Poll: Guns, are they good or bad?

[McNinja]

Does anyone here remember the Prohibition of 1920? You know, the one where the government banned alchohal, but instead of removing alcohal from society, it made it even more prevalent, with speak-easy's, Al Capone, etc...

That proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that completely banning something didn't have the desired effect on society.

Its quite naive for people to think that outlawing guns will stop gun violence, because those killing people with guns obviously don't exactly hold the law in high regard in the first place.

^This. There's a reason people who break the law are called criminals, people. Criminals are people who break the law, crime is a violation of the law. People who don't care, won't care if a new law is passed, because they don't freaking care.

 

[captainwalrus]

guns are inanimate objects and therefore have no inherent evil or good.

Yet their only use is to kill stuff, thats nice and cheery *cough* evil, even if you only used the gun to make the person not able to walk in self-defense thats only nuetral at best its still harming somebody.

You know, like a fishing rod?

OT: I don't like the idea of a total ban on guns (at least in the States). It's a cultural issue. We generally don't embrace the government. We don't trust it, nor organs of the state (the military, the police, etc.). We trust ourselves more. And that's the bone of contention. We would rather be able to fend for ourselves. It's the American individualistic identity. From the Pilgrims, to the Pioneers, to the Wild West. Hell, it even shows in our early foreign policy - isolationist, no foreign entanglements.

There's a cultural identity built around gun ownership. I mean, what's more individualistic than being able to kill your own food and protect your own prorperty?

I'm all for licenses and background checks. But a total gun ban would raise hell in the States. Gun ownership is still far too ingrained in our culture. It's definitely not as embedded as it was several decades ago; as time goes by, gun ownership is becoming an unnecessary part of our identity. Perhaps in several decades it'll become a non-contentious issue, but for now it's a waning, but evident part of our culture.

 

[Superbeast]

major snip of my words for ease of other forum users. I've also re-arranged my quotes/replies so they (hopefully) make more sense and flow better

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.

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.

So you've never heard of an armed entry (firearms) where you live, but you'd still "shoot to kill" an intruder because they're armed and going after your family. Right. How would a bat/metal bar/tazer/other non-lethal method be any less effective (since they have to get close to hurt you)?

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.

But it will be much harder for them to get the firearms and easier to regulate/remove by the police so there are less in circulation amongst the criminal community so your chances of encountering a gun-armed burglar are lower and not necessitating the civilians own guns.

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.

How about the fact that armed robbery rates are lower in countries with firearm bans, or even stricter regulation? It's not clear corroboration - I don't think such a study has ever been done accurately enough to be published.

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.

Umm, that's my point (ie that firearms are not good protection). There are less firearms and less murders - and less firearms in general. What was the counter-point you were trying to make, I don't understand - you seem to be agreeing with my premise?

Sources:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

There are no developed European states higher than the US (countering the claim that violent crime rises when the populace is un-armed - if that were true, murder rates would certainly be higher. We don't even have the death penalty as a deterrent).

More interesting sources:

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

These show that there are more violent crimes per capita in the States than Europe, more murders and that firearms are involved in 58% of those murders (compared to firearms being involved in 0.07% of murders in the UK).

They also show that having the right to bear arms does nothing to deter violent crime (compare assault rates between US and UK - virtually identical) and arguably make rape worse (relatively freely giving people the weapon to dominate over someone else) as the US rate is 3 time higher.

So my conclusion from these sources are that guns are ineffectual at protection (at the very least the way you guys are regulating them), if not exacerbating potential problems and thereby totally unnecessary for the purposes of self-defence, and that by not having a society chock-full of guns you are indeed safer and more likely to survive an encounter with a criminal (as total UK crimes are slightly higher on a per-capita basis, but assaults, murders and firearms-related offences are a significant amount lower).

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.

Well, I don't think there are any "compulsory-armed" states out there to get information from. It is a hypothetical counter to the hypothetical statement that an armed populace would be safer.

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?

