Gun Control

[Sir_Redhead]

Although I don't mind people owning guns for hunting purposes, there is no reason to have a handgun besides to shoot another human being.

 

 

 

umm....ever heard of somethign called Action Pistol shooting lol. My dad is the 15'th best shooter in the world, and i don't think he got there by shooting other people :wall:

[Range_This11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPvip-XSJKg

 

 

 

Love this video. Love it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them.

 

Put that into context, for the love of sanity. In a country of 300,000,000, that really isn't high at all.

 

 

 

There were around 8,000 murders using guns in 2005. Put that into context.

 

Drugs cannot be used as a weapon to threaten or intimidate others, not unless the victim has already got themselves into trouble.

 

 

 

The idea of comparing deaths due to drugs, and deaths due to guns is completely laughable since the causation and culture surrounding them both is different.

 

 

 

When I can attack someone using a packet of weed, you may have a point.

 

 

 

This argument is irrelevant anyway, as snipersas decided to quote us that pointless statistic, without actually giving any evidence that this number wouldn't rise if drugs were made legal. He merely told us people die from illegal activities. Strangely enough, this has been the case since time immemorial. This doesn't subtract the need to protect people from a potentially lethal weapon; even if said weapon could defend the victim, the attacker shouldn't have the freedom to walk around with a gun in his hand.

 

 

 

All I'm seeing from pro-gun rights supporters here is a common ignorance of how dangerous these weapons actually are, and a twisting of statistics while you hide under constitutions and 'basic human rights' which don't even exist. Why do you quote how many times a gun is used in self-defence (including incidents where guns aren't fired, or even where toy guns are used), and then quote how many times guns only kill people? Surely, it would make more sense to quote how many times a gun is used offensively or in a threatening manner, in which case, I am sure the number would rise far beyond 8,000.

[Zierro]

Unless it's possible to destroy every single gun in the world and prevent them from being made, then we are already living in a very dangerous world. Illegal or not, guns will still be around. A killer is not going to care whether a gun is illegal or not - he is already a criminal for wanting to commit murder, so do you really think one little extra law is going to stop him? I think the best way would be to even out the playing field. The best defense is a good offense, and since weapons will always be around, a good defense is pretty much needed.

 

 

 

If guns were illegal, of course there would be less deaths - at the cost of more injustice.

[Aneron]

That certainly doesn't mean we should make getting guns any easier, as the bush administration has done.

 

 

 

I think we should do everything in our power to make guns difficult to acquire.

 

 

 

No matter how many times you cite how essential it is to have a gun for self defense, they really don't help you much. If you get mugged on the street and a guy is holding a knife to your throat/pointing a gun at your head, it certainly isn't in your own best interest to pull out a gun of your own. If a man breaks into your house and you notice him before he notices you, and you shoot at him, the fact is he's going to shoot back. You're no safer than you would be if neither of you had guns. You're hardly safer than you would be if only he had a gun because he is going to do the same thing, no matter what your armament status is.

 

 

 

Sure it would be a long shot to get every single gun out there, but I think making them hard to get is a decidedly smarter decision than making them absurdly easy to get. :roll:

[magekillr]

 

If guns were illegal, of course there would be less deaths - at the cost of more injustice.

 

 

 

Really? More injustice? Sorry, but the use of guns in the form of self-defense stories are a not a dime a dozen here; they are rare anecdotal moments pulled up by the NRA every time such a case happens.

 

 

 

People still claim that if people in my school carried concealed weapons, they would have been able to kill Cho and stop his murdering rampage. I call shenanigans on that one. I go here, I have seen the carnage first hand, I know the classrooms that he butchered. There is absolutely no way it would be possible for anyone to react to an armed gunman holding 2 semi-automatics, firing with military-training precision. Your first thought would be, "Duck under desk, pretend I'm dead." No frightened student would have been able to react "Get down, pull out gun, and shoot him while he's shooting me." The average body had 3 bullets a piece; give me a break. University is a place of learning, and this absurd rational makes me want to puke. I'd feel more nervous if people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, than the thought of them possibly being used in "self-defense" to stop a deranged murderer. Here's a way you could have stopped Cho: forced him into therapy, rather than just shrug off his obvious symptoms. If people were taught how to recognize symptoms better, and if it were easier to place the person in a facility, this issue could have been avoided altogether. I always hear people, "Well, now that I think about it he did seem to have problems...severe problems," and yet they do nothing.

