Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GrandTheftAuto.net - Website Re-Launch

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Dingdongs

Gun Control/2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

Clem Fandango

 

Well, legalising guns in Britain WOULD be unpopular.

It's still a fallacious argument.

 

 

And the whole "just because people don't feel a need doesn't mean there isn't a need" argument can be reversed.

 

Just because people feel a need doesn't mean there is a need? If that's what you mean, I've already proven, through use of statistics, that guns do serve a valueable purpose.

 

 

And i know the UK Government is a bit big Brother-ish but it's nowhere near a situation which calls for armed revolution.

 

The Battle of Athens was on a local scale. Can you admit guns were useful then?

 

And by the way, it doesn't call for an armed revolution yet, but who knows what things will be like in 20, 50, or even 100 years.

 

 

The fact is, one of those in the arguments had a gun, and, in his blind rage, used it.

 

And he could have just as easily beaten him to death, stabbed him, or run him over with his car. Do we make knives and cars illegal?

 

 

Homicide rates lower then the EU and US average

And yet higher than Switzerland or Canada's.

 

 

Obviously, there is an occasional murder or rape that may have been stopped with a firearm

Once again: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired

 

Don't Tread on Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

The whole argument thing was just a spur-of-the-moment murder. Yes, it could have been with a knife, but considering both were of equal strength, I doubt that argument is valid, and by the time he got to his car, his mind would of cleared up and not been so rage-tainted. So, cars are ruled, but as mentioned, ibecause had a gun OR a knife, it ended in murder.

 

And the Battle of Athens is a legitimate but INCREDIBLY, EXTREMELY rare example. That makes all my arguments shot down by being too rare, valid again. In the unlikely event Britain was at serious risk of say, invasion, then I would very quickly become pro-gun.

 

And while I'm not a great debater, a lot of anti-gun control Britons could come up with a better argument then me.

 

The culture of Switzerland and Athens does not have as much gun and gang culture as exists in Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

 

The whole argument thing was just a spur-of-the-moment murder. Yes, it could have been with a knife, but considering both were of equal strength, I doubt that argument is valid, and by the time he got to his car, his mind would of cleared up and not been so rage-tainted. So, cars are ruled, but as mentioned, ibecause had a gun OR a knife, it ended in murder.

 

You are still sidestepping the point. I don't *care* what kind of object someone uses to murder another person, it's irrelevant. I am not responsible for that act and other citizens(gun owners) should not become guilty by proxy... If I have the same gun(as a murderer), that doesn't predispose me to being a murderer.

 

The "blind rage" argument assumes the collective irresponsibility of society. It assumes that a gun compels you to kill. It assumes that the citizen cannot be trusted. It assumes that most people have the capacity to commit murder, over nothing, given a convenient method. Do you think people don't argue on the police force? How often does a cop shoot another cop in a blind rage? They are just as human as anyone else... The fact is that the "blind rage" thing just doesn't happen that often and that proper training begets proper firearms handling.

 

Besides the principle of it all... Since it's already been established that defensive (legal)gun use far outweighs murder(including blind rage) and accidents... It's safe to say that a net benefit comes from having guns legal as opposed to not.

 

 

And while I'm not a great debater, a lot of anti-gun control Britons could come up with a better argument then me.

 

You're obviously not stupid, give yourself some credit and think for yourself.

 

 

The culture of Switzerland and Athens does not have as much gun and gang culture as exists in Britain.

 

Yes, but that is precisely the problem that needs to be addressed. Stupid kids, who treat guns like fashion accessories and have no respect for the well-being of others. The fact that this culture exists and kids are saturated in it, is the problem.

Edited by shaboobala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Well, I'm all out of ideas. tounge.gif I'm still anti-gun though, I just can't think how to put my other views into words, and I think Britain will, unless something serious pops up, as a whole remain that way.

 

I agree gun culture and gang culture make guns a lot more dangerous.

 

And the whole blind rage example was because that, according to a psychologist I know, if there is an argument and one or both have any lethal weapon (such as a gun), it may turn into much more then an argument. According to them, a small minority of people may feel "strong" if they have a gun, or get so frustrated their vision gets blurred and in blind rage, they use it. It also applies to knives as well, but guns are just a likely example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheelman
I think Britain will, unless something serious pops up, as a whole remain that way.

Absolutely. This idea that we all need guns to defend ourself from teh terrur of muggers, attackers, home invaders and rapists hiding around every corner is just farcical. Whilst I admire and am openly jealous of the US in many ways, their gun culture is most definitely not one of them. I love being able to walk around, go places, knowing that the other, ordinary people going about their daily business have no ability to project massively disproportionate amounts of power by wielding a gun.

 

I like the fact that if some c*nt carves you up on the motorway, you can give them two fingers or suggest they're a wanker, without fear of bullets coming back at you through your windscreen.

 

If you're on a night out and a group nearby starts getting boisterous and argumentative and the door staff haul them out, I like the fact that you can carry on and not fear getting caught in a crossfire of bullets.

 

I like the fact that I can go to the shopping centre, supermarket or university knowing that a shooting spree is nigh on impossible given the difficulty of acquiring a gun for an ordinary, law abiding person.

 

So yeah, the only people in the UK that have/can get guns are criminals. But more to the point, it's only in gang situations and deprived inner city areas that gun crime has any significance at all in the UK.

