Poll: Guns, are they good or bad?

[Jinx_Dragon]

As it happens, I quite like the way the Aussies handle gun control - and feel that America should adopt regulation that is more Australian since it cannot ban firearms.

Personally I think the Australian government has gone a little over the top. I come to the conclusion that they did so to hide the fact they where partly responsible for the murderous acts caused in Port Author. They after all authorised the person responsible to own a fire arm even after the courts had ruled he wasn't even sane enough to handle money, let alone a fire arm....

The affect created nothing more then a black market for a wide range of guns (Semi rifles) that is still flourishing to this day given how easy it can be to smuggle these weapons into the country. Even myself, a simple computer nerd, knows where I can get my hands on a Simonov though I wouldn't trust the condition it is likely in.

Yet there are a lot of gun regulations I do like in this country. For one being trained to handle a fire arm as part of the licence requirements! Shocked me to learn that the US don't even require you to prove you're capable of safely handling a gun before they sell you one.

 

[Tedy567]

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.

buddy if your using a .223 M4 with a RIS system. a foregrip. a bipod. a SOPMOD stock. and a 3-9 power scope. and a 30 round PMAG for hunting wildlife. you REALLY need to reevaluate what your hunting.

a great man once said:

i own several weapons that look like that. i will never EVER say their "hunting weapons" i have separate guns for that.
i own assault weapons and pistols because they can kill a man. i own bolt action sniper rifles because they can kill a man. i own hi capacity pistols because i want to be able to kill 13 men if i am jumped outside of my office. i own three assault rifles because i have the right to defend myself. that is why i own assault weapons. not to shoot targets. not to shoot squires. i own them to kill men if it is needed. and i hope that day never ever comes. but when it does. i shall be ready.

 

[Tedy567]

As it happens, I quite like the way the Aussies handle gun control - and feel that America should adopt regulation that is more Australian since it cannot ban firearms.

Personally I think the Australian government has gone a little over the top. I come to the conclusion that they did so to hide the fact they where partly responsible for the murderous acts caused in Port Author. They after all authorised the insane person responsible to own a fire arm even after the courts had ruled he wasn't even sane enough to handle money....

The affect created nothing more then a black market for a wide range of guns (Semi rifles) that is still flourishing to this day given how easy it can be to smuggle these weapons into the country. Even myself, a simple computer nerd, knows where I can get my hands on a Simonov though I wouldn't trust the condition it is likely in.

Yet there are a lot of gun regulations I do like in this country. For one being trained to handle a fire arm as part of the licence requirements! Shocked me to learn that the US don't even require you to prove you're capable of safely handling a gun before they sell you one.

that is not true. do not talk about another countries laws when you don't know what your talking about.

To ascertain a Concealed Cary Permit you must take Concealed Cary Tactics and Training every 6 months.

this HANDS ON CLASS is only taught by FFL instructors. (Federal Firearms Licensed)

however not to say their are not loopholes.

the black market is a great one.

and i dont mean the russians smuggling in crates of AK47s.

i mean the crack dealer up on your block that will sell you a 9mm for 80 bucks and a date with your sister.

 

[Sovvolf]

See I had I discussion about this to my American friend other day on Xbox live, I told him that I didn't get the reason for guns and I think some times America is held back by laws stated in it constitution that made sense back then but in the modern world it doesn't make as much sense.
See America in my opinion isn't as free as it thinks it is because your tied down by the constitution, most country's these days, if they want to change, they can, if they want to change the laws then there free to do so, if they want to outlaw something then they can, in America you can't because such things may violate the American Constitution or The Bill O Rights.

Anyway's owning a gun back then when it was written made perfect sense, Britain was on the war path and was going through the whole imperialism stage, it made perfect sense for every American to be able to bear arms, America didn't have much of an army back then and it was mostly peasants America wasn't as big as it was now and it had just became independent, owning a gun meant that every American could fight if we made another attempt. These days however there's not too much of a point to it, America has a large army now, an Army which I think is the biggest in the world (Although it may be China) it has Allies like Britain and France and the rest of the united nations, so there's no real reason for the every day citizen to own a gun. Sure riot police and SWAT teams and Drug busters and such could do with them but other then that no the average citizen doesn't need them.

