The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[Superbeast]

I would also like to mention that the greater number of gun-related death in the U.S. might also have to do with the fact that the population of the U.S. is s LOT larger than that of countries like the U.K. and Canada. You may look at 29,000 firearm deaths and say, "Holy shit! That's a LOT," but we look at it and say, "That's not so many." In reality, our gun violence rates are quite low when you look at then population as a whole (~300,000,000 people).

That's why (most) people look at the "per capita" rate of crimes. It's still a lot higher than nations with tighter gun controls.

It is still a small percentage - around (2.97 gun-crime, 4.5 murder per 100 000) per year - but when you consider that some really lawless places are on around 4-5/5-7 per 100,000 per year and Europe's rates are so much smaller (0.1% gun-crime, 1.45% murder for UK) it is somewhat striking that there is a problem (whether it is from law enforcement in general due to underfunding or poor firearms regulation or people being too willing to kill in general I wouldn't like to say).

The population argument wouldn't hold much sway anyway:

"Singapore has the second highest population density in the world (almost 6,814 people per square kilometer, or about 50% more densely populated than Chicago, Illinois) but has the lowest level of gun violence... It's rate of gun violence is 99 times lower than that of the United States which is 200 times less densely populated."

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

oh god not annother one of these damn ban all gunz tey kill us all!!! nonsence.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that. (cookie for the reference)

Eddie Izzard I do believe. The cookie is probably long gone by now but oh well.

 

[Mathurin]

one more point to end with... if you just wanted to defend yourself why not just get a taser (one of the ones which shoots out)?

Thats great, maybe the British should do that......
Oh, wait, tasers and pepper spray are illegal in the UK, the propaganda spouted to make them illegal compares very closely with that to make guns illegal.

yes, but I'm not likely to get shot!... and is that really true, I don't think pepper spray is... tasers might be... but yeah, not an issue for us because were all so bloody safe

but you are highly likely to get beaten and robbed

but no, gun control isnt a slippery slope, why would you ever think that?are you... no... are you being

sarcastic? *GASP*

heres the thing, I have a packet of biscuits in front of me, I could open them up and eat one or i could go down that "slippery slope" and eat the entire packet... but if I just leave them, than I don't get to enjoy any benefits of eating the biscuit...

what a lovely analogy, again I continue to be shocked by americas total lack of faith in democratic process, I'm sure they'd all just prefer a dictatorship really

Yes I was being sarcastic.

Yes, we do lack faith in a pure democratic process, because it tends to let majorities trample minority rights, which is why we prefer a constitutional republic to a true democracy, much better than mob rule.

If you follow american politics you see its rather funny, because the political left frequently use the Bill of rights to bypass democracy, yet many complain when something similar occurs on firearms (though I think that most gun laws passed are not fully understood by the public and therefore cannot be considered truly democratic) on a national scale however, gun control hasnt been a major issue since it lost the democrats their majority position in the 1990s (sounds like democracy to me) nobody wants to talk about it much for fear of epic fail

but hey, I firmly believe that your nation should be completely defenseless if it so chooses, thats your call, I can disagree philosophically but wouldnt force my beliefs on you.

To answer the question, tasers are one shot wonders

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQUrqLQfPME),

oh look, a cop tasering a single individual multiple times, how totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Tasers have a single set of barbs (except for a few wildly expensive models that just entered the law enforcement market), they have one shot, if you miss, you lose, if there is more than one assailant, you lose

dont always work, and are defeated by heavy clothing like a leather jacket, plus it just doesnt convey the fear required to end an encounter without force.
Whereas a firearm is multi-shot, extremely effective and even when body armor is used will often provide some incapacitation (getting shot hurts, even through a vest) most notably it makes criminals one of 3 things, dead/injured, compliant, or fleeing with astonishing reliability.

all of which assumes you shoot first and the guy doesn't panic and shoot you as soon as he feels genuinely threatened or that he might be a better marksman than you... but I can't disagree with you that guns are highly effective at damaging people and often killing them

Actually, for simple robbery stuff, merely showing a firearm, or stating "I have a gun" will cause the criminal to flee, they dont want to die

I am not going to get involved in specific assumptions beyond the capability of using the weapon for defense, if you are capable of using a weapon for defense in the situation (including a taser) then a gun will more reliably do the things you need it to. If the situation is one where you are incapable of using a weapon for defense, then it doesnt matter in the slightest to our discussion.

