Superbeast said:
The reason so many criminals carry guns (the reason many cite for owning a gun themselves) is because you own a gun. They need to have a weapon that will pacify you.
Show me a research paper that claims such a thing and can be corroborated. Such a claim is ludicrous. Criminals carry guns as security to themselves because they don't know who they'll be robbing, but chances are their victims won't have a firearm. That's the reason liquor stores and AMPMs are robbed often, not firing ranges or gun stores.
Superbeast said:
Escalation also proves an issue with "high-level crime". Whilst having an entirely-armed population would stop solo-criminals from robbing a bank or a shop, anyone serious about taking on a bank (since they know everyone in there will be carrying) will go in with several members, and likely carrying automatic weapons. Anyone trying to shoot back at that will cause a massacre, even if they save the bank's money.
So without a single instance in history to draw upon, you say there can only be one conclusion, which ends with innocent people dead. That is ridiculous.
Superbeast said:
Whilst I'm on the subject, something from a discussion when I joined the forums (nearly a year ago) still stands out in my mind. A fellow was saying that if I was being mugged, and the criminal had a gun to my head, he would pull out his gun and shoot back standoff-style (aiming for a headshot). Now, this terrified the hell out of me - I've gone from a situation where I was just going to give the bloke my wallet and watch and he'd likely leave me alone, to one where I now have 2 guns pointed at me, I'm being used as a human shield and I have no idea of the skill of the bloke "rescuing me" who in all honestly is far more likely to shoot me by accident (and then get shot himself). Thank god this won't happen where I live (UK) - just thought I'd share, and see what other people think of the situation?
That man who posted is an idiot. Unless he was trained for years by hostage-rescue specialists, he should not have the confidence to safely execute that action. And to be honest, he could very well kill you after robbing you. Perhaps you saw his face clearly beforehand, so why not kill the only witness?
Superbeast said:
It's all very well saying a gun is for home defence to protect your family/children, and I agree. However - anyone breaking into a property in a state with gun permits is almost undoubtedly going to be carrying a firearm (and have it out ready) just in case you wake up and get your firearm.
Dude, of all the robberies I've heard about in my area I have never heard of a breaking-and-entering where the criminals were armed with shotguns or handguns. Because those types of criminals are usually desperate. They either can't afford them, or they don't want to then be charged with murder on top of everything else.
Superbeast said:
They don't often stop muggings either - if someone approaches you from behind/the side in an alleyway (stereotypical mugging situation) and they put a gun/knife to you, your own firearm is going to do jack-shit - they've got the drop on you and reaching for a weapon is only going to force them to kill you.
Who said you have to draw on them? If they've got you by the balls, nothing will help you. But that's going to change once he tries to get away. Shoot him in the back. He just threatened your life for some petty material, he doesn't deserve life in western society.
Superbeast said:
Many "common criminals" don't wish to harm someone - they want to nick your stuff. By carrying a weapon, or threatening an armed person with one, you escalate the situation into one where the criminal feels he has no escape so has to shoot - or carry a gun in the first place. It is also much harder (physically and psychologically) to kill someone with a knife, so the opponent is easier to deter (get a bat or something with longer reach) or is less encouraged to harm you.
The first sentence is correct. Which is why, again,
I have never heard of a local breaking-and-entering where the criminals were armed with firearms. And you do not look for submission when a man or several men are in your home. You do not know their motive, and you do not know if they are armed or not. You can shoot to incapacitate, but that's dangerous for yourself, so I would shoot to kill.
Superbeast said:
The general argument that banning guns only hands them to the criminals is, I feel, slightly flawed. Whilst yes, only criminals will be using guns and they'll be illegal firearms anyway, it's much easier for the authorities to stop an offence occurring. Smuggling is harder (right now most smuggling is making 3 shipments of legal firearms appear on-system as just one), it's harder for criminals to obtain them (as they have to come from non-US sources not just next-state, which at the least drives the price up) and anyone seen carrying a firearm in public would be arrested on the spot.
The counter-point to this is they'll get them anyways, and the law abiding citizens will now be deprived of that layer of defense.