You can argue self defence all you want but it simply doesn't fly, most countries were people can't commonly get a hold of guns don't seem to need them for self defence, mostly because in them countries the common crook can't get a hold of a gun them selves so they have to rely on Knives or fists and it takes more guts to actually go up to some one and stab them then it does to shoot them because you have to get in close to threaten them or stab them, a good self defence class can teach you how to effectively disarm an armed opponent and to disable him at close range so there's less problems.

Just face the facts, there not necessary for every day life, people in country's without guns seem to get on fine without them, this isn't the old west, a Bear isn't going to pop round the next corner you turn to eat you, you just don't need them for every day life.

Now I can imagine some one is going to reply to the first part of the my post but please before you do think your argument through, don't just send me a message saying ZOMG!! YoU FukiN CoMmY TaRd.

 

[Tedy567]

(BTW Where in OZ do you hail? My Wife's from Sydney.)

Melbourne.

Automatic weapons? Already banned for normal people, no worries there. Must be 18 and pass a background check. Good. You can't buy a gun for someone else (that's a straw purchase and also illegal). Certain states require different safety classes, here in California I had to pass a pistol safety class before I could take it home. Waiting periods in most states.

And that's all reasonable. I have no complaints there. Background check. Waiting period. Mandatory safety class. That's all ideal.

See above, I'm with you on everything there except the gun licenses and registrations.

We require people to obtain licenses before we let them drive cars, don't we? Aren't mis-handled guns just as dangerous as mis-handled cars?

Incidentally, I personally am not a gun owner - which is more to do with my opinion that they're very ugly pieces of metal - but I am a sword owner, and we do have a number of safety laws to do with it. I have my license. I have to lock it up when at home. When I take it out, I must either hold it openly, visible to all, or put it inside a bag that encloses the entire thing (golf bags are ideal). This is all reasonable, I would think. Certain safety measures are desirable.

I would also point out that many of those stats are all a matter of interpretation. As the saying goes, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

You don't like the way I quoted a statistic... so you respond with a large post full of statistics yourself? Doesn't that seem inconsistent to you?

In any case, the way that statistics can be randomly selected makes me naturally skeptical of any pro-gun or anti-gun site anyone might link to. We are not going to get fair reports from sites with political agendas.

Came through a window. Ignored the dog. Anything else?

They are significant obstacles and sensible precautions. Are you arguing that those precautions have a significantly higher failure rate than gun ownership? That claim needs a good deal more justification than a few glib dismissals.

Try living through one and you'll know that just having the gun there will make you feel better if nothing else.

So, what, you suggest people should own guns for the sake of their own paranoid fears? I thought we were smarter than that.

She would have felt a whole HELL of a lot safer in that situation having a gun aimed at the jerk!

This isn't about how comfortable she feels. A gun might act as a placebo and calm her down somewhat. That does not mean it actually makes her safer.

A well armed population is safer from large scale government persecution. It's because the authoritarians fear being shot so they are more reluctant to act on their authoritarian ambitions. Don't forget positions of power are often filled by power hungry people. This is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

Actually, that argument is equally invalid and makes less sense than the 'self defense' line.

The fact is that gun-wielding rabble are never going to be able to stand against a state military. You have your militia run out with side-arms and... then what? The government has tanks, jets, missiles... even all that aside, the government has a professional army. Training and discipline count for far more than people often assume. In any uprising against the government, you have two possibilities. 1) The military sides with the government. The military may be used to crack down on gun-armed rioters. The military wins. 2) The military sides with the rebels. The government is overthrown.

I mean, seriously, what do you imagine will happen when ordinary people try to fight soldiers?

Compare, for example, ancient Rome. There, the most advanced personal weaponry were swords, and every person could own a dagger or smallsword. Most people did have some basic weapons; knives are extremely useful things to have. Rome's enemies were very similar. The Etruscans, the Gallic Celts, the Iberians... these were all universally armed. And yet we find that a professional military steamrolled them.

Look at Iraq. Very wide gun ownership. (Linky. [http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=2041&programID=69&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm]) And yet that did nothing to prevent Iraq's own government, or to effectively combat the US military when it came charging in. The same US military that would be your enemy were the US government to unleash it on you.

Sorry, but having a shotgun in your cupboard (or whatever) does precisely nothing to make you safer from government persecution.

you know man.

everything youve said on this thread has been just as much troll work as i do. and i love it.

