The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[Borrowed Time]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

Erm, huh?

With a very quick search, I was able to find 2 articles from 2 different publications (BBC and Times) that gun crime in England is actually rising. This is in a country were guns are basically illegal. Kinda makes me wonder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3195908.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece#

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

I hardly would trust this type of survey. No doubt coming from a group of people who are terrified of guns and being able to protect yourself. Fuck waiting for a cop, do the job right and protect your fucking self. Of course there are going to be bad apples in the tree, but you can't chop the whole tree down because of a few rotten apples.

Thank God for the 2nd Amendment in America, at least one country understands how important it is for the people to be armed!

To all Americans who disagree with the 2nd Amendment, I feel sorry for your type. You have probably forgotten what our founders and many of our own have fought and died for, FUCKING FREEDOM... In America!

Our neighbors across the pond will never understand, I'm afraid. That's ok. They can keep their politics over there too.

For the rest of you, I own three AR15s, one AK, and two semiautomatic pistols. Full capacity magazines too. And you aren't allowed to own the same. Neener neener

 

[Precision Burrito]

How is that ban working?
I mean, if its banned then it must never be used in crime, right.......right?

As to be expected, poorly. I mean, c'mon - even with a ban, people can still find a way to get around it. Y'know, like converting a 1911 .45 into a fully-automatic pistol the way Capone's henchmen did. We don't get a whole lot of locals arrested with illegal weaponry, but we certainly get lots of people from Mexico possessing automatic weapons.

So yeah, I wasn't implying the ban worked - just saying it prevents civilians from legally acquiring assault weaponry.

Do you actually know what an "assault weapon" is under the definition of U.S. law? (I'll give you a hint, its not the same thing as a machine gun)
The assault weapons ban in the U.S.A. only covers certain semi automatic rifles. All of the qualifications for what makes these rifles considered "assault weapons" are either cosmetic or functional.
For example, all of these are functional devices to make handling a gun a safer and more precise exercise. (that means less stray bullets)

http://www.elmcitysports.com/files/QuickSiteImages/cx4_with_barrel_shroud.jpg
Do you know what this is? The thing at the end with all the holes in it? Scary isn't it? Its called a barrel shroud, its meant to prevent you from grabbing the barrel of a gun after firing so you don't severely injure yourself after firing via 2nd and 3rd degree burns.

http://sgcusa.com/images/large/GSG5_Folding_Stock_A.jpg
This is what's known as a folding stock. It's purpose is to make a weapon more mobile when moving and stable when firing. Purely functional. The bullets from a gun with a folding stock do not make you any more dead than those from a gun without one.

Do you all know why these are illegal? they look scary. they look "military". But the only reason they exist is to make the operation and handling of guns safer and easier. That is what defines an assault weapon.

 

[JoshGod]

whats wrong with having bear arms i mean its not like people could get confused

anyway yes u shouldnt be allowed guns but o well you keep em and shoot urself then i come along pick it up and shoot everyone muahahahaha.

 

[Nova5]

Do you all know why these are illegal? they look scary. they look "military". But the only reason they exist is to make the operation and handling of guns safer and easier. That is what defines an assault weapon.

One could easily argue a folding stock makes a weapon easier to conceal (much as I fit the G36K airsoft rifle in my backpack to walk to the dirt lot me and my buddies played in as kids), but yeah, the ban's retarded. I get that, but don't really -care- about the particulars.

If you want to give me shit for that, that's cool, but it's not something I'm all too passionate about.

 

[CWestfall]

Carrying weapons is a constitutional American right. I would like to think that the same Americans who protected the free world in the Cold War would take death before giving up constitutional rights.

I don't believe in carrying weapons with you everywhere, but I do believe in freedoms. (As a side note, I am Canadian.)

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Why can't they just restrict who gets guns and make sure they are sensible about the storage of the guns and you can't have them out in public and if you're ever in an incident you can never have a gun again? No problem, right? I know it would take heaps of policing to police it but if there are large enough penalties it should work, right?

