The Gun Control Can'O Worms

[Gizmo-5]

So, Inspired by the Germans vs Paintball thread it got me thinking about Good old US gun control policy. I think ive pretty much got a rock solid argument why the US should adopt a more UK level of policy and i would be GENUINELY interested if someone could come up with a good reason not too.

Instead of listing why GUNZ R BAD, ive instead listed all the arguments made by pro gunners, and broken them down so that, imo theyve been successfully countered.

PLEEEEEEEASE discuss, and keep it civil

Reasons why the US policy on gun control is A-Ok

1: It is my Constitutional Right to bare arms
Correct, However this Right was written a long time ago in a context far far away. For a start this was to allow the United states to be ready for war in 60 seconds (see minutemen) and was a way of avoiding the need for a professional army, while maintining a potent defencive force. It was designed so that you could defend your property from Imposing ARMIES, not thieves. You also now have the most expensive and well equipped army and police force in the world, why do you need a home defence militia. Secondly and more importantly, Firearms have changed alot in the last 300 years. In 1776 Muskets were so inneffective at killing people, that you needed lines of 40 men to fire at once to do any damage. Now, even someone whos played a few videogames, and done a bit of reasearch can kill a room full of people in a fraction of a second. Accuracy is phenomenal, rate of fire is phenomenal, and overall 1 man kill potential is phenomenal. Making you, as a combatant a far greater threat. You cant exactly perform a drive by shooting with a musket. And it would be far less practical to rob a store. But I do have a compromise. You may retain your right to bare arms. But only of those created before the 2nd amendment was written.

2: If your gonna ban guns, why dont you ban knives/chairs/*moronic additions here*
Anyone who qoutes this, really needs to rethink the situation. Knives have a multitude of uses aside from ending human life, and also cannot perform this task at long range. (Neither can chairs btw) A gun is therefor specific in its design that it is a tool efficient in murdering people. Nannums (for example) with a gun could murder me faster (1 bullet can kill a good 70%+ of the time), easier (no phyisical strength is required), and further away than i could ever achieve with a knife. It is also important to note that as a knife is a proximity weapon it would be easier for my victim to avoid and if i were to attack him, there is a much better chance of me being caught due to blood splatter, and the fact that nannums may very well see me on the attack. Pure and simple, Guns are DESIGNED to kill people, knives are not.

3: The Bad Guys are always gonna have them, i need to defend my home/kids/self
This is probably the most important and valid point made. Nomatter how right i may or may not be, the US situation will not change. There are simply put, too many guns in america to get rid of them all. Pro Gunnies believe that if we were to turn back the clock and ban guns altogether. Then the bad people who dont care about breaking the law, and having a gun illegally would still get hold of them, and without the good honest people around to fight back, would be at an even greater advantage.

There is an element of truth in this.

There will always be (in whatever country) those groups who have the hardcore contacts to get hold of such things. However, to deny the fact that "casual" Gun fatalitys, outside of organised crime would not go down is sheer ignorance of logic. If guns are rare, then only the superbad are going to get at them. And they are probably in a very small minority to the rest of your population. It also would probably cut police fatalities hugely, and would result in a less aggressive police force. All i can say is, trust your police. By cutting casual gun crime you would be making them much more effective.

4: Guns dont kill people, people kill people
Walk down the street and pick a few people who look shifty. Would you like to know they had a GUN? "Derf derf, Its ok Gizmo, I has a gun too lol" Shootouts? Are you serious? This is what the police are for! Its all about trust. America is a paranoid society. And quite frankly, i dont trust you. Hell i dont even trust me. If i had access to a gun, had had one too many, had had a really bad day and youd really pissed me off, whos to say that in a moment of madness i didnt blow your face off to spite you. Do you really want to go out knowing that a bunch of on the edge paranoid maniacs have the equipment to kill you in an instant? Maybe i'd feel safe in the netherlands, but the US? are you kidding me? Guns Facilitate the killing of people. And they make it much easier, and cleaner. It takes a certain level of aggression to stab someone to death. Guns, i would say not so much.

