[QUOTE=Ridge;34006703]No country forces you to own a gun. Unless you are referring to the necessity of one due to criminal elements in your region. In which case, I refer you to this documentary:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmf-HCCZYOg[/url][/QUOTE]
Switzerland; due to conscription, every able-bodied man with a good mental and criminal record must have a fully-automatic assault rifle and at least 50 rounds of ammunition in his house, if I'm not mistaken. It was one of the European counties that started with an S, at least. They're allowed to keep it after their mandatory service term is up, too, they just get it converted to semi-auto.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;34007089]Switzerland; due to conscription, every able-bodied man with a good mental and criminal record must have a fully-automatic assault rifle and at least 50 rounds of ammunition in his house, if I'm not mistaken. It was one of the European counties that started with an S, at least. They're allowed to keep it after their mandatory service term is up, too, they just get it converted to semi-auto.[/QUOTE]
Ah, true. Thank you for correcting me.
Would Israel be considered the same?
[QUOTE=Ruzza;34005758]It's too late to make guns illegal, it's too wide spread and too many people will get pissed off, thank god I live in a country that doesn't force you to own a gun.[/QUOTE]
Of all of my 1st cousins, aunts, uncles, and immediate family, Im the only gun owner.
Its not like if you dont own a gun here you are going to get gunned down or something
In response to something said earlier, I feel safer knowing that people do have guns. If somebody pulls a gun, half the people around him can calmly pull theirs and stop the situation, whereas, in other places, everyone runs away screaming and the killer gets free passage.
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;34008420]In response to something said earlier, I feel safer knowing that people do have guns. If somebody pulls a gun, half the people around him can calmly pull theirs and stop the situation, whereas, in other places, everyone runs away screaming and the killer gets free passage.[/QUOTE]
Never hear about the massacre at the gun show.
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;34008420]In response to something said earlier, I feel safer knowing that people do have guns. If somebody pulls a gun, half the people around him can calmly pull theirs and stop the situation, whereas, in other places, everyone runs away screaming and the killer gets free passage.[/QUOTE]
And if anyone can have a gun a criminal is less likely to attempt a robbery because they know their life could be in danger, whereas our British friends apparently will just wait for the police, after all they have a smaller country with a average faster police response time, which is an important factor
I wish people would stop acting like either side is completely right. In Britain guns are already established as rare and their culture will never support it. In the US guns are common and tight control on them would never be accepted.
I just dislike how Americans come in this thread and say the British are morons who depend too much on the police and will die and the British (and other Europeans) come in and because of their culture call the Americans trigger happy idiots.
Personally I don't like having to entirely depend on the government for my safety, I therefore support guns as a tool of self defense, and I don't expect a European who grew up in a different culture than mine to understand that. Guns are dangerous things and need [I]some[/I] regulation but not too much.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;34008136]Of all of my 1st cousins, aunts, uncles, and immediate family, Im the only gun owner.
Its not like if you dont own a gun here you are going to get gunned down or something[/QUOTE]
Yet that's the single most used argument in this thread. If you don't own a gun you're asking to get gunned down/defenseless when someone else has a gun/need it to protect your property/irresponsible not to have it in case someone else pulls a gun on you.
[QUOTE=Ridge;34005160]So I would assume that there is no gun crime in Portugal, right?[/QUOTE]
Lot's of armed robberies on stores. Specially on jewellers. Lot's of robberies on ATM's through explosive extraction. Last one around here someone used a bulldozer to tear the ATM out of the wall.
You have the occasional knife carrying robber.
But for example, if someone goes to your store and robs you with an inferior gun than yours and you shoot him. You're in serious shit with the law. If he has a pistol and you have a shotgun, if you use a shotgun you're going to jail if you kill the man.
There was a story of a grocer here that shot a robber in the leg while he was trying to rob the store. The robber was injured for the rest of his life and now the grocer has to pay him for the damage.
