Miss wrote

Click to View Content

Bhoy wrote

r00t wrote

Bhoy wrote Well America's homicide rate is 4.8 : 1 with the UK.

So I don't know how you can't see where people come from when they say that they don't want guns because there is an obvious less of a chance of dying.

Yes it defends you but it also makes you more vulnerable cause the person you're trying to defend yourself against will most likely have a gun.

There are a lot more public attacks and school shootings as well which doesn't happen in countries like the UK a lot cause you can't get very far with a knife.

Then if there is any major threats, UK Police do have guns to do deal with them.

I don't hate guns but I think the only people that should own them are the Police.

I can cherry-pick statistics, too.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.[7][broken citation]

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US.[8]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you're trying to crunch numbers to explain the situation, you have no idea what's going on.

Okay, scrap the statistics I just copy crap to emphasise my point but that wasn't what I was trying to focus on, I was more aiming at the fact that anytime you turn on the news, there has been mass murders or school shootings in America. Yet in the UK, you don't get that very often. The last time a mass school shooting happened here was in 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland when it was a lot easier to legally get hold of a handgun and the person that killed everyone, legally owned the gun.

If people didn't use guns in these attacks, it would be over in minutes.

Can you explain to me why mass murders and school shootings happen more in America if the fact it's easier to kill people isn't a reason?

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, 1989 Monkseaton shootings and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.

Seems like their has been more that you haven't heard of.

I said school shootings but if you're going along they lines then yes there is a lot more, I live in Glasgow, Scotland and there is guns illegally here in rough areas, I have a friend who was shot at by a gang in our area and got out luckily but there has been a few shootings in Glasgow over the last few years. But on a scale of mass murders, there is no comparison between the UK and the USA.

The problem is, and has always been, the mental health and social problems. The solution in America is to promote responsible gun ownership and mental health. The restrictions we have in place (background checks, etc.) are all that are needed and, in some places, excessive and unconstitutional. Civilian gun ownership allows our government to exist and has always been part of our culture.

Laws only affect those that follow them and legal gun owners follow the laws. Legal gun owners are not the problem, but restrictions target them only. Gangbangers in Chicago don't care that putting a $20 stock on their Glock handgun requires a separate tax stamp or that the NFA has something to say about them sawing off their shotgun.

You've seen more mass shootings because people around the world are becoming less sane and the media makes big money by making serial killers famous. Access to guns has not changed and if you think the solution is to let people go crazy but not have guns, I hope you don't join the politicians here that agree with you.

r00t wrote The problem is, and has always been, the mental health and social problems. The solution in America is to promote responsible gun ownership and mental health. The restrictions we have in place (background checks, etc.) are all that are needed and, in some places, excessive and unconstitutional. Civilian gun ownership allows our government to exist and has always been part of our culture.

Laws only affect those that follow them and legal gun owners follow the laws. Legal gun owners are not the problem, but restrictions target them only. Gangbangers in Chicago don't care that putting a $20 stock on their Glock handgun requires a separate tax stamp or that the NFA has something to say about them sawing off their shotgun.

You've seen more mass shootings because people around the world are becoming less sane and the media makes big money by making serial killers famous. Access to guns has not changed and if you think the solution is to let people go crazy but not have guns, I hope you don't join the politicians here that agree with you.

I don't agree that everyone has the right to a gun and I never will. I think only those who have a job in protecting civilians should have them if any.

Yes, some civilians may not be able to protect themselves and some lives may be lost but if you compare that to the amount of civilians who die cause of guns in circumstances where they had nothing to deserve that, people just overlook it and say it's okay because some people can protect themselves?

If there was proper gun restricions, there would be less civilians dying and that's simply the reason for my point of view.

agreed, But i live in alaska. Most people here alreaqdy have guns. Lol

Yes man! Guns don't kill people do

Bhoy wrote

r00t wrote The problem is, and has always been, the mental health and social problems. The solution in America is to promote responsible gun ownership and mental health. The restrictions we have in place (background checks, etc.) are all that are needed and, in some places, excessive and unconstitutional. Civilian gun ownership allows our government to exist and has always been part of our culture.

Laws only affect those that follow them and legal gun owners follow the laws. Legal gun owners are not the problem, but restrictions target them only. Gangbangers in Chicago don't care that putting a $20 stock on their Glock handgun requires a separate tax stamp or that the NFA has something to say about them sawing off their shotgun.

You've seen more mass shootings because people around the world are becoming less sane and the media makes big money by making serial killers famous. Access to guns has not changed and if you think the solution is to let people go crazy but not have guns, I hope you don't join the politicians here that agree with you.

I don't agree that everyone has the right to a gun and I never will. I think only those who have a job in protecting civilians should have them if any.

Yes, some civilians may not be able to protect themselves and some lives may be lost but if you compare that to the amount of civilians who die cause of guns in circumstances where they had nothing to deserve that, people just overlook it and say it's okay because some people can protect themselves?

If there was proper gun restricions, there would be less civilians dying and that's simply the reason for my point of view.

And let's just say, hypothetically, what if a country as powerful as the United States became as corrupted as Nazi Germany? Should we just ignore it? What do you suppose we do? What should the citizens of that country do since they can no longer fight the problem themselves since the one thing that could have at least helped had been banned and taken away from them? Sounds like a problem and uphill battle that I never want to get into. When those people who protect citizens are the only ones with weapons, you better hope they never turn on the people.

Bhoy wrote

r00t wrote The problem is, and has always been, the mental health and social problems. The solution in America is to promote responsible gun ownership and mental health. The restrictions we have in place (background checks, etc.) are all that are needed and, in some places, excessive and unconstitutional. Civilian gun ownership allows our government to exist and has always been part of our culture.

