SEGAbits Forums
Off Topic => Everything Else => Topic started by: MadeManG74 on June 13, 2010, 05:24:49 pm
-
I'm surprised to hear that they allow gun ownership at all in your country. I honestly did not know.
Yeah, Australia allows ownership of Pistols, bolt-action rifles (Semi and full auto are banned) and I'm not sure about Shotguns (I think that pump-action and pistol grip are banned). The laws are more strict than in the US from what I understand (which is probably good).
If you own a rifle you need to justify it by going hunting at least twice a year, or to a range for a scored shoot at least four times a year (for a pistol, it's 6 times a year plus another 2 times different caliber rifle you might own I think). They also need to be stored in a safe that is bolted into the ground or a concrete slab, with the bullets and firing pin kept in a seperate locking safe.
Obviously out in the country though, it's a lot more lax since guns are pretty much a required tool for farmers etc.
-
I like the right to bear arms. In before idiots say it causes violence.
-
I like the right to bear arms. In before idiots say it causes violence.
I don't have a problem with people owning guns, so long as it's regulated properly. I don't like the idea of someone keeping a loaded magnum revolver in their bedside table for example.
-
In before idiots say it causes violence.
Why yes, only an idiot would claim that a gun is a weapon capable of inflicting damage on other living things. (http://http://forums.sega.com/images/icons/icon7.gif)
-
Violent people cause violence. Now we should ban everything. Registered weapons are easier to track down then a knife. If a person is to be a murderer, You'd think idiotic humans would want them to be caught.
Its hard to prevent violence, but stopping violence is easier and registered weapons is a great example.
Telling me that people that have 'decided to kill someone' would stop this feeling or action just because they can't get hold of a weapon? When a person is so deranged that they resort to murder, having a gun or not won't stop them.
-
I believe if I had to choose between running from someone with a knife or running from someone with a gun, I'd choose running from the person with the knife. :P At least they might be more likely to let me go if all they're interested in is robbing my apartment.
But I'm sure that owning guns has (http://http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6121915&page=1) ended (http://http://www.kptv.com/news/23876251/detail.html) preventable (http://http://www.komonews.com/news/94133739.html) deaths (http://http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/cops-man-slain-in-uniondale-tried-to-avoid-shooters-1.2017333) forever! (http://http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/13/BAOV1DUK5L.DTL) (http://http://forums.sega.com/images/icons/icon7.gif)
-
I understand both sides of the argument, and I don't know how it's done in USA, but in Australia if you have a criminal record you are banned from owning guns at all. Any record of assault or violence and you aren't eligible for a license or you'll have it revoked.
A car is potentially as dangerous as a firearm, you need a license for both and neither can hurt someone without a person being responsible. I know it's not a completely accurate comparison, but you can see the gist hopefully.
As for your example of being robbed fluffy, either way that person would be threatening your life, and if it was with a gun I think 9 times out of 10 it would be acquired by illegal means anyway, so 'banning' guns probably wouldn't have stopped that situation.
-
if it was with a gun I think 9 times out of 10 it would be acquired by illegal means anyway, so 'banning' guns probably wouldn't have stopped that situation.
What about countries with bans like the UK, where gun deaths are so rare that when they actually happen, they're significant tragedies? Like this recent shooting:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9G4G0R80 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ichx9ZAwKWd7eDfsFb24oiir4jsgD9G4G0R80)
In the USA, these deaths would only be a statistic. People are killed by guns like this year after year in our cities. In the UK, though, this is the worst shooting incident since 1996 - 14 years.
But wait, I'm sorry - GUNS PREVENT VIOLENCE LOL
-
Anyway. I just got a AK-47 from my friend for hunting purposes.
-
I can't comment on USA's gun laws, I don't know enough about gun control in your country to accurately comment on it. I'm just saying I think that owning guns is okay as long as it's legislated and controlled properly. I never said that guns 'prevent' violence either.
I think that Australia's current laws are fair and do a good job of controlling something so potentially dangerous. Like I said, I wouldn't want to perosonally own a gun, and I certainly would never want a gun in my house outside of a safe, let alone a loaded one.
I don't even like the idea of someone being able to buy a gun and never have it inspected or be forced to use it on a regular basis. It means they would forget their safetey measures, and a poorly maintained gun is extremely dangerous for everyone concerned.
