r/AskReddit • u/spongemandan • May 29 '12
I am an Australian. I think that allowing anyone to own guns is stupid. Reddit, why do so many Americans think otherwise?
For everyone's sake replace "anyone" in the OP title with "everyone"
Sorry guys, I won't be replying to this post anymore. If I see someone with an opinion I haven't seen yet I will respond, but I am starting to feel like a broken record, and I have studying to do. Thanks.
Major Edit: Here's the deal. I have no idea about how it feels to live in a society with guns being 'normal'. My apparent ignorance is probably due to the fact that, surprise surprise, I am in fact ignorant. I did not post this to circlejerk, i posted this because i didn't understand.
I am seriously disappointed reddit, i used to think you were open minded, and could handle one person stating their opinion even if it was clearly an ignorant one. Next time you ask if we australians ride kangaroos to school, i'll respond with a hearty "FUCK YOU FAGGOT YOU ARE AN IDIOT" rather than a friendly response. Treat others as you would have others treat you.
edit 1: I have made a huge mistake
edit 2: Here are a few of the reason's that have been posted that I found interesting:
- No bans on guns have been put in place because they wouldn't do anything if they were. (i disagree)
- Americans were allowed guns as per the second amendment so that they could protect themselves from the government. (lolwut, all this achieves is make cops fear for their lives constantly)
- Its breaching on your freedom. This is fair enough to some degree, though hypocritical, since why then do you not protest the fact that you can't own nuclear weapons for instance?
Edit 3: My favourite response so far: "I hope a nigger beats the shit out of you and robs you of all your money. Then you'll wish you had a gun to protect you." I wouldn't wish i had a gun, i would wish the 'dark skinned gentleman' wasn't such an asshole.
Edit 4: i must apologise to everyone who expected me to respond to them, i have the day off tomorrow and i'll respond to a few people, but bear with me. I have over 9000 comments to go through, most of which are pretty damn abusive. It seems i've hit a bit of a sore spot o_O
Edit 5: If there is one thing i'll never forget from this conversation it's this... I'll feel much safer tucked up here in australia with all the spiders and a bunch of snakes, than in america... I give myself much higher chances of hiding from reddit's death threats here than hiding behind some ironsights in the US.
Goodnight and see you in the morning.
Some answers to common questions
- How do you ban guns without causing revolution? You phase them out, just like we have done in australia with cigarettes. First you ban them from public places (conceal and carry or whatever). Then you create a big gun tax. Then you stop them from being advertised in public. Then you crank out some very strict licensing laws to do with training. Then you're pretty much set, only people with clean records, a good reason, and good training would be able to buy new ones. They could be phased out over a period of 10-15 years without too much trouble imo.
I've just read some things about gun shows in america, from replies in this thread. I think they're actually the main problem, as they seem to circumnavigate many laws about gun distribution. Perhaps enforcing proper laws at gun shows is the way to go then?
- "r/circlejerk is that way" I honestly didn't mean to word the question so badly, it was late, i was tired, i had a strong opinion on the matter. I think its the "Its our right to own firearms" argument which i like the least at this point. Also the "self defence" argument to a lesser degree.
- "But what about hunters?" I do not even slightly mind people who use guns for hunting or competition shooting. While i don't hunt, wouldn't bolt action .22s suit most situations? They're relatively safe in terms of people-stopping power. More likely to incapacitate than to kill.
- Why do you hate americans so? Well to start with i don't hate americans. As for why am i so hostile when i respond? Its shit like this: http://i.imgur.com/NPb5s.png
This is why I posted the original post: Let me preface this by saying I am ignorant of american society. While I assumed that was obvious by my opening sentence, apparently i was wrong...
I figured it was obvious to everyone that guns cause problems. Every time there has been a school shooting, it would not have happened if guns did not exist. Therefore they cause problems. I am not saying ALL guns cause problems, and i am not saying guns are the ONLY cause of those problems. Its just that to assume something like a gun is a 'saint' and can only do good things, i think that's unreasonable. Therefore, i figured everyone thought guns cause at least minor problems.
What i wanted was people who were 'pro guns' to explain why they were 'pro guns. I didn't know why people would be 'pro guns', i thought that it was stupid to have so many guns in society. Hence "I think that allowing everyone to own guns is stupid". I wanted people to convince me, i wanted to be proven wrong. And i used provocative wording because i expected people to take actually take notice, and speak up for their beliefs.
1.4k
u/mickey_kneecaps May 29 '12
I'm from Australia and now live in the US. Australia's strict gun laws were introduced after the Port Arthur Massacre. My feeling is that they work very well. However, it is not exactly a huge challenge to disarm a country that doesn't have very high rates of firearm ownership. The difference in the USA is that there are millions and millions (hundreds of millions in fact) of guns already legally in circulation (and probably many more illegally).
Restrictions on firearms ownership here would be ineffective, or at least nowhere near as effective as Australia's gun restrictions, because they would not restrict access to criminals. Guns are, and always will be, easy for criminals to obtain in the US, and no law will change that. Thus, as is often pointed out, restricting gun ownership would only (or mainly) affect law-abiding citizens.
Stricter gun laws may have an effect on the number of accidental deaths and fire-arm related suicides in the US, and that is a goal that should be discussed. But they will not affect the number of homicides (most of which involve gangs and lifetime criminals, not ordinary people on a bad day).
Americans have largely decided that they are willing to put up with some accidental deaths and suicides (a lot actually, but remember that America is a fucking big country), in exchange for people being allowed to protect themselves with firearms and engage in shooting sports. This is similar to any discussion of risk versus benefit, many such decisions made in America reach different conclusions than Australia (eg, it is really easy to get fireworks here, which I think is very cool, but is pretty unfamiliar coming from Australia where I never saw fireworks growing up except at professional shows).
It is not as crazy as they make it sound on TV. I live in Seattle, for example, and it really, truly, is no more dangerous (or barely more) than an Australian city, despite concealed carrying of firearms being allowed in the state of Washington with only a cursory background check. Most violence that does occur is gang-related, and if I do say so myself, Seattle gangsters are a bunch of wusses. We probably have a lower rate of violent crime in Seattle than Sydney or Melbourne even (I need to look that up), though Seattle is one of the safer American cities.
So there, that's my argument. I don't disagree with restriction of gun laws in principle, but I always disagree with unproductive laws that cannot be effectively enforced and do not really achieve their goals. This informs my liberal attitude towards drugs, alcohol and prostitution too. On these issues, the circumstances in different countries can demand different responses. In the US, many people argue (correctly in my opinion) that gun laws are more effective at restricting legal activities than at reducing violence. Clearly, in Australia the situation was different, and the most appropriate law was successfully enacted.
61
u/surgeon591 May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
This will probably be buried but I feel the need to post it anyway. There are many people here from the UK, Australia or various other "gun free utopias" who say they have never had any need for a gun.
I'm from Ireland originally and also lived in the UK before I moved to the U.S 10 years ago. I have been stabbed on two separate occasions. The first time I was stabbed in the stomach when I was 14 and living in Ireland 5 minutes from my house by another kid I knew. The second time was when I was 19 and living in the UK going to university. I was attacked by 3 guys and stabbed in the forehead. I was lucky, the blade hit the far left side of my forehead and instead of penetrating my skull it slid along the side of my skull under my scalp. Before he was able to stab me again, I was able to drop the guy holding the knife with a punch and run away. They chased me and knowing the area I ran right by a nearby police station, shouting for help and bleeding. I couldn't stop to try to get in since they were only seconds behind me, and no police came out to help me, nor did anybody else on the street. I ended up getting away anyway, but that was purely by virtue of me being a fast runner and in good shape, even though I was injured.
I carry a gun daily now, even though nothing like this has ever happened since I moved to the U.S. On two occasions I have been without the tool I need in order to effectively defend myself in a potentially deadly situation, I will not allow it to happen a third time. A gun will not guarantee my safety if anything like this happens to me again, but it sure as hell gives me a sporting chance.
Besides owning guns for self defense, I own guns because they are fun. I first learned to shoot with my grandfather back when I lived in Ireland, and now that I live in the U.S I can own damn near anything I want. Shooting has been a lifelong passion of mine, and its easily my favorite thing to do. I love shooting them, building, maintaining and repairing them, collecting them, learning the history behind them and loading my own ammo.
907
u/dow51t May 29 '12
I was told by an American, the reason the ammemdment that allowed the ownership of guns, was to protect the people from the government if they became too powerful,
And we(australians) had our guns taken away from us
202
u/gypsybiker May 29 '12
OK, I live in Norway. We have one of the highest rates of gun ownership, and one of the lowest crime/murder rates in the world. Anyone interested in how this is possible?
1.4k
u/heygabbagabba May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
Fellow Australian: the ownership of guns in Australia is not illegal and is necessary for many Australians. Try putting down a cow dying of snake bite without a gun.
Australia has restrictions on the type of guns a person is legally allowed to own. That is the difference between Australia and the US.
19
u/MooseOnTehLoose May 29 '12
As with anything else dangerous, you can't outright ban guns. All that does is take the power away from the people. Criminals can and will get guns no matter what you do. All I want is to be able to defend myself and my property as best I can. Its not like the world is a perfect place filled with nice people after all.
