65 replies to this topic

[BeefJeRKy]

But giving guns to citizens increases crime! Guns create more problems than they solve.

[CommanderJB]

ultimentra, on 13 May 2009, 9:10, said:

Everyone is saying if the police was better, then we wouldn't need guns. Well thats just the thing, the police here, and everywhere completely suck.

I most certainly don't think our police 'suck'. I think that the police have an extremely difficult job and deserve to have it made easier by the removal of guns from potential adversaries.

ultimentra, on 13 May 2009, 9:10, said:

In order to make the crime rate go down in a country, you either make the standard of living better or you have big brother watch their every move.

So you're saying that if you had no public access to concealable firearms that the crime rate would stay exactly the same, including the number of shootings?

ultimentra, on 13 May 2009, 9:10, said:

Taking guns away from the citizens does not take guns away from criminals.

It most certainly does. The numbers speak for themselves. Why do you have a rate of shootings that is ten times higher than that of my country? I can tell you point blank that if Australians were given access to firearms such as exists in the United States that gap would close, significantly. I can count on one hand the number of times I see fatal shootings on the local news here every year. Can you say the same?

[amazin]

among all the other things, it is a right that is specifically given in the bill of rights

and making guns illegal probably would not help organized crime... how many gangsters do you see with hunting rifles?

Edited by umm not dachamp, 12 May 2009 - 23:41.

[CommanderJB]

Not a lot, which is why a ban on concealable weapons is necessary. I'd ban the lot because I think hunting is cruel and unneccessary but I might as well go for one thing at a time.
As for the rights argument, I'm well aware of the 2nd Amendment, which is why I despair every time I get into this whole argument. But if you want effective gun control you're going to have to either interpret it differently (as some of your states have already done) or change it. I don't expect to be agreed with, but enshrining that in the Constitution was a recipe for disaster of the worst order that has proved such for centuries.

[ultimentra]

One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was put into place (and the main reason I think) is so that citizens could over throw an oppressive government, however that is getting more and more difficult to see happen. Technology is advancing so quickly that rules put in place a long time ago are not the same. CommanderJB I see your points, they are very good ones, and I really can't argue with them. A ban on concealable weapons to me and fully automatic weaponry (which I thought was already in place) is reasonable. I really don't see a need for someone to carry a pistol into walmart unless they are expecting a fight, in which case the person should not be there in the first place. I maintain however that things like shotguns and hunting rifles need to stay in civilian hands because those are actually used for legitimate reasons. People still use them to hunt where it is required to get food in places like Alaska.

[amazin]

thats part of my point, as i said, you dont see gangsters with hunting rifles, sometimes they have automatics such as ARs or SMGs (i think the columbine killers had smgs as well, not 100% sure)... so a hell of a good job on gun control there

same deal with drugs (which i definetly think should be illegal), lot of good the war on drugs did, they are still all over the place. if the government cant keep illegal drugs out of criminal hands, what makes you think they will be able to keep concealable weapons out as well?

Quote

One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was put into place (and the main reason I think) is so that citizens could over throw an oppressive government

im pretty sure that was, becuase at the time they were afraid of a monarch taking over, not as valid a reason anymore (no threat of a king or anything)... government is spreading a bit too far into private sector and peoples lives... but thats just my opinion... no reason to violently overthrow it.

Edited by umm not dachamp, 13 May 2009 - 15:21.

[Dauth]

You could easily ban all concealable firearms and still have the rifles and shotguns required to overthrow a British monarch.

This is why I'd legalise and tax drugs, people will take them, we might as well make some money out of them.

[Cuppa]

Scope, on 12 May 2009, 17:13, said:

But giving guns to citizens increases crime! Guns create more problems than they solve.

Not always. Switzerland actually requires citizens to own an assault rifle and has a very low rate of gun violence. But then again, it (level of gun violence) really depends on many factors: Who has the weapons, what weapons they have and the social environments that cause abuse of such weapons (poor neighborhood for example). Personally, I don't think you need concealable weapons or assault weapons and the only people who would need such weapons would be the military or police.

