Gun rights/control/ownership

[Kai]

Getting a gun should be at least twice as difficult as getting a drivers license.

[moddlord10]

if it is harder to get guns there would not be as many deaths by guns.like guns,knives in holland you must pay a lott of money and detention if you get caught with one so people think twice to take them on the streets. better use your fists

[Shienvien]

Better use your fists 

Using fists pretty much only works one-on-one and when your opponent is not much more skilled and/or stronger than you. Every other occasion? You lose. A gun is pretty much the only thing with what a physically weaker person can defend oneself effectively. (And, note: gun for self-defense does not mean you go hunting or the criminal yourself. If you can, you back out.)

 

- It is better to have more gun deaths and lesser overall rate of crime than fewer gun deaths and total death-count that is much higher.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[Svataben]

- It is better to have more gun deaths and lesser overall rate of crime than fewer gun deaths and total death-count that is much higher.

But you don't know that that would happen.

It doesn't happen in other countries with less guns per capita that the US usually compares itself to.

 

Why do you assume it would be the case?

[Shienvien]

It doesn't happen in other countries with less guns per capita that the US usually compares itself to.

I am not a citizen of the US. I'll mention, though, that I have seen research indicating that at least in the US, stricter gun control tends to bring other crimes up (now where is the person who gave the link before?). As much as I've seen, there is no evidence that establishing stricter gun control limits other crime, however I've seen the vice versa being hinted at in statistics.

[TikindiDragon]

I am not a citizen of the US. I'll mention, though, that I have seen research indicating that at least in the US, stricter gun control tends to bring other crimes up (now where is the person who gave the link before?). As much as I've seen, there is no evidence that establishing stricter gun control limits other crime, however I've seen the vice versa being hinted at in statistics.

Although it's worth noting that those statistics are usually dragged out by the pro-gun lobby in the US. I'd trust them about as much as much as I'd trust evidence from a creationist websit unless it had links provided to non-biased scources.

[Svataben]

Although it's worth noting that those statistics are usually dragged out by the pro-gun lobby in the US. I'd trust them about as much as much as I'd trust evidence from a creationist websit unless it had links provided to non-biased scources.

This. I'd like to know the source and it's motives too.

 

[Shienvien]

...Which is why I regret not storing the links. And granted, the opposite side of propaganda bends the information, too.

 

Nevertheless, I know at least of one case where pepper spray was (allegedly) correctly used and did absolutely nothing to the drugged attacker [the young woman was brutally killed and the dead body then raped regardless]. Was the daughter of a man who worked for our family back then. It is not a fate I'd wish to any woman. And there are other killings which could have other outcomes, and I personally know cases where a gun has successfully used in self-defense, often without any shots having to be fired.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[TikindiDragon]

I tend to look at homicide per 1000 of the population rates as posted by the UN.

 

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-an...tistics2012.xls

 

In 2009 it was 1.2 in the UK (tight gun regulations, not allowed for self defence)

In the same year it was 5.0 in the US (Guns carried for self defence)

 

Now that statistic looks pretty clear-cut to me. Homicide doesn't count *how* the people died, just that they were unlawfully killed. And a lot more people are dying in the US than in the UK.

 

Edit to add: It's worth noting that the UK rate is about average for the EU, where the rate in the US is considerably higher than that of Canada (although not of Mexico).

Edited May 4, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Shienvien]

These stats, however, do also not take account of what is happening in the country in general... Over here the homicide rate has been steadily and rapidly declining without no one having touched the gun policies, for instance (with it having been a true mess right after the re-independence).

 

(And the US is a bit too lax in a few states, for my taste, anyway. I might be thinking that UK is a bit too strict in a few places, but the US strays a bit too far to the other side.)

 

Edited May 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[TikindiDragon]

No country is perfect The UK can be a bit too strict about things (like pistols for target shooting - bit ridiculous that our Olympic athletes can't practise in their own country).

 

Homicide rates have been dropping in most of the developed world, though. That still doesn't negate the argument that they can be shown to be lower in places with stricter gun controls than they are in the US.

[Shienvien]

I am speaking of reaching just a quarter of what it used to be in twenty years, despite gun-laws being never touched. Quite drastic, no?

 

Wiki says that Canada allows carry for self-defense?

The Criminal Code of Canada recognizes self-defence with a firearm; the Firearms Act provides a legal framework wherein an individual may acquire, possess and carry a restricted or (a specific class of) prohibited firearm for protection from other individuals when police protection is deemed insufficient.

Yet there is a notable difference in the US and Canada homicide rates. Edited May 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[TikindiDragon]

I am speaking of reaching just a quarter of what it used to be in twenty years, despite gun-laws being never touched. Quite drastic, no?

 

Wiki says that Canada allows carry for self-defense?

Yet there is a notable difference in the US and Canada homicide rates.

I also believe the liscensing rules are stricter there, even if they do allow carry for self defence.