Can you agree that damaging and killing someone who is clearly intent on damaging or killing you is preferable to being damaged or killed?

I will freely state, if someone is intent on killing me, I have absolutly no moral problem with killing them first

The only thing a taser does that a gun doesnt is provide force that isnt considered lethal by the courts, but rubber bullets do that, so meh.

...so use the non-lethal option surely

I use the most effective option, I have no moral problem with killing or seriously injuring someone I have reasonable belief is intent on killing or seriously injuring me.

I own a gun for a variety of philosophical and psychological reasons

brilliant, I can just imagine you musing while kneecapping somebody, I don't know why...

so concepts of rugged individualism and independence have never been mentioned to you?
Not sure I like the british education system

 

[The_ModeRazor]

I thought it was obvious that if you couldn't get hold of a gun, you are much less likely to shoot people.
It's strange that America doesn't see the logic in there.

 

[Mathurin]

The right to bear arms is just a narrow-minded solution to a problem that is caused by itself.

Says the guy with the communist avatar, representative of an ideology so abusive and destructive it caused deaths of over 100 million people in the first five years of being implemented in China alone.

Says the guy who has no idea at all what Communism is.

It does not take half a blind eye to see that Capitalism is wrong, but 300 million narrow minds and 80 years of propaganda not to.

Which flavor of communism do you subscribe to, Kair?

Mostly original Marxism, but with reformist views. And before you ask; Marx always supported a democratic socialist state, not this guy:

Communism requires trust, you must trust the guy making the decisions, and your fellow comrade. That trust is very often betrayed, resulting in the soviet union.

communism works in small groups where everybody knows eachother, nowhere else.

capitalism harnesses greed and mistrust, instead of pretending they dont exist.


reality has shown that neither works, you need some level of market protection or monopolies are developed which are not the capitalist intent.

 

[Mathurin]

I thought it was obvious that if you couldn't get hold of a gun, you are much less likely to shoot people.
It's strange that America doesn't see the logic in there.

since we have a massive land border with a third world nation, you can get guns.


Regardless, gun control advocates tend to place a great deal of weight on gun crime, as opposed to all crime, gun crime is not a seperate entity, I want to reduce all crime, regardless of the implement used, why dont you?

 

[Mathurin]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes. So thus, we have those morons who say that it's their right to own a semi-automatic weapon. Sorry, bro, but Bambi doesn't move that fast.

Although, I will make an exception for those who use the guns purely for sport, as in game hunting. However, at all other times, the weapons would have to be disarmed and locked away, stored with no ammunition, which would have to be stored somewhere else, etc.

There's just too much hoo-hah about guns nowadays. Guns are dangerous. Whether or not you mean for them to be for self-defense or for hunting, they will always have the potential to cause an accident. Be it kids accidentally finding the gun, or a kid going off the deep end and bringing it to school for revenge, or for it being stolen and sold on the black market, etc., etc. There's too much risk.

guns are an inatimate object, guns are not dangerous, they require a human being to make them do something, therefore human beings are dangerous, we should ban human beings

the 2nd ammendment is about the militia, not the _state_ militia. The basic idea of the time was, if the majority of the population is armed and semi-militarily trained, no bad government can exist for long.

Sport hunting is not what the 2nd was about.

 

[thebrainiac1]

-snip-
I love how you act like you know all about American gun laws when you live in Britain.

Just because I NOW live in Britain doesn't mean I've always lived in Britain, now does it mean that I don't have family and friends in America who work for, I dunno, THE POLICE!

We have the right to bear arms because, when we founded this country, Anti-federalists were afraid of a strong central government and a new monarchy. So when the Bill of Rights was written, they threw that in so that people could form a militia and defend democracy should federalists decide that a monarchy should replace our newly created democracy. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

But why do you STILL need guns over 200 years later?