I think this might actually warrant it's own thread if it this keeps up, just not to clog the current thoughts thread. Just make sure we keep it civil guys!
-
The issue is not that guns are legal, its that people are using guns that are not registered. Furries like Fluffy don't understand, big criminal, gangs and stuff, don't use registered guns.
-
^I agree, but I don't have figures on gun crimes with registered guns vs unregistered so didn't want to say anything about the US specifically.
-
Someone ban the water, more people die by drowning than by firearms.
-
how about cars? we should totally ban cars.
-
^I agree, but I don't have figures on gun crimes with registered guns vs unregistered so didn't want to say anything about the US specifically.
Don't worry, chances are that George doesn't have the slightest clue what the statistics are, either. He'll probably scramble off to Google after I post this and then pretend like he actually knew them beforehand.
First time criminals with no police record can legally get themselves a gun and then go out to rob a shop and murder the clerk while they're at it. That's a sad fact about our country.
Someone ban the water, more people die by drowning than by firearms.
What statistics do you base this on?
We don't need guns to survive like we do water. Also, people can be saved from drowning rather easily, but not many people can be saved from a bullet straight through their brains.
how about cars? we should totally ban cars.
Guns do not provide us with a useful form of transportation.
Guns serve no practical purpose, and provide our country with thousands upon thousands of needless deaths every year.
-
Guns have a piratical purpose. Self defense.
-
Guns have a piratical purpose.
"Piratical" - In other words, a criminal purpose. Good job.
Hey Sanus! I decided to beat you to Google, and found some drowning vs. gun fatality statistics for 2004:
In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html (http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html)
* Total Number of Firearm Injuries: 64,389 / Rate: 21.93 / 100,000
* Total Number of Firearm Fatalities: 29,569 / Rate: 9.94 / 100,000
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource ... statistics (http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics)
What's this? Sanus not knowing what he's talking about? Imagine that. (http://http://forums.sega.com/images/icons/icon7.gif)
-
First time criminals with no police record can legally get themselves a gun and then go out to rob a shop and murder the clerk while they're at it. That's a sad fact about our country.
Do you know how often a crime like that is done with a legally bought gun though? A criminal would have to be incredibly dumb to buy a gun legitimately and then commit a crime with it. From what I understand you can match bullets to the rifling of a gun barrell, and if not, Police could run checks on all guns of that caliber bought in the last week/month whatever and then investigate based on that.
Lets say even IF that wasn't possible and the man had no access to a legally bought gun, he could buy one on the black market, and I would imagine that's where most guns used in crimes are acquired. Making guns illegal wouldn't change their availability.
I think the biggest problem with legally bought guns would be domestic violence and the like, or crimes of passion/mistaken identity etc, which is why I think Austarlia's laws regarding storage, inspections and background checks to be adequate. And once again, if it's a 'spur of the moment' crime that is caused by rage or something, then I imagine a stabbing or something would be just as likely if they didn't have access to guns.
Now finally, I do think there should be restrictions on the types of guns people can own. I don't think Semi-automatic and full-automatic weapons have any place in homes. They are totally unnessary for hunting and sports/recreation, and unless you're fucking Tony Montana, I doubt you'll need a gun like that for home defense (I don't think having guns for home defense is a good idea in the first place though, another reason I support Australian laws demanding a justification of sport/recreational shooting).
Also I'm going to split these posts into another topic, thanks to everyone for keeping insults to a minimum, I know this sort of discussion can get heated.
-
Alright, I actually shouldn't be spending soooo much time in an internet argument right now, so I'll have to reply to that later this morning or when I wake up in the evening.
Thank you for being rational as well, MadeMan.
-
I mean't practical.
-
I hate this argument because if you try and apply any logic to the situation there’s always some inbred redneck there to try and belittle you for using common sense and not saying
'YEAHH GUNS!!!!'
No guns do not cause violence, yes violent people do. But if guns are too easy to get a hold of it's like giving violent people the ability to be violent. Yes you could argue that they could use a knife but I think people would be far less inclined to try and walk around a school killing kids with a knife... Chances are that wouldn't work out very well.
You can get guns in Europe, but you need licenses, background checks and all sorts. The problem with some places including America is that it is far to easy for someone that IS a violent dipshit to get hold of a gun.