5: I am a lady/minority/other and am at risk from exploitation from criminals
Your talking about murdering someone. How can you murder someone in self defence? Any Self defence teacher worth their belt will tell you that getting away without fighting is your best option. There are also plenty of non lethal self defence measures such as mace and at most Tazers. At best run, at worst, give them what they want. Sexual assaults are more complicated. But are we subconciously agreeing that as sickening as such acts are they warrant the act of murder?

6: My friend once stopped a crime by using a gun so...
Good for them, they took a risk, and it payed off. Im sure it is much more common however for such reckless vigilantism to go horribly wrong. And again, back to point 3, guns create potential murderers. If someone is robbing you, is it ok to murder them? If someone is raping you, is it ok to murder them? If someone is trying to murder you? Are they using a gun? Are they in organised crime? Probably Not. But Supply and demand dictates that the amount of guns in america allows for slacker control on who has them.

7: Guns are cool, and they make me feel powerful
They are, and they do. But id rather walk down the street at night knowing that if someone jumps from the shadows i can run away.

So thats it, im sure i missed some things, and got a bit rambly towards the end. But thats my complate counterargument to Gun Policy.

In Summary

Abundance of Guns creates abundance of potential Murderers. And facilitates an easier act of murder.

 

[Nanor]

1: It is my Constitutional Right to bare arms

Like Michelle Obama and the Queen? AMIRITE?

Will come up with a decent reply after work.

 

[PsiSoldier]

1: It is my Constitutional Right to bare arms
Correct, However this Right was written a long time ago in a context far far away. For a start this was to allow the United states to be ready for war in 60 seconds (see minutemen) and was a way of avoiding the need for a professional army, while maintining a potent defencive force. It was designed so that you could defend your property from Imposing ARMIES, not thieves. You also now have the most expensive and well equipped army and police force in the world, why do you need a home defence militia. Secondly and more importantly, Firearms have changed alot in the last 300 years. In 1776 Muskets were so inneffective at killing people, that you needed lines of 40 men to fire at once to do any damage. Now, even someone whos played a few videogames, and done a bit of reasearch can kill a room full of people in a fraction of a second. Accuracy is phenomenal, rate of fire is phenomenal, and overall 1 man kill potential is phenomenal. Making you, as a combatant a far greater threat. You cant exactly perform a drive by shooting with a musket. And it would be far less practical to rob a store. But I do have a compromise. You may retain your right to bare arms. But only of those created before the 2nd amendment was written.

While the points here are true, you can't really expect something such as a constitutional right to be just swept aside, can you? If you do, then who is to say the others shoulnd't be changed or removed?

2: If your gonna ban guns, why dont you ban knives/chairs/*moronic additions here*
Anyone who qoutes this, really needs to rethink the situation. Knives have a multitude of uses aside from ending human life, and also cannot perform this task at long range. (Neither can chairs btw) A gun is therefor specific in its design that it is a tool efficient in murdering people. Nannums (for example) with a gun could murder me faster (1 bullet can kill a good 70%+ of the time), easier (no phyisical strength is required), and further away than i could ever achieve with a knife. It is also important to note that as a knife is a proximity weapon it would be easier for my victim to avoid and if i were to attack him, there is a much better chance of me being caught due to blood splatter, and the fact that nannums may very well see me on the attack. Pure and simple, Guns are DESIGNED to kill people, knives are not.

So just because a gun can kill at range and a knife can't means it should be banned solo? A knife is also a silent weapon, very readily available, alot easier for assaulting someone.

3: The Bad Guys are always gonna have them, i need to defend my home/kids/self
This is probably the most important and valid point made. Nomatter how right i may or may not be, the US situation will not change. There are simply put, too many guns in america to get rid of them all. Pro Gunnies believe that if we were to turn back the clock and ban guns altogether. Then the bad people who dont care about breaking the law, and having a gun illegally would still get hold of them, and without the good honest people around to fight back, would be at an even greater advantage.

Well yeah, if someone is determined enough to have a gun, they will get one.

There is an element of truth in this.

There will always be (in whatever country) those groups who have the hardcore contacts to get hold of such things. However, to deny the fact that "casual" Gun fatalitys, outside of organised crime would not go down is sheer ignorance of logic. If guns are rare, then only the superbad are going to get at them. And they are probably in a very small minority to the rest of your population. It also would probably cut police fatalities hugely, and would result in a less aggressive police force. All i can say is, trust your police. By cutting casual gun crime you would be making them much more effective.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'casual' gun crime, but logic also says if you take away the best weapon, they will just take the next best thing; a knife.

