Are you in favor of higher gun control(non-public poll)

[Falvlun]

Because the part that's 100% clear is that we have a right to bear arms. Any effort to take a weapon away from an otherwise law-abiding and mentally stable citizen is a clear violation of that right.

No, you can't just do that.

I mean, you have the right to kill someone... in self defense. You can't ignore the rest of the sentence, and claim that "you've got the right to kill people".

DC vs Heller

Thanks, and I am glad that they found in favor of this.

However, that doesn't mean that the Amendment is unambiguous; there were 2 dissents based on different interpretations.

I'm of the opinion that no weapons at all should be banned.

You are welcome to that opinion, but I don't see the second amendment, nor its historical interpretation (U.S. vs Miller), supporting this stance.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No, you can't just do that.

I mean, you have the right to kill someone... in self defense. You can't ignore the rest of the sentence, and claim that "you've got the right to kill people".

Where's the "rest of the sentence" that says there are restrictions on the type of arms we can use?

 

[dust1n]

I never denied that...

And I never denied that you never denied it.

But unless gun control significantly drops the number of homicides OVERALL (which it clearly doesn't), who really cares that there are less gun deaths specifically?

I don't see how it is clear either way. There are far too many factors involved then what your study shows.

What have you really done but make a step towards erasing the boogeyman that is the gun? That would be like banning donuts because people have fat-related heart attacks. Yes, donut-related heart attacks would go down, but overall it wouldn't matter because people are still stuffing their faces with hamburgers, hot dogs, croissants and everything else that makes them fat. Eliminating donuts specifically would do absolutely nothing to address the problem of obesity, just as eliminating guns does nothing to address the issue of violent crime.

That was, like, the worse comparison ever. First of all, eating donuts is something does to oneself. Fat-related heart attacks are instigated immediately by another party. Secondly, if one's goal was to make society eat less fat in society, it doesn't even make sense that one would target specifically donuts. How that correlates to guns is beyond me. Thirdly, manufacturing donuts (or any weapon) doesn't make the base for most of the civil wars in the world, and the power by which dictators rise. Fourthly... I can't tell you what any of the correlations mean...

Including suicides:

Spoiler: large images

Just homicides:

All countries, even those at war:

 

[yoda89]

Actually according to the study places in Europe in which there are more handguns there appears to be less violence.

Suicide is suicide doesn't matter if its with a gun or not. People will find a way to kill themselves.

The study does not take into account unlicensed guns. Many pro-gun states have more guns than are registered and thus the deaths would drop gun to death ratio. In a lot of states who do not register guns there are still contain a large amount that are unaccounted for. This would higher the gun to death ratio. This skews the statistics.
It's a lot easier to get a gun than you think.

Is you argument against guns or civilians gun licensing?

 

[Breathe]

Actually according to the study places in Europe in which there are more handguns there appears to be less violence. Which I find very interesting.

Yeah, I suppose I can understand it to some extent. Imagine you're a thug and wanted to mug some guy, and it was legal to own and carry a handgun. The guy you pick might have a gun. Even if you aim a gun at him, someone else might see you and also have a gun.

Whereas when guns, tasers, knives and other stuff are illegal, you know that they're probably not going to have one, and you might still have one (and it's easy to get them even here). Easier picking.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Secondly, if one's goal was to make society eat less fat in society, it doesn't even make sense that one would target specifically donuts.

Exactly! That was the whole point of the example in the first place; not to compare eating donuts to shooting people... If the goal is to significantly reduce violence in society, it doesn't make any sense to specifically target guns. Sure, there would be less gun deaths, but what does less gun violence accomplish if there has been no significant change in violence overall? All of the evidence you show to support the effectiveness of gun control only focus on gun violence; they don't show how it affects overall violent crime (because it doesn't and gun control fanatics don't want you to know that). If donuts were outlawed, I could show you an impressive chart of how stricter donut control significantly reduced the amount of donut-related obesity. It would still have no significant bearing on the problem of obesity overall. Just replace the word "donuts" with the word "guns" and "obesity" with "violent crime". Examples 101; don't read too deeply into semantics...

 

[yoda89]

Well, death is %100 for all countries. Perhaps I should have said, more guns, more gun related deaths, where this holds relatively true, with a couple exceptions, mostly in South America. There would be more in N. America, but the hospital resources and the amount of lives saved after gun shot wounds has significantly increased. Same amount people get shot in America... less die now because gun-shot trauma related medicines are better.

Are you stating that if there were guns or not there would be the same amount of death or am I misinterpreting this? If this is so why would you take away guns. Or do you believe it causes more death?