[amazin]

i think being able to own handguns is fine, assault weapons are unnecessary

[Wizard]

How can you differentiate between two weapons designed to kill people? Because one is designed to be more lethal or effective than the other?

[amazin]

actually yes... i mean it could theoretically be possible to kill somebody with an air rifle (i have a .22 pellet gun), want to outlaw those as well?

[BeefJeRKy]

Yes but a pistol is designed to kill people. An airsoft is NOT designed for kill people. I would be ok with allowing hunting rifles and shotguns since many people may depend on hunting. But I still don't see the point of carrying a pistol around.

[amazin]

its not an airsoft... it shoots .22 lead pellets probably at higher speed than a .22 pistol

and i dont think people need to carry them around... i can just think of situations where they could be usedul

[ultimentra]

I have always wanted to own one of those old lever action rifles and a shotgun, does that make me a bad person? No.

[Chyros]

umm not dachamp, on 14 May 2009, 3:20, said:

its not an airsoft... it shoots .22 lead pellets probably at higher speed than a .22 pistol

and i dont think people need to carry them around... i can just think of situations where they could be usedul

No, the .22LR (most common .22 calibre by far) is faster than a pellet, and also has 150-200 J of impact power (depending on load and manufacturer). .22 pellets have about 5 J of impact power IIRC. If you want to kill someone with an air gun you'll need to shoot their temples from point blank range and use a magnum, sphere or hunter pellet and even then I'm skeptical. Bottom line; it's many times easier to kill someone with a knife than with an air gun. Let alone with a .22LR rifle.

[SquigPie]

Giving more guns to solve the gun problems is really the same as giving people more drugs to solve their drug problems.

It only makes it all worse.

[Sharpnessism]

I'm for gun control. The usually arguments against it are that it would deter crime, i.e. if you pulled a gun on someone, 4 others would be aiming their guns at you; that it's a simple freedom that should be enjoyed, and that it would allow the people to revolt against an oppressive government. Also, some reason that if we ban guns, then we'd need to ban ALL weapons.

Sure, I'll agree that it does deter someone from trying to mug you but overall it simply makes it too easy to access guns. As well, there are always situations where it is a bit grey, where someone gets drunk and starts a fight, then pulls a gun. The lives that are saved by guns is a small number compared to the lives that are taken by guns. Also, these days, if the government were truly oppressive, then the populace wouldn't stand a chance against the military. Finally, I don't believe that this is a freedom that anyone should enjoy. Reasoning is that a gun can take away every single freedom from another person easily.

As well, a gun's sole purpose is to kill, while a knife can be used to cook, a baseball bats is usually used for sports.

As for criminals gaining access to guns, there's no helping that but I'm 100% sure that domestic gun violence kills more people overall than gun violence relating to gangs. Strict anti-gun possession laws would be the best deterrence.

[Rayburn]

``As well, a gun's sole purpose is to kill, while a knife can be used to cook, a baseball bats is usually used for sports.´´

That's exactly what I told to one of the NCOs back when I was in the army and he was quite positively impressed. People sometimes tend to forget that this pistol ISN'T made 'to protect your home/family' or 'to test your skills at the shooting range'. These are all secondary purposes. The one thing that the gun is unambiguously MADE for is to KILL other human beings. That's quite a lot of responsibility that goes with it and many people either don't HAVE that responsibility or they simply don't NEED a weapon because 'wanting to be able to overthrow an oppressive government' is not a valid reason for a civilan to own a freaking .50 in my book. Who decides at which point the government is being oppressive anyway? This isn't the 18th century. Modern tyrants do not declare themselves king by the will of god and expect the public to live with it; they slowly undermine the lawful authorities to gain control while propagating their message to the public until the majority of the people actually AGREES with the new rulers. And who is there to draw the line between rightful self-liberation from an oppressive tyrant and unjustified civil unrest?

Edited by Rayburn, 30 May 2009 - 06:03.

