What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - vgmddg (09/22/2013) [-]
This is the reason why guns shouldn't be taken away from civilians.
#272 to #2 - mymissiondaytwo (09/23/2013) [-]
But this is also the reason why guns should be taken away from civilians.
User avatar #263 to #2 - rifee (09/23/2013) [-]
While we're on the subject of gun control.

I understand not wanting to make guns illegal to own, I really do. What I never understood though (probably due to lack of information) is why people were/are against obligatory background checks. I can't find any good reason to be against that tbh.
User avatar #317 to #263 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
Everyone is for that, it already is required.
Misinformation is being spread that says otherwise
User avatar #264 to #263 - vgmddg (09/23/2013) [-]
People don't want their privacy infringed is part of it.
#252 to #2 - vgmddg (09/23/2013) [-]
Holy crap so many comments! I guess it's to be expected with how controversial the topic is, but wow. Have a combustible lemon everyone.
User avatar #228 to #2 - subtard (09/23/2013) [-]
Notice how it didn't take a semi-automatic weapon in order to defend himself.
User avatar #316 to #228 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
Do you know what a semi automatic weapon is?

You are likely just a troll, or a typical stupid gun grabber.
User avatar #237 to #228 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Thisisbait.jpg
#188 to #2 - anonymous (09/23/2013) [-]
>Implying someone recently said ANYTHING about wanting to take all of the guns from civilians.
User avatar #215 to #188 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
actually some politicians (quiet a few who are known to want all guns out of civilian hands) are trying to drudge up gun control again after that guy killed people on the navy base. js
#179 to #2 - winstonsexton (09/23/2013) [-]
they should take the guns from the villains
User avatar #173 to #2 - metalmind (09/23/2013) [-]
Pretty sure that the other guy was a civilian, too.

Just prevent criminals, insane people and terrorists (real ones, not the American one) from obtaining them.
User avatar #253 to #173 - vgmddg (09/23/2013) [-]
I think this is probably the best way to go for this. Have people be required to go through various psychological and gun safety exams, as well as a t6horough background check to own a gun.
User avatar #164 to #2 - Girondins (09/23/2013) [-]
I live in Denmark.

I haven't seen a gun in the hand of a non police/military person my whole life.
and I ******* appriciate it.

In my opinion Guns should be banned in America ->one day<-
But America isn't ready to do it yet, It should be done in small steps at a time.
User avatar #172 to #164 - reconred (09/23/2013) [-]
That worked back in...1938...Germany I think it was?
User avatar #170 to #164 - azumeow (09/23/2013) [-]
Go ask roliga what happened to the UK when they banned guns.

He'll have a hearty chuckle at what you just said.

Also, when I commuted through Penn Station and Grand Central Station (NYC) I saw armed soldiers daily, and police officers with sub-machine guns. Why would a cop need a fully-automatic weapon if their purpose is to "protect the people" as cops say their job is all the time?

Oh wait, because their job is solely to enforce laws and punish those who break them. Even the Supreme Court said so.
User avatar #187 to #170 - Girondins (09/23/2013) [-]
That's why i have the "small steps" argument.

Some of the first steps could be to limit or completly stop gun production since one of the major problems is guns already being so available.
Or maybe making guns a "home" or "shop" thing only.

I don't know how it could be done, but i for sure know it would be much better if it did.
User avatar #219 to #187 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
All you'll do is end up turning people like me into criminals. I have a spotless record and carry every single day to make sure my family and myself have the best chance possible to survive a life threatening situation that could possible threaten us some day. All it would end up doing is making criminals out of those who just want to keep their families safe, cause I will never stop carrying.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre
"She later expressed regret about deciding to leave her gun in her car lest she risk possibly running afoul of the state's concealed weapons laws; during the shootings, she reached for her weapon but then remembered that it was "a hundred feet away in my car.""
User avatar #229 to #219 - Girondins (09/23/2013) [-]
That's why the path from guns to no guns should be intergrated slowly, maybe over 50 years?
If you tried to live in a country like Denmark which has had gun laws for a long time, you wouldn't really have to protect your family from anything in the first place.
So there wouldn't even be a reason to carry a gun.
User avatar #232 to #229 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, I really don't care at this point (about your opinion). I'm not getting bludgeoned to death in my home, or stabbed for my car, cause some liberals/dems thought it was a good idea to slowly integrate laws that take my guns away. we have things like cartels that traffic guns to deal with. if you take our guns, even slowly over time, that will not take them away from the cartels who are already on american soul and have trafficking lines all the way up to Canada. I'm sure they are chopping at the bit waiting for some kind of gun control to go through to make their jobs easier. not to mention the fact that our law enforcement agencies are not required by law to protect any of us (supreme court ruling). also the fact that every year you can see the decline in funding to local police, I'm going to stick with my guns and carry concealed and not give it another thought unless I'm protecting, or training with it.
User avatar #161 to #2 - checkandmate (09/23/2013) [-]
If there guns were taken away, there would be no gun to pull out in the first place!
#251 to #161 - vgmddg (09/23/2013) [-]
Maybe you can make the normal law-abiding citizens to comply and give up their guns, but if the whole point of being a criminal is that they don't comply with the law, they're gonna not comply with the law and give up their guns. If they are made to part with their guns by force (which could require police officers that have guns), there's plenty of other underground cartels that can sell new guns to them illegally.

It's the exact same with drugs like cocaine and heroine. As much as we'd like to stamp out drug selling and use, the police are not all-powerful and there will be people who can work hard to bypass them.
#158 to #2 - imofcnotharveydent (09/23/2013) [-]
have fun America, I have no need to argue with a problem that isn't mine.
User avatar #254 to #158 - vgmddg (09/23/2013) [-]
Who said it was just America we're talking about? I sincerely doubt that whatever country you live in doesn't have any qualms about having vs. not having guns.
#255 to #254 - imofcnotharveydent (09/23/2013) [-]
sure we do, but I agree with the ones in mine so I don't feel like forcing my opinions on others since this is the internet and there will only be rustled jimmies
User avatar #94 to #2 - rifee (09/23/2013) [-]
There's a difference between a store manager having one, and having a gun at home though
User avatar #258 to #94 - vgmddg (09/23/2013) [-]
Not really...
User avatar #262 to #258 - rifee (09/23/2013) [-]
How so?
A store is many times more likely to be victim of attempted robbery, pluss it's open to everyone.

I'm in no way saying guns should be illegal to own to protect your house, just that they can't really be compared in that way.