Superbeast said:
The argument that firearms ownership is all that prevents you from being oppressed by the government is false as well. If the government was actually trying to force it's population physically and violently, it would be using the likes of the Army, National Guard and Police - do you really, honestly think that a collection of handguns and rifles can stop tanks and helicopters and men with machine guns?
Understand that the soldiers of U.S.A have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution, not their superiors orders. If the government of the U.S.A started to use the military to confiscate guns or suppress free speech or force interrogations on their own citizens, thousands upon thousands of soldiers would rebel. There would be a catastrophic civil war, and that's why it will never happen.
Superbeast said:
What proof do I have for all these conclusions? Look at murder rates between the UK/Europe and America, look at violent crime figures - hell, look at firearms-related accidents. In these other countries, countries with outright bans, the citizens are (on a per-capita basis) safer than those in America. We are also not dictatorships under oppressive regimes thanks to not having guns. We all have democratically elected officials and the vote still carries weight.
Post these resources you used. And what you just did was compare a country that has banned guns to a country that hasn't in terms of firearm safety. That's ridiculous, of course they're going to be lower, they're friggin banned over there.
Superbeast said:
Therefore I believe guns are more of a problem than a solution. If you want to stop a mugging in an un-armed society, get pepper spry or a tazer (remembering that you are less likely to be killed in a mugging in such a country).
You just said earlier that a gun would be useless in that situation, how the hell is pepper spray or a taser going to be useful?
Superbeast said:
If you want "home protection" get a dog - they are less likely to harm you than your own firearm, they can scare off a lot of would-be burglars by their presence and will wake the neighbours as well.
Yeah, a dog can be a deterrent, but many people, including myself, would rather have a machine rather than have to take care of another living being constantly and pay for it. And a dog would need to be trained. I remember an episode of that show, "To Catch a Thief" and one family had a dog. The dog just followed the burglar around, happy as can be. They ended up luring the dog into the van and stole the dog as well.
Superbeast said:
if a bear was in my house, seeing them shrug off some pretty hefty fire, I would just get the heck out of a window and call the authorities.
What in the hell are the authorities going to be able to do that a few 12 gauge slugs wouldn't? And they're not obligated to come at all.
Superbeast said:
But the justification that you need it to protect yourselves from people carrying guns (who are carrying guns because you are carrying guns) and that it's simply "constitutional" (which I feel is out-dated - you are now a unified, powerful country and simply do not need a militia for protection against foreign invaders). But you (as a nation) view things differently and (appear to) look sceptically at us because we don't fear our governments and (for the majority) don't want to have ownership of firearms as a thing for the regular populace. Different cultures and histories.
What you have done is fall into that classic liberal ditch of misinterpreting the 2nd amendment. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, we had a military. And the National Guard didn't exist yet. These are the same writers that gave us such jewels of freedom like the 1st and the 4th and the 5th and 6th and the 9th.
And what you people have done is gotten uninvolved. You don't fear them because you don't give a damn. That's why your country is progressively becoming a police state. Strict gun control, "sin-bins," CCTVs
everywhere. We Americans want to be heard, we want to live how we please, and we do not want a government controlling what we do. We were promised this at the creation of our nation,
and we will never give it up because we hold to inviolable principles. I wish most European nations felt the same.
Superbeast said:
I remember in the last thread a few weeks ago that I came up with an idea: How would you feel about being able to buy your own firearms and stuff, but them having to be stored at a local firing range/security bunker type place? You could take them out for hunting, go shooting at the range, and still be able to grab them to use against the government, but there would be a dramatic reduction in firearms-related accidents from poor storage issues. Doesn't do much for home protection, but that's what dogs and bear-traps are for (or bears and dog traps). What do you think of such an idea?
It's a nice idea, but if a bear/coyote/mountain lion is in my home, two pieces of metal and a spring will do jack-**** against it. Seven shotgun slugs will. Dogs aren't reliable. And setting deadly traps is actually against the law in most places.
Make alarms, like tripwires or actual burglar alarms like Brinks. Get a shotgun. If something goes off and you wake up, get the shotgun, yell something along the lines of "I'm armed" and pump it. He'll GTFO like no other if he's a petty thief. Problem solved.