You can present studies that indicate gun control increases crime. You can present studies indicating gun control decreases crime. You can present studies that find it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. So, what's true?

Show me a survey that shows an increase in gun related crime when gun control laws are in place and I will eat my metaphorical hat and literal cake.

 

[thebrainiac1]

dude get your facts right most gun crimes are committed by unregistered guns and people who don;t have licenses

Yes, but if the populace don't have guns, crims don't need guns = less gun crime = less innocent people get shot!



EDIT: Oops, sorry for the double post!

 

[The_ModeRazor]

I thought it was obvious that if you couldn't get hold of a gun, you are much less likely to shoot people.
It's strange that America doesn't see the logic in there.

since we have a massive land border with a third world nation, you can get guns.


Regardless, gun control advocates tend to place a great deal of weight on gun crime, as opposed to all crime, gun crime is not a seperate entity, I want to reduce all crime, regardless of the implement used, why dont you?

Because crime is awesome!
Yeah, go evil people!

Come on, that post was pointless.
And making firearms illegal would drop the crime rate a lot.
Argue if you want to, but you are wrong.

 

[Daveman]

one more point to end with... if you just wanted to defend yourself why not just get a taser (one of the ones which shoots out)?

Thats great, maybe the British should do that......
Oh, wait, tasers and pepper spray are illegal in the UK, the propaganda spouted to make them illegal compares very closely with that to make guns illegal.

yes, but I'm not likely to get shot!... and is that really true, I don't think pepper spray is... tasers might be... but yeah, not an issue for us because were all so bloody safe

but you are highly likely to get beaten and robbed better than getting shot

To answer the question, tasers are one shot wonders

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQUrqLQfPME),

oh look, a cop tasering a single individual multiple times, how totally irrelevant to the discussion.something that amusing is never irrelevant

Tasers have a single set of barbs (except for a few wildly expensive models that just entered the law enforcement market), they have one shot, if you miss, you lose, if there is more than one assailant, you lose
yes, a problem, shouldn't be too hard for somebody to design and build one without this problem, if guns were illegal this problem might actually be addressed

dont always work, and are defeated by heavy clothing like a leather jacket, plus it just doesnt convey the fear required to end an encounter without force.
Whereas a firearm is multi-shot, extremely effective and even when body armor is used will often provide some incapacitation (getting shot hurts, even through a vest) most notably it makes criminals one of 3 things, dead/injured, compliant, or fleeing with astonishing reliability.

all of which assumes you shoot first and the guy doesn't panic and shoot you as soon as he feels genuinely threatened or that he might be a better marksman than you... but I can't disagree with you that guns are highly effective at damaging people and often killing them

Actually, for simple robbery stuff, merely showing a firearm, or stating "I have a gun" will cause the criminal to flee, they dont want to die so by that argument you wouldn't need a gun anyway, and most of the time I think while you're being mugged they'll have the gun aimed at you, so it'd basically be a one-sided western movie style showdown for survival... or are you assuming we'll know a good time in advance we're going to get robbed... wow britain sucks, no guns OR ESP

I am not going to get involved in specific assumptions beyond the capability of using the weapon for defense, if you are capable of using a weapon for defense in the situation (including a taser) then a gun will more reliably do the things you need it to. If the situation is one where you are incapable of using a weapon for defense, then it doesnt matter in the slightest to our discussion.

Can you agree that damaging and killing someone who is clearly intent on damaging or killing you is preferable to being damaged or killed?no

...well maybe if I'm definitely going to be killed

I will freely state, if someone is intent on killing me, I have absolutly no moral problem with killing them first well I'm sure it works for you and all the other mind readers out there who can predict exactly what a criminal wants to do but for the rest of us I think we'd give them a chance to just make off with fifty bucks in our wallet rather than end their lives... and I'd rather take a savage beating than kill anybody... in fact, why don't we bring back capital punishment for robbery

actually, no, attempted robbery

The only thing a taser does that a gun doesnt is provide force that isnt considered lethal by the courts, but rubber bullets do that, so meh.

...so use the non-lethal option surely

I use the most effective option, I have no moral problem with killing or seriously injuring someone I have reasonable belief is intent on killing or seriously injuring me.

