The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?
- Thread starter thebrainiac1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm going to try and do this without offending a whole lot of people here with different views ... Ok first off all of you that think no one should have guns need to SHUT THE FUCK UP! if all the law abiding people turn in their guns and abide by the law then WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO STOP THE NOT LAW ABIDING PEOPLE FROM ROBBING SHOOTING RAPPING AND WHATEVER THE HELL THEY FEEL LIKE DOING TO YOU??!!"!?!?!?!?!
Decreasing the ways people to ATTACK/DEFEND themselves is utter bullshit.
and i see there is 12 pages in this thread so most of this is just rehashing other stuff.
I personally feel if everyone had a gun (and i mean EVERYONE) crime would there YES, you can't get rid of crime, but all the people that would try and rob a store would have to think "Oh shit all these mother fuckers are packin ... i only have 10 bullets in a clip and 1 clip >.< damn there are 11 people and I'm not that good a shot, never mind robbing this store ..."
Now i'm not say lets start handing out guns and flak jackets and play wild west fun time shoot'em up, yes i believe more stricter things should be in place when you buy a gun, but lets not forget all the guns that aren't sold LEGALLY!
Now for the sake of argument that we got ride of all the guns, great wonderful. Now we have this problem of everyone carrying a knife ( ... Oh dear knives are evil too and more effective at hiding on people's bodies. You can take the guns the knives the blunt objects and so on. but can i ask WHY? i mean look at the middle ages, when the didn't have guns, they seemed pretty good at killing each other without them. Even before that look at karate or the martial arts (art of war) what were people thousands of years ago doing? finding the best way to hit someone in the head so it would shatter their spine. The point is you can take the means to harm others out of society but it won't fix anything till you can take the hate and/or desire to harm other people out of the people themselves.
(sorry I'm not quoting people but there are to many things that I'm going to cover) As for a comment i saw about a Mugger shooting at someone with a gun. Yes its true if you have a gun and they have a gun shooting may or may not take place. is the chance greater, YES! is it worth it YES! If you carry a gun and aren't ready or prepared to use it to lethal extent then you shouldn't have it. and for every person that shoots at someone else who is carrying a gun there will be someone else that won't. and that is the point THERE ARE THE STUPID PEOPLE THAT ROB OTHERS AND THEN THERE ARE THE REALLY STUPID PEOPLE THAT ROB OTHERS AND SHOOT THEM ANYWAY
Personally i believe that if you ban guns then crime will increase, there will be more Muggings and Robberies. Can things,tragedies, be avoided if people don't have guns yes. Will there be a lot of tragedies that will be created because people don't have guns YES!
TO THE POINT THIS IS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD, in that if you allow it more there is and increase in both crime and defense, and vice versa THEIR ONLY 1 FIX TO THIS PROBLEM TAKE THE HATE AND THE WANT AND DESIRE OUT OF PEOPLE TO DO EVIL, and when you can do that call me and I'll praise you as god himself.
Sorry that took so long to type but i'm still sure that i haven't covered all of it.
Decreasing the ways people to ATTACK/DEFEND themselves is utter bullshit.
and i see there is 12 pages in this thread so most of this is just rehashing other stuff.
I personally feel if everyone had a gun (and i mean EVERYONE) crime would there YES, you can't get rid of crime, but all the people that would try and rob a store would have to think "Oh shit all these mother fuckers are packin ... i only have 10 bullets in a clip and 1 clip >.< damn there are 11 people and I'm not that good a shot, never mind robbing this store ..."
Now i'm not say lets start handing out guns and flak jackets and play wild west fun time shoot'em up, yes i believe more stricter things should be in place when you buy a gun, but lets not forget all the guns that aren't sold LEGALLY!
Now for the sake of argument that we got ride of all the guns, great wonderful. Now we have this problem of everyone carrying a knife ( ... Oh dear knives are evil too and more effective at hiding on people's bodies. You can take the guns the knives the blunt objects and so on. but can i ask WHY? i mean look at the middle ages, when the didn't have guns, they seemed pretty good at killing each other without them. Even before that look at karate or the martial arts (art of war) what were people thousands of years ago doing? finding the best way to hit someone in the head so it would shatter their spine. The point is you can take the means to harm others out of society but it won't fix anything till you can take the hate and/or desire to harm other people out of the people themselves.