 

Part of the point I was making is that there are places like the UK where concealed carry isn't allowed at all with lower homicide rates than the US. Which pretty clearly shows that you are not more likely to die without a gun for self defence.

 

Edit to add: And I'm really struggling to get my head around what position you are coming from. Because one moment you're saying you're all for tougher liscencing, and then the other you are trotting out all the same old arguments for conceald carry we hear from the NRA nutters. One moment tougher rules = good. The next carrying guns for self defence = best thing ever. wtf?

Edited May 4, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Slaskia]

I think part of the problem is that the number of crimes that are stopped/deterred by gun owners without a shot being fired is just not reported. If we had those numbers.....

[Shienvien]

Well yes... It almost never reaches the news or is even registered when a gun is successfully used in self-defense, especially if it being a deterrent sufficed...

 

Which pretty clearly shows that you are not more likely to die without a gun for self defence.

Depends on the circumstances. There are other things which are wrong with the US which aren't that much of a problem in the UK, even when we leave differences in gun policies aside. (Although I admit that too loose gun-regulations in some states are an additional contribution to the general higher-homicide-rate problem.)

 

And I'm really struggling to get my head around what position you are coming from. Because one moment you're saying you're all for tougher liscencing, and then the other you are trotting out all the same old arguments for concealed carry we hear from the NRA nutters. One moment tougher rules = good. The next carrying guns for self defence = best thing ever. wtf?

I am not sure where I become confusing... Maybe the fact that I am on the middle ground is what throws you off? I will try to put my understandings in a bit clearer and more condensed form, shall I?

 

I do believe that some gun control is necessary.

All guns should be registered, and the people who aim to obtain guns should have elaborate background-checks done (with no person who has a history of violent crime or dangerous mental instability being allowed to legally obtain guns) before they can get a gun-permit, and they should also prove that they are competent at handling them and have a safe place to store the guns. A small routine test/checkup once in a reasonable period of time should also be required to keep the permit, and any violent crime done after obtaining the permit should automatically annul the permit and result in removing of any guns currently in possession. It should also be illegal to re-sell a gun without officially re-registering it onto the buyer's name, with the buyer having to have all the requirements met for legally owning a gun (meaning that when the original owner fails to prove that s/he still has the weapon when no re-registration was done, and it was never reported stolen, it is the original owner who gets in trouble).

 

I typically draw the line between semis and fully-automatics. Semis should be legal, fully automatic weapons should not (the disabled collector objects left aside). Semis have their advantages, but fully automatic weapons are particularly good for neither hunting nor sports, and are an obvious overkill in self-defense, so there is no practical reason for a civilian to own one save for getting to show it off (and then a disabled version would mostly do the job).

 

I believe that in addition to hunting and sports (and collecting), self-defense should be a valid reason to own and carry a gun. Carrying a gun for self-defense isn't the "best thing ever," but it should be an option, at least when one spends a lot of time alone and/or might be moving through dubious neighborhoods. It is not a definite guarantee, but many if not most criminals would rather avoid risking to be shot, and other self-defense agents tend to be either as lethal as guns or too ineffective.

- And here I will mention again that having a gun for self-defense does not mean that one should try to seek the criminal out - where possible, one should still back out of the situation. For instance, if your fifth-floor apartment gets broken into, you should lock yourself up in the bathroom along with the gun and a cell-phone and call the police. The gun, in that case, would only be used if the criminal comes and starts breaking the door down before the police arrive.

 

..Not sure whether I managed to make myself any clearer.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[~Kat~]

I am all for background checks on people who buy guns, but this will not tell the whole truth. New purchases just keep criminals from buying them is all. Crininals will get guns no matter what laws are in place. Sending violent criminals who break them to prison would be a great place to start and enforce it.

 

It is our right to have guns, 2nd amendment. Why punish the good people who do not use their guns to kill people. I know I want mine to protect myself. I travel a lot on the roads alone and I am a female. I do back the NRA most times, not all though ... but this is with any given argument. At least I know I and my family are safe tonight with the guns we own, and we all can shoot and know how to handle the weapons of our choice.

 

This country is not run by the people as the founding fathers intended, and that is so sad.

 

First let's enforce the laws we have on the books. Most law enforcement I have talked to say current laws are enforced but criminals are on the revolving door policy because of so-called overcrowding. Start spending our aid money at home to fix our problems then we can go out and save the rest of the world.

 

I am so tired of things I believe in being taken away from me by the government or people who do not believe because of their bad behaviour religion or otherwise.

[KageSora]

Too much strain on the system and people. If it is a routine checkup which is done anyway (and which will be valid for other things but obtaining a gun permit), I am okay with it being necessitated once a year as a part of the requirements to keep a gun permit, but more frequently than once a year is simply too much.

Yeah, I know. I personally would rather see it every 6 months--hell if I had my way it'd be every 3 months. But we don't have the resources to do that, and people don't want to do that. But I think anything longer than every year is too long, considering how quickly things can go south.