It all depends on the kind of neighbourhood you live in and the varying crimerates in different areas, coupled with how likely a target your house is (high class housees etc.)
#82 to #2 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (09/23/2013) [-]
Even before scrolling you could tell that this would be a gigantic ********* of a thread.
#63 to #2 - anonymous (09/23/2013) [-]
Hurr durr the other guy wouldn't have a gun either.
#67 to #63 - sittingwhale (09/23/2013) [-]
It's not terribly difficult to get a gun illegally, so if i want a gun to rob a liquor store, i'm getting a gun to rob a liquor store. Bad people don't play by the rules, so the good guys need to be able to return fire.
User avatar #153 to #67 - kafudamapla (09/23/2013) [-]
But it IS terribly difficult to get a gun in countries where guns are outlawed
User avatar #81 to #67 - iamnuff (09/23/2013) [-]
"criminals don't obey laws" is a fallacy.
I can refuse to obey the law as much as I like, that's not magically going to make a gun appear in my pocket. if there are no gun shops, then you can't buy any guns

i'm sure the black market exists, but do you, personally, know how to access it? I ******* don't.

if civilians can't own guns, then that means Mr Rodgers doesn't have a house full of them, so Tyrone and Jamael can't break in and steal them while he's visiting his mother in the nursing home.

that means Tyrone and Jamael can't sell these guns to "a guy they know who buys stuff like this.

no legal guns = no gun stores/gun stockpiles = no guns stolen from stores/stockpiles = the only way to get a gun illegally is to steal from the police, the army or have some smuggled over the border.

that's how it works in England.

of-course, that would require you to take the guns away from Americans without starting another bloody civil war.
User avatar #273 to #81 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
ive said this multiple times in this thread, gun shops aren't the only way to get a gun, in most states you could give a gun away to someone, no paperwork involved, or you can buy a gun out of some dudes trunk that got smuggled into the country along with all the drugs, its never going to stop, not now, not ever, and the less people are able to defend themselves the more people are going to step on them, have you ever seen one of those huge bullies pick on the little guys on TV? of course you have, now imagine that that little guy was the same size or bigger, would the bully mess with him? not a chance in hell, in fact when interviewed 90% of inmates convicted on robbery charges stated that they wouldn't dare try to do anything to anyone carrying a gun, even if they had one themselves
User avatar #291 to #273 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
did you miss the part where i said that no gunshops = no people giving guns away illigally, becuase they don't have any guns to give away?


sure, guns smuggled over the border would be harder to keep out, but thats like saying "removing 70% of the loose guns in america is pointless, because there would still be thirty percent.

sneaking that **** across the border isn't easy.

rather than a bully picking on a little guy, what you should consider is how would a robber KNOW that his victim is armed BEFORE they start shooting each other?
#59 to #2 - anonymous (09/23/2013) [-]
yep, I should have a few nuclear bombs.

Everyone should have them in case someone feels like killing
User avatar #27 to #2 - anniethreeone (09/23/2013) [-]
What most people don't seem to understand is that the gun control bills that liberal congressmen try to pass agree with that statement. Most gun control is not aimed at reasonable, small firearms, but at much more lethal weapons which a civilian would have no practical use for. We have to keep in mind that the second amendment was written in a time when the most dangerous gun fired one shot and took 20 seconds to reload. You want a glock? Sure. AK47? No.
User avatar #57 to #27 - psydoc (09/23/2013) [-]
There's a lot more to gun control bills than just that. There's significant limits as to where you can carry a gun. Even if you are willing to go through training, background checks, registration, and are willing to pay whatever government charges are required, in some states, you can barely take your weapon out of your house.

In my state, even if you get a concealed carry permit, you can't take your gun to any government building, any public park, to school, to just about any work place, and to just about any business. So basically you can keep it at home, or if you go for a walk, you can take it with you. You can bring it in your car, but I think the negatives there outweigh the positives, given the fact that you'd have to remove your gun, and leave it in your car.
User avatar #48 to #27 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
but the second amendment was also written so that the american people would be able to defend themselves from an opposing force, whether that be our own government or someone attacking us in our home, you can go and spend $200 and get an AK-47 out of some guys trunk and then go shoot people with it, I would personally like to have the ability to defend myself equal or greater to that of someone who is trying to hurt me, and no, I dont believe that every person needs a fully automatic assault rifle, but I live in connecticut, where they banned the sale of any gun that accepts a magazine that holds over 10 rounds. do you know what rifles dont have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? Old WWII rifles with the non removable magazine. What we really need to do is make it so that you cannot get your hands on a gun unless you have the proper equipment to keep it safe, like locks and/or safes for storage
User avatar #144 to #48 - anniethreeone (09/23/2013) [-]
While being able to defend yourself is, of course, important, I'm morally at ends with the concept of "I just need bigger, better guns." As someone smarter than me put it, "violence will only beget violence." I'd rather have people not killing each other rather than just being able to kill them better than they can kill us -- surely you can see that this sort of escalation cannot bring about a stable society.
User avatar #322 to #144 - instakill (10/20/2013) [-]
I apologise for how I acted here, I was brought back to this thread and I want to clear up some things, I personally believe that since they cannot remove all the guns from the united states (its just impossible) I would probably need one to defend myself, and no, you don't need a bigger gun, however the intimidation factor of having a shotgun pointed at their face rather than a pistol is way higher, hense why a few of my friends (myself included, picked one up 2 weeks ago) keep shotguns nearby, if you can scare them off its much better than killing someone
0
#148 to #144 - instakill has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #150 to #148 - anniethreeone (09/23/2013) [-]
I didn't say anything about your guns. Maybe you should consider not taking things so personally and you might feel less threatened.
User avatar #90 to #48 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (09/23/2013) [-]
I'd just like to nip the "we might have to fight back against the government" argument in the bud right now. What good will a few AK47s do against a goddamned tank? How do you expect to take down bombers with a shotgun? The consequence of that argument is that I should be able to go out and buy myself a goddamned bazooka if I feel so inclined because that's the sort of thing that would give me a chance to actually take down something against the US military, but I'm pretty sure we all agree that **** would hit the fan if you allowed civilians to buy tanks and bazookas if they had the cash for it.
User avatar #141 to #90 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
well at the time that the document was written the american people had been forcefully disarmed by British troops, AKA: an oppressive government i was merely stating the intent that the law was written with, not the modern day use
#21 to #2 - Bluemistake (09/23/2013) [-]
But then the other guy wouldn't even have had a gun in the first place... Just saying...
User avatar #49 to #21 - fjisforfgts (09/23/2013) [-]
eh, except he could easily get one from an illegal dealer. At least now guns are more regulated. if they were illegal, criminals would still have access to illegal guns, and law-abiding citizens would be left defenseless with no gun.
User avatar #146 to #49 - kafudamapla (09/23/2013) [-]
Where do the criminals get these guns? Like 1% of criminals in England will have a gun because there's nowhere to get one legal or not
User avatar #149 to #146 - fjisforfgts (09/23/2013) [-]
In America, it's pretty simple if you look enough. I don't know personally, but if you're a criminal you will assumingly have connections to buy whatever you'd like. Gangs easily stock up on assault rifles and SMG's. I don't know specifically where, it's just from connections on the streets, and in bad areas, etc.
User avatar #154 to #149 - kafudamapla (09/23/2013) [-]
Yes. In America. Where guns are legal. I think you misunderstood me, I meant where do the dealers get the guns? Where do those people get them? Ultimately it boils down to the fact that there are guns in the US due to their legality
User avatar #169 to #154 - fjisforfgts (09/23/2013) [-]
The DEALERS get the guns from out of the country, Mexico and whatnot. Again, I don't know all of the answers, but all criminals with a small amount of determination can lay their hands on an illegally obtained gun.
User avatar #192 to #169 - kafudamapla (09/23/2013) [-]
Proper criminals, not idiots that rob liquor stores. Evidently as no one robs anything with guns in the UK
-4
#195 to #192 - fjisforfgts has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #201 to #195 - kafudamapla (09/23/2013) [-]
But then proper criminals only bother high security places where security/police will have defense
User avatar #22 to #21 - adzodeux (09/23/2013) [-]
He was about to commit a crime using that gun. You think he wouldn't commit a crime to get a gun in the first place?
User avatar #44 to #22 - mutzaki ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
That argument always falls short. With that mentality, you may as well make stealing legal, since people are still going to do that anyway. Or you can make heavy drugs legal, since people are still going to get their hands on it.
It's not about getting rid of guns completely, since we know that's not going to happen, but to make it that much more difficult to get a gun.
User avatar #46 to #44 - psydoc (09/23/2013) [-]
The argument is that criminals by their very nature ignore the law. Writing laws to disarm the public would only really disarm the law-abiding citizens.
User avatar #87 to #46 - iamnuff (09/23/2013) [-]
how do you get a gun if there arnt any gun shops?

