Gun Control

S

sunshine_britt

New member
There are a couple of reasons I ask about overall murder rates as opposed to gun-related deaths. First, as I've said, method doesn't matter to me. It's common sense there will be less murders using guns if the amount of guns in the country is cut by 50%+. That doesn't necessarily mean there will be less murders overall though. The opposite could happen. The other reason, which is the main one to me, is that gun-related deaths statistics include suicide, which has nothing to do with violent crime.
 
B

BigBoyDev

New member
Well it is clearly far easier to get a gun if your father has one lying around, than it is to get one however you'd get one in London.
 
A

afuncooldude

New member
In the US, many of the places with the highest legal guns per capita have some of the lowest crime, especially violent crime. The places that have the toughest gun control laws have the highest amount of violent crime. If gun control was the answer, wouldn't those be reversed?

The UK hasn't had a Dunblane since the gun ban. They have been mass shooting free for 10 years. How long had it been since the previous Dunblane type incident and the Dunblane incident? If the gun ban is really the cause of the reduction, there shouldn't have been much time. If there was a long time, then is the gun ban really responsible for avoiding another such incident in the last 10 years? If another such incident happens tomorrow, especially if the last such incident before Dunblane had been a significant period of time before Dunblane, then does that mean that gun control doesn't work?
 
T

tattyhead65

New member
The numbers are right. There was probably a statistical anomaly or something that the Brits can explain about it. After all, since they passed the ban, crime should have gone down very drastically.
 
W

wittigad

New member
you gotta consider that both countries measure crime stats differently, but wither way its irrelevant, if I go outside now and punch someone in the face, that would be a violent crime, just the same as if I went outside and shot somebody. Difference is if I shot someone they'd probably be dead, and if I punched someone they probably wouldn't be.
 
K

KarinaG

Member
lol - thats funny

Back on topic ... 10 round mags for instance, I could storm my work place with 2 10round mags, and kill a minimum of 15 people, simply because they couldnt get away from me fast enough. If I came to work with a knife in the same mental state, I'd kill maybe 5, because people could get away from me, and not have hot lead chasing them at 1100fps.
 
M

Mayumi

New member
Funny that you talk to me about being arrogant becullen if it seems to be you you can only sproud lame attacks at me that actually seem to back up a little what my point is in the first place. Okay, keep your guns, shoot whoever you want and deny all that is wrong with the US !

Your country has done it for ages....to be honest, its not really my problem is it ? I don't live there so I don't have to worry about a president that accuses any country he can find of housing terrorists, that plays dumb concerning his own started war in iraq and the problems that actually his own country has. And luckily I don't have to worry about getting shot in my uni as guns aren't sold to every jack and harry on the street. As a friend of mine put while talking about this subject recently: The US will never learn. They are far too proud of themselves.

As for your smartass comment above: Its exactly those kind of comments that give the bad image of your countries people. Think they know everything, can't accept any kind of critizism and its always everyone else that is wrong, not them. I rest my case.
 
L

lovemobiles

New member
Guns and violence should be the last resort. Over there they gun you down if you look sideways at them.

Big changes need to be made, and fast.

Oh, and in that speech.. Bush goes on about the right to ' bare arms ', after the virginia shootings.

Wrong place, wrong time.
 
A

ashley10291

New member
Well Sgt-Major I have tried to stay out of this debate as long as possible. Seeing as you and Gangrel can bring the whole debate down to it's finest points. For your point YES! Yes, less availability would mean less access to firearms, less access equating to less death. Simple, but not so easy to do with all the guns that are owned by private citizens.

Now, being a gun owner and certified Firearms instructor, don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do with my firearms. Though, I think it is wise for them not to allow civillians to own Automatic Weapons, RPG's, you know weapons that have one purpose "KILL ALOT OF PEOPLE QUICKLY".

