Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
ITT people who have never owned, fired, or seen guns tell demonize innocent people and tell them what they can and cannot do.
All that matters to me is this: people own themselves and should be free to do whatever they want so long as they do not (unconsentingly) harm other people or the property of others. Buying/owning a gun does not hurt anyone, nor does it violate anybody's rights. You can't argue that it displays an intention to do so, because the vast majority of gun owners are peaceful people who never end up hurting anyone... And besides, if you buy that kind of logic, then you're fine with preemptive wars and whole lot of other bad things. Regardless, the act of owning a gun doesn't harm anyone, so you don't have the right to use the force of law to coerce compliance out of somebody who is doing nothing wrong other than making you uncomfortable.
I think guns are pretty miraculous. What else can put an octogenarian on an equal footing with a heavyweight boxer? Personally, I own two rifles and I'll buy a handgun for my birthday this year. I'm going to the range this weekend to try out a few different models with friends. Then again, Americans are predisposed to see guns for the tools that they are because of the history of our frontier. Our ancestors shot their way to dinner, to Independence, and sadly through a hell of a lot of Indians. Europe, on the other hand, has been sewn up by one totalitarian state or another for the last 800 years... And none of those states wanted the common people to be armed.
In the end, it doesn't matter - just follow the golden rule.... If nobody is violating your rights, you don't have a right to fuck with them. And if they fuck with you... well, have a gun!
On March 01 2012 03:35 Gustis wrote: I have a question for proponents of the free guns. Where do you draw the line to this freedom/right to arm yourself? What I mean is why only guns, why not something bigger (explosives etc.)?
Personally I draw the line for private ownership to guns that are used for personal defense, nothing outside a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for use on private land and buildings, or semi-automatic pistols for use in public or in vehicle. I would be hard pressed to justify the ownership of a chain-fed automatic or C4 or propelled explosives in the defense of my life or those of my friends or family. That crosses into the territory of threat that the national guard or militia should be present to handle.
Wasn't going to post in this thread again but honestly this post made me headbutt my desk.
nothing outside a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun..
Are you fucking serious right now? I mean really? You even then go on to speak in a slightly jokey tone about how you couldn't justify a chain fed automatic etc, well I can't justify using a fucking semi automatic rifle or shotgun to stop ANYTHING that would waltz through your front door. Absolutely LUDICROUS. Where do you think you live?
And you talk to me about violent crimes in us to uk? Which one of us thinks it's perfectly reasonable to keep a shotgun under his bed just to feel "safe". REALLY?
I cannot even think of a way to portray my disbelief at your insane contradictions and stupidity.
In the united states we have this crazy organization that protects guns rights called the NRA(national rifle association). Rooms where thousands of people are armed with guns....can you imagine. I guess its just pure LUCK no one ever gets shot there and no one so much as misspells their name on a form.
I mean you would think a group called the NRA would be out bombing schools and killing people left and right. But in the British isles you're far more civilized and that would NEVER happen........
On March 01 2012 04:47 brain_ wrote: Europe, on the other hand, has been sewn up by one totalitarian state or another for the last 800 years... And none of those states wanted the common people to be armed.
Ok. Your post may be the most sensible thing ever, you lose all credibility when you say that.
On February 29 2012 16:11 dogabutila wrote: Responsibly used? Self defense. The same way a country uses an army. You don't go use it to assault people, you use it to defend your own country and your friends.
This is so funny, coming from an american that wants to keep his right to own guns. In fact it's SO funny I think it made my day! Self respect, man... Self respect.
That is actually hilarious, I agree. This thread is still worth something after all, and if it's only a laugh.
Never said I agreed with the way my country uses ours. I'm a libertarian, I vote for ron paul, and I want out of the 'stan. I want to pack it all up and go home and leave you all alone to do things so you can leave us all alone to do ours.
But thanks for showing just how quick you guys are at jumping to conclusions and ridicule.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
That's why the Republicans want to cut taxes, giving less means to the Police. Makes sense. So the idea of the more pro-guns is to cut taxes and don't help the poors. Less police, more poor people. Great way to fight crime. Actually let the law abiding citizen get rid of the criminal himself, he'll just have to shoot him.
Cutting taxes doesn't necessarily mean giving less to the police. It means giving people their own money back and letting them be self reliant. You know, personal responsibility? America was formed so that people could take care of themselves and not be ruled by some people who really didn't know what their life was like. Guess what? The government is grabbing more power and making rules that impact normal everyday people's lives and they dont like it.
