Question for people Pro-guns....

[Texas Joker 52]

Oh dear lord this thread again.....

I'm going to say that I'm in support of greater gun control laws in America, but not necessarily against gun ownership. What I think is that people should probably get psychologically checked before they're allowed to handle a weapon. And don't tell me about the whole 'right to bear arms thing'. That was from a different era when it was basically a necessity.

Stricter gun control would be nice. But, like you, I believe that an outright ban of gun ownership would be out of the question in the case of the U.S. And yes, part of that is the Constitutional Right to bear arms.

True, it was much more of a necessity than it is now, by far. But, home defense is much less dicey when those defending their home have a firearm that they know how to use responsibly.

...Of course, it would also help should we get invaded by a foreign country, or if there's a zombie apocalypse, among other things. Name a doomsday scenario, and I doubt there there wouldn't be SOME way that having a gun wouldn't help you. Barter, self-defense, you name it, it may help in a end-of-the-world situation.

 

[Signa]

So gun control is the next hot topic in the rotation huh? (After gender politics, feminism, and rape)

Well, in that case . . .

EVERYONE ...

...

OT: Different culture, attitudes, and values.

Fantastic use of that pic

OT: Well OP, I want guns in case I want to shoot my government for being dicks. Since you're not from America, you already know how shitty our government's foreign policies are. Those are the same people that the US citizens need to be afraid of.

Now, I don't own any guns, and I don't plan of shooting any dicks, but I'm just defending the right to do that. It's the last failsafe built by our founding fathers, and it needs to stay there, whether we think it's a good idea to use it or not.

 

[Omechron]

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.

How's your not-gun crime? I'd rather be shot than beaten to death with a cricket bat.

Personally, I don't care much either way about gun legislation. On the one hand, people who want to hurt each other will always always ALWAYS find a way, so taking away one tool is pointless. No gun on earth is as dangerous as a station wagon. On the other hand, the actual REASON people having guns was important to the founding fathers wasn't to point at thieves, but to point at the government... but that's kind of a moot point in a world where tanks and helicopters exist.

 

[Timedraven 117]

Lets putit simply. First off the idiot will just whine and complain continuously. And the conspiricy nuts andwaht has already been said. But our main fact is in fct more cultural, our country was made by the gun, we had a very violent upbringing and growing up as well. But i am pro gun control, i say more haresher peneltys and stricter control of illegal mods. I live in colorado by the way, the place that go thte shooting.

We need better phyco tests now >_>

 

[burningdragoon]

I don't want to comment on the actual topic since a) I don't have a strong stance though I'm on the general side of letting us have our guns if we want within reason (whatever that means) and b) there's the obvious different cultures are different thing.

BUT, I do want to point out the silliness of saying there's less gun crime in a place where people don't have (as many) guns. Well duh. Is there less crime in general though? That statistic is just a bit more important if you really want to have a serious discussion about gun control.

I'd imagine there are less grizzly bear attacks in Texas than . Is that evidence that we should start hunting grizzly bears? (I'm aware it's a shaky analogy, but it's an amusing one)

 

[legend of duty]

Dearming the U.S. is simply impossible. We have too many guns to collect from the owners and keep track of.And where would all the compensation money come from. Don't know about you but I want cash for every bullet and every firearm. So, tax credits aint going to cut it. Also, thats assuming everyone is simply willing to give up their arms.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

LOL WTF?!?!

So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.

I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.

 

[cerebus23]

How about the sheer size of our nation?

Do you think mexico could or would regulate its border in its entirety? Do you think we could regulate the mexican border? every square inch of it and etc, lots of guns in south america, and they already ship enough drugs into the USA that guns would be no issue to add to the list, if it became lucrative enough.

Canada would be better about it but we have an much larger border with them, and crime gangs already have drug trafficking lanes from there to here, guns are much rarer but if the price is right it would be worked around.

And lets not forget our massive coastlines east and west and gulf, often used by traffickers to move product and people into our nation.