 

But what about the government, I hear the terrified, gun-clutching hordes ask? Well, I fear my current Orwellian, Stalin-esque government far more than any robber, terrorist, or angry pianist with lots of spare piano wire. But we have a handy tool for dealing with that - it's called democracy and elections.

 

No, guns have no relevance in the UK to the average law abiding person. They are simply not an issue in daily life.

 

Of course, the situation is different in the US. Flooded with guns, with a casual attitude towards them and a constitution that entitles people to them. If I was in the US, would I own and carry a handgun? Quite possibly. But it's not a solution to the problem of gun violence - then I'd be part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

Well, between the points made and some of the stats posted, I feel like there isn't much more to say.

 

I would like to point out that sometimes, people don't seem to think too much about what gets banned/prohibited, as long as it doesn't affect them. The pot smokers are mostly pissed cause weed is illegal. The people who drank were mostly pissed about prohibition. The video game players are mostly pissed when games are prohibited. And gun owners are mostly pissed when guns get banned. But it's the same issue really. The irresponsibility and naivete of others is being used as a justification to punish one demographic collectively.

 

All those groups feel/felt as if they were being punished for their own hobbies/choices as a result of either(usually both) public hysteria, or the actions of others.

 

"Why shoud I, a responsible (drug user/drinker/gamer/gun owner) be blamed for the actions of someone else? Why does society assume that because I (have the same drug or drink in my system/play the same video game/ own the same rifle) as some wacko who murdered 100 catholic schoolchildren, that I must be predisposed to doing the same thing? Will this magical (drug/drink/game/gun) instantly compel me to kill aswell?"

 

Collective punishment(AKA "ban sh*t mentality") assumes that people need protection from themselves and that the state knows what's best for you.

 

I think as a general rule, we should all have the freedom to do as we like as long as it does not impose on the freedom of others. Therefore, if no victim is created, no crime exists, and there is no reason for punishment. This is reasonable, no? The problem with firearms in particular is that people have a hard time distinguishing between what constitutes victimization. I guess this is because the firearm itself is applied to a criminal act in a much more tangible way than say: the subtle effect violent games are claimed to have on people's emotional state.

 

But in reality, I am doing nothing wrong by owning a certain firearm. If I use it to hunt or sport shoot I am doing nothing wrong. If I must use that gun in self-defense I am also doing nothing wrong. Self-defense creates no victim, in fact, it negates the victim. If I choose to murder or rob someone with that firearm, then I have created a victim and I am responsible for that crime. I have done something wrong. It's not the gun's fault and it's not everyone else's fault. Everyone else who owns that firearm has done nothing.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a much bigger problem with the selective availabilty of certain guns rather than their theoretical, outright, non-existance. If absolutely *nobody at all* can have (X) gun because it's so awesome, then fine. But unfortunately, you can't uninvent something.

 

I fail to see how applying laws which empower everyone but the citizen are beneficial to the citizen's well-being. Explain to me exactly how this setup is fair:

user posted image

 

You can replace "no guns" with: "sh*ttier guns" or "guns for the wealthy" or whatever, and it still ain't right. There's also the fact that in general, some people who would be best served by guns, are the the least armed and the most defenseless.

 

Like women and people in the inner cities, who often have the highest rates of victimization and lower rates of legal gun ownership. It's not up to me to make decisions for others and determine how much they "need" to protect themselves. It should be an option for everyone, because situations change: ex-boyfriends go crazy or sometimes you gotta live in a sh*tty place, a nd yes, sometimes even things like Katrina happen*gasp*.

 

Discretionary licensing, while a cute idea, has been shown to be very flawed in practice(besides being unfair).Also, bear in mind, yet again, that using a gun in self-defense doesn't mean a wild-west shootout. The vast majority of the time, all you have to do is point a gun at an aggressor and they will kindly f*ck off.

 

Whatever you believe is fine... I just have a huge problem with people imposing what they think is good for some, on everyone. You are kidding yourself if you think that stripping citizens of guns makes anybody safer.

Edited by shaboobala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

Wheels, that truly is a terrifying place which you describe! Luckily our reality bears no resemblance to your cynical hypothesis. tounge.gif

 

In response to rising crime back in 1987, Florida passed a controversial concealed carry law which did away with the arbitrary system where only the politically connected could get a license to carry a handgun. In its place, they required the licensing agency to issue permits to anyone who passed a criminal background check and a basic safety test. During the run-up to the law's passage, the gun control lobby was out in force predicting all those things you said and more. They went so far as circulating a talking point that he "streets would run red with blood" should the law pass.

 

Not only was there no uptick in road rage, people shooting each other over parking spaces, or whatever; violent crime actually went down. While the rest of the nation's continued to climb.

 

After seeing Florida's success, other States started to follow suit a couple of years later. Each time, the disarmament lobby cried out that the sky would fall. Only to be followed by a decrease in crime. When we approached the halfway mark in "shall issue" States, the national average of violent crime and, more specifically, crimes committed with firearms started to fall dramatically.

 

 

user posted image

 

Naturally, correlation doesn't equal causation. However, it's even more absurd to claim guns carried by the law-abiding will increase shootings when there is an inverse correlation.

 

Furthermore, Texas and Florida (who are in a somewhat unique position amongst otherwise pro-gun States by not allowing unlicensed open carry, thus giving them data on everyone who carries legally) the general public is roughly five times more likely to commit a violent crime than a permit holder. Generally speaking, you're probably about as likely to get shot by a statistically anomalous, rogue police officer than a citizen who is legally carrying a gun. In Florida, you're twice as likely to be eaten by an alligator.