Yes, he was an idiot (at least pertaining to this situation). And no, he wasn't trained (just a "naturally excellent shot"). And that is why that hypothetical situation terrified me, that there are people who think they can do that. And why would a mugger go from getting a free £30 and a high chance of escaping a jail-sentence if caught to a life sentence if caught? Murders from muggings (in Europe) are extremely low.

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.

Whilst this is true, it cannot be guaranteed. Look at how the armed forces treated students during Nixon's time in office. They shot unarmed students for protesting - how is that following the constitution?

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.

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.

Hmm, I was under the impression that there would be some sort of animal control designed to handle those creatures in areas where they are common. Perhaps the more "feral" states (where these animals are common) should be allowed to keep shotguns at home, but what's the need for that kind of firepower in areas such animals are not common occurrences? Anyway, it was a quickly-thought suggestion when someone said "yeh, well, what would YOU do?".

No, 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.

We're starting to give a damn again. The next election is likely to have pretty good turnout (well, it will if the parties get their acts together and come up with some differing, viable policies for a change). We too want to be heard - that's why we have elections (seriously scorning the current government in the local by-elections) and demonstrations in the streets (an effect of which, though it did not stop our part in the Iraq war, do mean the investigation into whether it was legal to invade will be held in public, with possible criminal charges). We don't like the amount of CCTV (or the bureaucracy from Brussels and the EU Parliament) but want stronger police presence and safer streets (big problem with binge-drinking in this country), and CCTV is proved to help in this regard (but we would prefer more cops). We pretty much do live how we want (unless we want to own a firearms collection, live as a serial rapist or nazi-sympathiser) - we have freedom of speech, freedom of press, a capitalist economy to advance ourselves financially whilst socialist government systems to look after us in times of sickness and need. We Europeans look at your far-right politics (the more centre-ist being declared "communist" by the ignorant) and the fear of socialism (even in small policies) as being incredibly last century and bordering on greedy. But this is all the point about differing cultures, and why we Europeans struggle to understand your love of guns and you struggle to understand out opposition to them.

Hopefully I am not coming across too harsh or abrasive, I only mean to discuss. As I've said I do not think banning firearms in the states is workable, or even wise at this present time. I just take offence at the claim an unarmed society is weaker and at the mercy of the criminal/government.

I'm all for licenses and background checks. But a total gun ban would raise hell in the States. Gun ownership is still far too ingrained in our culture. It's definitely not as embedded as it was several decades ago; as time goes by, gun ownership is becoming an unnecessary part of our identity. Perhaps in several decades it'll become a non-contentious issue, but for now it's a waning, but evident part of our culture.

Exactly. I'm not sure you could ever ban guns in the States, due to things I and other posters have mentioned (borders, too many guns etc) - maybe next century when the culture has quietened down and become a bit more caring you might, but for not it's not practical and likely dangerous to do so.

There's a cultural identity built around gun ownership. I mean, what's more individualistic than being able to kill your own food and protect your own prorperty?

A baseball bat can do both. Seriously people, not following the sheeple and doing both with, say...giant wooden blocks carved in the likeness of your own head take far more skill and are certainly more individualistic. C'mon people, guns just encourage laziness!

I kid, I kid. I felt the need to lighten my post with a little humour

 

[McNinja]

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.

Indeed they aren't > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Read this and tell me it isn't some bullsh*t that went down.

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.

Don't forget that the writers of the Constitution had just come off a war trying to gain their freedoms from an oppresive government. They wrote the 2nd amendment to prevent the government they created from becoming the tryrannical menace they just fought a war against.

As for the bolded part: That's the point. Let's say there are two people in a store. All have guns. One is law-abiding, and has a concealed carry license. The other doesn't, and intends to rob the store. The second the man with intent to rob the store pulls out his gun, the other one will as well, except not to rob the store. The fact that you don't know people should make people vigilant.

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.

I feel that Mr.Superbeast is being a tad naive. Rarely will a burglar bring a weapon because they A) think they will get away and/or B) if they do get caught, don't feel like making it an armed robbery.

