|
Post by The Captain on Nov 5, 2016 9:31:06 GMT -5
It really isn't. Here in the UK, it is very difficult to legally acquire a gun. As a result of this, there are fewer guns in circulation. Which means that it is also very difficult to llegally acquire a gun. The rate of gun crime here is, unsurprisingly, considerably lower than in the US. In fact, it's been estimated that you are around 30 times less likely to be killed by a gun in the UK than in the US. Isn't that a good enough reason to review the situation? Totally agree with what you're saying, ting. I think the abundance of firearms in the hands of ordinary people in America is ridiculous. In practice, nobody really needs to have a gun in their home, as pretty much the entire population of the UK can attest. And as we've seen, the potential for killing ordinary Americans that they represent is hard to justify. However, there's a logistical problem with disarmament in the U.S., as far as I see it, and that is that guns are so ubiquitous and so fundamentally enshrined in what many Americans believe it is to be American, that any legislation designed at bringing U.S. gun ownership in line with the UK, for instance, would just result in driving those firearms underground. I genuinely think that most Americans would baulk at the idea of giving up their firearms, so what you'd end up with is a country awash with illegal guns in the hands of ordinary people, essentially criminalising large parts of the population. I hate to say it, but I don't see how disarmament in the U.S. could ever work. Disagree with the bolded, only because there are a large number of folks in this country to hunt both for sport and for food. It's not for me, but others enjoy it or rely on it to supplement their food supply, and as they aren't exactly handy for carrying around on the street, I personally feel they are an acceptable item. IRT handguns, I do think that, while target shooting at pistol ranges is a legitimate activity, there are too many of those in circulation. However, disarmament is all well and good as long as the biggest effort is made to get the guns out of ALL hands, not just those that the government can find because the gun owners are law-abiding citizens. The city of Chicago, for instance, has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country, but they have a huge amount in homicides because gang members are killing each other. Now, if you take all of the guns away from the folks who legally bought and control them, you create a situation where they are now at risk from those individuals who choose not to follow the laws.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 5, 2016 10:24:32 GMT -5
Totally agree with what you're saying, ting. I think the abundance of firearms in the hands of ordinary people in America is ridiculous. In practice, nobody really needs to have a gun in their home, as pretty much the entire population of the UK can attest. And as we've seen, the potential for killing ordinary Americans that they represent is hard to justify. However, there's a logistical problem with disarmament in the U.S., as far as I see it, and that is that guns are so ubiquitous and so fundamentally enshrined in what many Americans believe it is to be American, that any legislation designed at bringing U.S. gun ownership in line with the UK, for instance, would just result in driving those firearms underground. I genuinely think that most Americans would baulk at the idea of giving up their firearms, so what you'd end up with is a country awash with illegal guns in the hands of ordinary people, essentially criminalising large parts of the population. I hate to say it, but I don't see how disarmament in the U.S. could ever work. Disagree with the bolded, only because there are a large number of folks in this country to hunt both for sport and for food. It's not for me, but others enjoy it or rely on it to supplement their food supply, and as they aren't exactly handy for carrying around on the street, I personally feel they are an acceptable item. IRT handguns, I do think that, while target shooting at pistol ranges is a legitimate activity, there are too many of those in circulation. However, disarmament is all well and good as long as the biggest effort is made to get the guns out of ALL hands, not just those that the government can find because the gun owners are law-abiding citizens. The city of Chicago, for instance, has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country, but they have a huge amount in homicides because gang members are killing each other. Now, if you take all of the guns away from the folks who legally bought and control them, you create a situation where they are now at risk from those individuals who choose not to follow the laws. Aren't they already at risk from those individuals?