 

As for worrying about law-abiding people in general shooting you at a shopping center, don't. After all, they are called law-abiding for a reason. Surveys show that 75-85% of homicides are committed by people with prior felony convictions. More often than not, they've had previous assault and/or firearm convictions, but it's quite common for them to be out on a plea bargain or early release because the jails are full of non-violent drug offenders. From there, a portion of the 15-25% remainder are carried out by juvenile gangstas or young adults whose juvenile criminal records are sealed.

 

All that said, you're probably right that it wouldn't work in the UK these days. Even if owning and carrying handguns was legal again like it was, say, 40 years ago, it's doubtful that more than one or two percent of the population would bother. Maybe you'll change your mind though in ten or fifteen years should your violent crime rate continues its upward trend while ours stays flat or decreases.

 

With regards to democracy protecting you from government, well, that's all fun and games until the majority votes to oppress or exterminate you. Like the old saying goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the outcome. monocle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

Ok. So let's all think about what as been said by the pro gun folks on this sight

 

Criminals will still get guns ( you don't beleive our law enforcement would be able to handle it all but with extra funding and training..)

 

Gun laws just don't work ( With proper enforcement they can)

 

The amount of life loss by guns every year is not worth trying to get rid of guns because we don't care about someones life ( Yep that little girl that got shot? Who cares?)

 

That outlawing guns is against or rights. ( Rights change over time to fit the needs and culture. Achool was outlawed and yet they gave back that right. And If I interpert the second amendment to mean BEAR ARMS , with the supreme courts help of cousre, it's legal to outlaw guns. And even without the changing of the constiution you can still put heavy regulations on guns.)

 

That knifes are as dangerous as guns. ( Really? They are really?)

 

But you know there are other easier ways to get crime down instead of more gun regulation which I think is really a local and state issue. Instead we should spend more time building a larger police force, larger better prisons, coming up with better crime solving methods, etc. than wasting time collecting every yah how and retards fire arm. But regardless I'm still for gun control but there are other things you must do along with it for it work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

Cue a reply along the lines of "what if YOUR doctor/taxi driver/teacher/dentist/therapist started smoking THE REEFER drinking liquor carrying a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There would be CHAOS and everybody would be high drunk shooting each other!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

Ok. So let's all think about what as been said by the pro gun folks on this sight

1: Well, unless you want to live in an open-air prison, "more police" will only go so far. After all, prisoners occasionally even get guns into prisons. Oh, yea, google Khyber Pass + guns sometime. The mujahideen in Afghanistan and Pakistan have been making guns by hand from scrap metal for decades. With which they drove out the Soviet army and are putting up a hell of a fight against the US military right now. Imagine what organized crime could do with, say, the modern machine shops they use to chop stolen cars and manufacture counterfeit TVs and such.

 

2: See above. Granted, some gun laws may work. But if you push too far, you run into a limited return on investment as they become too complex and burdensome. Further down the line, they can actually become counter-productive as you drive more people underground, thus losing control.

 

3: Strawman. Guns are used in self defense more than they are used to murder. By a factor of like 3 to 1 according to low estimates. We want everybody to have the option to defend their lives with efficient tools. Likewise, millions of disarmed people were killed by their own government in the 20th century. We say "never again." Generally speaking, it's much harder for them to shove you into ovens if you're armed and put up a fight. Even if you have to die trying.

 

4: Rights do not change. Their existence comes from nature (or god if you believe in such things..). Yes, you could make guns illegal by changing the Constitution as they did with alcohol, however the right itself still exists. Only its recognition by government changes. And, like I said before, feel free to try...

 

5: Against an unarmed person, yes, they are. For that matter, the mortality rate of stab wounds versus gunshot wounds from pistol calibers is roughly the same. And without tools to level the proverbial playing field, the weak, elderly, women, and sick would be at the mercy of even unarmed thugs.

 

6: I agree. The best place to start would be to end the prohibition of drugs, thereby putting the street gangs behind most violent crime out of business. Kind of like what happened with the end of prohibition of alcohol. I mean, seriously, when was the last time a Budweiser executive did a drive-by on someone from Anheuser-Busch? tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

No use replying now, Illspirit already took everything I was going to say notify.gif Seriously, even the stuff about the drugs! I'm assuming you are also a Libertarian?

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

Criminals will still get guns ( you don't beleive our law enforcement would be able to handle it all but with extra funding and training..)

It's not about how good our law enforcement is. The fact that there are so many guns in America means that criminals will be able to get their hands on them, no matter how good the law enforcement agencies are.

 

 

Gun laws just don't work ( With proper enforcement they can)

No, they don't work. Period. As it has already been mentioned many times before, you can't stop criminals getting their hands on guns. It's a fact.

 

 

The amount of life loss by guns every year is not worth trying to get rid of guns because we don't care about someones life ( Yep that little girl that got shot? Who cares?)

It's not about not caring for somebody's life, it's about common sense. Honestly, do you really think banning guns will bring firearm related murders down to zero? Dream on... People will still get shot and people will still be able to get hold of guns illegally. All you'll be doing is rendering millions of law abiding citizens defenseless.

 

 

That outlawing guns is against or rights. ( Rights change over time to fit the needs and culture. Achool was outlawed and yet they gave back that right. And If I interpert the second amendment to mean BEAR ARMS , with the supreme courts help of cousre, it's legal to outlaw guns. And even without the changing of the constiution you can still put heavy regulations on guns.)