 

[maninthewilderness]

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.S.L.A.M617 View Post
Because the part that's 100% clear is that we have a right to bear arms. Any effort to take a weapon away from an otherwise law-abiding and mentally stable citizen is a clear violation of that right.
No, you can't just do that.

I mean, you have the right to kill someone... in self defense. You can't ignore the rest of the sentence, and claim that "you've got the right to kill people".

No, you don't understand the 2nd Amendment or the U.S. Constitution.

You do NOT have a Constitutional Right to kill someone in self defense.
If you think that you do, then please state exactly which amendment gives your that right.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense against a thug or a rapist or a burglar.
The 2nd Amendment is about giving the people of the nation the tools to fight a tyrannical government.
It's about waging war!
If and when the government ever becomes tyrannical, the people have the right to rise up and kill federal soldiers.
Not in self defense, but in order to bring down a tyrannical government.

This why we cannot allow our government to ban so called "assault rifles" or "high capacity weapons".
Guess what the number one weapon is that is used to topple evil dictators around the globe?

The high capacity assault rifle.

 

[ScreenTimeout]

I support the current level of gun control that we have at the moment.

 

[FanaticStudy]

Not in favour. In Britain, I think it should be significantly laxer than it is.

As one can gather from above, I live in Britain, where gun control is strict: you can't even own a taser, or pepper spray. They're classed as firearms and you can go to prison for them.

And yet, I could get a gun within an hour without it costing too much (£80 ~ £180). One of the caretaker's mate is in prison for killing his (the mate's) cousin with a firearm, accidentally. They were in a gang and he was loading it, forgot to turn off the safety. Instant death.

Someone in the rival gang also opened fire with a machine pistol onto his mate (before he went to prison).

And it all started over a stolen car.

So... gangs have them and use them, but not the innocent who'd use them to protect themselves, and we're not allowed tasers or pepper spray. Stupidity. Utter stupidity.

Late to the thread, but this is misinformation. You can be licensed to own hunting weapons, and while they can't be semi-automatic, there's products that convert something like an AR-15 into a straightpull bolt action rifle.

Also you can own muzzle loaded handguns, so cap and ball revolvers are legal under licensing.
Also if you're especially skilled in precision shooting, a license for a .22lr handgun can be given.

I think generally the gun laws in Britain is the strictest in the EU, but it's not impossible to legally own firearms if you're not convicted in any way.


In Denmark for instance, we can own semi-automatic weapons under a hunting license, no magazine capacity restrictions. Some jurisdictions are not willingly giving out licenses to "military" looking semi auto weapons, but if you bring it to the justice department, you'll eventually get it, because it isn't restricted in law.

You can also own handguns here but with a few restrictions.

Minimum length 210mm, and only several calibers are allowed, though they're popular anyway, such as 22lr, 9mm, 38spl, 357 magnum, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, 40spl, 45 ACP.

There's not any rules regarding magazine capacity so yes, you can buy the 33 round mags for the glocks etc.

 

[sandandfoam]

Are you in favor of stricter Gun control?

Why or why not?

Yes. I am in favour of banning all guns excepting shotguns for pest control by farmers.

Why? Because guns make society more violent and they are unnecessary.

I have an intense dislike for guns.

 

[FanaticStudy]

Yes. I am in favour of banning all guns excepting shotguns for pest control by farmers.

Why? Because guns make society more violent and they are unnecessary.

I have an intense dislike for guns.

In a perfect world I think most people would agree with you. Problem is that the world is flawed and per definition can't be perfect.

Criminals will have firearms and otherwise be armed, should law abiding citizens not be able to defend them and their own, in their own homes?

I could maybe agree with the argument that the goverment is to take care of people on the streets, but is the home not your realm? Is it not your territory?

 

[sandandfoam]

but is the home not your realm? Is it not your territory?

It is. It is also a safer place because no one in it has a gun.

 

[LuisDantas]

In a perfect world I think most people would agree with you. Problem is that the world is flawed and per definition can't be perfect.

Criminals will have firearms and otherwise be armed, should law abiding citizens not be able to defend them and their own, in their own homes?

I have often heard that argument, but I find it unconvincing. Having civilian weapons widely available serves little useful purpose and creates a lot of problems all of its own.

I could maybe agree with the argument that the goverment is to take care of people on the streets, but is the home not your realm? Is it not your territory?

Why would that entitle anyone to use weapons in there?

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

I personally think guns need to be more tightly controlled, if not banned altogether.

People may point to the Second Amendment, but Amendments are just that: they can be repealed and changed as time goes on.

Our second amendment rights were added so that a town or village could form a militia and protect themselves if they were under threat from the British.

