Gun Control

[venomai]

The actual reason is to give the people of the United States a means to enforce the constitution and uphold their rights.

 

And why should it be the job of citizens to enforce the law?

 

 

 

Without any method of backing up the constitution, the rest of the rights listed there are empty words on a piece of paper.

 

Are you kidding? There exist a number of governmental agencies that make it their duty to uphold and enforce the constitution. :idea: Giving guns to citizens isn't the only way to uphold the constitution, and if it were, the United States would be a much more dangerous place than it is today.

[BlueLancer]

 

Of course, it's legally unrestricted, but you can see how horribly it works in reality. USA has more crime, murders and prisoners than any industrialized nation [2]

 

Uuh, no, I don't see how "horribly" it works. You still haven't provided a single statistic that says people would somehow be safer without the means to protect themselves.

 

 

 

People in Europe and every other continent can still protect themselves; By an effective police force. America is paying a steep price for unlimited gun access, if one country having more murders than all other western countries combined isn't "horrible", I don't know what is..

 

 

 

The actual reason is to give the people of the United States a means to enforce the constitution and uphold their rights. Without any method of backing up the constitution, the rest of the rights listed there are empty words on a piece of paper.

 

 

 

Every other civilized nation can uphold their constitutional rights and freedoms without massive proliferation of weapons. Nordic countries as a good example have extremely strict gun laws; They have the least income disparity, most civil rights, haven't been involved wars for over 200 years (bar being manned or attacked by hostile nations, namely Russia and Nazi Germany)

 

 

 

The "government" isn't an ugly monster which is willing to kill millions of it's own citizens should unrest arise. Soldiers are made up of citizens. In the event of significant unrest/riots, western governments don't authorize the killing of their own citizens.

 

 

 

The perfect example of this is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that happened just three years ago:

 

 

 

The Orange Revolution was a series of protests and political events that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, in the immediate aftermath of the run-off vote of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election which was compromised by massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud. Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, was the focal point of the movement with thousands of protesters demonstrating daily. Nationwide, the democratic revolution was highlighted by a series of acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins, and general strikes organized by the opposition movement.

 

 

 

This may come as a surprise to some americans, but you don't need assault rifles and handguns to uphold your rights. If enough people agree that change has to be made through force, you wont be fighting against your own military or "other groups" through the usage of weapons.

 

 

 

By taking actions such as organising general strikes & paralyzing the government, essentially denying it tax money and all society's functions, the people hold the power like in Ukraine. It has absolutely nothing to do with guaranteeing your rights with guns. Western societies don't work in any way like Somalia, Uganda or Gaza.

 

 

 

Once again, please learn something about guns before you attempt to judge the merits of banning them.

 

 

 

I and my family own 3 firearms, I recieved 15-month military training in 1998 & handled weapons in Kosovo and searched for arms caches serving 1999-2000 with UNMIK while your generation was likely still in school. I hope this doesn't have to go to personal/ad-hominem attacks (I posted an incorrect image on page 1, haven't slept due to multiple scammers creating accounts to steal accounts here)

 

 

 

P.S. 9mm is considered high-caliber handgun in most countries, you can't even obtain permits for .50cal

[magekillr]

Other peaceful revolutions with no guns needed:

 

 

 

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

[l0l0lpur32]

I've never understood the need to posess a gun. If guns were indeed eliminated from society I think we'd be looking at a much better world. The violent crime rate would drop. Murder rates would drop. Suicides would drop (if only by the slimmest margin).

 

 

 

Guns do more harm then help. Period.

 

Didn't you say you wanted to unban drugs because of "freedom before safety"?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't even see any need for a gun. The chances of Gordon Brown declaring a military coup are so insanely minute it's barely even worth contemplating. In fact, the very image of him standing outside Buckingham Palace and declaring marshal law using the Queen's troops is hilarious. :lol:

 

 

 

Why a whole nation of 300 million people needs a right to own a gun, I'll never know.

[Furah]

I'm for guns, because if the citizens have no guns the governments may start to think "Hey, they haven't got much to defend themselves with, we could take the power from the people." Which would end up becoming a dictatorship.