On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote: Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to.
I'm going to try and be as nice as possible here, but you are really not only being ignorant but extremely stupid. I am not even going to explain to you the difference between a knife and a gun, here's a hint though.. One's a sharp pointy piece of metal, the other is a gun. I know the difference is slight and fairly subtle but if you really take the time to weigh up the characteristics of each I think you will see some discrepancies.
Are you dumb? I've already explained that knives are far more dangerous then handguns. If I stab you once you are much more likely to die then being shot once. Why? Bullets are small. Knives generally make a larger wound. It's also rather easy to take a gun from somebody compared to knife. You can't just grab knives, and if you studied any MA you'd realize this is why knife disarms are always more difficult and technical then gun disarms.
The richest part if your attempted condesendingness is that you have probably never touched, handled, or operated a firearm before and then attempt to tell people who have to examine the differences between them. Trust me, I know the differences and probably much better then you do.
On March 01 2012 02:57 Korlinni wrote: I am from the US and I own a handgun. I got it for self-defense after a few home invasions happened in the State I live in. I keep it in its own box with the ammo in a separate box. Shoot it at least once a month to make sure it's working fine and clean it. I don't go running around shooting people.
Hi there, can you answer a few things for me then..
How far away from the gun is the ammo kept? Do you think you would be able to reach the box, unlock it (I presume it is locked, otherwise we open the can of worms that is the "what if a child finds it etc."), find your ammo box, load your gun and then confront your invaders before they either find you first or heaven forbid, have their own gun loaded and ready long before you are even aware of the danger?
In a real situation, if the home invaders were ACTUALLY a danger to your life (i.e they are here to kill you.) you will die whether you have a handgun in a box in a draw with your ammo in a box in a draw etc or not. The only difference is that because of your countries retarded view on guns, you essentially are giving them a gun too - and therefore multiplying the risk on your life immensely in any of these situations.
The safe is on my headboard, I keep it locked even though there are no children in the house. There is a keylock as well as an electric push button code lock. I have my firearm inside loaded 17+1 and another loaded mag next to it. Why? One is none and two is one. Glocks have a good reputation for reliability but you can still have magazine or ammunition problems.
I can access my firearm in about a second and a half. If a home invader is ACTUALLY a danger to my life I doubt you can say I will die if I have a handgun accessible or not. Defenders advantage is a combat principle going back ages. I have a dog; I'll know somebody is coming for me longer then a second and a half before they get to me.
Lastly, go back to my other post and read about how resistance with firearms leads to a significantly lower chance of being harmed when compliant, or resistant with another type of weapon.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
That's why the Republicans want to cut taxes, giving less means to the Police. Makes sense. So the idea of the more pro-guns is to cut taxes and don't help the poors. Less police, more poor people. Great way to fight crime. Actually let the law abiding citizen get rid of the criminal himself, he'll just have to shoot him.
Cutting taxes doesn't necessarily mean giving less to the police. It means giving people their own money back and letting them be self reliant. You know, personal responsibility?
I'm reading it really bad or you're just agreeing on what I said?
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
That's why the Republicans want to cut taxes, giving less means to the Police. Makes sense. So the idea of the more pro-guns is to cut taxes and don't help the poors. Less police, more poor people. Great way to fight crime. Actually let the law abiding citizen get rid of the criminal himself, he'll just have to shoot him.
Cutting taxes doesn't necessarily mean giving less to the police. It means giving people their own money back and letting them be self reliant. You know, personal responsibility?
I'm reading it really bad or you're just agreeing on what I said?
I think you might be reading it really badly yes. Or maybe I did. I understood your post to be sarcasm after the first line. Pro-gun people are left right and center. In america, only the extreme left want to ban guns. That's why you don't see gun control as an election issue anymore. People all generally agree that it's not good, and politicians that want more don't advertise the fact or they would never be elected.
But, republicans (and libertarians) want to cut taxes because a big central government is antithetical to what the founders envisioned and set up. However, cutting taxes does not mean the police get less money. In america, the vast majority of police are local police. That is, employed by state, county, or city. Shrinking the government wouldn't impact police at all really. It WOULD give people more of their own money back.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
That's why the Republicans want to cut taxes, giving less means to the Police. Makes sense. So the idea of the more pro-guns is to cut taxes and don't help the poors. Less police, more poor people. Great way to fight crime. Actually let the law abiding citizen get rid of the criminal himself, he'll just have to shoot him.