A gun in a safe in your basement isn't functioning as a gun. So you don't need it. If you don't have the right to use the gun you don't have the right to own the gun in any meaningful manner. You can't defend yourself with a gun you aren't carrying.

Nobody NEEDS a gun unless they are robbing someone, shooting someone, or 'defending' themselves. If nobody waves guns around in public and just uses them safely and sensibly at shooting ranges, there will be no NEED to defend yourself against somebody with a gun. Then the problem becomes knife control. And lets face it, would you rather run away from somebody wielding a 12-gauge or a pocket knife.

You don't believe people can possibly defend themselves against violence with firearms. You think they're a piece of sports equipment. That's fine, but it means that nobody can really discuss this subject reasonably with you, because you reject the basic premise behind the right to bear arms.

What's the point of shooting ranges in your world? Nobody needs shooting skills if there's no legitimate use for guns.

So you'd rather shoot a person that a target? And yes, it is possible to defend yourself with a gun, but wouldn't a Tazer or pepper spray do the job? Who kill somebody when there are other ways of defending yourself? So you say that I reject the basic premise behind the right to bear arms, I'm just against people getting shot. Aren't you?

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Why can't they just restrict who gets guns and make sure they are sensible about the storage of the guns and you can't have them out in public and if you're ever in an incident you can never have a gun again? No problem, right? I know it would take heaps of policing to police it but if there are large enough penalties it should work, right?

A gun in a safe in your basement isn't functioning as a gun. So you don't need it. If you don't have the right to use the gun you don't have the right to own the gun in any meaningful manner. You can't defend yourself with a gun you aren't carrying.

Nobody NEEDS a gun unless they are robbing someone, shooting someone, or 'defending' themselves. If nobody waves guns around in public and just uses them safely and sensibly at shooting ranges, there will be no NEED to defend yourself against somebody with a gun. Then the problem becomes knife control. And lets face it, would you rather run away from somebody wielding a 12-gauge or a pocket knife.

You don't believe people can possibly defend themselves against violence with firearms. You think they're a piece of sports equipment. That's fine, but it means that nobody can really discuss this subject reasonably with you, because you reject the basic premise behind the right to bear arms.

What's the point of shooting ranges in your world? Nobody needs shooting skills if there's no legitimate use for guns.

So you'd rather shoot a person that a target? And yes, it is possible to defend yourself with a gun, but wouldn't a Tazer or pepper spray do the job? Who kill somebody when there are other ways of defending yourself? So you say that I reject the basic premise behind the right to bear arms, I'm just against people getting shot. Aren't you?

To answer the last question first, no, I'm not universally against people getting shot. I'm against the wrong people getting shot, and I'm for the right people getting shot. As for tazers and pepper spray, there are plenty of people who laugh off tazers and pepper spray. Several of the old guys at my karate school when I was a kid used to poke each other with stun guns for fun.

You miss with the tazer, you're in trouble because you had one shot. You miss with the pepper spray, you're in trouble. You hit with either one, and sometimes you're still in trouble. A hole in the head ends the threat much more reliably. There are already good legal standards for when a threat justifies the use of lethal force in self-defense, and I'm not defending people who don't meet those standards, so don't tell me it's better to get a broken nose or have your car keyed than kill somebody because I'll already tell you that you're right.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Why can't they just restrict who gets guns and make sure they are sensible about the storage of the guns and you can't have them out in public and if you're ever in an incident you can never have a gun again? No problem, right? I know it would take heaps of policing to police it but if there are large enough penalties it should work, right?

A gun in a safe in your basement isn't functioning as a gun. So you don't need it. If you don't have the right to use the gun you don't have the right to own the gun in any meaningful manner. You can't defend yourself with a gun you aren't carrying.

Nobody NEEDS a gun unless they are robbing someone, shooting someone, or 'defending' themselves. If nobody waves guns around in public and just uses them safely and sensibly at shooting ranges, there will be no NEED to defend yourself against somebody with a gun. Then the problem becomes knife control. And lets face it, would you rather run away from somebody wielding a 12-gauge or a pocket knife.