 

 

 

More people die due to accidents involving guns, than people die due to crime. More than half of the suicides in the US are done using a gun.

 

 

 

Sorry, more injustice? Please...justice is not even taking their life. That's the problem in this god damned country. It's not the guns, it's the gun culture, and the need for a blood-thirsty society to seek redemption, vengeance, and "justice".

[Ginger_Warrior]

Sorry, more injustice? Please...justice is not even taking their life. That's the problem in this god damned country. It's not the guns, it's the gun culture, and the need for a blood-thirsty society to seek redemption, vengeance, and "justice".

 

Well said.

 

 

 

People like to compare England & Wales and the USA in this debate. It's not the fact guns are completely outlawed here that makes the difference (they're not) - it's the fact it is culturally unacceptable to carry weapons on your person here, and if you have a problem with someone, you deal with it using words.

[Lenticular_J]

So you think it is culturally acceptable to just walk around with a handgun strapped to your belt over here? And that people just shoot if they even have a problem? Because that view is completely wrong, if you're carrying a weapon that's noticeable, you will most likely be confronted by a policeman. (Unless you live in my town, our police force is terrible :?) And to all those saying its easy to get a weapon, its really quite difficult here in Texas. I'm not sure as to the exact things that need to be done, but it took my father a good 6 weeks. Whereas it's ridiculously easy to get them from a black market dealer.

 

 

 

In that way, guns are similar to drugs (would be if they were illegal, I mean). You'd think they'd be hard to get, considering their illegality, but it's quite easy.

 

 

 

I agree with you as to Virginia Tech, mage. I doubt anyone that wasn't a militarily trained professional would be able to do anything. I wouldn't call him precision though, he seemed more interested in pouring bullets at every person he could see.

 

 

 

As to the suicides, then people would use pills. Or razors. Or hang themselves. Or jump in front of a car. It isn't difficult to commit suicide, and not being able to get a (legal) weapon won't change anything.

 

 

 

Bob, I doubt any of us pushing for keeping guns would fire on a man holding a weapon to our heads. But, there's a possibility he'll still kill you. So, if you have a weapon, you might be able to keep him from shooting you. Of course, I don't believe people should carry concealed weapons. Except ninja swords. That'd be cool.

 

 

 

Who says you'd shoot at the man robbing your house? For one thing, unless its a very large distance, you'd probably be able to hit him, and he probably won't be shooting back. Even if you missed him, most burglars wouldn't stay to shoot back. They'd run.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh, and range, that video is funny. Those guys have a lot of funny ones. Bears with bulletproof armor...Everyone knows they can't fit it in them.

[jackattack]

 

Well said.

 

 

 

People like to compare England & Wales and the USA in this debate. It's not the fact guns are completely outlawed here that makes the difference (they're not) - it's the fact it is culturally unacceptable to carry weapons on your person here, and if you have a problem with someone, you deal with it using words.

 

 

 

That has about nothing to do with anything. Over here if you have a problem with someone you use words too. It's not like people pull out guns over someone cutting in front of them in a line. Thats the same argument the gun control lobby used when states were considering right to carry laws. They said people would be gunning each other down over car accidents. That didn't happen.

 

 

 

More RTC, less crime: Violent crime rates since 2003 have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s.1 Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,2 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2006, the most recent year for which complete data are available, RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 26%; murder, 31%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 15%).3

 

 

 

RTC and crime trends: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.4

 

 

 

RTC a success in every state: Former Colorado Asst. Atty. Gen. David Kopel has written, Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news medias radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasnt so bad after all.5 A article on Michigans RTC law noted, Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.6

 

 

 

RTC permit-holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.7

 

 

 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18

 

 

 

Sorry, more injustice? Please...justice is not even taking their life. That's the problem in this god damned country. It's not the guns, it's the gun culture, and the need for a blood-thirsty society to seek redemption, vengeance, and "justice".

The gun culture? No the problem is criminals. How can you say it's a need to seek vengeance? You seem to think everyone who keeps a gun for self protection would shoot someone in the back if they were walking away with their t.v. Those cases are few and far in between.

[x1992x]

i'm sure i am going to be flamed for this :lol:

 

 

 

but one can argue that if guns have been banned since, let's say 1945, there would't be so meny guns out there, and it would be socioly accepted to have guns(like in Denmark).

