Forget the zombie apocalypse

[RelexCryo]

meh, I've been through arizona, illinois, indiana....bunch of places. Granted, most places I was only passing through. Arkanasas and some other low gun control states, low crime. California? I live there. High crime rate. Been my experience that a lack of education, and bad economy plague us evevrywhere, though, as someone who lives in California, a high gun control state, yeah, this place is pretty fucked up. I got robbed last month, street mugging. Never happened to me in Arkansas. I spent about 5 years in Arknasas.

 

[Silver]

*Snip*

As I've already said. No. In America outlawing guns wouldn't help. You've got too many of them, and you're too violent.

Here, I don't go out afraid I'm going to get robbed. If I DO get robbed it's going to be by an unarmed gang, a person with a knife or someone with an airsoft gun.

If they do, I give them my wallet. They don't kill me. See, that's the difference. They wouldn't kill me just to keep me from identifying them. I might get beaten up, sure. If I had a gun, I probably wouldn't. But if I had a gun, all criminals would have them too. And pulling a gun on someone trying to mug you with a gun in his hand? You've watched too many western movies. Most of the western world is more civilised than that these days. We don't kill people for no reason, not even criminals, or robbers.

If I do get killed that would be because I decided to fight back, against too big odds, or if I beat the odds, and actually found the guy with a gun, and decided to pull one out myself. If I didn't do anything like that then no, I wouldn't get killed. I wouldn't be safer with a gun. In America, sure, there I need one. Just like I need one if I decide to run into a warzone carrying a poster saying "You all deserve to die". Here, I don't need one. Here gun laws work.

And no, I don't need a bloody gun to keep my government in check either. Unlike you I can actually choose who to vote for, instead of just having about 2 options. And just like you, I decide who sits on my government, and I don't use a gun to decide it.

 

[Cyberius]

Good, you americans cannot even be trusted to handle vegetable peelers. You do not deserve firearms. However on the other hand it is your access to guns that helps keep your population in check thus preventing your stupidity from overrunning the world... come to think of it most americans have the same IQ, gait, smell, volcabulary and voracious appetite as the living dead... *flee*

i find that... slightly offensive. im american, i have an iq of 125.
i have to say that its just the loudmouth retards that make us all look bad.

*sigh* and god knows we have a lot of them...

 

[rossatdi]

meh, I've been through arizona, illinois, indiana....bunch of places. Arkanasas and some other low gun control states, low crime. California? I live there. High crime rate. Been my experience that a lack of education, and bad economy plague us evevrywhere, though, as someone who lives in California, a high gun control state, yeah, this place is pretty fucked up. I got robbed last month, street mugging. Never happened to me in Arkansas. I spent about 5 years there.

You know California has a high crime rate because it has several high density cities with highly clustered poverty centres, right? That doesn't take a social scientist to work out.

 

[RelexCryo]

Yup. That is the first and foremost reason. But then, so is Michigan, home to detroit, which was highest murder capital in the USA. They passed right to carry laws, and the crime rate fell. It's stayed lower for 6 years.


(although I don't really know how the population density/ high poverty areas stack against california/New York, the fact they had the number one murder capital says something.)

 

[awmperry]

There are martial arts techniques to push the gun to the side and punch the attacker in the face.

Yes, and they need years of practice to get to the stage where they're more dangerous for the attacker than for the defender. And even then they're never a sure bet. And, of course, a physically weaker defender will be at a disadvantage, whereas even a weak person can, with practice and correct technique, use a firearm.

Your hypothetical situation is also flawed in that you assume your feint will work, you assume they won't see through it and shoot as you reach for your gun because NRA propoganda went to your head and you think that you're a hero not a victim.

NRA propaganda has nothing to do with it; indeed, my exposure to the NRA is limited to Michael "Creative Edit" Moore's interview with Charlton Heston. But the key thing is that it's not a feint; many, if not most, people keep their wallets in their strong-side back pocket, and most trained shooters carry their gun on their strong-side hip. With a practiced draw, there's nothing to see through, and no time to see through it in.

