Gun Laws- Positive or Negative?

[CSolarstorm]

also to add to this. if it was a fake gun, it would have done the same thing to. just making people think that they can potentially be shot will make them go away

Haha, that actually sounds like a good idea. Make fake guns readily available on the market, ones that make convincing noise, and it might scare away gunmen.

 

[chuboy]

Think like a criminal. If my intent is to break the law, why do I care if I have an illegal firearm when it dramatically exponentiates my chances of success? If you have a gun and they don't, you are immediately in control of the situation and your victim will be willing to do as you want because they want to live. Your threat needs to be credible.

I wouldn't bother if guns were too difficult to obtain - requiring police checks, restrictions on the type of firearm etc.

Of course it's too late for that in Murrica because you already let every man, kid and his puppy buy a gun.

Well, let's apply Game Theory. If I have a gun, and my assailant does too, then we're at an equilibrium.

No, you're not. We define a loss as being killed or injured.

You have a gun. Opponent has a gun. Opponent shoots you anyway. You're not going to be in any shape to retaliate despite what action movies tell you.

You can lose whether or not you have a gun because in either situation you can still be killed or injured, even if you try to escape.

If neither is armed, you have a fighting chance if you make a run for it.

Neither of us is going to make the first shot because both of us are better off letting the other guy live if we stay alive ourselves. Taking the offensive means the other guy will shoot and you die, so my assailant is not going to make the first move. So I live and have defended myself.

That is a very contrived chain of events. Any gunshot at the range you are suggesting is essentially not going to leave the victim in any shape to shoot back, assuming you survive.

You claim that criminals are already breaking the law so they have no problem going any further. How do you know that when they go to mug you they are not fully prepared to kill you for your money? If they felt they would be better off being alive and leaving you alone they wouldn't approach you in the first place.

By your logic the US and USSR would have nuked each other a long time ago.

No, they wouldn't. There is no similarity between the scenarios except that they are arms involved. Gosh.

 

[Gergovia]

I wouldn't bother if guns were too difficult to obtain - requiring police checks, restrictions on the type of firearm etc.

Of course it's too late for that in Murrica because you already let every man, kid and his puppy buy a gun.

I would hardly call being required to be the age of 21 and a thorough background check "letting every man, kid, and his puppy buying a gun" but that's just me.

You have a gun. Opponent has a gun. Opponent shoots you anyway. You're not going to be in any shape to retaliate despite what action movies tell you.

You can lose whether or not you have a gun because in either situation you can still be killed or injured, even if you try to escape.

If neither is armed, you have a fighting chance if you make a run for it.

I believe you're overthinking this a little too much. If you are unarmed and your opponent has a gun, you're completely at his or her mercy. They can either choose to rob you and let you go, or rob you and then shoot you after anyway. Which in fact, does happen often because it's in an assailents best interest to exterminate any witness to his crime. If you have a gun as well, you at least have a chance, regardless of your hypothetical situation of "Well he could shoot you first and you'd still be boned" In addition, criminals are like predatory animals in a sense. Clearly, they won't hone in on a target they know can do them serious harm, in the same sense a lion will not attack a strong, healthy Buffalo. They go after the weak and sick ones in the herd first. Armed robberies in neighborhoods in the U.S. where it's common for people to own firearms is very rare, because damage control is at play. If I want to break into someones home, the last thing I want to do is waltz into a place where I myself could very well get injured or lose my life. Guns not also work as an equilibrium, but a deterrent.

You say that if both opponents are unarmed you have a fighting chance to run away, but logic dictates once again that in general at least, a robber or whatever type of criminal in question, will not hone in on a target they don't think they can overpower. Under your hypothetical situation, a woman would stand an equal chance of fighting off a fully grown man if both are unarmed. When in reality, clearly that's not the case. Men are generally faster and more muscular than women are, and the chances clearly aren't on an equal playing field.

No, they wouldn't. There is no similarity between the scenarios except that they are arms involved. Gosh.

It still begs the question as to why countries are allowed to arm themselves, yet invidual citizens may not.