-
I hate this argument because if you try and apply any logic to the situation there’s always some inbred redneck there to try and belittle you for using common sense and not saying
'YEAHH GUNS!!!!'
Nobody has said or acted anything like that in this thread, have you read it yet? Serious question, since we've actually been very civilised and have been backing up our arguments, you might find it interesting.
You can get guns in Europe, but you need licenses, background checks and all sorts. The problem with some places including America is that it is far to easy for someone that IS a violent dipshit to get hold of a gun.
The problem is (at least in Australia) 85% plus of those people get their guns on the black market anyway, so banning guns wouldn't stop those crimes at all.
I know, I know, wikipedia, but check the sources if you don't believe it, it's all cited.
In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia. Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies. The majority of firearm related deaths are suicides, of which many involved the use of 'hunting rifles'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)
Again, I am not in favour of stuff like Machine Pistols being available, but I think that there is no problem with owning a gun for sport and recreational use with the correct restrictions in place.
-
You could also get a gun with much less hassle in the black market, where you don't need any identification or paper trail, which would render all gun restrictions and checks entirely pointless.
Surprisingly, Bush's concealed fire-Arm policy did de-motivate people from being agressive. Imagine if you're a violent hick, which would be a better target for your killing spree: a gun-free zone or a place where people carry concealed fire arms?
Washington DC is a gun free zone and nobody feels any safer because of that.
-
Nobody has said or acted anything like that in this thread, have you read it yet? Serious question, since we've actually been very civilised and have been backing up our arguments, you might find it interesting.
I've read the thread and I'm not talking about the thread I'm talking about this debate on the internet in general.
The problem is (at least in Australia) 85% plus of those people get their guns on the black market anyway, so banning guns wouldn't stop those crimes at all.
I know, I know, wikipedia, but check the sources if you don't believe it, it's all cited.
I'm talking spesifically about kids shooting up schools.
I seriously doubt many if ANY kids that have shot up schools have baught their guns on the black market. They probably use their families 'defence' gun or hunting gun... Why can they even get a hold of it? It should be locked away in a safe away from emo teenagers.
Again, I am not in favour of stuff like Machine Pistols being available, but I think that there is no problem with owning a gun for sport and recreational use with the correct restrictions in place.
I agree... but some people are far to stupid to own a weapon even for that. Which is why I said it's to easy to get hold of a gun in America and other places. When you can walk into a shop and buy a gun off the shelf then you are asking for trouble.
-
School shootings are somewhat of a new phenomenon, unheard of at least before the 90's. Schools and collegue campuses are mostly gun free zones, enforced by policies that were enforced around those times.
Which makes them easy prey to psychos like the two chaps who did the Columbine massacre.
Or the recent Virginia Tech massacre done by that asian student.
I was also surprised to learn that the soldiers in bases are mostly unharmed, especially on the Fort Hood shooting massacre last year.
Military bases can be fixed. But school shooting is a much more delicate situation.
We don't know what goes on in the mind of a troubled youth, but there are telling signs or other enablers.
But a touchy subject, this is...
-
All I have to say is that guns should be legal, but heavily enforced. Living in Philly, it seems like somebody is shot everyday by some dumbfuck who obtained a gun illegally.
As for owning guns for home protection, I think people should first undergo training before thinking a loaded gun next to your bed is safe. Not sure what the official safe way of going about it would be, but at the very least have it unloaded inside a locked drawer with one round of ammo. That way little Billy won't blow his face off when looking through his parents bedroom.
-
This debate pre-dates the internet, and the second amendment implies that if you are going to have a militia, then no one can take away your guns. We have no militia, but we just have guns and use that amendment as an excuse. You rarely hear a pro-gun person saying, "a well organized militia is necessary." The militia is necessary if you don't have an army and the British are coming.
It's not just about crime and aggression. There are tons of accidental deaths as well. Everyone uses that knife argument, that if we ban guns, then we should ban knives too, but it's rare that someone accidentally kills themselves or other people with a knife. It takes work most of the time to kill with a knife.
Also, if you have a gun for self defense, statistically you are more likely to be shot than if you don't have one, so calling that a practical purpose is a little dubious. The average person finds themselves unable to shoot, and the panicky criminal takes their gun away from them and shoots them with it. Everyone that hears about this says "not me" but you don't really know if you could kill a person until you have to.
