Forget the zombie apocalypse

[RelexCryo]

I personally think gun restrictions are a great idea. We have them in Australia and I think we're much better off for it.

READ MY POST. WHAT WORKS IN AUSTRALIA DOESN'T WORK HERE.

You do realise that it isn't illegal for Australians to have guns, dont you? Restrictions are that there are weapons that we cant have like super dooper kill-tastic semi automatics, and that if we do want a gun that we know how to use them. So, why cant america just restrict the horrible guns and make sure that those who decide that they would like a gun have gone through the proper procedures and know how to use them.

My advice, settle down.

I meant the post on page 5. I discussed the black market, prohibition, and border security. not much point to requiring a permit, when crooks can easily buy theirs off the black market

 

[RelexCryo]

READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.

I've read this too,but I don't necessarily think it gives support for less gun control. I discussed tis with a professor of mine one time and he gave an interesting perspective. He basically said that when people have guns, the criminals go to where they know there are less guns. But this doesn't say anything if everyone had guns or if no one did. Essentially, the crime would remain static, but the location would change.

To get more on topic, I don't think there is a correlation between number of guns and un fatalities on either side of the issue. Japan and Switzerland both have low gun violence and have opposite positions on gun control.

Gun control will ban automatic weapons, but the majority of deaths are from inner city handgun violence where the guns are obtained illegally, so getting rid of automatics and gun control will not do much. With that said, the idea of having a gun for your protection seems silly to me, because you're most likely to get killed in your house by some one you know and trust in a situation where you wouldn't think to have your gun.

To stop gun violence, we need to address the issues of poverty in America as it will do more than giving guns to people or banning them will do.

oddly enough, I agree with this. Poverty has a lot more to do with it. But then, so do social issues, like the glorification of gangsters. But guns are still necessary to protect the people from an election rigging govenment.

 

[awmperry]

Y'know, I'm absolutely in favour of gun control. When I'm in control of a gun, it only points where I want it to point.

Gun *banning*, on the other hand, which is what the anti-gun lobby mean when they say "gun control", is a bad idea.

In the UK, gun crime has been steadily on the rise since the Dunblane Knee-Jerk Ban. Competitive shooters have been criminalised, while criminal shooters couldn't care less.

Meanwhile in the US, Washington DC with its strict firearms laws has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. Vermont, with largely unrestricted concealed carry, has one of the lowest.

The interesting thing about banning things is that the people who use them for criminal purposes generally don't care what the law says about them...

Personally, and speaking as a Brit with a possibly over-zealous affection for law and order, I'd prefer to be able to own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. I don't enjoy the idea of having to defend myself with a firearm, but I want the option to do so in an emergency. If the criminals can buy an assault rifle out of the back of a Transit van on a street corner for £60, I want to be able to carry a Sig on my hip in the event of things going tails-up. Police are by necessity reactive; however much they try, in most circumstances the best they can realistically do is investigate a crime once it has occurred. Before that, individuals must defend themselves.

There is one final point, of course.

It has become a grand tradition of totalitarian regimes that their accession is typically followed by bans on private ownership of firearms. An armed populace can fight back against oppression. Now, I don't see it being a problem in the civilised world for now - as long as elections are free and accurate, even Tony Blair holds little terror - but who knows what the future might bring? And if the day ever comes, it'll be too late.

 

[Silver]

i say this as nicely i can, but you sir are an idiot, who think with his very very small genetalia,and thinks you can compensate that littel thing, with a Gun, i say take away the weapons from civilians, is the first step to minimize the innocent standby and the criminality and sure pull the NRA BullSH*T: Guns dont kill Peopel, Peopel dose... okey then should we get rid of the peopel and leave the guns? or should we take away the guns?

READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.

Keep to one post, please?

And have you ever heard of the expression "Only in America"? I think that could very well be used here. Besides, those statistics you people are so very fond of, you know what's funny about them (apart from statistics being able to prove ANYTHING)? They're short term. You won't change America overnight. No matter how much you want to. Gun control isn't going to help straight away, just like better education takes AT LEAST, and that's at the very least, 12 years to kick in.


