America and the gun

[Antibush5]

Why do Americans love their guns so much? They are so scared the government will take them away, saying that it makes people safer, dispite gun crime in America being one of the highest in the western world. They say it protects them from dictators, dispite dictators being more threatened by a peaceful revolt, then a violent uprising.

 

[Madhuri]

Well, there are so many criminals over there using guns against ordinary people that the people feel the need to have the same weaponry to defend themselves. The crims would still have guns if they were illegal, so the general citizens would be without proper protection.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think it's worth pointing out that far from all Americans love guns. Quite a few hate them and I suspect a significant majority could generally take or leave them without much concern.

The crims would still have guns if they were illegal, so the general citizens would be without proper protection.

I'm not convinced. In countries without such lax gun control (such as the UK where I am), there are far fewer criminals possessing and using guns. Moving from the current position the US in in to tighter regulation would probably lead to a different situation though.

Anyway, criminals aren't the biggest killers from widespread public gun ownership; suicide and accidents are. This is often (wrongly) ignored in this debate.

 

[Breathe]

I'm not convinced. In countries without such lax gun control (such as the UK where I am), there are far fewer criminals possessing and using guns.

Um.

Tell that to the guys next door to me and the guys before that.

Or am I just unlucky statistically?

 

[Thief]

Why do Americans love their guns so much? They are so scared the government will take them away, saying that it makes people safer, dispite gun crime in America being one of the highest in the western world. They say it protects them from dictators, dispite dictators being more threatened by a peaceful revolt, then a violent uprising.

Crime the only line drawn?

Guns are used by anyone wishing to dominate.

Shall I mention names?...How about Hitler.

Difficult to overtake countries with armed citizens...don't you think?

The American revolution would have been impossible without the rifle.
Pelt the British with pelts?

Try solving the problem of home invasion....without a gun.

Black belt here!....self defense without a gun?....hard work... and risky.

Keep your fingers off my firearm.

 

[Thief]

I think it's worth pointing out that far from all Americans love guns. Quite a few hate them and I suspect a significant majority could generally take or leave them without much concern.


I'm not convinced. In countries without such lax gun control (such as the UK where I am), there are far fewer criminals possessing and using guns. Moving from the current position the US in in to tighter regulation would probably lead to a different situation though.

Anyway, criminals aren't the biggest killers from widespread public gun ownership; suicide and accidents are. This is often (wrongly) ignored in this debate.

Crime spiked in Australia as soon as the gun was banned.
Now they are trying to ban large knives.

Someday they will have to confiscate the slingshots and rocks.

 

[Madhuri]

It'd be easy for a government to overtake a country whether the citizens have guns or not. But the rest I understand. The culture needs to change, not how many people have guns.

 

[Madhuri]

Crime spiked in Australia as soon as the gun was banned.
Now they are trying to ban large knives.

Someday they will have to confiscate the slingshots and rocks.

Yup, it really isn't that bad.
Death by gunshot is very rare.

 

[Madhuri]

By the way, the knife law is restricted to SA and it relates to:

"The laws will ban the sale of knives to children aged under 16, ban the marketing of knives as a combat weapon and restrict possession of knives in or near schools or other public places."

 

[HonestJoe]

Or am I just unlucky statistically?

Yes, obviously. Why would there need to be any other explanation?

 

[HonestJoe]

Crime spiked in Australia as soon as the gun was banned.

Quite possibly (though whether, how and how much that was directly related to gun restrictions would require closer inspection).

That doesn't change anything I said. Places with tighter gun control tend to have less gun crime and fewer accidental gun injuries or deaths and fewer suicides using firearms (which is numerically more significant).

I already mentioned that moving from laxer controls to tighter ones has it's own set of problems but that doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.

Someday they will have to confiscate the slingshots and rocks.

Then they'll come for our slippery slope rhetoric and then where will we be.

 

[Breathe]

Yes, obviously. Why would there need to be any other explanation?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Question for those on both sides of this debate:

How could there be any gun violence if, hypothetically, there were no guns in the first place?