[amazin]

im pretty sure knives were originally made to kill, but that doesnt make a difference what it can be used for now... there have been plenty of inventions that were originally for one perpose but can be used for another.

and yea, it would be a mess if every single person was walking around with a gun in their pocket, and probably would increase crime... but my point is banning guns would only keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands... criminals, terrorists, and gangs all have other sources... i mean did prohibiton in the 30's do a good job? no, they just had underground liquor production and smuggling. does the governent do a good job controlling drugs? no, illegal drugs are ALL over the place. i know CATHOLIC schools that probably have about 40% of their students doing drugs. what makes you think gun control is going to be any more effective?

[LCPL Carrow]

Okay, wait. If criminals having guns cant be helped...then why would you make it so that only the criminals have guns?

Let me put it to you like this. If I have a gun and am trying to rob/kill/whatever you, you will be robbed/dead/whatever'd long before the Police can show up. So what, exactly, is your best defense against me? A gun of your own, and the knowledge and will to use it. These things do happen, and there are many, many scenarios where having a gun has saved someone from some kind of crime, be it robbery, rape, murder, whatever. If you bothered to read any gun magazine, almost all of them have a testimonial column of readers sharing experiences where having a gun saved them from a sticky situation. And most often - believe it or not - just the presence of the gun is all it takes to defuse the situation. More often than not, shots don't even need to be fired. Staring down a muzzle tends to convince would-be assailants to walk away.

Also, of course you Europeans won't have any concept of the inalienable right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, because that's an idea spelled out in the United States Constitution.

@ Rayburn: I have to agree that nobody really needs a .50cal, but I think that if you want one, and can afford one, you should be allowed to buy and own it. It's only slightly larger than most big game rifles, and there are some of those with larger rounds than that.

What you all are failing to realize - or is it just admit? - is that people who go through the trouble of getting a legal firearm are generally not going to use it for violent crime, because it is then registered to them, and it is very simple to link a round to the weapon that fired it, and from there get the serial number of the weapon, and from there get the owner of that weapon. Besides that, most people that bother to get one legally don't intend to use it for anything but recreation or home/personal defense. Have any of you (Rayburn obviously excepted) ever actually fired a gun? You should try it sometime, and you'll probably be hooked. It's just plain fun.

And pistol shooting is altogether different from long gun shooting, being harder and more challenging. It's a sport all of it's own.

And I was going to mention prohibition, but dachamp beat me to it.

[Rich19]

LCPL Carrow, on 30 May 2009, 23:13, said:

Okay, wait. If criminals having guns cant be helped...then why would you make it so that only the criminals have guns?

Let me put it to you like this. If I have a gun and am trying to rob/kill/whatever you, you will be robbed/dead/whatever'd long before the Police can show up. So what, exactly, is your best defense against me? A gun of your own, and the knowledge and will to use it. These things do happen, and there are many, many scenarios where having a gun has saved someone from some kind of crime, be it robbery, rape, murder, whatever.

Giving everyone guns means they are more widespread - it is far more unlikely that the criminal will bother going to the extra effort of obtaining a gun in a gun-free country, when a set of large muscles would do the same job in a far less deadly way. If I'm going to be mugged, I'd prefer the mugger to be unarmed, and I'd also prefer them to not be expecting resistance (in the form of me wielding a weapon against them).

LCPL Carrow, on 30 May 2009, 23:13, said:

If you bothered to read any gun magazine, almost all of them have a testimonial column of readers sharing experiences where having a gun saved them from a sticky situation. And most often - believe it or not - just the presence of the gun is all it takes to defuse the situation. More often than not, shots don't even need to be fired. Staring down a muzzle tends to convince would-be assailants to walk away.

Well of course the stories are likely to be like that. When you pull a gun out on a criminal with a gun, one of two things are going to happen. One, the criminal could back off, and you send in your story of how guns make everyone safer to the magazine. Two, someone gets shot. If it's you, then you're hardly going to be in a position to write into this magazine. If it's the other guy, you go to jail and decide not to contribute to a pro-gun organisation.