Cutting taxes doesn't necessarily mean giving less to the police. It means giving people their own money back and letting them be self reliant. You know, personal responsibility?
I'm reading it really bad or you're just agreeing on what I said?
I think you might be reading it really badly yes. Or maybe I did. I understood your post to be sarcasm after the first line. Pro-gun people are left right and center. In america, only the extreme left want to ban guns. That's why you don't see gun control as an election issue anymore. People all generally agree that it's not good, and politicians that want more don't advertise the fact or they would never be elected.
But, republicans (and libertarians) want to cut taxes because a big central government is antithetical to what the founders envisioned and set up. However, cutting taxes does not mean the police get less money. In america, the vast majority of police are local police. That is, employed by state, county, or city. Shrinking the government wouldn't impact police at all really. It WOULD give people more of their own money back.
So you don't want to pay taxes to the government but you are okay to pay more taxes to the state, county, or city? I'm just asking because otherwise I don't understand how you can give the police more money.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
That's why the Republicans want to cut taxes, giving less means to the Police. Makes sense. So the idea of the more pro-guns is to cut taxes and don't help the poors. Less police, more poor people. Great way to fight crime. Actually let the law abiding citizen get rid of the criminal himself, he'll just have to shoot him.
Cutting taxes doesn't necessarily mean giving less to the police. It means giving people their own money back and letting them be self reliant. You know, personal responsibility?
I'm reading it really bad or you're just agreeing on what I said?
I think you might be reading it really badly yes. Or maybe I did. I understood your post to be sarcasm after the first line. Pro-gun people are left right and center. In america, only the extreme left want to ban guns. That's why you don't see gun control as an election issue anymore. People all generally agree that it's not good, and politicians that want more don't advertise the fact or they would never be elected.
But, republicans (and libertarians) want to cut taxes because a big central government is antithetical to what the founders envisioned and set up. However, cutting taxes does not mean the police get less money. In america, the vast majority of police are local police. That is, employed by state, county, or city. Shrinking the government wouldn't impact police at all really. It WOULD give people more of their own money back.
So you don't want to pay taxes to the government but you are okay to pay more taxes to the state, county, or city? I'm just asking because otherwise I don't understand how you can give the police more money.
He's saying that he is FOR reducing the size of the Federal government, then we could reduce taxes that pay for all the unconstitutional and unneccessary spending at that Federal level. But that reduction of Fed size and taxes has no bearing on the budget of local state police. That is paid for by state taxes and police citations. He's not arguing for raising or lowering state taxes. That is a separate issue. Federal taxes often fund ridiculously wasteful or unconstitutional programs, and most Repub/Libertarian don't like the idea of the government being in charge of spending their money for them, they'd rather do it themselves in the private sector.
On March 01 2012 05:56 TanTzoR wrote: So you don't want to pay taxes to the government but you are okay to pay more taxes to the state, county, or city? I'm just asking because otherwise I don't understand how you can give the police more money.
All police in the US are state, county, or city. There are federal agencies with their own agendas. However, there are numerous ways for police departments to get money and funding that unrelated to taxes and unrelated to preserving the peace. Those revenue streams are potentially an undermining force on the main purpose of police, keeping the peace.
On March 01 2012 02:47 mcc wrote:Yes safety is broader term than just homicide rates, but likelihood of being killed is a big part of it.
Typically, if you're trying to kill an average citizen in a civilized society, you will succeed regardless of what weapon you have available. Humans are remarkably fragile, and if you are out to kill someone there are literally almost unlimited means to do so.
What firearms actually affect are unintentional homicides, as it is far more likely that an untrained individual can accidentally kill someone with a firearm than with, say, a knife, baseball bat, or their bare hands. However, all this suggests is that regulating firearm safety is of the utmost importance, just as it is critical to strongly regulate the use of vehicles (which are similarly very capable of causing unintentional homicide when used improperly).
On March 01 2012 05:50 dogabutila wrote:But, republicans (and libertarians) want to cut taxes because a big central government is antithetical to what the founders envisioned and set up.
Let's be honest, for the most part Republicans and libertarians (and I identify as the latter) don't care what the founders envisioned and set up. Nor do most care about the size of central government, as can be shown by polls which show that most Republicans support Social Security, Medicare, and the military, which are the most blatant "big government" programs of all.
They simply want to pay less taxes when it comes to programs they don't like and spend that money themselves.