I've never touched a gun, and I used to feel very strongly that we shouldn't have them, but it's a waste of breath. It's like trying to bring prohibition back. Really we need to heavily regulate the safety of these things. Parents should be put in prison if their kids can take their guns easily and shoot themselves or other kids with them.
-
The problem is (at least in Australia) 85% plus of those people get their guns on the black market anyway, so banning guns wouldn't stop those crimes at all.
This goes for America as well but a lot of people like to point the finger at all gun owners which is very upsetting.
-
Guns have a piratical purpose.
"Piratical" - In other words, a criminal purpose. Good job.
Hey Sanus! I decided to beat you to Google, and found some drowning vs. gun fatality statistics for 2004:
In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html (http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html)
* Total Number of Firearm Injuries: 64,389 / Rate: 21.93 / 100,000
* Total Number of Firearm Fatalities: 29,569 / Rate: 9.94 / 100,000
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource ... statistics (http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics)
What's this? Sanus not knowing what he's talking about? Imagine that. (http://http://forums.sega.com/images/icons/icon7.gif)
I was not here when you responded to it, so yeah.
But that is neat you just googled some random list of a random year, that makes sense. Did you just pick any year or find a specific one? Another good Sonic Team-level job you have done! I highly doubt more people in the world have died from bullets than water, considering it probably predates guns.
It is just in my soul that water has killed more people than guns have, and if you do not understand that then it is just your fault.
-
Guns have a piratical purpose.
"Piratical" - In other words, a criminal purpose. Good job.
Hey Sanus! I decided to beat you to Google, and found some drowning vs. gun fatality statistics for 2004:
In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html (http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html)
* Total Number of Firearm Injuries: 64,389 / Rate: 21.93 / 100,000
* Total Number of Firearm Fatalities: 29,569 / Rate: 9.94 / 100,000
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource ... statistics (http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics)
What's this? Sanus not knowing what he's talking about? Imagine that. (http://http://forums.sega.com/images/icons/icon7.gif)
I was not here when you responded to it, so yeah.
But that is neat you just googled some random list of a random year, that makes sense. Did you just pick any year or find a specific one? Another good Sonic Team-level job you have done! I highly doubt more people in the world have died from bullets than water, considering it probably predates guns.
It is just in my soul that water has killed more people than guns have, and if you do not understand that then it is just your fault.
You just mooted your entire argument. Water pre-dates guns so your argument is unfair.
He may have picked a random year but I doubt the statistics change THAT much year on year since 2004.
Also, I Emmett raises some good points.
-
I live in Nottingham in the UK, a place that until recently was pretty notorious for its gun crime.
I think it was still less than 10 people a year being shot but it is still a high number for any medium sized city.
Of course it was due to a gang leader that these shootings were happening, I have no doubt that if the guns weren't available then they would have had no problem stabbing people to death.
The same thing applies here with the recent Cumbrian shooting, if the guy didn't have a shot gun I still think he would have used a knife.
In-fact now that I think about it, knife crime is pretty serious here in the UK, whereas gun crime is not.
-
I live in Nottingham in the UK, a place that until recently was pretty notorious for its gun crime.
I think it was still less than 10 people a year being shot but it is still a high number for any medium sized city.
Of course it was due to a gang leader that these shootings were happening, I have no doubt that if the guns weren't available then they would have had no problem stabbing people to death.
The same thing applies here with the recent Cumbrian shooting, if the guy didn't have a shot gun I still think he would have used a knife.
In-fact now that I think about it, knife crime is pretty serious here in the UK, whereas gun crime is not.
Knife crime will obviously go up anywhere guns are hard to come across, because some people ARE just going to kill someone no matter what.
But I think if guns were more available and easy to find for the average joe a lot more people would be killed. It is MUCH harder to go on a killing rampage with a knife...
It isnt so much about saying 'hey people will kill anyway' its more so giving them less of a means to kill more people.
Imgine we said, 'well people are going to kill anyway we might as well all have tactical nukes in our back yard becuase you cant stop killers from killing!'
-
Rampage kills are very rare. Mostly when someone murders someone is personal reasons like revenge or gang related.