4: Guns dont kill people, people kill people
Walk down the street and pick a few people who look shifty. Would you like to know they had a GUN? "Derf derf, Its ok Gizmo, I has a gun too lol" Shootouts? Are you serious? This is what the police are for! Its all about trust. America is a paranoid society. And quite frankly, i dont trust you. Hell i dont even trust me. If i had access to a gun, had had one too many, had had a really bad day and youd really pissed me off, whos to say that in a moment of madness i didnt blow your face off to spite you. Do you really want to go out knowing that a bunch of on the edge paranoid maniacs have the equipment to kill you in an instant? Maybe i'd feel safe in the netherlands, but the US? are you kidding me? Guns Facilitate the killing of people. And they make it much easier, and cleaner. It takes a certain level of aggression to stab someone to death. Guns, i would say not so much.

Same situation, but with a knife. You still would have killed them if you were driven to it like you say.

5: I am a lady/minority/other and am at risk from exploitation from criminals
Your talking about murdering someone. How can you murder someone in self defence? Any Self defence teacher worth their belt will tell you that getting away without fighting is your best option. There are also plenty of non lethal self defence measures such as mace and at most Tazers. At best run, at worst, give them what they want. Sexual assaults are more complicated. But are we subconciously agreeing that as sickening as such acts are they warrant the act of murder?

Sure, you shouldn't kill/wound someone just because they are killing you!

6: My friend once stopped a crime by using a gun so...
Good for them, they took a risk, and it payed off. Im sure it is much more common however for such reckless vigilantism to go horribly wrong. And again, back to point 3, guns create potential murderers. If someone is robbing you, is it ok to murder them? If someone is raping you, is it ok to murder them? If someone is trying to murder you? Are they using a gun? Are they in organised crime? Probably Not. But Supply and demand dictates that the amount of guns in america allows for slacker control on who has them.

Pork chop sandwiches

7: Guns are cool, and they make me feel powerful
They are, and they do. But id rather walk down the street at night knowing that if someone jumps from the shadows i can run away.

People carry knives to make themselves feel powerfull, as well (knife crime in Britain, cough). What stops you from running away if you're carrying a gun?

So thats it, im sure i missed some things, and got a bit rambly towards the end. But thats my complate counterargument to Gun Policy.

Probably ammend this tomorrow when I'm less tired =]

 

[Nanor]

It might be interesting to see knife related deaths compared to gun related. In America I'd say gun deaths are more prevalent because they're easily obtained but if you compare it with a county where guns aren't easily obtained, say Britain, it would shed some light on which is more deadly.

 

[Wraith]

I've never really seen the logic in the argument of "take away their guns and they'll just pick up a knife instead". Certainly for some this would be the case but I doubt it would be everyone. Even if it was, it seems to me that it would be much harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. I say this for several reasons.

1. A gun can be used to kill from long range whereas a knife can not (unless you've spent most of your life practising knife throwing and have a specially weighted throwing knife). This makes it easier to run away from an attacker with a knife than one with a gun. The close range also opens up more options for the victim to defend themself.
2. A knife takes more force to use - it would require a hard thrust or slice to kill with a knife but all a gun requires is a twitch of a finger.
3. A knife is a much more visceral way of hurting somone. With the gun all you feel is a bit of a kick from the recoil but with a knife there would be so much more. You'd feel the knife cutting through flesh, catching on bone and sinew, the blood may spurt out over you etc (sorry for the fairly gruesome imagery but it was necessary for what I feel is a very valid point).
4. If the first attack failed, a gun would be far easier to finish the attack than a knife as follow up attacks can come very quickly - particularly with automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The ease of delivering the attacks comes into play here as well (as per point 2).

Guns for me are far worse than knives as an offensive weapon and I would love to see them better controlled but unfortunately I don't see it happening. It is a sad fact that, particularly in America, the pro-gun lobby will dismiss any logical argument because they have too much invested in their firearms, both emotionally and culturally for it to change easily. I believe it would take a massive tragedy (somewhere in the region of several hundred or more dying from one incident) for that to change.