So we should ignore the constitution just because it's old?

 

 

That knifes are as dangerous as guns. ( Really? They are really?)

Yes, really. They can be in some situations. Read's everyone's post instead of ignoring the ones you don't like and maybe you'll discover why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

I'm assuming you are also a Libertarian?

Yep. Well, small "l" anyway, as the party itself is a mess, and sometimes strategic voting for certain Replublicrats is useful. ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

 

Ok. So let's all think about what as been said by the pro gun folks on this sight

 

Criminals will still get guns ( you don't beleive our law enforcement would be able to handle it all but with extra funding and training..)

 

Gun laws just don't work ( With proper enforcement they can)

 

The amount of life loss by guns every year is not worth trying to get rid of guns because we don't care about someones life ( Yep that little girl that got shot? Who cares?)

 

That outlawing guns is against or rights. ( Rights change over time to fit the needs and culture. Achool was outlawed and yet they gave back that right. And If I interpert the second amendment to mean BEAR ARMS , with the supreme courts help of cousre, it's legal to outlaw guns. And even without the changing of the constiution you can still put heavy regulations on guns.)

 

That knifes are as dangerous as guns. ( Really? They are really?)

 

But you know there are other easier ways to get crime down instead of more gun regulation which I think is really a local and state issue. Instead we should spend more time building a larger police force, larger better prisons, coming up with better crime solving methods, etc. than wasting time collecting every yah how and retards fire arm. But regardless I'm still for gun control but there are other things you must do along with it for it work.

1. Err.. you must realize that by the very definition, criminals have guns if guns are illegal. It's not like that just in practice.

 

2. In terms of keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens, sure.

 

3. Appeal to emotion much?

 

4. Alcohol was prohibited by constitutional means.. yes, by AMENDING it. There is no amendment to the constitution saying that bearing arms is illegal.

 

5. Yes. As far as I know, most gun crime scenarios do not involve large battlefields with marksmen but extremely close combat, contact combat.

 

Larger police force? More prisons? I know where this is going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
3. Appeal to emotion much?

Check out that episode of Penn & Teller I posted before, if you want to see the appeal to emotions to end all fallacious arguments. They point out to this wacko gun control advocate what a miniscule concern accidental deaths with firearms are; his response; "tell that to the family who's two year old just blew his brains out". Hilarious! It seems like all the gun grabber can produce are arguments built around emotion rather than facts, staistics or even credible socio-economic theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheelman

 

Wheels, that truly is a terrifying place which you describe! Luckily our reality bears no resemblance to your cynical hypothesis. tounge.gif

Indeed, if only my hypothesis related to the US, whereas it actually related to the risks of arming the UK. tounge.gif

 

I don't actually disagree with much of what you say as it applies to the US. In a country/system swamped with guns where criminals can get them easily, law-abiders can get them easily, and the constitution entitles you to them, I think it'd be a bit daft and rather vulnerable to not have a gun when everyone else has one.

 

But in the UK it's the opposite. You don't need a gun when nobody else has one. Our increasing violent crime has nothing to do with guns, it's all assault, muggings, and knifings. A "law abiding" person couldn't defend themselves against a mugger by shooting them with a gun, they'd end up in jail for manslaughter. I don't agree with that, but if it wasn't for that, what's to stop someone shooting me then claiming it was only in self-defence because I'd tried to mug them?

 

So why on earth would you want to arm a nation that doesn't need to be armed? The system we have works. Increasing violent crime isn't to do with us not having handguns because we never really did, even pre-Dunblane. It's to do with a breakdown of family & lack of discipline and social structures, council sink estates, complete lack of punishment and deterrent from a rediculously soft legal system, and so on. "Firearms" in the UK means a farmer with his shotgun, not your housewife packing a piece on the way to Sainsburys.

 

I know you live in a gun nut state though so this is probably as difficult for you to imagine as it is for me to visualise your society where everyone needs to be armed to keep the peace. tounge.gif

 

 

In response to rising crime back in 1987, Florida passed a controversial concealed carry law which did away with the arbitrary system where only the politically connected could get a license to carry a handgun. In its place, they required the licensing agency to issue permits to anyone who passed a criminal background check and a basic safety test. During the run-up to the law's passage, the gun control lobby was out in force predicting all those things you said and more. They went so far as circulating a talking point that he "streets would run red with blood" should the law pass.

 

Not only was there no uptick in road rage, people shooting each other over parking spaces, or whatever; violent crime actually went down. While the rest of the nation's continued to climb.

Hmm, but what I said applies to the congested, crowded UK. Have you ever met white van man? I don't commute as far now as I used to, but in the past when I've been dangerously carved up (and I'm not talking about an irritation, I mean proper evasive reactions to avoid an accident that would've been caused by someone else's aggressiveness or impatience) I've generally responded with the appropriate hand gestures. On different occasions I've then been brake tested with them trying to get me to crash into the back of them, attempts to stop me so we can get out and have a fight, letting me past then furiously tailgating me and flashing their light in pure rage. Thanks, but I'd rather these otherwise law-abiding people with serious anger management problems didn't have access to a gun in their glovebox.