 

[Reptillian]

I don't know about the necessity of guns in cities, but I live in a very rural state and its nice to have a gun for hunting and defense. I myself have shot a rabid skunk. When you're out on the farm you can't exactly call animal control to take care of every little thing. Rabid wildlife, meddlesome gophers/rabbits/predators, critically injured farm animals, food...the gun is a vital tool here.

 

[Antibush5]

I don't know about the necessity of guns in cities, but I live in a very rural state and its nice to have a gun for hunting and defense. I myself have shot a rabid skunk. When you're out on the farm you can't exactly call animal control to take care of every little thing. Rabid wildlife, meddlesome gophers/rabbits/predators, critically injured farm animals, food...the gun is a vital tool here.

I am actually quite a fan of hunting, so I can't speak totally against the gun, but I do find that regulations, such as having a permit, only being able to use hunting guns, such as shotguns and rifles, helps.
(I am also a bit of a rural man myself)

 

[Reptillian]

I am actually quite a fan of hunting, so I can't speak totally against the gun, but I do find that regulations, such as having a permit, only being able to use hunting guns, such as shotguns and rifles, helps.
(I am also a bit of a rural man myself)

I used to live out in the country, some of my uncles still farm. There are all sorts of permits and licenses required for gun ownership and use here too. I personally don't own a gun anymore, but I still own a bow. I'm not a hunter, but I have a lot of friends that are. I enjoy eating some of the deer/pheasant meat they get every fall. Its good stuff.

 

[Revoltingest]

How could there be any gun violence if, hypothetically, there were no guns in the first place?

Take'm all away, & people will reacquire them.

Places with tighter gun control tend to have less gun crime and fewer accidental gun injuries or deaths and fewer suicides using firearms (which is numerically more significant).

Statistical source, please? I'd bet that Chicago & NY would be exceptions.

I already mentioned that moving from laxer controls to tighter ones has it's own set of problems but that doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.

Neither is it automatically a good idea.

 

[HonestJoe]

Statistical source, please? I'd bet that Chicago & NY would be exceptions.

I was thinking nations rather than states and over longer term rather than "quick fix" law changes to be honest, notably comparing the US and Europe. I think it's as much a cultural issue which the law reflects; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence.

I did quite deliberatly say "tends" because it's pretty much impossible to separate all other factors involved, especially when looking at short term changes in localised areas. Depending on how restrictions are implemented, a consequential increase in (now) illegal guns could increase crime statisitics.

The following link is useful (if only in showing how difficult it is to be clear on such things!). Note that the various before-and-after crime statistic graphs focus on all homocide rather than gun crime specifically. Note also that many of the peaks and troughs appear independantly of the gun-law changes pointing out other factors must be having a significant effect; http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Neither is it automatically a good idea.

I agree. It was really the "automatically" I was trying to get rid of. I was responding to a flat statement about crime spiking after a tightening of gun laws and the unspoken implication of that meaning the law change must have been a bad thing.

 

[Amill]

I'm fine with people owning firearms and keeping them on their own property, but I don't trust the hillbillies around here enough to be okay with them carrying a weapon around in public. What I really don't understand is the frenzy over an assault rifle ban. Why on earth would anyone actually need an assault rifle?

I was also actually looking into how guns get into the criminal world and most of them are legally purchased or gotten from licensed dealers. The people may buy them for a criminal friend or the dealer may be corrupt, but this whole notion that if you take away our guns only the criminals will have them and we wont be able to protect ourselves is just wrong. The guns criminals get their hands on come from the same dealers the rest of us get ours from. Sure guns would still make it to the streets even if the market was shut down, but would it be anywhere near as much?

But I still think people should be allowed to own a firearm on their own property, just wish the gun market was under stricter watch and guidelines. Based on the link it sounds as if these guys with the federal firearms licenses seem to "lose" a lot of guns and have a lot "stolen".

 

[Revoltingest]

I was thinking nations rather than states and over longer term rather than "quick fix" law changes to be honest, notably comparing the US and Europe. I think it's as much a cultural issue

True dat....tis a complex issue, varying greatly from place to place. As with so many things, I see it not
a matter of more or less regulation needed, but rather different & more useful regulation would help.