That being said, gun laws in California are retarded:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystat ... aws_ca.htm (http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ca.htm)
-
I think that most people here agree that the real issue is laws surrounding the control of guns rather than guns being available at all.
I do think that America needs to overhaul their laws concerning guns. Having automatic weapons for sale is just ridiculous in my opinion, there is no practical use for a gun like that whatsoever outside of killing someone, and therefore they shouldn't be sold to the public. Even with less dangerous guns like rifles, I think they should introduce far more strict laws on who can buy them and regarding their maintenence and storage.
-
Having automatic weapons for sale is just ridiculous in my opinion, there is no practical use for a gun like that whatsoever outside of killing someone, and therefore they shouldn't be sold to the public.
True, but you can say the same thing about handguns. You can have fun shooting them in a range, but their true purpose will always be to use them against other people.
-
No automatic weapons? What if bears with uzi's come out with bullet proof vests?
[youtube:2vugjlxh]osgrd1MPb7I[/youtube:2vugjlxh]
You doomed us.
-
Having automatic weapons for sale is just ridiculous in my opinion, there is no practical use for a gun like that whatsoever outside of killing someone, and therefore they shouldn't be sold to the public.
True, but you can say the same thing about handguns. You can have fun shooting them in a range, but their true purpose will always be to use them against other people.
Yes they can be used to kill people, but pistols are also for target shooting. It's an Olympic event, even. There is no such sport that involves the use of Automatic weapons though, which is why I think they should be illegal (as they are in Australia) since there is no legitimate reason to own one other than to kill somebody.
The point is, IF a handgun is sold, the owner should have to prove it's for target shooting like they do in Australia. If you own a pistol, you need to take it to a club for a 'scored shoot' at least six times a year. You have to go an additional two times a year for each caliber pistol you may own after your first. If you don't do that, then you aren't using it for shooting and you have no reason to own a gun, so your licence is revoked.
Same deal with Rifles, Australia doesn't allow Semi-Auto rifles, only bolt action. You need to take a rifle to the range four times a year OR go to official hunting grounds/meetings (not sure how often) or your licence will be revoked.
On top of this, like I said you must keep it stored in a safe that is bolted to the ground or extremely heavy so it cannot be stolen, and the firing pin and ammunition must be kept in a seperate locking compartment.
I think this is a fine compromise to allow legitimate sport shooters and hunters to own their firearms responsibly.
-
A lot of people over the world, like Americans collect guns of all different kinds, many cannot be properly fired anymore but for the older ones it is not always so easy to find bullets for anymore. Under the rules Australia holds, how would anyone be able to have this kind of collection anymore? It is not like you can just tell them to get rid of or destroy their collections, that would not be fair and would get a lot of people extremely upset. The same could be said for people who collect other kinds of weapons. Having a mace out in the open is badass, but I am sure a lot of people would not want it legal to have this too, and it is not like you can open up mace ranges all over the world to set those kind of rules up.
I agree though that there is no reason one should be able to own automatic weapons.
-
Well, years ago when they banned Semi-Auto rifles, I think the government had a buy-back program. As for antique guns, or collectibles, I think that you can get special licences to buy them, and as usual they have their own restrictions and regulations. They might need to be inspected to ensure that they aren't capable of firing or if the ammunition is readily available.
-
(http://http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/129199192960790110.jpg)
-
Any of those things would be a step in the right direction.
-
Any of those things would be a step in the right direction.
Arming bears you mean? I agree. :P
-
I am going to chime in to this flame attracting topic.
I consider myself overall politically moderate, however one of my most conservative positions is guns.
In certain states/countries (such as the UK) that enact strict gun control people who defend themselves or have any means to defend themselves are treated as criminal. You cant own mace, you cant carry a baton, you cant have a blade, and you certainly cant have a gun. How can you reasonably protect yourself from assault or rape?
I am getting a little off topic, but basically what it boils down to is you need a way to defend yourself. even if it means you might be defending against a greater threat because of your mere ability to defend yourself. The police arent your bodyguards. They cannot protect you all the time and escort you forever. When someone calls you and says they are going to kill you, its much better that you own a gun than to depend on the police who are always minutes away when seconds count.
I also believe guns give the government something of a reason to fear it's own citizens. Which is a very important counterbalance in my opinion. The second ammendment of the US constitution I would say is the one that guarantees all other provisions in the bill of rights.
