Question for people Pro-guns....

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

You can already walk down the street and buy all sorts of illegal things, including illegal firearms.

I would add to that police are notoriously careless and dangerous with firearms even compared to the average gun owner. An accidental shooting at a civilian range is almost a freak occurrence, like getting attacked by a shark. At the Sheriff Department ranges where I live it's a bi-yearly event. I've also heard of several accidental shootings at civilian ranges over the years, but I've literally never heard of one that wasn't perpetrated by an off-duty officer or deputy. I admit all this is anecdotal and specific to my region, but you won't catch me standing next to a cop at the range if I can help it.

Recently, an off-duty cop at a range dropped his pistol because it wasn't secured in his shoulder holster properly. So the idiot tried to catch it as it fell. Shot himself to death, of course. Just let it fall Hollywood, it's not going to fucking go off.

 

[thanatos388]

Lots of people outside of the UK don't know what a gun sounds like. Its not like they just go around shooting every animal everywhere like its the wild west man. Although I think that automatic weapons should be banned. You cant rationalize why those should be legal, or why they are necessary.

 

[Aprilgold]

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."

Simple solution: legalise guns. Have bullets cost 10000$ each.
No harm having people walk around wielding what are in essense metal clubs.

Government gets the taxes, obviously

Because, you know, criminals TOTALLY buy THEIR guns legit.

Three people have suggested [I'm still counting] and it doesn't stop being idiotic. So what would happen, if say, the criminal just bought a 9mm mag with ammo through say E-Bay for less then 10,000$?

How come I'm not seeing anyone bring up the point of availability.

Take for example a husband comes home, finds his best friend in bed with his wife... OH SHI- he's seeing red. In a country where firearms are not a typical household item, the offending gentleman is likely to get a punch in the face, maybe whalloped with a loose object; and it could well kill him. But... probably not.

In a country where a gun is close to hand, it's THAT much more likely in his moment of rage he's going to grab the gun out his bedside cabinet.

This is the sort've crime where the main difference occurs. When people are of diminished responsibility due to alcohol, drugs, or just plain old rage, having a lethal weapon close to hand makes it that much more likely it'll be used, as opposed to resorting to more primitive (And survivable) tactics like clobbering them with your bare fists.

How would the man in his rage not simply use the stone statue on the top of the computer desk and use it to break the mans skull in two, or what if the man strangles the other man to death, or what if the man bought his gun illegally, or what if he had a sword and sliced the man in two, or what if the man threw the man out a window, or what if the man took and threw him off the balcony, or what if the man smashed his face into the bathroom toliet, or what if he took the man and stabbed him with a kitchen knife after making himself a sandwich and coming up to bed, or what if the man is a heavy drinker and broke a bottle over the other mans head and any combination of the above?

How exactly would removing the gun from the scenario let that other man live? Banning guns does not mean guns won't EXIST. They still will, illegally of course, but they will still be there.

 

[maninahat]

Simple solution: legalise guns. Have bullets cost 10000$ each.
No harm having people walk around wielding what are in essense metal clubs.

Government gets the taxes, obviously

Because, you know, criminals TOTALLY buy THEIR guns legit.

Three people have suggested [I'm still counting] and it doesn't stop being idiotic. So what would happen, if say, the criminal just bought a 9mm mag with ammo through say E-Bay for less then 10,000$?

It's a joke from a Chris Rock skit. Don't bother yourself over it.

What's alarming is that in the shooter's state, gun sales have balooned. Either people want to buy guns before potential gun control appears, or they think they're Charles Bronson, and plan to protect theatres from crazed gunmen. That latter one gets on my goat especially.

Do they honestly think another guy is going to attack a theatre? Now that every patron brings a gun in? Won't they do what they always do, and attack somewhere where people wouldn't have thought to carry guns? Like a swimming pool? Even if a gunman did attack another cinema, what are the odds that someone in the audience is going to pick them off in the dark, amoung a panicking crowd? Jesus people. Think about it for a minute.

 

[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.

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.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

I've not really got much of an opinion either way in this argument, the US has got to a point where banning guns is not much of an option anyway due to how making them illegal would mean that no-one has guns except the police and the SHIT TON which would then be owned by criminal types. Not an ideal scenario.

Found it mildly humerous how the OP had never heard gunfire before whilst I hear assault rifle / LMG fire at least once a week, also being from the UK. Yay for military firing ranges.

 

[t3hmaniac]

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.

But in those cases it's easier to get a tip off that something is up. Massacres like this take planning, when you start bringing en-masse chemicals it's more likely to attract police attention especially in the age of Terror scares.

Just because it can't take away a problem completely does not mean that there should be no steps taken to reduce it. Otherwise you might as well have everyone the right to smoke pot.

