Why is there so much hate for guns?

[Orignal Earl]

the concept of guns is so foreign to people because they no longer exercise their right to bear arms.

Everybody here has guns, the thought that they would ever be used on people only enters people minds while watching an apocalypse movie

Foreigners seem to have this goofy idea that America is some lesser version of Somalia and that you have to "watch your back" at all times because of all the guns.

Compared to the other Western Countries, the US is like a third world country when you look at the violence etc. Just look at the other threads here, you got your race war posters, your war with the gov posters, the food riot posters, hell 80% of the stuff posted here is about the US crashing and burning

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1

 

[PrinceofWands]

Compared to the other Western Countries, the US is like a third world country when you look at the violence etc. Just look at the other threads here, you got your race war posters, your war with the gov posters, the food riot posters, hell 80% of the stuff posted here is about the US crashing and burning

Except that you're utterly wrong. We're back to 1960's levels of violence while places like UK are imploding pits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

Even when you account for differences in definition the UK remains FAR more violent and crime ridden than the US. The only real difference is in murder rate, in which the US is about 4 times higher.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Except that you're utterly wrong. We're back to 1960's levels of violence while places like UK are imploding pits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

Even when you account for differences in definition the UK remains FAR more violent and crime ridden than the US. The only real difference is in murder rate, in which the US is about 4 times higher.

The differences in the definitions is a very large factor when sorting this out.
What are the differences between the US and British crime rate/stats?

 

[PrinceofWands]

The differences in the definitions is a very large factor when sorting this out.
What are the differences between the US and British crime rate/stats?

There's tons of coverage on this issue, and plenty of academic research that addresses it. Depending on which you prefer UK still comes down ~twice as violent, again except for homicide. Feel free to google on it, there's plenty of analyses out there.

 

[raildogg]

The gun is not the problem. The issue is why people want guns in the first place. They have violent tendencies or fears that compel them to want a gun. Yes, killing animals is a violent tendency.

 

[Phanuel]

How do we get meat then? I'm confused.

 

[raildogg]

How do we get meat then? I'm confused.

So these hunters only hunt for meat? Not for amusement and entertainment?

 

[Phanuel]

If you're hunting the in the US, yes. You need a permit to hunt in pretty much every state and it is for a specific kind of animal and limited number of them and only for a period of time.

That's a lot of trouble to go through just to put a hole in a deer or an elk.

 

[Subyman]

I don't know why people get so upset about guns. My shotgun has been sitting in the closet minding its own business for years without issue.

 

[Subyman]

If you're hunting the in the US, yes. You need a permit to hunt in pretty much every state and it is for a specific kind of animal and limited number of them and only for a period of time.

That's a lot of trouble to go through just to put a hole in a deer or an elk.

Its more than putting a hole in an animal. Most hunters use the meat. A decent sized deer yields over 60lbs of meat. Larger game can feed an entire family's meat needs for two seasons. Its the preparation, patience, research, orienteering, marksmanship, and more that makes hunting a fun and popular sport, not just "wasting" game.

 

[Chuck_v]

I own a handgun for one reason only, I will not be a defenseless victim. I carry a lawfully licensed to carry concealed handgun. My wife and I are alive today because I lawfully carry concealed. Two POS broke into our home hell bent on robbing us and leaving us for dead so we would not be able to ID them. They had no idea I was armed and intended to defend us. I defended my wife and myself with my .45 semi-auto and the bottom line is there are two less POS making a living preying on decent people. By the way I do not believe in the concept of a fair fight and neither do criminals of any sort.

I own a gun to defend myself, my loved ones and my property. I recommend other law abiding folks do the same because I have no desire nor obligation to protect them, their loved ones or their property.

There will always be pro and con on gun ownership, gun control and use of lethal force. Personally I don't care who is for or against the gun issues. I will never give up my weapons...period.

 

[Chuck_v]

The gun is not the problem. The issue is why people want guns in the first place. They have violent tendencies or fears that compel them to want a gun. Yes, killing animals is a violent tendency.

Guns more than compensate for predators. Predators like to prey upon what they deem to be the weakest. So at the age of 66 as I am should a predator or predators desire to bring harm upon me or my loved ones I have the ability to deal with them while awaiting the police , EMT's or the coroner. The average across the nation response time for a 911 is around 20 minutes, my .45 semi-auto response time is 1000 feet per second.

 

[blankslate]

I defended my wife and myself with my .45 semi-auto and the bottom line is there are two less POS making a living preying on decent people. By the way I do not believe in the concept of a fair fight and neither do criminals of any sort.

1911 or Glock? Some people talk like you need multiple magazines of 15-20+ capacities ready for reloading to be able to adequately defend one's home and lives. Did you have to reload?

I know of no proposed Federal Law suggested in the wake of Sandy Hook that would have restricted the weapon you used or lessened your ability to defend yourself.