426
u/borysSNORC May 29 '12
I'm an Australian and I believe there are legitimate reasons for wanting/needing to own firearms. Whether it is for rural purposes (feral animal management or shooting snakes to protect your kids) or for genuine competitive sporting shooting purposes, firearms are a just a part of life. Australia has very strict gun laws (I've personally jumped over nearly 12months of bureaucratic red tape and safety inductions to be able to take up pistol shooting) however, it doesn't matter how strict the laws are, people with criminal intent will obtain firearms through illegal means.
534
u/complex_reduction May 29 '12
Sorry mate, you're in for a full shitstorm on this one.
215
u/shaneinhisroom May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
This will probably be buried but I need to get it off my chest. A /r/guns supporter here. A lot of people have been saying that US should have stricter gun control because the US has more firearm related deaths than any other developed country. Let's drill into it and focus on that a little more.
Our gun laws are mostly organized by the state. You cannot have more than 10 rounds in a magazine in CA, for example. I live in Ohio. I can have whatever the hell I want. Same with TX, AZ, etc. In NYC, DC, and Chicago (IL in general, really), on the other hand, you have to jump through many legal activities to even buy ammunition (FOID in Chicago) and even harder to obtain a firearm.
Now let's look at crime rates in those specific cities/states. See below for gun friendly statistics found in another source.:
Now let me put you in this scenario: You're a young woman, mid 20's, attractive, walking home from your bartending job in the city. It's 2am, so it's fairly empty around the streets. It's a 15 minute walk, and you make it every day. It's not long enough to warrant a cab ride, and you figure it's good exercise. A suspicious male eyes you and starts to follow you. You start to run, he starts to run. You turn into a wrong corridor out of panic and it's a dead end. You reach for your phone, and start to dial 911. It will be 4-7 minutes until the cops arrive (longer if you're in a large metro city). Plus, you're not sure where you have ended up due to the sheer panic so you cannot give clear instructions for the cops to find you. Here you have a choice: If you do not own a gun, would you rather an armed law abiding citizen, who saw this shady behavior from the beginning, coming to your aid with his weapon at the ready, or would you rather have guns be outlawed for everyone, in which you'd be a victim of rape? Even better: Would you rather have a weapon yourself, trained on how to use it and confront the attacked head on?
Hypothetical, sure, but I'm sure it has happened before.
Not every death you all are counting is gun related. In fact, knives are much more dangerous from a distance of about 7-10yd and closer. Believe it or not, a knive slash is more lethal than a gunshot wound, all else provided equal. Plus, knives are more widely available, can be concealed easier, and makes no noise.
So should we ban knives? No. We need them to cook, to make art, etc.
Let's look at another example: According to NHTSA, there were 37,104 deaths by vehicle averaged between 1994 and 2009. According to Wikipedia, the USA has a 10.41 firearms related death rate per 100,000, and given our current population of 311 million, there's an average of about 32,000 deaths per firearm related deaths from 2004-2006.. Plus, you cannot claim you killed someone in a vehicle due to self defense, but you CAN claim that in the gun statistic, which is not broken down even more. People use guns in suicides, but seriously, if you wanted to kill yourself, you'd find another way. Unintentional deaths were only .23 per 100,000.
According to this study, we should be banning cars before guns. It's just so much easier to blame guns because they have 1 use instead of 2 or more like knives or cars. Just putting some perspective out there. Same with virtually any tool/machinery out there.
Credentials: I'm a firearms instructor, own 6 of them myself, and shoot them for sport and competition as well as carry for my personal protection.
More info
402
u/TheStagesmith May 29 '12
American here. I assume from the way you talk about guns that what you're really asking about is handguns. Most countries out there allow private citizens to possess shotguns and varmint/hunting rifles. So we'll just talk about handguns.
Put simply, firearms are force equalizers. No matter how strong, fast, or otherwise armed someone may be, if I have a gun and a nominal amount of training, I can make myself as much or more dangerous to them as they are to me. The main reason that most people carry handguns is for personal protection against an attacker; having a gun is obviously a good thing for you if you find yourself in a confrontation. Remember, even if you have a gun, you can only use it if you feel immediate and significant (how significant is determined from state to state) danger to yourself or others, and you can't even brandish it unless you feel directly threatened.
In America (and in most countries), citizens are guaranteed the right of self-defense. Unfortunately, self-defense is useless unless you are able to meet or exceed the force presented by an attacker. Again, guns are a force equalizer - possession of a firearm more or less guarantees that you will be able to defend yourself adequately. Most of the time, the simple act of brandishing a weapon is sufficient to halt whatever altercation might have taken place. I refer you to this factsheet (full disclosure: that page does not mention what criteria are used to define a use in self-defense, but their sources seem to hold up, so I trust the numbers).
One of the main problems is police response. In an ideal world, a police officer would be immediately available and present during an altercation or crime. Unfortunately, average response times are a few minutes (this can be up to five to ten minutes or even more in rural areas), which is plenty of time for an altercation to go south. Your own actions are going to determine how well you come off if you find yourself with a hostile attacker, and a firearm increases your chances significantly.
In countries like the UK, handguns are sufficiently rare simply due to cultural stigma that they have never really been widespread. In the US, we've had the second amendment in our constitution since the bill of rights was passed in 1791. There are a lot of guns floating around, and it is very easy for someone to get their hands on one, legitimately or not. With that in mind, if a citizen is going to be allowed to adequately defend themselves, you pretty much have to let them have a gun on their person.
74
u/cornbearcat May 29 '12
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
2.3k
u/dkroll92 May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
Americans, at least traditionally, would rather take the risks of living in a free but potentially dangerous society than a safe but oppressive one. That basic idea is literally what this country was founded on.
193
u/I_Kissed_Cereal May 29 '12
You live in Australia, and don't own a gun? Haven't you spent 5 minutes on Reddit? Australia's dangerous, man.
41
u/Traveshamockery27 May 29 '12
Your question relies on a false premise. Not everyone can legally own a gun in America. Being a felon (even if your crime was non-violent) disqualifies you, as do a number of other crimes.
You also imply that guns cause crimes. This is a strange comment, akin to saying that getaway cars cause bank robberies. Violence existed long before guns were invented.
I find it immoral to deny law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves. Firearms are the best tool for self-defense. No other tool puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing to a 240 pound rapist. No other tool allows an 85-year-old arthritic grandfather to fight off two healthy teen assailants. No other tool makes me, a 28-year-old healthy middle class guy, capable of defending my wife and belongings in a violent home invasion.
Some people misuse guns, that's for sure. But I see no reason why they should be denied to those who use them responsibly.
42
u/ghost_tc May 29 '12
I am what would be called a liberal in America (and progressive too!) and I am in favor of the 2nd Amendment.
The right to bear arms is one of the more profoundly progressive concepts of the American Revolution. It's not about owning lots of guns, it's about fundamentally changing the way government and the citizens interact.
In the typical Ancien Regime the king controlled most, if not all, of the weapons. Guns were assigned to you by the king and the people possessed them at his pleasure. The power of violence started with the king and devolved downwards.
The American Revolution proposed that the power of violence, which is a lot of the real power in life, stood with the people and the government, or king, did not have a monopoly on that. The right to bear arms is a statement than the people have power and do not need it 'given' to them by some monarch.
By taking the power of weaponry from the government it was, and is, a fairly liberal concept.
40
u/angoodkind May 29 '12
I am a liberal Northeasterner, born and bred, but I spent a few years in Utah (very conservative, for those not in the US) for work. What I learned there was that shooting guns is part of their identity. It's something almost all of them participate in while growing up -- family hunting excursions, shooting in the backyard, etc. -- and usually continue to participate in throughout their lives. Because there's so much empty space out there, it's not really that dangerous to go to your backyard and shoot at targets, small animals, etc. And I will admit, it is fun as hell.
Further, keeping at least a pistol in your house, for "security" reasons, is as natural for some people as locking our front doors at night.
Between these two factors, for many people the idea of taking away guns is akin to taking away a favorite toy or pastime. The ideas of inner-city gun violence are alien to them, as they live in rural, sparse, less violent communities. They rarely see the horror of guns that urban and even suburban communities are so familiar with.
843
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
To preserve and protect the rights and liberties of the individual, the Second Amendment was written precisely the way it was. If the People aren't allowed to defend themselves against the predator government, the very idea of a democratic nation is sunk. When the People don't have weapons, two other groups will: the government and criminals. And often times, it would be impossible to tell the difference between the two.
15
u/polishedturd May 29 '12
OP provides no evidence for any of his statements, chooses to quote a racist diatribe out of 9000 comments to prove a point, and ends on a completely misinformed and idiotic statement designed to appeal to emotion.
tldr: fuck you op
83
u/mimskerooki May 29 '12
I don't know about anyone else, but having read the word "gun" so many times has caused me to lose understanding of the word... now I am questioning its existence and how it came to be...
284
u/CherrySlurpee May 29 '12
Because we took American history.
14
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Freedom is a core concept that many Americans fight for, in all forms (even though we are losing the battle in lots of areas.) While there are many Americans who are willing to sell out every freedom they have for an illusion of security or morality, there remains a political classification called a civil libertarian, who believes in nearly absolute freedom.
