Gun Control

as a hunter i think it is a right to own guns for recreational purposes but, i think that owning a .50 rifle is over doing it. weapons for self defense are also questionable because if we loosen those laws then i think more people could have guns to attack people. please post what you think. 

I think hunting rifles should be accessible for anyone fit to use them. Same thing with smaller hand guns.
Larger weapons such at automatic weapons or assault weapons should be available for the public at, and only at fire ranges.
Weapons should not be brought out in public because it is simply too easy to kill someone.

What?
The constitution is just a fucking piece of paper without regular citizens having guns.

I think gun ownership should be restricted, firearms make it too easy to kill. Any idiot can shoot someone, but to kill with a knife or a blunt object - that takes guts. With widespread gun ownership we get a lot of killers who wouldn't have killed otherwise. Hunting rifles are of course reasonable.

>>4
If someone is determined to kill, they will kill or attempt to. They will obtain a gun one way or another, legally, illegally, whatever. Widespread gun ownership doesn't change that, neither does gun control. No one is going to say "hey, you know, I wasn't going to kill this guy, but now that I can buy a gun at Walmart, I will!"

Gun ownership should not be regulated any more than it is. Any tool, when used improperly, can and does lead to the injury and death of persons. However, the idea behind an armed and capable populace is to protect the people from their government. There are countries all over the world whose populations are preyed upon physically and mentally by their governments who also have no access to firearms. Which country is up to the task of changing that?

The people should be armed and the government should be afraid of them.

>>5
We agree to disagree.

>>6
"the idea behind an armed and capable populace is to protect the people from their government"

While I respect the opinions of most people, this has always struck me as retarded. Yeah, your 12 gauge is really gonna help against a tank division..

I have a .50 rifle. If more people have guns then there would be less violent crime. No one's going to go in and hold a store up at gun point if they know someone else in there is going to have a gun ready, potentially everyone else. The same applies in any circumstance, and the problem is, we can try to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens because they will abide by gun control laws, but criminals will not have any less weapons, because they can break the law to get them. Gun control in the UK is very strict and now they have a rather large problem with violent crime, especially involving knives.

So there are two reasons the citizens need guns. One, defense from criminals who will always have weapons. Two, defense from tyranny in government. This was the design of the founding fathers, it is the primary reason we have guns. To number >>8, yes a 12 gauge wouldn't help, because a 12 gauge isn't designed for that purpose. Get a .50 rifle and put an armor piercing incendiary round in there and you could easily put a good hole in a tank, and I have all of this as well as a number of weapons of questionable legality that would make rebellion against tyrannical government rather easy should they be in the hands of the general populace. A government does not act in the benevolent interests of its citizens unless a government is afraid of its citizens. As well these guns of questionable legality are not difficult to get simply because of the law. One simply has to know where to get them, and a criminal easily would. I could take out a SWAT team if I was as good a marksman.  You also forget to take into account, if the government got that bad, you'd probably have a lot of the military on your side.

It's all about the issue of restricting property ownership. Government's purpose is not that of a censor taking away that which is "detrimental" to man but rather the governemnt's role is that of a mercenary. I pay the government to protect my rights not to have them take property away from me and then my freedom too if I wish to stop paying them or disobey them. If my right to own whatsoever I choose to is regulated by the government; then isn't my right to own my life also at the whim of a organization that spends millions each year to figure out what love is?

>>9

The defense against tyranny stuff is just weird, like something out of a comic book.. You know what's a fine example of a well-armed populace? Baghdad. Anyway, let's discuss numbers instead.

In 1999 the US had a murder rate of 4.55 out of 100,000. For England and Wales that number was 1.45.

There were 12,658 murders recorded in the US in 1999 and firearms were used in 65% of the cases. England and Wales had 766 murders in 1999 and firearms were used in 8% of the cases.

And that's England, a cesspool of violence and depravity. Compare the US to more civilized countries with low gun ownership, like Sweden or Japan, and you'll see an even clearer pattern.

Don't get me wrong, there are good arguments for lax gun laws. The inalienable freedom of the individual, for one. Hell, if you'd simply said "I want guns because I like them" I'd be able to respect you. But this talk about how more guns lead to less violent crime is just nonsense, it's just not true.

