[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaIyxOe9pDk[/media]
"You dont shoot a deeeaar with a semi automatic"
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;40770155]Violent crime is defined differently in the UK. It's not fair to compare the statistics. The UK has a broader definition of violent crime.
Although, it is a fact that there has been a steady decrease of violent crime in the United States.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, I forgot about this. However, if I remember correctly, when proportioned correctly the UK has close to 700-800 violent crimes per 100,000. Not significantly as different as 2,000 vs 500, but more nonetheless.
[URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139]SOURCE: BBC[/URL]
[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65077000/gif/_65077559_us_gun_compared_624.gif[/img]
[URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280]SOURCE: BBC[/URL]
[quote]The UK Peace Index, from the Institute for Economics and Peace, found UK homicides per 100,000 people had fallen from 1.99 in 2003, to one in 2012.[/quote]
From these figures, the US has more murders per 100,000 with guns than the UK [u]has murders[/u].
While we're talking about violent crimes and homicides, I'll also refer to:
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA[/URL]
[quote=Intentional Homicides per 100,000]United States 4.8
United Kingdom 1.2[/quote]
You may notice that these are different figures than previously stated. These are [i]INTENTIONAL[/i] homicides, not merely homicides.
With regards to violent crime, as the definitions vary widely between countries, you can only speculate and it does not do well to back up your argument.
From what can be seen here, two very similar counties, the US and the UK, the UK is gun restricted and has a lower homicide rate, the US has a gun homicide rate that surpasses the UKs current homicide rate by all means, which should not be ignored.
Therefore: Gun restriction could be a big factor in reducing homicides.
One question I have always stood on.
If guns are the 'problem', where were all the school shootings and mass shootings on a similar scale when you could go to your local hardware store and buy a BAR, Thompson, and other military hardware?
You're actually comparing 2 very different countries, and it's not necessarily fair to compare the US to the UK. It is, however, fair to compare the US to the US and the UK to the UK:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzCJzTRtPc&list=UUaGoVAB64Ojh3JU_VPis8ig&index=3[/media]
Considering that the right to bear arms was meant to protect us from our government, I'd say the "line" should be drawn at Weapons of Mass Destruction.
snip
[QUOTE=supercow9001;41088880]3: 2nd amendment itself.
First, the SCOTUS has ruled that the right is for an individual, and not a militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State[/quote]
[quote]Well regulated Militia[/quote]
You can't use the second amendment to argue against gun regulation when it outright states that regulation is required.
If they want to remove guns for the sake of 'safety' and 'security', To remove them from the hands of 'dangerous' people. Then the only way I'm going to swallow that is if they remain consistent and don't turn around and arm fucking cannibals and extremists. Why should the 'Rebels' have a means to fight off oppressive government if we ourselves shouldn't technically have it.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41089155]You can't use the second amendment to argue against gun regulation when it outright states that regulation is required.[/QUOTE]
Once again, "well regulated" only applies to "militia" which is in the prefatory clause. Not the operative clause.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41089155]You can't use the second amendment to argue against gun regulation when it outright states that regulation is required.[/QUOTE]
No, it states said regulation already exists, the 2nd refers to the American people as a "Well-Regulated Militia," and since the people are all part of a militia, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Note also how the amendment says the right of THE PEOPLE, not the right of THE MILITIA.
snip
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;41089239]No, it states said regulation already exists, the 2nd refers to the American people as a "Well-Regulated Militia," and since the people are all part of a militia, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Note also how the amendment says the right of THE PEOPLE, not the right of THE MILITIA.[/QUOTE]
Every person in the country is in the militia. Saying that you can't regulate everybody, whilst at the same time saying that the militia (consisting of everybody) is to be well regulated, is a form of doublethink.
It only says that the right to use arms isn't to be infringed. It does not state that regulation is a no-no (and regulation can do things besides infringe rights).
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41089475]Every person in the country is in the militia. Saying that you can't regulate everybody, whilst at the same time saying that the militia (consisting of everybody) is to be well regulated, is a form of doublethink.