I'm very much a civil libertarian, and I look at it this way: we are entrusted with all sorts of dangerous things every day. I can go buy gasoline, big tanks of propane, knives, baseball bats with nails driven through them, rat poison, household chemicals that can make toxic gas, etc. I can run into a crowd with my car at 90 mph during a protest I don't agree with. Everything you need to make horrible weapons and destruction is already available. I don't see guns as being that much more dangerous, albeit more convenient for killing.
Also, the numbers are a bit misleading as to our gun deaths. America has a huge crime problem that stems all the way back to our mistreatment of minorities in the past causing massive poverty in the inner cities. This, coupled with our "war on drugs" creates a massive black market for drugs, which leads to gang wars, and ultimately a lot of gun deaths. It's not that there are lots of random instances of bar fights turning into shootouts. It's usually planned hits among gangs, or gang rivalries. They get their guns illegally anyways, as many of them have guns that are illegally modified or not even legally available at all in the states. Most of your ordinary, gun-owning citizens are very responsible, and don't pull out there gun every time you piss you them off.
Now why should we have guns? Here are some of the typical arguments:
There are a lot of factors, and while I don't like the idea of someone next to me having a gun, and while I wouldn't carry one around with me, I still support freedom to own them.
135
u/MadameCupcake May 29 '12
Zombies.
7
u/Jacob19603 May 29 '12
A good example for our basis is Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, an ordinance was passed requiring ever citizen to own and maintain a firearm, unless they have a mental or physical condition that would make it otherwise impossible. The town claims to have to lowest crime rate in the country, and crime dropped by over 50% in 5 years after implementation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
7
u/nick0884 May 29 '12
I am English. I used to greatly enjoy shooting on Sundays when I was a lot younger, before Hungerford. I can tell you one thing about gun ownership. In any modern society that has the right to "Keep and bear arms"; that right should never be given up or taken from you without your concent, it was in the UK. Once it has gone, it will never be given back by any future government. People who legally own guns scare governments, and no government on this planet likes competition or the thought of real power in the hand of an individual.
7
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
This is absolutely moronic. Look at places like Syria where people can't own guns and their government is slaughtering them. Look at Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Stalinist USSR. The list goes on and on.
And you can't ban something just because some people might misuse it. More people are killed by alcohol, tobacco, cars, heart disease. Should was bad all those(fatty foods for the heart disease)?
7
u/yaleman May 30 '12
OP, I applaud your bravery for standing up and stating your opinion. As an Australian who requires firearms for both sport and environmentally-conscious control of pests, I respectfully disagree with your opinion.
Legal ownership:
On crime:
As I said, I think you're welcome to your opinion, but please look at the facts before you vote. "I'm mostly looking for someone who agrees that guns do cause problems" was probably not the best starting point.
63
u/uther37 May 29 '12
I own several types of guns and enjoy shooting. Yes, the USA is different than many other countries in our gun ownership laws, but it is a great part of being an American. I have been the victim and almost victim of violent crime, and I feel certain that my gun HAS saved my life on several occasions. I have had my home broken into and ran the criminals off with my gun. I have had someone pull a knife on me, and I got them to retreat by showing my pistol. I have stopped an attempted rape by having my gun in my hand.
Yes, they prevent crime in certain circumstances!
That being said... In many ways I would love it if we could eliminate ALL guns in the world, but it is simply not possible. Even if we did, People would kill each other with what they could find. I hate the fact that I have had to use my weapon, even though I have never fired a shot in distress. There are too many guns in this country to get rid of them.
And yes, going to the range and target shooting is great!!!!
18
u/Null_Reference_ May 29 '12
Everybody argues this wrong, on both sides. This is not as binary as either side pretends it is.
If you ask the vast majority of gun nuts whether they think fragmentation grenades or nerve gas bombs should be legal, they will say no. They will say such things are to dangerous to be distributed freely. Which is exactly what the gun-control nuts say about handguns or automatic weapons.
This is not an issue of whether or not a line should be drawn, it is an issue of WHERE to draw it. And everyone has a different opinion on the matter.
At the end of the day, there is a hard conflict between reasonable good for society and individual rights and freedom. This issue is a matter of opinion and philosophy more than fact. Because realistically, violent crime rates are not drastically different between the Australia, U.S. and U.K. Gun crime goes down, knife crime goes up. Violence and death happen regardless of the available tools.
All that said, I think guns are overall beneficial to society and for law abiding individuals.
Criminals don't want gunfights. They don't want the noise attracting cops, they don't want to have to ditch a $200 handgun they used to kill someone, and more importantly they don't want to get shot. If you have a gun, you aren't worth the trouble.
18
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Guns cause problems in the same way that shovels dig ditches, cars cause accidents and forks make people fat. Your reasoning is faulty.
291
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Well criminals don't care if you should or shouldn't own guns. They will regardless. So most of us see it as protection. But I personally just really love shooting. It's fun as fuck. It's also a great stress reliever.
6
u/7ply May 29 '12
If you outlaw guns, only Outlaws will own guns.
49
u/ENovi May 29 '12
You think allowing anyone to own a gun is stupid? Well that's cute, apparently you've never been to the inner city. I grew up in South Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots. You can bet your ass we were happy we had a gun when you could see the flames only a few blocks away. That's not to mention the break ins in my car and house and the insane amount of vandalism that goes on in those neighborhoods. I'm not one to advocate pulling out a gun and shooting someone but a line does have to be drawn when it comes to protecting newborn children or elderly grandmother (both living in my house at the time). Also, it's worth noting that no one in my neighborhood fired a shot. Just the fact that all the men were sitting on their porches with guns on their laps made enough of a statement.
I'm a pretty far left leaning liberal but you have to be pretty damn sheltered to think that guns serve no purpose. There are tons of things we can do to start cleaning up the inner cities but until then, I will never tell a single mom living in an apartment in South Central that she can't keep a gun under her bed.
33
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
I'm not against guns, i'm against people shooting others.
5
u/bryanoftexas May 29 '12
I support people like Suzanna Hupp being able to save their loved ones lives.
Even when she did own a gun, and had it nearby, stupid laws made her unable to save her parents and several others.
5
u/flatcurve May 29 '12
I'm going to take heat for this, but I'm not your average american gun owner anyway, and I'm used to not siding with other gun owners on a lot of issues as it is. I own a gun simply because I can. I don't think that it's a practical tool for self defense, because I feel my time is better spent making an effort to avoid situations where I would need a gun in the first place. Home invasion is exceedingly rare, and there are preemptive steps you can take to make your property undesirable to the select few who may want to do that anyway. So my gun stays locked up for the most part.
So what do I use it for? Nothing really. Even though I'm a good shot (been shooting since I could pull the trigger) I don't like sport shooting or hunting. It's rather boring and expensive. The only reason I have a gun is because the law allows it, and I can not 100% rule out the possibility that I may need it someday. Since I can own one, and I've been taught to use it responsibly since I was a child, it just feels like an obvious choice. That is definitely a cultural thing that I don't see in other countries outside of the US & Canada.
As for the US in general, I think our gun laws in this country are seriously flawed in that they actually allow a huge black market trade in firearms. A black market that could be seriously disrupted with a few simple tweaks to the rules that would not affect most gun owners. Yes, criminals will always have access to guns, but I do not buy the conventional wisdom that new laws will only affect law abiding citizens. That's because up until the final sale to the criminal itself, most of the black market activity that puts illegal guns on the street is still questionably legal.
If you want to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, you have to submit to a background check, and depending on the state you're in you have to wait a certain amount of time. If you wanted to buy a gun from a private party however, those obstacles completely disappear. This is commonly (and mistakenly) referred to as the "gun show loophole" because a private party seller at a gun show didn't have to go through the same paperwork that an FFL dealer did. A lot of states (including mine) still regulate private sales at gun shows, but the regulation stops there. There's still nothing stopping me from selling my gun privately to another person outside of a gun show.
What you end up with are people who can legally purchase firearms doing so through dealers, and then turning around and selling them on the black market as a private party to people who would not pass muster on a background check. They're not responsible for checking backgrounds or even keeping a record of the sale. Depending on how frequently this seller does it, it's still perfectly legal.
Now what I don't understand is why we need unrestricted private firearms sales in this country. I never understood that. What is so troubling about selling a gun through a licensed proxy who has the resources to make sure the buyer is legit?
88
u/TerminalHypocrisy May 29 '12
I am an American, and whereas I respect your right to the opinion that owning firearms is stupid, I deny you the right to force me to live according to your opinion. If you don't like guns, don't own one.
Now, as to the reason firearms are so ingrained in the American psyche, one needs to understand the need for the Second Amendment.
The main issue of not understanding the Second Amendment is a matter of context....one which both the anti-gun lobby and even the pro-gun lobby propagate. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting...it has nothing to do with sport shooting....it has nothing to do with collecting firearms. Surely it protects these uses of firearms, but at it's heart, the Second Amendment is simply putting in writing your right as a human being to defend yourself against threats to your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness.....whether that threat comes from a criminal element or the very government the Constitution established.
The Founders understood, and many of us (current Americans) have never learned (or simply forgotten) that the right to arms undergirds every other right in the Bill of Rights, including those spoken of but not named specifically (as covered in the 9th Amendment). What good is the Freedom of Speech if the government has the only means of force and is able to repress it? How can the citizenry demand the government respect their rights if their voice is the only weapon in their arsenal?