 

 

Furthermore, Texas and Florida (who are in a somewhat unique position amongst otherwise pro-gun States by not allowing unlicensed open carry, thus giving them data on everyone who carries legally) the general public is roughly five times more likely to commit a violent crime than a permit holder. Generally speaking, you're probably about as likely to get shot by a statistically anomalous, rogue police officer than a citizen who is legally carrying a gun. In Florida, you're twice as likely to be eaten by an alligator.

Umm, violent crime != gun crime. Yes, the general public may be five times more likely to get violent than a gun permit holder, but they'll be using fists, knives, bats and various other melee weapons. When the permit holder gets violent with their gun, the stakes are higher and it's a lot more lethal. wink.gif

 

 

As for worrying about law-abiding people in general shooting you at a shopping center, don't. After all, they are called law-abiding for a reason.

Yes, I know that statistically the risk is so low that it's effectively zero, but like aeroplane crashes, when it happens it's high profile and big news. It's nice to know that can't happen in the UK. And of course they're law-abiding - right up to the point where they flip and go psycho at the shopping mall for some perceived injustice 15 years ago. rolleyes.gif

 

 

All that said, you're probably right that it wouldn't work in the UK these days. Even if owning and carrying handguns was legal again like it was, say, 40 years ago, it's doubtful that more than one or two percent of the population would bother.

And thank god for that.

 

 

Maybe you'll change your mind though in ten or fifteen years should your violent crime rate continues its upward trend while ours stays flat or decreases.

But our violent crime isn't committed with guns outside of gang vs gang situations, or the odd store robbery. When I see the headline "armed robber steals from off-licence", it usually turns out he's armed with a hammer. Or maybe a bat of some kind. Like I said, you can't shoot someone because they're wielding a bit of wood. Unless it's a table leg wrapped in a carrier bag. monocle.gif

 

 

With regards to democracy protecting you from government, well, that's all fun and games until the majority votes to oppress or exterminate you. Like the old saying goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the outcome. monocle.gif

Our liberty has survived for many, many years, even including the onslaught of the current govt, without the need to keep pointing guns at each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Furthermore, Texas and Florida (who are in a somewhat unique position amongst otherwise pro-gun States by not allowing unlicensed open carry, thus giving them data on everyone who carries legally) the general public is roughly five times more likely to commit a violent crime than a permit holder. Generally speaking, you're probably about as likely to get shot by a statistically anomalous, rogue police officer than a citizen who is legally carrying a gun. In Florida, you're twice as likely to be eaten by an alligator.

Umm, violent crime != gun crime. Yes, the general public may be five times more likely to get violent than a gun permit holder, but they'll be using fists, knives, bats and various other melee weapons. When the permit holder gets violent with their gun, the stakes are higher and it's a lot more lethal. wink.gif

Lack of lethal outcomes when knives and bats are used simply indicates that the parties involved were not willing to take a life. If I can overpower you in a fist fight, I can take your life without using any tools. With a knife or a bat, it's half that easy. The only difference with a gun, is that by taking a gun you already make the decisions, while in a fist fight, that decisions comes later.

 

If I don't want you dead, I'll attack you with arms that allow non-lethal outcome. If I want you dead, I'll make you dead regardless of weapon I used. Whether or not guns are available makes no difference in either of these two cases. Though, if you have a gun, you might have a chance to defend yourself.

 

P.S. We already had stats presented in this thread that strongly indicate rise in fire arm related crimes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I'm going to have to agree with some of the other posters in this thread, taking away all weapons from citizens isn't necessary.

 

However, banning assault rifles and shotguns, is.

 

Let me bring up another point, how do you guys feel about concealed weapons?

 

I personally am totally and completely against allowing concealed weapons. You have the privilege to walk around with a firearm, and it's not safe for you to have a god damn gun hidden, leave that to the undercover police/ federal agents, who need to have their weapons concealed.

The whole " protect your house " arguement is out of play on this one. You shouldn't be allowed to have hidden weapons in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Concealed weapons help reduce crimes more than anything. If you know that a guy who is carrying a gun is going to display it, you are simply not going to attack these who obviously carry a gun. When any random person off the street might be carrying a weapon, you'll think twice about assaulting someone. Again, this is something that has been statistically demonstrated to be effective.

 

And while I can be understanding, if not agree, on your opinion of assault rifles, as uninformed as it may be, I absolutely do not understand what your issue with shotguns is. Shotgun is not rifled. It has short range, slow firing rate, cannot be easily concealed, etc. They tend to be legal in countries that ban all other weapons. Even in Soviet Russia the shotguns were legal to own and carry. How can you possibly be tighter about this than the Communist government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
Concealed weapons help reduce crimes more than anything. If you know that a guy who is carrying a gun is going to display it, you are simply not going to attack these who obviously carry a gun. When any random person off the street might be carrying a weapon, you'll think twice about assaulting someone. Again, this is something that has been statistically demonstrated to be effective.

 

And while I can be understanding, if not agree, on your opinion of assault rifles, as uninformed as it may be, I absolutely do not understand what your issue with shotguns is. Shotgun is not rifled. It has short range, slow firing rate, cannot be easily concealed, etc. They tend to be legal in countries that ban all other weapons. Even in Soviet Russia the shotguns were legal to own and carry. How can you possibly be tighter about this than the Communist government?

I think you might have influenced me on shotguns.. I might have to change how I feel on that... however about the concealed weapons:

 

Where are the stats on this? It makes sense what your point is, but I don't think that reducing " people attacking one another because you think he has a concealed weapon " justifies being able to conceal a weapon. Sorry, but that's just plain unsafe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
However, banning assault rifles and shotguns, is.