On March 01 2012 04:47 brain_ wrote: ITT people who have never owned, fired, or seen guns tell demonize innocent people and tell them what they can and cannot do.
All that matters to me is this: people own themselves and should be free to do whatever they want so long as they do not (unconsentingly) harm other people or the property of others. Buying/owning a gun does not hurt anyone, nor does it violate anybody's rights.
That logic is flawed because it can be applied to anything so long as you dont actually use it. With this logic, you can own ANYTHING, regardless of how harmful it COULD be, just for the sake of having it. The sheer fact that it is there, makes it more likely to be used, and furthermore, like everything else dangerous humans get their hands on, it increases its chances of being MISUSED greatly.
On March 01 2012 06:13 sunprince wrote: Let's be honest, for the most part Republicans and libertarians (and I identify as the latter) don't care what the founders envisioned and set up. Nor do most care about the size of central government, as can be shown by polls which show that most Republicans support Social Security, Medicare, and the military, which are the most blatant "big government" programs of all.
They simply want to pay less taxes when it comes to programs they don't like and spend that money themselves.
An inconsistent application of the founding principle indeed. The only thing that can be said is that Republicans have either different pet projects that they support or just fewer of them.
I think for people outside the US its just difficult to understand the country's obsession with guns. Whether it creates more safety or not is debatable. But one thing I know from personal experience is that in other first world countries its very difficult to get a gun unless your a hardcore criminal. I don't know anyone with a gun or anyone who's ever owned one. On the other hand in the states it seems like pretty much anyone who wants a gun can easily get a hold of one. Is this the type of environment that promotes more safety and less violence? Doesnt seem like it to me but meh
On March 01 2012 02:14 liberal wrote: It's completely pointless to compare crime statistics across nations. Different nations have different people, different cultures, different education, different economics, etc. Trying to suggest that all of those things are equal and any difference is related to the weapons laws is extremely naive or dishonest.
The US has a higher murder rate whether or not guns exist there. Crime in general is just higher in the US. If you want to look at reasons for crime, then you have to look at sociology. I could get my hands on a gun, that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot anyone, obviously.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
The reasonable motive behind banning of guns in Europe and other "normal" first world countries should not be preventing intentional planned homicides, but to prevent accidental deaths and unnecessarily high death tolls of crimes of passion. In the long run banning of guns will have some small positive effect even on intentional planned homicides, but that should not be a point as premeditated murder does not require gun to achieve its goal. On the other hand in reasonable first world countries benefits of a gun as a self-defense tool do not outweigh the negatives of accidental death and increased death tolls of crimes of passion.
A guy who is drunk and gets into a fight in a bar might be able to stab a guy, but if he had gun he will easily kill five before being pacified. Similar incidents are much more prevalent than use of guns in self-defense as there is just not that many murders in general.
Would I propose this solution for US, no, the country is fucked up too much as far as violence goes. Gun might actually be a good self-defense tool in US. It is not so in Europe (statistically speaking of course).
This is a pretty reasonable position, and I appreciate your arguments.
I would say that for the rare individual who does face violent crime in EU, the statistics are not going to be of much use. The person has had their right to self-defense taken away from them under the justification of preventing accidents, etc. To me, that doesn't seem moral, even if statistically, it does result in fewer total deaths. Because you cannot choose to eliminate all accidents, but you can choose to defend yourself from violence, and that choice is being taken away.
And in similar way to the victim of judicial error the judicial system won't be of much help. That does not mean we disband justice system. No real-life solution is perfect. Yes, you cannot eliminate all accidents, but the point is to minimize their number. In low-murder-rate countries further reduction in murders and accidental deaths can only be achieved by limiting some freedoms. The question then arises if the limitation is worth it. In case of guns it is as they are useless for anything else than self-defense and as I pointed out their worth for self-defense is outweighed by their negative impact. And I know guns are useful for hunting and sports, but they do not need to be owned privately for those purposes. You can have them locked up under supervision in sport and hunting clubs and heavily regulated. Of course you do not have to ban all guns outright, the biggest problem are handguns you can ban them and allow guns used in hunting and sports, or myriad of other variations can be tried to see what brings the best effect.
The only immoral thing in your scenario is the violent crime perpetrator's actions. Law banning guns is moral if it decreases suffering in general. Also noone takes from you the right of self-defense by banning guns, you can still defend yourself and nobody is taking that from people.
