If this was true the UK wouldn't have the most gun crime in the EU and Chicago wouldn't have the most gun crime in America.

Could you please show us your sources for this?

Firstly, the UK isn't in the EU so I don't see how this is relevant. Secondly, I've never heard of the UK having the most crime in the EU.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

It definately doesn't have the highest number of firearm related deaths, it's not even close infact.

Miss wrote

Click to View Content

killerboy53 wrote

Illustrated wrote

killerboy53 wrote

Illustrated wrote

killerboy53 wrote My opinion on guns;
They don't need to be banned, but it should be harder to get one. It's way to easy to get a gun now days.
And why do you need them anyways? Can't you fight with bare hands or what?

who the hell uses a gun for normal fighting?
Because yes if some huge dude with a gun, or knife, or even only his hands, is trying to kill you... Your logic is just fight with your hands?
While a larger guy might be able to handle a fight with a large guy, a smaller guy couldn't. That's where the escalation of force is justified.

Ever heard of martial arts or defense sports?

As if everyone has the time or physical ability to take martial arts classes?
I work a full time job, and go to college part time.
Tell me how I would fit some pointless martial arts classes into my schedule...

In a realistic situation, hand to hand self defense classes are pointless.
Because more than likely, if I need to defend myself that urgently, the opponent has a weapon.
And you're more likely to get shot or stabbed trying to disarm them, than if you were to just scare them off with your own weapon.
You're a fool for believing that kind of stuff would work.

If guns are banned the chance is small to get an opponent with a gun as well.
So that didn't make any sense.

If this was true the UK wouldn't have the most gun crime in the EU and Chicago wouldn't have the most gun crime in America.

I have to say Miss your arguments have been very poor and sometimes just pure bullshit lately since you posted "Jo Cox an English MP was stabbed and shot to death today, hows your handgun ban working out for you" i just cant take you seriously.

I can see what Miss is trying to say, though sometimes very miss informed.

Please guys, keep it at an informational topic, not jabs at countries / people as that's how threads with a lot of information get closed and never seen again.

002 wrote I can see what Miss is trying to say, though sometimes very miss informed.

Please guys, keep it at an informational topic, not jabs at countries / people as that's how threads with a lot of information get closed and never seen again.

We're not jabbing at countries. It's just people are making ridiculous accusations that are not backed up with any evidence and make no sense.

You can't make a thread that justifys the need for guns when lots of users completely disagree with them and expect not to have some small arguments. It was all fine until Miss started making up facts that don't exist.

Motivational wrote

If this was true the UK wouldn't have the most gun crime in the EU and Chicago wouldn't have the most gun crime in America.

Could you please show us your sources for this?

Firstly, the UK isn't in the EU so I don't see how this is relevant. Secondly, I've never heard of the UK having the most crime in the EU.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

It definately doesn't have the highest number of firearm related deaths, it's not even close infact.

It was all fine until Miss started making up facts that don't exist.

In the interest of fairness, Miss did say specifically 'gun crime,' not, 'gun homicides.'
Gun crimes encompass anything from pointing a gun at someone to killing them with that gun, but obviously crimes that don't result in death won't be included in homicide statistics.

I'm not saying that Miss is right, but he might have a source for his claim that we are unable to find.
After a quick Google search I am only able to find the homicide statistics, so it will be interesting to see how he responds.

I don't want to seem like I'm stirring the pot, but he brought up Chicago which is, as far as I can tell, the most violent city in the US when it comes to gun crime, but also one of the strictest places when it comes to gun laws.

My suspicion is that this is more to do with gangs operating mainly in urban areas and getting their guns illegally, thus circumventing the laws.
I may be wrong about this but I don't want to see his point go unnoticed because even if he is wrong about the UK, he could still be right about this.

killerboy53 wrote

Illustrated wrote

killerboy53 wrote

Illustrated wrote

killerboy53 wrote My opinion on guns;
They don't need to be banned, but it should be harder to get one. It's way to easy to get a gun now days.
And why do you need them anyways? Can't you fight with bare hands or what?

who the hell uses a gun for normal fighting?
Because yes if some huge dude with a gun, or knife, or even only his hands, is trying to kill you... Your logic is just fight with your hands?
While a larger guy might be able to handle a fight with a large guy, a smaller guy couldn't. That's where the escalation of force is justified.