You don't believe people can possibly defend themselves against violence with firearms. You think they're a piece of sports equipment. That's fine, but it means that nobody can really discuss this subject reasonably with you, because you reject the basic premise behind the right to bear arms.

What's the point of shooting ranges in your world? Nobody needs shooting skills if there's no legitimate use for guns.

So you'd rather shoot a person that a target? And yes, it is possible to defend yourself with a gun, but wouldn't a Tazer or pepper spray do the job? Who kill somebody when there are other ways of defending yourself? So you say that I reject the basic premise behind the right to bear arms, I'm just against people getting shot. Aren't you?

To answer the last question first, no, I'm not universally against people getting shot. I'm against the wrong people getting shot, and I'm for the right people getting shot. As for tazers and pepper spray, there are plenty of people who laugh off tazers and pepper spray. Several of the old guys at my karate school when I was a kid used to poke each other with stun guns for fun.

You miss with the tazer, you're in trouble because you had one shot. You miss with the pepper spray, you're in trouble. You hit with either one, and sometimes you're still in trouble. A hole in the head ends the threat much more reliably. There are already good legal standards for when a threat justifies the use of lethal force in self-defense, and I'm not defending people who don't meet those standards, so don't tell me it's better to get a broken nose or have your car keyed than kill somebody because I'll already tell you that you're right.

'zactly. There's nothing wrong people people getting shot when they need to be shot.

 

[Beastialman]

I think the right to bear arms is one of the worst things about America.

Tell that to the Zombie Apocalypse.

 

[Earthbound Engineer]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

The second amendment of the Constitution was completely misinterpreted. It has nothing to do with firearms, it simply gives each man the right to hang a pair of bear arms on his wall. Of course, at the time this was written, times were very different. Now the amendment is more politically correct; women and monkeys are also entitled to this right.

 

[Sparkimus Prime]

* Being born with a penis should be illegal because you could rape someone with one.

sounds like feminism

I think you missed the point. The point is that, if you're willing to punish peaceful citizens for owning a gun, then this is in the same logical leap.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Well I never thought I would end up arguing for something as obviously necessary as gun control, so excuse me if my arguments don't properly convey my message.

Do I really need to explain further how people will not trust each other if they are made to believe it is necessary to own a gun? I am talking about the present day, not a future society. That is why you need gun control. It will not be completely necessary in a future society, as guns would not be produced, but right not it is DEFINITELY needed.

Hey Kair, sorry I never responded. My computer flat lined and it has only now been fixed. I don't mind if you ignore all this, considering how much time has passed.

I think the stereotypes typical to this debate have made us seem more different than we really are. For starters, I agree that "people will not trust each other if they are made to believe it is necessary to own a gun" (presumably for the purpose of defense from other people- we can neglect other uses for argument's sake). I don't want to live in a place where I feel I must protect myself from my neighbors.

But to me, this seems to be confusing cause and effect. Your statement says that people will not trust each other "if they are made to believe it is necessary". I certainly don't want it to be necessary. Instead of banning guns, we should endeavor to make them unnecessary. I am thinking that guns are the product of violence and distrust, not the cause. A robber decides his next heist will be smoother if he is armed- meanwhile, the man he just mugged resolves to arm himself. Taking a man's gun doesn't necessarily improve his motivation for buying it in the first place. So I concede your objection- you don't need to explain further- but this still leaves us the task of explaining the causal relationship of guns and distrust. I think it is correlative. The guns are a product of the distrust, not the other way around. You take the guns and distrust remains.

As a follower of SEKIII, at this point I encourage consistency between means (what we do with society today) and ends (our future society). I have no idea if guns will be produced in my own ideal future society- I think probably, but it is nice to envision a world where no one can imagine needing or wanting such a thing. I also am curious if the prohibition on firearms applies to governments and their servants, including potential Marxist transitional varieties.