Disclaimer: Yes, I know there are a lot of other countries in which gun control wouldn't reduce crime too, but in those countries oppressive governments are more of a hot topic than gun control is.

 

[RelexCryo]

Y'know, I'm absolutely in favour of gun control. When I'm in control of a gun, it only points where I want it to point.

Gun *banning*, on the other hand, which is what the anti-gun lobby mean when they say "gun control", is a bad idea.

In the UK, gun crime has been steadily on the rise since the Dunblane Knee-Jerk Ban. Competitive shooters have been criminalised, while criminal shooters couldn't care less.

Meanwhile in the US, Washington DC with its strict firearms laws has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. Vermont, with largely unrestricted concealed carry, has one of the lowest.

The interesting thing about banning things is that the people who use them for criminal purposes generally don't care what the law says about them...

Personally, and speaking as a Brit with a possibly over-zealous affection for law and order, I'd prefer to be able to own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. I don't enjoy the idea of having to defend myself with a firearm, but I want the option to do so in an emergency. If the criminals can buy an assault rifle out of the back of a Transit van on a street corner for £60, I want to be able to carry a Sig on my hip in the event of things going tails-up. Police are by necessity reactive; however much they try, in most circumstances the best they can realistically do is investigate a crime once it has occurred. Before that, individuals must defend themselves.

There is one final point, of course.

It has become a grand tradition of totalitarian regimes that their accession is typically followed by bans on private ownership of firearms. An armed populace can fight back against oppression. Now, I don't see it being a problem in the civilised world for now - as long as elections are free and accurate, even Tony Blair holds little terror - but who knows what the future might bring? And if the day ever comes, it'll be too late.

You sir, are awesome. Check out my post on page 5. I tip my hat to you sir.

 

[RelexCryo]

i say this as nicely i can, but you sir are an idiot, who think with his very very small genetalia,and thinks you can compensate that littel thing, with a Gun, i say take away the weapons from civilians, is the first step to minimize the innocent standby and the criminality and sure pull the NRA BullSH*T: Guns dont kill Peopel, Peopel dose... okey then should we get rid of the peopel and leave the guns? or should we take away the guns?

READ MY POST. It is statitically proven gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.

Keep to one post, please?

And have you ever heard of the expression "Only in America"? I think that could very well be used here. Besides, those statistics you people are so very fond of, you know what's funny about them (apart from statistics being able to prove ANYTHING)? They're short term. You won't change America overnight. No matter how much you want to. Gun control isn't going to help straight away, just like better education takes AT LEAST, and that's at the very least, 12 years to kick in.


Disclaimer: Yes, I know there are a lot of other countries in which gun control wouldn't reduce crime too, but in those countries oppressive governments are more of a hot topic than gun control is.

assault weapons- such as ak-47's- were first banned in the 60's- on a national level. That expired in the 80's, was passed again by clinton, I think, then expired again in like 2005. Point being, we have been doing this since the 60's. hasn't worked so far.

 

[rossatdi]

We in America, unlike Europe, have a long national history of gun ownership rights.

Long history? If America has a long history of anything please let me know. My local pub has a longer history than your country.

I don't think anyone is realistically talking about banning all guns from the States. Rifles are fine. They can be used for hunting, sport shooting, evening defending one's house from scavenging hordes of crack/meth addled psychos. I fail to see the need to allow fully automatic weapons and handguns in the hands of the local population.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Wow peoples fear of guns, and willingness to give the right to have them up just mystifies me.

Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's(defensive gun use) annually. Other studies since then have yeilded yearly numbers between 800K and 2.5 million DGUs a year.

Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here(link removed). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

 

[sneakypenguin]

We in America, unlike Europe, have a long national history of gun ownership rights.

Long history? If America has a long history of anything please let me know. My local pub has a longer history than your country.