black market?

where do they get their guns?

stolen from people/shops.

so if people don't have guns, and there are no gun shops...

black market arms dry up.

basic cause and effect.

of-course, considering the sheer amount of guns in america, and the attitude towards them... just suggesting taking them away would probably spark another civil war.
User avatar #275 to #87 - psydoc (09/23/2013) [-]
There's a few problems with that.
1) The second amendment would have to be repealed, and that's virtually impossible - thus debate about taking away all guns is really just a distraction.
2) If the police and armed forces have guns, then guns will "disappear" from their inventory and wind up on the streets.
3) If the police and armed forces have guns and regular people don't, then our civil liberties will be in danger.
4) If there are no guns, then crime becomes easier for people who are stronger (ex. rape becomes easier because they know women don't have guns).
5) Without guns, there are still knives, and other weapons for criminals to use.
6) Guns can still be smuggled into this country across the border. Likely it would be just about as hard to get an illegal gun as it is to get drugs.
7) People who just want to protect themselves from violent gangs in their neighborhoods are now criminalized.
8) Illegal guns are really easy to make and cost almost nothing.
9) How do you get the guns people already have - how many good people who just want to defend themselves are you willing to murder to get their guns?

Taking guns away isn't the panacea that some people imagine it to be. We need to seek real solutions to crime, and that's going to require trying different policies, and looking at the data. It's also going to require starting to honestly look at the situation, and honestly admit things such as kids being raised by single mothers being linked to crime.
User avatar #292 to #275 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
1) The second amendment would have to be repealed, and that's virtually impossible - thus debate about taking away all guns is really just a distraction.

I know, thats why i said it would start another civil war, you americans are far too attached to your gun-boners. (that amendment was written in a time when most of america was untamed wilderness, full of dangerous people and wild bears, not for a civilised country)

2) If the police and armed forces have guns, then guns will "disappear" from their inventory and wind up on the streets.

all police weapons are documented, far far harder to "lose" than part of "Guns R US" stock, or weapons stolen in a robbery. yes, some will go missing, but still a tiny amount compared to what it is now. the black market will shrink to the point where its besically non-viable.

3) If the police and armed forces have guns and regular people don't, then our civil liberties will be in danger.

so if someone infringes your rights, you plan to start shooting at cops?
no. protest, like a civilised country, don't start armed riots like syria. you don't need guns to protect your rights, and if you did, they it would be far too late for them to help.

4) If there are no guns, then crime becomes easier for people who are stronger (ex. rape becomes easier because they know women don't have guns).
I keep seeing this rape thing. "women need guns to protect themselves"
as it stands, rapists can get guns too. completely outweighing the positives of arming yourself.
5) Without guns, there are still knives, and other weapons for criminals to use.
can you shoot a knife down the street at a running man?
6) Guns can still be smuggled into this country across the border. Likely it would be just about as hard to get an illegal gun as it is to get drugs.
you realize most drugs are cooked up locally, right? smuggling is hard.

cont
7) People who just want to protect themselves from violent gangs in their neighborhoods are now criminalized.
User avatar #314 to #292 - psydoc (09/24/2013) [-]
3 - Do you really think in the next 10,000+ years (or however long we last) there will be no time when the US government tries to take away our rights? I find it hard to believe we're immune to an oppressive party gaining control of government. When that happens, sit-ins, protests, and such won't matter. If the day came when guns were only in the hands of the government, then I would pack up and move out of the country while I still could.

4 - A rapist would much rather have you both unarmed, then both armed. If you're both armed, he'll most likely run away because he'd not a murderer, and he doesn't want to get killed.
5 - most people can't even shoot a man running down the street, so...
6 - Smuggling isn't very hard, besides guns could also be made locally, so it would probably still be just about as easy to get a gun as it now is to get drugs.
User avatar #293 to #292 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
-cont
7) People who just want to protect themselves from violent gangs in their neighborhoods are now criminalized.

you gonna take your gun and start popping off shots at gangsters now?
no, call the ******* cops, its what they get paid for.

8) Illegal guns are really easy to make and cost almost nothing.
homemade guns explode a lot of the time. feel free to try, i'l be standing WAAAAY over here.
9) How do you get the guns people already have - how many good people who just want to defend themselves are you willing to murder to get their guns?
you don't, I already said this plan would cause a civil war.

its more of a theoretical statement about how america doesn't need guns as much as it thinks it does, and how "if dey take away our guns, how will we protect ourselves from people who still have guns!" doesn't actually make any sense.
User avatar #313 to #293 - psydoc (09/24/2013) [-]
7 - it's hard to call the cops when you're dead, and it does little good to call after your kid, or wife are dead. For the most part, cops don't stop crimes while they're happening, they catch criminals afterwards. Did you read the story about that kid who shot a baby in the face? I'm sure that mom wishes she had a gun at the time. Calling the police afterwards lead to the kid being caught, but her baby is dead.

8 - I don't know what types of guns you're talking about - I think you made that up. Making a gun isn't that complicated. You can go to Home Depot and get everything you need for a simple gun that you'll never have problems with for a few dollars.
User avatar #271 to #87 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
no, depending on where you are it can be a federal crime to not report a stolen firearm of ANY kind whatsoever, I could go down and buy a gun out of some dudes trunk that was smuggled into the country in one of the same trucks that bring in all the drugs in america, I said this down below where the gun industry is a large illicit import business that runs hand in hand with the drug trade. If there is a demand, there will be someone selling something to meet that demand, and if you think that it can be stopped then you are dead wrong
User avatar #294 to #271 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
of course its a crime not to report a stolen gun,but reporting it is not magically going to make it appear back in your gunlocker is it?

also, lots of drugs are cooked up in america, smuggling stuff across the border is super hard, because of all the armed guards.
User avatar #321 to #294 - instakill (10/20/2013) [-]
just got the notification now, for this for some reason but

tell that to all the drug lords and cartels who make a lot of money shipping pot and coke into the US
User avatar #47 to #46 - mutzaki ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Which you don't know actually are law-abiding. Now, I can see the point in having a gun locked away at home for break-ins, but walking around with a gun on your person outside is just disaster waiting to happen. Accidents happen, someone could easily take your gun away from you, etc.
We're not even talking about people who have been properly trained in using firearms.
User avatar #60 to #47 - psydoc (09/23/2013) [-]
That's speculation which is not backed up by any actual data. When concealed carry permits have become allowed in states, only a small percent of the population actually gets them. The weight of evidence also suggests that crime goes down a bit. I think the weight of evidence suggests that we're safer when concealed carry is allowed despite people's assumptions about accidents, and guns being taken away and such.

The point of having a concealed carry weapon is to defend yourself in case you get attacked outside your home, by sneaky criminals who wait until you leave your home. You could also argue that police officers don't need guns outside their home, but we all seem to recognize their need to protect themselves.

As far as training, it's completely unfair to claim that people who get concealed carry permits are not properly trained. They all go through the required training, and probably a lot more. Obviously there is some level of training that would be sufficient, so if they're not receiving enough training, then it's the states fault for not requiring it. I haven't seen pro-concealed carry people complain about training requirements. I'd actually argue though, that they already receive adequate training (though I'd support more), since problems are rare, and concealed carry appears to lower crime & casualties.