(http://http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs710.snc4/63030_471259309001_612229001_6422319_4136056_n.jpg)
I am a gun owner, I own a CZ VZ-82 9x18 'Makarov caliber' pistol, I have a conceal carry permit and go everywhere with it.
I dont particularly *need* a gun everyday, and I hope I never have to actually use one on anyone. But personally, I'd rather have and not need than need and not have. and a right not exercised is in effect a right lost.
Gun owners on the whole are good people, and I would advocate that more people carry a firearm, anyone who is capable should in fact, and that everyone be acquainted with gun operation and maintenance by the age of 16.
You can argue all you want that we are better off without them, I will take my chances. They aren't difficult to obtain anywhere in the world, and even if they were all confiscated they are simple enough to manufacture for the black market to handle, in effect, only law abiding citizens who could responsibly own a gun wont have the ability to obtain one, people outside the law will always be able. This is *especially* true in a country like the US with so many guns. Look at the gun crime in Chicago and tell me if the law abiding citizens of that city are better off without guns.
A society that is free doesn't need to justify why it owns items for self defense. We are competent and fully capable of making that decision for ourselves without someone else's permission until proven otherwise and not before, whatever the statistics.
-
Toggi, you make some good points, and I guess it boils down to individual rights vs. the good of the community. Those other countries you mentioned are much safer, and have a tiny fraction of the gun-related fatalities that we do. Gun owners make the argument that if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns. That's true, but in a fit of rage, some guy who lost his job isn't going to kill everyone in his office with a baseball bat... A person who isn't a criminal to start with. A gun lets you act on your emotions in an instant, and you don't get to think about what you're doing until it's too late.
My opinion on guns is very unpopular where I live, where people think it's crazy that I don't own a gun.
Statistically you are more likely to get shot with your own gun in a home defense situation then to actually defend yourself. No one likes to think of themselves in terms of a statistic like that, but you will never know if you can kill a person until you are put in the position where you have to.
Also, the second amendment is kind of an if/then statement. If an organized militia is necessary (like the redcoats are coming and we don't have an army) then the government won't take your guns away.
-
Statistically you are more likely to get shot with your own gun in a home defense situation then to actually defend yourself. No one likes to think of themselves in terms of a statistic like that, but you will never know if you can kill a person until you are put in the position where you have to.
This is my main concern as well. While Toggi3 makes some very good points, I find it odd that you feel the need to carry a gun at all times. I live in what is considered a bad neighborhood (we've had a drug dealer arrested in our back-yard once, 'turf war' arguments at the end of the street, and a house was molotov'd last year in our street too), but even so, I've never felt a strong desire to be armed, and never really felt that I would want to keep guns in my house. As Emmet said, I feel that they would more likely be used against me in some way than allowing me to genuinely defend myself (not to mention that having weapons seems like it would cause things to escalate in violence sometimes).
I do agree though that if the right restrictions are in place, then legal gun owners pose very little threat as they must be law abiding and very well educated in gun safety and maintenance.
-
Statistically you are more likely to get shot with your own gun in a home defense situation then to actually defend yourself. No one likes to think of themselves in terms of a statistic like that, but you will never know if you can kill a person until you are put in the position where you have to.
I sincerely hope that moment never arrives, but again, have and not need, or need and not have? If I am given the option to have, I'm taking it.
-
I hope so too.
Anyway, it's a complicated issue, and at this point in the life of our country, gun control is like prohibition. It makes for interesting philosophical discussion, but guns will never be outlawed. Hopefully more carefully regulated at least.
-
I feel very unsafe when a group of people carry guns.
Its very easy to slip out that gun and start shooting. If no one has a gun, it can be very easy to tell when an attacker is coming. (He.. has a gun)
I have no problem owning guns at home, or putting guns in a safe place for business owners to pull out if they are being robbed. The only problem I have is when you carry one out in pubic. All you do is scare the snot out of everyone! You might say police officers carry guns, but they are police officers. You feel extremely safe around them.
Edit
I've seen some comments about removing guns would just lead criminals to using other weapons such as knives. Ugh.. trying to rob a bank using a knife? Try again
A knife isn't as lethal as a gun, a knife wound on a victim could easily be stitched up. You probably could run away if you get attacked. With a gun? Shot and you're down. Don't try to run because unfortunately, a gun has a long range distance.
