Guns??

karinaes

There is nothing to be afraid of with guns! Guns are safe, UNLESS you have a stupid person or a criminal around!

HA! right.

KimmieBrie

Last time I ran the numbers most firearms deaths were white men comitting suicide.
Then followed by an assortment of men being killed in criminal acts.
Not really a problem

Yes the stats are not an accurate pic - as far as I know - the stats include: suicides, *righteous police shootings, self defense shootings, homicides, and accidents. The stats do not differentiate a crime from valid law enforcement. Everything is lumped together.

Josee76

I am in the UK, so the image of guns is completely different here, as in they are illegal, but there is no way in a million years I would ever allow a gun in the house with my children.
Countries with more guns have more gun crime. At least here the teenagers only manage to stab each other.

If countries where the public has more guns have more crime, what do you call all of the riots going on in the UK right now? Also take a real look at the statistics not what you are being spoon fed. Haven't you heard of unground sales of illegal guns? Criminals will find a way to get guns whether they are illegal or not. Making something illegal doesn't make it impossible to get... look at the drug trade.

I live in the UK too, but from what I know I am enclined to agree with the UK guy.

Riots are over in the UK now, and lasted for about a week or so (also it happened about 2 months ago too now).

Anyway, look at the real statistics not what you are being spoon fed (yep, this applies to you too, and yes, according to the stats I have heard - or been spoon fed - gun crime is higher in countries where guns are available to the public lawfully).

Sure, people will find a way to get something that is illegal... But then the difference between obtaining something that is "illegal" and "legal" is that in one case it is "illegal"... So technically, you can get arrested if you are found with it, it makes it more difficult to obtain, etc.

Since the English and Canadians aren't allowed the freedom to own a gun, then the OPs question shouldn't apply to them, since you have no choice in the matter.

Of course Canadians are allowed to own a firearm they must have a valid possession-acquisition or a possession-only licence... and In order to be legally owned, a firearm must be registered in the Canadian Firearms Registry... and they must have proper storage

We are just not permitted to have it in our hand bags or under the seat in our pick up trucks

fteale

It would be difficult to hunt without a rifle or shotgun.


It's also much easier to fight back against crime when you are armed.

Last time I ran the numbers most firearms deaths were white men comitting suicide.
Then followed by an assortment of men being killed in criminal acts.
Not really a problem

Do you not think 748 accidental gun related deaths in one year is a price too high to bear for the legality of firearms?

KimmieBrie

Do you not think 748 accidental gun related deaths in one year is a price too high to bear for the legality of firearms?

There were 15,890 motor vehicle deaths in just the first half of 2011.... should we all stop driving too? I am just curious...

With any object that could potentially cause harm - there is a risk. Most of us are responsible people who educate ourselves in the proper use of such things. Unfortunately, accidents still happen. All we can do is educate ourselves and take proper precautions.

Articeluvsmemphis

depends on your situation. my bro (cop) my dad (armed security guard) need guns for their profession, but I wouldn't own a gun for my own personal use. I just don't think I would need it. And kids really can't get to guns when they're put away. And if by chance they're out which they should not be, parents or the gun owner needs to firmly explain they're never to touch it. Most kids will disobey, I didn't, lol so parents just take precaution and put it away.

hoppinglark

Last time I ran the numbers most firearms deaths were white men comitting suicide.
Then followed by an assortment of men being killed in criminal acts.
Not really a problem

Yes the stats are not an accurate pic - as far as I know - the stats include: suicides, *righteous police shootings, self defense shootings, homicides, and accidents. The stats do not differentiate a crime from valid law enforcement. Everything is lumped together.

True, and that bugs me. Because as I know, most deaths are defensive use or legal use. Then followed by criminals killing criminals. - -->"Gang Fights"
There are very few outright murders or accidents compared to those.

emergencytennis

Do you not think 748 accidental gun related deaths in one year is a price too high to bear for the legality of firearms?

There were 15,890 motor vehicle deaths in just the first half of 2011.... should we all stop driving too? I am just curious...

With any object that could potentially cause harm - there is a risk. Most of us are responsible people who educate ourselves in the proper use of such things. Unfortunately, accidents still happen. All we can do is educate ourselves and take proper precautions.

I find this sort of argument disingenuous. The purpose of vehicles is transport, the purpose of tobacco/alcohol/chocolate/otherpersonaltreat or vice is pleasure. The purpose of firearms is to injure something. I dont have any problem with strict controls upon something whose sole purpose is to injure.

