Question for people Pro-guns....

Recommended Videos

gbemery

New member
Jun 27, 2009
907
0
0
Holy hell not again. Listen if you take guns away people will use knifes (hint the #1 method of homicide in the UK), if you take knifes away they will use bats, if you take bats away they will use cars, if you take cars away they will use high fructose corn syrup. Seriously just knock this bs off already. People have killed and will continue to kill others in ever varying ways. Its not the tool of killing thats a problem its the actual KILLING.

OP go suck on a lemon thank you.

*BREAKING NEWS*

Scientists have discovered the #1 deadliest weapon in murders, the human hand. After a 20 year quadruple blind clinical study scientist from various countries found that humans use their hands to manipulate multiple tools such as firearms, knifes and other pointy things to kill their fellow man. This has led to an outcry of political support for hand control laws. Hands shall now be cut off at birth to control this menacing problem. All those who were already born with hands shall have to submit to a government background check and if they pass will be allowed to keep their hands but must have thumb locks in place 24/7. Religious advocates have backed the new legislation as they claim it will help to control incidences of masturbation in youth.
 

tigermilk

New member
Sep 4, 2010
951
0
0
Nantucket said:
Also... it is worth baring in mind just how big America is in comparison to the UK.
I'm anti-guns as I live in the UK and we function fine without them but sometimes comparing crime rate with the UK is a little useless. We can fit three of us in just one of their states.
England/Wales has 0.46 fire arms related deaths per 100,000 people. The USA has 10.27. In spite of the fact the population of the USA is about five times greater than the UK the ratio of people to gun related deaths is over 22 times higher in the USA.
 

Augustine

New member
Jun 21, 2012
209
0
0
tigermilk said:
Nantucket said:
Also... it is worth baring in mind just how big America is in comparison to the UK.
I'm anti-guns as I live in the UK and we function fine without them but sometimes comparing crime rate with the UK is a little useless. We can fit three of us in just one of their states.
England/Wales has 0.46 fire arms related deaths per 100,000 people. The USA has 10.27. In spite of the fact the population of the USA is about five times greater than the UK the ratio of people to gun related deaths is over 22 times higher in the USA.
Yes. Geographically isolated places without guns have less gun deaths. I do not believe that anyone is arguing that. Nantucket's argument is that comparison statistics are hardly applicable, and the argument still stands (though the size aspect of it may not be correct).
 

A.A.K

New member
Mar 7, 2009
970
0
0
matrix3509 said:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.
Haha..That's the best point I make to some of my family friends and what not when it comes up. "Mer guns should be illegal!"
"They've already got some pretty tight restrictions." (down in Aus at least)
"Should be tighter! So no-one can get them except cops."
"But...people who want guns. Will get guns."
"But criminals won't be able to get them either then?"
"You think they get them from a gun shop? haha You fool."

I'm friends with a couple of guys who could get me almost anything I want. The reason I don't, is because I don't have a spare 2.5-4 grand just for a handgun.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
spartan231490 said:
J Tyran said:
spartan231490 said:
J Tyran said:
spartan231490 said:
RaNDM G said:
J Tyran said:
Augustine said:
Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"
In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.
So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?

Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.
It is not legal in any state to shoot someone for breaking into a neighbors property.
So the Joe Horn shooting didn't happen then? If you are unfamiliar with it a neighbor shot two unarmed men in the back after they burgled a house. A court found him not guilty, not guilty means no crime was committed which makes his actions lawful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

spartan231490 said:
UK: ~60 million people 763 thousand incidents of violent crime. year 2012
US: ~300 million people 1.25 million incidents of violent crime. year 2010

That is more than 3 times more violent crime per population in the UK, and the crime rates in the US have been dropping steadily. Just because you have fewer gun deaths, doesn't mean gun control is doing you any good.
Our violent crime rates are down to our broken criminal justice system. In most cases of violent crime an offender will not receive a custodial sentence, not unless they have a significant amount of prior violent convictions. Even when custodial sentences are handed out the actual sentence is incredibly short, only cases of "wounding with intent" and other serious cases will somebody get 4+ years.

