Hello, I'm an American Gun owner.

[Deleted]

i don't think it's to be fixed with an amendment.. it runs much deeper but fact is fueling them doesn't help anyone. also hatred and distrust due to enslavement aren't the sole reasons gangs exist.
the social safety net in the us is crap, the (public)education is crap, job prospects for "underprivliged" are crap. fix that and i'm pretty sure there will be alot less (gang related) crime.
btw look at italy: it's basically a country run by a gang still there isn't as much murder as in the us. people tend to secure their houses in naples/palermo instead of relying on guns.(to be fair living in this cities is still shitty due to the branches of the mafia)

[PizzaSHARK]

i don't think it's to be fixed with an amendment.. it runs much deeper but fact is fueling them doesn't help anyone. also hatred and distrust due to enslavement aren't the sole reasons gangs exist.
the social safety net in the us is crap, the (public)education is crap, job prospects for "underprivliged" are crap. fix that and i'm pretty sure there will be alot less (gang related) crime.
btw look at italy: it's basically a country run by a gang still there isn't as much murder as in the us. people tend to secure their houses in naples/palermo instead of relying on guns.(to be fair living in this cities is still shitty due to the branches of the mafia)

Most gang related activity has more to do with power and fear and money than any kind of beef with whitey... but you can be damned sure that's what they'll talk about if you ever ask them about it, and it's what they use to indoctrinate kids - look at how whitey's keeping a good mexican/el salvadoran/nigga (their word, not mine)/whatever down, you need your friends in the gang to help you stay on top!

And you're right - gangs would have a lot less pull if kids and the poor didn't feel like they needed the gang to help them get by. Our welfare system is a fucking disgrace and there are some apartment complexes not far from where I live where people pretty much get by with zero legal income and yet have nicer cars, bigger and better TVs, and just a better quality of life than I do working a full-time third shift job and paying taxes.

It's stupid.

[Elegiac]

Why the fuck, in this day and age, do you need a gun? Can't you feel a man enough without it?

Shooting is a fun past-time, as well as a useful tool for home and personal defense.

As I said, the statistics do not report the number of crimes aborted because the victim happened to be packing.

[Adamas102]

Which can include animals, plants, paper targets, foam targets, hay bales, condoms, water balloons, and particularly aggressive beer cans.

That's why Smith and Wesson takes the time to advertise how effective their products are at taking on water balloons and beer cans. Riiiiight...
Just because I can use a pistol as a paperweight doesn't negate it's primary function.

So? Suicide rates are higher in Japan than pretty much anywhere else on Earth, yet they have virtually no guns anywhere in their society - even the police don't usually have them. What's your point?

Ummm, no. Japan has one of the highest rates for modern, developed countries, but there are several other countries ahead of it. I only note this because I felt like someone who appeared so adamant about seeing citations in other peoples' posts would have tried to be more accurate with their own easily researchable facts. Either way, you completely missed the point I was trying to make.

I am safer than the guy that doesn't have a gun, if push comes to shove. He can only attempt to retreat and pray the cops get there in time. Me? I've got an option he doesn't have. That is reason enough to own a gun in states where you're allowed to own one and use it for self-defense.

So you pretty much just glossed over the majority of my post and stuck to the same tried and failed argument with nothing to back it up but a fantasy scenario of good guys vs. bad guys and a false sense of security. Grats, bro...

[hakujinbakasama]

So you pretty much just glossed over the majority of my post and stuck to the same tried and failed argument with nothing to back it up but a fantasy scenario of good guys vs. bad guys and a false sense of security. Grats, bro...

In my opinion, he really didn't. He simply made his contextual point on the matter which is the same point most of those "responsible" gun owners share. The only idiots running around saying "I have a gun I'm safer!" are the stereotypical Call of Duty internet personalities. I've NEVER met a gun owner in real life who says anything more than "I have a fighting chance."

Mainly because having a gun doesn't make you safer considering the lethality of guns and all of the variables that go into real world events.

