The Latest American Gun Thing

So, why is gun-control disrespectful to people that value their lives?

I mean, I value my life, and that's precisely why I'm in favour of strict gun control.

@equinoxiswin, can you clarify your earlier post?

Preventing others from owning something and exercising a right because of your own misgivings is the very definition of selfishness. Other people like to have rights, too.

I'd like to point out that under state jurisdiction, the police have no legal duty to protect. You and I like to think they do their jobs when they can, but they don't have to offer protection for extenuating circumstances. And you know, with such slow response times where many people live, not even having the tools to defend yourself causes unnecessary deaths.

See Warren v. District of Columbia and other court cases.

The main purpose of a gun is to kill another person. No matter how you look at it, that's a right nobody is supposed to have.

Their purpose is to deal with potentially armed, dangerous people they have to be armed themselves. You're not supposed to defend yourself from armed attackers, the police is supposed to do that for you.

That's an insane and arrogant way to look at things. Read that comic I posted in the second page. Would you agree that it's okay to take a life to prevent rape? Murder?

I support having freedoms whenever possible. Anti-gunners don't have to have a gun, but they shouldn't obstruct people that do.

Not true. Gang-related homicides in the US (not just gun-related, either) are around 2,000 a year [1].

Now with a national gun-homicide rate of 3.60, and a population of 313.9 million, that makes 11,300 homicides a year in the US from guns.

The overall homicide rate (not just gun-related) in the US is 4.7 [2], which means guns make up 77% of homicides - so lets say 1,540 (77%) of the 2,000 gang-related homicides are gun related.

This makes 1,540 out of 11,300 gun homicides a year gang-related, or only around 14%.
Even if you assume all gang-related homicides are gun-related, it's still only 18%. Not even close to bringing the US back to normal.

[1] http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

How do you explain heavily armed countries like Switzerland and Finland, then?

But like I said, I've already proven that the police don't have to protect you. What are you going to do about their lack of liability?

Personally I'm alright if someone owns maybe a low caliber pistol. I just don't think people need to own assault rifles, machine guns, maybe shotguns though at least those can't kill at long range.

Really though you don't need a gun at all as long as you have a tazer or something, but it iiiis a right so I dunno. Small fire arms aren't too bad, but not everyone should be allowed to own a gun in my opinion.

MGs are already heavily regulated by the NFA. You can't get them unless you live in the right state and have dosh to throw at a pre-ban. Shotguns don't have a range of 1 meter like in video games.

I know thaaat, but they don't have the range of an assault rifle.

Who'll be ahead if the attacker has a gun as well?
You win nothing by giving everyone a gun, all you do is making it easier for people to kill each other.

Yes the police HAS to protect me. That is their purpose of existing in the first place.
The idea that everyone should have a gun to defend themselves assumes we are all action heroes that handle guns perfectly and can act rational in really unusual life threating situations.
We are not. Especially in those situations most people will start acting very very irrational. Giving a gun into the hand of a person in that situation won't do any good.

No, squishypon3. All guns are deadly.

You can't just put them into different states of deadliness.

I never said they weren't all deadly, but there's a big difference between a long range rifle and a little pocket pistol.

Life is worth protecting, and that fact doesn't change whether or not you shuffle the concept of an armed citizenry or an armed police.

A single father fellow on a forum I went to had a young daughter. Someone had broken into his house and started attacking the daughter in her room. When she cried out, the fellow rushed to her room with a shotgun and spotted the intruder with an S&W Sigma. He told the daughter to cover her ears and killed the attacker with his shotgun. He got a lot of flak from the NAACP but it wasn't reported in the news. Would you have stolen the father's shotgun in the name of disarmament? Remember, the criminal's firearm was illegal so he would've had it anyways.

An armed citizenry is always a win in my book.

Death is the easy way out. People don't go "aww shucks I'm dead". Because they're dead. It's not a punishment, it's an escape tunnel.

But I already told you that:
1. The police don't have to respond.
2. When the police respond, they are trained to use FORCE ESCALATION.

Or would you talk your way out of an attacker? That never works. The injury rates are just slightly below that of not doing anything.

I'd just give the attacker what they wanted. Your stuff is worth less than you life.

After all, countless US businesses train their staff to do exactly that when robbed. They wouldn't be doing that if it didn't have some sort of benefit. A business isn't going to make a policy that results in more employee injuries... that's more wasted funds training new staff, and paying out health insurance premiums.

What makes you think an attacker will spare you after they get what they want? Maybe you'll get shot to cover your mouth.

How can people live their lives knowing they wouldn't even protect themselves from harm?

I'd need to look that up, because it's a sidetrack to the debate that we were having.

You said statistical evidence shows gun control doesn't work, and singled out Australia.
I proved that Australia has a massively lower gun homicide rate than the US, despite having gun control.

You then asserted that the extreme US homicide rate is a result of gangs, to which I proved that the US gun homicide rate can't be blamed on gangs.

You do raise an interesting point about why the US figures are so high; but that doesn't change the above. My (unresearched) thoughts on that are that it's probably cultural. From an outsider's perspective, the US's view on guns is not far off idolisation & worship, and is quite strange to many. I have no fear of being shot. The thought doesn't even cross my mind. It's so anomalous that every time someone gets shot (or even just shot at) in Australia, it makes the news.

What do you think about firearm homicides being turned into knife homicides because of legislation? The U.K heavily restricts firearms and has moderate restrictions on knives.