 

[PsiSoldier]

1. A gun can be used to kill from long range whereas a knife can not (unless you've spent most of your life practising knife throwing and have a specially weighted throwing knife). This makes it easier to run away from an attacker with a knife than one with a gun. The close range also opens up more options for the victim to defend themself.
   
   What other options do you have? You can't put your hands up as they will just get cut up too, at "long range" you have the option to duck for cover from the gunshot.
   
   
2. A knife takes more force to use - it would require a hard thrust or slice to kill with a knife but all a gun requires is a twitch of a finger.
   
   Yes it does take physical strength to use a knife effectively, but have you ever fired a gun? Firing one with any degree of accuracy is not as easy as moving your mouse and clicking the LMB.
   
   
3. A knife is a much more visceral way of hurting somone. With the gun all you feel is a bit of a kick from the recoil but with a knife there would be so much more. You'd feel the knife cutting through flesh, catching on bone and sinew, the blood may spurt out over you etc (sorry for the fairly gruesome imagery but it was necessary for what I feel is a very valid point).
   
   Isn't part of the argument that guns are used to accidentally kill? Surely something you experience as late as actually doing it isn't going to effect the outcome. Unless of course you are VERY slow at stabbing.
   
   
4. If the first attack failed, a gun would be far easier to finish the attack than a knife as follow up attacks can come very quickly - particularly with automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The ease of delivering the attacks comes into play here as well (as per point 2).
   
   Again, not 'easily'. Firing a gun gives you recoil, you have to line up your shot all over again, knives get off easier on the 'refire', you just swing it at 'em again.

Guns for me are far worse than knives as an offensive weapon and I would love to see them better controlled but unfortunately I don't see it happening.

When you think about the damage a bullet does, then the damage a knife does, then you consider that knives are cheap, unregulated, readily available. Now I'm not saying knives are moredamaging, just that they can be as damaging, if not more.

It is a sad fact that, particularly in America, the pro-gun lobby will dismiss any logical argument because they have too much invested in their firearms, both emotionally and culturally for it to change easily.

There are lobbiers for near enough, only thing is that here they are lobbying for something they have the right to do.

I believe it would take a massive tragedy (somewhere in the region of several hundred or more dying from one incident) for that to change.

This brings to mind a quote I remember hearing from somewhere... (Relating to 11/9) "It took the lives of hundereds of thousands of people to give us our freedom, but only the lives of hundereds to take them away"

Poasting the toasting

 

[Gizmo-5]

yea, but psi, most crimes are involving small conceallable handguns, for assistance in robberies and other petty crimes. Removing these weapons would make the risks of such felonies much greater. Its all about reducing numbers.

The knives statements arent that rigid either. I guarentee if you and my 13 year old sister stood 10 feet from eachother, she had a 7 round handgun and you had a knife, you would lose, hands down. Dodging bullets? You cant be serious. Its a far better element of surprise weapon. I can shoot you while your running from me. and there is less risk involved. If i want to mug you and your a 250 pound hardass. Im not gonna win using a knife. Now with a gun, i stand in the background, take aim, fire 3, your down, and didnt even put up a fight, even at close range id probably have far more success backpeddling and firing from the hip, as apposed to the knife where youd most likely rip my arms off.

Guns are designed to kill people, and just do not compare to knives looking at real world situations.

 

[Wraith]

What other options do you have? You can't put your hands up as they will just get cut up too, at "long range" you have the option to duck for cover from the gunshot.

Off the top of my head you could kick the guy in the nuts - do that hard enough and he'll probably forget about trying to stab you and just curl up into a ball . More seriously though, if they are in range to stab you, you are likely in range to hit them. Yes it's risky but it's an option you don't have when someone is pointing a gun at you from a few meters away. Yes you can duck for cover from a gunshot but if the person with the gun is a reasonable shot I wouldn't fancy your chances with that. It also supposes that you have some decent cover to hand - and thats not as easy as just ducking behind a table or something as most modern guns will puch right through that.

Yes it does take physical strength to use a knife effectively, but have you ever fired a gun? Firing one with any degree of accuracy is not as easy as moving your mouse and clicking the LMB.