KimmieBrie

Do you not think 748 accidental gun related deaths in one year is a price too high to bear for the legality of firearms?

There were 15,890 motor vehicle deaths in just the first half of 2011.... should we all stop driving too? I am just curious...

With any object that could potentially cause harm - there is a risk. Most of us are responsible people who educate ourselves in the proper use of such things. Unfortunately, accidents still happen. All we can do is educate ourselves and take proper precautions.

I find this sort of argument disingenuous. The purpose of vehicles is transport, the purpose of tobacco/alcohol/chocolate/otherpersonaltreat or vice is pleasure. The purpose of firearms is to injure something. I dont have any problem with strict controls upon something whose sole purpose is to injure.

Partially true - I know plenty of people at the range who just like target shooting, some do it competitively. They aren't meaning to injure anyone, or anything... controls and checks are one thing (I personally think a good thing), a complete ban and stripping of rights is another.

emergencytennis

No argument, kimmie. My husband and father shoot competitively.

What I dont agree with is firearms compared to transport and the like. They are designed to kill stuff, that is their only purpose, and as such they should be subject to the strictest of control.

fteale

Do you not think 748 accidental gun related deaths in one year is a price too high to bear for the legality of firearms?

There were 15,890 motor vehicle deaths in just the first half of 2011.... should we all stop driving too? I am just curious...

With any object that could potentially cause harm - there is a risk. Most of us are responsible people who educate ourselves in the proper use of such things. Unfortunately, accidents still happen. All we can do is educate ourselves and take proper precautions.

A gun doesn't just potentially cause harm. It is specifically designed to. It has no other purpose. Guns are designed to kill stuff. That is their purpose. What you kill is up to you, but that is the entire point in a gun. You can't make a sensible analogy with cars. I do think driving tests and restrictions should be a lot higher, though, for the record. I don't think anyone under 18 should be allowed to drive.

fteale

I should make the point that I am not anti-gun. I grew up in the countryside around people who shoot. I learned to shoot a rifle at school, and am a good shot, I know a lot of people who farm and hunt and therefore have guns.


What I am absolutely completely against is people having guns for protection, because that clearly does just lead to an arms escalation where everyone has them, and it does lead to more gun crime, and more shootings. I am also against the police carrying guns unless they are a specific gun squad. No one, not even the law, has the right to shoot at another person. Ever. I am completely against anyone being allowed to carry a gun around on them, concealed or not. I strongly believe the only people who should have access to guns are people who need them for their jobs, i.e, army, farmers, and hunters (I am also fundamentally opposed to all hunting, but I do accept that if it must, people may think they need guns for it - personally I'd rather people took on animals in hand to hoof combat and actually proved their worth rather than hiding at a distance like a coward and shooting from miles away with the advantage of technology, there is nothing sporting in that).

deksgrl

I disagree. Burglars know it is a very real risk that they will run into someone who is armed and it deters a lot of them. I happen to know someone who has been convicted of stealing due to supporting a drug habit, and he will tell you straight up that if it wasn't for private citizens owning guns, he would have been way more bold and would have resorted to breaking and entering, instead of just breaking into parked cars, etc.

Editing to add: It is no more sporting to get your meat from the grocer, who got it from the processing factories where animals are raised in crowded conditions to supply the markets.

treesloth

I disagree. Burglars know it is a very real risk that they will run into someone who is armed and it deters a lot of them. I happen to know someone who has been convicted of stealing due to supporting a drug habit, and he will tell you straight up that if it wasn't for private citizens owning guns, he would have been way more bold and would have resorted to breaking and entering, instead of just breaking into parked cars, etc.

Yup, pretty much. In fact, there have been interviews with people in jail that arrived at exactly that conclusion. They pointed out how easy it is for them to get a gun-- no background checks, no paperwork besides handing over a wad of cash-- and that even then they avoided houses. Another person's house is automatically their turf-- they know the house and its layout, they know what's normal and what's not. Going up against a person on ground they're familiar with is one thing. Going up against them when they're armed is just that much more difficult.

I should make the point that I am not anti-gun. I grew up in the countryside around people who shoot. I learned to shoot a rifle at school, and am a good shot, I know a lot of people who farm and hunt and therefore have guns.