So how in the name of heaven could we secure our borders near well enough to make and kind of full out gun control work exactly? Lets add the money cost to build a fence along the southern border state i forget the price tag, but it was enough that it was never seriously considered, add on top it people seemed to have no problem digging under or going over any walls they put up anyway.

I dunno what the figures would be but i bet it would be near enough to double our national debt, to secure all those borders, to get all those guns off the streets, and the all the violence and arrests that would insure if anyone started coming into americans houses and demand they give up their guns.

Bottom line it is simply too damn expensive and our cultural history of living under a oppressive government that over taxed us, tried to take away our guns, put restrictions on what you could say and where you could speak. makes us far more distrustful of government, we did fight a full on war to gain our independence.

Add to that that our modern day federal government acts much like the kings of old, limiting our freedoms more and more each passing decade, spending us into the poorhouse, when you can tax every man woman and child 100% for 10 years and not pay off the national debt we have racked up, so yea alot of americans would take offense if the feds or anyone tried to pull anything.

 

[Sacman]

Well on the one hand it's in our constitution...

On the other hand... guns are dangerous... and they're the cause of much more havoc and destruction than they can possibly make up for in self defense and generally positive stuff... honestly there is pretty much no situation that won't be made worse if everyone involved owned a gun... despite how much gun nuts like to talk up how they're taking away our ability to defend ourselves, it does little more than, in most cases, lower the casualty rate... the average citizen with a gun is no rambo and would only serve to stir up confusion and get himself killed in the grand scheme of things, whether by the police incapable of differentiating between the actual perpetrator and the guy with a gun or even possibly by someone completely unrelated...

My point is that the average American is a fickle and stupid beast, who left to his own devices with a weapon, of such magnitudes, would only serve to hurt himself or someone else, whether intentionally or not...<.<

As far as self defense arms are concerned... hunting arms... it's really a different conversation... and believe it or not I don't want to take away peoples guns... I would prefer to live in a country where everyone has enough confidence in their safety and enough trust in the general population for their not to be a need for guns... though this is 'Merica, so that won't happen...<.<

Oh shit new page, shits gettin real...<.<

 

[Waaghpowa]

I'm Canadian and our gun laws are very strict. I can't even import a fucking airsoft gun into Canada without customs seizing it. Yet I can buy full metal airsoft guns the resemble the actual thing in a store in Toronto.

As a Canadian, my stance on guns is this: There needs to be regulation, but not necessarily bans. The reason is that people who intend to do bad things or break the law, will do so regardless of Anti gun laws or gun bans. Law breakers break the law, simple. Now I agree with the US laws regarding concealed firearm permits in the sense that honest people will get them. The more honest people walking around with a concealed gun, it acts as a deterrent to criminals because you never know who has a gun.

I understand that nations such as Canada and the UK have strict laws regarding weapons, but part of it may have to do with culture as well. I don't mean to generalize, but the attitude regarding guns in Canada and the UK are totally different compared to the US which may contribute to the lower statistics in gun related deaths in the UK vs America.

I realize that these laws aren't entirely effective as shootings still occur in both the UK and Canada, but they shouldn't be so easily obtainable either. Just look at the recent shooting during the Batman midnight release that only happened a day ago. The dude bought thousands of rounds off the internet and three rather large weapons all in the span on a couple months.

 

[Agayek]

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.

The general response to this is two fold. First, while you have less gun-crime, your overall rate of violent crime is not significantly different. It doesn't really do a whole lot of good to remove guns from the equation when little Timmy will go into a blind rage, pick up a knife and stab someone 27 times.

Anything and everything can be a deadly weapon. The only way to stop that from being true is to lobotomize everyone at the moment of their birth, then remove all of their limbs.

Second, it's less about "everyone needs guns" and more "the government needs to shut the fuck up". The second amendment is explicitly about ensuring that the people would be able to stage a successful revolt against the established government, for the eventuality that it becomes corrupt, ineffectual, or tyrannical (which is arguably the case right now).

As such, most supporters of the second amendment are people who believe that the government does not have the right to dictate their life.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?