Punching someone or causing a large brawl will generally only get someone with previous convictions 12 months or less, remember criminals only serve half of a sentence. If they get probation they can serve as little as one third of the sentence.

There are no deterrents and its formed a culture of not giving a fuck about the law.
As I said, you might get away with it, that doesn't mean it's truly lawful. The fact that he was charged but not convicted is probably better evidence that he had a good lawyer than the fact he didn't break the law.

As for your comments on violent crime, you are making my point for me, quite literally. Differences in crime rates are cultural, not related to gun control, that's exactly what I said, and that's exactly what you are saying: "and its formed a culture of not giving a fuck about the law."

I really like how you ignored the vast majority of my post because you had no answer for it, including my massive primary source supporting all of my points.
The cause of violent crime being related from social issues rather than firearms laws was my point too. As for ignoring the "vast majority" of your post, yes I did but not because I lack an answer for it. I Ignored it because you quoted and replied to someone else.
 

Troublesome Lagomorph

The Deadliest Bunny
May 26, 2009
27,258
0
0
Ever considered that the US might have a larger crime rate cause its significantly bigger? The state of Texas is bigger than the country I live in.
Also: if a criminal really wants a gun, there's the black market. Criminals will still be able to get guns, even if there are anti-gun laws in place. Also: lots of police departments are outright incompetent, some even corrupt to hell. Also: what's to stop knife violence?
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
Troublesome Lagomorph said:
Ever considered that the US might have a larger crime rate cause its significantly bigger? The state of Texas is bigger than the country I live in.
Also: if a criminal really wants a gun, there's the black market. Criminals will still be able to get guns, even if there are anti-gun laws in place. Also: lots of police departments are outright incompetent, some even corrupt to hell. Also: what's to stop knife violence?

Mexcio has anti gun legislation.....WORKS FOR THEM!/sarcasm
 

crazypsyko666

I AM A GOD
Apr 8, 2010
393
0
0
Counter question: Why are sports cars legal?

I like guns because they're fun. I don't like guns because they're dangerous. They're unnecessary, expensive, and damn entertaining in a safe, friendly environment.

So why aren't sports cars illegal?
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Heres a thing though, just this month there have been three cases of someone going on a rampage with a gun(s) in the US.

Do you honestly think that nothing is wrong?
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
farson135 said:
Evilpigeon said:
Any chance you can give me a good link? I can't seem to come up with anything helpful.
Gun ownership rates and laws- http://www.gunpolicy.org/

Crime, etc- http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

I have plenty of other sources but those are what I use the most for these topics.

I do agree that guns are not the sole reason, my argument in these threads tends to revolve about guns making crime more deadly, hence the big wodge of stats I posted.
Why would it? Few crimes in the US involve firearms (once you factor out the crimes that require firearms in order to be a crime). Plus, some of the safest areas in the country are well armed (and no I am not implying correlation). For example-

Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9

Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1

Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723

Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

The presence of guns does not make people more violent. Guns do not make violence easier, the mind makes violence easier (mindset, skillset, and dead last is toolset). Therefore if they are going to commit a violent act the presence or absence of guns is not going to change that. Killing a person is not as easy as the movies would have you believe. I have hunted for the better part of a decade and have been a competitive marksman for even longer and I can tell you that there is no such thing as a perfect shot. An amateur will only kill a person in one shot on accident. If you receive medical treatment within the first 10 minutes of being shot then your chances of surviving are high. It is not much different with a knife wound.
Thank you for those statistics, they are quite good.
 

fletch_talon

Elite Member
Nov 6, 2008
1,461
0
41
farson135 said:
Wow, you have completely lost the plot. You said this is about wanting to hunt. I said it is not about that because many people who do hunt do it because it is necessary and not because they want to.
Actually you seem to have lost the plot a while ago. You were arguing that gun control is the reason (and the primary reason) our feral pig population is out of control.
When I claimed the lack of interest in hunting or (if it makes you feel better) "pest control" is the reason, you started going on about how people in Texas do it regardless of interest for the greater good.
That's great, good for them. That has no bearing on the argument in question though. If you want to argue that the majority of Australian people don't care enough about the problem, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. If you want to argue that gun control is the reason for this, or that reduced gun control is the solution, then I'd be interested in how the hell you manage to justify that in your head.