(sorry I'm not quoting people but there are to many things that I'm going to cover) As for a comment i saw about a Mugger shooting at someone with a gun. Yes its true if you have a gun and they have a gun shooting may or may not take place. is the chance greater, YES! is it worth it YES! If you carry a gun and aren't ready or prepared to use it to lethal extent then you shouldn't have it. and for every person that shoots at someone else who is carrying a gun there will be someone else that won't. and that is the point THERE ARE THE STUPID PEOPLE THAT ROB OTHERS AND THEN THERE ARE THE REALLY STUPID PEOPLE THAT ROB OTHERS AND SHOOT THEM ANYWAY
Personally i believe that if you ban guns then crime will increase, there will be more Muggings and Robberies. Can things,tragedies, be avoided if people don't have guns yes. Will there be a lot of tragedies that will be created because people don't have guns YES!
TO THE POINT THIS IS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD, in that if you allow it more there is and increase in both crime and defense, and vice versa THEIR ONLY 1 FIX TO THIS PROBLEM TAKE THE HATE AND THE WANT AND DESIRE OUT OF PEOPLE TO DO EVIL, and when you can do that call me and I'll praise you as god himself.
Sorry that took so long to type but i'm still sure that i haven't covered all of it.
Oh, is that what you think?Repulsionary said:
Actually, most states have their own militia.
I guess your argument is moot now. Have a good day.
More kids die from swimming pools than guns
More people die in car crashes than in shootouts
More people die from the flu every year than from gun-related activities
Why aren't you trying to stop these? Hmm?
You think about that, oh hero of the people.
I've seen an awful lot of arguments against semi-automatic weapons in this thread, and they're all pretty much coming down to the same thing: You don't need a semi-automatic shotgun or a semi-automatic rifle to protect yourself in a home invasion.
Well, congratulations people, because you are 100% correct - in a home invasion scenario.
But what about something bigger? People often neglect the various possibilities of disasters that could happen. See: Hurricane Katrina. People's stores were getting robbed, looted, the police were nowhere to call, people were stranded on the rooftops, watching people a few blocks away light homes on fire with molotov cocktails after they finish hauling out big screen TVs and women with no pants on.
In a situation where there is no law (Natural Disaster, the ever-growing possibility of the western world being bombed/nuked, etc), you will sometimes need this type of weaponry.
And then there is also the chance of corrupt/corruptable leaders. People may think that democracy is non-negotiable and that you can always impeach - wrong. Democracy is only there if the government wants it to be - they can, essentially, get rid of it at any time. Hitler (lol godwin's law) was elected democratically.
While I don't believe that our government is corrupt, I take the scientific approach and say we can never be too certain of one thing.
Dark Templar said:
Indeed. I had to be 21, take a class, and qualify at a gun range with my weapon.
And over here in the US and other countries with elevated gun violence, it's not always about the money. Sometimes, it's about using the gun to display your power over other criminals and gangs. Sometimes, it's about using the gun gain respect. Other times, it's about the enjoyment of the killing of your enemies for no other than "I did it for the lulz."El Dingo said:
And it's not just the US. It's everywhere that people feel the need to use violence to gain respect and power.
And the stats for US gun related violence is 29,000ish reported gun related deaths, compared to 61,000ish automobile related deaths, just to give you a comparison. And violence related crime trends are somewhere in the 60,000ish range right now. For a population of 304 million people in the census, that's a low, low, low amount compared to death by suicide and other means.
I really didn't want to get drawn into this debate but I can't resist. I'm generally of the anti-armed populace view but please, please read right before you rage-quote me, you may realise I'm not just the standard anti-American. Keeping this very brief as I've had this argument so many times before on here.
Having tighter gun controls would reduce the amount of deaths - less access for small-time criminals (muggers, convenience-store robbers), crimes of passion (bob isn't carrying so isn't going to start blasting away at jim when he finds him in bed with his missus) and accidents (there's a shed-load of accidental death from firearms mis-handling/-storage).
Across Europe the murder rate (per capita, so don't bring population into it) is usually at least 4 times lower than the States. The firearms-related homicide rate is at least 10, often in the region of 20 times lower. All are also democratic nations and not dictatorships. Correlation may not be causality but it's a pretty big clue.
Something like 13 kids a day are shot in the states, as well as everyone else (I think it's around 30 people a day total). Yes, car accidents may kill more people (because not all states enforce the wearing of seatbelts, that might help) but surely cutting down on ~30 deaths a day is a good thing?
It'll never work in America. Guns are not only ingrained into the culture but are too widely available (people wouldn't turn them in) and the borders are too uncontrolled (or even perhaps uncontrollable) to stop smuggling from abroad. It would be a futile effort, as the handgun ban in...*I've forgotten the city*...showed, because although guns were banned within the city limits the fact they could easily be brought in from outside the city meant crime rates actually rose, as the criminals could pick on an un-armed population. This trend would *not* continue if the whole of the US disarmed, but gun crime would not be reduced to the European per-capita rates because firearms can be so easily brought into the country.
