Nibbles

The topics posted so far have been interesting, and make for good discussion, but are preaching to the choir for the most part and I don't feel will encourage debate.

So, I'd like to talk about something which I hope will stir up some opposing opinions and insights - Gun Control.

I pick this topic, not just because I expect there to be differing opinions but because I'm in two minds myself about it. I tend to lean towards the "why would you want or feel the need to own a gun?" side of things. On the other hand, why shouldn't you be allowed to?

When it comes to sport, I can see the appeal (though I personally have no interest) in hunting which is one thing, but why would any civillian require the use of an assault rifle? Even the concept of casually carrying a pistol for "self defense" just seems totally bizzare to me, or even keeping a gun in the house is a little warped.

My upbringing and where I'm from in NZ (where a cat stuck up a tree makes headline news) probably has a lot to do with this (despite me once finding and handling my grandparents loaded revolver in an overhead kitchen cupboard at the age of about 10 - scares me to think about that now) but while I can step outside my frame of reference for most things, I still cannot understand why some first world societies (hello America!) seem to have many people obsessed about these things.

I could go on but thought I'd open it up at this point - where do you stand on gun control and why?

Is gun control a bad thing? And if so - why?

And the bonus round: can anyone out there justify the need for automatic weapons, clearly not designed for game hunting, to be legally allowed for self defence or personal use?

OzballO

Oh yeah I'm so excited this was brought up!

I am completely for gun ownership. You know what they say about Yanks and their guns, lol. Anyway, I hunt and therefore I use guns on a fairly regular basis. Getting the meat is reallly beneficial for the family with meat prices getting so high right now not to mention all the crap they put in it. As for personal protection if you live in say 50 minutes northwest (Gary, Indiana)of me the cops think you're an idiot for not carrying around a gun. ASsuming you are a law abiding citizen.

AS for fully auto well you technically needa license to own a fully auto and they don't gives those out like candy. I think they would be awesome to own but would I need them, not likely. Maybe if say i lived in Gary it would be beneficial but I don't want to commite suicide. Did I answer enough or do you want more, I could go all day, lol.

Voodoo

I think this one is going to be geographically split.

I am for gun control, I can't see the need to own a gun. There are enough knife killings in the CBD at the moment that if everyone had guns it would be a complete mess.

If you have a gun, and are put in a situation then you will use it, and someone will likely die. Whereas, if you do not own one, and are put in a situation then it is unlikely someone will die. It is however a vicious cycle, because of all the guns in say the US then I suppose self defence is a reasonable excuse to own a gun, because everyone else does. In a country with few guns, the reasons for possessing a gun for self defence are iffy.

The fact that you mention the police think you're an idiot if you don't possess a gun for self defence has me dumbfounded, isn't that their job, to protect and serve? Aren't these the people that are meant to protect the community, individuals that have trained to do so as well as upholding the law. To me everyone possessing a gun seems more likely to take the law into their own hands than to let the poh-lees do it (sorry I couldn't resist that last part)

I cannot foresee any circumstance someone would need an automatic rifle for self defence, unless there was a large scale infestation of zombies.

__________________

My YouTube Channel

OzballO

I suppose it depends on what one considers gun control. Here you go through a background check to determine if you can lawfully obtain a gun. Generally if you have any sort of criminal backgraound you cannot obtain buy a gun. Obviously the system isn't perfect because the check doesn't take into account a few things, ie mental status, school behavior. In the US if you really want a gun you are going to get it with all the illegal guns coming into America via Mexico and other places. Thus the biggest pro-gun arguement is why should law abiding citizens be unarmed while a criminal takes advantage of them.

You always need to be prepared for zombies but in this case I will take a shotgun.

9INCHNAIL

I was always told by my old man-

If hes bigger than you hit him with something big, ie baseball bat or a nice 4x2

If the fucker grins at you like hes enjoying it kick him in the bllx and run.

So no i dont need a gun.

__________________

Voodoo

I mean control on the sheer volume of weapons that are obtainable in the US. As you said, if you wan't to purchase a gun you are able to. It is the same for most of the world really but it is I imagine far easier to do so in the States.

You say that there are a lot of guns coming into the US from Mexico, I recently watched a documentary on the drug gangs of Tijuana. It said that around 90% of the weapons used in gang murders were purchased in El Paso, Texas. Which is it?