And maybe there wouldn't be so many issues with firearm accidents if people stopped showing their stupid kids where they were hidden. Protips: Don't let people see your safe combination, don't show people where guns are...

Or gun safety.

New idea! Instead of banning guns, which will piss off most of the U.S. and cost the government millions, if not billions of dollars, have a country-wide firearms safety class that teaches you how to hold a gun (hint: don't put your hand under the magazine), how to use a gun, general safety and usage. But wait, the NRA already does that, doesn't it?

 

[nicholaxxx]

please wath the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! on gun control laws

...All of you

 

[Agayek]

Here's a interesting concept. No guns allowed flat out. Not in war, not in civilian life. But the twist is this... everyone gets given a free bowie knife. Lets see how popular war and gangs are when you have to force a blade into someones body instead of pulling a trigger and seeing a shape fall over in the distance.

I hate to break it to ya, but Wars were fought a long time before guns were ever invented.

 

[James Sokolove]

Hopefully I am not coming across too harsh or abrasive, I only mean to discuss. As I've said I do not think banning firearms in the states is workable, or even wise at this present time. I just take offense at the claim an unarmed society is weaker and at the mercy of the criminal/government.

I understand the natural aversion to guns and violence. I can empathize just as well as the next person. I can respect your position, and I can see why it seems logical to you.

But, we are not at a point where everyone is peaceful, or can be controlled. And sweeping gun control victimizes the innocents, not just in the sense that they may be powerless against an assailant. What you've done is taken away his rights to property because some criminals have killed with that tool. So Bob, the innocent man, has now had a right stripped from him because some scum abused someone else. Bob is innocent, yet is punished by the law.

And the comments about socialism is a good segue into this next question.

1: Do you believe that the pursuit of the public health is paramount?
2: Do you believe that the pursuit of the individual's freedoms is paramount?

Choice one is socialism. Choice two is capitalism. They're not just economic systems, they're ideological systems. Yes, it is as black and white as I make it out to be. Socialism will eventually prevail, because that's just how society wants it to be.

I am a vehement capitalist, and would never dare to purposefully infringe upon another persons rights. That's why I coldly fight gun control.

 

[Agayek]

So this is my 2 cents. I think guns should be outlawed just to make our legal system a little more consistent. If the point of anti drug laws are in place to protect the citizens from a deadly substance because they don't know better to not use them, then they should have the same policy on guns.

The average redneck often argues "why should I give up my gun when I am a responsible and safe gun owner?" Well my selfish friend, because it will save tens of thousands of lives. You are getting defensive over a luxury. It's the only purpose guns have in America, recreation. Lets get real here. Unless you sit there with gun in hand waiting for shit to happen you are never going to have the opportunity to properly protect yourself in the event of a robbery or something (you aren't Dirty Harry dude, grow up) and cold blood murders almost always are committed by the people the victim knew. The real reason you want your gun is for recreational BS. So next time you come back home from the range or a hunting trip just ask yourself if that was worth 12,000 people.

"even if you make them illegal they will still be on the streets, they get their guns illegally from other countries." No, the guns are purchased legally in the states and then sold illegally. And if you control the number guns and ammo( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE ) being sold legally (like not selling them at all) inevitably the costs of guns on the street will skyrocket, you can figure out the rest.

OR, even better, remove the laws against narcotics and all the other bullshit Nanny-state legislature we currently have. Protecting people from their own stupidity has to be the largest waste of resources the US Government is currently participating in.

 

[LockHeart]

We Europeans look at your far-right politics (the more centre-ist being declared "communist" by the ignorant) and the fear of socialism (even in small policies) as being incredibly last century and bordering on greedy. But this is all the point about differing cultures, and why we Europeans struggle to understand your love of guns and you struggle to understand out opposition to them.