[MirageOfDeath]

I'm for guns, because if the citizens have no guns the governments may start to think "Hey, they haven't got much to defend themselves with, we could take the power from the people." Which would end up becoming a dictatorship.

 

Well, no one has done anything for the last 8 years...

[Furah]

I'm for guns, because if the citizens have no guns the governments may start to think "Hey, they haven't got much to defend themselves with, we could take the power from the people." Which would end up becoming a dictatorship.

 

Well, no one has done anything for the last 8 years...

 

 

 

that would be because people still have firearms, if the governments started to completely ban firearms, the moment they start banning other hunting/leathal items I'll start stockpiling them...

[Lenticular_J]

I genuinely wonder what Che Guevara would have to say...

[transcript80]

BAN THEM ALL for genral public.

 

 

 

The american right to bear arms is outdated as stated before. The arguement that you want to be able to possess a gun (2nd amendement), is one that illustrates your lack in confidence in your government. I don't need a gun for my own security, in the Netherlands we have a police force for that. Or the army. But it is away on peace missions..... :wall: anyway..... And the example of the orange revolution illustrates that you don't need excessive violence for a revolution. Try to read up on a guy named Ghandi, he was good at no-violent demonstrations. Excessive gun violence is an act of cowardice, you force your will to somebody less armed ot of sheer force, not because of reason. That fails...always has and always will.

 

 

 

People with guns kill people. People without guns kill people as well, but it makes it harder. Sure, knives can be effective as well, but it is nothing compared to a ((semi)automatic) gun.

 

 

 

As for "recreational shooting": use strickt laws, leave guns where they belong (in tiscase, the shooting club or wherever, NOT at home), and shooting can be a sport people enjoy just s much as soccer, football or cricket (well, not sure about the last one...lol). The same priciple goes for hunting guns, but I realise that in remote areas this may not be feasable. Then again, here in the Ntherlands there ARE no remote areas....

[Quoi_Tu]

What is the reason behind the right?

 

The actual reason is to give the people of the United States a means to enforce the constitution and uphold their rights. Without any method of backing up the constitution, the rest of the rights listed there are empty words on a piece of paper.

 

That sounds like the government's job.

 

 

 

Time and time again history has shown that is one group is able to screw another group for their own gain, then they will. The Second Amendment prevents this from happening.

 

The Second Amendment allows this to happen and at the same time doesn't allow. The right to own a gun gives an individual the ability to gain at another's expense (in some instances their life). However, one could argue the right to own a gun enables the individual to protect themselves, but what keeps those individuals from not screwing over someone else in order to gain?

[Barihawk]

What is the reason behind the right?

 

The actual reason is to give the people of the United States a means to enforce the constitution and uphold their rights. Without any method of backing up the constitution, the rest of the rights listed there are empty words on a piece of paper.

 

That sounds like the government's job.

 

 

 

I think he meant that it's a preventative measure. The old "the government should fear it's people and not vice versa" approach, which while not currently relevant is a powerful tool in the average joe's arsenal.

 

 

 

Personally as a gun owner I have no "scary" or "lucrative" firearms. Just a typical 12 gauge for skeet shooting and a .22LR for plinking. I would hate to have to pay money to "stow" these at a gun club which according to Google I would have to drive over a hundred miles for (a club with a range at it).

 

 

 

Ban assault rifles (which are NOT real assault rifles, simply semi automatic bastardized versions that give the LOOK of assault rifles) if you want. Those aren't being used in crimes. Why? Because they are highly specialized and catalogued pieces that can and will be easily traced if used in a crime.

 

 

 

Regardless, there may be a correlation between crime rates in nations with or without guns. But when you compare overall crime ratios total, the nations with guns by population have lower crime rates. Part of the idea of this is that there is less motivation to break into a house where a man with a gun may be waiting for you.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that guns should be a deterrent against crime, but they serve that psychological purpose in *some* cases. I would never shoot someone who broke into my house (well, with real ammo, anyway) but I will point a weapon in their direction. Ban guns? I'll have a very large knife ready. Ban those? Baseball bat. Point is, anything can be used as a weapon. The same logic goes for criminals.