"Sorry, but having a shotgun in your cupboard (or whatever) does precisely nothing to make you safer from government persecution"

are you stupid? no. really. i need you to answer me. because that is the most ignorant statement i have EVER HEARD.
AND IM A FUCKING AMERICAN

also. tanks. jets. missiles. do you think if the united states government wanted to completely enslave its population it would roll out the 1st Armored and start pumping 155s into every house? do you think carpet bombing texas would be logical? i have guns. the government can have them when they find me in a clock tower shooting an invading military force that i paid to have trained.

and if your going to say "YOU'D KILL YOUR OWN PEOPLE?!?!"
remember kiddies. we killed plenty of our own people when we fought for our country. we wernt given this nice spit of land like the aussies were. (OHHHH ATTACK ON A FOREIGN COUNTRY ITS ON NAOOOOO) just kidding Australia. i love you. and your amazing beaches. and fucking HOTT girls.

 

[Borrowed Time]

*epic snip*

you know man.

everything youve said on this thread has been just as much troll work as i do. and i love it.

"Sorry, but having a shotgun in your cupboard (or whatever) does precisely nothing to make you safer from government persecution"

are you stupid? no. really. i need you to answer me. because that is the most ignorant statement i have EVER HEARD.
AND IM A FUCKING AMERICAN

also. tanks. jets. missiles. do you think if the united states government wanted to completely enslave its population it would roll out the 1st Armored and start pumping 155s into every house? do you think carpet bombing texas would be logical? i have guns. the government can have them when they find me in a clock tower shooting an invading military force that i paid to have trained.

and if your going to say "YOU'D KILL YOUR OWN PEOPLE?!?!"
remember kiddies. we killed plenty of our own people when we fought for our country. we wernt given this nice spit of land like the aussies were. (OHHHH ATTACK ON A FOREIGN COUNTRY ITS ON NAOOOOO) just kidding Australia. i love you. and your amazing beaches. and fucking HOTT girls.

Pffft they'd just lay a couple LJDAM, namely of the GBU-39 SDB variety, and not have to worry about it. 155's are so 2 wars ago. I kid, I kid. Agreed 100% for me. I have guns for hunting, self-defense and for target practice/plinking. I'm keeping them all thank ya. Not only that, but watch out, I'm teaching my kids how to use them responsibly! :GASP:

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

that is not true. do not talk about another countries laws when you don't know what your talking about.

To ascertain a Concealed Cary Permit you must take Concealed Cary Tactics and Training every 6 months. this HANDS ON CLASS is only taught by FFL instructors. (Federal Firearms Licensed)
however not to say their are not loopholes.
the black market is a great one.
and i dont mean the russians smuggling in crates of AK47s.
i mean the crack dealer up on your block that will sell you a 9mm for 80 bucks and a date with your sister.

So your saying there is not many guns, legally owned at that, in the hands of Americans who do not understand how to safely handle them?
Also take into account that CCWs permits are just a minor fraction of all gun owners. Only those who:
A) Live in states that allow CCWs, yes there are a handful that don't allow CCWs.
B) By state law have to be certified to this extent, as in some states you don't even need to be permitted to carry concealed and many don't require you to be trained in this manor.
C) Actually apply for CCWs, seeing this permit is not require to actually own a gun, just carry it concealed.
Have to worry about this training requirement.

In fact, in the vast majority of US states if you want to carry a gun it is perfectly legal to do so WITHOUT any permits at all, as long as you do so openly. That is the thing you seem to be overlooking here, the united states has different laws in different states. Hence you can't just make a blanket statement about requiring training... particularly when your trying to use what a few states require for CCW and stating it covers the ownership of all guns for the whole nation.

In Australia you have to have the training before your even allowed to hold a licence to get any firearm, even a hunting rifle. That isn't allowed to carry, that is allowed to own period. Before you can even mount a gun on your wall*, you have to know how to handle it.

*which would be illegal, as by law it has to be in a gun safe.

 

[Tedy567]

that is not true. do not talk about another countries laws when you don't know what your talking about.

To ascertain a Concealed Cary Permit you must take Concealed Cary Tactics and Training every 6 months. this HANDS ON CLASS is only taught by FFL instructors. (Federal Firearms Licensed)
however not to say their are not loopholes.
the black market is a great one.
and i dont mean the russians smuggling in crates of AK47s.
i mean the crack dealer up on your block that will sell you a 9mm for 80 bucks and a date with your sister.