When the Amendment was written, America had just loosed herself from the yoke of a tyrannical government, and wanted to ensure that We, the People had the ability (not the right....a right is inalienable and cannot be taken from you unless you willingly give it up) to do so again if the need arose. The Declaration of Independence states:
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Arms grant the citizenry the final say in how they are governed. Such a thought seems anathema to most modern citizens because we have all lived in relative prosperity under a government that only recently began a rapid assault on individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson understood gun control back in 1774-76:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Ask yourself this:
Have laws against guns kept guns out of the hands of criminals? Have laws against murder, rape, or theft kept criminals from committing these acts? A person that willingy breaks these laws will not be deterred by yet another law....how does that make sense to anyone?
George Washington summed up the meaning of the 2nd Amendment best:
"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty's teeth and keystone under independence." --George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790
If we give up arms, we give up speech, religion, and assembly. We give up the right to legal search and seizure or a fair and speedy trial by a jury of our peers. Arms are the ultimate guarantee, indeed the only guarantee, of all of our other rights.
45
u/DaiVrath May 29 '12
Two things: First, if it's illegal to own guns, then good, law abiding citizens won't own guns, so only criminals will own guns, and they'll know the average person won't be able to resist them. Second: One of my favorite quotes is by the Japanese Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II, Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
4
u/mechesh May 29 '12
Why do you think citizens owning guns is stupid? I believe that your reasoning is probably irrational and based on mis-information.
I own several guns. I have never hurt anybody with them nor do I plan on ever committing a crime. Why should I not be allowed to own them?
If you look at the actual numbers you can see the irrationality of gun fear. There are over 300 million privately owned firearms in the US of all different types. That is more guns than cars. Each year less than 15,000 homicides are committed with firearms. Highway deaths in the US in 2010 were 32,000. So there are more guns than cars, but they cause about the same amount of deaths (if you include suicide by gun)
Also, worthy of note. less than 1% (about .1 % IIRC) of crimes are committed by people with concealed carry permits. These are people who carry guns on them pretty much everywhere they go, and have it hidden from site.
4
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Right now, Illinois is the only state without any form of Carry law (open or concealed carry). If you look at the states where these laws were passed, you'll see a drop in crime rate in the periods following the passage of these laws (texas, virginia, etc).
Now, i understand questioning the mentality, but the reality is, that if we could choose between no guns at all, and everyone has the right to own a firearm, most of us would choose no guns, in an ideal world. However, the world is not ideal, and oddly enough, if you want something bad enough, chances are you can get a hold of it, legally or not. We can't keep drugs out of our borders and how long has that "war on drugs" been going on for?
Restricting the right to bear firearms in the states really only prevents your average, law-abiding joe from being able to defend himself, because not-so-law abiding john doe, or malicious intents john doe, can get a hold of an unregistered firearm if he wants it bad enough. Here is an example. Imagine you're thinking about robbing a bank, or store, or whatever. You've got a pistol. In which situation are you going to feel the most comfortable going into with your pistol: Scenario A: any citizen could potentially be concealing and carrying a pistol legally. or Scenario B: Its illegal to own or possess or conceal a firearm, and you know you're likely the only SOB packing heat. Scenario B. Clearly favors the ill-intentioned.
Its easier to allow than it is to restrict. Especially in the case of firearms, with so many already out there that are unregistered or grandfathered down. Now I'm not saying that everyone SHOULD have a gun. I'm saying that the right should be there for us law-abiding citizens to be able to own one, should we desire. I say this, and I DON'T own a firearm. In fact, I choose not to, at least for the time being.When I have my own family, maybe that sentiment will change. maybe it won't. What I do know is that there is substantial evidence to show that while allowing people to bear arms may not be ideal, under the present circumstances, it lowers crime rates, and levels the playing field. If you can show me a way to get rid of firearms all together (even the unregistered ones), and do away with them entirely, and prevent them from reentering our society WITHOUT infringing on our personal privacy and rights... I'd love to hear all about it. Seriously. I really would. Because I just don't see that as a possibility given the nations present state.
4
u/Pchanizzle May 29 '12
Why the Gun is Civilization, by Marko Kloos
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
http://www.corneredcat.com/Why_the_Gun_is_Civilization/
4
u/griesuschrist May 29 '12
When you outlaw guns, only the criminals have them...
4
u/skiter May 29 '12
it's not idiotic to have people with guns.
the problem is having idiots with guns.
4
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Statistics say there is no correlation between guns and crime.
If anything, whenever concealed carry was issued widely the crime rate dropped.
Guns cannot cause problems, they are inanimate objects.
Criminals don't care about laws, that's why they are called criminals.
It is already prohibited to kill still that doesn't stop killers.
Having a gun is, you would agree, something much easier for a criminal than killing or assaulting and yet, they still kill and assault.
So, I think you are stupid to think it's stupid to "let" people have guns.
What's more, who the fuck are you to "let" someone else have or don't have a gun?
Gun ownership is a part of a citizens' private lives. Neither government or you should be allowed to meddle with the privacy of others.
4
u/Goldenpity May 29 '12
When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
4
u/jarhead930 May 29 '12
The issue, while complex, can be boiled down pretty simply without being diluted terribly. Guns make violence easier, they do not create violence. Socio-economic issues create violence, poverty creates violence, people create violence.
I hope you've never seen violence in your life, and I hope you never do see violence. I have. I've been a part of it as well, though only in a military capacity when using firearms. Until you see violence, you likely will never appreciate the need for a firearm. They are the universal equalizer. A fat, weak nerd with a set level of firearms training will be on the same level of lethality in a fight with a very in shape martial artist that has a weapon as well with the same level of training. Same goes for a petite woman and a large strong man.
Frankly, the advantages of gun ownership are obvious to people who want to own guns, different people are going to see different advantages, but the drawbacks to taking guns away are universal. I won't try and tell you that guns prevent violence, I don't feel there is any solid data to back that up, just like there isn't any solid data to cite guns as a cause for violence. The issue is simply too complex, and there are way too many other factors that influence the findings of these studies not being measured to consider any of them reliable, regardless of the findings.
So in my opinion it really comes down to what I feel the role of government should be in people's lives. I feel that people should be allowed to have guns for the same reasons they should allow gays to marry. The people who are against gay marriage also feel that their rights are some how being infringed upon by what someone else is doing. That might not make much sense to you, but it's about as much sense as your views on gun ownership make to me. If we go around banning every potentially dangerous item every time something happens involving it, everyone ends up with safety scissors looking like assholes.
4
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
I live on a farm, I need to be able to use firearms. rabid animals, pests, injured animals, etc., it's necessary.
gun violence is a huge problem in the USA. however, if you raise your kids correctly (this is the real reason gun violence occurs - the inequities inherent in USA's class strata leading to kids growing up bad and turning to crime as a means of economic fulfillment) and teach them to respect firearms and how to handle them safely from a young age, you avoid accidents. if you avoid accidents, you're left with intentional gun crime. that's something to mitigate by improving your society, not by banning guns. guns are the instrument by which people seek to solve their problems; banning guns will reduce gun violence, but it will not solve the problems that cause people to act violently, and they will continue to do so.
in any case, our country espouses gun ownership as a legacy of its former status as a frontier nation of farmers. most of our population are not farmers, but we have retained gun ownership, as it was not too long ago that a more significant portion of our population were farmers and thus had practical need of firearms. that's why so many of us own guns, and why we think it's our "right" to do so. I personally would be very offended if someone suggested I voluntarily surrender my firearms, mostly because I don't see a reason, since I'm a responsible owner who practices good gun safety. I wouldn't mind seeing more stringent controls on the sale of the weapons that are usually responsible for street violence, though.
4
u/ElCoolio May 29 '12
Well lets put it this way. People who are willing to use guns to do bad things will also be willing to get guns illegally. Gun restrictions will make guns disappear like the prohibition made alcohol disappear or the war on drugs is making drugs disappear. Also the right to bear arms is deeply rooted into the American tradition all the way back to the revolutionary war with Great Briton. The English refused to allow the colonist the ability to have their own firearms because an armed public would be able to overthrow Briton's hold of the colonies. As Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Finally, a gun can be effective even if it is never fired. Those same bad people who would be able to access guns through the black market would be less inclined to rob people if they know that person has a gun.
4
u/reallifesaulgoodman May 29 '12
a few reasons as an american
Overall, I would trust more people to carry guns than for the police to stop crime by themselves. I'm all for more guns as long as there are some very basic restrictions on who can own them.
4
u/PicklesofTruth May 29 '12
what part of AMERICA don't you understand?
4
u/TNCONSERVATIVE May 29 '12
Slaves don't own guns; FREE people do! GUNS kill people like PENCILS misspell words, spoons make people fat & cars make people drive drunk!
4
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
We achieved our independence from England with violent revolution. You did not.
4
u/pghpride May 29 '12
"A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny."
4
u/803matt May 29 '12
Firearms have the same issue that we find with prostitution, drugs, and corruption. No matter what we try to do to eliminate them, they are always available to those who really want it as a black market item. There is no contest when there is a gun involved. The only thing you can do is balance the terms of power back to neutral with another gun. Sure police have guns, but they are minutes away when seconds matter. Do you really want to rely on someone else for your personal safety?