Ever heard of martial arts or defense sports?

As if everyone has the time or physical ability to take martial arts classes?
I work a full time job, and go to college part time.
Tell me how I would fit some pointless martial arts classes into my schedule...

In a realistic situation, hand to hand self defense classes are pointless.
Because more than likely, if I need to defend myself that urgently, the opponent has a weapon.
And you're more likely to get shot or stabbed trying to disarm them, than if you were to just scare them off with your own weapon.
You're a fool for believing that kind of stuff would work.

If guns are banned the chance is small to get an opponent with a gun as well.
So that didn't make any sense.

Except guns are not banned, so...

killerboy53 wrote

Click to View Content

Illustrated wrote

killerboy53 wrote

Illustrated wrote

killerboy53 wrote My opinion on guns;
They don't need to be banned, but it should be harder to get one. It's way to easy to get a gun now days.
And why do you need them anyways? Can't you fight with bare hands or what?

who the hell uses a gun for normal fighting?
Because yes if some huge dude with a gun, or knife, or even only his hands, is trying to kill you... Your logic is just fight with your hands?
While a larger guy might be able to handle a fight with a large guy, a smaller guy couldn't. That's where the escalation of force is justified.

Ever heard of martial arts or defense sports?

As if everyone has the time or physical ability to take martial arts classes?
I work a full time job, and go to college part time.
Tell me how I would fit some pointless martial arts classes into my schedule...

In a realistic situation, hand to hand self defense classes are pointless.
Because more than likely, if I need to defend myself that urgently, the opponent has a weapon.
And you're more likely to get shot or stabbed trying to disarm them, than if you were to just scare them off with your own weapon.
You're a fool for believing that kind of stuff would work.

If guns are banned the chance is small to get an opponent with a gun as well.
So that didn't make any sense.

This would have no bearing on reality if your opinion was realized.
You have already said that you don't think guns should be banned. That means that people will have guns in these situations.

In reality there will be frail people living in a country where guns can be obtained both legally and illegally. These people can't be expected to physically repel an aggressor. If guns were legal in the UK, where I live, I would almost certainly want a gun in my home.
But as guns are not legal in the UK and we don't have a 'gun problem,' appropriate force suggests that I use my fists, a knife, or a baseball bat to repel an intruder, depending on what they are armed with.

If you have changed your opinion on gun control to the ban stance over the course of your conversation with Illustrated, I don't think your 'small chance' conclusion holds up under scrutiny.
Consider these few points, in my mind they are logical but you might disagree.

This is becoming a staple of the pro-gun movement, but criminals don't obey the law. It's an annoying phrase to hear because it is said so much, but it is still true. Criminals in the US can get their guns through illegal means.

If guns were banned and the legal route to obtain guns was completely removed as an option for any would-be attacker in the US, would this result in a drop in the amount of people attacked by aggressors armed with guns? Yes. But the question then becomes, would it be enough of a drop in those rates to warrant a complete ban based on that drop alone, which is presumably the reason why you changed your mind - assuming that you did change your mind, of course.
I don't think it would. If we consider that most criminals have to build their way up to violent crimes by committing smaller and pettier crimes, background checks would block them from buying guns legally anyway.
A lot of the people who would be breaking into homes, or attempting to mug and kill people on the street would not have been able to get their gun through legal means.

Considering this, I don't think your conclusion that it would be a 'small' chance is correct. I think it would be a chance worthy of recognition and that banning guns would put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage until the black market for guns could be removed.

To me, it is a much more rational position to say that guns should be made harder to get, but not banned completely on the basis of crime and people defending themselves from crime.