Actually I have fired a number of guns - from air rifles and air pistols on holidays and in Scouts to SA80 assault rifles and Browning 9mm pistols when I was in the TA. Accuracy can be an issue but as most gun crime is committed with handguns at a range of a few meters it is in my experience quite difficult to miss a human sized target completely from that range.

Isn't part of the argument that guns are used to accidentally kill? Surely something you experience as late as actually doing it isn't going to effect the outcome. Unless of course you are VERY slow at stabbing.

I was actually addressing the issue of weapons being used deliberately, but the point is still valid (although I agree not to the same amount) as someone with a knife is still likely to know they're more likely to get splattered with blood than if they were using a gun. Sure they may not be thinking about that when they actually use it if they're angry enough but they should know it when they walk out of their house carrying it. Also, if you want to discuss accidental deaths how many times have you heard of a child picking up a knife from someones bedside drawers and accidentally killing themselves or someone else with it? Of the top of my head I can't remember ever hearing a story like that but I have heard it happen a number of times with guns.

Again, not 'easily'. Firing a gun gives you recoil, you have to line up your shot all over again, knives get off easier on the 'refire', you just swing it at 'em again.

On all the guns I've fired it took relatively minimal effort to bring it back into line after the recoil from the shot. So yes I would consider it much easier to perform multiple attacks with a gun than with a knife.

When you think about the damage a bullet does, then the damage a knife does, then you consider that knives are cheap, unregulated, readily available. Now I'm not saying knives are moredamaging, just that they can be as damaging, if not more.

I'm not denying that knives can be extremely dangerous. If it came down to a choice though I would prefer to face someone with a knife over someone with a gun as I believe I would have a better chance of survival.

 

[Ashya]

...1:It is my Constitutional Right to bare arms
Correct, However this Right was written a long time ago in a context far far away. For a start this was to allow the United states to be ready for war in 60 seconds (see minutemen) and was a way of avoiding the need for a professional army, while maintining a potent defencive force. It was designed so that you could defend your property from Imposing ARMIES, not thieves. You also now have the most expensive and well equipped army and police force in the world, why do you need a home defence militia...

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but isn't the right to bear arms desigend to protect the people from a runaway, corrupt government? As in; to rise up to quell any idiot (goverment) that decides to turn the fair U.S. of A. into a dictatorship? *sarcasm-chip overloads*

As for the gun-debate; Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So I suggest we ban people.

 

[PsiSoldier]

yea, but psi, most crimes are involving small conceallable handguns, for assistance in robberies and other petty crimes. Removing these weapons would make the risks of such felonies much greater. Its all about reducing numbers.

Yes, most robberies probably do involve small conceilable arms, however then consider that it's common practice for shop keepers to have a gun of their own under the counter in such troubled areas.

The knives statements arent that rigid either. I guarentee if you and my 13 year old sister stood 10 feet from eachother, she had a 7 round handgun and you had a knife, you would lose, hands down.

How can you guarentee it? As previously said, aiming and firing a gun isn't easy to do properly. Who's to say that she even knows how to fire it? Even if she can, would she be strong enough and know how to handle the recoil to get the advantage of your refire point.

Dodging bullets? You cant be serious.

Don't be twisting my bloody words now, there's a big difference between "ducking for cover" and "dodging bullets"

Its a far better element of surprise weapon. I can shoot you while your running from me. and there is less risk involved. If i want to mug you and your a 250 pound hardass. Im not gonna win using a knife.

Two situations.
Guy walking past you with a knife up his sleeve ready to stab you silently and disappear.
Guy across the street trying to line up his ironsights on your body, then trying to get a clear shot.
Which one takes longer to do? Which is easier to spot? Which is easier to recognise after it's taken place? The gun. So, the gunman would be more likely to get caught than the knife user, amd would be easier to prevent as well.

Now with a gun, i stand in the background, take aim, fire 3, your down, and didnt even put up a fight, even at close range id probably have far more success backpeddling and firing from the hip, as apposed to the knife where youd most likely rip my arms off.

"backpeddling and firing from the hip" You play too many video games. To get any accuracy out of a gun you pretty much HAVE to be still or not moving fast (especially backwards as that takes more concentration away from aiming the thing). Sure, I didn't put up a fight when you shot me, if you actually hit. But would I put up a fight if you jammed a knife into my back/chest? I'm certain I would be writhing in pain on the floor trying to get the knife out.