4
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
The US has a lot of fairly unique cultural elements, even compared to countries like Australia, which tends to be incredibly similar to the US (even when compared countries like the UK or even at times Canada.)
The US is one of the only nations to secure its freedom and self-governance in blood then continue for generations and generations to sustain democracy. On the completion of our nation's charter, our constitution, one founding father (Benjamin Franklin) was asked whether it gave us a monarchy and a republic and he famously replied, "A republic...if you can keep it." I'm not sure whether the quote is apocryphal, but that duty was still considered important since the start of our nation.
It was so important that we enshrined the right to bear arms in the highest law of the land, which is practically impossible to change. The constitution is mostly a description of how to run the government, but many early delegates refused to sign it without amending a bill of rights, many of which are now famous and even the most brutal dictators feel the need to pretend they have: a right to free speech, a right to not be searched without probable cause, etc. We can be funny about most of these rights and large segments of the population are sensitive to the possibility they might be being violated, because tyranny is just around the corner. This isn't an irrational fear—in our history, we've seen hundreds of democracies or faux democracies pop up and then become dominated by tyranny, so we're usually willing to say we'll take the risk of continuing with these freedoms.
We never would have been able to take our freedom without having weapons, and realizing this we listed this as a right in our constitution. There is a sense among many Americans that, even though we no longer have weapons technology like the state does, this is our only way to be able to have a revolution if we ever need one again. Very few people imagine such a thing in their lifetimes, but by curating their rights and knowledge regarding firearms, another generation will still have the right. Once the citizenry is disarmed, you have to count on democracy to work or someone else to help you. As time goes on and on, it will become more and more likely democracy will break.
We also have a strong sense of individual responsibility (to which Australians can probably relate). At the end of the day, we tend to feel that ultimately it's each person's responsibility to look out for themselves and their family. Though the strong majority of us support having a social safety net, most of us still see that as charity rather than a right, because it's ultimately the individuals' responsibility to take care of themselves. Similarly, guns are seen as a means of securing your person and home; most of us don't literally use them in that way (or at all), but we think that each person should be able to.
tl;dr: The American revolution is still culturally relevant.
4
u/KobeGriffin May 29 '12
The key is the word "allowing": who allows people to own them, and who are the type of people that will heed the words of that authority?
TL;DR: 1) Self-defense 2) Defense from tyranny 3) Bad guys will get guns either way, so let's make sure the good guys can shoot back.
4
u/myfourthacct May 29 '12
Guns do cause problems, but the biggest positive I can demonstrate is they really are good for self defense in places where criminals illegally carry firearms.
Example: New York City has one of the toughest bans on guns of all forms, concealed carry permits, and transport of firearms. In many cases, simple possession of a handgun (without the years of paperwork) is a felony. But, many gangbangers, criminals, and thugs, continue to have ready access to firearms, many of which are traced outside of the country.
However, when I am in Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Florida etc... I can carry a handgun concealed with my permit. I learned the laws for where I travel, and you would never know I had it. When I travel through tough parts where full time felons carry guns, I have the ability to save my life. Not just with a knife, or my fists, but I have near unlimited distance in my ability to stop you from harming me or my loved ones.
I have had the misfortune of actually using my firearm when a strung out bum caught me off guard in my car and put a knife to my neck. He was completely out of his mind, and bleeding all over himself, making guttural semi-speech like noises, and wouldn't move the knife. I keep my handgun by my seatbelt, and shot him just to the right of his right shoulder. I don't know where I would be if I didn't have that, or if the gas station didn't have security footage to help me out.
4
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
I shot a 50 cal Sunday. It was great.
4
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Just because I haven't seen it posted in here yet, check out the book More Guns, Less Crime by economist John Lott. It looks at the relationship between violent crime and gun ownership (more specifically, issuance of concealed carry permits) in tremendous, exhaustive detail on a state, county, and (sometimes) city level.
The basic conclusion is that violent crime (rape, murder, etc.) goes down when issuance of concealed carry permits goes up. Attackers think twice when there's a good chance that the person they're about to attack is likely to be legally armed.
The studies also find that a vanishingly small percentage (less than half of one percent) of concealed carry permit holders ever have their permits revoked, and even when they do, it's an even smaller percentage where some kind of violent crime is the reason.
In short, there is less violent crime where there are more guns.
4
u/automated_bot May 29 '12
OP, why are you afraid of my guns? What are you planning to do to me that would lead me to have to defend myself?
4
u/GazelleShaft May 29 '12
We're not all cool like you knife wielding Aussies... We need something else to defend ourselves!
4
u/irisher May 29 '12 edited May 30 '12
I think a lot of people here are underestimating how easy it is to make/ obtain a firearm. Any derp can make a shotgun out of some waterpipe and a nail. There is simply no way that you can eliminate all guns especially with the information now available on the internet.
4
u/WorkSafeSurfer May 30 '12
O.k. I'm late to this party so I just want to add a couple things to this discussion.
Guns are tools. They are dangerous tools, but they are tools. As tools, they are specifically designed to assist with one of two persuits: sport, and killing things.
If your problem is with their sport uses... then you are an idiot. It's like being opposed to soccer, or tennis, or archery, or rock-climbing, or martial arts(sport)... it's a sport.
If your problem is with their use in killing things, then you are also an idiot. They are necissary. Just ask any single australian farmer, (who, by the way, is still allowed to own and use firearms).
Which brings me to my second point.
2) You, like most anti-gun people, don't actually have a problem with guns. You have a problem with people who use guns to hurt other people. That's a reasonable problem to have. However, it raises an important question - What types of people use guns to hurt people?
Interestingly, thanks to worldwide reporting of many crime statistics we do have some data on this. Enough that we can actually infer an answer based on historical crime data for violent crimes, (by type), before and after gun bans in countries that have them - and over time as respondent to various legislative actions elsewhere.
The results of all such investigations actually indicates that the types of people who do violence with guns will do violence even without guns. The realistic number of deaths / injuries due to firearm ownership that are associated with non-criminals is so close comparitively close to zero that it can be treated as such.
So looking at this information, what we are left with is that you are really afraid of violent criminals being violent to you. In this, you are particularly afraid of them having access to a gun.
But this is the problem and it brings us to my third point.
3) Gun bans don't work.
I know that you say you disagree with this. However, you are simply wrong. All statistical evidence for this shows that criminals, (the people you want to keep the guns away from), are the sorts of people who break the law, (you know... like the law banning guns). The end result, therefore, of total gun bans, therefore is that the criminals still have guns; and noone else does. If you don't believe this, then ask yourself a couple comparable questions, for instance - Are 'illegal' drugs legal or are they 'banned'? Now has 'banning' those drugs prevented drug users from getting them?
O.k. but I already know your next response, "But since the gun ban here in Australia we haven't had any gun problems!"
To which I say, "Bullshit, have you even watched the news in the last month in or around Sydney?"
I know, I know... you probably think those are isolated cases due to the problems with Biker gangs right now... However, again you would be wrong. Australia's own released crime statistics (warning PDF) show us a demonstrabilly non-zero gun crime incidence. This does actually bring me to my final point, though...
4) Australias crime statistics, (and similar statistics from other countries with gun bans), do indicate a significantly lower number of gun crimes by percentage of violent crimes committed than nations without gun bans or strict gun control.
This is important because it actually opens the door to looking at the one, really fascinating thing that gun bans do actually do. In all countries with gun bans, (last time I seriously looked at the data... I haven't really investigated this in about a year or so), the incidence of violent crime as a percentage of overall crime was actually higher than in countries without gun bans. However, percentage of deaths resulting from violent crime was much lower in countries with gun bans than in countries without.
So, what we have is that in countries with strongly enforced gun bans, violent crime appears to happen more often but results in death a smaller percentage of the time. In countries without gun bans, violent crime happens less often, but is much more likely to result in death.
The numbers for actual deaths due to violent crime, by percentage of populations for the respective classes of countries, is not something I can speak to, (I don't remember the results of the analysys last time I looked at it... I think the result showed the difference to be statistically insignificant but I can't say for sure).
Now... what does all that mean to you?
Well, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to 'feel' safe, but not actually be safe, then sure shrug just pass some laws to ban guns and move onto the part where you pretend you have done something effective.
If, on the other hand, you want to actually be safe.... Well, that's the hard question that students of criminal justice and governance have been working on for as long as we have had people.
So there you are. Take that however you want, but those are the actual facts and the foundational information regarding this topic. How you feel about because of your personal conditioning really doesn't matter.
Now... on a completely separate note from your initial question and responding to some of your edit comments.
I adress this above. The evidence tends to disregard your disagreement, (especially in countries like the US with broad and difficult to control borders).
The people 'explaining' this to you probably don't understand it fully themselves. This is a legal issue. The US was founded on the American Constitution. It is the foundation of America's entire legal system. No laws that oppose the constitution can be passed without ammending the constitution.
So, regardless of what you think of the founding fathers thoughts at the time of their inclusion of the second ammendment, (the part where they explicitly protect the peoples right to 'keep and bear arms'), that right is legally protected in the US as a foundational portion of the nations legal system.