It only says that the right to use arms isn't to be infringed. It does not state that regulation is a no-no (and regulation can do things besides infringe rights).[/QUOTE]
It is not saying the militia is to be well regulated, it is saying it already is. It is saying the populace already makes up a well-regulated militia, not that one needs to be created.
the united states really needs to change their culture about guns.
if you teach people properly and not glorify and give extensive publicity to guns used in a violent way (shootings on the news, being the only thing people talk about for a while), you may see gun crime fall.
[editline]19th June 2013[/editline]
movies and entertainment are different though. if somebody has issues differentiating from a device of entertainment from reality, they are clearly mentally ill and require psychological help and should not be allowed to purchase weapons.
I'm pretty sure that people lives are very important. I'd say we need gun control around most of the world.
snip
I never understood why all anti gun control people say that owning a gun somehow protects you from other gun owners. It's not like a criminal with a gun will somehow instinctively know who has a gun and who doesn't, and once he's in your house, your gun won't help much anyway. If he pulls his gun on you first, you're screwed either way, and if you have a chance to pull a gun on him, chances are you would also have the chance to hit him with a taser.
And as far as the whole "a criminal can get a gun no matter how much regulation there is, so gun control doesn't help" argument goes, the school shooting in Finland is a really good counter argument to this. The kid had a licensed gun, and stricter regulations would have definitely made it harder for him to get it, if not completely prevented it. My point here is, yes a criminal can get a gun if he wants one, but that's completely irrelevant since gun control can still prevent innocent people from dying. And yes, someone with a gun might have stopped the shooter from killing more people than he did, but so would have someone with a taser, or the someone with a gun that was harder to acquire.
I find it completely ridiculous that anyone believes that [B]owning a piece of machinery capable of instantly killing anyone in a 100 foot radius[/B] is in any way a right. It should be a privilege granted only to those who can prove with complete and utter certainty that they won't abuse it. If someone isn't patient enough to go through a long process to prove they should be able to own a gun, they really shouldn't be allowed to get one.
I don't understand why the anti-gun control people seem to think the whole world is neatly divided into "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens". That's not how crime works. Every criminal was a law-abiding citizen until they committed a crime. People don't commit crimes because they decide to be criminals -- people are motivated to commit crimes by a complex variety of factors. There's a whole field of study devoted to it.
"Criminals don't follow laws anyway" is wrong too. Nobody breaks one law and then goes, "I'm a criminal now, so fuck it, I'm breaking ALL the laws!"
Personally, I'm totally for more legislation that prevents mentally unstable people from obtaining a firearm easily. What I don't believe in as an American is that we should be told what we can and can't own as a legal citizen. If I want to defend my home with a electric fence that is totally fine. Put a fully automatic weapon in the closet and that's just out of the question. My car does not drive itself drunk and a fork doesn't choose to make someone fat it's the person wielding the object that makes good or bad decisions. A weapon gives a person the option to attempt to defend themselves, wether it would help or not is debatable but it's their choice in either way, nobody should be able to tell me I can't be equally armed if I so choose. That's just my two cents.
My home is in New Mexico. At age 19 we can open carry a handgun without a permit. I've always had a firearm in my car, whether it was a Mosin-Nagant at age 16 or a Beretta 92fs now at age 19. If someone tries robbing me, they're going to have another thing coming. Why is it that you never hear about these mass shootings in New Mexico? Why do libtards continue trying to disarm us when these shooting CONTINUE to happen in gun free zones? I'll tell you why. The government doesn't give a fuck about us or our children, they simply want complete controle.
only read this page so far, but there seems to be alot of pro-gun control going on here. so i'll voice why guns are important.
1. a gun is used as a deterrant.
believe it or not, most people cannot 360noscope headshot with a gun. crazy talk, i know. if you pull a gun on a burglar who has a gun, he may shoot at you, and you can fire back, most of the time neither of you will be hit in lethal places, if hit at all. but, the burglar knows if he sticks around for long enough, he's going to get shot, and that's not worth a new tv.