[Adamas102]

Shooting is a fun past-time, as well as a useful tool for home and personal defense.

As I said, the statistics do not report the number of crimes aborted because the victim happened to be packing.

What the statistics do suggest is that IF firearm prevalence really did serve as a significant deterrent then we live in one fucked up country with a massive predisposition towards crime.

[Elegiac]

What the statistics do suggest is that IF firearm prevalence really did serve as a significant deterrent then we live in one fucked up country with a massive predisposition towards crime.

Firearms may act as individual deterrents of crime, not social deterrents in the same way that judicial reprisal does. Anecdotally, I've almost been mugged twice in Seattle but was able to scare the would-be muggers off becaue I happen to have a concealed carry.

[Adamas102]

In my opinion, he really didn't. He simply made his contextual point on the matter which is the same point most of those "responsible" gun owners share. The only idiots running around saying "I have a gun I'm safer!" are the stereotypical Call of Duty internet personalities. I've NEVER met a gun owner in real life who says anything more than "I have a fighting chance."

Mainly because having a gun doesn't make you safer considering the lethality of guns and all of the variables that go into real world events.

Well he did flat out say "I am safer than the guy that doesn't have a gun" and then followed it up with the assumed notion that standing your ground was preferable to avoiding/fleeing the situation. Unfortunately, the few gun owners I know who bought firearms specifically for home defense seem less like the "I want a fighting chance" type and more like the "Give me a reason to fight" type. As I've said before, I know that isn't the rule, but it seems to be the trend.


---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 02:44 PM ----------

Firearms may act as individual deterrents of crime, not social deterrents in the same way that judicial reprisal does. Anecdotally, I've almost been mugged twice in Seattle but was able to scare the would-be muggers off becaue I happen to have a concealed carry.

You mentioned statistics and you mentioned guns as a deterrent so I decided to run with that.

I posted earlier some interesting numbers comparing homicide in the US and the UK and noted that even if you take away ALL gun related homicides from the American statistics (which accounted for more than 2/3rds of the total), you still have more homicides per capita in the US than in the UK. I did a bit more digging and found that it was the same when compared to almost all modern, Westernized countries.

So I guess from there we can assume that Americans have an above average disposition (when compared to countries of similar socio-economic standing) for killing each other. Factor back in the fact that the firearm homicide rate in the US alone is more than double the total homicide rate of most of these countries and you really have a lot of work to do to explain how guns really serve as a useful deterrent that even might come close to matching (much less outweighing) the rate at which they are used otherwise in crime.

One part "safety through guns", one part "shoot first, ask questions later", and two parts "fuck you, I've got my rights" and you end up with a 1st world country with a 3rd world homicide rate.

[Deleted]

I wonder if people think that United States is a small country. You hear about shootings and psychotic rampages on the news because it makes the ratings. Not to say it's not news or tragic, but it's a small price to pay for freedom when you look at the bigger, responsible nation.


I go outside everyday and there is some risk involved. I could get killed by a car accident, a plane crash, or a gun. If gun crimes were happening all around us in personal vicinity everyday, then it would be something to be alarmed about, but the average American has never seen a gun crime outside of news or television and therefore it is only a small price to pay for freedom.

Americans and their so-called 'freedom'...

It's sickening and overused, just feels like an empty phrase. My dad is an American and I hate having discussions with him over this. I grew up with a completely different mindset (the German one), and to us it just sounds stupid to 'protect your freedom and property' by potentially gunning a mugger down. There are other means of defense out there and if Americans (not all of em, I know that) weren't so gun obsessed to begin with, it wouldn't be a problem at all to outlaw that crap. Lobbyism works. We have shootings here, too, ofc. But there would never be an outrage leading to making guns more accessible for 'protection'. To me that's just an illusion. When I'm with my dad (he lives in the states), I don't suddenly feel the urge to get a gun due to survive on the streets. Duh. ;C

We survive even without owning guns! O_O

[tibben]

You have a fully automatic license? What kind of AK47's? What country is it from and from what year?