So your saying there is not many guns, legally owned at that, in the hands of Americans who do not understand how to safely handle them?
Also take into account that CCWs permits are just a minor fraction of all gun owners. Only those who:
A) Live in states that allow CCWs, yes there are a handful that don't allow CCWs.
B) By state law have to be certified to this extent, as in some states you don't even need to be permitted to carry concealed and many don't require you to be trained in this manor.
C) Actually apply for CCWs, seeing this permit is not require to actually own a gun, just carry it concealed.
Have to worry about this training requirement.

In fact, in the vast majority of US states if you want to carry a gun it is perfectly legal to do so WITHOUT any permits at all, as long as you do so openly. That is the thing you seem to be overlooking here, the united states has different laws in different states. Hence you can't just make a blanket statement about requiring training... particularly when your trying to use what a few states require for CCW and stating it covers the ownership of all guns for the whole nation.

In Australia you have to have the training before your even allowed to hold a licence to get any firearm, even a hunting rifle. That isn't allowed to carry, that is allowed to own period. Before you can even mount a gun on your wall*, you have to know how to handle it.

*which would be illegal, as by law it has to be in a gun safe.

im not sure if you missed the "FEDERAL" part of all of this. if your talking about Legally carried concealed weapons than YES. there are very few dumb fucks that have a CCW permit. if your talking about open carry. well im sure joe blow walking down the street with a remmington 870 on his back with an open rack and 8 shells on the stock is going to have issues. and i know your going to bring up the "half covered" thing. yeah, you can wear a jacket over your fucking SERPA holster and be like "its open carry see?" because you can expose it. but i thought we were talking about CCW permits.

 

[Tedy567]

*epic snip*

you know man.

everything youve said on this thread has been just as much troll work as i do. and i love it.

"Sorry, but having a shotgun in your cupboard (or whatever) does precisely nothing to make you safer from government persecution"

are you stupid? no. really. i need you to answer me. because that is the most ignorant statement i have EVER HEARD.
AND IM A FUCKING AMERICAN

also. tanks. jets. missiles. do you think if the united states government wanted to completely enslave its population it would roll out the 1st Armored and start pumping 155s into every house? do you think carpet bombing texas would be logical? i have guns. the government can have them when they find me in a clock tower shooting an invading military force that i paid to have trained.

and if your going to say "YOU'D KILL YOUR OWN PEOPLE?!?!"
remember kiddies. we killed plenty of our own people when we fought for our country. we wernt given this nice spit of land like the aussies were. (OHHHH ATTACK ON A FOREIGN COUNTRY ITS ON NAOOOOO) just kidding Australia. i love you. and your amazing beaches. and fucking HOTT girls.

Pffft they'd just lay a couple LJDAM, namely of the GBU-39 SDB variety, and not have to worry about it. 155's are so 2 wars ago. I kid, I kid. Agreed 100% for me. I have guns for hunting, self-defense and for target practice/plinking. I'm keeping them all thank ya. Not only that, but watch out, I'm teaching my kids how to use them responsibly! :GASP:

you dont fuck around with 2,000 pounders man. they do some fucking damage. 155s are badass. 155 HE/AP. forget about it.*said mobster style*

ok back on toppic of off toppic.

teach those youngins how to hit a 12 inch plate at 100 yards so they can cover you while you take the long shots at 1000+!!!

 

[Borrowed Time]

you dont fuck around with 2,000 pounders man. they do some fucking damage. 155s are badass. 155 HE/AP. forget about it.*said mobster style*

ok back on toppic of off toppic.

teach those youngins how to hit a 12 inch plate at 100 yards so they can cover you while you take the long shots at 1000+!!!

Those GBU-39's are only 250 pounders, but most standard US aircraft can carry 4 of those babies. They have about 38lb. of AFX-757 HE but has the same penetration of the BLU-109 2000 pounders. So far they've been able to penetrate 8 feet of reinforced concrete no problem. They're also 50% accurate to 5-8 meters, which is pretty impressive for a non-self propelled munition of its type.