I understand all sides of it perfectly well, and I'd take the American side any day. Besides, I'd hardly call American policies far-right (if you're going to stick to the outdated left-right scale), just a lot more libertarian-inclined than the progressively collectivist state of affairs over here. I wouldn't call it a love of guns, more a love of the freedom to own guns, which I wholeheartedly support and can't fathom the European perspective - who doesn't want more freedom?

 

[Superbeast]

I understand the natural aversion to guns and violence. I can empathize just as well as the next person. I can respect your position, and I can see why it seems logical to you.

And likewise - hence my (constant) referencing to a ban not being possible in America, at least not for a long time. Culture is something that has to be respected even if you disagree.

But, we are not at a point where everyone is peaceful, or can be controlled. And sweeping gun control victimizes the innocents, not just in the sense that they may be powerless against an assailant. What you've done is taken away his rights to property because some criminals have killed with that tool. So Bob, the innocent man, has now had a right stripped from him because some scum abused someone else. Bob is innocent, yet is punished by the law.

Whist that is indeed true (it's a constitutional right, regardless of my opinion on it), how do you explain the stark contrast in murder/rape* rates between the United States and any European country?

I really do think America would be better off if it didn't have so many guns (as in were banned around 1900).

And the comments about socialism is a good segue into this next question.

1: Do you believe that the pursuit of the public health is paramount?
2: Do you believe that the pursuit of the individual's freedoms is paramount?

Choice one is socialism. Choice two is capitalism. They're not just economic systems, they're ideological systems. Yes, it is as black and white as I make it out to be. Socialism will eventually prevail, because that's just how society wants it to be.

I am a vehement capitalist, and would never dare to purposefully infringe upon another persons rights. That's why I coldly fight gun control.

I believe a balance is what is best for society. Pure socialism can inhibit the ability of a person to reach their full potential through hard work, but pure capitalism leaves large portions of a society in poverty and ill-health and degrades society as a whole. Individuals need right, but not to such an extent that it degrades society as a whole. Whilst guns can be argued to improve personal safety (which I would disagree with based on the figures I have linked) I believe it is worse off for society on a greater level (again, due to the figures).

please wath the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! on gun control laws

...All of you

*This is the biggest concern I have with the Penn&Teller episode regarding gun control - they say "who is going to rape an armed woman? Guns stop rape!" - but there are 3x more rapes in America (freedom to purchase guns) on a per-capita basis than there are in European countries (where guns are banned, or very heavily restricted). So how do they reach this conclusion (or is it saying rapes would be 6 times higher than they are in Europe, which is surely a negative view on American society, hinting at a lawlessness on a par with African nations, thus highlighting a far worse problem than gun controls)?

It also smacks of bias, hailing the woman with 5 or 6 guns as a heroine and referring to the anti-gun campaigner as a "smug bastard", and having around 10 sources to express an opinion compared to a mere 2. Another thing I object to is that "people who hate guns want them gone". I don't hate guns - I can appreciate a firearm (some are quite beautiful and one has to respect the power and craftsmanship of them) and there is something about target shooting (yes, we have ranges in the UK) and hunting that is appealing. But I don't think they should be available in the way they currently are.

And I think the opening sums it up (even if the programme then goes on to deride anti-gun lobbyists and comes across like a gun-nut jerking off in your face) - 9 children killed a day by guns - and 3 people an hour are shot dead. Whilst they then go on about personal freedoms (which I can appreciate, don't get me wrong) - don't these figures worry you in the slightest and make you think that there is a problem with the current system?

Personally I think that, for the time being, America should copy the Australian system. That seems to work over there, but yet again there's the issue that the gun control you currently have has allowed a large amount of firearms into the hands of people that wouldn't have them (under Australian laws) and making it impossible to improve regulation.

I understand all sides of it perfectly well, and I'd take the American side any day. Besides, I'd hardly call American policies far-right (if you're going to stick to the outdated left-right scale), just a lot more libertarian-inclined than the progressively collectivist state of affairs over here. I wouldn't call it a love of guns, more a love of the freedom to own guns, which I wholeheartedly support and can't fathom the European perspective - who doesn't want more freedom?

