Gun Control

[kfryman]

Let's get back on, if the insults continue the thread will be shut down. It was going great, let's get back to that. And this is not suppose to be a I'm smarter than you, don't throw up brick walls, and don't continue to go after someone. If you haven't, go look at the first post and read it.

I was watching a YouTuber who had the Joe Biden and other YouTubers talking, and he was taking what Biden said and was explaining it and saying why it was wrong. Biden tried to say that law enforcement are overpowered by AR's and that law enforcement want a ban, yet almost all law enforcement don't want a ban. An agency in Utah even said they would go to war to protect their citizens rights because they were sworn in to protect their constitutional rights. Wasn't Obama as well?m.now.msn.com/utah-sheriffs-association-will-not-back-down-on-gun-control

And the video, just go on YouTube and type in Ratedrr, go to his uploads and it is the most recent one. The title is Joe Bidens double barrel shotgun: the sitrep.

Also an AR would need a small mag to go hunting, however for varmit control, the AR's caliber is great. So there you go, that is a proper sporting application of the rifle, which is not an assault weapon. Look up what an assault weapon is because I have said it enough times already.

[Olympia]

Wow, how disappointed I am in you guys.
This is the Internet, you won't change anyone's mind arguing. Say what you think and drop it quickly, no need to keep going.
Any purpose this thread had is currently non-existent now I believe.
Posted via Mobile Device

[registereduser]

Originally Posted by Olympia

Wow, how disappointed I am in you guys.
This is the Internet, you won't change anyone's mind arguing. Say what you think and drop it quickly, no need to keep going.
Any purpose this thread had is currently non-existent now I believe.
Posted via Mobile Device

there are some really off the wall comments in this thread, makes me wonder.............

[Freyja]

I think the dismissive and patronizing comments come from both sides, both members and moderators. Truth is those who don't understand why we have guns and why we are so against a ban on firearms will most likely never understand unless some traumatic event occurs where a firearm would've been useful and not even then. Not all gun owners are ignorant, rednecks or hicks or hillbillies. Most of us are educated and have chosen to acquire firearms after giving it much consideration.

[Bacon Is Good]

This thread died

[homegrown terror]

Originally Posted by Bacon Is Good

This thread died

...and came back to life three days later....this thread is teh jeebus!

[Freyja]

Lmao homegrown terror

[dramaqueen]

Moderators are not being patronizing. We're trying to keep people from going off the deep end. Why is it whenever mods try and restore order someone goes and says we're being patronizing or are throwing our weight around for our friends, showing favoritism?

[Bluewind]

Originally Posted by babystarz

Oops, forgot I wanted to add something. I have a bachelor's degree in the sociology of law, crime, and deviance. So please believe me when I say there is little we can gain from comparing crime rates in specific places within the U.S with more or less restrictive gun laws. There are too many other variables to be able to say that crime is or is not impacted by gun laws in a specific location. It would be confusing correlation and causation to just look at the data like that. It works better to look at countries' crime rates and gun laws.
...

I posted this before, but I guess you missed it. Here are the crime statistics I dug up to compare the US and UK...

Murder issue
US had 15,000 murders which means 0.005% or 1/20,000 of the population was murdered
The US has 1/5th the population of the UK
A comprable amount of murders in the UK would be 3000 per year
There were only 648 which means US had a rate that was about 4 to 5 times that of the UK (0.001% or 1/100,000 murdered), but the US has a lower rates of other crimes.

Other Crimes
Assault in the UK is over double that of the US (2.8% vs 1.2%)
Incidents of rape were also double (0.9% vs 0.4%)
Drug offences were staggeringly higher in the UK which makes me wonder if it is an environmental issue and not a gun related one (using The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, I calculated the UK to be 326 times worse in this aspect, but again, I do not believe it to be a gun related issue)
The total number of crime victims was 25% higher in the UK than the US (26.4% vs 21.2%)

In summary, less killing but more violence.


Other Points...
1. Some people collect guns as a hobby or inverstment. Many are antiques and part of history. Many are not antiques by definition (over 100 years old) but they are old and/or rare and still prized. I know many collectors in my area and some of their most prized pieces are one that were passed down from parents or are similar to what they or their father used when they were young. Those guns are under 100 years old and thus unable to be classified as an antique.
2. From an investment standpoint, a gun which can fire is worth 50-100% more than one that has been demiliterized. So, having collectors do this would actually distroy their investment. It would be unfair to punish those who abide by the law
3. Gun owners must register a gun in their name, fill out paperwork, present a valid ID, and so forth. If the gun they purchase is used to commit a crime by someone else, they can be held liable for the damages since the gun was their responcibility.
4. Guns are used to feed the hungry, kill encroching wildlife (like hogs) that is harming native wildlife, control the population of wildlife (such as deer. thanks to hunters, many areas have healthier deer because the population was controlled and a good ratio of males to females because of the tag limits), shot targets for fun, as well as protect the home. The last one is just one small part of a gun's uses that most of us hope to never have to use.
5. When confronted with a drawn gun, the majority of assalents will surrender or run. No shots fired
6. A 1997 study prison inmates found that the majority of them who comitted crimes with a firearm (80%) got the gun/guns illegally. Possesion of a gun during the crime led to an increased sentence the majority of the time regardless of rather it was used or not.


Edit: Now on a personal note
1. I respect educated opinions. Insulting someone for pointing out their education is like insulting a RN after asking him/her an off duty question. If you don't agree, go do your own research and either prove or disprove the theory beyond a doubt with data.
2. Data and information changes minds for the better while insults strengthen their conviction to fight against you
3. This is the internet. Things get lost in translation. Many things end up having a completely different meaning to the reader than the writer because of this. Don't jump to conclusions.
4. Mods are mods and mods are humans. Do not look at them as superior or condacending. They are people just as we are who are trying to keep the peace as best as they can

[Bombalurina]

I might just add my two cents, if that's ok. :) I'm not massively well-informed on the details and statistics, but I'm also not emotionally attached to the issue. :)

It seems to me that the reason civilians need guns in the US is because the criminals have them. Where I live (Australia), the criminals have knives, glass bottles and tools: things that I have in my home. Therefore, I don't need a gun, because I'm not trying to fight a gun. Personally, I prefer it this way, but if I lived in a country where the criminals had guns, I would want one too. MY dad once told me that one of the safest towns in the US is one where everybody, no exceptions, carries a visible gun.

For somewhere like here, knowing the basic martial arts that I do is enough. The only way to get a gun here is to go through rigorous testing to get a hunting license. Widening those laws would be silly. However, I think in the US, the opposite problem would occur - narrowing the laws wouldn't work. People already have the guns. They don't want to give them up. Criminals certainly wouldn't give them up. The people who are going to commit gun crimes would do it anyway - they are already committing a crime, so what difference would carrying an illegal gun make to them? If a psychologically disturbed person who is going to shoot a bunch of kids can't get a gun legally, he'll go online and find a way to make a bomb.

Introducing wider gun laws here won't help anything. I don't see that making them more narrow in the US would help anything either.