They're doing quite well actually. 10 and 12 years old and they already have decent grouping with the .22 I'm teaching them with. And I don't care what anyone says, a .22 may not go through body armor when fired from a long rifle, but if that hits a soft spot, the round is going to tumble along your bones. It's crazy just how much damage such a small round can do.

 

[JRslinger]

I really don't see how 58% of murders being carried out by firearms (and double-to-three times the numbers of murder per-capita) compared to 0.07% of murders carried out by firearms in the UK shows that guns are not a part of the problem. A 3x higher rape rate and roughly equal (slightly higher) assault rate too. You can say that a "racial underclass" is the cause of these issues, but there is some extreme discrepancy here that I do not think can be brushed under the rug like that (for instance the UK is having an increasing issues with gangs and drug usage is pretty high, so there are the same root causes of the issues in America - just on a smaller scale (but not 57.93 times smaller)).

As it happens, I quite like the way the Aussies handle gun control - and feel that America should adopt regulation that is more Australian since it cannot ban firearms.

First consider this: 50 years ago gun laws were looser and the rates of gun crime and violent crime were lower. So something other than loose gun laws must explain the rise in crime.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The racial underclass/criminal subcultures angle is still valid. America is 70% white. England is 90% white. Due to these criminal subcultures, gangs etc.. blacks and hispanics commit crimes at a higher rate than whites.

 

[Tedy567]

you dont fuck around with 2,000 pounders man. they do some fucking damage. 155s are badass. 155 HE/AP. forget about it.*said mobster style*

ok back on toppic of off toppic.

teach those youngins how to hit a 12 inch plate at 100 yards so they can cover you while you take the long shots at 1000+!!!

Those GBU-39's are only 250 pounders, but most standard US aircraft can carry 4 of those babies. They have about 38lb. of AFX-757 HE but has the same penetration of the BLU-109 2000 pounders. So far they've been able to penetrate 8 feet of reinforced concrete no problem. They're also 50% accurate to 5-8 meters, which is pretty impressive for a non-self propelled munition of its type.

They're doing quite well actually. 10 and 12 years old and they already have decent grouping with the .22 I'm teaching them with. And I don't care what anyone says, a .22 may not go through body armor when fired from a long rifle, but if that hits a soft spot, the round is going to tumble along your bones. It's crazy just how much damage such a small round can do.

i have several .22s. personal favorite is the .17hmr though (for a small round)
i think some sort of semi auto .22 loaded with hydrashocks would be a badass home defense weapon. no recoil. 10 round mag. nothing is going to get by those rounds.

the original JDAM bombs were 2000 pounders were they not? i honestly dont know. im not an airforce guy. i just know that m24s shoot farther than hajis bullets do. :] oh and that when haji decided to hole up in a mudhut somewhere said airforce guy can drop some real whoopass on them. (FTW)

 

[Del-Toro]

If you outlaw guns then all you will have are criminals preying on people who can't defend themselves. I personally don't think that people should lie back and let themselves be the victims, although apparently liberals disagree with me (I'm what I like to call "progressive conservative" in a non faith related way, fyi) because of course, the more people with a victim complex the easier the rest of us are to guilt. Obviously there needs to be a system of licensing, but an all out ban on guns is a bad idea.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Ok people im ending this arguement. Just read this and understand.

Lets review the purpose of these examples that are "as dangerous as guns"
Cars main purpose is transport. Sure they kill people when used irresponsibly but they are made for transport.

Do you know the only intended function of a gun? TO KILL PEOPLE. To cause harm and to hurt another living being. Thats ALL they do. Thats their purpose and they do nothing else apart from take lives and hurt.

Cars are not designed to KILL people. They arnt made to be as lethal to small children as possible. The oposite is true. People can "use" cars responsibly. You cannot "use" a gun for its intended purpose without something dying or being injured. You can however happily use a car for its intended purpose without anyone dying at all. Its purpose is to drive, a sideaffect is the occasional accident (notice the accident part here) that sometimes occurs. I think its great that americans can exercise their freedom by handing out guns to people who go on mass killing sprees.

So people stop saying "Oh look at me im being witty, people die from choking on grass, grass should be banned if guns are hur hur hur hur" its nothing alike, shut up. Find something thats intended purpose is to kill THEN and ONLY then can you compare it to guns being banned.

