Question for people Pro-guns....

[nuba km]

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

interesting fact, for the that same reason sawed off shotguns are illegal, as the moment a double barrel shot gun looses its barrels it is no longer useful for hunting.

OT: now is gun crime per capita significantly lower or just gun crime in pure numbers, because that would make a big difference.

 

[easternflame]

Well, London didn't fare so well with the riots now did they?
That said, I think there are a couple of things. First being, Canada has the same gun laws and the rate of crime is almost non-existent. That tells you that it's not a law problem, it's a country problem. The American culture is built on fear and hate. You can't deny that, and that obviously helps crime.

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

 

[chadachada123]

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

interesting fact, for the that same reason sawed off shotguns are illegal, as the moment a double barrel shot gun looses its barrels it is no longer useful for hunting.

OT: now is gun crime per capita significantly lower or just gun crime in pure numbers, because that would make a big difference.

It's per capita, but only in the United States. Some countries have the same gun ownership as the US but a far lower per capita gun crime rate, like Switzerland.

 

[easternflame]

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

Most people who buy those types of weapons do so with the intent to never hit anything except paper targets placed downrange in a safe shooting environment. Or just because they're marvels of technology with historic importance and people want to collect that sort of thing with no intent to ever fire off a single round.

Unfortunately for those people, these things do happen every once in a while and I do not believe that lives should be at stake for the sake of collecting something.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Because what's going to stop a criminal getting a gun illegally?

I support gun control in the UK but not in the US. I will now answer your question to explain this further:

The ocean. Guns dont magically fly into England. And since we are NOT a major armors producer (barely anything for civilians anyway) they have two options.

1. Ambush and steal from a military base - fucking hard

2. Get a boat loaded with arms through border patrol, continue to get ammo and more arms this way while dodging all border patrol units using a LONG chain of suppliers from outside the UK - hard and expensive.

The US has arms suppliers. The US has borders with Mexico who aren't shy on guns. American criminals can get guns EVEN if they were banned no issue. English criminals dont have the organisation, man power or money to get them unless they are a lethally efficient cartel. And they are not gonna use those guns to hold up random people for 10 quid. Small time criminals do NOT get guns, people breaking into your house will not have guns. Usually these people are met with the armed response unit.

Its too late for the US, guns are too common already. The UK is doing good though.

 

[Mudze]

I live in Australia, where concealed carry is illegal, barring police officers.

I don't trust police officers. I don't trust criminals. Why on Earth would I trust strangers to protect me? I'd feel much safer if I were allowed a handgun.

 

[maninahat]

snip

snip

What's alarming is that in the shooter's state, gun sales have balooned. Either people want to buy guns before potential gun control appears, or they think they're Charles Bronson, and plan to protect theatres from crazed gunmen. That latter one gets on my goat especially.

Do they honestly think another guy is going to attack a theatre? Now that every patron brings a gun in? Won't they do what they always do, and attack somewhere where people wouldn't have thought to carry guns? Like a swimming pool? Even if a gunman did attack another cinema, what are the odds that someone in the audience is going to pick them off in the dark, amoung a panicking crowd? Jesus people. Think about it for a minute.

The inflate could be any number of things unless your numbers are strictly to Colorado where the wannabe Joker had a killing spree.

The numbers are taken from Colorado, in the week immediately after the shooting.

Should we crack down on knives that can be carried easily on your person to stop knife related murders?

Already did in the UK, specifically because of high knife crimes. Concealable knives are probably the most dangerous weapon widely available to the GB public, though you tend not to hear news stories about people running amok with them in a crowded place, killing dozens of people. It's also worth noting that America already has stringent regulations over switchblades and other such concealable knives. Far more so than guns, in fact. (Including, curiously enough, Colorado).

A gun is a tool, a gun is not a murderer. A gun used in a murder had no way to stop him from being used to be murdered, its a tool, a gun used to hunt animals for selling of furs or meat is not a good-little-gun, its a tool.

Everyone knows its a tool. But it happens to be a tool specifically designed for killing people, and it has made murder really easy in the US. What about cars? you ask. Well, considering that cars are not designed to kill people, make fairly impractical murder weapons, are expensive, and require extensive training, testing, license and insurance to get hold of one, it is safe to say that cars are already well regulated. Before someone mentions it, I am well aware of the high death rates at the hands of car accidents, but then US citizens are in cars for an average of 100 hours a year. They get quite a lot more day to day use out of cars than guns, so its natural that accidental fatalities should be higher.

There is no way to stop premeditated murders, there isn't, so stop assuming making premeditated murderer use something else but a gun would stop a murder, and there is no guarantee they wont use a gun illegally.

You can make murder much harder by taking the tools away. Few tools allow individuals to successfully massacre crowds of people, and you might have noticed that these massacres are far less common in countries which don't permit gun ownership.

I mentioned previously that as any attempt at nationwide gun control in the US is impossible, these discussions are mostly pointless. In reflection, I think they are worth having, if only to convince people that bringing a gun into a theatre is a waste of time. The real solution to stopping massacres is there, but it will forever be out of reach to a country filled with guns, and incapable of seeing more guns as anything but a solution to the problem of gun violence.

 

[blueb0g]

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.