 

 

 

I've seen numbers here for gun crime rates in England going down as a result of the ban. Where are the ratios of crimes committed by other weapons? Any object with enough hatred and creative license can become a weapon. A gun is simply an object that serves as a tool of a criminal. The real danger is the mind that decides to pull the trigger.

 

 

 

I will support mandatory psychological examinations for certain types of weapons. But not all. These measures will only effect white collar crime involving guns, anyway. If anyone really wants a gun, illegal or not, they will get it. Same goes for England or Japan or any other nation. The Black Market is worldwide.

 

 

 

Also, FYI, assault weapons are illegal in the United States. They sell copies that LOOK like assault weapons for enthusiasts that are not chambered in the same ammunition as the military models. These are limited to single-fire only and can NOT be modified to automatically shoot contrary to popular belief.

 

 

 

I am also the kind of person who wonders why idiots need .50BMG rifles to shoot deer or waste targets but that is their money to waste. Chances are that someone who spends $2000 on a rifle and $1.80 per shot is not going to waste it on criminal pursuits.

 

 

 

Gun control can use some refinement, yes. But banning is not the answer. Legal weapons do not hurt anyone (except idiots who store loaded guns in their children's closet) and are unlikely to be used in anything but white collar crime. Taking measures to ensure safe handling of weapons (like mandatory classes for rifle and shotgun ownership) would be something I support.

 

 

 

Or do like Chris Rock suggests and make bullets worth absurd amounts of money.

[Quoi_Tu]

@ Bari

 

 

 

That pretty much sums up my opinion except that I don't really approve of pistols. I really only see gun ownership for the reason of hunting. I can't imagine how many deer we would have if we didn't have anyone hunting.

[Barihawk]

@ Bari

 

 

 

That pretty much sums up my opinion except that I don't really approve of pistols. I really only see gun ownership for the reason of hunting. I can't imagine how many deer we would have if we didn't have anyone hunting.

 

 

 

Exactly, that's one important reason for guns (unless you want the military slaughtering deer and leaving them to rot). I disagree on pistols, although I do think that restrictions on caliber should be put in place. Like how the Desert Eagle should only be sold in the .357 variation, not the .50AE. Same goes for .50BMG rifles. There is no reason in my mind why people should own those for private use. I doubt they would be used in violent crimes, but it's just absurd. I plan on buying a small caliber pistol (like a Walther P22 or a Ruger MkII) for target shooting but aside from that I see no real reason to own one aside from defense. And in that case a simple 9mm or .32 will do, no need for a Dirty Harry or something of that nature.

[Quoi_Tu]

@ Bari

 

 

 

That pretty much sums up my opinion except that I don't really approve of pistols. I really only see gun ownership for the reason of hunting. I can't imagine how many deer we would have if we didn't have anyone hunting.

 

 

 

Exactly, that's one important reason for guns (unless you want the military slaughtering deer and leaving them to rot). I disagree on pistols, although I do think that restrictions on caliber should be put in place. Like how the Desert Eagle should only be sold in the .357 variation, not the .50AE. Same goes for .50BMG rifles. There is no reason in my mind why people should own those for private use. I doubt they would be used in violent crimes, but it's just absurd. I plan on buying a small caliber pistol (like a Walther P22 or a Ruger MkII) for target shooting but aside from that I see no real reason to own one aside from defense. And in that case a simple 9mm or .32 will do, no need for a Dirty Harry or something of that nature.

 

 

 

If it's for self defense, are you going to be carrying the pistol with you or will it be left at home for protection against break-ins? If it's for home protection, I would think a shotgun would do fine. If it's to be carried around, I would rather people carry knives than pistols. Prefably neither, but that's unrealistic. I'm not sure I really have a sound reasoning behind my dislike of pistols beyond the fact that their intended purpose is for harm against people. Of course, assuming people don't hunt with them (there are pellet guns for varmint hunting).

[raven_gaurd0]

It's really an argument of whether or not you trust the citizens of the country more than the government. Personally, since we're a republic, its arguably better to trust the government anyway.