-
Edit
I've seen some comments about removing guns would just lead criminals to using other weapons such as knives. Ugh.. trying to rob a bank using a knife? Try again
A knife isn't as lethal as a gun, a knife wound on a victim could easily be stitched up. You probably could run away if you get attacked. With a gun? Shot and you're down. Don't try to run because unfortunately, a gun has a long range distance.
I think you are underestimating how much of a problem knife-related crimes can be. Sure they aren't quite as dangerous as a gun, but if you get stabbed you can't just be 'easily stiched up'. Especially if you get stabbed in a vital area.
You are also missing the point a little with regards to gun control. When you commit a crime with a gun, it's very likely the gun is illegal anyway, so 'outlawing' guns won't stop people robbing banks with them.
-
What it comes down to is social philosophy. There are groups of people or countries that believe the common man is too dangerous to be in control of him/herself, that police and government in control of as much as possible is better because they are smarter or more experienced and know what is best for everyone.
I have no problem owning guns at home, or putting guns in a safe place for business owners to pull out if they are being robbed. The only problem I have is when you carry one out in pubic. All you do is scare the snot out of everyone! You might say police officers carry guns, but they are police officers. You feel extremely safe around them.
Police do own guns and openly carry them everywhere they go, they shoot them in dangerous situations when they are necessary, they restrain and arrest people, but its not because they are police that they get to do this. The policeman's core mission is "To protect and serve", they are not 'To enforce the law upon the public and punish', however often the latter falls in line with the former and however police work in actual practice is irrelevant (at least in the scope of this discussion). But police are servants of the people paid for by the people to make them safe to do the things most people have trouble with or dont want to endanger their lives with, but still need to be done.
I dont think its healthy to have a society that fears weapons simply being presented openly on a holster, nor is it healthy to have an inherent fear of a person you havent determined is hostile, because it feeds into an attitude of allowing the government and the police to run things for the people and treating the common man as criminal. We are pretty close to that in some respects, but there are nations that have it worse that way.
I feel very unsafe when a group of people carry guns.
Its very easy to slip out that gun and start shooting. If no one has a gun, it can be very easy to tell when an attacker is coming. (He.. has a gun)
Would you really fear me, for openly carrying on my hip going about my daily routine? I fear the person who wears baggy clothing hooded to conceal his face, and tucks his glock inside his pants concealed illegally without a permit, more than I fear the one who openly carries. I try to openly carry as much as I can, but theres a social stigma attached to it and more trouble than it is worth sometimes to me. If anyone means you harm, trust me, they wont be carrying openly.
Each ounce of control the police and government have that the average citizen does not is one step closer towards fascism. An ammusing irony about my position regarding citizen carry is I totally own an eastern european commie gun. Going for a Yugoslavian M57 or Romanian TT-33 Tokarev next lol.
[youtube:3e8df2v5]q_iy7YLLLiI[/youtube:3e8df2v5]
I've seen some comments about removing guns would just lead criminals to using other weapons such as knives. Ugh.. trying to rob a bank using a knife? Try again
A knife isn't as lethal as a gun, a knife wound on a victim could easily be stitched up. You probably could run away if you get attacked. With a gun? Shot and you're down. Don't try to run because unfortunately, a gun has a long range distance.
Joe is a criminal.
Hank is a baker.
Joe and Hank both have guns.
Joe does not follow the law.
Hank follows the law.
Day 1:
Joe shoots someone.
Hank bakes a cake.
Day 2:
Joe shoots someone.
Hank makes some bagels.
Day 3:
Joe shoots someone.
Hank makes pie crusts.
Day 4:
The government bans guns.
Joe does not follow the law.
Hank follows the law.
Day 5:
Joe shoots someone.
Hank, defenseless, is shot.
The above is not mine, I dont know who wrote it. But its an amazing piece of wisdom I think.
I also remind you, planes have been hijacked with boxcutters. I am pretty sure if you took a hostage and held the tip of a butter knife up to their trachea threatening to stab it the bank teller will fill the money bags.
-
In Minnesota the law for guns is conceal and carry. Basically means if you are carrying a gun on you that you have to keep it hidden. It also seems like almost every building I go to here in Minneapolis bans guns. So I don't see what use it is carrying one around. Especially if you are stuck taking public transit and have nowhere to store your gun when you are in a building that bans them.