I kinda see the point of not using guns, they want to minimize the damage if someone decides to act like a hero and get killed. But I don't agree with that. I think people should be allowed to carry guns and arms designed for self-defence in order to defend themselves.
I'm not saying that we should be like in the USA, but everything that goes from semi-auto to a shotgun should be allowed.
I currently have a 2 barrelled shotgun in my home and it's a registered hunting weapon and should not be used for defence under any circumstance, according to the law.
However, if you ask me, I'll use it to defend my family if it comes to it, despite what the law says.
If America wants guns, let them have guns. They have the right to choose their own civil liberties and we can't tell them that their ideas are wrong. Similarly, if the Europeans don't want guns, don't try and tell us that we are "idiotic". Americans have no right to dictate to us our rights & liberties and vice versa. An American would respect their neighbours rights so why doesn't this scale up?
Some questions for people to ponder:
A criminal is unlikely to enter a house if s/he is unsure if their are guns in there. A criminal is also unlikely to enter a house with a nuclear bomb. Does that mean every citizen should have a nuclear bomb in their house for protection? (This is an extreme example but extreme examples seem to be the only way some people understand the arguement)
It is an accepted fact that organised criminals will get guns. However, lower criminals are less likely to own guns in places with gun control. If most criminals don't have guns why do you need guns to defend yourself?
trying to stop gun violence by banning guns is like trying to stop rape by banning sex.
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34030546]trying to stop gun violence by banning guns is like trying to stop rape by banning sex.[/QUOTE]
Gun control =/= Banning guns
Conflating the two doesn't help your argument. The U.K. has gun control (it allows guns for recreation) but it doesn't hand a gun to everyone. There is criteria you have to fulfill in order to be allowed to own a gun.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34030493]A criminal is unlikely to enter a house if s/he is unsure if their are guns in there. A criminal is also unlikely to enter a house with a nuclear bomb. Does that mean every citizen should have a nuclear bomb in their house for protection? (This is an extreme example but extreme examples seem to be the only way some people understand the arguement)[/QUOTE]
Nukes aren't practical for self defence, and it'll get the UN on your ass. A gun won't cause mass destruction and kill millions, and you can't point a nuke at a criminal and threaten to kill kim. Besides, there are plenty of criminals who would be willing to steal a nuclear bomb. Saying that is like saying "The government lets us smoke cigarettes, which might cause cancer. Does that mean we should all stand next to Uranium?" :)
[QUOTE=Mythman;34030493]It is an accepted fact that organised criminals will get guns. However, lower criminals are less likely to own guns in places with gun control. If most criminals don't have guns why do you need guns to defend yourself?[/QUOTE]
Gun control doesn't limit the amount of guns owned by criminals, it only limits the guns owned by people who follow the laws. Even low-profile criminals can buy a gun unregistered and illegally. Criminals commit crimes in gun-control areas knowing most of the people can't defend themselves.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34030585]Gun control =/= Banning guns
Conflating the two doesn't help your argument. The U.K. has gun control (it allows guns for recreation) but it doesn't hand a gun to everyone. There is criteria you have to fulfill in order to be allowed to own a gun.[/QUOTE]
Using the UK as an example of gun control =/= gun bans is a terrible example, there are so many prohibitions of and restrictions on guns there it's ridiculous. I'd put up a Scandinavian country or Switzerland first as a better example, Britain has banned so many guns, it's a terrible example for this argument. Even Canada is a bad example, and we still allow people to own pistols.
You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws, That's insane.
P&T
If it is done right gun control isn't idiotic. Aslong as it makes it easy for the right people to get guns and hard for the wrong people to get them it would be perfectly fine. Ofcourse, that is easier said than done.
[editline]4th January 2012[/editline]
I personally have no issue with not being able to own a gun here in the UK, but that is because since there are so few guns in legal circulation it makes it a lot harder for small time criminals to get one aswell.