[Zierro]

To Mage: No offense but that's a very bold assumption you are making. We'll never have the chance to know if he would have been stopped or not - you're merely making a speculation. The fact that you were there isn't very good support. In other words, you say they wouldn't fight back - I say they would (if they had the chance that is). I'm still open to other supporting reasons as to why someone wouldn't fight back though.

 

 

 

I know justice isn't taking their life - justice is protecting your own life and potentially protecting others.

 

 

 

And like Lenticular said, people would just move onto different methods of suicide anyways. The same could be said with murder. The reason guns are so popular is because they are currently the most effective weapon. Let's think Runescape for a second. Before the Whip came out, everyone was crazy about Dragon weapons. And before those were out, people were crazy about Rune. Was murder still a commonplace in the medieval age of swords and arrows? As a matter of fact, it was.

[Jimmyw3000]

i'm sure i am going to be flamed for this :lol:

 

 

 

but one can argue that if guns have been banned since, let's say 1945, there would't be so meny guns out there, and it would be socioly accepted to have guns(like in Denmark).

 

 

 

Wait...come again..if guns were banned, it would be socially acceptable to own one?

 

:?

[x1992x]

i'm sure i am going to be flamed for this :lol:

 

 

 

but one can argue that if guns have been banned since, let's say 1945, there would't be so meny guns out there, and it would be socioly accepted to have guns(like in Denmark).

 

 

 

Wait...come again..if guns were banned, it would be socially acceptable to own one?

 

:?

 

 

 

i'm sorry that you misunderstood me so much. i meant. if guns were banned long time ago, then one can argue that there would't be as meny gun kills. bacause there was no guns, and i wasnt socially acceptable to own.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That has about nothing to do with anything.

 

The attitude that carrying a weapon in public is entirely unacceptable has everything to do with levels of violent assaults.

 

 

 

If the culture you live in strongly opposes the use or possession of weaponry, you are less likely to use one yourself as an adult if you are attached to that culture. It stands to reason.

 

 

 

Conversely, if the very constitution you live under justifies the possession of a weapon as lethal as a handgun, you feel more justified and able to use one. I'm not saying the constitution justified the use of guns in an offensive way, but it does have a psychological effect, in that it seems to be less unacceptable to use a weapon. Thus, the rate of violent crime will be higher.

 

 

 

I repeat the statistic from before in this thread of how homicide rates (not total numbers) are lower in England and Wales than the US. By lower, I'm talking a third of the US rate. Quite clearly, we are doing something right that you are not, and the whole 'self-defence' thing is proven to be flawed.

 

To Mage: No offense but that's a very bold assumption you are making. We'll never have the chance to know if he would have been stopped or not - you're merely making a speculation. The fact that you were there isn't very good support.

 

Hang on, hang on.

 

 

 

You're (not personally, but gun supporters in general) allowed to use hypothetical scenarios where self-defence may be used to justify people owning a gun, but we're not allowed to use hypothetical scenarios to argue the opposite?

 

 

 

Does this not seem strangely hypocritical; that you can scaremonger us into accepting a need for guns, but we can't attempt to add some sort of rational thinking to the debate?

[jackattack]

That has about nothing to do with anything.

 

The attitude that carrying a weapon in public is entirely unacceptable has everything to do with levels of violent assaults.

 

 

 

If the culture you live in strongly opposes the use or possession of weaponry, you are less likely to use one yourself as an adult if you are attached to that culture. It stands to reason.

 

 

 

Conversely, if the very constitution you live under justifies the possession of a weapon as lethal as a handgun, you feel more justified and able to use one. I'm not saying the constitution justified the use of guns in an offensive way, but it does have a psychological effect, in that it seems to be less unacceptable to use a weapon. Thus, the rate of violent crime will be higher.

 

 

 

I repeat the statistic from before in this thread of how homicide rates (not total numbers) are lower in England and Wales than the US. By lower, I'm talking a third of the US rate. Quite clearly, we are doing something right that you are not, and the whole 'self-defence' thing is proven to be flawed.

 

 

 

But the U.K. is a less dangerous place than the U.S. with or without guns. The murder rate in the U.K. was already lower before the gun ban. Look at states in the U.S. Most rural states have a low murder rate, even if they have extremely lax gun laws. The states that enacted right to carry laws had less crime.