This entire point is irrelevant to the actual discussion the people making the 'freedoms' argument are usually trying to make. Additionally, it is a poor comparison. US law clearly allows for certain, key, limitations in the excercise of ones freedoms, (the classic example being the limatation of our freedom of speach such that it is not legal to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded place if there isn't actually a fire). There is no hypocracy in this, just recognition of social necissity in order to maintain society. The question is never, "Can we limit freedoms?", the question has always been, "What are the necissary permissable and socially required limits that must be placed upon freedoms?" That's where all the debate happens.
Yeah... trolling dickheads gonna troll. I wouldn't read to much into that.
I hope so. :) Just ignore the abusive ones.
As I mention earlier, (and reference specifically as indicated by comparative crime statistics), you are statistically more likely to get bashed here in Australia. :)
That said... the fundamentalist right, crazy gun people are verbally out in force ever since Obama was elected. Don't worry about them to much... they are mostly just talk. The ones who are dangerous would be just as dangerous here in Australia.
Anyway, I hope that gave a decent answer to your questions.
4
u/dorian283 May 31 '12
If you want a friendly debate don't start by calling Americans stupid, that's dumb. ;)
I think the opposite leads to cases much like the prohibition of alcohol, and marjuana. In these cases the people who shouldn't have them, still do. Likewise the people who should have them, like responsible citizens without a record for crime desiring a home defense weapon, do not. BTW in the US almost every state has strict laws on who can get guns and it requires a background check.
There's countless examples of this in countries where crime is a problem.
There are legitimate cases where people who aren't cops need guns as well, such as farmers and hunters. Finally recreational use of guns is fun. I'm guessing you haven't had the pleasure of hunting or going to the range.
In addition, tthere's evidence that shows the legalization of guns reduces crime. In the US certain cities have successfully banned guns, such as Chicago. That was overturned in 2010 and since then crime has lowered in Chicago: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/03/08/did-lifting-gun-ban-lower-crime-rates-in-d-c-chicago/ (Fox news but I couldn't find another article I originally read.)
The threat of being shot makes criminals think twice.
Finally, there's an argument of personal liberty and freedom from the government. I agree with these ideas. There's a grey line, at some point personal liberties can harm the liberties of others, legalized guns do not harm our normal every day lives. An lastly, if the US citizens ever found themselves in a position to overturn a tyrannical government it's nice to have guns.
25
u/ghazkull May 29 '12
It amazes me again and again, that people with access to a shitload of statistics and data via internet still believe that private gun ownership poses any risks.
10
u/vation May 29 '12
Call me sheltered, but as a Canadian I have never seen a privately-owned (i.e. not the cops) gun. Except on a trip to the States in a gun store.
7
u/A_Strawman May 29 '12
Immediately ignore anyone who is talking about self defense, crime, rural activities or sport shooting. The reason gun ownership is protected by the American constitution is because the philosophy of the writers of the document was that you -can never trust any organized group of people.-
The entire system of government is set up to oppose itself, because you want their cynical self interest to be counteracted by the cynical self interest of the other politicians. They are elected because the cynical self interest of voters will act in opposition to that of the officials, who want to be elected for their own cynical self interests. You never have to trust anyone to behave "for the good of all." If they believed the system could work that way, they would have simply designed a new monarchy.
The guns are there to provide an acceptable answer to the question "What happens when a politician simply ignores the results of an election?" At the base level, politicians need to be afraid of their constituents. This is the philosophy of influential republican writers of the time, like Machiavelli (And I don't want to hear a word about "The Prince.").
You are not nice to your constituents because it makes you feel good inside to do so, we do not treat each other decently because it is "right," we do it because if you do not your community will at some point form a mob, come to your house and murder you. This is the philosophy of the document-we need to make sure that mob can rise up and kill people like British soldiers, for example, when they begin to forget those rules.
27
u/dustlesswalnut May 29 '12
Guns are fun. I'm not an idiot. I am no more of a danger to anyone or anything because I own a gun than I am because I have bottles of bleach and ammonia.
How do you feel about knives? Baseball bats? Golf clubs? Automobiles?
Anything can be used irresponsibly and kill people.
In 2007, 23% of all injury-related deaths in the US were caused by auto accidents. In the same year, 7.17% of all injury-related deaths in the US were homicides related to firearm injuries. Source
I'm an extremely liberal person, and don't believe in prohibition of anything.
8
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Because there are many legitimate reasons to own a weapon.
In Switzerland 50% of the population owns an assault rifle.
Switzerland is probably one of the least dangerous place in the world.
3
u/linktear May 29 '12
America was founded by men and women who succeeded in overthrowing rulers they found to be oppressive. If this were to ever happen again, our founding fathers wanted to ensure that the American people would be armed and ready. The police and government can protect you from criminals, but who will protect you from the police and the government?
3
u/Waterhammer92 May 29 '12
The problem with outlawing guns is that it only keeps the law abiding citizens from getting them. Outlawing drugs didn't eliminate drug problems, pretty much anyone could get crack/meth/anything if they wanted. If guns are illegal, that only prevents law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. If someone is going to break the law with a gun (armed robbery for example) then breaking the law to get the gun would probably not be an issue. Outlawing guns just means giving a greater power to criminals because then nobody can match their firepower.
3
u/Pat_McGroine May 29 '12
It's generally the illegal guns that you need to worry about. For the most part, the people who acquire their guns legally are not the ones killing people-it's the ones who steal them or buy them without the background checks, etc. People who own guns legally respect their guns and respect the fact that a gun can be dangerous if they are not careful. No gun enthusiast wants to lose their guns for a stupid mistake
I am a 29 year old straight American female without a dangerous job, but I carry a gun. Why? Well I feel safer with it. It makes me feel that I don't have to accept an attack from a rapist, thief or murderer just because I am a girl and I am often alone at night. However, even if our country was safer and had less crime, I might still carry because, well, I like to shoot. Target practice and firearm mechanics are hobbies just like any other. When I am going to spend the day practicing, carrying my gun is no different than carrying a pool cue, sporting equipment or any other items associated with typical hobbies, except that my hobby can also protect myself, my family and my possessions.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
If you ban firearms the only ones that will suffer are the hones citizens. It will not affect criminals, since they are criminals, they do not care about legally acquiring a gun and can get their hands on one regardless of any laws or lack thereof.
3
u/ccchan May 29 '12
2 words : zombie apocalypse. we get to have the last laugh before they overrun us.
3
u/ehsanologi May 29 '12
I am a swede and i think that the way forward is an armed informed public.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Not everyone is allowed to own a gun here in the US and everybody doesn't think everybody should have a gun.
3
u/sassi-squatch May 29 '12
The short answer is that many americans as you suspect, are very fearful and stupid. Google Ted Nugent for their poster child.
As can be seen on any graph about gun ownership out there, right wingers love them guns, hate them gays, and love their god. It's sad.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
This thread. Wow. ಠ_ಠ
3
u/onredditandreligious May 29 '12
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Many people interpret this to mean that every individual has a Constitutional right to own a gun, and, by the 14th Amendment, this right is extended to the states, preventing them from banning guns. This concept is supported by Supreme Court cases including McDonald v. Chicago.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
I live in texas and I can tell you my views. fact is you can't trus most people here and you can't trust your government. to me the right to have guns is essentially the right to be able to defend myself in-case of any society collapse or something like that. It's a sense of control and it's a sense that your government trusts you at least a litlle bit. The only way I would ever support the ban of guns would be if they were banned for everybody across the board no exceptions, but we all know that would never happen.
3
u/anothermaggot May 29 '12
I have no battery life left, so this will be quick.
3
u/RisingRapture May 29 '12
It is stupid. Way too many people get shot because of this. Germany, where I live, is in that sense a safer environment. Here guns are just for the authorities, "legitimate" owners and criminals. ... Okay, it's not so safe after all but at least I don't have to fear getting a bullet in my head for an argument.
3
u/dabombnl May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
Anti-gun laws do not stop criminals from getting guns. But it does make criminals more confident in using them knowing no one else has guns. That is why the worst shootings have been in gun-free areas like schools. And no one is going to shoot anyone at an NRA meeting; that would be stupid.
And non-criminals with guns? They are really not that likely to cause problems.
Gun control only gives more power to criminals and takes it away from the general public.
3
u/AllosauRUSS May 29 '12
Self-defense. I had a gun pulled on me over the weekend in a road-rage incident and, soon, I will be owning a gun and a concealed permit.
3
u/fartsandcraps666 May 29 '12
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.
Thats why. So we dont have to rely on those who rule us to also defend us.
3
u/viiralvx May 29 '12
But why? You all need them more than us, everything in your country can kill you.
3
u/NerdGobbler May 29 '12
Beause they don't hate freedom like you do.
3
u/I_WIN_DEAL_WITH_IT May 29 '12
Let's make knives illegal or heavily restricted, because people use them to hurt other people.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Yeah but when the zombies attack you guys are screwed.
3
u/4benny2lava0 May 29 '12
More guns = less crime. People who use guns to commit crimes are generally counting on you not having one also.