Numbers from: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

>>11
Misleading statistics.  The culture in America is vastly different than that of the UK.  The UK does not have as many people nor do they have such a diverse population(both culturally and socioeconomically).  It is only logically to conclude that if someone is desperate, they will find any way possible to escape their current condition.  Most robberies are done out of desperation(whether or not the thing the criminal perceives as necessary is in fact so).  Guns do not just make it convenient to kill someone, the intention is already there in most cases.  The gun just makes it quicker.

>>11 You're basing these statistics on the idea that the US is a country that has sufficient gun ownership, it is not. As well America happens to have a more violent culture, even moreso than other countries where everyone has guns. I mean if you even speak to people from other countries, they don't even get angry about their government as much even if they have things that are completely unacceptable like a 50 percent income tax. It's different culture that isn't dependent on gun ownership. In Switzerland every adult male is a member of the military, they not only own guns but are trained with them as well, and the crime rate is very low. Yet their culture isn't as violent as ours. Take into account a culture that is more prone to violence, and it's just common sense. If a person knows if they're going to try and commit a crime in the vicinity of people who will also have guns, they will be less likely to do it. Unfortunately there is nowhere in the US with sufficient gun ownership where a person knows that people around them will also have guns.

And how is protection against tyranny in government like something from a comic book? It was the specific design from the founding fathers, you could find countless quotes by Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers speaking of the necessity of a government that is afraid of its citizens, of rebelling against tyranny in government, etc.. You've never lived under suffering or oppression but the founding fathers had just come from the direct experience of oppressive government and inevitably, even a government of their design that had fail safes against it, would become convoluted and corrupt, as ours has. Give it another 100 years, and unless I come into the office of president, there will be a revolt.

>>11
>>8

How many people are in the US military? 1.4 million. How many people in the US are not in the military? 298.6 million. It doesn't matter that they have an advantage in weaponry, if 100 million armed citizens staged a relatively organized revolution, the government would be fucked. Without arms, there is next to no chance of success. Thus, America can overthrow the government if necessary as long as we have guns.

>>7
What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? If you have an opposing opinion, you should be able to argue it, if you are just going to be a stubborn asshole every time your views are challenged then what the fuck are you doing on this board? Look, people kill people for a lot of reasons but convenience sure as hell ain't one of them.

>>11
You cannot compare other countries murder rates to the US and expect 1 tiny reason to be the sole cause. The world doesn't work like that. Correlation != causation. It's simple, criminals will always have access to guns, they are criminals and thus will obtain them illegally. Gun control just prevents law abiding citizens from owning guns.

>>11
They have to be libertarian aswell. I sent e-mails and e-mails to the white house during the military build up in Saudi Arabia in 2002/2003 saying that if you want to overthrow saddam all you have to do is drop libertarian propoganda over Baghdad. I even got a call from the NSA asking me how I knew they were going to invade. I couldn't stop laughing, but that's another story.

Does anybody have the gun related crimes statistics of Switzerland ?
As far as I know they have compulsory military service there and everyboy takes his rifle home after few weeks of training.
It would be interesting to see how many gun related crimes they have, wouldn't it?
Keep in mind that they have military hardware which is banned in the US.

>>16
No one is allowed their statistics because there are no black people in switzerland and it might give people ideas.

Here's a comparison.
Drugs are banned, yet I still see weed on the streets, and is commonly talked about.
Banning something is more like the government's take on things. It's more like an opinion then a threat. Sure, it's inforced, but as easy as it is to sneak into our borders with drugs, it's the same with guns.
Criminals will always be criminals, and they will do anything to get their hands on what they need, same goes for 18 year old druggies.

Here's another comparison.
Daving sex with kids is banned, yet i still see people having sex with kids, and it's commonly talked about.
Banning something is like the governmetn's take on things. It's more like an opinion then a threat. Sure, it's inforced, but as easy as it is to sneak into our borders with kids, it's the same with guns.
Criminals will always be criminals, and theyw ill do everything to get their hands on what they need, same goes for 18 year old pedophiles.

>>19
The kid doesn't have the choice.

>>14
"What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? If you have an opposing opinion, you should be able to argue it, if you are just going to be a stubborn asshole every time your views are challenged then what the fuck are you doing on this board? Look, people kill people for a lot of reasons but convenience sure as hell ain't one of them."