I hate people who say "Guns arnt inherently bad" well yes i supose so but thats only if NO one is holding it. Its like leaving a nuclear bomb in the middle of london and saying "The bombs a nice thing, its not inherently bad let it stay there where anyone can use it". Guns, in the hands of civilians NOT trained policemen who have nothing more on their minds than keeping the peace and saving lives NOT like the agenda of civilians with guns, do nothing else but make bad things happen.

I also like the circular reasoning, "We need guns to defend ourselves from burglers with guns". Well maybe if you got rid of guns then the burglers wouldnt have guns iether?
Baseball bats are legal defend yourself from burglers that way.

"edit"

I handle weapons with the air training core even though normally they are illegal in this country. If you want to have fun with guns go somewhere like i do where you can. It really isnt that hard.

 

[Superbeast]

First consider this: 50 years ago gun laws were looser and the rates of gun crime and violent crime were lower. So something other than loose gun laws must explain the rise in crime.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The racial underclass/criminal subcultures angle is still valid. America is 70% white. England is 90% white. Due to these criminal subcultures, gangs etc.. blacks and hispanics commit crimes at a higher rate than whites.

True, but society has changed since then, all cultures have got more violent. I would also hazard a guess that there are currently more guns in America than there were in 1960 - yes, the number has tripled in the last 40 years (so have increased from 78,333,333 to 235,000,000), according to the US Census Bureau.

The murder rate has increased from 0.0508 to 0.0561 per 1000 people; whereas the rape rate has increased from 0.0959 to 0.2998 per 1000 people. The Assault rate has increased from 0.8606 to 2.8376 per 1000 people (all figures taken from the source you linked).

Assuming that those are lawfully owned firearms (likely, as it's from the US Census), then we can safely say that despite the tripling of the number of guns, the murder rate has increased slightly and the rape rate has quadrupled even on a per-capita basis.

Whilst you can argue that this is caused by tighter gun regulation, these statistics back up my earlier hypothesis that guns do not prevent crime, and may actually increase the problem. When this data is compared to that of the UK and other countries with a ban on firearms, you can see that there is still something about America that leaves these crime rates extraordinarily high - despite people carrying weapons for personal protection.

And if guns ARE preventing more than 50% of rapes, murders and robberies (according to some NRA documents) then you, as Americans, really need to start investing more money into the police services, as something must be going horribly wrong in your society (as the rates would be WORSE than most African nations).

Oh, and as for the last sentence - are you saying that a black people kill 34% more than white people do (based on the assumption that you have 30% more non-whites than Britain but a 58% higher murder rate)? Got figures to back that up? If that's not what you are implying then I'm not sure what that sentence means.

 

[JRslinger]

First consider this: 50 years ago gun laws were looser and the rates of gun crime and violent crime were lower. So something other than loose gun laws must explain the rise in crime.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The racial underclass/criminal subcultures angle is still valid. America is 70% white. England is 90% white. Due to these criminal subcultures, gangs etc.. blacks and hispanics commit crimes at a higher rate than whites.

True, but society has changed since then, all cultures have got more violent. I would also hazard a guess that there are currently more guns in America than there were in 1960 - yes, the number has tripled in the last 40 years (so have increased from 78,333,333 to 235,000,000), according to the US Census Bureau.

The murder rate has increased from 0.0508 to 0.0561 per 1000 people; whereas the rape rate has increased from 0.0959 to 0.2998 per 1000 people. The Assault rate has increased from 0.8606 to 2.8376 per 1000 people (all figures taken from the source you linked).

Assuming that those are lawfully owned firearms (likely, as it's from the US Census), then we can safely say that despite the tripling of the number of guns, the murder rate has increased slightly and the rape rate has quadrupled even on a per-capita basis.

Whilst you can argue that this is caused by tighter gun regulation, these statistics back up my earlier hypothesis that guns do not prevent crime, and may actually increase the problem. When this data is compared to that of the UK and other countries with a ban on firearms, you can see that there is still something about America that leaves these crime rates extraordinarily high - despite people carrying weapons for personal protection.

And if guns ARE preventing more than 50% of rapes, murders and robberies (according to some NRA documents) then you, as Americans, really need to start investing more money into the police services, as something must be going horribly wrong in your society (as the rates would be WORSE than most African nations).