That is what you are accusing me of being ignorant of? I don?t give a shit if y?all want to hunt. That was never my point to being with. For the love of Christ, y?all have let your population get out of control. I think that is a bad thing and I do not want my country to end up like that. Where in the fuck do you see me saying anything about your culture (other than y?all do not want to do it)?
Yes, that is what you have remained ignorant of.
No that was never your point, it was mine.

Again, your point was that gun control is the cause of the problem. My counter point was that hunting does exist, weapons are available and that the problem lies with a culture which for the most part is ignorant to the problem or doesn't care enough to be part of the solution, regardless of what weapons are available.

Calm the fuck down.
Somewhat ironic when posted directly after your little episode up there.

Giving the hunters better equipment will make it easier to kill the pigs. Sorry, but your strawmen are still strawmen.

They have equipment but the proper equipment. Bolt action rifles are not the best equipment for taking on a large herd of pigs. Sorry, that is the way it is.
I hate to do this, since you'll start claiming I'm using a slippery slope fallacy, but you know what would be even better for killing pigs?
A vehicle mounted minigun.
screw your 700 bullets per minute, try up to 6000. The best part is, we can't eat the meat, so we might as well shred it up and spray it across the landscape as much as possible.

But no. I'd rather live in a society that doesn't give the public access to weapons which are primarily intended for military use.

Second of all, as I have already explained, Texas has those same problems as well. We still overcome it.
With numbers and eagerness. Unless those problems are overcome by having a bigger gun, then your argument is irrelevant to the point your supposedly trying to make.
You've already said in this thread that these problems were overcome using equipment like sensors and organisation, we could do that here, but evidently nobody is interested in doing so. Is that a problem? Yes. Has it anything to do with gun control? Nope.

But no, all you can go on about is how we don't use the same guns you do and you cling to that idea as if it is the one and only possible truth.
Have you ever considered that you are wrong? How about we let one of your fellow Aussies explain how he prefers semis when hunting large numbers of pigs-


Very Graphic

I left my section of quote in there so I can ask...
Wrong about what?
I haven't said that hunting wouldn't be easier with more powerful weapons, that would be a stupid argument. I've said that the weapons we have are sufficient and that the lack of participation in pig hunting, and the lack of organised effort is the problem.

I'm sure there are people here that would much rather a gattling gun bolted onto their ute for hunting, but:
a) that doesn't mean it should be legal
and
b) its not gonna change the fact that it would be a handful of people over ridiculously immense, remote and often rugged/overgrown conditions.

That is the first time anyone has ever called me an elitist.
Obviously you mustn't make a habit of telling people what their country does that makes it inferior to yours. Telling them their standards are too low and that you don't want your country to end up like theirs. And generally making out as if your extensive knowledge of your own country gives you a clear and indisputable insight into how to fix other's.
That's good, such things are generally frowned upon.

So, the fact that your country has a single problem means that your country (in its totality) is worse than my own? And you accuse me of leaps in logic. Does that mean that when I accuse the US of having shitty immigration laws I am calling the US a shithole?
Your statement that you don't want to "live down to [our] expectations" was clearly inflammatory. As is your repeated "argument" claiming we have "fucked up [our] country".
If such comments are the result of being passionate about the subject (as you seem to be) then you need to

Calm the fuck down.
If thats not the reason then you're either not very good at posting in a non-provactive manner, or are intentionally trying to incite anger, in which case, well done, though I doubt its achieved the explosive effect trolls generally look for.

