The gun control thread

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
I'd hazard to say that the balance is tipped more towards other weapons, all else being equal.

Doesn't seem to be the case. Glasgow, the most violent city in Europe, doesn't have anything like the number of TOTAL violent crimes as the US does non-fatal (so ignoring all the ones that actually end in deaths) gun crime.

US gun crime sits around 1039 crimes per 10,000 people. Glasgow sees around 49 violent crimes per 10,000 people. I know that's not comparing like with like, but I'm taking the most violent place in Europe and comparing it with all of the US, factoring in all the places where there's very little.
 

Jakke

Pretty wisdomous
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
773
Location
In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
As a group, the U.S. is not as gun-crazy as it purports, with my guesstimate being that if a gun ban were put to vote today, it would either pass, or get upper-40% of the vote.



Just saying, no one here is arguing for a gun-ban (and to think Max thought I was being an ass for pointing out that earlier).

Sweden has quite a lot of guns, yet strict gun control. That is because we tend to use them, instead of carrying around them for "protection", which seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) the reason why many americans own guns. If I may play the sociologist here, it seems to be rooted in a deep distrust, which seems to be prevailant in some strata of US society, against institutions like the police and the military. They do not trust them, and therefore security is sought somewhere else. It seems like almost a wild-west mentality to me:shrug:
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
^^It is the same logic why people hate paying taxes, they don't like where "their" money is going. That in itself shows a deep seeded distrust for the government. And always voting on the "lesser of two evils".

So in other words I agree with you...
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
I don't think that's a remotely valid comparison. Disliking what your tax money is being spent on is rather different than being so distrustful of your government you feel you need to be armed to be safe.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
I don't think that's a remotely valid comparison. Disliking what your tax money is being spent on is rather different than being so distrustful of your government you feel you need to be armed to be safe.

Wasn't making a comparison just saying that people seem to not trust their government in general including their spending habits.

I probably should have used a different word rather than logic...
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
I suppose it did :lol: all well...

My rewording second time through kind of avoids that.
 

dethFNmetal

Banned
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
143
Reaction score
3
Location
denver, colroado
just think about it, these people that do shootings like this are nuts, they will find a way to get firearms no matter what. if guns are banned then average citizens will have no way of defending themselves. so shootings will happen no matter what. but to limit casualties people need to be able to defend themselves.
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
just think about it, these people that do shootings like this are nuts, they will find a way to get firearms no matter what. if guns are banned then average citizens will have no way of defending themselves. so shootings will happen no matter what. but to limit casualties people need to be able to defend themselves.

The people who go out to do mass killings, yes. No one sensible is going to suggest otherwise. But with far fewer guns you vastly reduce the instances of attempted robberies, street fights, hell even arguments in bars that turn into gun crimes and firearms murders.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
just think about it, these people that do shootings like this are nuts, they will find a way to get firearms no matter what. if guns are banned then average citizens will have no way of defending themselves. so shootings will happen no matter what. but to limit casualties people need to be able to defend themselves.

How many times has a gun owner killed the assailant during a massacre (also without harm to others) before it was too late?
 

dethFNmetal

Banned
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
143
Reaction score
3
Location
denver, colroado
yeah well i guess any way you look at it there are negatives to either. its just a matter of which option has less. i believe banning guns would be the worse option. just my opinion.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
you would never really know because those incidents get much less publicity than the ones with alot of fatalities.

Fair enough, I'll do some digging of my own when I get a chance. Hell if it comes out positive I'll change my opinion.
 

Edika

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
5,349
Reaction score
2,519
Location
Londonderry, N.Ireland, UK
I don't agree with the cold war senario, but take this situation into consideration (albeit unlikely, still a valid senario):

I'm sitting at home, with my family (girlfriend, and two daughters, 9 and 3 years old). We're eating dinner, and the front door is kicked in. The assailant is high or extremely desperate, and has a lethal weapon.

What should I do? Call the cops? Strong possibility one or more of us are mortally wounded before any of us can even shout our address to the dispatcher.

What WOULD I do? I'd draw the 1911 that I carry with me while I'm on my own property, and end the immediate threat to my family and myself.

And you really shouldn't ask what place the Militia has in America. You're showing that you haven't done any research. State Governors are able to create a standing state Milita. Texas has the Texas Guard, which actually partakes in training with the U.S. Army (I've personally trained with them while I was stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas.). Missouri (where I live), has a Militia which is under direct order of the Governor. The Active Duty Military, National Guard and Reserves don't only kill people, they assist in mass emergencies and natural disasters, same with the Militia. There's a headache associated with utilizing Military action on U.S. soil, though, which is where the Militia comes into play.

First of all I am not against having a weapon for home protection but the scenario (exaggerated I should add) is something that really makes me feel bad for you guys in the other side of the Atlantic. In a similar situation I would react similarly and if I had a weapon I would use it to protect my family.
But did I understand correctly in that you have the gun on you while at home just in case somebody breaks in? If yes then what does law enforcement do to actually prevent crimes that you can't actually relax at your own home? If no then disregard the whole comment.
What I am against is people having more than one firearm and actually being proud about it. This shows problematic personalities that should not be un-scrutinized (sorry gun aficionados, these are not guitars or innocent trinkets).

Concerning the militia you are right that I have not done any research and that should be normal since I don't live in your country. Militia helping in emergencies consisted by volunteers is something I agree is useful. As I stated the only information I have is the media portrayal (fictional and non fictional) by the US media and as you know they tend not to show the positive actions they are involved. I am however kind of wary of civilians that organized, take part in military training (not for rescue and emergency operations) and are allowed to carry weapons. The problem is in this kind of conversations that there usually are bad examples/scenarios and misconceptions that may overshadow the positive action of a certain group.

