The legality of guns.

[BumFodder]

What are your opinions on citizens owning guns?

In my opinion, strict gun control and high penalties for gun crimes are the best options.
For example, in the UK, guns are heavily restricted and people owning guns are a rarity; with farmers and pest control being the biggest owners of guns. The rate of gun crime, murders using guns and murder in general are one of the lowest per capita.

Meanwhile in the USA, guns are legal to be owned by anyone who has passed certain tests and hasnt committed a serious crime.

% of murders committed by gun:

England & Wales: 8
USA: 46

Gun murders by 100,000 people:

E&W: 0.12
USA: 2.97

Murders without guns per 100k people:

E&W: 1.33
USA: 4.58

All murders per 100k people:

E&W: 1.45
USA: 8.55

(Scotland and NI excluded since this is the best data I could find and they werent included)

Even if you made a high but inaccurate estimate by multiplying the UKs population as a whole with the murder rate of E&W by 5 to make up for the population differences, the UKs would end up being 7.25, still lower than the USAs.

I know people will make self defence arguments, but really a gun is for killing (unless its for sport, but thats not a crime) and since the attacker and defender will almost certainly not have guns, the lethality of the fight will obviously be a lot lower.

I was going to write a bit more but I have forgotten it now, so I will ask you what your opinions are on this.

[Falonefal]

But guns are fun and there are too many people on earth.

Taking away guns means more people on earth means overpopulation means mass homicide.

Which would be fucking cool btw.

[RubberTrucky]

I stick with the idea that crime rates compared to nations where guns are legal don't improve significantly enough to warrant a need for legalisation.

[Me-Patch]

I believe in the second amendment because I believe in freedom.

[DP]

I feel like citizens have the right to basic arms, but I don't think we need assault rifles and semi-automatic machine guns, those should be authorized to the police and military and other authorities.

[BumFodder]

At 3/2/11 07:56 PM, DP36 wrote: I feel like citizens have the right to basic arms, but I don't think we need assault rifles and semi-automatic machine guns, those should be authorized to the police and military and other authorities.

But is the extra security worth the extra crime?

[DP]

At 3/2/11 07:59 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 3/2/11 07:56 PM, DP36 wrote: I feel like citizens have the right to basic arms, but I don't think we need assault rifles and semi-automatic machine guns, those should be authorized to the police and military and other authorities.

But is the extra security worth the extra crime?

I don't really care, because I know we will never be able to get crime to a low rate.

As long as there are rules they are going to be broken, the things I suggested would just raise the amount of guns bought on the black market.

[BumFodder]

At 3/2/11 08:01 PM, DP36 wrote: I don't really care, because I know we will never be able to get crime to a low rate.

As long as there are rules they are going to be broken, the things I suggested would just raise the amount of guns bought on the black market.

But less people are willing to break the law to get guns than people who wouldnt.

And isnt the point to get crime as low as possible?

[All-American-Badass]

I personally believe you should have the right to arm yourself, if your home was invaded you'd have a better chance of just deterring the criminal just by showing the criminal your possessing a weapon, if he charges you he's dead.

[Dosensuppen]

In before Wade.

[BumFodder]

At 3/2/11 08:11 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I personally believe you should have the right to arm yourself, if your home was invaded you'd have a better chance of just deterring the criminal just by showing the criminal your possessing a weapon, if he charges you he's dead.

But if guns are made harder to get then its going to be knife vs knife. Still not good but its less lethal.

At 3/2/11 08:14 PM, Narcissy wrote: In before Wade.

I knew someone would post this.

[Me-Patch]

At 3/2/11 08:12 PM, WaffleVoyager wrote:

At 3/2/11 07:56 PM, Me-Patch wrote: I believe in the second amendment because I believe in freedom.

You know I like to masturbate too but I don't feel the need to post it on the internet.

How dare you equate my love of freedom to such filth and profanity? How dare you sir?

[camobch0]

Even if we instituted complete gun bans today, it's extremely easy to smuggle guns in, and the amount of weapons that already exist would keep the population armed for 100 years atleast regardless.

[RubberTrucky]

I wonder how many people use improvised explosives as a way to kill someone. Terrorists, maybe. But it's not like you can rob some people with it or so.

[RockLou]

Shit like 'the second ammendment' and 'freedom' when talking about guns is SUCH BULLSHIT.

Guns shouldn't exist, nevermind actually legal to own by normal citizens.
You use guns to kill people. Why would you ever want such a device?
That part of America is utter and complete lunacy.

[KingLightning123]

At 3/2/11 07:51 PM, BumFodder wrote: I was going to write a bit more but I have forgotten it now, so I will ask you what your opinions are on this.

It's quite a double-edged sword really. To be completely honest, there really is no convincing side, although personally I would go against the 2nd amendment. Or at least the USA should raise the standards to owning a gun.

Self-defense is a good point, but really what's the chance that some jackass will break into your house and kill you? Besides, if you have a security system in your house (and/or dial 911), it will do the job just fine.

I remember a case where some kid fired a shotgun at a burglar who was stealing things, and got in trouble for it. Generally the usage of guns for self-defense is not so easy to prove when it comes to court.

Besides, like the statistics show, there is a chance of death (not by a burglar) if their is a gun in the house. Take a situation where a husband and wife were having a raging-as-hell fight. Cutting straight to the point: If one doesn't cooperate with the other, and their is a gun in the house, that one may grab it and threaten to shoot (or even directly shoot) the other. Whereas if a gun was absent, one may receive a harsh slap in the face (which is better than getting shot) or a physical abusive beating (still better than getting shot). This is just a hypothetical situation though, but is still possible.

