The catch-all gun thread

[TheBeardedDude]

Actually, it's you who fail to see the point, and the big picture. I didn't mention criminals obtaining guns illegally, because it's so obvious. What I'm trying to get across here is not those who are criminals, but the trigger happy nutters with guns. Easy gun access leads to higher probabilities to get shot, regardless if the person shooting you is a previous criminal or not. Tell me, just how many times have you had someone point a gun at you with malicious intent? If you feel like you need to protect yourself against people with guns, it defeats the purpose if everyone are allowed to carry one, since without guns, no threat. And, there's a much deeper problem if civilians can't depend on law enforcement to do their jobs, without being corrupt or biased etc. That however does not get corrected by letting everyone carry guns and "defend themselves", but by addressing the problem of corruption. And if you like FFF keep your guns locked up, well, good luck if you aren't home and someone puts a gun to your temple. You're screwed anyways, gun owner or not. If the perpetrator is close enough, I can guarantee you that martial arts come in handy. As for banning guns I have never suggested that and I am not of the opinion that it's a good idea.

Holy shit, you're so naive. First of all, where's your evidence which shows that easier access to guns leads to more people getting shot? Do you really think real life is like those Hollywood movies where people shoot guns everywhere without a care in the world? Also, in response to your laughable claim that if there are no guns there's no threat, I want you to take a look at this graph:



The violent crime rate in America is at an all-time low while gun ownership is at an all-time high. That is not a coincidence. More guns in the hands of more people leads to less violent crime. Criminals aren't stupid. They don't wanna get shot. They don't want to rob a house if they know that the residents are armed. On the other hand, gun-free zones like Chicago are absolutely infested with crime. England took the guns away twenty years ago which has led to a tripling of their overall crime rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...urope.html

In response to your point about police, let me tell you this. If an intruder breaks into your house, you have two options: you can either get your gun or call the police. If you call the police, then they will get to your house, and when they do, they'll take a picture of your corpse. The police will never get there in time to save you. As the old saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Violent crime rate has been dropping globally, including places where gun ownership is historically low. So gun ownership appears to have no causal connection to that trend, only coincidental.

---

Mass shooting frequency however, does appear directly linked to increased gun quantities and access. The best example is Australia where they were averaging one mass shooting every few years (compare that to the US where it is closer to one every 2 weeks). Since they amended their gun laws in 96, they have had 0.

0<- zip. None. Nota. Zero.

And they didn't ban all guns to do that either.

---

And Australia also saw a pleasant drop in both suicide by gun and gun rates overall. Both dropped and have stayed lower than previously. It's a very similar trend to that seen in the UK when people switched from coal to electric heat. The impulsive option for suicide was removed and people who otherwise would have killed themselves in a depressive moment, did not. And continue to not kill themselves thanks to better gun laws.