The basic liberal philosophy is "we're too stupid to handle this, so let's have the government take care of it for us". Well, we're all not stupid. If you think you can't handle a gun - maybe you can't. If you think you can't handle picking your health insurance - maybe you can't. If you think you can't handle picking a school for your kid - maybe you can't. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
User avatar #295 to #60 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
The basic liberal philosophy is "we're too stupid to handle this, so let's have the government take care of it for us". Well, we're all not stupid. If you think you can't handle a gun - maybe you can't. If you think you can't handle picking your health insurance - maybe you can't. If you think you can't handle picking a school for your kid - maybe you can't. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

yeah, sure.

its about US not being able to handle guns, and has nothing to do with not wanting that crazy guy who talks to himself, from down the street, to be able to pick up a AK47 from wal-mart.

sure. its totally about us being afraid of shooting ourselves.


quick question.

when you went to highschool, did you have a "lockdown drill"?

like a firedrill, but instead of leaving the building because of a fake fire, you cower under the desks, because of a fake gunman breaking into the school?

beacuse until reasently, I had no idea that that was even a thing.

frankly, the fact that crazy ******* shoot up your schools often enough for you to have procedure for it is terrifying.
#267 to #60 - kafudamapla (09/23/2013) [-]
yfw last paragraph
User avatar #274 to #267 - psydoc (09/23/2013) [-]
Liberals often argue that we're too stupid to handle things. For example, they believe we're too stupid to handle school choice. They believe that if we're given school choice we'll ruin the schools. They never really identify who the stupid people are, but they're always talking about themselves or other liberals.
User avatar #157 to #60 - kafudamapla (09/23/2013) [-]
>Obtain gun legally
>Decide to rob some place
>Leave house with gun
> ****** I don't have a carry permit
>Better get back indoors then
User avatar #58 to #47 - liquidz (09/23/2013) [-]
So you like to treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent then?
User avatar #50 to #47 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
do you know what the percentage of situations are where the gun is taken from the owner? obviously not, its less than 5% and that's normally because the people aren't trained properly in the use of their firearm and they drop it, so your argument falls short as well. Another thing is that it has been proven time and again that in a situation where gunmen have weapons drawn on them, very rarely do they not either give up or commit suicide (a horrible thing but it happens nonetheless) I am a responsible gun owner and carrier, I carry my gun in a concealed holster, inside the waistband of my pants, I go to the range weekly or bi-weekly to make sure that I have the necessary muscle memory to be able to use it in a stressful situation, I both take and help run regular safety courses where we teach people how to use and learn their firearm, as well as provide the knowledge needed to use it safely. So please, at least learn what the hell you are talking about before you go repeat what you heard on the news like a freaking parrot
#23 to #22 - Bluemistake (09/23/2013) [-]
But if there were no guns he wouldn't be able to commit the crime to get a gun in the first place
User avatar #33 to #23 - halotalim (09/23/2013) [-]
Its called the Black market. If its illeagal, its buyable.
User avatar #24 to #23 - adzodeux (09/23/2013) [-]
but as newall said, there are too many guns to get rid of now
User avatar #26 to #24 - hudis ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
That doesn't mean it's not a problem.
User avatar #36 to #26 - mitchr (09/23/2013) [-]
Well, thinking logically (and optomistically), if he has to resort to a life of crime, then he would be down on his luck, in which case I doubt he'd have enough money to get a gun on the Black Market.
User avatar #51 to #36 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
guns are actually very cheap on the black market, AK-47s can run from $25-$300 depending upon where and when it was made, glock-19s usually run around $100, easily enough where you could steal something, pawn it real quick, get the gun out of some guys trunk, then shoot someone with it
User avatar #296 to #51 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
quick question, do you know "some guy" who sells guns out of his trunk?

I don't, but they probably a lot more common in america.
User avatar #297 to #296 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
they have had shows in america dedicated to catching these guys, any region with high gang activity is almost guaranteed to have one around
User avatar #299 to #297 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
thats not what i asked though.


do you, personally, know where you can get a gun illigally?

no?

then how can you expect joe bloggs from down the street to know?


the black market isn't easy to access, and as guns before more scarce, it will only be harder.

most shootings are committed by random people who lost their tempers and did something stupid because they had a gun within arms reach, not by "hardened criminals"


if you walk in on your friend ******* your wife, are you going to walk out, try and find someone to sell you a gun, go home, then shoot them both, or are you just going to punch him in the ******* face?
User avatar #300 to #299 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
actually, its not that hard to do, if you go up the chain of drug dealers somewhere along the line you will find a gun dealer, or if you know somebody in a gang then you have a connection right there, however I do admit that a lot of deaths are a crime of passion, but that's can also be said about knives, there are stabbings WAY more than there are shootings, however we don't see people wanting to ban the sale of knives
User avatar #301 to #300 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
do you know any gangsters or drug dealers? again, i dont.

also, stabbings and shootings are totally diffrent.

you can run from a man with a knife, it might not save you, but its much better odds.


also, you have FAR better odds of fully recovering from a knife wound than a bullet.
unless they really go to town, "48 seperate stab-wounds" style, but in that case, they would probably just beat you to death with a rock if they didn't have a knife.


also, it is illegal to carry a knife.
User avatar #302 to #301 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
no its not in most places, its illegal to carry a knife with a sharpened edge over 4 inches in some states and in some cities its banned to carry them at all, however most places will allow you to carry a knife

and yes I do know some gangbangers, doesn't mean i hang out with them or I am going to go buy a gun with them (mainly because i'm a responsible gun owner and carrier)

and on the topic of stabbings, actually its very hard to recover from any puncture wound especially a stabbing or a shooting because they travel so deep, if you have a knife sharp enough you could cut their thigh to sever an artery as you walk past without them feeling anything if you do it in a crowd you could easily lose them in the crowd, however even the smallest readily available round, a .22, can be heard for miles around, however a stabbing is silent, and dont bring up the topic of silencers because those are already federally regulated and a registry is made of every one sold as well as you having to be specially licensed and pay a tax on them)

have you ever shot a gun? no? well then you wouldn't know how hard it really is to hit a moving target, especially in an enclosed space, also ricochet is an almost nonexistent factor because it takes a world class marksman to make ricochet shots most of the time and hitting ANYTHING will most likely cause a bullet to start to tumble, shooting is not as easy as you think, and shooting accurately is that much harder, hell I go to the range every week or every other week in order to make sure I can hit my target, also I keep my guns in a very large safe which is bolted to the concrete floor in my basement minus the one I keep in a biometric safe in my dresser drawer, so safety is not an issue.
User avatar #303 to #302 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
good to know you keep your guns locked away safely.


of-course, I have to wonder if you could get to your safe, open it, get your gun out, load it, then be ready to defend yourself in time if someone tried to break into your house.



also, for the knife thing, I was talking about where I live.
you can OWN non-cutlery knives, but are not allowed to carry them anywhere.

cutting a vein or artery is obviously bad news, but a stab wound is actually perfectly within the human body's ability to heal. I know this personally. (five inch nail to the back, due to mechanical malfunction) obviously i required surgery, and was hospital bound for far longer than I am comfortable with, but I recovered fully, barely even a scar.

guns are louder, yes, but if i decided to walk onto the street and start stabbing people, it wouldn't be long before someone stopped me, either by kicking the **** out of me, or just running me over.

if i walked onto the street with a gun, i could easily hit four or five people by firing into a crowd.