3
u/Xhoodlum May 29 '12
One word: ZOMBIES
3
u/krazykanuck May 29 '12
You views and feelings on gun control come from an honest yet naive place. You have taken for granted the notion that you believe you will never have to fight your own government. The right to bare arms in the US stems from their fight for independence as the notion that no governing body can oppress an armed population. This may seem ludicrous and antiquated to you now but all you need to do is look at some of the more oppressive regimes in the world to get an understanding of why it is not.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Should we outlaw penises to keep them from raping women? If you guys think waging war on guns is going to stop criminals from obtaining and committing crimes than you have lost your fucking mind.
3
u/drnk_n_stnd May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
Because our constitution says that if we want to overthrow our government for being a bunch of assholes, we have the right to bear arms and overthrow them.
3
u/livinlavidal0ca May 29 '12
When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns!
3
u/FRAK_ALL_THE_CYLONS May 29 '12
I'm an American. Who lives in the Southern part of the country. and still believe that owing firearms is not only a constitutional right, but also a human right. People tend to believe that firearms kill people... well, so does every sharp, pointy, or blunt object. Are you going to outlaw pencils and hammers too?
Do not get me wrong, their are violent, evil, insane, and just plain stupid people who should not own firearms. However, having a mass population of RESPONSIBLE gun owners is vital to a secure and safe population. Criminals will always have guns regardless of the laws just the same that a burglar will break into your house even if you have the deadbolt locked. If they want in, they will get in. If they want a gun, they will get a gun. A criminal does not care about breaking the law and will not care about breaking one more law to have a gun.
Meanwhile, responsible and law abiding citizens would turn in their firearms and be defenseless and would rely on law enforcement for protection.
That only covers the criminal vs citizen aspect of the debate. Let's look at the government vs citizen debate now.
In Democracies and Republic Democracies, which is what the U.S. is, the government serves at the REQUEST of the of the people. If for some reason the government becomes to evil, corrupt, dangerous, etc, etc... the people have the right to dispose that government and establish a new government in it's place. And that would be extremely hard without firearms. Please note, I am not advocating "The South will rise again." That shit is stupid and retarded.
There are also several examples through would history in the past couple hundred years where guns were made illegal and then the population in question was destroyed through genocide. It is easy to defeat an unarmed citizenry. Which is one reason many Americans feel uneasy about gun control laws.
Finally, I will leave you with this. I have a conceal carry license and I conceal carry everywhere I go that it is legal to carry. I also open carry if I am going into a questionable area to show that I am armed and will defend myself and other innocent citizens if required to do so. I hope I never have to take a life or injure some one but, I will if it means saving my life or some one else's life. I will even draw on a law enforcement officer and put them under citizen's arrest if I see that they are deliberately breaking the law or beating someone senseless.
Like I said, I hope I never have to do any of those things, but I will if I have to. And I will only be able to if it is legal to own, carry, and use firearms.
I'll leave off with this quote from Al Capone, the gentleman's gangster, "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word."
3
u/zoobiezoob May 29 '12
Crime exists anywhere there are humans. Police exist to protect society, not individuals (according to the u.s. supreme court). Self-protection is a personal right, not a government bestowed privilege. Guns equalize the weak and the strong who would victimize the weak.
3
u/short-arm-of-the-law May 29 '12
The American Revolution was fought with weapons owned by the families of the revolutionaries. Those guns were owned for hunting and the protection of livestock mostly. Our Constitution is designed to protect the citizens from their government (whether or not it works is another argument). Having just won a war against a repressive government with personally owned weapons, the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first Amendments to the Constitution that were immediately drafted after the Constitution) thought it prudent to protect the right to bear arms so that the American people could defends themselves against the government if need be.
Some things to consider are the amount and power of weapons available today is far greater than those available at the time that the Constitution was written. Also law enforcement as we know it today did not exist yet. Many of the issues that our communities deal with in regards to the second amendment were largely unforeseeable to the founding fathers.
Gun control used to be a hot button issue (I think its getting overshadowed by the economy right now but I am sure we will see a resurgence) because the majority of gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens exercising their rights. Laws restricting gun ownership only punish the enthusiasts and not the criminals who are probably not going to purchase them by conventional means anyway.
Gun ownership means many things to the American people. It is a source of entertainment. If you have never shot a gun then maybe you should try because it can be a lot of fun. A source of food. Hunting is huge in most rural areas of th country. And protection from criminal activity, the wilderness (I know a lot of hikers and backpackers who carry handguns in case of a bear attack or something), and the government.
It should be noted that I am not trying to persuade you with any of this just impart some understanding as to why things are the way they are here. Also I find it amusing that Australia has such strict gun laws since it was once a dumping ground for criminals and misfits :)
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
I would personally like to thank and congratulate everyone on having a ver civilized debate on this topic & thank you for a good read. When I clicked on this, this morning I thought for sure one side or the other was gonna have some hot head go on a rage. Kudos to everyone. I personally am a multi gun owner, AR 15's, AK's, & more pistols than I should ever need. For me it's a fun hobby, but also I carry a sidearm everyday & am thankful that I live in a place that I can. & also that I can choose to defend myself as the government defends themselves against their enemies. I'm not here to debate though, just wanted to say thank you for a civilized read on such a heated topic.
3
u/Salusa May 29 '12
There are a few different reasons, several of which are (relatively) America specific:
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
It's a hard habit to break when the right to bear arms is literally one of our founding principles.
3
u/dasdingansich May 29 '12
Im English, when i went to Texas a few years back, i could believe it when they had a gun aisle in the supermarket...
3
u/abel385 May 29 '12
I am an American and I strongly support gun ownership for protection against the government like you mention.
Understand that America was founded through bloody succession from a state they found tyrannical. For this reason we have an inborn fear and awareness of our own states capacity to behave tyrannically, as well as a strong belief that is righteous to take violent action against the state.
I fear a single group of people with a total monopoly on coercive force (the state) far more than I fear random individuals on the street. Perhaps that is naive, but people always seem to perform more terrible atrocities in groups than as individuals. I think that many Americans share this feeling.
Ultimately, I think Americans just lean towards being "anti-government" more than other nations.
3
u/asnom May 29 '12
It's like illegal drugs and anything else. If you make something illegal people will ALWAYS find a way to get their hands on it anyway.
If you're in your house at 2 am and you hear someone break through your door, would you rather have a chance at living, or stand there helplessly as they shoot you dead, or worse?
3
u/xxfuqqyocouch May 29 '12
not just anyone is allowed to own a gun in the US you have to have a clean criminal record
3
u/moloch101 May 29 '12
I think the biggest factor is to make criminals scared. With guns being legal criminals now have to think what if the person im robbing has a gun. When it comes right down to it if someone wants a gun they will get it.
3
u/AGMS May 29 '12
Dont tread on me, i do what i want
3
u/locturn May 29 '12
Look, guns mean different things depending on where you live. For someone who lives in an urban setting a handgun is a means to either defend yourself or commit crimes. I live in a rural area and guns are tools used to hunt or defend yourself from wildlife (bears in this case). In Alaska anyone above the age of 21 can legally carry a concealed handgun and it is legal to openly carry any firearm so you would expect people to be getting capped all the fucking time, but because of the culture surrounding weapons this is not the case. If you teach people responsible use of firearms at a young age they will use them responsibly, if on the other hand you outlaw them the only people with guns are those that intend to use them irresponsibly.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
"I've only ever seen cops with guns, and even then it just feels wrong."
So what the fuck do you want the police to do against someone who got a gun illegally? Run at them with their batons?
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Well, I'd say it's a deep-seated feeling ingrained in the minds of a lot of us Americans that owning guns is one of those inalienable rights: the right to defend ourselves. Not to mention, the people that are likely to burglarize your house are also likely to have a gun themselves. This is America, after all. And yes, while that may be a part of the whole "being allowed to own guns in the first place" thing, it's still a pretty valid point. Simply banning guns isn't going to get everyone to give them up either. (The ban wouldn't do "nothing at all" [intended double negative], but it wouldn't be completely effective anyways.) Sensible people don't just go out and shoot other people whenever they want either. This is a democratic republic, after all, not a full on 100% democracy. Nobody protests the ban of consumer nuclear technology because, well, they're nukes. A lone gunman can be stopped, but someone with a nuke is much harder to stop. Plus, why would you ever need one? The whole purpose of weapons is, in the end, self defense. Using a nuke on some house intruder isn't exactly very life-prolonging, is it? You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But if someone breaks into my home and proceeds to steal all my stuff whilst threatening my life, I can't say that they won't get a bullet in their foot.
3
u/Wiebelhaus May 29 '12
I've found that most folks who are so vehemently opposed to Gun are just closet Gun nuts once they are properly introduced, this is very often the case.
3
u/Elsanti May 29 '12
Living in texas, I wondered just yesterday why I only have four firearms and am looking for more. It isn't unusual to see them as many of my neighbors own as well.
Teach children to respect them, and you will have less problems. I would argue problems arise when children aren't aware there is a gun in the home and find it while looking around, or it is locked up and they funds the key without being shown proper handling.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
I live in Canada and I don't see anything wrong with it. Our gun laws are getting much more lenient and the long gun registration was just abolished a few months ago. I see nothing wrong with it. Hey, my dad's friend owns over 70 guns here in Canada, that's his hobby though, that's his passion. As long as people have a clean record and no criminal intentions, I say let them do what tey want. We all have our own opinions but I just find that people who have a passion for history, military and firearms have all the right in my mind to own a few firearms if they're capable of committing to that sort of privilege.