But of course the delivery matters too; the key is to make the attacker feel that they have the advantage (which, at that point, they do) and to make them feel secure. It's not just a case of "I'm getting my wallet - oh whoops, it's a gun", it's a case of selling it in an effective way.

You also fail to think that when the criminal gives up and you holster your gun, he can just pull his gun back out and shoot you now that he knows where your gun is.

Er... who said anything about holstering up as soon as the crim "gives up"? As long as the criminal is a threat, the sights remain on them. The gun only goes back in the holster once the criminal is either secured, neutralised or far, far away. Thus my emphasis on calling the police as soon as practical.

Finally we have the problem that if it all goes arse up and you shoot him, he will survive long enough to shoot back. Movies may tell you that gun instantly kill but they actually give the shot person more than enough time to kill the shooter before bleeding to death.

They can do, certainly, and most fatal gunshot wounds kill by exsanguination, but that's where the training comes in. Until you are proficient in not just firing a gun on a range, but using it tactically, you shouldn't carry it. Until then, it's a liability rather than anything else.

As you rightly say, there's generally no such thing as a one-shot stop. There are a number of drills intended to maximise stopping power - the Mozabique drill being a classic - and of course calibre selection is a major consideration, but shot placement is key. That's why you never shoot to wound, or fire warning shots; leg shots look good on film and in a courtroom, but they're ineffective and difficult to shoot accurately. The aim is to neutralise the threat, and while "neutralise" is often seen as a euphemism to avoid having to say "kill", it is a specific and warranted distinction; shooting is to neutralise the threat, not the person. Yes, it often means the attacker will be killed, but it's not the aim.

I seem to have drifted somewhat from the point, so here it is: enough accurate fire to centre mass will put an attacker down quickly enough to prevent return fire. If it doesn't, chances are they're chemically assisted and unlikely to leave with just a wallet anyway.

I also enjoy the paradox in being trained to use a gun safely, unless you bring a wall of bulletproof glass around a gun is never safe.

I use guns safely. The guns themselves are not safe, but the uses to which I put them are. It's not as contradictory as you think.

And, of course, there's no such thing as bulletproof glass. ;-)

Cars and families that can't raise children have the purpose of continuing society with the side effects of ruining a small proportion of their user's lives. Guns have the purpose of destroying society with the side effects of giving people a false sense of security; as evidenced in your belief that a gun will help you rather than give a criminal a much better reason to shoot you before you fight back.

Guns have, fundamentally, the purpose of sending a projectile downrange. More specifically, they have the legitimate purposes of hunting food, shooting cardboard targets, controlling animal populations, and defending people against other people. The side effect is that they, like cars or bottles or knives or sticks, have the potential for abuse.

The problem is that guns have become a very emotive subject, so people have trouble approaching them rationally. Show a person a gun and their reaction will, in many cases, be visceral rather than considered.

On reflection, though, a gun is ultimately just a tool. A murder may be committed with any weapon from a fist to a gun to a bomb, but the fundamental crime is still murder.

And that, more than anything else, is the main thing. Why not address the real issue, rather than the means to it? Murder is illegal; is that not enough?

Finally of couse people that pick up guns are no longer victims, they become a danger to themselves and everyone they percieve as a threat, out of thought or heat of the moment.

And that is why training and vetting is essential. Force-on-force training with induced stress is vital to establish a quick and accurate decision-making process, to minimise the risk of collateral damage. I'm in favour of tighter controls on firearms, but I believe the option should be there for those who put in the effort.



Oh, and Silver - let me remind you, I'm British, living in the UK and Sweden. Please don't address me as if I were American. ;-)

 

[Cahlee]

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

So would you rather stay stoic or try to take a step in the right direction? Sure this wont eradicate the problem completely, but isn't it better to move forward then to argue against change to try and decrease gun violence just a little? Each new step makes a difference, regardless of how small. I always wonder about how tragedies like Columbine and those like it may have been avoided if we if guns weren't so accessible. They probably would have gone nuts anyways, but the damage may not have been as bad. I just dont think that guns are the answer.