Oh, and as for the last sentence - are you saying that a black people kill 34% more than white people do (based on the assumption that you have 30% more non-whites than Britain but a 58% higher murder rate)? Got figures to back that up? If that's not what you are implying then I'm not sure what that sentence means.

My point was that in 1960 there was little licensing, no background checks or waiting periods, and yet even with such loose gun laws the rates of gun crime and violent crime were lower. Then more babies are born out of wedlock (especialy in minority communties), the war on drugs gets revved up and it's no wonder crime goes up. States such as New Hamshire and Montana prove today that you can have loose gun laws and low rates of gun crime.

As for blacks committing more murders. Here you go. This is what the gang cultures have wrought.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

 

[chinese_democracy]

Ah, yes, another discussion of this topic. Excuse me while I copy/paste my reply to the other thread:

The genie is long out of the bottle on firearms, and there's no getting it back in. You could close down all industries related to guns, confiscate and melt down all firearms in the world, burned every book mentioning them, and outlaw all aspects of the knowledge, yet there will be people who remember, or who will rediscover the concept.

If they are ambitious they will gain power through this knowledge. If they are ruthless they can gain a lot of power with it. If they are smart and lucky they can subjugate the world. Who will oppose them, with our rocks, our pointed sticks, and our harsh language? Have we so easily forgotten the errors made after World War I that made World War II inevitable?

Remember too, that though you may depend on law enforcement for protection, they can only offer deterrence; they cannot protect you from the murderer in front of you, for once he pushes past the deterrence that the threat of justice offers, unless there's an officer right there, you're on your own. You may never encounter such a problem in your lifetime, and even if you thought you might, you may still never want to own and use a gun. Such is your right to choose, but so too is the right of another to chose not to accept that limitation.

Crime is a problem, guns are just one of the tools used by criminals, as are cars, cellphones, knives, piano wire, cement, baseball bats, computers, etc. Take away guns, you still have crime. Address the problem, not the tool.

 

[Superbeast]

My point was that in 1960 there was little licensing, no background checks or waiting periods, and yet even with such loose gun laws the rates of gun crime and violent crime were lower. Then more babies are born out of wedlock (especialy in minority communties), the war on drugs gets revved up and it's no wonder crime goes up. States such as New Hamshire and Montana prove today that you can have loose gun laws and low rates of gun crime.

As for blacks committing more murders. Here you go. This is what the gang cultures have wrought.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Hmm, that's interesting - though the rates are declining after a peak around the 1990s, they are still higher than whites - but not quite at 38% though (which suggests the number of murders by white people has risen too, and ergo is not just through gang warfare of the blacks and hispanics).

Your conclusion is equally valid (more lenient laws meant less crime, the per-capita figures show that is certainly true for the 1960s) from the information at hand, I take what the stats show as a counter to the idea that guns "prevent" crime and protect people - as the number of guns has tripled but all the other crime rates have increased as well (and are still doing on passed the 1990s peaks show in that latest source). Were protectionism the case then surely the rates should have fallen, if not by a full 3 times (due to changes in laws - though as far as I am aware most states are conceal-carry or open-carry so it strikes me as they are still able to be used just as defensively as they were before) then at least by some degree, as the sheer number of guns is deterring violent crime. But this is not the case.

 

[Julianking93]

They should be restricted to people who have no criminal offenses.

Although that won't help much. People always get outlawed shit somehow.

 

[quiet_samurai]

Bannning guns will not ban violence, and the people on this thread that think they are one in the same are just ignorant and quite possibly very stupid. We are violent creatures by nature and no matter what we have available to us to weild against another we will, no matter it be a firearm, tomahawk missle, or a rock. And yes, many people in the US are killed every year by guns, but most of those are accident related and only a small number of those are actually crime based.

But then again people are killed by inanimate objects all the time; I don't remember exactly where I read this but around 100 women choke to death every year on their engagement rings in the US(intended fiance hiding it in food trying to be cute), thousands of people are killed every year from falling off ladders, I even remember there being a statistic on toaster related deaths. Now using the logic of some of the idiots on here why shouldn't these things be outlawed as well, they are obviously dangerous.

It just boils down to the person who has a firearm. A responsible and law abiding citizen will not use it for harm. People shouldn't project the image of a societies criminals onto the people that follow the rules and don't break the law, especially if you have never been to that country or nation or met anyone from there. Because technically you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.