A question for those who are pro-guns and U.S. citizens ONLY

[DraconusIX]

Yea, just like how nobody does drugs, right? Cause those are illegal too. Making them illegal won't get them out of criminal hands. Get your head out of the sand, this is the real world.

Is my head in the sand over, lets say, the homicide rate of England vs the U.S.? Make something illegal, you slow its spread and consumption. I never said stop. You would also dramatically increase the cost of owning a gun illegally, which might deter more criminals than the actual act itself. The cost of black market gun ownership means most armed robberies they would use a less-lethal and less likely to be used weapon. Takes more effort to stab someone than to shoot someone. Guns would still be used by criminals, but only when they have dire need of them (gang vs gang and gang vs police). even than fewer criminals would have the guns, meaning less felon on felon shootings. lethal domestic violence would also likely see a downtick as people are forced to use more difficult methods then shooting.

As for drugs, marijuana i am for legalization. it doesn't kill even a fraction as much as alcohol and guns do. i realize you make something illegal you give it black market potential.

Make guns illegal in the U.S. and I bet the murder rate falls in half.

[GrimDesign]

Yea, just like how nobody does drugs, right? Cause those are illegal too. Making them illegal won't get them out of criminal hands. Get your head out of the sand, this is the real world.

nah this is the internet, where people make up reality with narcissistic self righteousness from the safety of their monitors. Where they prefer to dictate how others are wrong in complete anonymity. That being said I agree with you but I doubt anyone is going to come to a consensus over the internet, if such things were possible then we probably wouldn't have half the problems we do have.

[Muezick]

without lethal rounds we should all be carrying tazers. Thats the threat of guns, you fuck up, they kill

Thats the beauty of putting a gun in EVERYBODIES Hand. One person pulls one, ten more pull on that person.

but it would make law enforcement impossible in certain areas. problem is, it's already like that in some places for that very reason.

I'm pro guns and I think if we just put more emphasis on a few target areas in schools, things would get better. Teach kids to respect fire arms from a young age and as they mature then give marksmaship as a paid elective like drivers education in highschool and allow young adults 18 or older to obtain guns legally on their own at that age after meeting all the legal requirements.

would change america's view on guns for the better i think.

course this sort of thing wont ever happen so long as we are unwilling to fix the more basic problems in public schools.

Sorry OP didn't mean to get off topic, I agree that there is another way, i do not agree that non-lethal is that way. As another poster posted, you can not take down a government with rubber bullets and that i think is the essence of the 2nd amendment.

[oblivionx]

I think the simple way of looking at the argument is that it's a right granted by the constitution included in the bill of rights.

I don't own a gun, never have.. might never own one.

But, until the opponents of guns overturn the 2nd amendment they should probably shut the fuck up.

It's not like the founding fathers created something that could not be changed, it's pretty clear and straightforward how you go about changing it.

From the lefty McCrazy perspective their entire argument is nonsense, it would be like right wing people saying we should ban jury trials. Point being they are both rights we are granted in the bill of rights.

[Muezick]

Is my head in the sand over, lets say, the homicide rate of England vs the U.S.? Make something illegal, you slow its spread and consumption. I never said stop. You would also dramatically increase the cost of owning a gun illegally, which might deter more criminals than the actual act itself. The cost of black market gun ownership means most armed robberies they would use a less-lethal and less likely to be used weapon. Takes more effort to stab someone than to shoot someone. Guns would still be used by criminals, but only when they have dire need of them (gang vs gang and gang vs police). even than fewer criminals would have the guns, meaning less felon on felon shootings. lethal domestic violence would also likely see a downtick as people are forced to use more difficult methods then shooting.

As for drugs, marijuana i am for legalization. it doesn't kill even a fraction as much as alcohol and guns do. i realize you make something illegal you give it black market potential.

Make guns illegal in the U.S. and I bet the murder rate falls in half.