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 5, 2016 11:40:52 GMT -5
Disagree with the bolded, only because there are a large number of folks in this country to hunt both for sport and for food. It's not for me, but others enjoy it or rely on it to supplement their food supply, and as they aren't exactly handy for carrying around on the street, I personally feel they are an acceptable item. IRT handguns, I do think that, while target shooting at pistol ranges is a legitimate activity, there are too many of those in circulation. However, disarmament is all well and good as long as the biggest effort is made to get the guns out of ALL hands, not just those that the government can find because the gun owners are law-abiding citizens. The city of Chicago, for instance, has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country, but they have a huge amount in homicides because gang members are killing each other. Now, if you take all of the guns away from the folks who legally bought and control them, you create a situation where they are now at risk from those individuals who choose not to follow the laws. Aren't they already at risk from those individuals? Short and sweet, I like that. The argument is frequently made that handguns are needed by ordinary citizens for protection. However, study after study has found that having a gun in the home is far, far more likely to result in harm to someone in the household than an intruder.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 12:07:54 GMT -5
In practice, nobody really needs to have a gun in their home, as pretty much the entire population of the UK can attest. Maybe that's in the UK, but we feel a bit safer having one around, and we do. Perfectly legal too. It doesn't mean I borrow it when I go to the mall. I go to the local rifle association ever so often. Fully supportive of the NRA too.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 5, 2016 12:20:30 GMT -5
People may feel safer having a gun at home, but they're actually not. Having a gun at home increases the odds of being shot to death. From the linked article in the American Journal of Epidemiology : I compare a gun to a pet cobra. When we know how to handle a cobra, we're relatively safe from it. It could also presumably bite an unwanted intruder and save our life. But when the numbers are in, it is always safer not to have a cobra in the home.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 5, 2016 12:21:58 GMT -5
In practice, nobody really needs to have a gun in their home, as pretty much the entire population of the UK can attest. Maybe that's in the UK, but we feel a bit safer having one around, and we do. Perfectly legal too. It doesn't mean I borrow it when I go to the mall. I go to the local rifle association ever so often. Fully supportive of the NRA too. But why? It's not actually safer, as has been pointed out, quite the reverse. And how does it actually make your life better?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,070
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 5, 2016 12:38:19 GMT -5
Maybe that's in the UK, but we feel a bit safer having one around, and we do. Perfectly legal too. It doesn't mean I borrow it when I go to the mall. I go to the local rifle association ever so often. Fully supportive of the NRA too. But why? It's not actually safer, as has been pointed out, quite the reverse. And how does it actually make your life better? Quite so, ting. This is what I was gonna say: it's perceived safety that guns provide, not actual safety, as the statistics prove. The only way to legitimately be safer from firearms is for American to be like the UK, where basically no one has a gun at all. Although, as previously noted, I think the idea of the U.S. ever becoming like the UK in that respect is a pipe dream. Edit: America influences Britain in so many, many ways, but gun control is definitely an area where the U.S. could learn a thing or two from us Brits, I think.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 5, 2016 13:19:04 GMT -5
But why? It's not actually safer, as has been pointed out, quite the reverse. And how does it actually make your life better? Quite so, ting. This is what I was gonna say: it's perceived safety that guns provide, not actual safety, as the statistics prove. The only way to legitimately be safer from firearms is for American to be like the UK, where basically no one has a gun at all. Although, as previously noted, I think the idea of the U.S. ever becoming like the UK in that respect is a pipe dream. Edit: America influences Britain in so many, many ways, but gun control is definitely an area where the U.S. could learn a thing or two from us Brits, I think. Quite agree. I personally feel a lot safer living in a country where even the majority of the police don't need to carry firearms, and don't want to either.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Nov 5, 2016 15:43:04 GMT -5
it's perceived safety that guns provide, not actual safety, as the statistics prove. Faced with this choice, Americans consistently choose perceived safety. It's one of our less attractive habits.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 17:32:13 GMT -5
And how does it actually make your life better? Hypothetical situation. Four armed guys (knives) are about break into your bedroom. Mrs Tin is there too. You have time to reach into your drawer. One has a gun. One has your...voice of reason. What would you reach for? They've just broken into your room and one has pulled down his zip. I know what my guy would do. PS Not to go off topic, but I love the way Hillary is so anti-gun and yet surrounds herself with armed security. It's good enough for her own personal safety, but not the average citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 17:45:09 GMT -5
I like Batman but he is a pussy with guns.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Nov 5, 2016 19:14:51 GMT -5
This is me. This is my contribution to the politics thread. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 5, 2016 20:12:15 GMT -5
And how does it actually make your life better? Hypothetical situation. Four armed guys (knives) are about break into your bedroom. Mrs Tin is there too. You have time to reach into your drawer. One has a gun. One has your...voice of reason. What would you reach for? They've just broken into your room and one has pulled down his zip. I know what my guy would do. PS Not to go off topic, but I love the way Hillary is so anti-gun and yet surrounds herself with armed security. It's good enough for her own personal safety, but not the average citizen. Fair question, but why talk about hypothetical situations? People with a gun at home are more likely to be murdered than people who don't have a gun at home. That's not a hypothetical, it's an established fact. Sure, if four guys enter a home and happen to be carrying only knives instead of those ubiquitous guns and the residents manage to wake up before the crooks get to them and manage to reach their gun before they're stabbed and the crooks don't decide to rush them anyway, the story could have a happy ending. It could happen. In the real world, that real world where guns are everywhere, the criminals are very likely to be armed and will shoot the second they feel threatened. Heck, that's what some police officers do, why would criminals hesitate? As for Hillary, true, she is mostly anti-gun yet surrounds herself with armed guards. Everyone can see, though, that she is a far more likely target that Mr. and Mrs. Public, something that warrants an added measure of security. But beyond that, the important point is that she is surrounded by trained professionals. I don't see her waving a Glock around. I absolutely do not begrudge people who feel unsafe and hire bodyguards. Their carrying a gun themselves is a different thing, though, as they're as likely to blow their own foot off as to successfully ward off an attack. A gun is a dangerous tool, no matter how well one trains, and having so many around does not increase security; it increases risk.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 5, 2016 20:15:05 GMT -5
This is me. This is my contribution to the politics thread. Sorry. Heh! You don't have to respect an untenable opinion, lolatadatodo. Just the person who holds it. My wife never ceases to remind me when I am wrong, wrong, wrong about something. (Not that I ever am, of course, but still).
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 5, 2016 22:03:38 GMT -5
Right, I'm going to learn life-lessons from a fictional psychopath who puts under-aged boys in costumes and dangerous situations.
|
|