We each argued pretty much the opposite of what the other was saying and neither of us had any facts to support it. It doesn't make much sense to keep arguing in a situation like that. I am convinced that people kill more the more convenient it is (which is actually supported by the statistics later in the thread) and he is convinced they don't. What do you want us to do, yell at each other?

>>13
Switzerland actually has farily strict gun laws; all purchases being registered, mandatory weapon lockers, and so on (which is not unusual for countries with militia). It is true that they have widespread gun ownership, but in 1992 they also had the second highest handgun murder rate (after the US). In 1999 it was slightly lower, at 1.01 out of 100,000 (1.25 for all murders). That's lower than England and Wales (again, cesspool) but still way higher than Sweden and Japan. A staggering 81% of all murders in Switzerland are committed with firearms.

>>14
"It's simple, criminals will always have access to guns, they are criminals and thus will obtain them illegally. Gun control just prevents law abiding citizens from owning guns."

No. It is obvious from the various reports that gun crime ranges from scarce to virtually unheard of in countries with strict gun laws. People use knives and blunt objects instead, which is a bigger hassle and thus you have less violence.

>>22
A correction, where I wrote "[t]hat's lower than England and Wales" I meant Switzerland has a lower murder rate than E&W, not a lower firearms related murder rate.

>>22
>No. It is obvious from the various reports that gun crime ranges from scarce to virtually unheard of in countries with strict gun laws.

This doesn't say anythig about whether guns cause crimes or not.

>People use knives and blunt objects instead, which is a bigger hassle and thus you have less violence.

You made this up.
There's no evidence to back this up and that's why the debate about gun control is still going on.
I think that if someone wants to kill another person, he will do it whether he has a gun or not.
There's no "I gonna shoot somebody just because I want some fun with my pistol."

>>24
but think about it, if people can't kill other people with guns, they'll have to use something else. killing people with guns is by far the easiest, so everything else will be more trouble. If you look at it psychologically there is a major difference between stabbing someone repeatedly untill they die, and *blam* shoot them dead.
As has been mentioned before, criminals who want guns can get guns, this counts more or less all over the world. But if you look at crimes of passion amongst civilians, it would practically, and psychologically, be more difficult to directly kill a person without a firearm.
Even for 'gangs' or whatever, the increased difficulty of getting a firearm, will raise the price of acquiring one illegally too, logically an increased price will mean that less people can afford them, sure, hardened criminals will be able and willing to acquire guns, but with proper punishment and regulation, petty criminals wouldn't want/dare to.
You have to remember, that if everyone have guns, then a criminal needs to have a gun too, in order to protect himself while committing the crime (not talking about killers/murderers here). By this, logically, if nobody had guns, criminals wouldn't need them either. Of course, a utopian thought, but there could still be something about it.

>>25

Dude, you're totally missing to point.
A murder is planned.
So murderers are 100% determined to kill and it doesn't matter how.
"But what about second degree murder?" I hear you ask.
Those are rage induced and while there's a chance that the would be perpetrator gives up if he doesn't find a suitable weapon he can still make it into a first degree murder.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30756.html
The USA needs a system more like what the Swiss have.  Most of the USA's violence and murders come from areas full of gun grabbers.

Unfortunately, the gun grabbers are about to fuck up one of the greatest systems in the world. 
http://www.nzz.ch/2007/03/25/eng/article7650003.html

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Here's an excerpt from the 2nd link:
"    * Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.37

    * Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed."

If anything is done to lower crime, it should be making gun ownership mandatory, not pushing for stupid gun control laws that don't do shit anyway.  Background checks are ok though.

>>24
"You made this up.
There's no evidence to back this up and that's why the debate about gun control is still going on.
I think that if someone wants to kill another person, he will do it whether he has a gun or not.
There's no 'I gonna shoot somebody just because I want some fun with my pistol.'"

Well, there's always the statistics. Countries with few guns have very little gun crime and a low murder rate. Countries with lots of guns have high murder rate and a huge percentage is gun related (65% for US, 81% for Switzerland).

But I agree that there is no obvious solution in America, that's why there's still debate. Most of the world has abandoned guns and enjoy lower crime rates, but it's possible that such a move would be impossible in the US because of already rampant crime.

"So murderers are 100% determined to kill and it doesn't matter how."

I'm sorry, but if I can't make things up then neither can you. There's nothing to support your statement.