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff that

a gun is the LAST line of defense against corrupt government. there is not a statistic featuring guns taking place in this country that you can show me that would deter my opinion about that. Would rather endure the way things are now, and perhaps even risk an increase in those stats, than condem the entire nation to tyrany. England and europe where guns are illegal is NOT the united states, just because they speak english there does not mean we are the same and can be compared. Different government, different mentallity, different people, different lifestyle.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The limitations I believe in are no automatics, no armor piercing rounds, and no hollow points. Beyond that, I believe everyone should be able to own guns not violating these criteria within their homes.

Can I ask why you are against hollow points. Do you realize that hollow points are designed to stop inside your desired target, greatly reducing the chance that the bullet will exit the victim and continue into the other room, where say it could hit a family member.

OT: All I want in terms of self defense is to be on equal footing with whatever person may be attacking me or breaking into my home. If they can have a gun with hollowpoints, I also want a gun with hollowpoints. If somehow tomorrow all guns in the world were converted into rubber bullet guns, I would be fine with that too. If somehow tomorrow all guns were eliminated from this world, I would be fine with not having one. All I ask is that I be on equal footing.

[Clevername]

The gun problem here in the US lies within the African-American community. The fact is you factor out black on black crime and our gun crime rates are lower than Canada's and most of Europe.

Guns are deadly tools that need to be handled responsibly. (Which most gun owners do). Abolishing the second amendment will do nothing to stop gangs and black on black crime. The only solution is to keep the African-American community in school and to stomp out the gangs. Gangs are fueled by drugs. They use drug money to buy guns on the black market. Those guns are used in all kinds of crimes. Drive by's, robberies, car jackings.

For example: Detroit is 90% black. 80% of them are functionally illiterate. If you are black, illiterate, live in a bad part of town, and hooked on hard drugs. You are a scumbag and pretty much have no hope. These people have guns, a lot of them. That is why black on black shootings happen so much. It's almost always gang related or someone trying to build "street cred". Some of these people don't care if they go to jail, they will have a place to sleep.

Guns are a big part of the country, and believe it or not good people use them and they have saved lives and protected innocent families. I've seen the aftermath of a couple of those situations and if guns were ever outlawed those people would have been screwed.

As soon as you pull out your gun, usually the criminal is going to make a run for it. It's a very good deterrent. Most people don't want to kill someone and most thieves don't want to eat a bullet.

If you have to pull the trigger chances are your taking out some sort of rapist / murderer.

Mods stepping in 3, 2, 1..

I'm not discrediting your opinion, I would like to see it backed up with some statistics though. Just the statement of 'The gun problem here in the US lies within the African-American community' smacks a bit of racism... though I definitely don't think it's your intention.

[oblivionx]

Banning guns in the US won't get rid of illegal guns.

IF you ban guns only the criminals will have guns.

IF the demoncrats somehow get guns banned, their future will be arguing that our prisons are full of blacks disproportionately on gun charges.

[fizzbob]

The gun problem here in the US lies within the African-American community. The fact is you factor out black on black crime and our gun crime rates are lower than Canada's and most of Europe.

Guns are deadly tools that need to be handled responsibly. (Which most gun owners do). Abolishing the second amendment will do nothing to stop gangs and black on black crime. The only solution is to keep the African-American community in school and to stomp out the gangs. Gangs are fueled by drugs. They use drug money to buy guns on the black market. Those guns are used in all kinds of crimes. Drive by's, robberies, car jackings.

For example: Detroit is 90% black. 80% of them are functionally illiterate. If you are black, illiterate, live in a bad part of town, and hooked on hard drugs. You are a scumbag and pretty much have no hope. These people have guns, a lot of them. That is why black on black shootings happen so much. It's almost always gang related or someone trying to build "street cred". Some of these people don't care if they go to jail, they will have a place to sleep.

Guns are a big part of the country, and believe it or not good people use them and they have saved lives and protected innocent families. I've seen the aftermath of a couple of those situations and if guns were ever outlawed those people would have been screwed.

As soon as you pull out your gun, usually the criminal is going to make a run for it. It's a very good deterrent. Most people don't want to kill someone and most thieves don't want to eat a bullet.