In case that made no sense at all, the simplest way I can put it is like this:
- Criminals don't obey the law.
- The criminals who would be committing violent crimes with guns are likely to have criminal records so they wouldn't be able to get guns legally if the laws were made stricter.
- These criminals will be going through illegal means to get their guns.
- Law abiding citizens in the US will also need access to guns to defend themselves if they are not physically strong enough to defend themselves without a gun.
- Banning guns removes this option for the law abiding citizens.
- The avenue for criminals to get guns will still be there.
- The rate of crimes involving guns will go down but not by enough to say that banning guns was a success.

While I don't entirely disagree that a ban on guns would be ineffective within the US, I have never really understood why people feel the need to protect their rights to guns so badly even to an extent of promoting and encouraging ownership.

I'm not entirely sure on your source for gun related homicides last year (I don't disagree with it) but the BBC reported that it was 13,286.

What I don't understand is that the major argument of owning guns is self defence. Are you aware of how many homicides and justified as self defence? It's 259 (2012 figure).

So in reality, that's about 2% of homicides with guns are made in self defence.

I seriously struggle to comprehend how that number is a reasonable and justified reason for gun ownership.

Would the homicide rate go up if you started to ban guns? Probably due to less fear in criminals and a retaliation against the government.

However over a 50 year gap, would the rate of homicides still be above what it is now? In my opinion, no and I think it would drop significantly.

Without a doubt, if you had no guns then you'd have significantly less homicides and less mass killings. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Your only obstacle is the amount of guns in circulation and a black market that would be incredibly difficult to track and break down.

However that is not my decision to make. I live where guns are illegal and I have never felt the need for one because we don't need to protect our self against other guns. Your situation is different however I still whole hardheartedly disagree with guns, even in the US.

in reality the gun laws that are in the US Constitution was back when the muskets took ages to load.
Guns shouldn't be gotten rid of just a longer waiting period and anyone with a history of violence shouldn't be able to purchase one for a certain period of time since the last incident. The Orlando shooting incident is only an hour away from me and he was on the FBI terror watch list and was still able to buy a gun. If you are even .0001 percent sure they might be involved in terrorist activities they shouldn't be able to buy an gun.

Here is why I believe a gun ban will never work. Let's all look in our wallet, in my wallet I have a dollar bill from 1996. This is a piece of paper that made it 20 years being handed to one person after another, folded, crinkled, stuffed away, etc. How does this have to do with guns? I mean there was no ban on the dollar bill, but this one was only made for one year, and yet it is still around 20 years later. You try to out right ban guns, or even what you deem I shouldn't have, and it's the same thing as the dollar bill. Some guns will get turned in, found, etc. just like some dollar bills will be burnt, lost, ripped, destroyed, etc.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all.

Gun sales have increased in recent years. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. gun-makers produced nearly 11 million guns in 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. That's twice as many as they made in 2010.

300 million guns? That's a lot to take away. It will take a while to phase them out.

I do however believe that if things continue the way they are, guns will phase out in the next 50 years. Guns are where they're at now because of previous generations. What did they do for fun when they where kids? Some played sports, others went out hunting and became a firearm addict. Fewer and fewer of that generation still exists and few people of our generation go out hunting or use guns. I know that if I never went hunting, I'd never have a need for a gun and probably wouldn't own what I do. I only have what I have because I was trained with firearms since I was a small child, and I generally love firearms like some people love automobiles. With less of this generation being like me, less of the next generation will get the training and addiction and it keeps going less and less and less until eventually very few of the population has them. I may be completely wrong, this is just what I see in my community and I always hear my grandpa talk about when he was a kid in high school everyone brought their shotgun and went hunting after school.




Here is just another one of my opinions. You want to cut down on the number of massacres / deaths in these massacres? Let's start with school shootings. Let's train all the teachers with firearms and make sure they bring one every day. Honestly, do you think the death / injury count would've been as high as it was for Sandy hook and Columbine if all teachers had firearms? What's next, theaters? Give the ticket cops guns and training with those guns. Would the Aurora shooting have killed / injured so many people if the ticket cops had guns? This could go down the line for cooks, for cashiers, for bartenders (they're not supposed to drink), for the manager at the repair shop, etc. Don't feel safe with the cashier having a firearm? You'd best get yourself one too and know how to use it.