalent about gun control. I was mostly just reading this thread out of boredom, but I have to comment here.

Please, please, PLEASE, stop using this argument to support the second amendment. That rationale ceased to carry any weight about 100 years ago. Back when that amendment was written it was entirely possible for any civilian to have weapons equal to what the military had (barring cannons). It meant that an armed populace could potentially stand up to military force. Not likely but possible.

Today's military has the civilian sector so out gunned it's not even worth commenting on. That 30-06 in your gun case isn't going to do a damn thing if they drop a cruise missile in your living room, and it certainly isn't going to penetrate any armored vehicles should they decide to waltz down your street.

There are plenty of arguably good reasons to support the right to bear arms, so please stop using the one that ceased to be true a century ago.

If rifles are obsolete, why do soldiers and marines carry them? It never ceased to be true and it will never cease to be true for the foreseeable future. By your rationale, there can be no sustained opposition to the United States military for any length of time and certainly no one could achieve political or military goals. Obviously neither of those things are true. There is more to military strategy than measuring the length of your gun barrels, and there is certainly more to civil insurrection. If the Second Amendment is out of date, it's because peaceful resistance is such a powerful tool in the West. But it's not because rifles are obsolete, because they aren't. Ask the Taliban if you don't believe me.

Besides, he didn't make an argument supporting the second amendment. He only described it's origins.

 

[spartan231490]

Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the pigs, or any other bloody animal, have to take another one for team human.

The fact of the matter remains that when a species, no matter how "cute" it might be, has no natural predators and an ample food supply, it will breed itself into starvation.

We're the apex predator of the planet. It's our freakin' job, in the oh-so-delicate circle of life, to shoot and eat the damn pigs. And the deer. And the cows. And the chickens. And pretty much all of the animals.

Because I have no interest in reintroducing wolves and mountain lions and coming home one day to find my children have been eaten.

Again, relatively minor point here, but wild pigs aren't really edible, unless you enjoy dying of parasites and disease.

People cook meat. Quite a few people eat wild pig every year, they do just fine because they cook it first. In fact, you're probably safer eating a raw piece of wild boar than a raw piece of store bought chicken, since the tight quarters and feeding methods mean that disease in just one animal rapidly spreads to virtually all of them.

Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the piggies have to take another one for team human.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective. Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? dont just kill them, there will always be more - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

Hehe. Okaaaay.

Yes, when there's an intruder in my home I'm going to try and go all Dr. Phil on my assailant. Good plan. /Sarcasm

Look, if it makes you feel better: the Earth will recover no matter what we do. Species come and species go, again birth rates in more developed countries are more or less stabilizing, and -hey- I'm not against vertical farming. But until we reach a point where that equalizes, we need our resources. So that means "So Long, Piggies, Thanks For Being So Delicious!"

Actually wild pigs are virtually inedible due to being infested with a variety of diseases and parasites.

A quick google search will show you that people eat wild boar all the time.