I don't think anyone is realistically talking about banning all guns from the States. Rifles are fine. They can be used for hunting, sport shooting, evening defending one's house from scavenging hordes of crack/meth addled psychos. I fail to see the need to allow fully automatic weapons and handguns in the hands of the local population.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to carry a handgun? 88%(1998 study) of violent crime happens away from the home. I fail to see how my carrying a gun endangers you or anyone around me. I promise you couldn't even tell I carry. Why deny me the option to be proactive about my safety? Am I ever going to have to use it? probably not but I'd rather be proactive about my safety rather than just rely on statistics and hope.

 

[Silver]

assault weapons- such as ak-47's- were first banned in the 60's- on a national level. That expired in the 80's, was passed again by clinton, I think, then expired again in like 2005. Point being, we have been doing this since the 60's. hasn't worked so far.

No, you haven't. A gun is still a gun. It's only to an American that it matters if someone shoots you with an assault rifle or a pistol. The rest of the world is going to be just as dead in any case.

Wow peoples fear of guns, and willingness to give the right to have them up just mystifies me.

Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's(defensive gun use) annually. Other studies since then have yeilded yearly numbers between 800K and 2.5 million DGUs a year.

Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here(link removed). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Very true. But you miss one point. Even if a culture or country has a really violent population and lots of murders, it's much easier to kill someone with a gun. Sure, Britain or Sweden or Japan has much lower murder rates than America, and would have, with or without guns. But if we do have a violent country, like America undoubtedly is (and don't go arguing about that, please, you know it's true), then guns are going to help a lot in getting the numbers of deaths higher. That's what gun control is about.

 

[RelexCryo]

We in America, unlike Europe, have a long national history of gun ownership rights.

Long history? If America has a long history of anything please let me know. My local pub has a longer history than your country.

I don't think anyone is realistically talking about banning all guns from the States. Rifles are fine. They can be used for hunting, sport shooting, evening defending one's house from scavenging hordes of crack/meth addled psychos. I fail to see the need to allow fully automatic weapons and handguns in the hands of the local population.

the lack of border security gives us a huge black market. See my post on page 5. Moreover, when the handgun ban in chicago was overturned by the supreme court, the crime rate droppped. Handguns are the only way to defend yourself in many situations, such as car jackings. Oh, and silver, We don't ENFORCE gun laws. Ergo, they only increase the crime rate. Also, feel free to read the lower half of page 6.


It has been statistically proven that in America, gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.


also:
You miss a point. Black Market. read my post on page 5.
Second point you miss: defending oneself from corrupt, election rigging government.

 

[RelexCryo]

(accidentally posted second time. please ignore.)

 

[RelexCryo]

(arrgh. third time, ignore.)

 

[Naterstein]

I can see most people believing that a handgun is a viable self defense option. But after several years in the infantry and firing a plethora of weapons, the pistol is nearly useless. The barrel is so short that even if you are a few millimetres off in your aim at a target 5 metres away this will usually result in you missing your target. On top of that most people are not trained in proper marksmenship principles which can take years to fully develop. Compounded with during a home invasion the stress level is high which causes the adrenaline to flow through the body which in turn causes the hands to shake further ruining your aim.

Most responsible handgun owners actually shoot/ practice MORE than the average police officer.

For instance, the average police officer has to qualify twice a year and thats about the only time they actually shoot, while I and many other handgun owners actually shoot nearly an average of 100 rounds every weekend. In addition to that, I and many other responsible gun owners have sought out training from professional which trumps what the average police officer's training. You also have to remember Cops are humans too and they tend to miss as much as or even more than the average responsible conceal carry permit wearing citizen. Look up nearly any shootings the involves the polices and you will see an extreme amount of ammo being shot at the perps while usually less than 10% hit their mark.

This arguing is going no where really. Even if the world was perfectly safe, I would still want a gun if for no other purpose than to hunt for survival if necessary and just for the hobby of shooting. In this perfect world tho, Police could/would respond in milliseconds to crime rather than 3-4 mins, at which point the crime is probably over with.

Ive seen alot of "holier than thou" type responses from people of other countries, of course no one will fesses up to what perfect country they live in Ive noticed. If you live in a society where you have zero chance of becoming a victim, bravo, let us all immigrate there. But for us Americans, we have the right to legally own and the privilege to carry firearms, and I for one will exercise that right as long as I can.