If you have to pull the trigger chances are your taking out some sort of rapist / murderer.

lol, you HEAR about the black community and its issue more, but i hate to break it to you there is a lot of white on something crime in the SE that never gets reported on

i live within 10 miles of 4 white people who have shot others with their handguns, on purpose, and it never made the news, 3 were arrested and the other one was stabbed and killed by the brother of the guy he shot

nobody wants to hear about that stuff though, they'd rather hear the more obvious stories.

hell in the closest thing we have to the 'hood around here, 95% black folks with a convenience store across the street (run by indians), an out of town white guy comes in and shoots a black guy whose car he's trying to steal.

didn't make the news

local white teacher shoots up a college, kills 8, it is talked about for less than a week

the arab kid comes in and shoots a classmate and runs off and they just recently updated us again on the situation a year later. that was a story for months.

when a white person does something crazy around here, the white people say "damn, crazy motherfucker"

when a minority does it, they want to drive them out of town, genocide is discussed, etc. white america's reaction to the news is predictable so they give them what they want to see. ratings matter. if your ratings are bad, then advertisers don't give you money. that's how the world works. there are bad people who are black and there are bad people who are white. when a group of people are poor they're more likely to do stupid shit.

minorities are almost like the bogeyman to a lot of white people. it's how they've been portrayed forever, they went to all/mostly white schools, just never had to get to know minorities. why wouldn't you keep selling them the bogeyman, who has almost become legendary, instead of "your innocent looking neighbor bill the old white guy just got arrested and had a dungeon with sex slaves in his basement"

they'd rather hear about the problems of the black community

[oblivionx]

a lot of lies

Statistically you're wrong.

Or are you trying to claim they don't report murders committed by white people?

Some crazy shit right there.

[steve52086]

This is where it falls apart though, back in the day the army had access to similar weapons technology to the civilians and a militia uprising would stand a fighting chance. Fast forward to today, a consumer with a handgun vs a..... missile for instance, or a tank, or a marine, or a jet, or a drone, or a bomber, or a navy seal, or any number of high tech killing machines, and the militia is screwed. The technical and skill level of the government army is so far above what any civ militia could offer.

If the purpose of the second amendment is nullified, isn't the reason to own the guns is equally null? Continuing to own them provides a mere illusion of revolutionary potential.

And the problem with that line of thinking is simply that the same thing was said in 1775. What was effectively a ragtag band of pissed off farmers, with little or less training, beat what was then the greatest standing army and navy the world had ever seen. As for the tech, true, a militia can't get their hands on a missile as easily as the military, but they can and do get assault rifles every day, and probably RPGs as well. In fact, if you go to a site like cheaper than dirt, or a similar one, you can buy an M4 right now. In case you didn't know, over the last 5-8 years, the entire DoD switched from the old M-16 to the M-4.

For handguns, the DoD standard is the Beretta M9. The civilian version, which is the 92FS, has three major changes from the M9. First, the rear sight is a half-moon, not a double dot sight. Second, the 92FS has a warning stamped into the slide to read the manual. Third, the M9 ships to the military, so it's packaged in a cardboard box to save weight and cost. the 92FS comes in a plastic case.

As for the jets, the military would not resort to that, because at the end of the day, if you don't have anyone left to rule, what is the point? And bombing US citizens would immediately turn the whole populace against you. Even Saddam, who gassed or otherwise massacred an estimated 800,000-1 million of his own people realized that. Tanks might be used, but they aren't generally anti-personnel weapons. Tanks take out buildings and the like, so they would be of limited value. It comes down to will and bodies, and the civilians have the bodies.