2. tasers suck balls.
the kinds of tasers that exist are stun guns, which require you to be within arm's reach of your aggressor, and the ones that have 2 projectiles connected to wire, which is a one-shot deal.
just in case you didn't get it: an aggressor with a gun will not let you get at close range, and when/if you miss with your taser, he's going to want to walk up and put a bullet in you.
piece of info on tasers, copied from [URL=http://www.officer.com/article/10249402/why-tasers-dont-work?page=2]here[/URL]
[QUOTE]TASERs do work. However, a TASER deployment can sometimes be rendered ineffective for certain reasons. The most common reason that a TASER deployment might fail is lack of a circuit. If you miss with one or both of the probes, there will be no circuit. If a wire breaks or a probe is pulled loose during a struggle, no circuit. If there is a "clothing disconnect," i.e. one or both probes getting hung up in the target's clothing, more than two inches from the skin surface, no circuit. [/QUOTE]
3. guns are an equalizer.
if two buff 6'7'' males decides they want to rape a tiny 5'10'' female, a knife won't save her(please dont make me explain why), pepper spray will (most likely) not work, a taser will never work unless she has serious and inhumane speed and a stunstick, but a gun will. if she has a gun, she's on even grounds with them. if they have guns, she's still on even grounds(though at a slight disadvantage due to being outnumbered).
where this comes into play is semi-autos and full autos. if a criminal has a full-auto assault rifle, and he's going up against a pistol, well.. he may choose to run, but he has significantly more firepower than the victim and often times won't. if the victim had a semi-auto rifle(note, those are legal in the us, but a full-auto isn't) he'd be much more likely to deter the aggressor, but a full auto would bring it back to that "equal grounds" level.
and, if the aggressor had a minigun, the victim had a semi or full auto, they would still be at even grounds, which is why no one seeks to legalize miniguns; they do not provide a deterrent. miniguns are more for killing masses of unarmed civilians, than deterring criminals
and for the love of god don't say "if guns were illegal, then how would the criminals get them?"
edit: and [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland]here[/URL] is why there is 2nd amendment in the US. if every citizen has a gun, and is trained, there is little to no risk of invasion.
edit 2: ITS OK I FOUND A BETTER SOLUTION
[video=youtube;ozJTenNzUKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozJTenNzUKM[/video]
@willtheoct
Outstanding points. The problem with your argument is that it uses logic and is in touch with reality. Most (complete) gun control advocates have a huge problem with logic and the simple trait of being in touch with reality. They don't realize how many crimes are thwarted on a daily basis with the use of firearms.
[QUOTE=rargh;41170563]I never understood why all anti gun control people say that owning a gun somehow protects you from other gun owners. It's not like a criminal with a gun will somehow instinctively know who has a gun and who doesn't, and once he's in your house, your gun won't help much anyway. If he pulls his gun on you first, you're screwed either way, and if you have a chance to pull a gun on him, chances are you would also have the chance to hit him with a taser.
And as far as the whole "a criminal can get a gun no matter how much regulation there is, so gun control doesn't help" argument goes, the school shooting in Finland is a really good counter argument to this. The kid had a licensed gun, and stricter regulations would have definitely made it harder for him to get it, if not completely prevented it. My point here is, yes a criminal can get a gun if he wants one, but that's completely irrelevant since gun control can still prevent innocent people from dying. And yes, someone with a gun might have stopped the shooter from killing more people than he did, but so would have someone with a taser, or the someone with a gun that was harder to acquire.
I find it completely ridiculous that anyone believes that [B]owning a piece of machinery capable of instantly killing anyone in a 100 foot radius[/B] is in any way a right. It should be a privilege granted only to those who can prove with complete and utter certainty that they won't abuse it. If someone isn't patient enough to go through a long process to prove they should be able to own a gun, they really shouldn't be allowed to get one.[/QUOTE]
Right, so we shouldn't be able to own pressure cookers because owning a piece of machinery capable of instantly killing anyone in a 100 foot radius is not a right.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;41213009]Right, so we shouldn't be able to own pressure cookers because owning a piece of machinery capable of instantly killing anyone in a 100 foot radius is not a right.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure a regular pressure cooker can't do that, pressure cooker bombs can, and as far as I know those aren't legal. Plus pressure cookers have other functions too, while guns generally speaking don't, unless you want to count target practice which really doesn't require you to own a gun.