Guns are designed to kill people, and just do not compare to knives looking at real world situations.

So are knives. Unless cavemen were more concerned with cutting up their sabretooth steak neatly rather than killing it in the first place.

For the record, I am neither against or for gun control. It doesn't effect me, thus I don't care about it; I'm just trying to give some sort of counter argument so it's not a clusterfuck of "BAN GUNS, GUNS ARE BAD M'KAY?".

EDIT: Will reply to wraith in a moment.

Off the top of my head you could kick the guy in the nuts - do that hard enough and he'll probably forget about trying to stab you and just curl up into a ball . More seriously though, if they are in range to stab you, you are likely in range to hit them. Yes it's risky but it's an option you don't have when someone is pointing a gun at you from a few meters away. Yes you can duck for cover from a gunshot but if the person with the gun is a reasonable shot I wouldn't fancy your chances with that. It also supposes that you have some decent cover to hand - and thats not as easy as just ducking behind a table or something as most modern guns will puch right through that.

Hmm, you got a point thar. But with a gun, you can ahve the chance to run away and get something, anything between you, where by the time you realise someone's going to knife you you're pretty much out of options except to fight.

Actually I have fired a number of guns - from air rifles and air pistols on holidays and in Scouts to SA80 assault rifles and Browning 9mm pistols when I was in the TA. Accuracy can be an issue but as most gun crime is committed with handguns at a range of a few meters it is in my experience quite difficult to miss a human sized target completely from that range.

All depends on where the attack takes place really. Unless you're in a remote location, the gunshout would be heard, so with a knife it would be more difficult for people in the area to realise an attack had happened.

I was actually addressing the issue of weapons being used deliberately, but the point is still valid (although I agree not to the same amount) as someone with a knife is still likely to know they're more likely to get splattered with blood than if they were using a gun. Sure they may not be thinking about that when they actually use it if they're angry enough but they should know it when they walk out of their house carrying it.

Yeah, they would probably know that, but if anyone is going out with the intent to kill then surely the fact they are ending a human life and risking time in prison would be more pressing in their mind than getting splattered in blood.

Also, if you want to discuss accidental deaths how many times have you heard of a child picking up a knife from someones bedside drawers and accidentally killing themselves or someone else with it? Of the top of my head I can't remember ever hearing a story like that but I have heard it happen a number of times with guns.

With this it all comes down to carelessness. If you're going to leave anything out that could harm an infant, you shouldn't be looking after one. If someone's going to leave a gun of all things in the reach of children, I'd be more surprised that the child hadn't already been taken away due to it drinking the contents of the kitchen cupboards or something.

On all the guns I've fired it took relatively minimal effort to bring it back into line after the recoil from the shot. So yes I would consider it much easier to perform multiple attacks with a gun than with a knife.

When you fired it were you completely still, without the knowledge that you're ending a another person's life on your mind, wondering if you're going to get caught, getting distracted by stuff? In the case of 'casual crime' as Gizmo put it, it's highly doubtful that the gunman has, as you have, been trained to fire a gun properly.

I'm not denying that knives can be extremely dangerous. If it came down to a choice though I would prefer to face someone with a knife over someone with a gun as I believe I would have a better chance of survival.

I'd prefer to get shot, than get stabbed, particularly because in my mind, a bullet entering my body would do less damage than a knife slashing through me, and be less painful with most pain receptors being on the surface of the skin and the knife cut having a bigger surface of damage.

I have a strange mind, I have been told.

 

[Xarlaxas]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but isn't the right to bear arms desigend to protect the people from a runaway, corrupt government? As in; to rise up to quell any idiot (goverment) that decides to turn the fair U.S. of A. into a dictatorship? *sarcasm-chip overloads*

As for the gun-debate; Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So I suggest we ban people.

Pretty much, the American Constitution encourages (nay, demands!) that the people rise up against the government should they no longer be representing the people, though that sadly didn't happen during the Bush administration. . . .