 

[Fenixgoon]

1911 or Glock? Some people talk like you need multiple magazines of 15-20+ capacities ready for reloading to be able to adequately defend one's home and lives. Did you have to reload?

I know of no proposed Federal Law suggested in the wake of Sandy Hook that would have restricted the weapon you used or lessened your ability to defend yourself.

and in a DOJ study of new jersey gun crime, "high capacity" magazines were used only in a fraction of the crimes (25%). of those crimes, it was unclear how much a difference having a "high capacity" magazine made.

rifles and shotguns are better at home defense than pistols because they are more accurate. pistols are easier to conceal, store, and access.

223 and 556 rifle rounds are actually BETTER than 9mm/40S&W/45ACP because they penetrate LESS- meaning if you miss your target, you aren't going to damage as badly whatever is on the other side of a wall.

an AWB would limit effective home defense if the firearm of choice is a rifle that is affected by the ban.

 

[Phanuel]

1911 or Glock? Some people talk like you need multiple magazines of 15-20+ capacities ready for reloading to be able to adequately defend one's home and lives. Did you have to reload?

I know of no proposed Federal Law suggested in the wake of Sandy Hook that would have restricted the weapon you used or lessened your ability to defend yourself.

What type of firearm is involved in the largest % of homicides in the US? Long guns are less than 2%, pistols are the remaining 98%.

Why are you trying to ban long arms again instead of pistols?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The gun is not the problem. The issue is why people want guns in the first place. They have violent tendencies or fears that compel them to want a gun. Yes, killing animals is a violent tendency.

Why does government need firearms domestically?


Oh that's right because government is itself has proven through its history to have the capacity and willingness to be violent against those it governs. Which then means the people are justified in their desire for protection when government has demonstrated and proven its ability to use force against those who dare to dissent.

 

[Orignal Earl]

There's tons of coverage on this issue, and plenty of academic research that addresses it. Depending on which you prefer UK still comes down ~twice as violent, again except for homicide. Feel free to google on it, there's plenty of analyses out there.

This was at the top of my google search, what is on top of yours?

Pro-gun advocates have argued the United Kingdom is a perfect example of how ineffective gun laws are on crime. Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the world, the U.K. has a far higher violent crime rate than the U.S.

However, a closer look shows the U.S. has more burglaries, rapes, and murders than the U.K. The reason for the U.K.'s higher violent crime rate is their far broader definition of a "violent" crime.

An oft-cited source for the argument that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than the U.K. is a 2009 article in the Daily Mail, an English tabloid. The story put the U.K. at the top of a so-called "League of Shame" for its violence.

The statistics in that article were compiled by Britain's Conservative Party and drawn from different reports by the United Nations and the European Commission. They do not appear to be part of an official study, and specific reports used by the U.N. and E.C. were not named.
Citing various crime statistics, the article claims the U.K. was the most violent country in the EU. However, that title was not given by the EU or U.N.

Rather, it was Britain's Conservative Party that named Britain "the most violent in the EU" on a day when one of its members was scheduled to give a speech on crime.

Despite the lack of sources for the numbers, and the possible partisan politicking of Britain's Conservative Party, it's worth comparing to U.S. numbers compiled by the FBI.

According to the FBI, there are four crimes classified as "violent" in crime statistics: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The list does not include burglaries, which is considered a property crime in the U.S. but a violent crime in the U.K.

In addition to murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault and burglary, England and Wales classify domestic violence and all sexual offenses - not just forcible rape - as violent.

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20549515/do-guns-stop-violence-the-us-has-more-rapes-and-murders-than-uk

 

[blankslate]

What type of firearm is involved in the largest % of homicides in the US? Long guns are less than 2%, pistols are the remaining 98%.

Why are you trying to ban long arms again instead of pistols?

What makes you think I'm trying to ban rifles? You shouldn't lump everyone who supports some new firearms legislation in the same category. You end up with idiot posts like yours

 

[irishScott]

Compared to the other Western Countries, the US is like a third world country when you look at the violence etc. Just look at the other threads here, you got your race war posters, your war with the gov posters, the food riot posters, hell 80% of the stuff posted here is about the US crashing and burning

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1

Yeah, because the news coming out of Europe and elswhere is all sunshine and bunnies.

You realize most of the United States is not a major city right? And that cities are typically quite isolated. If you don't live in a city, like most Americans, you aren't exposed to city crime. Even if you live in a city there are simply areas you avoid.

America, on the whole, is quite safe. You can say your stats are numerically better than ours, but that doesn't make ours "bad" when put into context.

Bottom line, having lived here my entire life in multiple areas, I have never seen nor heard a gun fired in anger, and know no one who has. In fact many of my peers have never even seen a gun in real life. Many times I've walked around my local main street at 5 in the morning and felt perfectly safe.