Wild pigs in the US- 4,000,000
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313597.pdf
Wild pigs in Australia- 23,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3308375/Australia-has-more-wild-pigs-than-humans.html

Wild pigs already do billions of dollars in damage every year in the US and we hunters are the only thing that actually prevents them from taking over like they have in Australia (and that is not the only species that is breeding out of control in Australia). In addition to that is just general pest control.

Or how about because we still have dangerous (not just annoying) animals in the US like wild bear- http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

Or how about because we feel the need to protect ourselves? A friend of mine lives on the border, you can literally see the border from his home (or at least the place where the sign that is supposed to mark the border is). Drug runners regularly use his property to smuggle drugs in. If he called the police it would take them 20 minutes or better to get to him. Do you think it is a good idea for him to be disarmed? And before anyone says it, he cannot move, his grandparents bought the property, he cannot afford to purchase a new home, and no one in their right minds would buy that property. Then you have a friend of mine who was raped. She carries a gun on her because she doesn?t want it to happen again. And of course you have incidents like this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31416285/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There are other things but let us focus on the economics for a moment.

The basic fact is that attacking the gun industry is harmful to the world?s economy. You may not realize this but your police force and military practices with ammunition. That ammunition is cheap because the US produces a tons of it and exports. Either practice goes down or costs go up.

Plus, you are talking about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. You have gun shop owners, ammunition manufacturers (both large companies and small businesses), unrefined resource providers, military contractors, etc. Where do you think the materials to make these firearms and ammunition come from? What about all of the leather used in holsters? Where do you think the computer chips used in gun owners tech comes from? And on.

Your attack on the gun industry would send shock waves throughout the entire economy. There is no major part of the US and world economy that is not somehow connected to the firearms industry. How many ranchers are going to lose money when the demand for leather goes down? How many businesses built around firearms companies are going to survive if the largest business in the area goes under? How many mining companies are going to feel the effects of a fall in the brass market? How many ranges are going to go under and thereby force Police Departments to build actual ranges and how much money will that cost? Etc.

Then, in addition to that, you are going to have to get rid of the firearms somehow. Ignoring the how for a moment, let us instead focus on the cost to do that. First you are going to destroy hundreds of multimillion dollar businesses directly unless you pay them off (lots of money there). Then you have the 80 million gun owners in the US. If ever gun owner owns $300 in guns and firearms accessories that equals $24,000,000,000 you have to pay them (unless you are just going to take the guns and say fuck you to every gun owner). Of course that number is vastly underestimated. I myself own several thousand dollars in firearms and accessories and I am rather young. Plus, most bolt action rifles cost over $300, most semis cost over $600, and most pistols cost over $400.

In other words, firearms are necessary in the US and it would cause a huge harm to get rid of them. Not to mention the basic fact that it is impossible to get rid of them. 300,000,000 guns do not just disappear because you want them to (not to mention all of the guns outside of the US and all of the illegal guns).

BTW guns are not illegal in the UK, just heavily regulated.

I was gonna give my two cents on the matter. Then I read this. Nuff said.

 

[dcdude171]

We have a lot heavier gang activity in the us, especially in the south, The island of England is really small when compared to the US, It's all easier to control what comes in and out. If I want a gun for the ability to protect myself I should have that option. If guns are made illegal criminals and wack-jobs will still access them by illegal means, and regular citizens will have no way to protect themselves. If a responsible gun owner is at the location of a violent crime they have the capability to prevent it from happening.

 

[chadachada123]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

LOL WTF?!?!

So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.

I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.

No, he's saying that, without guns, this crazy madman would have used a different but just-as-capable device for his killing. No legal restriction is ever going to stop an intelligent criminal from accomplishing his goal, especially if that goal is murder.

I need look no further than the Bath township elementary school bombing, which is still the worst mass murder at a school in US history. Ever.

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

 

[cerebus23]

Well on the one hand it's in our constitution...