I own a gun for a variety of philosophical and psychological reasons

brilliant, I can just imagine you musing while kneecapping somebody, I don't know why...

so concepts of rugged individualism and independence have never been mentioned to you?
Not sure I like the british education system no they don't teach children about guns here, or the philosophy behind ownership... hence fewer high school massacres... well how about that, I've just been massively disrespectful and insulting

... and with that I think I shall take my leave of the discussion, this has gone on far too long, enjoy owning weaponry and gun crime

and sorry everyone about the long post

WHOOSH

 

[PhiMed]

I find that people who make the argument that citizens should not be able to possess firearms generally have certain characteristics.

1) They live in an urban area.
2) They trust their government implicitly.
3) They feel progress is linear, and there will never be any sort of downturn (i.e. society's collapse is improbable, if not impossible).
4) They feel it is the government's responsibility to protect its citizenry from themselves.

I have no issue with the first characteristic. As for the other three, they remind me of a certain animal that produces wool and communicates primarily through bleats and baahs.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes. So thus, we have those morons who say that it's their right to own a semi-automatic weapon. Sorry, bro, but Bambi doesn't move that fast.

Just read DC v heller the opinion, heck it gives a very clear rational in the first 5-10 pages so no need to go though the 160 or so. There is almost no other way to view the 2nd, the prefatory clause has no bearing on the 2nd.

 

[BA Mcgee]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

People that use guns to do crimes often don't have a license to carry. Taking guns away from normal people would just decrease the chances of a person actually defending themselves.

 

[randomrob]

I live in Britain, so the only people who carry guns are posh country folk who like to shoot defenseless animals for fun, the armed forces, people who have a gun license even though it's illegal to use that gun unless it's self-defense and specialist police forces. I don't see any reason for civilians to have guns. People who read The Sun would probably disagree, but they wan't to bring back hanging so no-one cares what they think.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

my response is "well duh?" to the article. Honestly, the best way to solve gun crime is to BAN GUNS. Learn from Britain, America, not even the police wear guns here! Instead we have knife crime... lots, and lots of knifing.

Not exactly a solution to the problem now is it?

And, banning guns is just shy of impossible thanks to the ammendment process required here. In short, 2/3 states must agree to any change of the ammendment and I guarntee there aren't many (even in the gun control crowd) that will jump on the "ban them altogether" bandwagon.

Besides, banning weapons does little in the near term, especially in a heavily armed nation such as the US. Keep in mind statistics indicate there is more than one firearm for every man woman and child in my country, and only a small fraction of these people would give up their guns voluntarily. At a minimum, the federal government would have to compensate people for the weapons (and we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons), and that's just for the people who give them away willingly. The rest would have to be taken through a long and painful process of search and seizure. During this time, criminals will still have their guns, many otherwise law abiding people will still have them, and a whole lot of people will get shot during the disarming process.

Keep in mind that, as a nation, the citizens of the US have never been unarmed. It's as much a part of the culture as tophats and monocacles are in Europe.

 

[Insanum]

People get shot in the UK. We dont have legal gun laws, Except for Farm shotguns.

I think with the state of play in the USA banning guns will solve nothing.

Bollocks there was apporiximatley 42 related gun deaths in the uk from 2008 42, in America that number is in the tens of thousands in some states alone. Gun control does work, the statistics show it.

But the thing is, The gun laws has been in place for around 100 years over here. When it was introduced the saturation of guns in society was not as major as in the US.

All that will happen if you ban guns in the USA is that people who currently have a firearm will keep it, They'll just be stealthy about it.

 

[Ph33nix]

dude get your facts right most gun crimes are committed by unregistered guns and people who don;t have licenses

Yes, but if the populace don't have guns, crims don't need guns = less gun crime = less innocent people get shot!


EDIT: Oops, sorry for the double post!

ok but if people are getting guns illegally why would they stop when there is a ban on them? and so people getting stabbed and bludgeoned to death is way better than being shot.

shit accidently typed into the quote spot sorry brainiac if it shows up in your inbox as I changed what you said,

 

[Perticular Elk]

Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.

Where, like China?