However one thing that scares me is the idea that if you are being mugged by 5 people/they're robbing a bank then the 20 people in the vicinity will draw their own guns. I'm scared enough with one gun pointing at me, let alone another 20 pointing in my general direction. If someone shoots first (there are always idiots) then a slaughter is going to begin, and I would much rather everyone else had gone about their business and let me hand my wallet over. A poster last time I had this debate said he'd still shoot if the other bloke took me hostage because if he hit me I was likely going to be shot anyway (buy a guy previously after $20) and if he didn't he'd be a hero. Sod that, I'm leaving that to the cops. It's notions like these that make me feel far, far safer living in Britain (not even the regular cops carry guns, and the vast vast majority of criminals don't either).
I would like to leave you with some amusing quotes (well, paraphrased, are off top of my head):
"That might work, keep guns legal but ban the sale of ammunition. You have your guns, it's constitutional but no-one gets shot" - Eddie Izzard, after stating:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Bollocks, I think you'll find the gun helps - just stand there yelling "BANG" "BANG" "RAT-A-TAT-TAT" you'd have to be very dodgy on the ticker to kill anyone with that."
"The NRA says that you have the right to armour-piercing bullets if you're a hunter. WHY? How many deer wear a bullet-proof vest?" - Robin Williams.
Having tighter gun controls would reduce the amount of deaths - less access for small-time criminals (muggers, convenience-store robbers), crimes of passion (bob isn't carrying so isn't going to start blasting away at jim when he finds him in bed with his missus) and accidents (there's a shed-load of accidental death from firearms mis-handling/-storage).
Across Europe the murder rate (per capita, so don't bring population into it) is usually at least 4 times lower than the States. The firearms-related homicide rate is at least 10, often in the region of 20 times lower. All are also democratic nations and not dictatorships. Correlation may not be causality but it's a pretty big clue.
Something like 13 kids a day are shot in the states, as well as everyone else (I think it's around 30 people a day total). Yes, car accidents may kill more people (because not all states enforce the wearing of seatbelts, that might help) but surely cutting down on ~30 deaths a day is a good thing?
It'll never work in America. Guns are not only ingrained into the culture but are too widely available (people wouldn't turn them in) and the borders are too uncontrolled (or even perhaps uncontrollable) to stop smuggling from abroad. It would be a futile effort, as the handgun ban in...*I've forgotten the city*...showed, because although guns were banned within the city limits the fact they could easily be brought in from outside the city meant crime rates actually rose, as the criminals could pick on an un-armed population. This trend would *not* continue if the whole of the US disarmed, but gun crime would not be reduced to the European per-capita rates because firearms can be so easily brought into the country.
However one thing that scares me is the idea that if you are being mugged by 5 people/they're robbing a bank then the 20 people in the vicinity will draw their own guns. I'm scared enough with one gun pointing at me, let alone another 20 pointing in my general direction. If someone shoots first (there are always idiots) then a slaughter is going to begin, and I would much rather everyone else had gone about their business and let me hand my wallet over. A poster last time I had this debate said he'd still shoot if the other bloke took me hostage because if he hit me I was likely going to be shot anyway (buy a guy previously after $20) and if he didn't he'd be a hero. Sod that, I'm leaving that to the cops. It's notions like these that make me feel far, far safer living in Britain (not even the regular cops carry guns, and the vast vast majority of criminals don't either).
I would like to leave you with some amusing quotes (well, paraphrased, are off top of my head):
"That might work, keep guns legal but ban the sale of ammunition. You have your guns, it's constitutional but no-one gets shot" - Eddie Izzard, after stating:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Bollocks, I think you'll find the gun helps - just stand there yelling "BANG" "BANG" "RAT-A-TAT-TAT" you'd have to be very dodgy on the ticker to kill anyone with that."
"The NRA says that you have the right to armour-piercing bullets if you're a hunter. WHY? How many deer wear a bullet-proof vest?" - Robin Williams.
California banned the .50 cal rifle, though some were "grandfathered" inAgrael said:
You have your information wrong, the ".50 caliber sniper rifle" was developed by civilians, they used the .50 BMG (browning machine gun) round which was designed for the M2 browning machine gun in WWI, which was originally designed as an anti-tank weapon, in the days when tanks were weak ass pieces of crap, APCs didnt exist at the time.
A legal .50 BMG round is incapable of penetrating an APC, only the explosive RAUFOSS rounds can do that (illegal rounds)
Any way, the .50 BMG round was designed for and used in a mounted machine gun until civilians looked at it and said to themselves "man, I bet that would be a really good long range target round in a single shot"
Since then the military adopted it, so really, (following your line of thought) the military should resign if they want to use the civilian firearm.