yes i have fired a gun, and yes, I know that hitting a moving target is much easier than chasing down a moving target and stabbing them in the back.
User avatar #305 to #303 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
well for one my drawer safe is one that recognizes my fingerprints much in the same way that the new Iphones do (except you can't open them with a cats paw) it opens simply by me putting my fingers on the pads, and only my fingers, and then because I have taken the time to learn absolutely everything about my pistol (a colt .357 python revolver) I taught myself to be able to load it and fire in under 2 seconds due to that exact worry

and yes, a stab wound is within the human body's ability to heal however if the stab wound is in the right spot or the person has pre-existing issues that can change, like you can easily hit the heart with a 4 inch blade so stabbings are still a very prevalent issue, in fact more stabbings happen on average than gun related deaths per year by a landslide.

and I have heard of people who have held down an entire store with just a knife because nobody had the balls to stand up and take them down, so yes if you had somebody brave and selfless enough to risk getting stabbed then you could obviously take them down, but that person would probably also be the one defending you from a gunman in that same situation

also most stabbings happen in back alley muggings where the victim is already cornered and has nowhere to run and it wouldn't make a difference if the assailant had a gun or a knife
User avatar #306 to #305 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
good to know about your desk draw thing, obviously stabbings in the heart are fatal, put still harder to pull of than spraying at someone with a gun,


eh, i was speaking of experience about the "knives are easier to stop" thing too. someone tried to rob the post-office across the street from my, but the owner grabbed the big metal bar that they use to close the shutters.


fending off a 4" weapon with a 4ft metal bar was pretty trivial for Jonathan (the owner)
he just jabbed the would-be-robber in the face every time he tried to get close enough to stab him.


the guy ended up with a broken nose and a serious concussion.

I guess the main reason I think knives are harder to hurt people with than guns, is simply a matter of reach.

if someone comes at you with a gun, then they can hurt your from the other side of the room with fairly good odds, (accuracy-wise) a knife requires you to get right up in someone's face, with leaves you plenty of time to retaliate.

If i saw someone robbing a shop with a knife, i'd look around for something weighty enough to hurt, and long enough to out-reach the knife, but if someone robbed a shop with a gun, i'd just keep my head down.

they actually have to stab you with a knife, to kill with a gun, all you have to do is point it at someone.
User avatar #307 to #306 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
also, did you actually check to see of a cat could open your gun draw?

that would be pretty funny actually.
#308 to #307 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
after hearing about the Iphone 5s being able to be opened by cats yes I did, my girlfriends cat wasn't all that happy

but I do agree with you, a gun is easier to kill with than a knife, but still, I have gone through drills with my friends in the army on home defense and also personally help run some gun safety courses, however I do have to raise the point that my personal preference would be to have the same capability to defend myself as my attacker does to kill me, and as you said it was easy for that guy to defend himself because he had a longer reach, but when reach isn't an issue it comes down to intimidation, as in the content the owner of the shop had a gun pointed to the robbers throat and the robber had his gun pointed into the shopkeepers side, here is the layout of my house, anyone who made it through any door into my house would be at a disadvantage because the door from the main stairwell is very loud and opens up to where I could open my door and still be hidden behind the main door, and the door to the porch has an alarm on it
User avatar #319 to #308 - iamnuff (09/24/2013) [-]
eh, you said you would prefer to have the same weapons available as your attacker, (i.e a gun) whereas I follow the opposite side.

I would prefer my attacker to have the same weapons I have, (I.E, possibly a knife, more likely some sort of club) and, as an Englishman, thats actually very likely.


I guess I can say "I don't want guns" because we don't have any, so if someone tries to break down my door, i can be almost sure that they won't have a gun.

letting me have guns would also let the robbers have guns, which would obviously escalate things beyond what I would like.

whereas you have accepted the fact that america is not in the state where you could ever actually take the guns away, so you just decided "if there are going to be guns, then I want my fair share"


in the end, both of our views are simply products of our societies.

we are more alike that I had thought.
User avatar #320 to #319 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
I am glad that we had came to this conclusion reasonably and without much mudslinging
User avatar #309 to #308 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
I would easily be able to flank anyone trying to break into my house
User avatar #310 to #309 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
mainly because I'd already have my gun raised and pointed at about head level
User avatar #298 to #297 - instakill (09/24/2013) [-]
also I know the manufacturing rates of the guns and i know how here the reason why guns are so expensive is all the paperwork and handling that goes into them with the licensing
User avatar #45 to #36 - psydoc (09/23/2013) [-]
Or he just takes a knife and robs a women walking out of the store. It's not like we haven't tried gun control in the US.
#7 to #2 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
if there were 0 guns in circulation, there would be no need for anyone to carry them.

That said, this is now impossible, because there are far too many guns in circulation, to just "get rid of"
User avatar #168 to #7 - Ruspanic (09/23/2013) [-]
Well, if there were 0 guns in circulation, all the guns would be held by the government and the military.
User avatar #83 to #7 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
Are you that thick?

In Australia, they banned guns all of them. Guess what happened, none of the criminals turned them in.

Armed robbery jumped 300%... THAT'S A LOT Think what would happen in the US if we were to ban guns and make all the people who would turn them in, turn them in.

You now have large gang or drug syndicates with a huge arsenal basically able to control the streets even more or threaten people even more because now the citizens have been disarmed.
#88 to #83 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
do you know what happens, when an armed robber sees you reach for a weapon?

Really?

Think about it.

You've got your gun aimed at someone, you didn't intend to use it, just to scare them, to use it to take their money. You see that person reach for a weapon, now, you don't want to shoot this person, but they're already threatened, they WILL shoot you, your situation immediately changes from a robbery, to a life-and-death situation. if you DONT shoot this person, you will die.

What do you do?

This is why, people who carry guns are MORE LIKELY to be shot. that is a statistical fact.
User avatar #91 to #88 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
When you agree to carrying a gun, you should know that it could put your life in danger. When I carry a gun I don't use it as self-protection as much as protection fro all around me. I'd still pull my gun out if I saw someone about to shoot some random sap. It ain't about me bub.

When the suspect knows that there won't be a gun then what's to fear, it'll just be like what you said just to make people scared. If you have people WITH guns the perp is gonna second guess even going into the business just because he might get put in that situation.
#95 to #91 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
or, he shoots you in the face, because he's already got his piece drawn, and doesn't want to die.

great, it's lovely you want to save others, but what happens when the robber is faster than you, or, you are the one he's pointing the gun at?
User avatar #100 to #95 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
You don't understand the tactics of any of this. You either pull the gun when you get the chance or do something to disarm him, like the clerk in this gif.

It's not like an old western movie where we just stand in plain view of eachother.
#103 to #100 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
except the clerk was defending himself from a drunk idiot with a legally obtained firearm.
even the police told him he was lucky to be alive, all that aside, the clerk was also ex-military. most people are not.
User avatar #105 to #103 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
Most people who carry a gun are trained in the usage of firearms. In regards to the clerk, it was fast acting and TRAINING that gave him the mentality to do that.
#107 to #105 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
MOST people.

lots still arent. and his training is not the same as some 2-day range course.
he had extensive military training.
User avatar #110 to #107 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
The training I've done was about 6 weeks. On top of that I like firing the gun and using it on a daily basis.

Most if not all people who carry a firearm know it like the back of their hand AND they have the balls to carry it around, they'll have the balls to stand up to some scum with a gun. If I was ever unarmed and some guy no matter what state he was in had a gun on him and was using it for the wrong use, I'd hope someone with a gun is around.
#115 to #110 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
and i agree, but if there were no guns, if the criminal, nor the person coming to your rescue, didn't have guns, you would never have been in a position to be shot.

I don't think guns should be taken away, i just think people need to realize, although they arent the only problem, they are NOT what is keeping people safe. they are simultaniously a symptom and a relief to the problem.
User avatar #118 to #115 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
It's an immediate and psychological safety.