[Spelunker]

It is our right to have guns, 2nd amendment. Why punish the good people who do not use their guns to kill people...

 

...This country is not run by the people as the founding fathers intended, and that is so sad.

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in there to provide for a militia. The USA does not need a militia anymore. We have a large army.

 

Also, they were dealing with MUSKETS. No rifling, wildly inaccurate, extremely slow muskets. They often took a minute to load, and you could stand 20 feet away from somebody, point the gun at their heart, and miss.

 

And to address your first point- yes, this would take guns away from the good people. Who sell the guns to other good people, etc. Eventually, the chain gets broken when that gun ends up with a shadier person, who sells it to an even more dubious figure, etc.

 

I'm not for complete removal of guns, but I think the laws should be much stricter than they are now. I am seriously considering applying for a gun license, then concealed carry, once I'm in college.

[~Kat~]

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in there to provide for a militia. The USA does not need a militia anymore. We have a large army.

 

Also, they were dealing with MUSKETS. No rifling, wildly inaccurate, extremely slow muskets. They often took a minute to load, and you could stand 20 feet away from somebody, point the gun at their heart, and miss.

 

And to address your first point- yes, this would take guns away from the good people. Who sell the guns to other good people, etc. Eventually, the chain gets broken when that gun ends up with a shadier person, who sells it to an even more dubious figure, etc.

 

I'm not for complete removal of guns, but I think the laws should be much stricter than they are now. I am seriously considering applying for a gun license, then concealed carry, once I'm in college.

It goes back to people who break the law when guns are sold to shadier people, put them away for good in a prison or the death penalty depending on what the offense is.

 

All of this argument, taking sides and people with different opinions go back to the criminals as usual. I am sick of the criminals period.

[Spelunker]

I am sick of the criminals period.

Me, too.

I wish that people never were forced into such circumstances/weren't raised such that criminal activities were an option.

[~Kat~]

Me, too.

I wish that people never were forced into such circumstances/weren't raised such that criminal activities were an option.

Can I ask you why you think it has got to this stage?

[Spelunker]

Hmm. Honestly, I'm not sure. I think its a combination of lack of basic resources and mental issues.

[Alpha1]

was not speaking of hunting with fully automatics and tearing everything one kills asunder.

 

Let’s draw a comparison. Take a single shot 12-gauge using 3 ½ inch #4 buckshot. Assuming the shooter can load and fire a shell every 5 seconds, he can shoot 5 times in 20 seconds. That comes to 270 .24" projectiles in 20 seconds. If we throw in a fully auto .22 lr with a cyclic rate of about 800 rpm, we end up with about 260 .222" projectiles in 20 seconds.

 

 

The thing is that an AK-47 is a fully automatic gun. There is no need for a civillian to have one.

 

The civilian versions of the AK-47 and M16 don’t have full auto.

 

Not only that but, really, if you are using a gun so powerful that it will kill an animal in one shot, regardless of where you have hit it, surely you'd be doing so much damage that the meat would not be edible afterwards?

 

One shot? One bullet? Or do you mean with a pull of the trigger with full-auto on? The AK-47 and M16 use weaker cartridges than many common hunting rounds. Even the .50 BMG, which is in a class of its own, won't necessarily ruin a lot of meat depending on bullet design. For the AK's, there's a lot of cheap and ineffective ammo.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Ele..._%28Stockton%29

 

Killed only 5, wounded 30.

 

Last fall, I went from "best place I've been mentally in years" to "about ready to snap" in the span of a few weeks.

 

Are you saying you felt like harming someone or is this about feeling suicidal/depressed?

 

http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

 

Well yeah - but at least with those things there is a chance of being saved by nice doctors. Stomach pumps, surgery. And then the child can be taken into care.

 

Many people survive after getting shot even in critical areas.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188

 

Unusually low mortality of penetrating wounds of the chest.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafe...-factsheet.html

 

“Children: Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools.2 Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1”

 

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/headli...-dry-drowning-/

 

"The coroner believes that Johnny ingested some pool water during his swim. While he was sleeping, the water filled his lungs. Even though it might sound like a freak accident, doctors say it is more common than some may think."

 

Now that statistic looks pretty clear-cut to me. Homicide doesn't count *how* the people died, just that they were unlawfully killed. And a lot more people are dying in the US than in the UK.

 

If you exclude blacks and compare the white population, then our homicide rate would be like Belgium.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

If you exclude blacks and compare the white population, then our homicide rate would be like Belgium.

That comes across to me as racist. I think if you substitute poor for black, you might be closer to the mark.

[Alpha1]

That comes across to me as racist. I think if you substitute poor for black, you might be closer to the mark.

LOL People say everything is racism nowadays. I'm just pointing out a fact. Even though they make up only 13% of the population here, they are responsible for over 50% of the firearm homicides. Well, actually, it's black males.