Firearms and Their Place in Modern Society

[Unstoppable Florence]

Since we've been clogging up Enraged's thread with a debate that is really not all that related, I've taken the step of setting up a brand new thread for anyone who wishes to discuss - in broad terms - whether or not firearms have a place in modern society. Is recreation a reasonable use of firearms? Is self-defence a good purpose for them? Are guns unacceptable for ownership by any groups other than military and law enforcement? Who should have them and why and under what conditions? Aren't lasers just way cooler?

Basically, just keep on doing what we were de-railing Enraged's thread with. I'll start by answering Banter's statement in this thread, rather than keeping the discussion over there.

It is my opinion Dion, that giving people legal use of firearms is very different to drugs. Firearms kill. Drugs are for personal recreation. Stupid comparision. This is the one case where I would say legalising would be the most utterly stupid move for any government. A country with strict weapon control is given legalisation? No matter how long the 'bedding-in' period we're looking at a fucking big jump in crime rates.

Until you've seen what a weapon can do to someone and thier mind, you cannot blindly support firearms.

I think we all might actually be on the same side here. I don't think anyone here is still claiming that a gun makes for a good defensive weapon.

I will disagree with you that banning of drugs and guns are totally different. 'Firearms kill' is a remarkably narrow statement, especially when put next to 'drugs are for personal recreation.'

By far the largest use of firearms in the UK, pre-ban and post-ban is that of recreational shooting. As a fellow airsofter, I'm sure you understand that some people just like flinging lead and seeing holes in targets. Nothing sick or wrong about it, it's just for relaxation and fun. So the originally intended purpose of firearms was to kill, but the reality for virtually every legal user is quite different.

As for drugs, think of the crime caused by people either high on drugs or driven to desperation by their addiction to them. I think it's quite safe to say that they are innately far more dangerous, because they can cause any human being to become violent, whereas a gun is only dangerous in the wrong hands. There is a reason to criminalise a highly dangerous pastime that damages those sucked into it. There is no reason to criminalise a pastime that very rarely causes problems. Think of how many shooters there are (around 100,000 if not more) and how many of them are going Rambo. Then think of how many drug users you know (I'm not talking simple weed here) who are safe, reasonable, contributing members of society.

As for a crime spike? Yet again the figures show that the bans enacted after the massacres had little to no effect on firearms crime. Sure, if you legalised concealed carry of snub-nosed revolvers, you would certainly see a huge crime wave, but that's not what I refer to when I call for a reversal of those bans. I will concede that those massacres were perpetrated by very rotten eggs who were very, very hard to detect, and so for that reason I would suggest that every 'offensive' weapon (ie: semi-automatics centrefires and handguns) would be kept in a double-locked gun vault in a registered gun club, with an alarm system wired up to the local ARU. That way a gun club can provide people the opportunity to own, maintain and use these guns for amicable purposes, while preventing closet psychos from topping themselves and everyone around when they get out of bed on the wrong side.

[zombie@computer]

I will only say one thing, cuz i know what this thread'll end with.

As for a crime spike? Yet again the figures show that the bans enacted after the massacres had little to no effect on firearms crime.

The problem:

1) area with guns
2) area without guns

we want to compare them, eg crimerates, which seems very easy. Just compare Crimerate 1 with Crimerate 2. But, as you may agree, crimerates between different area's cant be compared easily. Crimerates in larger towns are always higher than those in smaller towns, whether you are in the usa or in zimbabwe. Crimerates differ depending on laws (if murder wasnt prohibited by law, crimerates would be lower indeed, height of fines etc helps aswell), population (lots of 65+ or 30+? Mexican, afroamerican, japaneese), job, wealth, health, etc. Even comparing areas within the same country or even county may be so different that comparisons simply cant be made.

So, what alternative do we have? Yes, as the quoted above says we try to compare:

1) area with guns
2) are with guns with some laws added to remove said guns

this is a different situation indeed. Now the area is the same, but we arent comparing with and without guns. Sure, first supply a lot of guns, then prohibit them and taking the legal ons away leaves you with, what ? Would that leave you with an area without weapons? Go back to kindergarten if you really think that. The weapons that are left are those that were illegal in the first place. Thus, firearm crimerates will not significantly change.

Valid research is simply missing in this area, the reasons are abundant. Too difficult, too expensive. Pro-gun countries (usa) fare well with these guns (they are simply consumer goods), con-gun countries (eg netherlands) simply have no reason to investigate this. And this is exactly why these discussions come up every six minutes.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

I just want to say to anyone saying that you're more likely to hurt yourself with a gun or need extensive training to handle a gun, it's not true. Guns are really simple to use, much simpler than any car; revolvers, for instance, are as simple as loading the cylinder and pulling the trigger, that's it. I don't think it fair to denounce guns for all folks, just because if you gave someone a DA/SA Beretta or an SA 1911 they might have trouble figuring out how it works. That's why they come with instruction manuals. Also, here in the states, dealers often have you demonstrate(on an unloaded gun) how to properly work it before they let you buy it.

I also heard that you probably wouldn't be able to draw your gun before the assailant can stab you. Well, this depends on how you carry, and how big the gun is. Sure, you may have trouble drawing a full size automatic out of a paddle holster, but, think about it, a mugger wants your wallet, your wallet is in your pocket(most likely). A Walther PPK or subcompact Kahr or Glock could easily fit in your pocket or purse. They want you to reach into your pocket and get your wallet, and unless they do the reaching for you, that gun is right in the palm of your hand. But this is all academic when applied to the UK.

So what I'm saying is that, I think a gun can be quite useful in dealing with an armed assailant, if you know how to use it. To this, someone might ask about when the assailant has a gun. Well, I doubt that many muggers or criminals actually visit a range regularly to shoot their gun. Just know your gun better than they do, shoot it often, and know when not to draw.