The political spectrum has changed a lot, but generally the "liberal" policies your leaders propose are "conservative" on our political scale. We are more liberal as a nation (or collection of nations) - but I don't want to get into arguing which political system is best, that's a whole 'nother topic that I will waffle on about quite happily.

Well, we don't fear our governments are suddenly going to become dictatorships, we prefer a lower murder rate (however we've achieved it - but given that you can get beaten up by wanna-be gangsters for "disrespectin" them by walking on the pavement, no guns is probably a very good idea).

I wouldn't argue that guns = freedom. If anything you are denying yourselves freedoms because, due to the escalation I mentioned earlier, you are almost forcing yourselves to carry guns to protect yourselves, and locking you into a cycle of crime/prevention on a very personal level. Hang on, that doesn't read right and I don't mean it as written, but can you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Jurassic Rob]

Very simple, get rid of them!

 

[Macgyvercas]

Read the Second Ammendment...Right to bear arms.

Guns are not bad. Guns in the hands of idiots and psychotics are bad.

 

[MortisLegio]

outlawing pistols and assault rifles, sure there only meant to kill people but hunting rifles are fine with me

wait what?
you're saying that only certain guns are dangerous?
for one thing a hunting rifle is more lethal than a pistol in many situations, as a general rule they will have greater range and more stopping power

illogical

in my opinion people should be allowed guns, used responsibly they're harmless
a gun is just a tool, the danger is in the owner
and anyways, if someone is dead set on killing someone they don't need a gun, they can use any number of tools, guns are a more merciful way of killing than any number of blunt weapons available

you cant sneak a hunting rifle into a 7/11 and hold up the cashier with it without drawing alot of attention. My point was that handguns are designed to kill people while hunting rifles are designed to kill deer and other game. you wont kill a deer with a 9mm or an AK47 you'll just wound it, and since 90% of crimes involving guns happen with pistols it makes since to remove them.

 

[MortisLegio]

outlawing pistols and assault rifles, sure there only meant to kill people but hunting rifles are fine with me

Allow me to introduce you to my hunting rifle:

I use it for prairie dogs, cyotes, rabbits, and other small game (whenever I can get a hunting trip put together).

The problem here is how ignorant people try and classify a firearm by, "How deadly," it is. I promise you that the firearm in the image I just posted will make a human no more or less dead than falling down a long set of stairs, getting hit by a car, overdosing on a prescription medication, getting hit by lightning, etc.

The fact is, that a firearm is a tool. It exists only to do the bidding of its master (the person wielding it). It my hands, the only living things that should fear me are the prairie dogs that called the wrong rancher's pastures their home.

thats an assault rifle variant probably made to only fire semi-automatic for civilian use, sure you can kill things,other than people, with it but try using that on a deer and you will only wound it. When I said hunting rifle im talking about bolt action rifles not all semi-automatics.

 

[saibot216]

Guns aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's just all the idiots that buy them. The military and police use them for good. Some people use them for self defense and shooting is the only father-son activity my dad and I share. Those who are in gangs are stupid for having guns... so are drug lords.

 

[Kriptonite]

I can't vote in the poll because it's a weird subject. Like Jello, they are neither good nor bad.

 

[Rigs83]

Frankly if I go with your opinion you'd rather live in danger than actually feel and be safe when you walk out of your house for prolonged periods of time. Do you really think the governments from those countries banned possession of lethal armaments on a whim? Using your own argument, if it DID give people the right they would be furious and cause an uproar to revert the law back the way it were.

I'm sorry, it is clear we won't agree as we're raised on different notions on the topic for valid yet opposing reasons. Try living in a place where you can comfortably go anywhere in your country unarmed and feel protected all the same. It's one thing you'd really take for granted.

Laws are not a fence restricting the citizen, they're a shield to protect them. I'm sure once Americans start feeling safe they won't mind a ban on guns at all.