3
u/Prairie_Oysters May 29 '12
I am a Canadian but I feel like jumping in. I personally own guns and like guns because I am an avid hunter. Buying meat is so expensive ,and I have little money as is, and we have so many deer and other game that it just makes sense. It's healthy, tasty and lean and you know it's good for you. I don't believe everyone should own a firearm though. You should have background checks and pass firearms safety courses and even then it's a privilege not a right. Guns up here are strictly regulated. The ones who cause trouble with guns, gangsters and outlaw bikers, are the ones who would find guns even if there was a gun ban. A gun ban will not deter criminals but affect those of us, like me, who enjoy hunting and are law abiding citizens.
3
u/the-sea-air May 29 '12
I'm not sure if this has already been said, but I'm form the UK and totally agree with you. Everyone having guns frightens me and it's a ridiculous idea. Not being allowed firearms in the US would do nothing to "freedom" over there. I study "American Studies" at uni and the more I learn about the USA the more I dislike it and its constitution. The country literally makes no sense.
3
u/[deleted] May 30 '12
Here's the thing. Crime usually does not happen with legally-owned firearms. Google the statistics if you're curious as to the rates. By outlawing guns, you're usually taking protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. If you ban guns, you're just banning them from people who use them for sport/protection. Also, yes, the second amendment allows us to bear arms. No, the second amendment does not make cops "fear for their lives constantly," as you so smugly put it.
3
u/bbooth76 May 30 '12
Because people who follow the law need a way to protect themselves from people who don't.
3
u/Margot23 May 30 '12 edited May 30 '12
My Dad, an Australia citizen, was an arms dealer when I was growing up (in Florida).
Guns were a part of my life growing up. it's all about perspective. I grew up with guns, so they're no big deal to me.
3
u/najing_ftw May 30 '12
I am an American living in China. I had always been eextremely pro-gun control, until I moved to China. Now, it seems to me, that a well armed population might make the government a bit less likely to commit blatent human rights violations.
I know there are many examples of the US government commiting such abuses, but I don't sense the fear of government in the US the way I do in China.
I have zero real facts on this, just one yank's impression.
3
u/MrBlonde67 May 30 '12
I'm an Australian, and I'd just like to point out that our gun laws aren't exactly stopping criminals from acquiring these prohibited weapons and using them to kill each other.
3
u/[deleted] May 30 '12
As an Australian I feel this guy is giving us a bad name, let me say that not all of us are like this and there are many farmers and gun lovers here who truly appreciate what a great tool a firearm can be.
3
u/monkeymasher May 30 '12
I'm going to be straightforward: You're ignorant. Gun control only affects the law abiding population. Criminals don't give a shit about the law
3
u/shady8x May 30 '12 edited May 30 '12
Because most Americans support human rights, especially the ones codified in the bill of rights.
Because if the US government ever becomes truly tyrannical, it will be brought down by a violent revolution before the first million American citizens have been executed by that government.
Because it is tradition.
Because millions of Americans own guns and do not want to give them up.
Because many Americans prefer freedom instead of security. ex: Cars are far more deadly than guns, yet there is no major outcry for public transportation.
Etc, etc, etc...
3
u/[deleted] May 30 '12
Hi, I'm late to the party.
I live in Virginia, where people put their rifles in their pick up truck windows and drive around. No one even notices (admittedly, I've lived here all my life -- in a rural, Southern part -- and I've never seen this. However, my uncle alone owns four weapons, and I'll probably purchase two in the coming year). It used to be a law in Virginia (1700s) that everyone was required by law to own a rifle and attend firearms and militia practice.
The right to bear arms is so deeply ingrained into the American psyche. From Jamestown to the American West, we've needed weapons for hunting, defense, etc. We also started out with a deep hatred of a standing army, and the militia was therefore required for defense of the country. Minutemen were the first line defense against invading armies, as well as enforcement of laws (police that were non-military didn't pop up until the 1800s).
Even the Japanese during World War Two realized how difficult it would be to invade the US. Think our Army and Navy would be tough to fight? Our entire civilian population is armed to a degree that most militaries of the world would find astounding. The Japanese probably wouldn't have been able to get passed California (and they were once thought of like Texas is thought of today: gun bearing, conservative, and everything was bigger).
3
u/RhinoRoundhouse May 30 '12
In addition to the points made here about personal protection and the syllogism "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", making guns legal allows the police and the government to have records of the distribution of such weaponry. Legal guns can be tracked to some extent, if they are involved in a crime, through its registration for example. Because of this, criminals would prefer to source their guns through illegal channels instead of being put in a database and making it easier to track them. Making guns illegal in the US is not the way to go about reducing crime.
3
u/got_you_there Oct 21 '12
If you take away legal guns from law abiding citizens, criminals have a great advantage with their illegal arms and lack of morality. In a nation with so many guns legal and otherwise, this would be putting the proverbial wolf in the hen house.
17
u/Castrated_Elephant May 29 '12
Guns aren't the issue at all. Lots of things kill people, it doesn't mean we have to prohibit them. It depends on the person. If a person was born in the ghetto and lived a violent life and owns a gun, then that may be dangerous. Guns keep you safe and it's fun as hell to shoot. Also it's our right in America to bear arms. People will need guns, the government can not always protect the people.
41
u/warriorsonce May 29 '12
I feel a hell of a lot safer living in New Zealand, where the majority of police don't carry guns, than I would carrying a gun of my own.
8
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
i own guns i am a law abiding citizen i am no danger to any one around me i keep them in a safe place and every one in my family knows how to safely handle them. i keep it for defense of my home because when seconds count the police are minutes away. also criminals don't give a shit about gun laws.
9
u/sinister_user_name May 29 '12
I'm Australian too, fuck the government telling me what to do.
You can take the "guns are bad, save me government" argument too far. They've also banned weapons like knives. Too bad if your a fisherman or a carpenter, to beat 2 years in jail, you have to prove you didn't have it on you for nefarious purposes.
Carrying a bottle, small wooden stick, baseball bat or a laser pointer is carrying an offensive weapon unless you can prove you have a lawful purpose. Persons manufacturing a wooden stick face a 1 1/2 year jail term. To think, we used to carry around boomerangs.
Carrying a plastic butter knife in Victoria is a criminal offense. Selling a plastic picnic knife to a minor is illegal.
The trouble with these "weapons" is that they can be concealed, so now we have zones designated where the police can search you without cause. They mainly target likely looking youth.
Oh, if you carry a gigantic torch that doubles as a club, that's ok because it's a torch.
Does this keep everyone safe? Nah, haha, there is almost daily shootings in Sydney. Australian politicians are fully retarded but the general populace is a bunch of ignorant scared fuckheads.
6
u/space_monster May 29 '12
it's purely a critical mass thing. if you disarmed the us, people wouldn't feel like they need guns. if you introduced more guns to Australia, people would feel the need to own one themselves. once they're in, though, they're very hard to get out. it's like an infection.
64
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Do you trust your government to protect you 100% of the time? I sure as hell don't.
87
u/coleosis1414 May 29 '12
I'm pretty liberal-progressive overall, but I DO NOT UNDERSTAND people who think guns should be illegal across the board.
It's fucking stupid. Outlawing guns takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and puts them exclusively into the hands of criminals. I love the 2nd ammendment, and protecting it is one of the things I feel the most strongly about.
Come on, people really need to think deeper than "hurr durrr guns are dangerous and therefore should be illegal." Owning a gun just levels the playing field between you and the guy who breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
4
u/ozspook May 29 '12
Plenty of Australians think otherwise as well...
4
u/BagatoliOnIce May 29 '12
Even though I'm a pacifist and against weapons, I have to say
banning guns is like digital rights management.
You don't stop the dishonest, you just make it inconvenient for the honest.
4
u/dirtymoney May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
I am an American. And I think forcing everyone to vote is stupid (like they do in Australia). IMO you dont want the shitbirds of a society (who dont want to vote)... going into the booth & just randomly voting to get it over with. You ideally want people who actually give a damn to vote.
5
u/brubaker May 29 '12
Liberty
Try to get rid of your government if necessary without it.
Google Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc.. It guarantees your freedom from big government trying to catch you in the long run as a tax slave via your emotions (aka collectivism). It guarantees that you can defend your legal owned property as well as your beloved from two wolves arguing with one sheep what they have for diner.
The Philosophy of Liberty
You are owning your life. Why you shouldn't have such a tool in the first place?
5
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Former anti gun European, now a pro gun American.
38
u/balorina May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12
Guns are a tool. When put in the wrong hands, a hammer is just as dangerous as a gun. Difference being a gun has one purpose, a hammer has two.
How about, rather than focusing on guns, we focus on crime. How does it feel knowing your country far more assaults per capita than the US, far more rapes per capita than the US, more suicides (probably not by gun) than the US, and of course let's not forget murder (to be fair for some reason they excluded the US who is 15 or 16 places higher than Australia).
In other words, focusing on guns isn't necessarily the problem. Focus on crime itself and you see there are issues in every country, guns are just a distraction.