__________________

My YouTube Channel

OzballO

Like I said the system isn't perfect if you don't have a criminal record you can buy a gun or many guns and then sell them illegally. There are many guns coming from Mexico that make it all over the US. Overall gun control hurts the law abiding citizen more than the Criminal. Since the rise in gun sales, there has been a decrease in violent crimes. I will edit this later with source.

Edit: I should rephrase this, there has been an increase in gun sales while a decrease in in crime rates. Many people would assume the axact opposite with an increase in firearms an increase in violence would occur.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/Tot...d%20Checks.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

While there is no table from a non-biased source that I can find comparing the two if you want to look hard enough they are there.

Dante

For what I understand from the (admittedly limited) American history i've studied at school the 2nd Amendment was written so that the government of the USA couldn't subjugate it's people in the same way in which they had been persecuted back in the Old Country. That instead of having a Federal Army, the "well regulated militias", would serve their own interests and thus protect the rights of the individual rather than those of "The Man".

However, since the US Military has expanded extremely rapidly since around 1900, the need for this militia has declined. No longer will the people as a whole be called upon to defend their shores (except via the Draft, but that's a different issue altogether) and due to Checks and Balances it's altogether very unlikely that the government could successfully persecute it's people in a similar was to 1700s England.

But, the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment isn't applicable to other countries and, I believe, the current rationale in the USA for gun ownership. I think that self defence is the more prevalent motivation. This is a stronger argument, but cannot be applied worldwide. Non-firearm murder in the USA is over twice as frequent as in the UK, whilst murder overall is around 4 times more common [source]. This would imply that the American are, in general "more murderous" than other many other countries, the UK being one of them. As such, the need for self defence is greater to combat the higher rates of violent crime. On this basis i'd say that I can appreciate the need for guns, but i'd also oppose the introduction of more lax gun control in my own country.

__________________

Alphabuster187

I'm for strict gun control... guns create more trouble by just having "the right to bear arms", which is so outdated, the U.S. Constitution should be amended, regarding guns. Too many murders, senseless crimes...

__________________

Prestige: 10 / Rank: 70 / Kills: 97,285 / KDR: 2.68

abc

I agree with Alphabuster in that the idea is outdated and has gone far too far.


The right to bear arms against what exactly? In defence of your homeland or state?

In defence of your religion? your ideology? your political alliance? your moral stand? your freedom? (freedom from what btw? by nature of a democratic government you are as free as you need to be, you don't need to be able to shoot everyone with different political or religious views)

How many people have completely needlessly died because the majority of the population carry lethal weapons? Obviously one gang member shooting a child or policeman is different from shooting an intruder, but without such relaxed possesion rules it is far less likely either will happen.

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.

OzballO

How many people have died becasue someone killed them with an illegally possessed firearm who may not have died had they a gun themself. Gangs, mafia, etc. will always find a way to get guns. Stricter gun control won't stop someone who wants a gun for illegal purposes.

I'm all for gun control to an extent but no one has really elaborated on what type of gun control they are talking about.

Alphabuster187

If you aren't law enforcement, you shouldn't have one IMO. Eradicate the majority of weapons, and crime with guns will decline over time. Japan and England don't have much gun related crime, as compared to the U.S.

But when one is able to buy a gun just like I would a car, computer, etc... it opens doors that should have remained shut. Legally owned guns get stolen, then used in crimes etc...

__________________

Prestige: 10 / Rank: 70 / Kills: 97,285 / KDR: 2.68

OzballO

So even those who use guns to hunt shouldn't have guns either is included am i correct?

Dante

Whilst I support your overarching argument Alpha, this point isn't the strongest, since when England had no gun control whatsoever the firearm murder rate in the US was still higher than the firearm murder rate in England. [source]

I'd also like to refute this argument:

When you have guns that can be bought in stores it;s much easier to get an illegal gun as legal guns can be stolen from stores/homes/delivery vehicles etc. However, in a country which has a complete ban on guns the only place in which one can be acquired is by smuggling it over the border (no mean feat) or by stealing one from the police, again not an easy task.