LOL I think few people in the US are really afraid to go outside. Maybe some people living in the worst of ghettos but that's about it.

I only know 1 person who has had his house broken into. And I only know one person who was the victim of a violent crime. (This does not count my time in the military or helping with hurricane relief in New Orleans after Katrina.)

It IS unlikely that you will need to use a gun. But just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. It's a safety precaution. I use my seatbelt even though it is unlikely I will get in a crash. I have never had a major crash and haven't had a fender bender in years, but I still use the seatbelt every time.

And I feel SAFER when I, and yes, even other law abiding citizens, have weapons. I know that the people who are granted permits to carry guns are law abiding citizens who are NOT going to use it against me in a crime. I know that the people who MIGHT use one against me WILL have one even though he is not allowed to. But when I ALSO have one, I can at least protect myself if I ever needed to, even though that day is unlikely to ever come. I also know that there are other people who will be able to help me protect myself long before the police are even called. I also know that crime is less likely to happen when the criminal knows that he is not the only one packing heat.

So, I and most other Americans do not feel UNSAFE, but we would feel MORE safe if we carry a weapon because:

no guns = increased chance of crime and decreased level of protection

guns = reduced chance of crime and increased level of protection

I know you might say that more guns will result in more crime but that's just not true. We have essentially banned types of guns, guns in certain places, and even in entire city limits. EVERY SINGLE TIME, crime increased. EVERY SINGLE TIME the law was found unconstitutional or repealed, crime decreased. I have seen conflicting studies regarding other countries but #1 most of the ones that found reduced crime were misleading and #2 even if they weren't, there are just too many factors to consider to think that things will play out the same here.

Guns are not a magic charm that will poison people's minds into committing crimes they weren't going to commit anyway. It's a tool that makes doing it easier. But on the flip side, it makes defense easier too. Since we will never get guns out of the hands of the criminals (War on drugs anyone???), I cannot consider it anything but foolish to give up what I MIGHT need to level the playing field...only a fool brings a knife to a gunfight.

I agree with you I just quoted something wrong so it looks like I said that. Here is how the conversation started.

Spoiler: snip

Mordwyl:

Rigs83:

Mordwyl:

Rigs83:

Fact: Countries such as Malta and Japan have a ban on firearms and most lethal weaponry, whereas the USA does not.
Fact: Crime, especially murders, are almost nonexistant in Malta whereas in Japan they tend to be very rare occasions.

When you're raised in a society that believes any kind of problem can be solved with pulling a trigger you're asking for it.

Excuse me Malta is an island of only 400,000 people where as the US is a famous melting pot where over 300,000,000 people of varying ethnicities, religions and social standing must co-exist unlike Japan where the guy next door will almost certainly speak the same language and have a similar upbringing so conflict is rare. Also Japan has the highest suicide rate of any industrialized nation and the lowest birthrate so the fact that people are killing themselves off faster than people are being born to replace them is not a good thing. You should use as an example of a nation with a huge and diverse population living in peace without guns like Great Britain that last year only had 42 murders involving handguns or shotguns versus 11 using other weapons. Although the fact that they still occur regardless of them being effectively banned since 1997 shoots a tiny little hole in your opinion.

You did not cite extreme examples you cited poor examples. The US is unique in that a compact exist between the Government and the governed. Americans have the right to bear arms so in the event that the state should revoke their rights they have a legal means to resist, violently if need be. Imagine if minorities like the Jews or Roma of Europe had that right in Italy and Germany or if the populace voiced opposition to having three prime ministers assassinated in Japan before World War 2.

You may not like firearms but you have the right to have them or not to have them as you wish in the US and I would rather live with threat of violence from a fellow citizen than knowing the state can choose what other right to take with impunity.

 

[noogai18]

Guns aren't bad. They can be used for bad purposes, but also for good purposes. Honestly, I feel a lot safer when there are armed police officers. Stricter regulations are needed, and there is a limit to what you need (no, not military-grade assault rifles), but they aren't bad, per se.