I don't mind other people who carry guns. I Just wouldn't want to carry one myself.
-
I don't really think that's wisdom at all. It's fear-mongering.
I'm sure Joe would shoot a different person every day of the week. How about if guns remain legal, Joe takes Hank's gun and shoots him with it.
Or Hank comes home early one dayand fins his wife cheating on him, so he shoots his wife, the man, and himself.
Maybe hank's 7 year old finds the gun and accidentally kills his friend with it, while just trying to show it off.
-
in the 5th sentence of that bit of wisdom we assume Hank is a responsible, law abiding person.
Hank follows the law, he wouldnt do any of that and his gun wouldn't just be laying around. Joe on the other hand does what he does all he wants whether the government tells him to turn in his weapon or not. ;)
Is the common person responsible more than irresponsible or not? Can we be trusted to exercise judgement most of the time or are we really finicky emotional beings with not enough reason to be trusted with any degree of power?
Why are police and the government better inherently than Hank, being themselves subject to any shortcomings or lapses of judgement as the common man? And could they possibly defend Hank in this scenario? I don't think they can adequately defend Hank no matter what they do.
Just answer me this, are most people in your eyes more like my Hank, or are they more like your Hank?
and if what I say is fear mongering, its merely the flip side of what gun control activists push.
-
I meant that little Joe/Hank thing is fear-mongering, not what you say is fear-mongering. Your arguments are well thought-out.
More people are like Hank, but there are plenty of law-abiding citizens that go temporarily insane, or might have rage issues. Have you ever day-dreamed about having guns mounted on the front of your car, like in Full-Auto? I have. I guess the point is that a gun is so easy and so quick to use, it takes little pre-meditation or planning to kill a person. A gun has one function, killing or disabling people.
I would say that police and government are trained to deal with dangerous situations, and are less likely to have their weapons in the reach of children. Still, of course they can abuse them like anyone else.
I don't trust governments with nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean I think I should have one.
-
Statistically you are more likely to get shot with your own gun in a home defense situation then to actually defend yourself. No one likes to think of themselves in terms of a statistic like that, but you will never know if you can kill a person until you are put in the position where you have to.
This is my main concern as well. While Toggi3 makes some very good points, I find it odd that you feel the need to carry a gun at all times. I live in what is considered a bad neighborhood (we've had a drug dealer arrested in our back-yard once, 'turf war' arguments at the end of the street, and a house was molotov'd last year in our street too), but even so, I've never felt a strong desire to be armed, and never really felt that I would want to keep guns in my house. As Emmet said, I feel that they would more likely be used against me in some way than allowing me to genuinely defend myself (not to mention that having weapons seems like it would cause things to escalate in violence sometimes).
I do agree though that if the right restrictions are in place, then legal gun owners pose very little threat as they must be law abiding and very well educated in gun safety and maintenance.
Yikes! I never knew you had it so rough. My entire concept of your homelife being exactly like Taz-Mania just fell apart.
[youtube:axfvwr78]GmTaqOVGN74[/youtube:axfvwr78]
Joking aside, I think your family pretty much proves that people who live in those situations are not destined to become the scum of the world, which is what a large majority of the world today believes sadly.
More people are like Hank, but there are plenty of law-abiding citizens that go temporarily insane, or might have rage issues.
This is rarer than you expect, but it is my number one worry of people who own guns. It is simply too easy to quickly kill someone in this case, which is why I believe it should be mandatory for all firearms to be locked up in a safe.
I would say that police and government are trained to deal with dangerous situations, and are less likely to have their weapons in the reach of children. Still, of course they can abuse them like anyone else.
I don't trust governments with nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean I think I should have one.
I could not agree with this more.
-
Yikes! I never knew you had it so rough. My entire concept of your homelife being exactly like Taz-Mania just fell apart.
Joking aside, I think your family pretty much proves that people who live in those situations are not destined to become the scum of the world, which is what a large majority of the world today believes sadly.
It's really not as bad or exciting as it sounds, but it has it's share of excitement.
Oh I just thought of another one; some guy got pulled out of his car and then got shot several times in the arms and legs in the street behind my house.