But as the saying goes, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

__________________

HBK

I can't comment on other places but in South America:

In Brazil guns are allowed, but are very strictly controlled, in theory only law-abiding honest citzens
would be able to buy one, if you have any history on police records depending on crime it'll be virtually
impossible to buy one, even if you're a "clean sheet" citzen you'll have trouble purchasing a gun due to the
bureaucracy, strict laws and overpricing.

But in reality Even then the law-abiding tax payer is not allowed to have large caliber weapons,
legally you're stuck with .38, .22, .32, 7,65, .380 and similar mosquito bites, because defending your home
from burglars/rapists/murderers with anything with actual stopping power would be inhumane.

While criminals are feasting themselves with stolen .45, M16, AK-47, G3, even .50CAL machine guns.
If guns were downright out-lawed in Brazil honest citzens would be even more prejudiced, just holding
a gun for self deffence would get you arrested let alone using it, while for the criminals it wouldn't mean jack sh*t it would be even easier to commit crimes on "totallly helpeless" citzens.

Even thou Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and MUCH more restrictive gun laws,
there are 25 percent more gun deaths. This is a problem accuring throughout all of South America.

So IMO while there is corruption in South America, and the goverments won't do anything about controlling the gun smuggling/theft, guns MUST be allowed for citzens, when the day comes Brazil and pretty much all of South America become as stable as North America/European Union
that would be the time to banish guns for good.

__________________

abc

I am in complete agreement that criminals will always get around things as naturally, being criminals, breaking the law is what they do.

EDIT: scrap all of that, just read this...




Here are the only two times when weapons are dangerous:

• Premeditation
• When people feel equal

In a premeditated murder the victim having a firearm may help. Where "help" at best means possibly two people dead/injured instead of only one.

If not premeditated, people only use weapons when they feel threatened. If a home invader pulls a gun on you whilst stealing your TV he is in control and everyone is relatively safe. If you pull a gun on him then you are both in roughly equal danger of physical harm and when people get nervous bullets fly...



My second problem with everyone having firearms is the law. Law enforcement must be a hell of a lot harder when everyone can legally obtain the means to fight back.



R.E. Law enforcement I think europe works very well. In the UK no-one but the most serious of intentioned criminals have firearms - and for them we have SO19 (The UK's answer to SWAT) and a suitable amount of armed officers (from glocks to mil spec G36c and MP5 in high risk areas like airports and government buildings) For the average citizen our police are unarmed yet are protected to some degree by basic body armour which can stop knives and 9mm rounds. I find it extremely difficult to believe that less people would be injured from firearms if everyone had them...

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.

Alphabuster187

I didn't really know that for a fact, it is just stuff I have read here and there, that gun related crime rate in the UK and Japan are very low. I assume there is gun control now? And if so, it appears to be working?

CORRUPTION is what breaks any system, the same way in Mexico. You are allowed to own fire arms, only small caliber ones and if you use it in self defense, you are still going to Jail. Mexico is very corrupted right now, think Colombia in the 80's.

__________________

Prestige: 10 / Rank: 70 / Kills: 97,285 / KDR: 2.68

SgtJoo

Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties. Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership. Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.

Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished. put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

This is an excerpt of someone's written work, so I give credit to them; I didn't write this. But this fully expresses my opinion.

__________________

OzballO

I see everyone posting gun related crime rates but what about crime rates overall? I'm assuming the US is still fairly high to to all the gangs etc. Just wondering because I'm not entirely sure but going back to my 3rd post, I believe, there are statistics that show a decrease in violent crimes while there have been an increase in gun sales as a whole for the US. Granted there could be other things in the works but overall wouldn't one see an increase in violent if more guns are being sold? I'm not saying everyone should get them, hell no. But for people who depend on hunting as a way to survive, yes there are people like this I personally know some, taking away their hunting guns would make it much harder to feed their own families. Also how about the farmers whose livestock is killed by mountain lions, coyotes, wolves, bobcats etc. These people's livelihood depend on these animals.

I guess I don't want it to seem that I am all for anyone getting any gun they want just that when people talk gun control it usually means banishing guns completely which is what I am against.

Dante

Again, this situation is one which is fairly limited to the US, there are extremely few (perhaps none) rural communities in the UK who actually depend on hunting to live, the only predators which are a threat to livestock are foxes, which are easily combated without guns.