[dangeresque]

Someone does not need a "reason" - it is their right to own one.

 

people buy them because they are big, gaudy and look interesting

 

 

 

That's why the US has over 16,000 gun-related murders per year, more than all other western industrialized nations combined http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm (66% of US murders are committed with a firearm, compared to 1-5% in other western nations)

 

 

 

wat. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offense ... le_10.html.

 

 

 

There wasn't even 16,000 total in 2006, a pretty high crime rate year.

 

 

 

In Scandinavian and most European countries, you have to declare a reason for owning a firearm before gaining a license. "Self-protection" or "fun" are not reasons to own 9mm hand guns and assault rifles. In countries such as Japan, a civilian cannot even own a firearm.

 

 

 

What other reasons are there other than sport, collection, or self-protection? And Japanese people don't need to own one anyways because I doubt there is anyone in Japan that hunts so there is no point for them anyways.

 

 

 

Compare the armed robbery statistics between Japan which has roughly 140 million people, and USA which has 300 million people:

 

 

 

Japan has around 1.3 robberies per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. has 233 per 100,000 people[1]

 

Japanese people aren't really the crime type, of course they won't have much. And almost all people that rob gas stations and convieniant stores get caught anyways, so maybe it's a good thing they're robbing them! :P

 

 

 

Having a firearm just because of 300-year old laws that were intended to protect colonialists from the English isn't an actual "reason". Of course, it's legally unrestricted, but you can see how horribly it works in reality. USA has more crime, murders and prisoners than any industrialized nation [2]

 

 

 

Banning guns will do nothing to stop the crime. The flow of illegal guns will grow even bigger, and open up a huge black market for guns in the U.S., not good.

 

 

 

 

Ok, so there are well organized gov't agencies to protect you, such as Police, etc. That's all fine and dandy, the US has a fine law enforcement agency, but when an intruder walks in threatening your family, what are you gonna do? go get a bowling ball, chuck it at him and hope for the best? No, you should be able to go snatch your 9mm real quick and eliminate the problem, unless you want to talk it out, but what fun is that? :P (joke btw)

 

 

 

And to whoever was inferring that Americans solve everything through guns obviously didn't think of the Civil Rights movement, "this may come as a surprise". There are plenty of peaceful protests every day in America.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Ok, so there are well organized gov't agencies to protect you, such as Police, etc. That's all fine and dandy, the US has a fine law enforcement agency, but when an intruder walks in threatening your family, what are you gonna do?

 

Strangely enough, it's not a dilemma I've ever found myself in. I don't have a gun either, but there's plenty of people around my area who do. I'm like a sitting duck really... but nope, nothing. Not even a shot window.

 

 

 

I'm so unpopular sometimes I cry. :(

[deathdrow]

i think that to get a gun, you have to get shot in the leg.

 

and if you use the gun without a permit, or when you shouldn't use it. you get shot in the leg.

[BlueLancer]

Wont comment on the murder amount; Those statistics were from 2004 and there is virtually no difference. Over half of the murders are still being committed with a handgun. 15,000 murders per year is still unnormal for a western country (for another comparison, Germany has 82 million people, roughly 1/3rd of the US, and it has under 800 murders per year) http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 786806.ece

 

 

 

 

What other reasons are there other than sport, collection, or self-protection? And Japanese people don't need to own one anyways because I doubt there is anyone in Japan that hunts so there is no point for them anyways.

 

 

 

Not even sure if that's sarcasm or a straight out insult. There are countless hunters and game animals in Japan, it's extremely ignorant to say there isn't "anybody in Japan that hunts". Hunters in Japan are free to own shotguns and hunting rifles after passing the licensing test. The ban only extends to handguns which have practically no other real use than killing another human by a portable and concealable firearm

 

 

 

 

Japanese people aren't really the crime type, of course they won't have much. And almost all people that rob gas stations and convieniant stores get caught anyways, so maybe it's a good thing they're robbing them! :P

 

 

 

 

I take it you have never heard of the Yakuza which is one of the largest organized crime groups in the world right after italian mafiosi and russian mobsters. Again, it's totally ridiculous to say they just aren't the "crime type". The Yakuza even has popular support amongst the conservative elements of society. There are over 100,000 members of the Yakuza alone in Japan not including other organised crime groups http://www.yamasa.org/acjs/network/engl ... se_12.html (compared to USA with 30,000 of various groups)

 

 

 

 

Banning guns will do nothing to stop the crime. The flow of illegal guns will grow even bigger, and open up a huge black market for guns in the U.S., not good.