Actually I am saying that the use of tactics and the use of proper equipment would solve your problem. Pigs are still a problem in Texas, just not in my area anymore.
That is not what you started off saying at all. Your exact words were:
"How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?"
In a thread about gun control.

I believe, with the weapons currently available, with greater organisation and equipment (not including firearms) and with more people involved, we could achieve the desired results. None of this requires us to lighten our restriction on firearms, and as such we have to deal with less of the crap that spawned this thread, namely mass numbers of casualties due to easy access to weapons that can kill/injure 700 people in a minute.*

*assuming they all stood in a line with just the right amount of overlap and the gunman had practiced a few times. Yes its hyperbole but it gets the point across.

You want to live in a country where your animals are out of control. I do not give a fuck. I do not care. However that does not mean I want to jump in with you.

If I do not like an element of your country that does not mean your country is a shithole. I hate German police but that is not going to stop me from going back. So calm the fuck down and stop being so thin skinned.
I'd take your own advice if I were y'all.
 

fletch_talon

Elite Member
Nov 6, 2008
1,461
0
41
lacktheknack said:
Bias exists. He has it, I have it, you have it, and it's the reason you have an opinion at all. People need to stop treating it like it's dirty. The only place that it's bad is in statistics.

Does his comment insult your country? Nope. If he had said that about Canada, I'd have not been offended in any way. I actually fail to see insult.

The thing I pointed out (where you lost your credibility) is where you told him to STFU and GTFO. You can't do that, man, no matter what your current state of temper is.
Bias is indeed something everyone has, but if you intend to tell someone what their country is doing wrong, you'd damn well wanna pull your head out of your ass, and take note of the differences between cultures before doing so.

What Farson is doing is looking at Australia as if it were just like Texas. Identical in everyway except one is further South. He assumes that because its done a certain way there, that that is the only way it can be done.

And yes his comment did insult my country, apparently you didn't see it that way, well then that's your interpretation I guess.
Interpretations can vary. Kind of like how when I said stop bringing your bias to these threads, I literally meant it. I did not intend for it to be a STFU or a GTFO. It was my way of saying I would much rather discuss this with someone who can acknowledge my arguments without saying something that boils down to:

I'm right you're wrong, your fucked up country is proof.

And whilst that is a massive simplification of Farson's argument it pays to remember that "fucked up" is in fact how he has been describing Australia. I don't care if he only means to refer to feral pig issues, its what he's saying and how he's saying it.



Edit: whoops, was gonna keep talking, then realised I was rambling, but forgot to delete the half sentence I got through.
However it is true, I'm not anti gun.
 

w9496

New member
Jun 28, 2011
691
0
0
Lets just create a hypothetical situation here.

Guns are banned in the United States. Everybody who legally owned a firearm must turn in their weapons or face possible jailtime.

What about the people who illegally own firearms? They can't be tracked as they're not registered. This means most criminals would still have their guns. Without the possibility of their victims being armed, they will have no reason to have fear, and crime rates are likely to increase by a lot.

Just sayin'.
 

Imper1um

New member
May 21, 2008
390
0
0
With Guns, it doesn't prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
With DRM, it doesn't prevent criminals from cracking software.

Bottom line: Criminals don't obey the rules. If law-abiding citizens here didn't own guns in certain cases, they would be completely unable to defend themselves against the crimes that occur near us.

The big thing with UK vs US is location, location, location. The UK is located near Spain, France, Ireland, which are all 1st-world countries. These countries have laws and such that prevent crime just like UK.

However, US is located next to Cuba, Mexico and Puerto Rico; three of the biggest drug producing countries in the world. That kind of traffic brings a whole different dynamic to things, as we are basically the "distribution" hub for a lot of really illegal things.

Don't knock on us just because our neighbors suck.
 

RaNDM G

New member
Apr 28, 2009
6,044
0
0
J Tyran said:
RaNDM G said:
In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.
So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps the Swiss are more socially responsible and less likely to go around robbing and beating each other up than people in other countries?
Wasn't that the point I was trying to make? Of course they are more socially responsible. They are military trained and ready to defend themselves from invasion at a moment's notice.