Edited to add: If you cannot shoot a pistol at 5 meters and keep it in the black, then yes you need to practice more. Handguns have plenty of use. In combat, they are backup for your primary weapon. In self defense, well they are small, concealable, and get the job done.

 

[rossatdi]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to carry a handgun? 88%(1998 study) of violent crime happens away from the home. I fail to see how my carrying a gun endangers you or anyone around me. I promise you couldn't even tell I carry. Why deny me the option to be proactive about my safety? Am I ever going to have to use it? probably not but I'd rather be proactive about my safety rather than just rely on statistics and hope.

Proactive about your safety? In London we just had a blitz on teenagers carrying knives as 'proactive safety' against knife crime. And we've already seen a fall in violence. "Proactive safety" is equivalent to going up to someone and punching them because 'you thought they might start something'.

Murder primarily, is not the fault of the gun, that I happily concede. Person on person violence is related on a large scale to social factors. Guns however are a facilitator, a tool. Handguns are designed to kill. You remove them from the hands of those eager to use them and you decrease the ease of killing. I would certainly not be comfortable going to a bar or the cinema with a friend who was carrying a gun.

What do you think is safer in a mugging situation? Giving them your wallet or pulling a firearm? Because they can have my wallet, I'll call my bank and cancel the cards. I'll lose a bit of money. No big deal. Raising the stakes is not a smart move with personal safety.

 

[RetiarySword]

Gun Control in areas has provennot only to INCREASE violent crimes, but even GUN crimes in general. Why? That's because criminals don't obey laws, dipshit. And taking guns away from law-abiding citizens only makes them easier targets for said criminals. It's a proven fact, wise up.

Funny you should say that because according to offical figures the murder rate in the US is 200 times greater than in Japan. In Japan no private citizen can buy a handgun legally.

Also, just because a citizen is 'law-abiding' doesn't mean they are incapable of murder - the majority of murders are so called 'passion killers' who just get so enraged they end up killing someone out of heat of the moment. Anyone, law-abiding or not, can do this; taking away guns prevents this from happening, naturally. There was a case where a police sheriff (more than just a respectable citizen, I'm sure) ended up shooting his family out of heat of the moment.

I live in the UK where we aren't allowed to buy guns without a proper license and I am very glad of that fact; our police officers aren't given guns either (with the exception of the armed response units, obviously).

And avykins, that's an awfully big brush you're using there.

That being stated, what prevents the "passion killers" from using a knife.

A law won't stop a criminal, but it makes their job harder. How many people from the UK know anyone who could supply you with anything like a pistol. Shotguns farmers have, air rifles a few people have them but not a fucking semi-auto pistol! In your country most people have guns under their pillows. I've never seen an illegal gun in my life. The fact that I haven't sort of proves it works.

I ask you how many crimes have you witnessed? And don't be stupid and use generalizations and stereotypes to advance an argument. Only idiots keep guns under their pillows. Haven't you ever heard of a gun cabinet or a lock?

Well its kind of hard to ban most knifes as there more tools than weapons. Also I have wittnessed a few. Couple of muggings, a few fights. Nothing too bad. Also a gun in a household is still a gun what someone has access to.
Picture this; a guy splits up with his girl, maybe she was cheating on him. He gets andgry and decides to visit the guy. He takes his gun not to shoot, but to mess with him a bit. There is a problem, can you spot it?

Why would anyone need a firearm anyway? I've never heard of any crime being stopped by a victim holding a gun.

 

[RelexCryo]

please read my post on page 5 about other countries. Or read the lower half of page 6, it's pretty good.

 

[Naterstein]

We have pointed out many times that if you take away the guns, criminals will still have them. I dont care what country you are from, I am willing to bet that a large portion of your criminal society has a gun or access. I am staring at you Australia, where handgun ownership IS legal with the right permits, and alot of criminals do have firearms.