 

[Foolish Mortal]

Jesus Christ.

It's not a matter of 'owning a gun makes you a rabid serial killer redneck' OR 'the moment guns go you lose all your rights I'm a free man till I die America is more free than your European nanny state no-balls OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEE' (that one's for AntiThom). A balance can be struck here.

Let them keep their guns but train them to handle guns responsibly and crime rates will drop. Someone has already used this wise argument and both lobbies just passed over it like it was never said.

 

[awmperry]

Absolutely right - training (and vetting) is the key. Going from memory, the vast majority of gun-related deaths (in civilians, at least) result from accidents caused by poor gun handling or storage. A simple measure like effective training would make a huge dent in firearm-related deaths and injuries.

 

[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

So would you rather stay stoic or try to take a step in the right direction? Sure this wont eradicate the problem completely, but isn't it better to move forward then to argue against change to try and decrease gun violence just a little? Each new step makes a difference, regardless of how small. I always wonder about how tragedies like Columbine and those like it may have been avoided if we if guns weren't so accessible. They probably would have gone nuts anyways, but the damage may not have been as bad. I just dont think that guns are the answer.

My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has). Currently, gun control increases crime rate, and right to carry decreases it in America. A lot of changes would have to happen before gun control is viable. Without those changes, it's not a step in the right direction, it's suicide. Moreover, in the case of taking away our "military" guns this still wouldn't solve the whole, "corrupt government rigging elections" thing. We always like to think the brutality of the past is behind us. But the only thing keeping it behind us are measures designed to prevent history from repeating itself. Leaving governments on the honor system-even if it's unlikely the government officials will start rigging elections anytime soon-means that if it did happen, we would pretty much have to pray that non-violent resistance works.

 

[Cahlee]

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

So would you rather stay stoic or try to take a step in the right direction? Sure this wont eradicate the problem completely, but isn't it better to move forward then to argue against change to try and decrease gun violence just a little? Each new step makes a difference, regardless of how small. I always wonder about how tragedies like Columbine and those like it may have been avoided if we if guns weren't so accessible. They probably would have gone nuts anyways, but the damage may not have been as bad. I just dont think that guns are the answer.

My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has). Currently, gun control increases crime rate, and right to carry decreases it in America. A lot of changes would have to happen before gun control is viable. Without those changes, it's not a step in the right direction, it's suicide. Moreover, in the case of taking away our "military" guns this still wouldn't solve the whole, "corrupt government rigging elections" thing. We always like to think the brutality of the past is behind us. But the only thing keeping it behind us are measures designed to prevent history from repeating itself. Leaving governments on the honor system-even if it's unlikely the government officials will start rigging elections anytime soon-means that if it did happen, we would pretty much have to pray that non-violent resistance works.

Yes, I understand YOUR point. Want you dont seem to be getting is mine! I'm not saying, lets take away everyone's guns. I'm saying that there are some guns that are too dangerous to own. To protect yourself against whatever threat you think is coming to get you, mexicans, or terrorists, or pandas, you dont need a semi automatic! And what exactly is wrong with making sure that people who purchase guns know what they're doing, and have a safe place to keep it so that children dont open a draw, take out a gun and decide to play cowboys? Yes, other things should be done, poverty should be addressed, border security should be increased. But the lack of gun control is an issue, especially when so many tragedies could be avoided if some small measures were taken to ensure peoples safety when it comes to guns.

 

[awmperry]

Actually, you would be better served with a semi-automatic. Manual-action weapons are really only useful when you have range on your side, while in most self-defence scenarios the speed of a follow-up shot can mean the difference between life and death.

Fully-automatic weapons, on the other hand, generally have little application for civilians. Except that they're great fun on the firing range.

(Speaking of which, I'd be very interested to see if anyone has any statistics on legally-held automatic weapons being used in crime; does anyone know?)

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I support the Second Amendment and I'd rather Obama keep to himself. However, I can not debate this topic with particular passion considering I've already been involved in too many topics like this on GameSpot. I care about my position, but I just don't care about the debate anymore. They're all the same, anyway.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Jesus Christ.