The murder rate is also many times lower, so that doesn't work either.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

So you don't want guns in the hands of safe and responsible people, you'd rather have them in the hands of dangerous, irresponsible criminals? Wow, that's seriously messed up.

I would be more surprised to hear an actual organised criminal went and shot someone in the street rather then some drunk idiot.

Which won't actually stop them from acquiring a gun.So many guns are floating around the US it wouldn't be THAT hard.

Well yeah, buts its because of the current laws that so many guns are around there. I'm not suggesting you change the law, just that it was a horrible idea.

 

[trophykiller]

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.

I agree entirely. It's the exact same reason as why kids smoke pot here because alcohol and tobacco are too hard to come by for minors. By making it illegal, it becomes an entirely unregulated trade that exists entirely outside the law.

Plus, remember that america is known internationally as the world's biggest arms dealer. America makes more money off of weapons they sell to foreign armies than any other trade good. Don't believe me? Let me name a few american arms manufacturers: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Palinko, and many more. These companies will sell to anyone, anywhere, as long as they've got the money. Sure there are "laws" preventing them from selling to insurgents and criminals, but they seem to "wind up" in the hands of these men anyway. You don't think the first Iron Man film was entirely based on fiction, do you?

And if these weapon are winding up in the hands of criminals and terrorist the world over, what's to stop them from getting into the hands of american criminals? Hint: the guy in Aurora was wearing illegal military grade armor.

Here's the thing: capitalism is ingrained into humanity's mind. That's all the black market is, corrupted capitalism. Some people want certain goods that are illegal, and they're going to find people willing to sell them. Supply and demand.

 

[b15h4m0n]

I live in Poland, where it's difficult and expensive to get a license and own a gun. But the police/other forces have firearms. Criminals, obviously, also have them.

For me, it's a liberty thing. People should be allowed to do/possess/own/use much more things that they are now. Some restrictions are just not necessary. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, and if that's the case - the government should go for liberty (in dubio pro libertate).

No one is wondering why women aren't afraid of walking on the streets - every man carries with him a tool that can be potentially used to rape them. And if you can say 'but not everyone is a rapist', then you can easily say 'not everyone is a crazed shooter'.

I also like math:

Average gun crime time - 1min
Getting the gun out of holster and shooting - few seconds
Police reaction time - 6min

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

The US isn't the UK. This is relevant for a great number of reasons. Firearms are plentiful in the US, and gun restriction laws do little to keep them out of the hands of criminals. The fact is that Chicago and DC, two cities which absolutely deny the right to carry firearms, vie with each other each year for the top spot for most violent crime in the country among all other cities. By contrast Vermont, which places no restriction on the carrying of firearms, has the lowest rate of firearm-related deaths among states in the nation.

The more people who carry firearms, the more dangerous it is for potential criminals to commit violent crimes.

But this is all beside the point. The Second Amendment isn't supposed to address any issue of public safety. It assures the rights of citizens to possess firearms so that, should the government exceed its boundaries and trample over the rights of its citizens, the citizens may rise and overthrow the government.

Fact is, America's a mess. While European nations are essentially ethnic strongholds, as much as certain liberals seem to desire to completely change their demographics, the US is a melting pot. And I have to say, the melting pot sure does crackle and spatter. People of different backgrounds don't want to mix either culturally or racially; they find reasons to be sore and grievous with each other; this has given rise to the reasons why whites avoid black neighborhoods, particularly at night, and why you don't see black people get off the bus in Little Italy.

People often say "can't we all just get along." Apparently they can't see the writing on the wall; the peoples do no want to get along. In fact they hate each other. There isn't going to arise a cosmopolitan utopia simply to justify your "weltanschauung."

For my part, I form relationships organically, regardless of racial background. Individually, people can be really great. I, however, do not trust demographic groups; they are all equally dangerous and untrustworthy.

 

[gufftroad]

-snip-

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us or give us an unfair advantage. After all, rapists and home invaders deserve a fair fight!

Holy flying donkey-genitals! I kind of expected this many responses though, so I shouldn't sound (read?) so shocked.

I do think you are allowed to defend yourself. And I do think you are allowed to do so at the expense of the safety of your assailant(s). What I do not consider acceptable is putting anyone else in danger to do so. So unless you and your assailant are alone in the middle of a street, with no openings (alleys, windows, doors or the like) that could hold other people (within reasonable firing range, after all, a person in an alley fifty metres behind you isn't at risk if your assailant is in front of you), then any use of a firearm could potentially harm people not involved in the conflict (and more than likely not responsible for it). And honestly, I don't give two shits what the other person did, because when you endanger someone who isn't responsible for your current situation, you overstep the line, you do exactly what the person causing you problems is doing, so by your logic, if you used a firearm for self-defense, anyone else in the vicinity who is potentially endangered by your actions could stop you from doing so, even if it meant endangering another person to do so, because by endangering someone not responsible for your predicament, you've created a completely new scenario of victimisation, and you are most certainly not the victim in that one.

Short version: You can defend yourself. You can do so at the expense of the one responsible for the problem (provided such action would actually relieve the problem in any way). What you cannot do is defend yourself at the expense of people not responsible for the problem.

so what you are saying is the tweaker with a rusty knife pointed at me has more of a right to safety then a law abiding citizen

and most of the time guns are used in self defense roughly 91%of the time not a single shot is fired i got this information from the National Crime Victimization Survey