There has only been one military force that has been said to have beaten the US in the last 236 years, and people are still debating that one (Vietnam). And the reason why they "Beat" us is lack of popular support for the war. No one at home wanted it, which demoralized the soldiers actually fighting, and the Viet Cong were able to win some key battles after the US had announced our withdrawal in 1973, then they proceeded to roll up the South Vietnamese, so a fair amount of people consider that a loss. Debatable since we had already left, but our few key battle losses were due to unfamiliar terrain and lack of will to win. And no, the War of 1812 was not a loss. The British lost 12 of 106 ships and roughly 9,000 of 60,000 men. The US lost 4 of 20 ships, and 15,000 of 500,000 or so men. Historians will tell you that it was a draw.


tl;dr
Essentially, what it comes down to is will to win, just like in 1776. The tech is near equal on each side, and the civilians generally will lack training. And that's not even guaranteed, since in the US, roughly 1% of the population is a military veteran, and another 1% is currently serving. The other 98% will really determine the outcome through sheer force of numbers. People don't play the Zerg because Blizzard made them unbalanced. People play the Zerg because in a meeting of equal or near-equal forces, barring severe tactical errors, the side with superior numbers will always win, unless they are demoralized to the point of surrender. With the will to win, no military, even our own, can stand against the populace of the US.

[BLCalliente]

For example: Detroit is 90% black. 80% of them are functionally illiterate. If you are black, illiterate, live in a bad part of town, and hooked on hard drugs. You are a scumbag and pretty much have no hope. These people have guns, a lot of them. That is why black on black shootings happen so much. It's almost always gang related or someone trying to build "street cred". Some of these people don't care if they go to jail, they will have a place to sleep.

Somebody has watched too many episodes of The Wire.

Your statistics aren't even accurate.

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 09:33 AM ----------

tl;dr
Essentially, what it comes down to is will to win, just like in 1776. The tech is near equal on each side, and the civilians generally will lack training. And that's not even guaranteed, since in the US, roughly 1% of the population is a military veteran, and another 1% is currently serving. The other 98% will really determine the outcome through sheer force of numbers. People don't play the Zerg because Blizzard made them unbalanced. People play the Zerg because in a meeting of equal or near-equal forces, barring severe tactical errors, the side with superior numbers will always win, unless they are demoralized to the point of surrender. With the will to win, no military, even our own, can stand against the populace of the US.

This whole post is a bunch of half-truths and conveniently chosen anecdotal evidence.

The point trying to be made is horseshit.

[DraconusIX]

Are we really doomed to tyranny if handguns were banned? Wow that is some anti-government bullshit propaganda. BTW how are african americans supposed to stay in school always when the support and welfare programs designed to do so are dismantled in the name of budget cuts while military spending increases and taxes for the wealthy decrease? The republican view is seriously more guns, more bars, more time. if you say banning guns wont work because you made something illegal, then you support the legalization of drugs? same argument cuts both ways. I hope you are consistent on your views.

[steve52086]

Is my head in the sand over, lets say, the homicide rate of England vs the U.S.? Make something illegal, you slow its spread and consumption. I never said stop. You would also dramatically increase the cost of owning a gun illegally, which might deter more criminals than the actual act itself. The cost of black market gun ownership means most armed robberies they would use a less-lethal and less likely to be used weapon. Takes more effort to stab someone than to shoot someone. Guns would still be used by criminals, but only when they have dire need of them (gang vs gang and gang vs police). even than fewer criminals would have the guns, meaning less felon on felon shootings. lethal domestic violence would also likely see a downtick as people are forced to use more difficult methods then shooting.

As for drugs, marijuana i am for legalization. it doesn't kill even a fraction as much as alcohol and guns do. i realize you make something illegal you give it black market potential.

Make guns illegal in the U.S. and I bet the murder rate falls in half.

Technically right, but your argument is deeply flawed. You can't just simply say, "There are more crimes in the US than the UK, the US must be doing it wrong." First, you specifically said RATE, not NUMBER. Second, you are only looking at murders, not violent crimes (murder, assault w/deadly weapon, rape, robbery) as a whole. The common thread with violent crimes is that there is a weapon and/or force used against you directly, not just property.

The common metric for this is crimes per 100,000 people. There are just under 57 million people in the UK as of 2009. There are 308 million people in the US as of 2010. In the UK in 2009, the most recent year stats are available, there were 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, which was 1,158,957. Again, in comparison, the same year, the US had 432 violent crimes per 100,000 people according to the DoJ. That's a total of 1,326,240 violent crimes. Look at those numbers again… under 200,000 more violent crimes in the US than the UK, but almost SIX times the number of people.