I chalk it up to a European/Canadian inferiority complex. You can keep your marginally better, arguably worse crime stats, I wouldn't move to Europe or Canada even if you doubled my salary.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I chalk it up to a European/Canadian inferiority complex. You can keep your marginally better, arguably worse crime stats, I wouldn't move to Europe or Canada even if you doubled my salary.

Alrighty

 

[OverVolt]

A higher percentage of UK's citizens are victims of violent crime compared to the US. No ability to defend yourself equals higher rape/assault/burglary, but as for the illegal drug element, less killings.

Although it doesn't matter to me since I'm not a gangster.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Why does government need firearms domestically?


Oh that's right because government is itself has proven through its history to have the capacity and willingness to be violent against those it governs. Which then means the people are justified in their desire for protection when government has demonstrated and proven its ability to use force against those who dare to dissent.

I feel like this is some sort of fantasy of the gun nuts. Like somehow when the government starts cracking down on you and the tanks start rolling through the streets, your .45 ACP is going to save your butt. Even if you had more firepower, so what? Do you really think all people buy guns to keep the government in check? Look at all the western countries out there with severe gun control laws. No, their governments aren't raping them.

If you honestly look at US history, if we didn't have guns, history of domestic issues would not have changed. We would not be some dictatorship like North Korea where we're helpless.

And honestly if the country were to descend into such a state, I'd GTFO. If you want to stay with your guns, go fight those tanks. I'd rather GTFO at that point.

 

[irishScott]

I feel like this is some sort of fantasy of the gun nuts. Like somehow when the government starts cracking down on you and the tanks start rolling through the streets, your .45 ACP is going to save your butt. Even if you had more firepower, so what? Do you really think all people buy guns to keep the government in check? Look at all the western countries out there with severe gun control laws. No, their governments aren't raping them.

If you honestly look at US history, if we didn't have guns, history of domestic issues would not have changed. We would not be some dictatorship like North Korea where we're helpless.

And honestly if the country were to descend into such a state, I'd GTFO. If you want to stay with your guns, go fight those tanks. I'd rather GTFO at that point.

Supporting that would take an academic study in and of itself, you'd be re-writing a lot of history.

You think rifles are useless against tanks? Go take a look at Afghanistan, and watch what they do (hint: They don't shoot at the tanks with the rifles).

The entire domestic US military is dependent upon unsecured civilian infrastructure. If armed civilians cut all the supply lines, tanks aren't going to be rolling around for very long. Never mind they'd be all but useless in a properly run guerrilla war aside from defensive use.

Unless the US military is prepared to carpet-bomb cities, they simply lack the capacity of contain a widespread, properly organized, armed rebellion.

So please stop reducing material for doctoral dissertations to "just looking at history honestly", and stop reducing an armed revolt to a 5 year old's play-time with plastic soldiers and tanks.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The point is that having citizens with guns is not even a real deterrent to the government misbehaving. The reason why our government has been mostly functional for the course of American history is because the system of democracy has accountability built in and so you can replace your leaders as necessary.

If the US military wanted to crush you, it would crush you. And obviously the US military doesn't just have tanks. There's plenty of mechanisms for dealing with guerrilla warfare. I'm not saying it'd be a slam dunk victory. It'd be ugly.

But once again acting like you have some noble cause of keeping the government in check with your guns is pretty ridiculous.

The argument for home defense is great, but this whole fantasy of revolution and some foreign power invading and pulling an Afghanistan is kinda ridiculous.

 

[OverVolt]

The point is that having citizens with guns is not even a real deterrent to the government misbehaving. The reason why our government has been mostly functional for the course of American history is because the system of democracy has accountability built in and so you can replace your leaders as necessary.

If the US military wanted to crush you, it would crush you. And obviously the US military doesn't just have tanks. There's plenty of mechanisms for dealing with guerrilla warfare. I'm not saying it'd be a slam dunk victory. It'd be ugly.

But once again acting like you have some noble cause of keeping the government in check with your guns is pretty ridiculous.

The argument for home defense is great, but this whole fantasy of revolution and some foreign power invading and pulling an Afghanistan is kinda ridiculous.

In Syria they took a military base with small arms.

Its not about military vs population, they have better equipment. Its about forcing the military to fire on civilians. It kills their morale. Then they join the civilians instead of the politicians. Like in Egypt.

The actual fighting doesn't matter. Loyalty matters. With an armed population the soldiers have to live on the base since its not safe anywhere else and morale plummets.

You should try reading the news sometime because there are recent precedents for it mattering if the population has small arms or not. There are places where the population got the proverbial boot on the face in the arab spring. The unarmed ones :awe:

Who cares about in my lifetime. You really think America will be stable forever? What about 400 years from now. They'd be so pissed if things went south and people in 2013 took away the right to bear arms. All empires seem to last 400-700 years or so.