For a different day and age. It has been misused in today's day and age by the greed of a 30 Billion dollar gun Industry. This magnitude of gun money exists in no other country. None. No country even comes remotely close to having a 30 Billion dollar Gun Industry. All stats and studies show that guns are used 30-40 times more in homicides and suicides, than self protection. Yet this Gun Industry continues to exist here in the US since it is fiercely shielded by the 2nd Amendment. The only thing that the 2nd Amendment protects today is Gun money.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only thing that the 2nd Amendment protects today is Gun money.

No, the 16th Amendment ended protection of the money.
At least we still have the 2nd protecting gun ownership.

 

[maninthewilderness]

Why? Because guns make society more violent and they are unnecessary.

Before the invention of guns the strong preyed upon the weak.
A strong man would just beat a weaker man in to submission, take what he wanted, rape his wife, etc...

But with a gun, a 100 lbs. grandmother can stop a 220 lbs. MMA fighter by just applying 4 lbs. of pressure to the trigger of her pistol.

A gunless society only benefits the criminal element and the young and strong.
It makes the elderly, the weak, and the infirm completely defenseless.


You cannot count on the police to protect you.
The police do "okay" at catching criminals after the crime has been committed, but they have a dismal record of actually preventing crime.

 

[sandandfoam]

Before the invention of guns the strong preyed upon the weak.
A strong man would just beat a weaker man in to submission, take what he wanted, rape his wife, etc...

But with a gun, a 100 lbs. grandmother can stop a 220 lbs. MMA fighter by just applying 4 lbs. of pressure to the trigger of her pistol.

A gunless society only benefits the criminal element and the young and strong.
It makes the elderly, the weak, and the infirm completely defenseless.


You cannot count on the police to protect you.
The police do "okay" at catching criminals after the crime has been committed, but they have a dismal record of actually preventing crime.

I cannot imagine living in such fear. Moreover, when evidence suggests that private guns are more of a danger to their owners than intruders then clinging to their power for comfort seems like a monstrous waste of time.

 

[FanaticStudy]

I have often heard that argument, but I find it unconvincing. Having civilian weapons widely available serves little useful purpose and creates a lot of problems all of its own.




Why would that entitle anyone to use weapons in there?

Is it reasonable to expect people to take martial arts classes and or arm themselves with melee weapons in order to defend themselves?

Civilian registered weapons are a non issue in places that actually takes firearms serious.

We've had 4 cases in the last 20 years where a legally registered firearm was used to harm another person (We've had several cases where they've been used, but they've been within their rights of law, these 4 cases are illegal cases, homocides.)

On the other hand, we've had hundreds of cases in just the last couple of years with illegal firearms (firearms that have never been legally registered, aka brought in from outside the country).

It's largely restricted to gang warfare, but innocents have been harmed, people have been robbed in their house at gunpoint etc.

Even if you did argue that people should defend their home with something other than a firearm, what does an elderly do? What does a mother do? You can't honestly expect them to face off against a ruthless criminal that breaks into your house while you're home.

And before you say: "But there's no guns in Denmark".
Complete utter BS. We have in the ballpark of 800,000 registered firearms, both hunting and sporting arms. And our population is around 6 million. That's a pretty large amount of firearms for such a small country, both in population and size.
Hell we even have ~12,000 fully automatic M16A4 variants in private households, people from the national guard have their guns home with ammo and everything.

It is. It is also a safer place because no one in it has a gun.

For untrained and maybe irresponsible people maybe. That's not the case with me however, but I can see that side of the argument speaking generally though.

I cannot imagine living in such fear. Moreover, when evidence suggests that private guns are more of a danger to their owners than intruders then clinging to their power for comfort seems like a monstrous waste of time.

It's not a question about living in fear. You have a fire extinguisher maybe? An insurance? Wear a condom if you don't want conception during intercourse etc.

It's called a preemptive measure.

 

[maninthewilderness]

I cannot imagine living in such fear.

You must live in a nice neighborhood where violence is a rare thing indeed.
Some of us are not so lucky.
I live in a place where theft, assault, and robbery are as common as the morning sun.
And I'm a radiographer in a large hospital, and at least 4 times a week I X-ray someone who has been assaulted, or raped, or stabbed, or shot.
And I'm in a relatively peaceful part of the U.S.A. (North Carolina).

Moreover, when evidence suggests that private guns are more of a danger to their owners than intruders then clinging to their power for comfort seems like a monstrous waste of time.

I don't know where you heard or read this but it's 100% pure anti-gun BS.

The places in the U.S.A. that have the most strict gun control laws also have the most violent crime.
Those that have the most relaxed gun laws tend to have much lower instances of violent crime.