What I am absolutely completely against is people having guns for protection, because that clearly does just lead to an arms escalation where everyone has them, and it does lead to more gun crime, and more shootings. I am also against the police carrying guns unless they are a specific gun squad. No one, not even the law, has the right to shoot at another person. Ever. I am completely against anyone being allowed to carry a gun around on them, concealed or not. I strongly believe the only people who should have access to guns are people who need them for their jobs, i.e, army, farmers, and hunters (I am also fundamentally opposed to all hunting, but I do accept that if it must, people may think they need guns for it - personally I'd rather people took on animals in hand to hoof combat and actually proved their worth rather than hiding at a distance like a coward and shooting from miles away with the advantage of technology, there is nothing sporting in that).

Then in what sense are you not anti-gun? So no guns for defensive carry, self-defense, hunting, most police officers, etc. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. In *any* meaningful sense of the term, you certainly are "anti-gun". Growing up in the countryside and learning to shoot does not in any way mitigate that fact.

Also, why doesn't a person have the right to shoot at another person? Let's take the case of my mom, in her house and confronted with an aggressive burglar. She accidentally surprises him-- comes out of her bedroom, doesn't even know he's there-- and he reacts violently, trying to chase her down, beating down her bedroom door after she retreated and locked it. In a direct confrontation, he would have instantly overwhelmed her and possibly killed her. Why shouldn't she have been allowed to shoot him?

Oh, and you don't know how to use a rifle and you almost certainly don't know people who hunt with them. Absolutely no one, ever, in any instance whatsoever, who does know how to use a rifle or how to hunt, would ever claim that hunters shoot "from miles away". No, they don't, and anyone with the slightest understanding of rifles would know that. In fact, the .338 Lapua-- a round much more powerful and with higher effective range than the upper end of common hunting rounds-- fired by the absolute best snipers in the world, becomes ineffective at 1 mile. So, no, they don't fire from "miles away". More like, at most, "a few hundred yards away" for highly skilled hunters. In fact, even attempting such a long-range shot would be considered incredibly irresponsible and unethical. Anyway, consider the BS flag thrown... you truly don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

hoppinglark

I doubt there is much that anyone can say in an internet forum to change a person's personal philosophy.

I think it's important to simply look at the facts.

http://gunfacts.info/

Keep in mind journalists are not experts on everything, but it's their job to pretend to be experts in everything.
I can not even begin to count how many times I've seen reporters make obvious mistakes in reference to firearms and
the law.

If you want good info go to Wikipedia and scroll down the sources to an article.

Also, just because a "study" was done and published does not mean the issue is laid to rest. Please look up the study and read the Methods.

I carry concealed where I can, I hunt when I can.

But in all honesty, Fake guns (nerf, etc.) are much more fun than real guns.

Right now in the U.S. it seems that the majority are okay with handguns
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx
I hope it stays that way.

fteale

I disagree. Burglars know it is a very real risk that they will run into someone who is armed and it deters a lot of them. I happen to know someone who has been convicted of stealing due to supporting a drug habit, and he will tell you straight up that if it wasn't for private citizens owning guns, he would have been way more bold and would have resorted to breaking and entering, instead of just breaking into parked cars, etc.

Editing to add: It is no more sporting to get your meat from the grocer, who got it from the processing factories where animals are raised in crowded conditions to supply the markets.

Yes. I don't eat meat at all. I have a huge moral issue with the entire meat industry.

mattquit

guns are disgusting. why would you even want it? If you have one that means you are willing to use it.
With the exception of a police officer or someone with authority, most of the time only redneck and gangsters have guns. why would you want one?

it takes the out the skill for fighting. weak people acting tough

mallorybriann

would love to show an armed robber my awesome karate moves. That will really thwart him...

guns are disgusting. why would you even want it? If you have one that means you are willing to use it.

it takes out the skill of fighting. makes all the weak people act tougher.

mattquit

would love to show an armed robber my awesome karate moves. That will really thwart him...

guns are disgusting. why would you even want it? If you have one that means you are willing to use it.

it takes out the skill of fighting. makes all the weak people act tougher.

Good stuff bro Why would you bring a gun to the bank anyways?

mallorybriann

que?

would love to show an armed robber my awesome karate moves. That will really thwart him...

guns are disgusting. why would you even want it? If you have one that means you are willing to use it.

it takes out the skill of fighting. makes all the weak people act tougher.

Good stuff bro Why would you bring a gun to the bank anyways?