If you still want to look only at murders, I can't argue with you, but you're willfully ignoring the other three types of gun/weapon crimes, so there's no point trying to argue it in the first place, but the numbers are 755 murders in the UK 2007, or 1 per 75,500 people; 16,929 murders in the US 2007, or 1 per 18,000 people.

Are you more likely to be killed in the US than the UK? Yes. Are you more likely to be attacked with some weapon in the US than the UK? No. 1 in 59 people in the UK are attacked each year; 1 in 227 people in the US are attacked each year.

Speaking to my brother, who got sliced by a kitchen knife in a fight, he still doesn't have full range of motion back in his right arm after 4 years, and has nightmares of the fight most nights. People don't think about the trauma of surviving so much as not surviving, but both are called violent crimes, and considered equally serious because the consequences are just as bad if you survive, as if you don't. He will have medical bills and reduced capacity to work, play games like WoW, or even just to type, for the rest of his life. At least once a week he says out loud that he wished he didn't walk away from that fight. Is he any less damaged than the person who actually didn't walk away?

[DraconusIX]

Technically right, but your argument is deeply flawed. You can't just simply say, "There are more crimes in the US than the UK, the US must be doing it wrong." First, you specifically said RATE, not NUMBER. Second, you are only looking at murders, not violent crimes (murder, assault w/deadly weapon, rape, robbery) as a whole. The common thread with violent crimes is that there is a weapon and/or force used against you directly, not just property.

The common metric for this is crimes per 100,000 people. There are just under 57 million people in the UK as of 2009. There are 308 million people in the US as of 2010. In the UK in 2009, the most recent year stats are available, there were 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, which was 1,158,957. Again, in comparison, the same year, the US had 432 violent crimes per 100,000 people according to the DoJ. That's a total of 1,326,240 violent crimes. Look at those numbers again… under 200,000 more violent crimes in the US than the UK, but almost SIX times the number of people.

If you still want to look only at murders, I can't argue with you, but you're willfully ignoring the other three types of gun/weapon crimes, so there's no point trying to argue it in the first place, but the numbers are 755 murders in the UK 2007, or 1 per 75,500 people; 16,929 murders in the US 2007, or 1 per 18,000 people.

Are you more likely to be killed in the US than the UK? Yes. Are you more likely to be attacked with some weapon in the US than the UK? No. 1 in 59 people in the UK are attacked each year; 1 in 227 people in the US are attacked each year.

Speaking to my brother, who got sliced by a kitchen knife in a fight, he still doesn't have full range of motion back in his right arm after 4 years, and has nightmares of the fight most nights. People don't think about the trauma of surviving so much as not surviving, but both are called violent crimes, and considered equally serious because the consequences are just as bad if you survive, as if you don't. He will have medical bills and reduced capacity to work, play games like WoW, or even just to type, for the rest of his life. At least once a week he says out loud that he wished he didn't walk away from that fight. Is he any less damaged than the person who actually didn't walk away?

I was looking only at homicide rate per 100,000. Compared to countries of similar economic status we have far higher rates than most. Japan is an extreme example of a low rate.

[Cepheid]

Please, if you are anti-gun, do not comment. Your comments are not welcome in this thread

Who says the conservative mind is closed? Conservative = anti-progressive My question is "How the fuck can you be Anti Progress??!"

OT: Some things i think will be passed soon (next 25 years) to curb the gun violence

-25 year old to buy any firearm (along with a vocational type certificate needed to purchase any firearm)
-Strict penalties like 1st offense carrying unregistered gun:1 year min prison, 2nd offense 5 years, 3rd offense 25 years, ect...
-Guns will never be available to any1 with a prior 'violent' conviction (if caught 5 year min for 1st offense, 25 years for second...
-Much harsher penalties for those who sell guns illegally, such as life in prison

Clear up some space in those prison buy legalizing marijuana of course. Tax it, take the billions of dollars and put it into public education (particularly in low income areas)

[steve52086]

Somebody has watched too many episodes of The Wire.