You must agree with me that criminals who want guns can get them even if they're banned. Just like the IRA and how they obtained guns, even though the Brits had the island basically under siege. Taking all guns away only takes them out of the hands that the criminals would be afraid to have them.

Anyways, good talk, no raging and no interference.
User avatar #233 to #118 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I was going to being up the fact that our criminals will still get guns on a black market mostly controlled by the Mexican cartels if we have a gun ban. the more laws against something the bigger the black market becomes.
#28 to #7 - beroty ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
>Implying that bandits get guns by legal ways
#74 to #28 - anonymous (09/23/2013) [-]
Why would they need to buy guns illegally, when they can just buy them legally? I don't go out and buy illegal postage stamps, because I can just buy them legally and normally. Any criminal would do the same - why arouse suspicion and buy something illegally when it is just as accessibly legally?
#35 to #28 - jackbrook (09/23/2013) [-]
implying guns magically appear on the black market out of nowhere. those guns originate from official and legal sources, of which there are many. take all the legal guns out of circulation and stop production, this will also cripple the illegal markets. these markets will shrink, but the problem is that it'll take too long, and the only people who are left owning guns are the criminals who own them illegally.
User avatar #61 to #35 - liquidz (09/23/2013) [-]
You also forget how easy it is to make guns.

Ban them all you want, with a visit to home depot you can get some pipe, sheet metal, and a couple of tools to work it into a functional weapon. Ugly as **** all, but it will work.
#268 to #61 - jackbrook (09/23/2013) [-]
not many people are that determined, and it's not like it's public knowledge. why don't we see more of this happening even in countries where guns are banned?
User avatar #282 to #268 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
Look at the less civilized countries, they do that all the time.
It happens in other countries as well such as England, but most people are willing to jump through the hoops to legally own one there. It's not an outright ban there, countries with a full ban are doing that.

Making a gun is not rocket science. Put projectile in a tube, put explosive or propellant behind it, and have a detonation to ignite.
User avatar #52 to #35 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
no, guns are a large import business just like drugs, in fact they are proven to be time and again, they cannot be stopped just like drugs cannot be stopped, unless we cut off all movement from the rest of the world people will be finding ways to bring contraband into the country
#269 to #52 - jackbrook (09/23/2013) [-]
no, they can't be stopped, i'm saying the market will shrink, not disappear. if drugs were legal, we'd see a lot more of them, obviously.
User avatar #270 to #269 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
no, no you actually wont see more drugs, in fact its been proven that when you legalize a drug like marijuana lots of people actually stop doing it because they dont get that additional rush from breaking the law
User avatar #31 to #28 - sinonyx ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
implying every petty criminal has the connections to get an gun illegally
User avatar #92 to #31 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
If they want it, they'll get it.
User avatar #20 to #7 - thelastamerican ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Making a gun is laughably easy. Shotguns are the easiest.
User avatar #14 to #7 - curtkobain (09/23/2013) [-]
that'd work as well as the prohibition days in the US
User avatar #13 to #7 - fantomen (09/23/2013) [-]
And even if all the guns and gun factories magically disappeared tomorrow people would just make more of them, because there will always be a demand.

I made several guns in my garage when I was a teenager, and unable to legally buy guns.

I'm sure that if criminals can set up entire underground farms and labs for producing drugs , they can set up a production line for building guns in a basement somewhere.
User avatar #175 to #13 - reconred (09/23/2013) [-]
Spring, Nail, a few sections of pipe, a shotgun shell and you're good to go.
User avatar #54 to #13 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
ive seen people make guns out of nails, a piece of pipe, a bolt, a spring, and a couple pieces of wood
#62 to #54 - liquidz (09/23/2013) [-]
Not to mention certain field manuals explain exactly how to do that
#68 to #62 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
regulate amunition, then.

it requires explosive components, this makes it very easy to control. it's why you dont see people in england running around with homemade guns, getting a gun there is easy enough, getting amunition is almost impossible.
#290 to #68 - fantomen (09/24/2013) [-]
Oh, you don't?
I have at least 5 more pictures of British cops showing off homemade guns.
And I have a whole folder of homemade guns and grenades taken from the IRA.
User avatar #71 to #68 - liquidz (09/23/2013) [-]
Ammunition is really not that hard to make either, it wouldn't be quite as powerful, but it will work good enough to get the job done.

Also England has had their violent crime rate increase since their gun ban. The people moved to swords, then knives, now just blunt objects.
Gun crime is down, but all other crime has increased because of it.

This isn't an issue of the tool used, it's an issue of the mental state of the people that cause these crimes.

Additionally you have the other side of it, where the mental state of people wanting to ban any sort of weapon, be it guns, knives, etc. Are not wanting to learn to use them, let alone understand them out of fear. Therefore they want someone else to come to their aid when they are attacked, in danger, or disaster strikes.

Simply put, people are not getting appropriate mental help, and the other side doesn't want to step up and take control of their own situations because they don't have enough confidence to take care of themselves.
#73 to #71 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
actually, the violent crime rate in england is grossly mis-represented. almoost anything is classed as a violent crime, from breaking a window on an occupied house, to punching someone in the face.

Assault/weapon crimes are down. and our annual deaths from shootings and/or stabbings are far lower, per-capita, than america's.
User avatar #79 to #73 - liquidz (09/23/2013) [-]
You forget saturation of weapons per capita.

Since there are supposed to be almost none around, your crimes per gun owned is way higher.

We have countless millions, and the only places that have real "gun crime" are condensed cities were citizens have been banned from being able to conceal carry or have to jump through absurd hoops to own one.
#84 to #79 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
again, gross mis-representation.

Because guns are illegal here, the only guns (in the cities, im talking about) that are purchased/carried are for illegal activities. of-course the crime-per-gun will be higher.

gun crime happens everywhere, the places where guns are not allowed to be carried, or difficult to obtain in america, could well have put those laws into place in an attempt to lower the already extremely high gun-crime rate.
Giving every "law abiding" citizen a gun is a bad idea, simply because of this: People, in general, are stupid.

You and i can have a civilized conversation here, about how one or the other is right/wrong, make valid points, and reason.
people, however, are not so capable. Of-course there will always be people who are safe, and well educated, but there will always be, maybe more, maybe less, people, who are not, who are unsafe with weapons. these people will cause more damage than the ones that are safe.
User avatar #278 to #84 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
The everyone being armed aspect counters everything.

Human nature is that you try to do something, and if you get away with it, or hear that others get away with it, that you try it or do it.

If someone gets attacked, and the attacker gets shot, or the victim is armed. The attackers know it's not going to be easy. People are naturally lazy and take the easiest route.

In places were people carry the most, the crime is the lowest. In places where they have limited carry, crime has constantly increased, in particular it can be shown large increases right after they put a restriction in place.

Further, why should I lose my ability to defend myself because others are not as capable or unwilling to do so?

Most gun owners are responsible in carrying and using their weapons.
There is always a bad handful, or someone that has mental issues.

However if the people take care of themselves and that mentality is encouraged the impact of those bad few is easily countered.
#311 to #278 - newall (09/24/2013) [-]
at no point did i say that you should remove guns from people, now. that is undoable. i simply made the point, that if there were no guns in the public domain, there would be no gun crime (of-course, someone would always find a way, but it would be largely reduced, to the point of almost non-existance.) i dont think guns should be taken away, now, because of the simple fact: there are too many, already. there are so many weapons in circulation, it would be literally impossible to remove them all, and all you would manage to do was disarm the responsible people.
User avatar #8 to #7 - mouthofthesouth (09/23/2013) [-]
Lets say we did "ban guns". How many criminals do you think would come in and turn in their guns? None, that's how many. If we ever took guns away from the citizens, we would be taking them away from the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
User avatar #163 to #8 - checkandmate (09/23/2013) [-]
Go look at statistics. A no guns law has a slight change in number of homicides. Criminals are always going to exist and the police are always going to try getting them.