My neighbor has an AK-47, but it's not full auto. Actually, I think there's only one person on my cul de sac that isn't a member of the NRA. I feel about as safe as can be in my neighborhood. We're a pretty close community and watch out for each other. I have an AR-15, 12 gauge and 20 gauge shotguns, and 2x 9mm Berettas. Aside from our one non-NRA member I probably have the least firepower in my neighborhood.

[Deleted]

My neighbor has an AK-47, but it's not full auto. Actually, I think there's only one person on my cul de sac that isn't a member of the NRA. I feel about as safe as can be in my neighborhood. We're a pretty close community and watch out for each other. I have an AR-15, 12 gauge and 20 gauge shotguns, and 2x 9mm Berettas. Aside from our one non-NRA member I probably have the least firepower in my neighborhood.

Sorry to nitpick, but its not an AK47 unless it is fully automatic, likely a made for civilians clone.

[Neurodilation]

ITT: Reasonably level-headed and responsible gun owners trying to get ideas across while angry, vitriol-spewing Euros can't understand how the ideals created in their bubbles of existence can't be blanketed across the entire known universe. I'm really happy for anyone who lives in a part of the world where guns are unnecessary and/or banned and that such an existence works so well for them. Things are different in America. Get that through your heads. Stop being so presumptuous as to think you could fix all the violent crime problems we have with something that ignores all the other variables out there with a sweeping gun ban. It's been explained ad nauseum why this wouldn't work by people who actually live here and understand the situation better than you.

But let's be real. No one is going to be convinced or change their minds because of this discussion. So why don't all you gun haters, most of whom don't even seem to live in the US, stop wishing you could impose your bans and angry retributions on us? I don't recall any of the pro-gun people in this thread ever saying anything to the effect of how they'd like to force all of your cultures and countries to be inundated with guns the way we are.

[B72691]

I don't own a gun.

[Deleted]

ITT: Reasonably level-headed and responsible gun owners trying to get ideas across while angry, vitriol-spewing Euros can't understand how the ideals created in their bubbles of existence can't be blanketed across the entire known universe. I'm really happy for anyone who lives in a part of the world where guns are unnecessary and/or banned and that such an existence works so well for them. Things are different in America. Get that through your heads. Stop being so presumptuous as to think you could fix all the violent crime problems we have with something that ignores all the other variables out there with a sweeping gun ban. It's been explained ad nauseum why this wouldn't work by people who actually live here and understand the situation better than you.

But let's be real. No one is going to be convinced or change their minds because of this discussion. So why don't all you gun haters, most of whom don't even seem to live in the US, stop wishing you could impose your bans and angry retributions on us? I don't recall any of the pro-gun people in this thread ever saying anything to the effect of how they'd like to force all of your cultures and countries to be inundated with guns the way we are.

Oh the irony....... Are you not doing the same thing by insulting Europeans?

[Neurodilation]

Oh the irony....... Are you not doing the same thing by insulting Europeans?

Only in response. The argument has gotten to the point where debating properly isn't accomplishing anything. And I really don't care if anyone thinks less of me for stooping to the level I condemn. I'm human, and I get angry too. Sue me.

Also, I should mention as an aside, that it's not really an insult to call it as I see it. Because I am seeing just so much America hate in this thread.

[Elegiac]

You mentioned statistics and you mentioned guns as a deterrent so I decided to run with that.

I posted earlier some interesting numbers comparing homicide in the US and the UK and noted that even if you take away ALL gun related homicides from the American statistics (which accounted for more than 2/3rds of the total), you still have more homicides per capita in the US than in the UK. I did a bit more digging and found that it was the same when compared to almost all modern, Westernized countries.

So I guess from there we can assume that Americans have an above average disposition (when compared to countries of similar socio-economic standing) for killing each other. Factor back in the fact that the firearm homicide rate in the US alone is more than double the total homicide rate of most of these countries and you really have a lot of work to do to explain how guns really serve as a useful deterrent that even might come close to matching (much less outweighing) the rate at which they are used otherwise in crime.