First off, people who live outside the U.S. need to stop being so damned self-righteous, and they need to quit insulting the U.S. just because we have laws their country does not. Guns (well, weapons in general) being present in society is neither a new thing or a bad thing. I know a LOT of people who own guns. They have families, good jobs, and good lives. These people will die of old age before they will ever have to use a gun to harm anything other than a game animal.
Seriously... Grow up. This is getting old and annoying.
Legal gun owners are not the problem in the U.S., so banning firearms would do nothing to stop gun crime. It's not that difficult of a concept! How are people not getting this! It's simple!
Seriously... Grow up. This is getting old and annoying.
Legal gun owners are not the problem in the U.S., so banning firearms would do nothing to stop gun crime. It's not that difficult of a concept! How are people not getting this! It's simple!
So the study's basically saying "You're more likely to be shot if there's a gun around you than if there's not"
No duh, but that's not an argument against the 2nd amendment.
No duh, but that's not an argument against the 2nd amendment.
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).
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? Quite simply, if it's that hard to tell, it's a pretty fair bet that if it makes a difference, it's too damn small to matter. It's a nice thought that you can shoot someone if they try to mug you. However, what such people think, their fear of crime, and their desire to blast a load of lead into bad guys like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood has little or no relevance to the cold, hard light of reality.
Do people want to reduce crime? Well, there are easy ways that are proven to work: better policing, less deprivation, less unemployment, sorting out drug addiction problems, and so on. People want crime down, try one or more of them.
Do people want gun ownership in the USA? Fine - there's a constitution that says they can, a belief in individual free rights to have a gun, simple democratic preference, and several other things, all of which are good, valid reasons.
So why on earth do people insist on putting at the forefront of the pro-gun case one of the weakest, least-evidentially defensible reasons available to them, that it stops crime?
I'm also not advocating that we open up our laws to allow military grade guns to be sold to the populace. That's where I draw the line and the pro-gun people get pissed off at me.
I'm merely stating that the study was bad, because it wasn't thorough or really well conducted. It merely tried to collate obscure data to a particular activity, directed by the intentions of the survey. And the fact that the people conducting the research know that their study didn't actually prove anything tells me they don't understand the culture behind gun ownership. I frown on bad anthropological and sociological studies, since that's my area of expertise.
I'll argue also that the cultures between Europe and the US are significantly different in the criminal populations that the forms of gun controls used will have to be significantly different, as well. Someone brought up that SWITZERLAND has a mandatory gun ownership law, and Germany allows gun ownership. That means not everyone in Europe practices what Britain practices as gun control. Somethings will and won't work.
Someone stated that Japan has gun control and that gun control works well there. I just found a report that gun violence is on a steady rise in Japan since 2003, especially in gangs. So whatever proof that Japan's gun control can be perfectly useful is no longer a valid example. The criminal culture in Japan is slowly changing to use guns as an object of gaining respect and power.
I give up - it appears that the opposition to my sociological proof for moderate gun control in the US is ignored by people who are adamantly anti-gun and/or from the UK. People aren't listening or are just that stubborn to view the US as some sort of "enemy." That's fine, but that doesn't make you right about gun control in our country.
I'm merely stating that the study was bad, because it wasn't thorough or really well conducted. It merely tried to collate obscure data to a particular activity, directed by the intentions of the survey. And the fact that the people conducting the research know that their study didn't actually prove anything tells me they don't understand the culture behind gun ownership. I frown on bad anthropological and sociological studies, since that's my area of expertise.
I'll argue also that the cultures between Europe and the US are significantly different in the criminal populations that the forms of gun controls used will have to be significantly different, as well. Someone brought up that SWITZERLAND has a mandatory gun ownership law, and Germany allows gun ownership. That means not everyone in Europe practices what Britain practices as gun control. Somethings will and won't work.
Someone stated that Japan has gun control and that gun control works well there. I just found a report that gun violence is on a steady rise in Japan since 2003, especially in gangs. So whatever proof that Japan's gun control can be perfectly useful is no longer a valid example. The criminal culture in Japan is slowly changing to use guns as an object of gaining respect and power.
I give up - it appears that the opposition to my sociological proof for moderate gun control in the US is ignored by people who are adamantly anti-gun and/or from the UK. People aren't listening or are just that stubborn to view the US as some sort of "enemy." That's fine, but that doesn't make you right about gun control in our country.
I know, let's start a thread about gun control; not only has it never been done before but there's no chance it could end badly.
After the last train wreck of a gun thread here I've decided I'd rather lick a spider than read through all 13 pages of this.
After the last train wreck of a gun thread here I've decided I'd rather lick a spider than read through all 13 pages of this.