LCPL Carrow, on 30 May 2009, 23:13, said:

Also, of course you Europeans won't have any concept of the inalienable right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, because that's an idea spelled out in the United States Constitution.

The idea in the constitution is for a civilian militia to stop a government gaining control, not for people to get caught up in an arms race with increasingly deadly criminals. Such a militia would not need to conceal handguns about their person, nor have the ability to get hold of a gun with such minimal background checks.

LCPL Carrow, on 30 May 2009, 23:13, said:

What you all are failing to realize - or is it just admit? - is that people who go through the trouble of getting a legal firearm are generally not going to use it for violent crime, because it is then registered to them, and it is very simple to link a round to the weapon that fired it, and from there get the serial number of the weapon, and from there get the owner of that weapon. Besides that, most people that bother to get one legally don't intend to use it for anything but recreation or home/personal defense. Have any of you (Rayburn obviously excepted) ever actually fired a gun? You should try it sometime, and you'll probably be hooked. It's just plain fun.

What you are failing to realise is that a society awash with guns is a more deadly one. Is the common house burgler in Europe going to need to carry a gun at all times to be sure he can survive? Is the common European criminal going to need to assume everyone who challenges his is carrying a gun, just in case? And is he therefore going to be more likely to shoot someone? And having everyone carry devices to kill human beings around all day because it's "fun" sounds very much like a broken society.

LCPL Carrow, on 30 May 2009, 23:13, said:

And pistol shooting is altogether different from long gun shooting, being harder and more challenging. It's a sport all of it's own.

Precisely what is wrong with having a selection of handguns licensed to a shooting range which are closely monitered? Why is it necessary for ordinary people to own them in order to be able to pull the trigger at a range?

Edited by Rich19, 31 May 2009 - 00:29.

[amazin]

well, for one, a lot of people like to own the things they use, (paying fees every damn time makes it a lot harder to afford)

plus quality, people who own guns are going to make sure they take better care of their guns

also, you can customize your own guns, we own an 870 with a custom pistol grip stock, makes aiming a lot easier

[BeefJeRKy]

Well why not own it but keep it at the shooting range?

[amazin]

then you only have one shooting range you can go to, you have to take all your cleaning supplies there, and clean your gun there, and trust your gun with someone else


i sure wouldnt want to do it

Edited by umm not dachamp, 31 May 2009 - 03:04.

[Rayburn]

``Well why not own it but keep it at the shooting range?´´

That's exactly what some German politicians suggested after the Winnenden massacre and it's not gonna work, simply because it would turn the shooting ranges into massive arsenals full of pistols, rifles, shotguns what-have-you plus enough ammunition to outfit a small army. A well-organised group of criminals could break into the storage facility and steal every single weapon from the entire district. Also, at least in Germany, shooting ranges are usually not in the very centre of a city; they're on the outskirts, often near fields or forests; isolated. It'd need an unreasonably high security detail to guard every single shooting range like that and that's still no guarantee that people won't try to burgle the place.

Getting back to the original question. I'm actually not entirely AGAINST the idea of civilians having guns. I can partially understand the reasoning behind it and I would indeed be interested in it as well at some point. The thing is, when it comes to legal weapons, there should be no room for error. True, there's probably more crime and violence going on with the illegal ones but the legal weapons are the only ones that the state can keep an eye on which is why these should NOT be given to someone who turns out to be a kill-crazy weirdo later on. It's not about criminalising every gun owner. It's about filtering out those who may have a permit which certifies their reliability whereas in practice, they keep their Beretta 92 easily accessible in a household that has a psychopathic son with murder-fantasies in it. That's not what I call reliable and when it comes to lethal weapons, they better check over every person in the household, not just the bloke whose name is written on the licence. If they had done so in this particularly shocking case, 15 innocent people would still be alive.

tl;dr-version:
Minimise the danger coming from the legal weapons because these are the only ones you can control.
Taking care of the illegal ones is an entirely different task and one that is not as easily solved.

Edited by Rayburn, 31 May 2009 - 05:49.