I'm not as opposed to guns as I used to be when I was younger, I think that the are a weapon that can be used to protect oneself from danger and seeing as if weapons are illegal then only the criminals will get their hands on them, which puts normal citizens at a disadvantage. . . .

As a U.S. citizen when I finally get to move there I'm quite tempted to get my hands on a gun but they are quite expensive so we shall see.

 

[PsiSoldier]

Get a garand for CoDfactor!

 

[Xarlaxas]

I was reccomended the Beretta as a very good hand-gun so I might look into one of those when I move to the US. It's handy to know a gun-nut or two.

 

[Huung]

I was reccomended the Beretta as a very good hand-gun so I might look into one of those when I move to the US. It's handy to know a gun-nut or two.

He was a nut because he recommended a Beretta.

 

[Xarlaxas]

Hah, apparently it's used by many police forces/militaries. . . I dunno, I'd have to shop around a bit before choosing my gun.

 

[oobermybeer]

i use a glock to cap bitches in the ass you... etc...

[Sensible edit]

I believe the knife argument is partially valid, but the culture surrounding guns, and the fact that if you illigalise them, crimes involving them will drop drastically, sway me majority to anti gun,

Simple, to kill some one with a gun, point and click, its de-humanising, and only takes a flex of a finger, and in my opinion you really do need to be a sick puppy to stab someone.

 

[PsiSoldier]

I believe the knife argument is partially valid, but the culture surrounding guns, and the fact that if you illigalise them, crimes involving them will drop drastically, sway me majority to anti gun,

Making guns illegal could potentially reduce the number of crimes committed with them, yes. However if police are busy enforcing gun control on people, that's time taken away from sorting out other crimes is it not? If someone's stupid enough to kill someone else, they will do it no matter what they are armed with; gun, knife, teaspoon.

Simple, to kill some one with a gun, point and click, its de-humanising, and only takes a flex of a finger, and in my opinion you really do need to be a sick puppy to stab someone.

Hmm, how does a gun remove human qualities from someone any more/less than a knife would, if at all?

Bloody hell I'm tired. *crawls into bed*

 

[Gizmo-5]

but those other crimes would be particularly less dangerous for US well armed policemen.

The guns vs knives argument is all about options. More people would commit petty crimes if they had the gun than those who had the knife, simply put because the knife is less effective at killing people in a pinch. It also means that if there is laxxer gun control, then there are also more guns in the country, and transversly less of a supply and demand (guns are not as rare and hard to get a hold of illegally, thus less expensive.) Think of it like comparing a pot and a heroin dealer. Pot is quite common, and therefore quite cheap and easy to get hold of to petty criminals. Heroin however, is more illegal, and therefore more rare, making it harder to get hold of.

I am not arguing that, yes, Gangsters and physcopaths will all become a non threat when guns are removed. But i guarentee that most petty assaults (which are the most unpredictable and involve most innocent people) will drop drastically in their fatality count. People DO NOT NEED handguns. Sure some would like them, but you do not need a concealed weapon. I do not trust you to have a concealed weapon, i dont trust me to have a concealed weapon. And since i dont hang out with physcopaths and gangsters anyway, i am much happier in the knowledge that i am probably more likely to be hit by a car than be robbed at gunpoint. Thanks to our gun control policy.

And of course this is just focusing on petty crime, i havent even mentioned the occasional wacko killing spree, when was the last time that happened over here?

Edit: Arguing the dehumanising point was a bit... pointless. We all knew what he meant which was that it is alot physcologically easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife.

 

[DocBot]

I'd prefer to get shot, than get stabbed, particularly because in my mind, a bullet entering my body would do less damage than a knife slashing through me, and be less painful with most pain receptors being on the surface of the skin and the knife cut having a bigger surface of damage.

...yes, the entry wound is larger with the knife, however the exit wound is rather horrible, even with full metal jackets. All in all, guns are much better at killing people than knives.

 

[DocBot]

I'm not denying that knives can be extremely dangerous. If it came down to a choice though I would prefer to face someone with a knife over someone with a gun as I believe I would have a better chance of survival.

It is not completely unusual for someone to come in with a lot of wounds on their arms from warding off slashes. Warding off bullets is a little less effective. Killing someone with a knife is rather messy and takes a bit of effort - it's comparatively easy with a gun.