Aaaaanyway, I think many posters in this thread have unwittingly shown that the populous in general can't be trusted with a weapon. I won't deny there are people who need them for legitimate reasons but I don't think that is enough to warrant selling them to just anybody. Farmers and people who live on rural properties should be allowed to obtain a gun if they need one. Some ruffian from the Projects shouldn't. So, ban them or regulate supply. It has been done successfully in many countries.

Put it this way - scientists often need to obtain dangerous chemicals when doing research. Does that mean your local supermarket should be able to sell them in case the scientist needs to pick some more up

Except, how do we decide who's a ruffian and who isn't? There's already a thorough background check, if you have anything pretty dark on there, you aren't getting a gun. It's not the government's place to assume bad character in a person unless they've done something to prove such. If anything, I think someone in the projects could use a gun more than a farmer. If I lived in a downtrodden ghetto where gang violence, rape, robbery, etc, were all day to day things (All of which three things would definitley take place with or without guns) then I'd feel a lot safer owning a firearm in my house.

And whether it's been "successful" in other countries is most certianly a debatable assumption.

Anyways, the following musings are purely anecdotal so I'm aware of their worthlessness in a debate. Continue reading at your own pleasure. I live in one of those small American, hick towns, where everyone and their mother owns a gun. I'm not talking about pistols either. Shotguns, rifles, etc. Things that if they shoot you, it won't leave a bullet hole in your head, it will take it clean off. The people here aren't that well educated, because it's an extremely small town. There just isn't a large enough tax base to fund top notch education aside from bare basics. Yet, despite the fact that you can basically see the entire town in the bar every Saturday night, there hasn't been a gun related crime here for twenty years. People here mainly use guns as a tool, and not so much a weapon. Here way out in the country, people come and drop off their cats by the side of the road, unspayed and unuetered. It's become a really big problem, so we don't really have much of a choice but to shoot them. I know this sounds cruel, but let me explain. Cats that aren't spayed or nuetred breed like CRAZY. If left unchecked, a huge population of feral cats would quickly erupt. Now you might say, why not just take them to the humane society? Well, you can, but there's a catch. First, you have to have the money. The humane society charges 25 dollars per animal to put down. Out here where people literally get from week to week by the skin of their teeth, 25 bucks is a lot of money. Second, you have to catch the the damn things. Which is difficult and potentially dangerous, anyone that knows anything about dealing with feral cats knows this. Further more, if the feral cats are found on your property, the law actually holds you responsible for their welfare. If the humane society comes in uncalled and discovers that the animals are in poor health and you didn't call the humane society or seek medical attention for the animals, WAM, you get nailed with an animal cruelty charge.

Oh, then there's coyotes and weasels that farmers around here have trouble with. Raiding chicken coups and killing other livestock. You could argue there are other ways to kill them, but from my perspective, a gun is the most humane way. Poison? They suffer for hours. Drowning? Have you even seen an animal struggle for it's life while drowning? Guns offer a low risk, humane, and practical population control tool for many people in agricultural areas.

You say that farmers or people in rural areas should be to obtain a gun if they need one, but the kind of regulation you, realistically puts a really big burden on low income farmers, or just rural folk in general. In countries where these strict laws are put in place, obtaining a firearm is like pulling out teeth. Requesting a permit, having your character evaluated, having your home inspected, etc, etc. If there are people out there that realistically can't even afford to have feral cats put down, do you think they have the time and money to fight against heavy government oversight? No. A lot of us would be screwed. What I'm trying to say is simply this; Guns for a lot of Americans, especially in my town, are directly linked to their livelihoods and standard of living.

 

[kaiser soze]

I wouldn't bother if guns were too difficult to obtain - requiring police checks, restrictions on the type of firearm etc.

I might have to nominate you for worst criminal ever - have you seriously never heard of the Black Market?

You have a gun. Opponent has a gun. Opponent shoots you anyway. You're not going to be in any shape to retaliate despite what action movies tell you.

Why does the gunman shoot? If he tries to shoot he's going to be shot as well, and his top priority is to get out alive. It's in his best interest to take the defensive position if you have a gun.