 

[senordesol]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

 

[t3hmaniac]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

 

[senordesol]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

 

[t3hmaniac]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

 

[senordesol]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

EDIT: Actually, the best case scenario is: NO ONE GETS HURT. It occurs to me that of the several thousand DGUs in the US per year, only a couple hundred end with shots fired.

I attribute this to assailants realizing that their victims are fielding weaponry that can't be defeated by a heavy jacket or a ski mask.

 

[t3hmaniac]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

But in my best case scenario: No-one's dead. That's my point.

 

[senordesol]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

But in my best case scenario: No-one's dead. That's my point.

It appears I edited that post too late. However, your best case relies on my assailant making the decision not to kill me. Frankly, I do not trust him to make that decision, not without help.

See, with tazers, you stop your assailant MAYBE -if he's not on drugs, if he's not wearing a heavy jacket, or if both prongs hit and attach. With pepper spray you can stop him MAYBE - if he is close enough, if he has no face protection.

With bullets, there's still a maybe -sure- but a lot of the uncertainty is lost when the only things that would really help him is tactical armor...which only protects sections of himself in any case.

 

[Xanthious]

maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

The movie theater did have a no guns policy. All Cinemark theaters have a no guns policy. The only thing a no guns policy accomplishes is making sure that all the law abiding citizens in the theater were completely and totally unable to defend themselves against that attack.

You see a good amount of these mass shooting in the US happen in places where guns aren't allowed. You think that's just a happy coincidence? It's not. It's far easier to go kill a bunch of people if you don't have to worry about anyone firing back.

 

[Raesvelg]

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

That's why you cook them. ;

Wild pigs are entirely edible, just don't eat them rare. Which should pretty much be par for the course with any wild game. Or domestic livestock, for that matter.

 

[Raesvelg]

The data doesn't speak for itself at all, homicide is not murder under UK law. With no way of telling which of those unlawful deaths in the graph where actually murder its irrelevant as a source about murder rates.

I am not even saying you are wrong either, all I am saying is you cannot draw a conclusion from inaccurate data and present it as a fact.

The data, not the graphs. Read the report. The data is available there, if you're not overwhelmingly lazy.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

America can not get rid of games. It would be in possible, like stopping people drinking alcohal, and we saw how that went. lol. My question would be, ok you say you want guns for protection. Fine. But do you really need a machine gun or whatever as protection? Cant we limit personal gun ownership to pistols.....and anything else is locked in a police station or a shooting clubs vault. Would this be better for everyone?

I do think this issue is huge and it maybe to late to fix it anyway. Criminals will always be able to get guns, thats a fact even in the UK. But if we are able to stop those people that go a bit mental and kill, like the guy in the cinema or those in schools, wouldn't that be worth it? They werent harden criminals until they killed people. Limit there access to guns. Make it so the pissed off students can't grab a machine gun from his dads gun cabinet because his dad can only have a pistol. An also change the law. Make the owner of the gun accountable for murder if he didnt put the gun in a secure place.

 

[senordesol]

America can not get rid of games. It would be in possible, like stopping people drinking alcohal, and we saw how that went. lol. My question would be, ok you say you want guns for protection. Fine. But do you really need a machine gun or whatever as protection? Cant we limit personal gun ownership to pistols.....and anything else is locked in a police station or a shooting clubs vault. Would this be better for everyone?

I do think this issue is huge and it maybe to late to fix it anyway. Criminals will always be able to get guns, thats a fact even in the UK. But if we are able to stop those people that go a bit mental and kill, like the guy in the cinema or those in schools, wouldn't that be worth it? They werent harden criminals until they killed people. Limit there access to guns. Make it so the pissed off students can't grab a machine gun from his dads gun cabinet because his dad can only have a pistol. An also change the law. Make the owner of the gun accountable for murder if he didnt put the gun in a secure place.

Who do you think has machine guns? Those are next to impossible to get. Licensing, paperwork, FBI scrutiny, fees, Jesus it's a freaking nightmare to get a machine gun in the US.

Oh, and for point of reference: the Aurora shooter DID NOT use machine guns, he used AR-15s, SEMI-automatic rifles (Read: NOT machine guns).

Also, there are already laws for negligence if your children take your guns and use them in any unsupervised capacity.

 

[Raesvelg]

Make the owner of the gun accountable for murder if he didnt put the gun in a secure place.

Sure, and then we can make the owners of cars accountable if someone steals their car and uses it to commit a crime. I mean, he didn't have it locked up in a hermetically sealed room, after all.

And then we can get people whose computers have been hijacked for botnets and hold them liable for spam. And knife manufacturers for not making knives impossible to kill with. And I think you get the idea by now.

That's a ridiculous idea, and terrifyingly enough, you're not the only one to come up with it. While one could argue negligence in, say, a parent who leaves a loaded firearm around and their child gets it and does something horrible to himself by accident, the instant intent enters the situation it gets a lot harder to draw the line as to where negligence kicks in.