[QUOTE=Onion836;34042798]
Gun control doesn't limit the amount of guns owned by criminals, it only limits the guns owned by people who follow the laws. Even low-profile criminals can buy a gun unregistered and illegally. Criminals commit crimes in gun-control areas knowing most of the people can't defend themselves.[/QUOTE]
The basic economic principle of supply and demand says otherwise. As the supply of guns decreases with gun control, the price for guns increases. Since poverty is an important factor as to why people commit crimes, these criminals will have a harder time affording a gun.
In statistics frequently cited by those against gun control we see that the use of firearms in crimes decreased after they tightened the gun laws, but the use of knifes increased on the other hand. This means that criminals indeed had a harder time buying guns, but that the gun regulation didn't stop them from committing the same crimes anyway, they just use different means.
As I see it, the gun regulation didn't work because it didn't try to eliminate the factors which cause people to commit crimes, like poverty. Instead the law makers attacked the methods used by the criminals, which is hardly efficient. I'm an advocate for gun control because of other reasons. I don't think guns should be used as a method to prevent crime. I think you need to have a good reason if you're going to own a gun, like hunting, sports shooting, collecting etc. I see owning a gun as a privilege, not a right.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;34072455]The basic economic principle of supply and demand says otherwise. As the supply of guns decreases with gun control, the price for guns increases. Since poverty is an important factor as to why people commit crimes, these criminals will have a harder time affording a gun.
.[/QUOTE]
No.
A gun on the black market costs roughly less than 1/2 of the same model on civilian market.
The principle of supply and demand doesn't work here, because gun control only effects the supply of legally owned firearms. Gun control = removal of legally owned firearms. The supply of illegal firearms are still there.
There needs to be SOME gun controll, or else every gangsta would have a glock and its would be anarchy, I somewhat agree with the current gun controll in America, but parts of it need to be changed for special situations
[QUOTE=PunchedFace1337;34080786]There needs to be SOME gun controll, or else every gangsta would have a glock and its would be anarchy, I somewhat agree with the current gun controll in America, but parts of it need to be changed for special situations[/QUOTE] Every gang member already does hve a glock..and why does it matter what kinda gun it is...more emotion based liberal arguments.
[QUOTE=PunchedFace1337;34080786]There needs to be SOME gun controll, or else every gangsta would have a glock and its would be anarchy, I somewhat agree with the current gun controll in America, but parts of it need to be changed for special situations[/QUOTE]
There already IS gun control, this post was against people who pretty much want to outlaw guns altogether
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34084355]Every gang member already does hve a glock[/quote]
Source?
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34084355]more emotion based liberal arguments.[/QUOTE]
More partisan conservative arguments.
[QUOTE=Onion836;34042798]Gun control doesn't limit the amount of guns owned by criminals, it only limits the guns owned by people who follow the laws. Even low-profile criminals can buy a gun unregistered and illegally. Criminals commit crimes in gun-control areas knowing most of the people can't defend themselves.[/QUOTE]
Firearm homicides in the US in 2010: 12,996
Firearm homicides in the UK in 2010: [B]57[/B]
[QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;34089542]There already IS gun control, this post was against people who pretty much want to outlaw guns altogether[/QUOTE]
No one in this thread has been arguing that guns should be banned.
[QUOTE=DuncanFrost;34092671]Firearm homicides in the US in 2010: 12,996
Firearm homicides in the UK in 2010: [B]57[/B][/QUOTE]
It's the UK. Your population is a fraction of our population. We will have higher gun related deaths. We also have a much larger country. We can't cover EVEY place at the same time.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;34095502]It's the UK. Your population is a fraction of our population. We will have higher gun related deaths. We also have a much larger country. We can't cover EVEY place at the same time.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url]
If you want an interesting example on gun control failing take a look at Brazil.
They have around 4 times the gun crime of the US, yet legal ownership is harder to get than England. The laws are retarded tier.