You can lose whether or not you have a gun because in either situation you can still be killed or injured, even if you try to escape.

Your odds of winning are far better with a gun; it's hard to argue against that.

If neither is armed, you have a fighting chance if you make a run for it.

a) You can't assume that. What if it's a woman in heels at night being chased by a rapist?
b) The assailant in this example is armed. Don't be naive, a criminal that wants to succeeded is going to pack heat.

You claim that criminals are already breaking the law so they have no problem going any further. How do you know that when they go to mug you they are not fully prepared to kill you for your money? If they felt they would be better off being alive and leaving you alone they wouldn't approach you in the first place.

Because he has a gun. He can succeed without killing me by getting you to co-operate because he knows you're not going to strike back.

No, they wouldn't. There is no similarity between the scenarios except that they are arms involved. Gosh.

On the contrary, the two situations are very similar. Both parties in both games have a weapon that will eliminate the other. However, if they use it the other side will use theirs against you, so you can't strike first. Just as neither the US or USSR could not make the first nuclear strike, neither the assailant nor defendant in the game can make the first shot because they will be killed.

 

[Litovoi]

On the contrary, the two situations are very similar. Both parties in both games have a weapon that will eliminate the other. However, if they use it the other side will use theirs against you, so you can't strike first. Just as neither the US or USSR could not make the first nuclear strike, neither the assailant nor defendant in the game can make the first shot because they will be killed.

Exactly.

No, you're not. We define a loss as being killed or injured.

You have a gun. Opponent has a gun. Opponent shoots you anyway. You're not going to be in any shape to retaliate despite what action movies tell you.

You can lose whether or not you have a gun because in either situation you can still be killed or injured, even if you try to escape.

If neither is armed, you have a fighting chance if you make a run for it.

First off, you're assuming that the assailant doesn't have a gun, but most likely he will.

Second off, if he DOESN'T have a gun, but you DO, well, thats better than you BOTH being unarmed, right?

 

[Hejiru]

Exactly.



First off, you're assuming that the assailant doesn't have a gun, but most likely he will.

Second off, if he DOESN'T have a gun, but you DO, well, thats better than you BOTH being unarmed, right?

How is that better? If we both have a gun, somebody's gonna die. Neither of us has a gun, then we have to rely on our fists, and it's a lot less likely that one of us is seriously hurt.

 

[Litovoi]

How is that better? If we both have a gun, somebody's gonna die. Neither of us has a gun, then we have to rely on our fists, and it's a lot less likely that one of us is seriously hurt.

Let me say it simply.

You and him have gun=Someone gets hurt or no one gets hurt.

Neither have a gun=Someone gets hurt or victim gets away.

Criminal has gun=Victim dies.

Victim has gun=Criminal doesn't attack, or dies trying. Criminal can only succeed if he surprises victim.

In my personal opinion, option 4 is the best scenario out of those. But if you don't have a gun, then scenario 4 will never happen, at least you have a chance for it to happen if you have a gun.

 

[chuboy]

If guns were easily obtainable you can be certain option 4 would never happen. Just saying.

Option 3 is a misnomer, you won't always die. And in Option 1, one or both of you may still die. The only way you can be certain no one is killed is under Option 2.

If you're a woman concerned about being confronted on the street then a can of pepper spray is much better suited to the job. Easier to use, only useful against people who are close to you, and very effective against 'rapists in the street' (although that is almost never the case, the majority of rapists are well-acquainted with their victim).

I know guns can be used, arguably, to defend oneself. I just don't believe that are necessary to give to civilians. The parts of a gun that are useful to a civilian are also parts of pepper spray, self-defence training, a blunt object under the bed and common sense. But none of those comes with the same level of risk that comes with a gun.

 

[Litovoi]

You're still missing the point that the criminal won't attack unless he thinks he can win. A gun will discourage him. And honestly, option 4 may injure the criminal, but who cares? He tried to hurt you. Option three, most of the time victim dies-no eye witnesses. Option 2 IS NOT SAFE. The criminal won't attack unless he thinks he can win, therefore, if niether of you have a gun, the criminal has a very high chance of success, due to the fact he will most likely be stronger, faster, or both.

