[QUOTE=Chrille;46390215]The only reason a ban in the US would never work is because of the enormous amount of weapons [i]already[/i] in circulation, that can't be removed. Can't buy a gun legally? Doesn't matter, there are literally millions of them lying around already, you can get your hands on one. An overall low supply of guns in a country means that they're harder to get for everybody, even if criminals can still get their hands on them, and I think it should remain that way. Less guns in circulation means less death by guns.[/QUOTE]Crime is a cultural problem, and if you really analyzed the situation here you'd come to understand that firearms are actually irrelevant to the greater issue. You're also mistaken about why a ban in the US would never work, it isn't an argument about quantity, it's an argument about who we are at our very core. We'd go to war with our government even if all our guns were magically removed from us, because at that point it would have violated our rights so severely that it would need to be removed. Plus it wouldn't be hard to arm ourselves, we'd do it in a heartbeat. Our government going full retard would mean it would not be our government for long, and this isn't even addressing what an unlikely scenario this is in the first place.
Top 10 causes of death in the US in 2010.
* Heart Disease (597,689 deaths)
* Cancer (574,743 deaths)
* Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease
* Stroke
* Unintentional Injury
* Alzheimer's Disease
* Diabetes
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, nephrosis
* Influenza and pneumonia
* suicide
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6208a8.htm[/url]
Firearm related deaths including suicide in 2010. 31,672
[url]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states[/url]
Firearm suicides in 2010. 19,392
[url]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states[/url]
Of those 12,280 about 70%-80% were gang on gang related homicide. ~8,900 death.
[url]http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm[/url]
617 Justifiable homicides in 2010.
[url]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_of_justifiable_homicides[/url]
~2763 killed in a country of 314 million.
Between 2005-2009 an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States.
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html[/url]
In the US you have a greater chance of drowning than you do of being fatally shot. You greatly decrease your chances of being fatally shot if you don't hang out in the hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and are not planning on committing a crime.
Also since 1993, gun homicides have dropped 50% and gun violence is down 75%.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/07/chart-of-the-day-gun-homicides-are-down-49-percent-since-1993/[/url]
No amount of words can describe how stupid the NFA is in its current form, and everything about the Hughes Amendment is just plain illegal.
I'm just going to leave this here.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ[/media]
Hopefully this can be presented as evidence in the trial as proof that the amendment was not lawfully enacted and should therefore be repealed.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385930]Yeah I know, but in a country with low-to-no gun crime, would you support legalizing firearms.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Yes I 100% would. Guns are fun! I greatly enjoy taking my .22 and my Mosin out into the back yard and shoot oil filters and tin cans with them. Of course they deserve respect and safe handling practices, they are after all capable of lethal injuries, but they're still a LOAD of fun to use for target practice.
[editline]2nd November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46386028]Because it comments on where you stem your argument from, which is important in politics.[/quote]
Not really.
[quote]I personally think that arguments about guns should stem from public safety.[/quote] I do agree that there needs to be measures to ensure not anyone can just waltz into a gun shop and leave with a DeathMachine 9001 TacTiCool Edition, but at the same time they should still be legal. I have no qualms with civilian firearm ownership. Having to be licensed to own automatics is part of that regulation, as is things like waiting periods and mandatory BG checks before allowing someone to buy a piece.
The laughable thing is gun control doesn't even put a dent in gun crime. Gangbangers are 95% of it, and gangbangers are alraedy federally barred from owning firearms due to previous felony convictions. Yet they get their hands on guns anyway! Wanna take a wild stab at [i]how[/i] they acquire those pieces and why gun control won't even slow them down? I'll give you two hints: Mexico, and Breaking-and-Entering.
[quote]If you would introduce guns into an otherwise safe, gunless country, it means that your priorities are not inline with public interest, but another ideology which does not accept compromise on gun regulation.[/quote]
And that is patently wrong. I do accept, and in fact encourage, compromise on gun regulation. But I also 100% support civilian firearm ownership. You're just trying to pull the same shit that happens in Congress, turn it into a two sided 'us VS them' argument.
[quote] I think that we need to stop focusing so much on the absolutes of what we think of as rights, and focus on what's in the public's best interest.[/QUOTE]
And also stop trying to fuck a fourth of the population over while reacting to irrational fear instead of logic and reasoning.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46390426]Crime is a cultural problem, and if you really analyzed the situation here you'd come to understand that firearms are actually irrelevant to the greater issue. You're also mistaken about why a ban in the US would never work, it isn't an argument about quantity, it's an argument about who we are at our very core. We'd go to war with our government even if all our guns were magically removed from us, because at that point it would have violated our rights so severely that it would need to be removed. Plus it wouldn't be hard to arm ourselves, we'd do it in a heartbeat. Our government going full retard would mean it would not be our government for long, and this isn't even addressing what an unlikely scenario this is in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I never argued that there was any correlation between crime and guns, what.
What I'm saying is, is that if there is a large amount of firearms in circulation in a country, there simply is no denying that criminals would also be more likely to possess firearms, as everybody would be. And I simply don't think that's a good idea.
If I walked down the most dangerous parts of Copenhagen (which admittedly is not very dangerous) right now my chances of getting mugged by someone with a gun is nil. Yes, the mugger would likely carry a bat or a knife, but at least my chances of getting shot are non-existent. Some criminals here do carry guns, but they mainly use them against other gun-carrying criminals. If there is a chance that a civilian might be carrying a firearm, muggers would have a better incentive to also carry a firearm. Escalation.
Of course it is actually possible to own handguns and rifles, generally for sporting or hunting purposes, and to keep them in your home. Gun control is so restrictive that it would make most Americans weep, though.
As much as I'd love an automatic, I could never imagine enjoying it enough to justify it. My AK has been sitting on the wall for three years since I ran a magazine through it. In that same time I'm dumped hundreds of rounds through my Mosin and Glock and thousands of thousands of .22. It's just too expensive to shoot those calibers without guns being one of your main passions, or unless you have a reloading setup.
[QUOTE=Garb;46385730]you're not in a healthy mental state[/QUOTE]
Americans and their "healthy mental states"
[editline]3rd November 2014[/editline]
Although, banning all guns in the U.S. is a ludicrous idea. Shame on you Fatfatty.
[QUOTE=Chrille;46397813]If I walked down the most dangerous parts of Copenhagen (which admittedly is not very dangerous) right now my chances of getting mugged by someone with a gun is nil. Yes, the mugger would likely carry a bat or a knife, but at least my chances of getting shot are non-existent. Some criminals here do carry guns, but they mainly use them against other gun-carrying criminals. If there is a chance that a civilian might be carrying a firearm, muggers would have a better incentive to also carry a firearm. Escalation.[/QUOTE]This part is the part that I have an issue with, you're arguing that since there isn't a lot of guns in the country criminals won't have guns themselves. See, it's [i]amazingly easy[/i] to make a firearm, it's easier to make an automatic bullet hose and since we're building shit might as well add in a stupid big suppressor too. There's this illusion that the things we have in our lives are somehow impossible to make outside of a factory. Some things, yes, it is exceedingly difficult to manufacture it at home but personal firearms are not one of those things. That's why the whole "ohh noo three dee printed guns!!!" paranoia makes me laugh because some plastic .22LR single shot pales in comparison to the all-metal submachine gun that's always been an option.
This illusion is what protects the general population from any jackass making a little pop gun. You're relying on that thin veneer of "well, they don't know how so we're safe" in an age where the grand sum of human knowledge is at everyone's fingertips.
How would introducing even more guns make that better?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.