US numbers generally aggregate to about 500 per million in the aggravated assault and worse category. The England and Wales numbers would be 10000 per million. I'd have to think that somehow the numbers are being compiled differently. As a bit of a check, I compared them to New Hampshire rates, 1.0 murder / 167 violent / 2183 property crime, and UK's looks roughly about 3? homicide / 10000? violent / 40000? property.
The report also said 200 homicides with pointed weapon. All very very strange.
When I was checking some data I found some statistic presented in Daily Mail or something and Austria had violent crime rate the same as South Africa. Considering that Austria has number of incidents of serious violent crime quite likely lower than South Africa's homicide rate alone, I think the best guess is to infer that comparing anything but homicide rates without deep analysis of the presented numbers is foolish. The definitions and counting of those crimes is just too different.
On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote: All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me?
The same thing that gives the taxman the right to take your money away from you.
No one is truly free. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is what side of the line should firearms fall on? I don't know the answer but I do no that using 'freedom' as an argument is ridiculous.
On March 01 2012 02:33 StarStrider wrote: Wow. For someone trying to be nice, you sure aren't. But you are completely missing the point. Ignorance defined.
Here it is: crime rate involving deadly weapons isn't lower in the UK. It's higher. Just because you have disallowed a more deadly weapon to be owned by legit members of society doesn't mean you are safer. It just means you are less likely to die when you are confronted with a weapon, because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's it. I was referring to crime rates INVOLVING guns and knives. Not crime rates where the guns or knives injured or killed people.
Or did you think I was making a statement about the USE of those weapons? I didn't say anything about deaths. Reread it. You jumped to a conclusion didn't you.
I'm not sure there's any more to say on the subject to be honest.
Edit - Oh and I would LOVE to see where you got the underlined information from.
I draw the conclusion by narrowing down the following facts:
In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.
You can cross check these facts for yourself if you like.
And as to liberal's point (and others): I am not harping on guns vs. knives. I am making a point that you are never truly safe as long as criminals exist outside the rule of law. You can outlaw knives too, and you will still be in danger of being the victim of crime using other deadly weapons.
But do you know what criteria they use to classify something as knife/gun-related crime in US and UK. The only somewhat reliable statistic that can be used without much doubt (and even there only in first world countries) is homicide rare. Comparing all other statistics without in-depth analysis is risky, see my post above.
Also to compare "safety" you would need to compare not the number of "knife/gun-related crimes", but what are the effects of those crimes. 10000000000 violent crimes involving weapons might be safer than 1000 if in the latter 1000 people are hurt and in the former 100 people are. That is why homicide rate is much better measure.
Why are you then cherry-picking guns and knifes and drawing some conclusion about safety. It does not follow. Also you just assume something about knife-related crimes in US. Do you have any data to back up your statement that it is marginal or are you just making blind speculation ? I think they will be lower than Britain, but frankly comparing anything else than murder rates between countries is extremely iffy task at best as countries differ in what they consider a crime, what is knife-related crime, reporting rates,.....
Yes safety is broader term than just homicide rates, but likelihood of being killed is a big part of it.
Because people in countries that have outlawed firearms for private use have this idea that they are safer in a gun-free society, but even beyond the obvious danger of criminal element which ignores gun law and possesses them anyway, that feel of safety not truly accurate. My point is that knives in the hands of an evil man can be used for crime as easily as guns. The problem is the evil man's heart, not the weapon he chooses. Sure, the death rate in a weapon-based crime is higher in stats involving guns because they are more deadly. But I have yet to see statistics that crime involving weapons is lower in places like the UK.
But that said, I promise that whatever country or culture, crime rates will decrease significantly in the vicinity of a responsible, properly-trained firearm wielding citizen...imagine how many criminals would be deterred just by the thought that the man next to him could be carrying.
I concede that accidental deaths increase drastically in a gun-legal society because of irresponsible owners....but therein lies the true debate in my opinion: Is it worth it? And how do we eliminate irresponsibility in ownership?
But they are safer in gun-free society. Not being absolutely safe is not necessary to proclaim that they are safer. UK is actually rather bad compared to the rest of Europe, thus showing that banning guns is not everything. It is quite possible for countries with more guns to be safer than the ones with less. But in a country with already low homicide-rate the best way to lower it even more in long term is to ban guns.
It is worth it if less people suffer. And it is easy to eliminate irresponsibility in ownership, you just ban guns and voila, eliminated
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/insomniaconfessions/speechless.gif)