 

[chuboy]

How is a criminal supposed to know that you can defend yourself? Like I said, some martial arts training or a can of pepper spray does exactly the same as what a civilian would want a gun to do. Except that you can't use either to say, rob a bank.

Let's not forget the best weapon of all either - common sense. You are (a) stupid to take on a criminal in the first place. But also, you are (b) stupid to find yourself in a situation where you an attractive target for a confrontation in the first place. Don't carry wads of cash on your person - give your wallet to a mugger and cancel your cards when you get home. Don't flash your jewellery and expensive accessories. Don't walk alone in trouble-spots. Don't aggravate people. Don't try and fight someone in a bar who called you a queer to save face.

Guns can't help these kinds of people. They can only help themselves.

I'll say again, no civilian needs a gun in this day and age. I have heard nothing so far except contrived excuses to the contrary.

 

[Litovoi]

How is a criminal supposed to know that you can defend yourself? Like I said, some martial arts training or a can of pepper spray does exactly the same as what a civilian would want a gun to do. Except that you can't use either to say, rob a bank.

Except that the robbers can still get guns.

Let's not forget the best weapon of all either - common sense. You are (a) stupid to take on a criminal in the first place. But also, you are (b) stupid to find yourself in a situation where you an attractive target for a confrontation in the first place. Don't carry wads of cash on your person - give your wallet to a mugger and cancel your cards when you get home. Don't flash your jewellery and expensive accessories. Don't walk alone in trouble-spots. Don't aggravate people. Don't try and fight someone in a bar who called you a queer to save face.

(a) You may have no choice. (b) No one goes around waving money, and most robberies are random. A mugger won't want witnesses, you see him and you'll probably end up dead. Of course don't walk in trouble spots, but thats not the only places criminals will be. Many hide in plain sight. And we're not talking about starting fights and aggravating people, we are talking about self defense.

Guns can't help these kinds of people. They can only help themselves.

I'll say again, no civilian needs a gun in this day and age. I have heard nothing so far except contrived excuses to the contrary.

And all I've heard from you is the same thing. You're being hard-headed and not facing facts. If a criminal has a gun(which many will) they mean business and will probably kill you. Without a gun you have no chance.

 

[chuboy]

Except that the robbers can still get guns.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO EXPRESS THIS WHOLE TIME.

Strict gun control was required in the first place. Here in Australia hardly anyone has even held a gun. You can get them if you are a farmer or you are a member of a shooting club but your details and the details of the firearm are recorded when you apply for a gun licence.

Police carry guns but they don't get to take them home in order to prevent gun robbery.

As a result hardly any petty crimes involve firearms. Of course the kingpins and underworld bosses have guns but that is a separate problem entirely as the general populous does not get involved with the underworld.

You're being hard-headed and not facing facts. If a criminal has a gun(which many will) they mean business and will probably kill you. Without a gun you have no chance.

If killing is a bad thing, why are we letting people have access to guns?

If your opponent has a gun the way you yourself put it you will die either way. I fail to see how your having a gun is going to stop your opponent if he was prepared to kill you in the first place. If you get shot, you won't be able to fire back so it's not like he's worried that he can't attack first. In a situation where there are no witnesses (in your ideal case) there would be no stalemate. He's going to shoot you either way.

All you can do is make it super hard to come by a gun in the first place and learn how to deal with situations where you are threatened by an armed attacker.

Oh, and by the way, killing someone with a gun (even if they tried to rob you) is still murder and if you can even bring yourself to do it you'll have a lot of trouble sleeping at night nevertheless.

As far as I'm concerned arms have done no good for anybody.

 

[pikapikachiu]

(a) You may have no choice. (b) No one goes around waving money, and most robberies are random. A mugger won't want witnesses, you see him and you'll probably end up dead. Of course don't walk in trouble spots, but thats not the only places criminals will be. Many hide in plain sight. And we're not talking about starting fights and aggravating people, we are talking about self defense.

The last thing a mugger wants is to be caught. killing someone leaves alot of evidence and a man hunt for the mugger. also its not very likely that a criminal just wants to attack you for no other purpose than to attack you. Also in self defense classes, they tell you to cooperate with the criminal as your main objective so you can get away.