Lastly, I'm really sorry for you Brits. And I thought California gun laws were ridiculous(and they are).

[TicTac]

I think we all might actually be on the same side here. I don't think anyone here is still claiming that a gun makes for a good defensive weapon.

I think I could defend myself quite well with a pistol, in all seriousness. However, I can understand not wanting guns to circulate about as crime will go up and will become more violent.


Sidenote, I shoot guns recreationally. My dad owns a pistol, and I plan to when I'm old enough. We don't hunt, he doesn't carry - it's strictly rec shooting. Obviously, people like us could be satiated by allowing ranges to rent out a variety of weapons, and not sell them. Prices would be high, unless there was some kind of cap on them, but it's a plausible idea.

[Petethegoat]

I also heard that you probably wouldn't be able to draw your gun before the assailant can stab you. Well, this depends on how you carry, and how big the gun is. Sure, you may have trouble drawing a full size automatic out of a paddle holster, but, think about it, a mugger wants your wallet, your wallet is in your pocket(most likely). A Walther PPK or subcompact Kahr or Glock could easily fit in your pocket or purse. They want you to reach into your pocket and get your wallet, and unless they do the reaching for you, that gun is right in the palm of your hand. But this is all academic when applied to the UK.

Long-time lurker, first time poster, et cetera.

I think the issue a lot of people have with this scenario is the escalation of conflict; if everyone starts carrying guns for self-defence, then the muggers are going to use one when mugging you.

Which is far from ideal, I'm sure you'll agree.

[polycruncher]

By making guns illegal, it means only the criminals will posses them. If the public can trust the police officer with a firearm, then they should trust non governmental persons with them too. You have a personal right to ensure your own safety, and in the modern age that requires a firearm - two hundred years ago it would've been a sword, or a bow. It is cowardly to refuse the responsibility of a tool, simply because you fear its power.

And finally:

[RefaelBA]

I'm afraid that people have always carried weapons and probably always will. While in the past it was a sword, a bow or a crossbow, today it is a pistol or even automatic firearms. The only difference is the technology.

It will be interesting to see a place that is completely devoid of guns. I don't think it'll be less violent than most places...

[Dionysos]

I just want to say to anyone saying that you're more likely to hurt yourself with a gun or need extensive training to handle a gun, it's not true. Guns are really simple to use, much simpler than any car; revolvers, for instance, are as simple as loading the cylinder and pulling the trigger, that's it.....

I said my part in the other thread, but I just wanted to comment on this. Sure, guns are theoretically easy to use, but to "wield" them properly and "safely" in action you need to be trained and have trained reflexes ingrained. Sure, anyone can pull a trigger, actual combat is something else. So yeah, training is and should be necessary (mandatory) (at least for the average guy).

[korge]

If guns dont exist, a murderer will use a spoon if he has to.

[Gary]

I'm afraid that people have always carried weapons and probably always will. While in the past it was a sword, a bow or a crossbow, today it is a pistol or even automatic firearms. The only difference is the technology.

True.

It will be interesting to see a place that is completely devoid of guns. I don't think it'll be less violent than most places...

They would make swords, bows or crossbows.

[Enraged]

If someone attacks you with a knife, they need to be right up close. If you have a gun, even with the best of reflexes, it is more likely they will stab you before you can draw. Even if you do draw, as has been stated, you will now need to be on an offensive-defensive mindset, and considering the situation, it is more then likely you will immediately kill the assailant by shooting him in the stomach or even head then you would have a chance of shooting him in the leg or arm. Although it is still possible, and I think it is acceptable to kill someone when defending yourself, I don't think the majority of people would be able to get the shot off in the first place. Attempting to use the gun would just make it more likely you'll get stabbed if you fail to get it in position in time.

As for a gun v. gun fight, as has been stated. It doesn't take a lot of skill to use one, so even if you manage to kill the assailant, he is more likely to succesfully shoot you, and whether it will be fatal or not comes down to the luck and skill of him.

If someone was to mug you, and found what they considered to be a weapon, whether it be a knife or a gun, they are much more likely to kill you, even if you did not use it.

I am pro-recreational use and I do it myself. Guns never leave the range, but there are people who take them home. I trust these people though, and they have all taken steps to avoid it getting into the hands of criminals. One of the most commonly used methods here is to break the gun into it's parts and hide the parts in a variety of well spaced locations around their home. Although under law, it would be illegal for them to kill any invaders in their home, with any weapon, a gun increases the problems. However, if people were breaking in I wouldn't expect the owner to care, and I am pro-defensive use, and I believe this is exactly that time. If you are trained, then the only people that should be hurt are the criminals. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way but I'd rather remove them instead of allowing them to threaten everyone in the household. On the street, they usually only threaten one person at a time. Although they obviously must be stopped from doing that, I think it is more dangerous to carry the gun.

[Zabiela]

I don't think you can or should make guns illegal to the public. Its pretty obvious if you make them illegal, everything changes for regular persons, and not much changes for criminals.

I dont personally like guns, they make me uncomfortable, but I do think one has a right to own one, and even carry it.

My only wish is that, in some places, it should be more difficult to obtain a gun. I wish there were mandatory IQ and psychological tests. It should be harder to get a gun than to get a driver's license.

Some people who have access to guns really scare me, like delusional people and crazies in general.

[Pwnd_Ja]

Now look what you guys have gone and done.

[MNM]

If guns dont exist, a murderer will use a spoon if he has to.

But there still would be less murders

[Unstoppable Florence]

Hmm, I doubt that MNM. Certainly it's a fair stretch easier to kill someone with a gun than a spoon, but at the end of the day the murder rate is down to the society and the social issues within it.