 

 

 

 

I for one don't support the "banning" of guns. Just ban the ones that serve absolutely zero practical purposes such as .50c rifles and handguns. (Or make them available at shooting clubs for fun purposes)

 

 

 

 

Ok, so there are well organized gov't agencies to protect you, such as Police, etc. That's all fine and dandy, the US has a fine law enforcement agency, but when an intruder walks in threatening your family, what are you gonna do? go get a bowling ball, chuck it at him and hope for the best? No, you should be able to go snatch your 9mm real quick and eliminate the problem, unless you want to talk it out, but what fun is that? :P (joke btw)

 

 

 

 

You can't get away with that in *any* country of the world, bar maybe some states in the US. It's called excessive use of force in court and you will almost definitely get a life prison term for killing a robber with a handgun.

 

 

 

Refer to this for example; The person wasn't even using a gun but a sword to protect himself from a robber, and stabbed him to death: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3561555.stm

 

 

 

A 25-year-old man is beginning an eight year sentence after he was found guilty of the manslaughter of a 38-year-old man who had tried to rob him.

 

 

 

Carl Lindsay from Walkden, Greater Manchester, stabbed Stephen Swindells after he and three accomplices arrived at Lindsay's home armed with a gun.

 

 

 

Mr Swindells died later after he was found discovered collapsed in an alley.

 

 

 

His three accomplices were found guilty of robbery and firearms offences and sentenced to fourteen years.

 

 

 

It's amazing how some people forget material possessions can be recovered, a human life can't. You *will* go to prison in almost all cases if you kill a robber in a western country.

[NoMoreDead]

I've never understood the need to posess a gun. If guns were indeed eliminated from society I think we'd be looking at a much better world. The violent crime rate would drop. Murder rates would drop. Suicides would drop (if only by the slimmest margin).

 

 

 

Guns do more harm then help. Period.

 

Didn't you say you wanted to unban drugs because of "freedom before safety"?

 

 

 

Never said that. Don't think I even commented on the legalizing drugs thread. I might have, but I definatly never said "Freedom before saftey" outright.

[dangeresque]

Wont comment on the murder amount; Those statistics were from 2004 and there is virtually no difference. Over half of the murders are still being committed with a handgun. 15,000 murders per year is still unnormal for a western country (for another comparison, Germany has 82 million people, roughly 1/3rd of the US, and it has under 800 murders per year) http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 786806.ece

 

 

 

 

What other reasons are there other than sport, collection, or self-protection? And Japanese people don't need to own one anyways because I doubt there is anyone in Japan that hunts so there is no point for them anyways.

 

 

 

Not even sure if that's sarcasm or a straight out insult. There are countless hunters and game animals in Japan, it's extremely ignorant to say there isn't "anybody in Japan that hunts". Hunters in Japan are free to own shotguns and hunting rifles after passing the licensing test. The ban only extends to handguns which have practically no other real use than killing another human by a portable and concealable firearm.

 

 

 

I was exagerating when I said that, obviously there are hunters in Japan, but I doubt there are near as many as there are in the U.S. Maybe there are, Idk, it's just the fact that they have far less territory, much more urban area, etc that I'm basing that on, not statistics. Post some if you find any, I'm to lazy to look any up atm.