One part "safety through guns", one part "shoot first, ask questions later", and two parts "fuck you, I've got my rights" and you end up with a 1st world country with a 3rd world homicide rate.

Just because said homicides are committed with firearms is not indicative of the availability of firearms resulting in an increase in homicides; that is causation fallacy. The homicide rate is a problem of its own that can be attributed to a large number of other factors; the fact that they are committed with firearms is incidental. I was merely pointing out that despite all the statistics demonstrating a supposed correlation between firearms and murders, they will never be entirely accurate as a basis for policy because you don't hear about the times an educated gun owner manages to avert becoming a victim.

The fact that gun violence still exists in countries where possession is restricted or banned, however, does say something. I could easily argue that if you ban guns, the only people that carry them are criminals. And like it or not, the Second Amendment is not going away anytime soon.

I will argue that gun safety education is somewhat lax in many of the American states; hence why I believe gun safety should be a mandatory part of Health education in High School. Even someone that doesn't carry a gun should know how to handle one safely.

[Mihalik]

Just because said homicides are committed with firearms is not indicative of the availability of firearms resulting in an increase in homicides; that is causation fallacy. The homicide rate is a problem of its own that can be attributed to a large number of other factors; the fact that they are committed with firearms is incidental. I was merely pointing out that despite all the statistics demonstrating a supposed correlation between firearms and murders, they will never be entirely accurate as a basis for policy because you don't hear about the times an educated gun owner manages to avert becoming a victim.

The fact that gun violence still exists in countries where possession is restricted or banned, however, does say something. I could easily argue that if you ban guns, the only people that carry them are criminals. And like it or not, the Second Amendment is not going away anytime soon.

I will argue that gun safety education is somewhat lax in many of the American states; hence why I believe gun safety should be a mandatory part of Health education in High School. Even someone that doesn't carry a gun should know how to handle one safely.

Actually I would debate this.

The inherent problem is that commiting a crime with anything else than a gun makes it very difficult to kill someone. It does not matter what you are using, a sword, a warhammer, a chainsaw or a your bare hands it is difficult for anyone to get up close and kill someone. Even more difficult when it comes to cases of mass murder. Further more it is inherently easyer to disable or resist someone who is not using a firearm, unless there is an abysmal gap in physical strength. Having a firearm is as much of an equalizer as not having one. And as proven fact in countries with strict gun control, criminals are equally unarmed as private citizens.

It is impossible to prove that less guns would reduce the murder rate because it is impossible to collect empirical evidence related to the geographical location. In this case the United States. To prove less guns equals less gun crime, firearms would need to be as strictly controled as within Europe and would need to be equally rare and hard to aquire. Then you could do a before and after comparision and you would have empirical evidence that the crime rate remained the same or it dropped.

I'm not here to piss off anyone and I have said before I can hardly see the United States as a gun free society, and that I still think that allowing the owenership of Assault Rifles, Semi Automatics or other military grade firearms by the public is a mistake and an overkill as they are hardly needed either for self defence or for hunting.

But saying by default that less guns would mean more criminals with guns and more crime is only a potential fact within U.S context and in other parts of the world is the exact oposite.

The U.S. is different exactly due to it's long history of gun culture.

A few more facts. Based on UN statistics from 2010,
(You can find them here http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a...cide-2011.html) the United states has double the Homicide rate then Europe. This has to have SOMETHING to do with the availability of firearms. Europe or the U.S can hardly compare themselves to anyone else beyond perphaps Australia or New Zealand due to both being developed regions with high relative living standards. But if you compare U.S and E.U you have to admit there is a disparity there. I remind you when you consider Europe as a region we are talking about a place where we have 500 million people living in a space with very high population density, with heavy immigration both from Africa, Asia. Yet homicide rates are still lower.

The only logical conclusion is that either Homicide rates are tied to the availability of firearms, or American's as a people are just more prone to violence. And the second I refuse to accept as an arguement. Americans living in Europe without firearms are EXACTLY the same people EXACTLY as violent or non-violent as local Europeans.