I have read tons of articles from Older Brits who can't stand the fact that gun ownership was taken from them. Here in the U.S. we have the 2nd ammendment so that the citizenry could protect itself from a government gone awry. What would happen in the U.K. if some PM decided to overthrow the government and the populace. Could the U.K. citizenry defend itself if the military were used? Not saying it would happen but that is why our founding Father's thought it necessary to include that little gem. Is it applicable today? I think maybe even more so, but only because I highly suspicious of elected officials .

The problem is that, no matter how restrictive we want Gun Laws and Gun Ownership to be, the crazy loons of this world will always find a way to carry out their plans. I think it is the body count that changes if guns were outlawed, not the evil people.
 
C

CharlotteH

Member
narcs - fishbone is only 15 .... his life experience is limited.... try not to hold it against him.

Here, use some of mine:



As for your points, I agree, to an extent

most people are more concerned about body count. They want that limited as much as possible. As I stated either in this thread or the other one, a 10round mag will allow me to kill 7-8 people. For you I'd say 8-10 as a certified instructor. If I picked up my shotie and went mad, I gotta reload after 2 shots, which is going to make the body count less, and give others a chance to take me down, either cops, or another civilian.

As for the PM here taking over...lol - never gonna happen. And yeah, there probably is enough people with guns, and know how to at least minimise the damage they can do. But why live your life in fear of what may never happen?
 
C

casapulla2001

Member
Precisely Sgt. Why worry about things that will never happen. I totally agree with you. But our 2nd ammendment was added due to the fear of an all intrusive government. Not so that we Yanks could go around shooting guns and pistols all over the planet.

Here in the states, your "shotie" could hold up to five rounds and the Shotgun would be semi automatic, self pumping shotgun! Great fun and bigger body count. Though I would starver if I had to rely on a shotgun for birds! (yeah shooting skeet ain't my bag).

And as for tadpole (aka Fishbone), I have given that individual way too many chances for rational thought...
 
C

CynthiaM

Member
I disagree, there are still large amounts of firearms being run through illegal channels, so to restrict firearms to those possessing them through legal and responsible channels increases the risk of an innocent person getting gunned down or becoming a victim of crime with little chance of protecting themselves against such a transgression.

Less availability is not the answer, greater security measures and watchfulness by the authorities and the system will do more to curb the wrong people possessing such weapons and using them in the actions of crime.
 
H

HoRnYDeViL

New member
I understand that side of the arguement as well. I have already stated that I also believe that if citizens were armed, MAYBE, criminals would think twice. Or, bad guys might just shoot first and end it all. What I was saying about reducing or eliminating personal firearms goes with supply and demand. If you stop the supply, take away the supply, then the criminals would not find it necessary, or have access to, firearms. Oh sure they would want, would try to get them, but the prices would be so sky high that they would not be able to afford them.
Just stating I can see both points in this argument!
 
K

konairell

New member
Huh, I guess I must be super special as I've looked at tons of people sideways and haven't been gunned down yet, care to post your links to the proof of this, the verified documentation that proves such a statement?
 
W

WillT

Member
I understand your point, but having some experience with things of this nature, as I've seen you have as well, you must know that arms trafficking is an easy business and the cost of weapons is not high, to reduce the arms from one aspect of society will only increase it in another.

To completely remove firearms from a certain group would be nigh impossible and would cost more monetary resources than could be managed feasabley.

Better to spend little and increase supervision and security measures than attempt a cause with little success, as in such a case you'll remove the protection from honest citizens while criminals will still be able to obtain firearms and have greater ease in taking advantage of people who are now defenseless.
 
M

manadude2

Member
actually, yeah, I can have a 7 round semi auto shottie here too - but I was using my person O+U for reference.

A lot of people associate gun control with gun ban. Not the same thing. I can buy a handgun here .... but there are very strict criteria. pistol Club membership for 1, club possession of my pistol for 2, no ammo carrying - you buy at the club.

these dont restrict my shooting, but it controls the access to them.
 
Top