You don't see any problems occuring when only the government has posession those weapons?

 

 

I personally am totally and completely against allowing concealed weapons.

o ya, not like people need concealeed weapons to defend themselves sarcasm.gif . Mass murders usually seem to take place in places where people won't have concealed weapons. Whos going to shoot up a place where everyone else can draw their guns twice as fast?

- and you don't want them to take their weapons anywhere? What if the man interviewed
hadn't been allowed to defend himself when those thugs threatened his life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement
However, banning assault rifles and shotguns, is.

Here, in Finland, the easier the gun is concealed, the harder it is to get a license for. Rifles and shotguns are easier to get a permit for than handguns that you can hide inside your jacket.

 

And it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Where are the stats on this? It makes sense what your point is, but I don't think that reducing " people attacking one another because you think he has a concealed weapon " justifies being able to conceal a weapon. Sorry, but that's just plain unsafe.

Problem is, making it illegal to conceal a weapon does not make it any harder to do so.

 

A person planning to commit a crime using a gun is not going to go and obtain a license to carry it under the jacket in advance. Odds of you randomly being checked somewhere are virtually nil, so it only makes sense to obtain such a license if you are planning to constantly carry a gun around with you for self defense. If you have a constant need to carry a gun with you in order to commit illegal acts, odds are, you'll get caught on these much sooner than on illegally concealed weapon.

 

There are some additional benefits. The background checks on concealed license are more thorough. You are required to put in a number of hours of safety courses. The license has to be issued and signed by your sheriff. These are all additional safety checks against unbalanced and otherwise unfit people possessing arms. These measures aren't going to stop everyone, but refusing to issue concealed licenses to population does not improve that situation.

 

As for actual stats, I'll look for them. I can't recall where I have seen them. I thought something along these lines came up in this thread already, but I might have been wrong.

 

Edit: Keep in mind that it's still illegal to carry a gun into shopping centers, schools, bars, sport events, and most other congested places. Concealed or otherwise. I can see why you'd be worried about someone legally carrying in a concealed weapon to something like a concert, but that's already illegal. We are talking about somebody walking on the streets here.

 

Another Edit: Making licenses for easy to conceal weapons more difficult to obtain, like nlitement says, can have benefits, though. I'm not sure how much of an effect that would have, but at least I can see how it would. Making it illegal to hide something you can legally buy and own, however, is a bit silly.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

Wheels, that truly is a terrifying place which you describe! Luckily our reality bears no resemblance to your cynical hypothesis. tounge.gif

Indeed, if only my hypothesis related to the US, whereas it actually related to the risks of arming the UK. tounge.gif

Well, unless you've got more crazies than we do, would your law-abiding citizens really behave that much differently?

 

 

But in the UK it's the opposite. You don't need a gun when nobody else has one. Our increasing violent crime has nothing to do with guns, it's all assault, muggings, and knifings. A "law abiding" person couldn't defend themselves against a mugger by shooting them with a gun, they'd end up in jail for manslaughter. I don't agree with that, but if it wasn't for that, what's to stop someone shooting me then claiming it was only in self-defence because I'd tried to mug them?

Click back to page 1. I posted a pretty graph that showed the number of shootings using handguns has tripled since the ban. Even if most of the violent crime increase involves knives, a gun would even the playing field for the old lady/guy outnumbered by a half dozen chavs/whatever, thus allowing them to introduce the mugger to Darwin at 1400 feet per second. Assuming the defensive laws were changed.

 

 

So why on earth would you want to arm a nation that doesn't need to be armed? The system we have works. Increasing violent crime isn't to do with us not having handguns because we never really did, even pre-Dunblane. It's to do with a breakdown of family & lack of discipline and social structures, council sink estates, complete lack of punishment and deterrent from a rediculously soft legal system, and so on. "Firearms" in the UK means a farmer with his shotgun, not your housewife packing a piece on the way to Sainsburys.

 

I know you live in a gun nut state though so this is probably as difficult for you to imagine as it is for me to visualise your society where everyone needs to be armed to keep the peace. tounge.gif

Well, I'm not talking about requiring everyone to be armed. Just respecting the choice. As I said before, it would make little difference either way since very few bothered to own handguns before the ban. It wasn't always like that though, and perhaps one day the pendulum will swing back when people get sick of the crime; and of the system which coddles the criminals.

 

 

Hmm, but what I said applies to the congested, crowded UK. Have you ever met white van man? I don't commute as far now as I used to, but in the past when I've been dangerously carved up (and I'm not talking about an irritation, I mean proper evasive reactions to avoid an accident that would've been caused by someone else's aggressiveness or impatience) I've generally responded with the appropriate hand gestures. On different occasions I've then been brake tested with them trying to get me to crash into the back of them, attempts to stop me so we can get out and have a fight, letting me past then furiously tailgating me and flashing their light in pure rage. Thanks, but I'd rather these otherwise law-abiding people with serious anger management problems didn't have access to a gun in their glovebox.

Hmm, but I live in a congested area. Not as bad as London, but I can see skyscrapers from my house, and have to fight traffic in downtown Norfolk to get to work. Despite our share of sh*tty drivers, I've yet to shoot anyone. Nor have I heard of anyone in VA with a CHL doing so. Even up in Norther VA around DC which has some of the worst traffic in the country.