But look outside of that. Crimes of passion with gun, accidental shots gone off and killing people, hell children handling guns (even if it is the parents fault) and shooting themselves in the foot or others accidentally, etc.

Its ironic that the US wants peace doesn't have a law that at least cuts down a little on deaths.

Don't tell me that "Oh the citizens won't be able to defend themselves in that case". Guess what? Most citizens don't own guns ANYWAY!
User avatar #284 to #163 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
The hell you mean most citizens don't own guns here in the US?

There are more guns here than people easily by a factor of 10 to 20.
User avatar #286 to #284 - checkandmate (09/24/2013) [-]
And did you take into account who owns those guns?

For example: If there are 10 people and 20 guns, that could just as well mean that only one of them owns those 20 guns (I know a person that owns 18).

Even if there are more guns than people, that HARDLY means theres an even distribution of them
User avatar #288 to #286 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
Obviously, but there is a vast quantity of people that own is my point.

Easily more than 50 percent of the population and that's being conservative.
User avatar #312 to #288 - checkandmate (09/24/2013) [-]
Wrong. Go look it up. It used to be 50% around the 70s. Now it is 32% and still decreasing every year.
User avatar #315 to #312 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
I call ******** on that as the number of places I go and do work for people easily 75% of them have guns.

What is your source of info for that statistic?
User avatar #318 to #315 - checkandmate (09/24/2013) [-]
The New York freaking Times is my source on that info dude.

Even if 75% of the people YOU know own guns, it doesn't mean the rest do. Some areas just have a higher number of people that own guns while most others don't.

I live in the middle of freaking NJ. Other than shady areas in Newark or Camden, barely anyone owns guns.
User avatar #77 to #8 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
That`s only because citizens have been able to hold guns for so long. If that never happened then a high percentage of the general population (including criminals) wouldn`t have one.
#113 to #77 - anonymous (09/23/2013) [-]
Uk has the issue were criminals are one who currys guns that greater than those who have by legal means there also thse who can make there own gun it's not that hard
User avatar #134 to #113 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
There are less then 100 people killed by people using guns every year in England whereas it`s over 16,000 in America.
User avatar #234 to #134 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I hate how you guys use numbers of lumped gun uses. it's honestly pathetic.
User avatar #236 to #234 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I`m just saying what the numbers show. You can buy hunting rifles in England but its heavily regulated. And look at Germany, you can own a gun there but again its heavily regulated.
User avatar #240 to #236 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXezJWmSOo

Maybe go watch some of his other videos too. he is quiet knowledgeable.
User avatar #238 to #236 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
yeah, no thanks.
we are still on decline and our "mass shootings" have maintained at our average for a decade or more (I forgot the exact amount), of between 20-100 deaths by mass shooting each year (and always in areas where it is known that civilians and guards are not allowed to carry for protection from them). I think we are doing fine as is.
User avatar #241 to #238 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Whatever you say. I`m not telling you what to believe i`m just giving a different perspective on a issue.
User avatar #242 to #241 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
and one that is wrongheaded and can not apply similarly to our country.
User avatar #243 to #242 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I know it can`t be applied to America. In fact I don`t think that they should outlaw guns but just make it more regulated.

I`m saying that it would probably be more beneficial if the right to bare arms wasn`t there in the first place. The reason why so many guns are in America is because of that right but it I do agree that taking that right away at this point in time is a stupid idea.
User avatar #245 to #243 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
taking it away at any point is a stupid idea. it guaranties us our god given right to protect our life from anyone who would try to take it from us with greater or equal force to them.

and I don't agree with more regulation either. we have a 4th amendment for a reason, and "regulating" guns more is almost impossible without infringing our 4th A. right. We have already seen some try to make a record of those who do and do not own guns, that will only lead to more issues as records can be hacked or leaked.
in NYC there was a map printed into a newspaper that showed owners and non owners, this could create problems for both sides as now the criminals have a map of where to go to TRY and steal a gun, as well as a map of those who are the easiest targets (large groups of non gun owners). we have a right to privacy and that includes are ownership of firearms.
User avatar #246 to #245 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
But to be fair you`re protecting yourself from someone who has a gun.

And I know I keep relating this back to England (because that`s where I live) and outside of my Grandad`s hunting rifle I have never seen a rifle outside of military progressions through the town and I live in a pretty depraved area.
User avatar #247 to #246 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Not always, My life can be threatened with a knife, bat, lead pipe, car, etc. there are more ways than just a gun to threaten/take someones life.
User avatar #248 to #247 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
But you do have the right to those anyway. It`s easy to carry round a kitchen knife and its different from a gun because its main function isn`t killing. Whether it be killing animals or people.

And i`m not really disagreeing with you but I along with a huge majority of people in England would say it`s best not to have guns.
User avatar #249 to #248 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Actually I do have a right to own any of those I choice, and on my private property no one can say otherwise, not even my government.
I can own as many cars as I want and never drive them on public roads and no one would be the wiser to it. driving them on the road however is a privilege granted by the state, owning a gun and being able to carry it on me is a right that I am granted by being an american citizen with a spotless record.
User avatar #250 to #249 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
There has to be some limits.
User avatar #287 to #250 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
Limits are what you put on people that you don't trust.

The problem with folks in england is you have been so restricted on your firearms, so many of you have never seen or even used one and there is a huge perception that they are instant death machines. There is no training or respect given to the weapon by the general population because they never get the chance to handle or comprehend the capabilities of the weapon.

It would be the same as telling everyone you can't own a car, when you have never owned, driven, or been inside of one. Basing it on data such as how fast they can go, the number of passengers, etc. However any car owner knows they are'nt quite as bad, as they drive them, operate them, pay for upkeep, know the limits of the car, etc.

Because a gun can take a magazine of 100rds does'nt mean that magazine actually works well. Because a gun comes with a 30rd mag, does'nt make it high capacity, that makes it normal capacity. Because a gun is semi auto, does not mean it fires constantly and uncontrollably, it does not mean you can wipe out a room in split seconds either. Because you can pull a trigger does not mean the shot is placed to be lethal either.

There are multiple factors, caliber, placement, number of shots, type of projectile, velocity, materials impacted with, etc.

Just the same as if you put the pedal to the floor of your car, it does'nt mean you will do 150mph, and it does'nt mean you will fly off the road either.

The wrong actions of a few, does not mean the greater use of many should be restricted.
User avatar #260 to #250 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Limits on law abiding citizens with a right to bear arms are an infringement and unconstitutional to begin with. I think the firearm act should be repealed also. you won't agree, and I don't expect you to understand.

Things like background checks and "mandatory" training to conceal carry are infringement when the citizen has to put their own money towards these things to prove to it's gov that they deserve said rights. if the gov pays for these things as to make themselves feel better then I see no issues, except the delay it puts on a citizen from having their right afforded to them. infringements like those are why I love living in my state, where background checks are not tacked onto the price of my gun, but instead are afforded through our FBI HQ here in our state (the phone call to them, only cost them in that agents time). and where you don't need any training to obtain your conceal carry permit, just pay the filing fees and do a heavy background check with fingerprints to the pentagon and regular paperwork background checks(mine took about 15-20 minutes)(records of which are to be discarded within 24 hours of completion).