 

 

Japanese people aren't really the crime type, of course they won't have much. And almost all people that rob gas stations and convieniant stores get caught anyways, so maybe it's a good thing they're robbing them! :P

 

 

 

 

I take it you have never heard of the Yakuza which is one of the largest organized crime groups in the world right after italian mafiosi and russian mobsters. Again, it's totally ridiculous to say they just aren't the "crime type". The Yakuza even has popular support amongst the conservative elements of society. There are over 100,000 members of the Yakuza alone in Japan not including other organised crime groups http://www.yamasa.org/acjs/network/engl ... se_12.html (compared to USA with 30,000 of various groups)

 

 

 

Yes that's organized crime, most shootings in the US are done by street gangs trying to control turf and drugs, not the mob.

 

 

Banning guns will do nothing to stop the crime. The flow of illegal guns will grow even bigger, and open up a huge black market for guns in the U.S., not good.

 

 

 

 

I for one don't support the "banning" of guns. Just ban the ones that serve absolutely zero practical purposes such as .50c rifles and handguns. (Or make them available at shooting clubs for fun purposes)

 

 

 

Nobody kills people with .50 cals, so what's the point in banning them? Handguns are used all the time at firing ranges for fun, or for self protection, which granted most of the people on here will never need them for self protection seeing as we don't live in any really bad spots, but nonetheless you never know.

 

 

 

 

Ok, so there are well organized gov't agencies to protect you, such as Police, etc. That's all fine and dandy, the US has a fine law enforcement agency, but when an intruder walks in threatening your family, what are you gonna do? go get a bowling ball, chuck it at him and hope for the best? No, you should be able to go snatch your 9mm real quick and eliminate the problem, unless you want to talk it out, but what fun is that? :P (joke btw)

 

 

 

 

You can't get away with that in *any* country of the world, bar maybe some states in the US. It's called excessive use of force in court and you will almost definitely get a life prison term for killing a robber with a handgun.

 

 

 

Refer to this for example; The person wasn't even using a gun but a sword to protect himself from a robber, and stabbed him to death: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3561555.stm

 

 

 

A 25-year-old man is beginning an eight year sentence after he was found guilty of the manslaughter of a 38-year-old man who had tried to rob him.

 

 

 

Carl Lindsay from Walkden, Greater Manchester, stabbed Stephen Swindells after he and three accomplices arrived at Lindsay's home armed with a gun.

 

 

 

Mr Swindells died later after he was found discovered collapsed in an alley.

 

 

 

His three accomplices were found guilty of robbery and firearms offences and sentenced to fourteen years.

 

 

 

It's amazing how some people forget material possessions can be recovered, a human life can't. You *will* go to prison in almost all cases if you kill a robber in a western country.

 

 

 

Tis true, god the justice system is so [developmentally delayed]ed in some ways, but I would go to jail if I was trying to save my spouse or child tbh. And that guy that stabbed his intruder just got lucky, if those criminals were really serious they would have shot him dead.

 

 

 

 

edit: God I keep failing at posting in the quotes right, put my responses in Bold and italics.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Tis true, god the justice system is so [developmentally delayed] in some ways, but I would go to jail if I was trying to save my spouse or child tbh. And that guy that stabbed his intruder just got lucky, if those criminals were really serious they would have shot him dead.

 

Why? It would have just alerted people outside...

 

 

 

Hardly any incidents of robbery involving a gun end with someone being shot. If you shot someone dead, you're just asking for a higher sentence, quite possibly life. The money's not worth it.

[dangeresque]

Tis true, god the justice system is so [developmentally delayed] in some ways, but I would go to jail if I was trying to save my spouse or child tbh. And that guy that stabbed his intruder just got lucky, if those criminals were really serious they would have shot him dead.

 

Why? It would have just alerted people outside...

 

 

 

Hardly any incidents of robbery involving a gun end with someone being shot. If you shot someone dead, you're just asking for a higher sentence, quite possibly life. The money's not worth it.

 

Yes, hardly any, but that still leaves some. Of course I would do everything I could to not end it with a bullet, but if it came down to it I would. Life is worth it though.

 

 

 

edit: And if I really have to shoot a robber, which I really hope I will never have to do (and probably won't have to), I wouldn't give a rat's about startling people outside. Oh wait...lol I see what you were responding to now >_<. Disregard that. But they could've used silencers.

[Agunimon979]

I support gun control because i dunno lol guns kill people.