Your statistics aren't even accurate.

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 09:33 AM ----------



This whole post is a bunch of half-truths and conveniently chosen anecdotal evidence.

The point trying to be made is horseshit.

I will admit, upon re-googling Saddam's war crimes, one campaign, where 250,000 were killed, was not his own people. So there were 550,000-750,000 of his own people. Can you point to anything else "half-truth" or anecdotal?

I am in the military, and have my own personal 92FS (I prefer the half moon) and M-4. The only real difference was one that I didn't think I had to mention: the M-4 the military gets has burst fire, the civilian does not. However most, if not all, people you will talk to will prefer semi-auto. If you can hit someone in the chest with one round and take them down, why would you ever switch to burst and use three to do the same thing? Unless you like to run out of ammo because you're using 3x the amount you actually need?

---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 12:34 AM ----------

I was looking only at homicide rate per 100,000. Compared to countries of similar economic status we have far higher rates than most. Japan is an extreme example of a low rate.

In that case, yes, you are right. But you run into the problem of other violent crimes increasing quite dramatically.

[DraconusIX]

I will admit, upon re-googling Saddam's war crimes, one campaign, where 250,000 were killed, was not his own people. So there were 550,000-750,000 of his own people. Can you point to anything else "half-truth" or anecdotal?

I am in the military, and have my own personal 92FS (I prefer the half moon) and M-4. The only real difference was one that I didn't think I had to mention: the M-4 the military gets has burst fire, the civilian does not. However most, if not all, people you will talk to will prefer semi-auto. If you can hit someone in the chest with one round and take them down, why would you ever switch to burst and use three to do the same thing? Unless you like to run out of ammo because you're using 3x the amount you actually need?

---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 12:34 AM ----------



In that case, yes, you are right. But you run into the problem of other violent crimes increasing quite dramatically.

Would they increase dramatically? That is not proven or dis-proven. People would still be welcome to non-lethal alternatives (rubber bullets are not a good alternative). One key to making black market prices rise would be gun control laws across all of the Americas. Most criminals tend to be poor and if the cost of weapons dramatically rose, they would have less ability to buy black market copies. would some still have them? yes, but every pimp and corner dealer or mugger would not. less criminals have guns, the more effective non-lethal options become.

most criminals dont murder someone when committing a robbery or burglary for the purpose of murder, but because the person got in the way or they panicked.

[DraconusIX]

The problem is... who defines what "progress" is. It can mean a different thing to anyone.
For me, progress is that every American has their rights and gets opportunity. An intrusive federal government is a big reason why I consider myself politically conservative. Most legislation should be decided at the state and local level where voters have more of a direct impact...
We have almost no impact in Washington. The rich and politically connected get their guy, back him, and voting always seems to come down to which guy has the most money or would do the least damage.

The whole left / right divide is mainly because the people running for office will say anything to get votes. Politicians are drama queens, they will do anything to create a political buzz or conflict if they can benefit. Look at the position this has put us in. The truth is that there really isn't much of a difference between Mitt Romney and Obama. As a republican I'm voting for Obama because I'd rather have 4 more years of him than 8. The federal government should not be tying the state's hands unless the constitutionality of something is brought into question.

how is the federal government always intrusive? BTW when states have free trade and open borders what happens in ones neighboring state impacts your own. thus the need for uniform laws across all areas that have completely free and open trade. patchwork state by state legislation worked great when it took weeks to months to travel across the U.S., not 4 hours. the only purpose of the state is to micromanage some issues and to potentially protect the minority against an unjust majority in a few cases.

[DraconusIX]

Things like EPA, business regulations, financial rules, and gun rights are some of the most commonly made arguments of an oppressive fed. All of these also impact not only that state but its surrounding states. Thus states rights fail when they fail to consider the consequences to ones neighbor.

As for rich fat cats, would it really help to go back to the local level, where a single company can swing each election?