>>29
"Well, there's always the statistics. Countries with few guns have very little gun crime and a low murder rate.Countries with lots of guns have high murder rate and a huge percentage is gun related (65% for US, 81% for Switzerland)."

You'll win the nobel prize if you can prove that this is related to gun ownership.
Because you can't.
Saying that guns are responsible for crimes because people use them while commiting a crime is completely retarded.
If you want less crimes then you're going the wrong way.
Ask yourself WHO commits crimes and WHY and not with what.

""So murderers are 100% determined to kill and it doesn't matter how."

I'm sorry, but if I can't make things up then neither can you. There's nothing to support your statement."

First degree murder is by defition planned.
That means that a murderer really wanted his victim dead.

>>30
"You'll win the nobel prize if you can prove that this is related to gun ownership."

Hey, it's a theory. Most people outside the US agree with it. As for first degree murder, I don't know what that is. We only have "murder" here. It seems sort of off topic, prima facie it's obvious that not all murders are planned. And naturally part of planning a murder is the means with which you're going to kill - someone with access to assault rifles may go ahead with the plan where someone who only has access to pointy sticks decides it's too risky.

>>31

Not a theory but a hypothesis and it doesn't matter how many people agree with it.
People agreed with the world being flat in the middle ages, didn't they?

I kinda forgot that many countries have their own definitions of murder.
What I was trying to say is that if someone really wants to kill  then he will.
Only someone who doesn't care if he gets caught will use a gun.
A regular man won't shoot his wife but he'll rather poison her.
As I said you should ask why are people commiting crimes and not what they use because everything can serve as a weapon.
People could kill you with a pencil or their bare hands.
You see, taking away a tool doesn't make someone less dangerous.
A better idea would be to take away the motivation to kill.

>>32
"You see, taking away a tool doesn't make someone less dangerous."

Sure it does. Take away the chainsaw from a deranged psychopath and he'll instantly become less dangerous.

Imagine there are only two ways to kill people. One is a device that looks like a Nintendo Wii controller, only when you point it at someone and push the button that person dies. It works at any range. The other way is using a toothpick. Now suddenly the remote thing is banned, and disappears from the market completely. The people that are 100% hellbent on killing will still kill, using toothpicks. But everyone else will weigh their options and evaluate these new circumstances. They could kill with the toothpick, but it's definitely gonna be messy. It'll take strength to overcome the victim and you'll obviously need the stomach to repededly stab someone. Since you have to get up close to your victim there's a much higher risk of getting caught. And so on. Fewer people kill.

I find it obvious that the _easier_ it is to kill, the _more_ people will kill. But we are repeating ourselves and as you previously said there is no easy answer. I'm willing to leave it at that.

In Switzerland, every adult male is required to have a gun due to militia, it has more guns, but less crime.

>>34
This has already been addressed. There's nothing special about Switzerland's crime rate. For example they have a noticeably higher murder rate than the Scandinavian countries, the latter in which guns are rare.

>>33

Now this is a funny move.
"One last thing but then I quit."
Should I answer not?
I mean, you're trying to argue but then "I'm willing to leave it at that."
Well, whether you care or not: You say that people commit crimes just because they can. But I say they do it because something is wrong. Did you notice that most criminals are poor and uneducated? I don't want to  give up a right for a half-assed attempt at lowering the crime rate while something else would more effective without touching my freedom.

>>36
I wasn't arguing anything new. A common fallacy in internet debate is "last post wins". This leads to endless repetition, which I wanted to avoid. Thus, the last word is yours and we will all contemplate it.

>>37

Hypocrisy at its best.

Fine, fuck quitting then..

>>36
"Well, whether you care or not: You say that people commit crimes just because they can. But I say they do it because something is wrong. Did you notice that most criminals are poor and uneducated? I don't want to  give up a right for a half-assed attempt at lowering the crime rate while something else would more effective without touching my freedom."

Yes, your proposed dichotomy of criminal behaviour is no doubt accurate. We can either make it more difficult to kill or we can combat the underlying causes. The thing is, fewer guns works. The murder rates are lower. Combating underlying causes, well I haven't heard of that ever working. It sounds like a clever distraction. "Hey let's solve poverty and make people stop wanting to kill". How's that working out for you?

>>39

>The thing is, fewer guns works.

Simply not true.

>Combating underlying causes, well I haven't heard of that ever working.

Never been tried because banning something sounds like the easy way out.