Speaking in absolutes on virtually any issue is bound to give you a ridiculous answer, from topics from guns to drugs to abortion. Compromise is necessary on just about every issue and yes, guns are needed in some situation. But gun shops in every city and giving everyone without a criminal record access to handguns isn't really is no way to live in my opinion.

__________________

GhostHands

I'm a legal gun owner, I support the responsible ownership of guns, however, there should always be a level of control. I think Chicago and D.C. were idiots for banning handguns, which has been deemed unconstitutional and has or will be overturned.

It depends on where you live too. In Kansas City, we had 3 handguns and a shotgun at the ready 24/7. Home invasions are common and we have the right to defend our property and persons. I had a membership to the range, and would go frequently to keep myself practiced. In Seattle, my gun is collecting dust. Live in a safer neighborhood, less likely to need the pistol.

The one thing I'm torn with is whether or not we have the right to own assault weapons. Personally I don't feel it necessary unless you are stocking weapons in case of an uprising against the government or foreign invasion. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Arms can be broadly defined, so if we go strictly by the Constitution we should all be allowed to own an arsenal. If I say no to assault weapons, that could pave the way for further control over rifles, shotguns, handguns and maybe as far as pellet guns. I think there is a happy medium, and I think that we are there for now.

__________________

Alphabuster187

I'm just so sick of all the senseless killings on the U.S./Mexican Border. It is so sad what is happening.

__________________

Prestige: 10 / Rank: 70 / Kills: 97,285 / KDR: 2.68

ishter

Bowling for columbine - I for one do not live in the US, but I strongly believe that greater gun control is not only required, but vital in maintaining peace and order.

My train of thought stems not only from the criminal aspects of gun ownership, but also importantly from accidents involving firearms (illegal or illegal, its irrelevant to me).

The only remotely arguable exception should be that of farmers, but even then, the requirement is questionable at best.

abc

Aimed at an american who owns a gun: Why on earth for the purpose of safety and the preservation of human life do you need to own a lethal weapon?

That is beyond me, let alone why you feel the need to own 3 defensive weapons (handguns) and a "certain-death" weapon such as a shotgun?



Home invaders want your TV not your dead bodies. They will only start shooting you when you make them feel unsafe by pulling an equally powered weapon (even a knife, in an enclosed space is roughly as useful as a gun)

If your life is really in danger of premeditated murder then ownership of weapons is not the issue, the issue is you getting in with the wrong crowd.



If you are allowed to legally obtain weapons then you just get rapidly escalating ownership because everyone thinks "everyone else has one."



And I'll also call on what I originally said. The right to own lethal weapons is very out dated. People can obtain lethal weapons in the year 2010 under a totally irrelavent reason (forming an effective militia in the event of invasion)

---

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.

OzballO

I am preserving my life or those I love. Whether this is from an idiot who wants to hurt me or a loved one or where I live wild dogs have been known to attack people even killing them. I will not let that happen.

3 handguns for 1 person's personal defense is probably unneccesay but many people who own multiple handguns use them for shooting competitions. I use a shotgun because I hunt to put food on the table. If I have to use it for home defense so be it. I don't expect to but one never knows. Not to mention thinning out the deer heard around here becasue they get overpopulated and then starve to death.

Sure there are times using a gun would be illogical but if someone has their back to you an or holding a tv they aren't going to do anything really quick. You don't necessarily need to shoot them but keep them at bay. The slide action sound of a shotgun is a homeinvaders worst nightmare.

Not true, Judges, DA's, police anyone persecuting criminals. Even those who are witnesses can be in danger. Also in Junior High two kids were expelled for threathening to put a bomb in the football locker room. I played football so i felt my life was in danger. Granted a gun wouldn't have helped in the situation but it just goes to show that I wasn't in the wrong crowd.

This is a speculation. Not everyone believe's this as you and a few others have obviously demonstrated with your opinions on gun eradication.

Sure the wording may be a little outdated however there are reasons why we can still own guns, personal protection, hunting, etc. There are many legit reasons people own guns. Yes there are people who will use them for wrong reasons and there are ways to stop this. I would be all for limiting the number of guns a person can own. In this I am especially talking about handguns. Not too many people are good at quick scoping with bolt actions irl. There can be a compromise but when peopel talk about eradicating all guns then this is where I have to disagree.