[QUOTE=rargh;41213359]Pretty sure a regular pressure cooker can't do that, pressure cooker bombs can, and as far as I know those aren't legal. Plus pressure cookers have other functions too, while guns generally speaking don't, unless you want to count target practice which really doesn't require you to own a gun.[/QUOTE]
Yes weaponized pressure cookers aren't legal. Didn't stop the Boston bombers from building some.
Same with guns; if they aren't legal, any motivated person could build one themselves or have it smuggled to them through the black market.
And what do you mean guns don't have other functions? Hunting is very important in some middle-of-fucking-nowhere areas, and I'd take a rifle over a bow and arrow any day.
Avalanche Control?
Self Defense?
Defense of others?
"the black market"
aka "buying guns from someone who either bought them legally or stole them from someone who did"
there isn't some insane criminal underworld where everybody has a secret phone number that they dial if they want any kind of gun in the world, they just get their guns from someone who got it legally. this has been shown multiple times in this very thread, but for some reason the idea that guns can't be taken away because a crazy black market exists to supply criminals is still being pushed as true despite it being totally not even close to true. building homemade weapons is something different though (although homemade firearms are exceedingly rare in the U.S. and will never be as desirable as manufactured ones, given disadvantages in durability, accuracy, and ammo capacity)
avalanche control has been cited several times as well and is the biggest joke in the thread, as if avalanche control is every private citizen's responsibility and couldn't be easily handled by state/federal authorities lmao
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;41214041]there isn't some insane criminal underworld where everybody has a secret phone number that they dial if they want any kind of gun in the world, they just get their guns from someone who got it legally.[/QUOTE]
Tor appears to have such a service, and I really doubt the full-autos and explosives available there have been obtained legally.
And even if someone succeeded in passing some laws akin to "let's take guns away" or "let's not sell them anymore", what exactly do you think would happen?
I live in a country with rather lax gun laws, albeit with licensing and registration, and criminals still obtain their guns from other sources. Czech submachineguns were especially popular among our criminals in the 80's, and those [B]definitely[/B] weren't stolen from some dude that bought them legally. Black markets and international gun trafficking do exist, and any action regarding legal gun ownership wouldn't affect it in the slightest.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;41214041]"the black market"
aka "buying guns from someone who either bought them legally or stole them from someone who did"
there isn't some insane criminal underworld where everybody has a secret phone number that they dial if they want any kind of gun in the world, they just get their guns from someone who got it legally. this has been shown multiple times in this very thread, but for some reason the idea that guns can't be taken away because a crazy black market exists to supply criminals is still being pushed as true despite it being totally not even close to true. building homemade weapons is something different though (although homemade firearms are exceedingly rare in the U.S. and will never be as desirable as manufactured ones, given disadvantages in durability, accuracy, and ammo capacity)
avalanche control has been cited several times as well and is the biggest joke in the thread, as if avalanche control is every private citizen's responsibility and couldn't be easily handled by state/federal authorities lmao[/QUOTE]
You again!
We went over this already, if the acquisition of legal guns for the illegal market is stifled somehow, all thats going to happen is the sellers will move to different sources. Guns aren't impossibly hard for an individual to make, much less an organized group.
[editline]27th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;41214041]
avalanche control has been cited several times as well and is the biggest joke in the thread, as if avalanche control is every private citizen's responsibility and couldn't be easily handled by state/federal authorities lmao[/QUOTE]
No, the biggest joke in the thread is that we need more gun control
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;41214041]
there isn't some insane criminal underworld where everybody has a secret phone number that they dial if they want any kind of gun in the world[/QUOTE]
well, the silk road(tor site) was pretty popular in recent years, but you are correct; no one uses a phone anymore.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