 

 

Umm, violent crime != gun crime. Yes, the general public may be five times more likely to get violent than a gun permit holder, but they'll be using fists, knives, bats and various other melee weapons. When the permit holder gets violent with their gun, the stakes are higher and it's a lot more lethal. wink.gif

In the 20 years since Florida went shall issue, 166 out of 561,681 licenses were revoked for a crime in which a firearm was utilized. Even if that was all in one year, the 0.03% would be less than the ~0.06% (200K crimes with guns out of 300M people) by the general population in 2005. Spaced out on a year by year basis, the difference grows exponentially.

 

In a 1996 piece for the L.A. Times, Dave Kopel did the maths and figured that a licensee was "840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime."

 

Texas conviction rates are here if you care to look.

 

 

Yes, I know that statistically the risk is so low that it's effectively zero, but like aeroplane crashes, when it happens it's high profile and big news. It's nice to know that can't happen in the UK. And of course they're law-abiding - right up to the point where they flip and go psycho at the shopping mall for some perceived injustice 15 years ago. rolleyes.gif

Well, if someone flips and goes on a rampage, they can still do so there with a shotgun or rifle. Which are both more powerful than handguns and still legal. Without having to worry about armed victims, the tactical edge of an auto-loader or handgun is less important.

 

 

But our violent crime isn't committed with guns outside of gang vs gang situations, or the odd store robbery. When I see the headline "armed robber steals from off-licence", it usually turns out he's armed with a hammer. Or maybe a bat of some kind. Like I said, you can't shoot someone because they're wielding a bit of wood. Unless it's a table leg wrapped in a carrier bag. monocle.gif

If they're threatening to kill or cause grievous bodily harm with said bit of wood, then yes, you should be able to shoot them in the face. Maybe most people aren't threatened by guns (yet..), but your violent crime rate is like fifteen times higher. Home Office says something like 3% of the population are victims of violent crime every year, IIRC. Versus less than half of one percent here. If things don't start to change for the better there, you may end up with more citizens wishing to bring a gun to the knife fight. tounge.gif

 

 

Our liberty has survived for many, many years, even including the onslaught of the current govt, without the need to keep pointing guns at each other.

Sure, but sometimes the right mix of events like, say, an economic crisis, plus a charismatic political figure like, say, Hitler, can result in democratically electing a tyrant. And while we're Godwin'ing the thread, I seem to recall you guys putting ads in American publications asking us to send guns to help defend your homes in the event Hitler crossed the English Channel. And IIRC, you dumped the guns in the ocean after the war instead of sending them back. mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Our culture and our politics do not want or require guns. Legalising guns in a pro-gun control country will not exactly help anything, and will likely make the problem worse. While America has a gun culture, and guns are fully assimilated into the society, Britain has no need or want of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Our culture and our politics do not want or require guns. Legalising guns in a pro-gun control country will not exactly help anything, and will likely make the problem worse. While America has a gun culture, and guns are fully assimilated into the society, Britain has no need or want of guns.

Nobody says that making guns legal in a country where people don't want that is a good idea. What that country needs is better access to information. No sane person who knows the history of the world and just a little bit about guns themselves could possibly just sit there when their government bans arms and say, "Yeah, that's probably a good idea."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statutory Ray
However, banning assault rifles and shotguns, is.

You don't see any problems occuring when only the government has posession those weapons?

Private citizens should also be able to own tanks, nuclear weapons, and cruise missiles then?

 

I have no strong feelings either way on the issue, but that is a pretty weak argument.

 

I own guns, but I don't have an irrational fear of an overbearing or violently oppressive government that a lot of gun owners seem to have. The ownership of guns is already restricted, further restriction or outright banning will not put us as citizens in a much worse position were the government for some reason to begin slaughtering us wholesale. They have no interest vested in doing so, and I'd say the citizens of the first world live so comfortably they have very little interest vested in a violent revolution, and very little chance of succeeding.

 

The strongest argument for gun ownership is personal protection, but in a state where guns are effectively banned, what are you protecting yourself from? Yes, if you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns, but how many criminals in such states have guns? The gun deaths in the UK last year totaled 48, in comparison to the 20,000+ that happen in the US every year. The rate per 100,000 people is 27 times higher in the US. In Canada, where they have 1/3 the guns per capita, the gun crime rate is 1/3 the rate than in the US. There is a heavy correlation between the distribution and ownership of guns and the instances in which they're used. This is common sense.

 

The biggest problem in America is that we have so many people that own guns. An outright ban would be impossible, incredibly expensive, and ineffective. What I feel is likely and imperative to a safer society is a gradual shift in social policies that decreases the need for crime amongst the poor, thus decreasing the need for ownership amongst the lower and middle classes that feel the need to protect themselves. Guns will still be owned by hobbyists, but the need for personal protection will be lowered, thus decreasing the rate of ownership by those who would otherwise not own guns, decreasing accidental deaths and injury, and the overall availability of cheap black market guns used in violent crime, as well as the need for that crime as a means of survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
However, banning assault rifles and shotguns, is.

You don't see any problems occuring when only the government has posession those weapons?

Private citizens should also be able to own tanks, nuclear weapons, and cruise missiles then?

 

I have no strong feelings either way on the issue, but that is a pretty weak argument.

 

I own guns, but I don't have an irrational fear of an overbearing or violently oppressive government that a lot of gun owners seem to have. The ownership of guns is already restricted, further restriction or outright banning will not put us as citizens in a much worse position were the government for some reason to begin slaughtering us wholesale. They have no interest vested in doing so, and I'd say the citizens of the first world live so comfortably they have very little interest vested in a violent revolution, and very little chance of succeeding.