And all I've heard from you is the same thing. You're being hard-headed and not facing facts. If a criminal has a gun(which many will) they mean business and will probably kill you. Without a gun you have no chance.

im gonna have to agree with chuboy and his views. the scenarios that you been providing are pretty black and white saying criminals are bad and they will kill you. its very gray when it comes to criminals due to different motives. like a criminal who is a bit short on money to pay off someone is gonna act completely differently than someone who is part of a criminal organization.

 

[kaiser soze]

Chuboy, you once again are ignoring the fact that there's more than one way to get a gun if you really want it. Even if you can't buy one legally, there's always the black market.

Of course the kingpins and underworld bosses have guns but that is a separate problem entirely as the general populous does not get involved with the underworld.

OMG people that want guns get them illegally? Imagine that! So how do you defend yourself against a gang when they have guns again?

If your opponent has a gun the way you yourself put it you will die either way. I fail to see how your having a gun is going to stop your opponent if he was prepared to kill you in the first place. If you get shot, you won't be able to fire back so it's not like he's worried that he can't attack first. In a situation where there are no witnesses (in your ideal case) there would be no stalemate. He's going to shoot you either way.

Once again, most crimes involving guns do not involve actually killing someone because that's a whole different level. There's more crimes than murder. Using a gun is to force your victim to comply with you. By your logic, every connivence store clerk would die after they get robbed.

All you can do is make it super hard to come by a gun in the first place and learn how to deal with situations where you are threatened by an armed attacker.

Hear that? Someone just bought a gun over the black market, laughing in the face of restrictions on gun retail.

I'm failing to see any convincing arguments on why I should be legally restricted from buying a gun for sport purposes and/or self defense.

 

[chuboy]

Chuboy, you once again are ignoring the fact that there's more than one way to get a gun if you really want it. Even if you can't buy one legally, there's always the black market.

I know that. But look at it this way. If it's nigh on impossible to get a gun because they are so heavily controlled (imports included) then far fewer guns are going to end up on the black market.

So the total number of guns available to criminals will be lower, and the price for the gun will go up commensurate with demanding, putting them out of reach for petty criminals.

OMG people that want guns get them illegally? Imagine that! So how do you defend yourself against a gang when they have guns again?

Let's be realistic here. Even in America where you can buy a gun, you're not going to single-handedly take down an underworld gang. If you are outnumbered even 2-1 the fact is you are almost certain to lose.

Once again, most crimes involving guns do not involve actually killing someone because that's a whole different level. There's more crimes than murder. Using a gun is to force your victim to comply with you. By your logic, every connivence store clerk would die after they get robbed.

No, that wasn't my logic. That was litovoi's logic. Convenience store clerks aren't killed every night and while I'm sure many of them are held up, not all of them have guns to fend off an attacker.

The safest thing to do in a situation where you are confronted is to submit to the demands of the attacker. It's not ideal but what price do you put on your safety? In the future maybe you won't allow yourself to get into the situation in the first place.

Hear that? Someone just bought a gun over the black market, laughing in the face of restrictions on gun retail.

Gun retail doesn't exist here in Australia where control is strict on access to guns and munitions. Most people don't even know where they could get a gun licence let alone a gun.

There are guns for gun clubs, police officers and made available to farmers who live on very rural property. Except in the latter case, guns don't go home with the person, they stay locked away until the next time they are to be used.

As I said, this means the black market is smaller and has a greater demand for weapons than there is a supply - the fewer guns that are available are out of the price reach of the criminals that wouldn't kill you anyway.

I'm failing to see any convincing arguments on why I should be legally restricted from buying a gun for sport purposes and/or self defense.

YOU CAN EASILY HARM A PERSON WITH A GUN. That is not the kind of temptation you want to give people as a whole. The government can't trust people to treat their own bodies with respect (i.e. banning recreational drugs) and yet we are allowed to take the law into our own hands and harm others?

If want to use a gun for sport, join a gun club and use their guns.