Laws only affect those that follow them and legal gun owners follow the laws. Legal gun owners are not the problem, but restrictions target them only. Gangbangers in Chicago don't care that putting a $20 stock on their Glock handgun requires a separate tax stamp or that the NFA has something to say about them sawing off their shotgun.

You've seen more mass shootings because people around the world are becoming less sane and the media makes big money by making serial killers famous. Access to guns has not changed and if you think the solution is to let people go crazy but not have guns, I hope you don't join the politicians here that agree with you.

I don't agree that everyone has the right to a gun and I never will. I think only those who have a job in protecting civilians should have them if any.

Yes, some civilians may not be able to protect themselves and some lives may be lost but if you compare that to the amount of civilians who die cause of guns in circumstances where they had nothing to deserve that, people just overlook it and say it's okay because some people can protect themselves?

If there was proper gun restricions, there would be less civilians dying and that's simply the reason for my point of view.

That's the problem there with what you said. The idea that only "certain" people should protect civilians is a very dangerous notion. EVERYONE should be protecting everyone. If everyone cared for each other and protected each other as if they're family, we'd live in a much better world. But since people don't think like that, we have police. And for that reason I believe everyone should own a gun.

Also, what if the government tries and takes over the people like several have AFTER they have successfully banned guns. What then?

I agree with you. Look, places where gun laws are very tight (Chicago) there is the most amount of crime and deaths with guns. And then in places where gun laws are less strict there is less crime and murders.

I personally like to go to the shooting range and shooting is a fun sport I like to do.

Its like saying to ban knifes because a killer can use a knife to kill someone...

Bhoy wrote Well America's homicide rate is 4.8 : 1 with the UK.

So I don't know how you can't see where people come from when they say that they don't want guns because there is an obvious less of a chance of dying.

Yes it defends you but it also makes you more vulnerable cause the person you're trying to defend yourself against will most likely have a gun.

There are a lot more public attacks and school shootings as well which doesn't happen in countries like the UK a lot cause you can't get very far with a knife.

Then if there is any major threats, UK Police do have guns to do deal with them.

I don't hate guns but I think the only people that should own them are the Police.

Do you know how long some response times are in America? Anywhere from 2 to +30 minutes. Police show up just in time to call the coroner. Sandy Hook ended in 6 minutes. Most shootings do. Police generally take that long or longer to respond. I'd rather take my chances with a gun than wait for cops.

Bhoy wrote

Yes, some civilians may not be able to protect themselves and some lives may be lost but if you compare that to the amount of civilians who die cause of guns in circumstances where they had nothing to deserve that, people just overlook it and say it's okay because some people can protect themselves?

The CDC says : almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year. Compared to 13,000 killed by gun homicide. I can clearly tell you have never been in a life threatening situation involving self defense. Most people quickly recant their views after they get mugged at knife point, tied and burglarized or raped while walking home when a gun would have put the odds in their favor. Why ONLY rely on police? People have fire extinguishers when we have fire departments? Why? Fire Departments can't always get there in time.

The idea of everyone owning a gun is a scary thought, considering the amount of mentally unstable and on edge members of society we have. I am very pro gun ownership, I believe that the knowledge and responsibility of owning, firing, and maintaining a firearm is a very valuable thing, and it would be nice for every responsible american to learn, but I obviously know this can't happen.

---

As for people who say that they wish to own a fully automatic rifle in the states, while I wont question your constitutional right to bear arms, I do have to ask, why? Yes a very small minority of you may have the practical use for one, but this also requires VERY expensive government permits, review boards, tax stamp, and then AT LEAST 20 grand for the weapon. I also question the method to the madness for people who believe in suppressor ownership in the states for the average licensed gun owner. There is no need. If you're hunting with a relatively cheap .223 Winchester for example, you don't have any use for a suppressor in those situations, it's a very expensive piece of equipment for such a small "need".

---

I got a little off topic there, but yes I understand it can be angering seeing people with absolutely no firearms experience trying to tell you what you should and should not do with yours. A general public teaching of firearms could really help the public opinion of firearm owners in my opinion, but this isn't going to happen on a large scale sadly. I'd say our best bet is to help inform people in a non down-bringing manner and show that we aren't all fanatical, mentally damaged, gun owners. When we attack anyone and everyone who disagrees with our opinions on ownership we are only adding fuel to the Stereotype fire.

Edit: Decided to add a little more to my post regarding Political and Media influence/views/issues. The main issue in the Media is the extremely biased views being shown (this goes for both sides of the spectrum), whether it's MSNBC telling you that a senator was seen practicing open carry so he's the devil, or whether it's Fox News telling you to go practice armed protest in front of your Governors home. They also know that public attention means money. Any publicity is good publicity, so when the next School Shooting happens (Just speaking honestly here) they will be sure to hop on the "Look at him, look at him, did we say look at him?" train and make sure that everyone who is anyone knows that persons name and face. They make them into glorified heroes. And then all it takes is one mentally sick person to see that news cast and decide they want to go out in a blaze of glory, to spark the next killings.

There are also many Politicians pushing for stricter gun keep laws and restrictions on anything they can get their hands on. Criminals DO NOT CARE. That's why they're Criminals. Laws are not made to stop criminals, they're made to stop normal people from becoming criminals. Law-Breaking citizens who already own an illegal .50 BMG Rifle don't give a damn if the government says they can no longer buy a cartridge for it. They will do what they want, when they please. If you went to a criminal and said that you're sorry but their sawed off rifle barrel is under the required length for rifles in your state, what do you think they would say? None of these laws will help lower major crime. I guarantee it.