It's not a matter of 'owning a gun makes you a rabid serial killer redneck' OR 'the moment guns go you lose all your rights I'm a free man till I die America is more free than your European nanny state no-balls OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEE' (that one's for AntiThom). A balance can be struck here.

Let them keep their guns but train them to handle guns responsibly and crime rates will drop. Someone has already used this wise argument and both lobbies just passed over it like it was never said.

A level-headed reasonable individual graces this forum. I applaud you.

 

[beddo]

What we really need to worry about is the government taking our guns! Obama and Biden are the dynamic duo of gun control and prohibition! Don't let the man fool you, and don't shrug it off either.. it happened in the UK and in Australia, and it can happen here if we let it! Tyranny is a few well targeted pieces of legislation away!



EDIT: Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

Right so the UK and Australia are somehow run by tyrannical dictators? And this is due to the fact ownership of guns is highly regulated?

Tell me, if every US citizen has the right to life, liberty and freedom and guns are responsible for over 10,000 deaths every year then surely enhancing gun ownership regulations is really just helping to ensure the abidance of this right.

Furthermore, what about sending soldiers off to an aggressive war for them to lose their lives. Do they not also have the right to life?

Moreover, if you want to talk about rights, what about the right not to be tortured, something the US government widely engages in and tries to justify.



You want to talk about tyranny just look back to the treatment of black people and their legal status in 60s and before. In fact it wasn't until 1997 that the last school removed a ban from students of different races dating.

The United States is built on theft, slavery and tyranny. Its a joke, its citizens have never had true freedom, the leaders just hope that if they tell you all enough that you do and force you to say it every morning at school that you'll all believe it.

 

[David Allen]

Dear Buttface McGee,

I am writing to inform you of your ineptitude. And I may quote the following "My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has)".

Okay, let me stop you right fucking there. As much as I like your journalistic style of "not backing up your horseshit with hamburgers (by which I mean 'facts'. I've simplified it into terms you can understand, you gallstone), I've got to start by contesting this absurd and hilarious unsubstatiated claims.

How does having sensible gun restrictions relate AT ALL to border restrictions. You sound like you spend your nights locked in a cupboard with an automatic rifle, in case and immigrants sneak into your country, and start strangling people.

I've not yet met anyone who takes a look at America and thinks: "Drat, if they didn't have all those pesky guns, we could all walk in there and kill them all. And we'd get away with it too!", they'd laugh, as they were busy stealing your jobs. How is making sure Americans have their guns registered going to get anyone killed, rather than having something of the opposite effect. Also, you are fat. Moving right on...

"gun control increases crime rate" - Brilliant! Amazing! Best comedy routine in years! Listen, you greasy political specialist/ profound scientist, you. Listen. Don't speak another vile word of ignorant dribble. If I were a child, in Australia... the only way I'd get my hand on a gun would be to crack my father's safe, if he were a registered gun owner. If he were not a registered gun owner, then he wouldn't have a gun. Then I would have to go to the TROUBLE of getting through to the black market. How many children NEED connections to the black market? Don't answer that, you're a scientist, not a statistician.

Speaking of the black market for a teensy moment here, it certainly makes sense that there won't be an instant drop in illegal gun sales, but by having every gun registered, it won't be too tricky to work out who shouldn't have one, and how they got it. We've got a black market for guns here too, and it doesn't stop anyone for buying a gun. So Sherlock, tell me why America would still have more gun crime, when a small population manage to get their hands on a black market gun, and everyone with a gun is questioned on it, as opposed to FUCKING EVERYONE having one. Got an answer, eh, tubby?

If gun control increases crime rate, why does Australia have a lower percentage of gun-related crimes than America? (Here's a tip, ask someone that doesn't have the foolishly unfounded bias toward America that you do. They're easy to spot, you can see them at coffee shops conversing instead of eating hamburgers).

Also, you are fat.

 

[snrubmanor]

Dear Buttface McGee,

I am writing to inform you of your ineptitude. And I may quote the following "My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has)".