In 2005 the crime was getting so bad they had a nation wide mandatory vote if they should just flat out ban guns entirely. (durrrr cause that will totally fix the problem)
The vote failed, but gun crime is still really high in Brazil.
You can buy an illegal handgun in Brazil for $125 compared to if you bought the exact same gun legally it'd be like $700
[QUOTE=Aman VII;34097574]If you want an interesting example on gun control failing take a look at Brazil.
They have around 4 times the gun crime of the US, yet legal ownership is harder to get than England. The laws are retarded tier.
In 2005 the crime was getting so bad they had a nation wide mandatory vote if they should just flat out ban guns entirely. (durrrr cause that will totally fix the problem)
The vote failed, but gun crime is still really high in Brazil.
You can buy an illegal handgun in Brazil for $125 compared to if you bought the exact same gun legally it'd be like $700[/QUOTE]
Yeah of course gun control won't work in a country that doesn't have any sufficient police force.
And eh, the US has a higher death by firearms rate than Brazil.. Brazil has more homicides, but less suicides and less accidental deaths.
[editline]time[/editline]
Hmm it seems that the wikipedia page is either outdated or has false information, as what I just said is no longer the case.
How about Mexico? There is a single gun shop in the whole country, on a military base, in Mexico City. You need federal documents saying you have permission to buy a gun.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/mexico-drug-deaths-figures-calderon]35,000 dead in Mexico in 4 years[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)]8,769 killed in Afghanistan in the same period[/url]
Idk if this is late or not, but Switzerland.
All-militia army. EVERYONE HAS A GUN! People walk through the store with them slung over their shoulder.
[IMG]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5885/450pxcarolinemigrosp100.jpg[/IMG]
Now, you would think that, in a society where guns are common, expected, and even required, violent gun crime would be through the roof but, in fact, this:
[IMG]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8633/capture139.jpg[/IMG]
In 2006, there were [b]36[/b] crimes with both illegally and legally acquired firearms involved. And that's just the [b]crimes[/b]. Not deaths or people hospitalized. It's a total number of gun crimes. 36. In England (a country known for it's strict gun control) the number of such crimes the year after (2007) was... I'm going to give you a second... [b]21,521[/b] recorded crimes.
Now, why? Well the answer is fairly simple. If your plan is to go somewhere public and shoot up the place, would you do it in a place where the chances of returning fire are about 100%? The whole of Switzerland is a place like that, therefore no one is stupid enough to pull a gun on anyone else because it's very possible they'll do the same thing.
When more people are trained properly in the use of firearms and allowed to keep them, then more people are safe from the relatively small number of people dumb or crazy enough to use them irresponsibly.
Another thing to consider: If you're determined to commit a violent gun crime, do you seriously think the fact that guns are "illegal" is gonna stop you from finding one and using it? Really? To assume that gun control will control guns is not only naive, but it also ignores every statistic on the matter.
It boils down to this: More people armed (with proper training, of course) = more people protected.
[QUOTE=sdwise;34105950]
Another thing to consider: If you're determined to commit a violent gun crime, do you seriously think the fact that guns are "illegal" is gonna stop you from finding one and using it? Really? To assume that gun control will control guns is not only naive, but it also ignores every statistic on the matter.
[/quote]
Of course it is not going to stop criminals. Noone is saying that gun control completely prevents gun crime, gun control prevents a portion of crime being committed or escalating.
In America there are occasionally student massacres where a depressed student goes on a rampage on campus. We don't have events like that in the U.K.
Using a vehicle stealing example - criminal pulls a gun on someone at the lights. The victim has a gun. The result? One dead criminal or one dead victim.
An alternative scenario - criminal pulls a gun on someone at the lights. The victim doesn't have a gun. The result? The vehicle is stolen, the criminal is chased by the police, caught then locked up.
Depending on your culture one scenario is better. Americans (I infer) prefer the first scenario whilst Europeans tend to lean towards the second one.
Which one had the least tragic consequences? Which is more valuable? Human life or a car?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