There is no reason why we should give a lethal weapon out to anyone who wants one when there are safer alternatives to every conceivable civilian use for them.

I think you are being rather stubborn in refusing to see that self-defence is really the opposite of a gun.

 

[Gergovia]

How is a criminal supposed to know that you can defend yourself? Like I said, some martial arts training or a can of pepper spray does exactly the same as what a civilian would want a gun to do. Except that you can't use either to say, rob a bank.

I'd like to know what even the best martial artist in the world could do against someone who had a gun, standing 5 feet from him.

There is no reason why we should give a lethal weapon out to anyone who wants one when there are safer alternatives to every conceivable civilian use for them.

I think you are being rather stubborn in refusing to see that self-defence is really the opposite of a gun.

Wait, you're from Australia anyways, right? It doesn't really mean much to say that gun sales are low in your country. You're an Island nation, like Britian. It's a hell of a lot easier for your government manage the flow of arms in the first place.

 

[chuboy]

Ok well since the debate is about gun control you shouldn't assume there are already guns everywhere.

This is a purely hypothetical debate about whether they should have been allowed in the first place. I have already acknowledged you Murricans are too far up sht creek to change the rule now, the market is already saturated with weapons.

Suppose that your border control was competent enough to manage the inflow of guns (we know this not true but for argument's sake), and suppose guns had never been legalised prior to now. Would you still argue people should be allowed to buy them?

 

[Silvershark]

Ok well since the debate is about gun control you shouldn't assume there are already guns everywhere.

This is a purely hypothetical debate about whether they should have been allowed in the first place. I have already acknowledged you Murricans are too far up sht creek to change the rule now, the market is already saturated with weapons.

Suppose that your border control was competent enough to manage the inflow of guns (we know this not true but for argument's sake), and suppose guns had never been legalised prior to now. Would you still argue people should be allowed to buy them?

Yes, simply because to deny law abiding citizens the liberty of owning a firearm in the first place would be a horrendous violation of personal rights. Of course in this hypothetical situation, it wouldn't matter if guns suddenly became legal, because nearly everyone would already have one; obtained through a black market of smuggled and homemade firearms just as was the case with alcohol during the prohibition era.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Of course in this hypothetical situation, it wouldn't matter if guns suddenly became legal, because nearly everyone would already have one; obtained through a black market of smuggled and homemade firearms just as was the case with alcohol during the prohibition era.

I don't think people are as desperate to get guns as they were desperate to get beer during prohibition. And beer/alcohols are easy to brew. You could even get alcohol in internment camps by letting fruit fester. I remember guns being the first thing to benefit from factory assembly in my history book, meaning that they were probably not that simply to make at home. They would probably be more scarce than alcohol was.

 

[littlea53]

I don't think people are as desperate to get guns as they were desperate to get beer during prohibition. And beer/alcohols are easy to brew. You could even get alcohol in internment camps by letting fruit fester. I remember guns being the first thing to benefit from factory assembly in my history book, meaning that they were probably not that simply to make at home. They would probably be more scarce than alcohol was.

Homemade guns are easier to manufacture than you think. They are Homemade firearms, also known as garage guns, Chechnyan Firecrackers and scrap weapons. Most garage guns are made out of easily acquired pieces of trash and industrial debris. They can be as simple as a lead tube with a rubber-band-powered firing pin, or a fully automatic pistol made out of aluminum cans and assorted sprockets. Improvised firearms are legal under federal law, as long as the weapon does not violate any existing gun laws. You can even make silencers and sawed-off homemade shotguns if you get the proper tax stamps. There are a variety of guides for building home-made guns available for free online. Chechnyan rebels are the most prolific creators (and users) of these guides.

Your probably thinking, Holy Balls, Why is this Legal?

First of all, because a gun with an unrifled barrel is only accurate to a few inches. Since most professionally manufactured firearms are legal in the USA, banning homemade ones doesn't make much sense. Neither China, the gun-control capital of the world, nor Russia have been able to stop their dissident populations from building their own firearms. Since you can literally build a gun out of the contents of a trash bin, any laws made to stop self-made firearms would be almost unenforceable.