Okay, let me stop you right fucking there. As much as I like your journalistic style of "not backing up your horseshit with hamburgers (by which I mean 'facts'. I've simplified it into terms you can understand, you gallstone), I've got to start by contesting this absurd and hilarious unsubstatiated claims.

How does having sensible gun restrictions relate AT ALL to border restrictions. You sound like you spend your nights locked in a cupboard with an automatic rifle, in case and immigrants sneak into your country, and start strangling people.

I've not yet met anyone who takes a look at America and thinks: "Drat, if they didn't have all those pesky guns, we could all walk in there and kill them all. And we'd get away with it too!", they'd laugh, as they were busy stealing your jobs. How is making sure Americans have their guns registered going to get anyone killed, rather than having something of the opposite effect. Also, you are fat. Moving right on...

"gun control increases crime rate" - Brilliant! Amazing! Best comedy routine in years! Listen, you greasy political specialist/ profound scientist, you. Listen. Don't speak another vile word of ignorant dribble. If I were a child, in Australia... the only way I'd get my hand on a gun would be to crack my father's safe, if he were a registered gun owner. If he were not a registered gun owner, then he wouldn't have a gun. Then I would have to go to the TROUBLE of getting through to the black market. How many children NEED connections to the black market? Don't answer that, you're a scientist, not a statistician.

Speaking of the black market for a teensy moment here, it certainly makes sense that there won't be an instant drop in illegal gun sales, but by having every gun registered, it won't be too tricky to work out who shouldn't have one, and how they got it. We've got a black market for guns here too, and it doesn't stop anyone for buying a gun. So Sherlock, tell me why America would still have more gun crime, when a small population manage to get their hands on a black market gun, and everyone with a gun is questioned on it, as opposed to FUCKING EVERYONE having one. Got an answer, eh, tubby?

If gun control increases crime rate, why does Australia have a lower percentage of gun-related crimes than America? (Here's a tip, ask someone that doesn't have the foolishly unfounded bias toward America that you do. They're easy to spot, you can see them at coffee shops conversing instead of eating hamburgers).

Also, you are fat.

Agreed. There are plenty of guns already in America, trust me. Few people are sneaking them past airline security. Border security has nothing to do with your rights, or the second ammendment which apparently has all sorts of rubbish that's just been crossed out with pen, to be replaced with "WE ALL GET GUNZ GUYZ!!! HOORAY!".

People get BUSTED all the time trying to bring guns into Australia. BUSTED. We don't give a friendly tip of our hats, whilst directing you to the nearest K-Mart "Hey, that gun's lookin' pretty shabby there partner. They got a sale on downtown. Why don't you head on over?"

Fuck that. If you've got a reason to have guns, ie Zombie Apocalypse. Then walk up to the police station and they will gladly give you one and register it to your name if you've got valid ID. It's not too much to fucking ask.

That's if they're not already zombies themselves, in which case you're fucked. So hurry up and get your shooting license registered to prevent the zombie apocalypse as safely as possible today.

 

[sheic99]

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 witnessed 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 angry 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.

Well, I think it's about 48 out of 50 states allow you to carry a concealed firearm with a license. Muggers don't necessarily need a gun, obviously because you have seen a few. This guy has http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

Guns are deterrents, the knowledge that they are in a home can stop a robbery. Someone broke into my uncle's house. He heard him and grabbed his shotgun, cocked it. Burglar heard the gun and left. 2 examples for you.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

Also, taking guns out of the hands of the population radically decreases their ability to kill each other. Something Americans haven't twigged yet.

WRONG. 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.

Sorry, compare the number of gun related death in the US to the UK and you will see you may be mistaken. Also the murder rate in the US is higher than in the UK. If it has been proven then where is your evidence. I have not provided any because I did not make the intial claim. If however you try to back up this statement, I will back up mine, OK?

I said the same thing so just check with one of my posts to find studies etc that actually prove that you (zhoomout) are right whereas AntiThom is wrong (in the statement not the opinion....even though I do disagree with the opinion).