On the other hand... guns are dangerous... and they're the cause of much more havoc and destruction than they can possibly make up for in self defense and generally positive stuff... honestly there is pretty much no situation that won't be made worse if everyone involved owned a gun... despite how much gun nuts like to talk up how they're taking away our ability to defend ourselves, it does little more than, in most cases, lower the casualty rate... the average citizen with a gun is no rambo and would only serve to stir up confusion and get himself killed in the grand scheme of things, whether by the police incapable of differentiating between the actual perpetrator and the guy with a gun or even possibly by someone completely unrelated...

My point is that the average American is a fickle and stupid beast, who left to his own devices with a weapon, of such magnitudes, would only serve to hurt himself or someone else, whether intentionally or not...<.<

As far as self defense arms are concerned... hunting arms... it's really a different conversation... and believe it or not I don't want to take away peoples guns... I would prefer to live in a country where everyone has enough confidence in their safety and enough trust in the general population for their not to be a need for guns... though this is 'Merica, so that won't happen...<.<

Oh shit new page, shits gettin real...<.<

Gun is a tool, people are dangerous. Sorry but no gun has fired itself at anyone. People choose to fire a gun.

When states have carry laws most people that actually carry (legally) are decently trained, we just don't give someone a carry license and say good luck out there.

Add that element of suprise, if you do not know which house is armed or not, which guy armed or not, criminals are sure as hell less detered than if they knew everyone on the block has nothing to defend themselves with vs their guns.

Heavily armed paramilitary psychos, or attention seekers, terrorist, or w/e he turns out to be today, are the exception not the norm, most crime is done by not the best and brightest nor the best armed less you are watching a hollywood movie.

We have gun laws, how many more laws do we need? How much gun control is enough? So one person gets through the system lets trash the whole system, enact all sorts of new laws.

Kinda what we did after 9/11 just signed our freedoms away over in the name of protecting ourselves.

After all i think it was dick morris used to tell bill clintion "never let a good crisis goto waste" in political terms use all your saber rattling, fear mongering, and outright explotation, to grab all the power you can as government.

Our founding fathers would be ashamed of alot of the things we let slide now days, after all these were guys that said. if you give up a measure of liberty, for a measure of security you lose both, and that government needed to be overthorwn every 30 years to insure liberty stands, these guys were radicals they would be the "loonies" of today, the teaparties some of them, militia, all people with a healthy or more dislike of our government.

But then again most americans hate our government, probably more so than foreigners do, just not to a full on degree to actually do something about it other than complain and not vote, politicans love it when people do not vote.

 

[Platypus540]

How come the UK policemen don't carry guns? If they have to respond to a 911 call and it escalates, wouldn't they need to be able to defend themselves and nearby civilians?

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

LOL WTF?!?!

So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.

I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.

No, he's saying that, without guns, this crazy madman would have used a different but just-as-capable device for his killing. No legal restriction is ever going to stop an intelligent criminal from accomplishing his goal, especially if that goal is murder.

I need look no further than the Bath township elementary school bombing, which is still the worst mass murder at a school in US history. Ever.

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

Yes, but you CAN stop a half-assed very stupid person from either making a huge mistake or from committing a crime.
With guns it's "Oh I can just go buy one and shoot this person".
Without a gun they need to think about much more and might change their mind in the process. Also with guns it's easier to be more detached. If you were to say, use a knife then things would be much more difficult.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

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.

Well, that's a pair of stupid arguments if ever I've read them. And I just have. From you.

Firstly, it isn't CRIMINALS who do most of the killing with guns in America. Angry, depressed teenagers massacring their classmates, lone psychos shooting up movie theatres, dumb kids accidentally blowing each others' -or their own- brains out "playing" with daddy's gun- that's the easy-to-prevent problem that you wring your hands over but apparently don't really CARE enough about to bother stopping. The pro-gun lobby make it EASY for people to be killed with guns -not necessarily by criminals, but by ANYONE- and then act surprised when people die.

Secondly, you just stated that the police are completely incompetant and can't be trusted while private citizens are completely trustworthy enough to be allowed to have their own gun based on... absolutely nothing except your own hyperbole. I'm not even going to bother arguing against that, I'm simply going to point out that you said it and hope you realise how moronic it was.