Of course, invasion is the one thing the country doesn't need to worry about. Attacking Switzerland is a logistical nightmare. Invading and occupying is impossible. Even so, the Swiss government encourages familiarity with firearms among all of its citizens, and it is one of the few countries where anyone can feel safe when every other citizen has an assault weapon slung over their shoulder.

J Tyran said:
Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.
Swiss laws are similar to the U.S. in that a person can defend themselves with a firearm. That does not mean they have to fire it. The only justification to shoot an attacker is if the attacker is armed with an illegally owned firearm and intends to kill. Even then it can be considered manslaughter if the defender fills his attacker full of holes.



Also, why would you shoot someone in your home when they're already dead? Seems a bit redundant.

CAPTCHA: beg the question
 

Edible Avatar

New member
Oct 26, 2011
267
0
0
Moth_Monk said:
Yep this thread had to get posted.


Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :)
Just postin this quick tid-bit:

In the 1950's, my high school allowed kids to bring their hunting rifles into school so that they could go to the on-premise shooting range and sight in their rifles after class (holy crap, right?)

But school shootings were non-existent! Gun crime was insanely low! How is this so?

Proper instruction and responsible gun use + Low national crime and poverty rates + no gangs or inner-city turmoil
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
Edible Avatar said:
Moth_Monk said:
Yep this thread had to get posted.


Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :)
Just postin this quick tid-bit:

In the 1950's, my high school allowed kids to bring their hunting rifles into school so that they could go to the on-premise shooting range and sight in their rifles after class (holy crap, right?)

But school shootings were non-existent! Gun crime was insanely low! How is this so?

Proper instruction and responsible gun use + Low national crime and poverty rates + no gangs or inner-city turmoil
I had a teacher in high-school who took his rifle to class (when he was in grade school) to do an, "Informative speech," assignment during which he demonstrated how to field-strip and clean his rifle. What people are quick to forget is that mass shootings and, well, school shootings for that matter are a thing of very recent history. They did not occur with near the frequency (if at all) before the early to mid 1990s.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Tsukuyomi said:
1: "Well if you don't have a proper firearm what if a crazed PCP-Addict busts into your home and threatens your family?!"

I have actually heard this offered up as a serious question in a debate about caliber. The man in question was dead-set that anything below a .40 S&W was just not worth it for self/home defense. There's a lot of them out there here in the states. Many of them old and white and racist/homophobic to varying degrees. I get what he's saying, but also, honestly speaking, unless you live in an area where such a thing is more likely to happen, that's probably a one-in-a-million chance. To me it's just an excuse to have a bigger gun around the house and whatnot.
The .40 calibre thing is a general rule, I've heard that around, and you see a lot of police and miltary using at least 0.40 instead of 9mm.

The FBI was going to standardise at 10mm, but went back to .40.

Mind you, IIRC, 9mm have more penetration, as a rule.

...

Regardless of how likely you are to need a self-defense gun, if you decide to get one, you presumably want one that is adaquate, which might mean big.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
RaNDM G said:
J Tyran said:
Interestingly enough if I am understanding (the rather vague) Swiss self defense laws right in a huge amount of cases the use of a firearm in self defense seems to be unlawful. Which is in contrast to US law where its legal in some states for someone to go as far as shooting dead people if they are breaking into a neighbors property, even though nobody is in danger.
Swiss laws are similar to the U.S. in that a person can defend themselves with a firearm.
I am doubtful about that, especially considering that the Swiss police can only use firearms to protect themselves and the public in seriously violent situations. Why would the law for civilians be more open?

I will do a bit more research, its a complicated issue.On the face of it Swiss self defense law uses the same principle as many European nations, IE "justifiable force" but it has a huge subtext of precedents and guidelines behind it.

Also, well done you noticed a typo. How awesome /golfclap.