I will concede:
- That they are uneducated children accidently shooting themselves; however its a fact that accidental drowning in backyard pools kills ALOT more kids than guns.
- There will be some asshats who didnt get enuff attention from daddy and/or cannot cope with their own issues, so they rampage through schools, malls and churches, however the amount of times this happens and the few people that are killed are sensationalized by liberal demo media. You never hear about the person who used a firearm in self defense, because it happens enough that the other democrats (no offence to gun loving demos) may actually realize guns save MORE lives than they destroy.

In a mugging situation? Hmmm. If I am already at gun point, sure... I will comply; however if I see it coming, I believe the perp will lose interest once he sees that I am carrying and if he doesnt, well ...

Why shouldn't I be allowed to carry a handgun? 88%(1998 study) of violent crime happens away from the home. I fail to see how my carrying a gun endangers you or anyone around me. I promise you couldn't even tell I carry. Why deny me the option to be proactive about my safety? Am I ever going to have to use it? probably not but I'd rather be proactive about my safety rather than just rely on statistics and hope.

Proactive about your safety? In London we just had a blitz on teenagers carrying knives as 'proactive safety' against knife crime. And we've already seen a fall in violence. "Proactive safety" is equivalent to going up to someone and punching them because 'you thought they might start something'.

Murder primarily, is not the fault of the gun, that I happily concede. Person on person violence is related on a large scale to social factors. Guns however are a facilitator, a tool. Handguns are designed to kill. You remove them from the hands of those eager to use them and you decrease the ease of killing. I would certainly not be comfortable going to a bar or the cinema with a friend who was carrying a gun.

What do you think is safer in a mugging situation? Giving them your wallet or pulling a firearm? Because they can have my wallet, I'll call my bank and cancel the cards. I'll lose a bit of money. No big deal. Raising the stakes is not a smart move with personal safety.

 

[rossatdi]

the lack of border security gives us a huge black market. See my post on page 5. Moreover, when the handgun ban in chicago was overturned by the supreme court, the crime rate droppped. Handguns are the only way to defend yourself in many situations, such as car jackings. Oh, and silver, We don't ENFORCE gun laws. Ergo, they only increase the crime rate. Also, feel free to read the lower half of page 6.

It has been statistically proven that in America, gun control increases the crime rate, and right to carry decreases it.

also:
You miss a point. Black Market. read my post on page 5.
Second point you miss: defending oneself from corrupt, election rigging government.

Firstly, you defence from a car jacking is let them have the car. You should be insured anyway. What's worth the risk. If they were going to kill you, they'd kill you. Gun or no gun.

Secondly, we don't live in a repressive authoritarian regime. We live in a democracy. I hope to god that your first reaction to the (never ending) cases of american political corruption is not to go grab your gun.

"Gun control" is a misnomer. You can't prove a causal relationship between gun control and the crime rate. You can prove things happen at the same time not that they're caused by each other. The biggest rise in violent crime in urban environments of late, in the 90s, has been explained through economic and social factors. Not firearms. Likewise the early 2000s fall has nothing to do with guns.

I actually think that guns don't matter too much. They are more a symptom than a cause. Americans are violent/aggressive people. I'm not just being prejudice, this is based on a full year living with them. The whole society is more rigged around macho aggressiveness than any I've seen in the West (although I've not been to Italy). There's a complete lack of critical thinking and empathy amongst even college educated people and on both sides of the political divide.

I just think that for a society that is more inherently violent than others, taking away your guns might be a smart move. That's a whole 'nother debate though.


---
Last post. I have come to the realisation that no matter how much good it would do the country you're never going to actually be able to take guns away from Americans. No matter how many Columbines, Wacho or V-Tech shootings happen, Americans are going to believe they are safer than their European neighbours because they carry guns. Despite the fact that their European neighbours have massively lower levels of homicide and gun violence.

It all wonderfully ties in with the notion of American liberty. Free to live a happy life but more likely die in squalor if you're born in the wrong circumstances.

 

[RelexCryo]

Check out link tv's (that's a news channel) special, "murder, spies, and spinning lies" on whether or not this is a free country.