That's just my thoughts really. Since the 2nd amendment is there and is there to stay ever since the Constitution was written, making guns illegal is impossible. The best the government can do is to raise the passing levels of the tests to purchase a gun, so that maniacs or devious people who have a good record but psychologically have the desire to commit crimes won't pass so easily.

[DevilDog016]

At 3/2/11 07:51 PM, BumFodder wrote: What are your opinions on citizens owning guns?

In my opinion, strict gun control and high penalties for gun crimes are the best options.

The severity of crime punishments is irrelevant to me. When someone breaks into my house to steal my property and threaten my children, I want the peace of mind that comes from a 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun.

[trancedatlantic]

Guns are awesome and dangerous.

[RyderOmega]

At 3/2/11 07:51 PM, BumFodder wrote: What are your opinions on citizens owning guns?

In my opinion, strict gun control and high penalties for gun crimes are the best options.
For example, in the UK, guns are heavily restricted and people owning guns are a rarity; with farmers and pest control being the biggest owners of guns. The rate of gun crime, murders using guns and murder in general are one of the lowest per capita.

I was going to write a bit more but I have forgotten it now, so I will ask you what your opinions are on this.

Well I believe in some gun control to make it harder for criminals to own guns, but I don't believe it's right to take guns away from law abiding citizens that will use them lawfully. If you take away guns from people that will respect the law, then the only people that will have them will be the criminals that will commit violent crimes. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what the government does.

[orangebomb]

At 3/2/11 10:03 PM, LaForge wrote: America's culture is inherently more violent, particularly in the south.

Well, if you go to many of the inner cities of America, most notably in Detroit, Chicago and LA, it's almost like walking or driving through the streets of Baghdad circa 2005, but without the IEDs. There is a lot more violence in the inner cities than most places in the south, I can assure you.

Anyways, I believe that guns are an essential right for Americans, partly because of the need to have an arsenal for the people to defend themselves from tyranny. Our founding fathers predicted that there could be revolts and possible revolutions from time to time in the future, and that has been true to a certain extent.

Examples given:
Whiskey Rebellion
Turner's Rebellion
Civil War
Wild Wild West
Civil Rights Movement

The reason why outlawing guns like we do with marijuana is stupid is because that would create a black market for guns. If you have seen Gangland on the History Channel or Spike, you realize that gangs have found ways to get guns, regardless of any gun laws of a certain state, and a lot of them are either pistols or fully auto SMGs and assault rifles.

When you outlaw something that is popular with the people for whatever reasons, more than likely, a black market will show up, and often gouge people of their money for said product, which in turn, supports criminal groups like Bloods, Skinheads, or the Mexican drug cartels.

[Magic-Mushroom]

The UK has the highest number of knife crimes.

[Wolfos]

So yeah, gonna round up this thread:

Pro firearms arguments mentioned:
-They are cool
-Because I (the poster) say so

Anti firearms arguments mentioned:
-Common sense
-Significant differences in statistics

So yeah, guns are bad. Stop living in the stone age Americans.

[ming-the-merciless]

heres the solotion. for everybody
single shot shotguns. They fire two massive bolts that disingerte after 10 meters
And can only be reloaded by police. If your home is attacked BANG! you kill the burgular call the police
they reload it problem sorted. home defence covered. no drive bys no bank robberys and no mass killings.

[sharingankakashi13]

Also in before batshit insane rant from Wade.

[ming-the-merciless]

At 3/3/11 05:25 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

At 3/3/11 05:24 PM, ming-the-merciless wrote: heres the solotion. for everybody
single shot shotguns. They fire two massive bolts that disingerte after 10 meters

You do not seem to understand much about shotguns.

Im aware thats not how they work. im just saying If you could only score a kill within a 5meter kill radius.

Were all aware that americans need big guns beacuse there compensating for somthing though

[Rawnern]

I like guns.

[111122223138]

At 3/2/11 07:53 PM, JoeMation wrote:

Hurr durr narrow-minded American

Hurr durr Stereotyping idiot.

Though guns do allow us to kill one another more effectivley, just wait till the day whenever someone breaks into your house or mugs you, and all you've got are billy clubs or your pussy fists.

[All-American-Badass]

At 3/3/11 05:36 PM, Otto wrote:
Does it never strike you that your constitution can be outdated, ever?

Hence why we add amendments to it, outside of the bill of rights, we have 16 valid amendments to the Constitution

[111122223138]

At 3/3/11 05:36 PM, Otto wrote:
Does it never strike you that your constitution can be outdated, ever?

You do realise that the American government is one of the longest running way to run a country, right?

For ours, atleast.

[ming-the-merciless]

At 3/3/11 05:42 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: I had no idea how many of you are heartless.

Why would any sane human want guns to be illegal?

In America, 4 people die due to guns every hour. Every thirteen seconds, someone uses guns in defense.

It seems to me that wanting guns illegal is wanting more people to die.

Define "defence" I would consider "defence" equal strenth/force as you attatcker?
If you agree then it is safe to say the attacker is using a fire-arm of some type, making your argument invailed and parodoxal. Unless you belive if somone punches you you have the god given right to destroy them with powerful gas fed self loading wepons... That's fair.
Herp derp