God bless America.
User avatar #261 to #260 - turtletroll ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
The right to bare arms could include any arms including nuclear. The whole constitution is vague because that makes it easier to adapt to more modern cultures.

And to be honest I don`t really care enough to keep talking about this.
User avatar #259 to #250 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
idk what is happening, I didn't delete that comments. My brain is full of WAT?!?!
0
#256 to #250 - thegamerslife has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #257 to #256 - thegamerslife ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I would not take it on my own dime. if they want me to prove myself and pay for the training and courses that is fine and is not and infringement. asking me to pay for the training to prove to them that I can handle my rights is an infringement*
#69 to #8 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
this is why i said

"that's impossible, now"

because there are too many guns already.

Gun's arent the issue, regulate ammuniton and you'll have less gun crime, simple as that.
User avatar #64 to #8 - vincetacular (09/23/2013) [-]
So why is there less gun related crime in lets say the EU? Don't say they have no badasses there, I've been they also have criminals and ghetto neighbourhoods and so on.
#43 to #8 - Sampsy (09/23/2013) [-]
I like how people bring up this point every time without the slightest ounce of thought. [sarcasm]Af if there is a magical line where one stops being a citizen and starts being a criminal. Of course all citizens are the same as are all criminals and they will remain that way forever.

Oh yes. The police are also completely useless and have no way whatsoever to find and retrieve guns that would remain in circulation. There are no examples of where gun control has successfully managed to do this. Certainly not loads of examples. Naaah.[/sarcasm]
#167 to #43 - bann (09/23/2013) [-]
Well to be fair, most places where guns were taken out of circulation, there were no many to begin with except for service weapons. There are many guns that have been stolen and we have no way of knowing where they are or keeping track of them. We can't go ransacking houses for these lost guns, they're out there and are unlikely to go anywhere.

That said, I'm in strong support of increased background checks. There are too many cases where people with obvious signs of mental health problems purchased guns at shows and such then later committed crimes. You have the right to your own views and beliefs to the point where you do not impose them on others...a gun tends to impose quite a bit on others.
User avatar #96 to #43 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (09/23/2013) [-]
The issue though is that it seems like crime rates (particularly crimes involving firearms) always seem to spike after guns are taken from the people. That being said, sometimes the practice seems effective. Hell, in the UK it seems like gun crimes are pretty much gone, though stabbings are on the rise (but I suppose criminals have to use something; if you found a way to magically get rid of all the knives I'm sure they'd just use something else).
#151 to #96 - wtfduud (09/23/2013) [-]
I'd like to see a source for crime rates spiking after the removal of guns.
User avatar #185 to #151 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (09/23/2013) [-]
www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."
"Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban."

townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
"Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences [after the ban], Home Office statistics revealed."

Just a couple examples. I'm aware that the issue is more complicated than these spikes in crime rates (after all, they seem to level out after some time), but I'm just saying that firearm advocates love to jump on these statistics, and in certain instances, it would appear that they are correct. D.C., Chicago, and California (the latter two of which I haven't provided statistics for) have had very negative results after they restricted access to guns, whilst areas like the UK would seem to be doing just fine by me.
#189 to #185 - wtfduud (09/23/2013) [-]
Alright.

Nice to see that you can actually back up a statement.
User avatar #86 to #43 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
Where I am Police would take about 15-30 minutes to get here, that's a long time to wait. It's also a long time to pray that this man who is going to shoot me waits just long enough.
#200 to #86 - anonymous (09/23/2013) [-]
most police take so long because of other gun crimes going on.

police would arrive quicker.
User avatar #276 to #200 - gatorade (09/24/2013) [-]
What kind of logic is that? Police take that long because of traffic, and just over-all driving time.
User avatar #56 to #43 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
how long do the police take to show up on average? let me tell you, it usually takes half an hour for a police response, how long does it take an assailant to shoot you? less than a second, I carry a gun because I would rather not die waiting for the cops to show up and protect me (which the supreme court has ruled that they have no legal obligation to do)
User avatar #109 to #56 - didactus (09/23/2013) [-]
It does take less than a second for him to shoot you. But from him pulling his gun on you to shooting you. Do you think that you would react faster than a bullet? I'm not against guns I just hate it when people say a gun can counter another gun because you can shoot him. Often it would be the legal gun carrier who would get shot before even getting the gun out. The content is an exception to what I said.
#171 to #109 - happyschlappy (09/23/2013) [-]
Well in the vast majority of situations you would have time to get the weapon. When a person is confronting another human with intent of violence, there is usually a progression of aggressive posturing, whether it be screaming, brandishing the weapon, etc, in order to make the victim submit to the person doing the posturing. Most animals will do the same thing, going through increasingly more aggressive shows of force before resorting to actual violence. So unless you are encountering an aggressive sociopath, you would usually have more than enough time to get your own weapon out and make the aggressor submit.
User avatar #304 to #171 - didactus (09/24/2013) [-]
it's just that all the shootings are from those sociopaths. I'm not against a ban but you NEED regulations and that is a fact. And about the thing that others will draw a gun to protect you. Then why would you need a gun in that case? If all got it?
User avatar #166 to #109 - bookyle (09/23/2013) [-]
It doesn't have to be the defender saving himself. A bystander with a gun could also make a robber back down
User avatar #142 to #109 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
not necessarily, a friend of mine keeps a shotgun with a quick release lock in his closet (he puts a large key in and it pops out of the trigger guard) a dude broke in trying to steal his TV and had a gun on him, my friend survived because he was able to do the same thing the guy in the content did, he put the robber in a situation where they didn't want to be so they backed down
User avatar #143 to #142 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
also I keep my gun on my person and have timed myself, I can load it and fire in under a second on average, I could take mine apart and reassemble it blindfolded, if you know your firearm as well as you should it should be no problem defending yourself, especially since I carry a dual-action pistol so I dont need to have the hammer back to fire the first round
#34 to #8 - anonymous (09/23/2013) [-]
that is exactly what newall said. You can't always reverse bad decisions like handing a gun to pretty much anyone who wants one.
User avatar #29 to #8 - mctoilet **User deleted account** (09/23/2013) [-]
Criminals and Civilians aren't 2 different breeds.
Since Civilans have guns, they could easily turn into criminals.
So this way a simple citizen could easily turn into a criminal if they just get a gun. which is easy for any citizen.
You are not only fighting criminals downtown, it could easily be your neighbor who would be the next criminal. you actualy have enemies all around you who are armed and dangerous.
I for sure are happy to live in a city with no guns, and happy that my neighbor would not have the resources to turn into a high armed criminal overnight.

And if he had a gun, i would give him what he wanted to spare my own life. we do have insurance do we not? or is your insurance the bullet in your gun?
User avatar #25 to #8 - hudis ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Disarming criminals isn't an over-night solution. It's a long process that could take months or years and would require government to actually give a **** and make sure that the law is enforced even in impoverished areas.

Let's say, hypothetically, that that along with enforcing harsh restrictions on gun ownership would reduce gun crimes altogether and make people safer. Wouldn't it then be worth it?
User avatar #65 to #25 - vincetacular (09/23/2013) [-]
I agree, it can't be done overnight but I don't see why it would be a worse situation compared to now. There will have to be a lot of work and it would take a few years but at the end it would be much safer/better. And you wouldn't have to get rid of all the guns but at least try to regulate it quite strictly.
User avatar #123 to #65 - hudis ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.
#12 to #8 - stormtrooperface (09/23/2013) [-]
a lot of firearms that criminals have are not registered anyways, so at that point the civilians would be defenseless against criminals who would still have them.
 Friends (0)