 

The strongest argument for gun ownership is personal protection, but in a state where guns are effectively banned, what are you protecting yourself from? Yes, if you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns, but how many criminals in such states have guns? The gun deaths in the UK last year totaled 48, in comparison to the 20,000+ that happen in the US every year. The rate per 100,000 people is 27 times higher in the US. In Canada, where they have 1/3 the guns per capita, the gun crime rate is 1/3 the rate than in the US. There is a heavy correlation between the distribution and ownership of guns and the instances in which they're used. This is common sense.

 

The biggest problem in America is that we have so many people that own guns. An outright ban would be impossible, incredibly expensive, and ineffective. What I feel is likely and imperative to a safer society is a gradual shift in social policies that decreases the need for crime amongst the poor, thus decreasing the need for ownership amongst the lower and middle classes that feel the need to protect themselves. Guns will still be owned by hobbyists, but the need for personal protection will be lowered, thus decreasing the rate of ownership by those who would otherwise not own guns, decreasing accidental deaths and injury, and the overall availability of cheap black market guns used in violent crime, as well as the need for that crime as a means of survival.

This dude is the most level headed out of all of us really. And he makes a lot of sense. And besides as police get more advanced it won't make a difference anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Private citizens should also be able to own tanks, nuclear weapons, and cruise missiles then?

With the exception of WMDs, which are a class of their own, most certainly. You seem to be under the impression that it would be unsafe. But it is just the opposite. The more expensive a piece of military machinery is, the less likely it is to be misused by anyone. (Except for the government, of course, because that's their job.) We see this all the time. Look at countries with firearm bans. Are most firearm deaths due to machine guns? No, they are caused by rather small and inexpensive handguns. Nobody is going to try to commit a robbery with a tank, and the only way a crazy person could get one is by stealing it. Which already happens with tanks getting jacked from military bases.

 

A single person will not be able to operate and maintain such weaponry, of course, so we are talking about PMCs owning such equipment. Such companies would be heavily regulated, inspected, and taxed, but if someone wishes to keep a small military force, there is no reason to forbid them from doing so. There is no corporation with sufficient budget to organize a military force strong enough to compete with the federal government, so no single entity would be able to cause any trouble with such arms. Someone who is going to take time and money to put such a force together isn't going to waste it to commit random criminal acts, and it's not something you can hide if you try to use these arms systematically.

 

Now, I seriously doubt that there will be a lot of people who will exercise such rights, but that's no reason to take them away.

 

 

Yes, if you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns, but how many criminals in such states have guns?

Roughly the same proportion of criminals own guns in countries with firearm bans as in countries with legal fire arms. What really makes the difference is how well police force is working. In places where the law enforcement is virtually non-existent, there is a huge proportion of criminals with guns. In states where the law enforcement is strict and efficient, there are very few. The actual laws on gun possession make no difference. There are already a number of resources linked to from this thread that clearly show that.

 

 

The biggest problem in America is that we have so many people that own guns.

That's one of the few redeeming things about American public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

Private citizens should also be able to own tanks, nuclear weapons, and cruise missiles then?

Private citizens have been allowed to own tanks (at least, disarmed ones that could easily be rearmed) and we haven't seen people fighting with them on the street. But maybe we should ban them anyway, so the collectivists get a warm feeling, thinking they've just done something worthwhile? sarcasm.gif

 

As for cruise missles and nuclear weapons, nobody could realistically use them against civilian factions wihtout totaling entire cities or towns. I doubt people would stand for that, nor buy the government's defense, which would have to consist of "yes, even the new borns there were plotting to break down society". wink.gif

 

There's no need to take my argument completely out of context. The argument was that if the government can realistically use it against us, we should be able to fight back with equal strength, not "if they get, we should get it, indefinate of cirrcumstances".

 

 

I own guns, but I don't have an irrational fear of an overbearing or violently oppressive government that a lot of gun owners seem to have. The ownership of guns is already restricted, further restriction or outright banning will not put us as citizens in a much worse position were the government for some reason to begin slaughtering us wholesale. They have no interest vested in doing so, and I'd say the citizens of the first world live so comfortably they have very little interest vested in a violent revolution, and very little chance of succeeding.

Once again, you're taking the argument out of context. My hypothetical wasn't in the present context, it was that we need to be prepared; just because the government (or any other violent faction that has access to guns) isn't about to institute their overbearing will on us, doesn't mean we should dismiss it outright, as a possibility. Who knows what things will be like in 50 or 100 years.

 

And that's only on a nationwide scale. What about local and state governments? Consider for example, the Battle of Athens. Guns sure came in handy there.

 

 

in a state where guns are effectively banned, what are you protecting yourself from?

Yeah, it's not as though criminals, who knwo where t osell stolen goods, will know where to buy stolen goods (ie, firearms). sarcasm.gif

 

but you're correct, to a point. Not every criminals will be be able to get a gun, for whatever reason. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like a gun to protect myself from peopel with knives, or that are outnumbering me. Of course, you and I [men] don't have that big of an issue with defending ourselves. Women on the other hand....

 

 

There is a heavy correlation between the distribution and ownership of guns and the instances in which they're used.

But is there any correlation betwen guin ownership and overall violent crime? Nope:

 

"Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.183 As thechart shows, there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.