[Zierro]

We're in one of those situations where things are going to be biased. Gun supporters will claim people will fight back - gun opposers will claim people won't fight back. I wasn't invalidating his point, merely showing that I can apply the same logic (mere speculation) to get my point across too. You can do that to my points too I guess and I have no problem with it (I'm the type who is fine with agreeing to disagree), but apparently that only makes you a hypocrite. :|

 

 

 

Besides, the situations are different. He was making a claim that he knew others wouldn't fight back. However I can make the claim that I would fight back. It's a lot easier to predict your own actions rather than other people's.

[Roberthree]

What ever happened to those little key-chain cans of Mace? Those are pretty efficient for self defense.

 

 

 

/me waits for the obscure sniper style situation example in which mace isn't viable.

[Ginger_Warrior]

But the U.K. is a less dangerous place than the U.S. with or without guns. The murder rate in the U.K. was already lower before the gun ban. Look at states in the U.S. Most rural states have a low murder rate, even if they have extremely lax gun laws. The states that enacted right to carry laws had less crime.

 

It's been unacceptable since long before the gun ban. The point I'm making is people should not feel they have a right to hold a weapon on them, especially in public, in order to feel safe. Guns included.

[Lenticular_J]

Then what's the point of bringing up tazers and baseball bats, though?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Then what's the point of bringing up tazers and baseball bats, though?

 

A total ban on weapons would be best. However, expecting this in a country which enshrines a right to possess a gun in its constitution would be fairly naïve.

[Lenticular_J]

It would be best if it wasn't a ban so much as every one being destroyed. The only problem is, anything can be used as a weapon.

[jackattack]

But the U.K. is a less dangerous place than the U.S. with or without guns. The murder rate in the U.K. was already lower before the gun ban. Look at states in the U.S. Most rural states have a low murder rate, even if they have extremely lax gun laws. The states that enacted right to carry laws had less crime.

 

It's been unacceptable since long before the gun ban. The point I'm making is people should not feel they have a right to hold a weapon on them, especially in public, in order to feel safe. Guns included.

 

 

 

 

 

How would it be unacceptable? Theres a reason it's called a concealed weapon. No one else would know. Anyway look at the states with right to carry laws. People aren't gunning each other down over minor disagreements like the gun control lobby said they would. In fact crime has gone down. It's more unacceptable to carry a firearm in Montana or North Dakota than in Chicago or D.C.

[scootlaboot]

It would be best if it wasn't a ban so much as every one being destroyed. The only problem is, anything can be used as a weapon.

 

So people who collect antique guns or hunt get the shaft because

 

everyone of the gun control supporters fail to notice that humans are a naturally violent species. The secret isn't a ban or destruction, but education from an early age on the proper use and respect of fire arms.

[Lenticular_J]

It was part of my debate. I'm for keeping weapons; I hunt myself.

[Ginger_Warrior]

But the U.K. is a less dangerous place than the U.S. with or without guns. The murder rate in the U.K. was already lower before the gun ban. Look at states in the U.S. Most rural states have a low murder rate, even if they have extremely lax gun laws. The states that enacted right to carry laws had less crime.

 

It's been unacceptable since long before the gun ban. The point I'm making is people should not feel they have a right to hold a weapon on them, especially in public, in order to feel safe. Guns included.

 

 

 

 

 

How would it be unacceptable? Theres a reason it's called a concealed weapon. No one else would know. Anyway look at the states with right to carry laws. People aren't gunning each other down over minor disagreements like the gun control lobby said they would. In fact crime has gone down. It's more unacceptable to carry a firearm in Montana or North Dakota than in Chicago or D.C.

 

I said it has been unacceptable in the UK for a long time, and our crime rate is lower, yet we're also a poorer nation than the US, and crime has always traditionally followed lower wealth. You're one of the richest nations (if not, the richest), and your crime rate is atrocious. There is a huge stack of evidence to suggest the availability of guns is a contributing factor to this crime rate, and yet you still sit here and tell me it's part of 'self-defence'.

 

 

 

Above all else, the whole 'self-defence' argument simply does not stand. Your homicide rate is three times higher than it is over here. Quite clearly, your guns aren't preventing as many deaths than if they were just banned completely, as they effectively are over here.