Yes, there is gun control, and no, not all legally purchased firearms are registered. There is no federal requirement, and my state has no registration, though a few do. Also, contrary to what you may see on CSI-type programs, you generally cannot identify a gun, beyond it's caliber, from a recovered bullet.

Strictly my opinion, but as someone who does carry every day, I have to say a feeling of empowerment is probably a bad thing to feel. A gun should weigh on you as a responsibility.

I do not know how the police are in France, but in the U.S., the ones who aren't out committing crimes (some of which are even justified by the "laws") usually get poor performance reviews and booted out of their jobs here. It's really become a joke. :lol:

Well I was sure that the CSI programs are exaggerated but I would expect a database for legally owned firearms. The striation thingy though should have some merit. It is logical.
From your post I understand that you are a police officer. Since I am not French and have been in France for a few years, what I understand is that the only police station active after 6 o'clock is the central police station (fucking ridiculous), they don't even lift a finger for petty crimes and in they have a kind of rule that they don't go to the Arab ghettos after a certain hour but if they find Arabs causing trouble in the "good" parts of the town they handle them quite roughly. In general though there is not much of a crime wave but it is a small city with lots of students.
Now if we talk about Greece I am surprised there is such little crime if one considers the inefficiency of police. But I shouldn't really blame the ones actually handling civilian affairs since the majority of the police forces are crowd control units that enforce the will of corrupt politicians and police units that protect said rotten politicians.

As someone that has had army training I must say that it gave me no pleasure having a weapon on me. It made nervous and even more nervous that there were people around me that had the same weapons and that they shouldn't even be trusted with a fork!
 

Jakke

Pretty wisdomous
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
773
Location
In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
yeah well i guess any way you look at it there are negatives to either. its just a matter of which option has less. i believe banning guns would be the worse option. just my opinion.

And no one here argues for the complete ban of guns, I'm going to keep repeating this until you understand this and stop misrepresenting gun control.
 

Chickenhawk

A Bad Idea
Contributor
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
653
Location
Misery
First of all I am not against having a weapon for home protection but the scenario (exaggerated I should add) is something that really makes me feel bad for you guys in the other side of the Atlantic. In a similar situation I would react similarly and if I had a weapon I would use it to protect my family.
But did I understand correctly in that you have the gun on you while at home just in case somebody breaks in? If yes then what does law enforcement do to actually prevent crimes that you can't actually relax at your own home? If no then disregard the whole comment.
What I am against is people having more than one firearm and actually being proud about it. This shows problematic personalities that should not be un-scrutinized (sorry gun aficionados, these are not guitars or innocent trinkets).

Concerning the militia you are right that I have not done any research and that should be normal since I don't live in your country. Militia helping in emergencies consisted by volunteers is something I agree is useful. As I stated the only information I have is the media portrayal (fictional and non fictional) by the US media and as you know they tend not to show the positive actions they are involved. I am however kind of wary of civilians that organized, take part in military training (not for rescue and emergency operations) and are allowed to carry weapons. The problem is in this kind of conversations that there usually are bad examples/scenarios and misconceptions that may overshadow the positive action of a certain group.

Ya know...I couldn't honestly tell you what my local law enforcement actively does to prevent someone from getting high (or desperate) and attempting to murder my family. They're not everywhere, and I don't expect them to be. Exactly why I choose to protect myself and my family.

I'm not paranoid. I can relax (and usually am).

This is a joking comment I read a while back, but it rings true:

People say I have a gun because I'm paranoid or worried. What do I have to worry about? I have a gun.
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
Also, contrary to what you may see on CSI-type programs, you generally cannot identify a gun, beyond it's caliber, from a recovered bullet.

I'm not sure this is true. I've a friend currently working on their PhD thesis on the topic. Admittedly they work out of a military academy with the top forensics unit in the UK, so maybe it's just that it's very rare to be able to do so with Police resources.
 

Chickenhawk

A Bad Idea
Contributor
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
653
Location
Misery
I'm not sure this is true. I've a friend currently working on their PhD thesis on the topic. Admittedly they work out of a military academy with the top forensics unit in the UK, so maybe it's just that it's very rare to be able to do so with Police resources.

Their IS a way to do it from what I understand, but you have to get a hold of the gun in question, which is sometimes hard to do on a 'hunch' (or at all, after a crime).

Also, if the gun has been damaged or destroyed (or chucked into a big river or lake for a few days), the necessary attributes that they'll use to match the bore to the bullet will be altered.
 

zappatton2

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
1,210
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Ottawa, ON
I generally don’t comment on gun threads, as I view the gun right debate as an American thing, and as a non-American, I can’t say I have any right passing judgment on U.S. political matters. That said, I’ve had a couple of beers and am feeling belligerent. It seems to me that much of the gun debate is rooted in a deep-seated fear of random violent crime, but couldn’t some of this be viewed as almost an arms race between criminals and the law-abiding, in which the sheer proliferation of arms within the population spurs paranoia of your neighbours and the sentiment that you need to arm yourself just to feel safe, precisely because there are so many guns floating around?
Personally, I’ve never even seen a real handgun before, and I’ve also never had any fear of being shot, even while strolling about town well into the evening. Yes, shootings do happen in Canada, as witnessed in Toronto, but the fact that they are such anomalies tends to be what makes them such big stories, and I’m not sure I see the benefit of everyone pulling out a firearm and blasting away in a crowded area to take out some nut. That said, Americans clearly value their armaments, I wouldn’t urge them to take a different course if that’s what they want, but NRA-affiliates have been pushing to liberalize gun controls up here, and I am very much opposed. Liberalize the green stuff if you really want to fight crime, let the hunters and rural folks have their long guns, but (IMO) keep the handguns out!
 


Top