gun ownership
 

Well i guess this the idea for this thread came from Kels shopping list thread where he had an AK47 and Glock 17 on his shopping list and this got me thinkin on Americas attitude to freedom to bear arms. Living in England u can barely bitch slap someone without gettin thrown in jail. But i was just wondering do u own any guns and well...why?

Got about 30 guns in my house for hunting use.

3 long guns
6 hand guns


Reasons:

-Enjoy shooting
-Enjoy collecting weapons of all sorts (guns, knives, swords, etc.)
-Home Defense

I don't own any guns but I do enjoy going down to the range and firing their guns every once in a while. Target shooting is just fun. There is a range in Vegas where you can shoot fully automatic weapons, M16, UZI, etc. Definitely enjoyable.

I own 5 total and use them for hunting and target shooting.

I would enjoy them for recreational use i.e . shooting ranges but really i feel living in england maybe i don't understand the mentality of guns for protection at home. If guns where in theory outlawed in america (i know it won't happen and probably no one would hand over their weapons anyway) don't u think gun crime as a whole would dramatically reduce?

No. The truth of the matter is, Asshole criminals will always be able to get guns illegally. If you strip LAW ABIDING citizens of their right to carry you are just begging the criminals to take over.

I was wondering, but didn't something similar happen in England? Don't your police finally carry guns because the billy club and whistle wasn't enough?

If you look at the crime statistics for your own country, when guns were outlawed in England, gun crime as a whole didn't dramatically reduce. In fact the dramatically increased. That's not to say that the gun ban caused crime to increase, it could have been a factor but who knows. When Australia banned personal ownership of guns, their crime rates also increased. Meanwhile, many states in the US have been reducing gun restrictions and the rate of violent crime in the US has dropped steadily for nearly a decade. There is no need for any drastic measures for crime in the US, and no evidence that banning weapons would result in a dramatic decrease in violent crime.

To answer the thread, I have 2 handguns, a rifle, and a shotgun. They are for hunting and target shooting, but I don't really hunt anymore.

I've read, and can't think where right now, that London has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. Higher than New York. People just seem to assume that since guns are legal in the US that it must be a pretty scary place.

Maybe the fact that I MIGHT have a gun in my house keeps crime down. In London, if I were a burglar, I would feel pretty confident that the house I'm breaking into is going to be gun free and much less of a threat if I'm confronted by the owner.

Just a thought, maybe having guns around and legal makes me safer...

Okay, I will bite. Seeing as criminals get guns from robbing homeowners who have guns in the house, if we outlawed guns, how would criminals get them?

anyone got an answer for this?

Black market.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you can't get it. Example: Marijuana. It's just one phone call away.

In current gun safe or on person:

2 scatter guns
2 rifles
2 pistols

However...... I grew up hunting, fishing and trapping. Was trained by military professionals and saw what a bullet or shot did to bodies (including mine). The John Wayne wanna-be's who have no ability or training that purchase the .44 mags so they can be Dirty Harry scare me more than any goombah.

2Wolves

i don't own any, and currently have no plans to own. but who knows, i'm not against the idea. i think the idea of normal citizens have glocks and ak-47's and other military issue type stuff is kinda scary though. i would have no problem supporting a law restricting the ownership of military/police issue hardware. but normal hunting/handguns? to each their own.

Okay, blackmarket, where are they getting the guns. If the only people in the US that have guns legally are armed forces and police, one would have to either raid a police station or a military base to get them.

How about black market machinists?

Not hard a lathe, drill press, and some basic smelting and molding equipment.

As for ammo, easy one.
The military allows locals in different places to police up the spent brass, who in turn sell it as scrap.

Me? I own 2 rifles, 2 hand guns and a old over under 12 gauge.

I havent hunted since I have been hunted, so now the rifles and shotgun are for pleasure shooting.

The handguns(colt combat commander acp .45, and desert eagle .357) are for shoot first apoligize later.

Ok so you got some guy selling home made weapons. I bet he would charge a pretty penny for them. At any rate normal criminals would not have guns anymore. Only high dollar criminals who could afford the black market weaponry.

Even though gun owners would not admit it, there would be fewer guns on the street if they didn't own them. That is a fact.

Darkblack... trust me just drop it... there will have to be a lot of "cold dead hands" before you will disarm or even convince this lot to disarm.

This has been discussed to death in several threads. Do a search instead of forcing us to copy/paste to twelve more new threads that are started.

There is no news about it because it has never happend. If America disarmed it would be safer for everyone.

I will end it with that.

Oh, that's only if they bought guns in the USA.

You could still buy guns in Mexico and Canada. Hide em in your car, drive right back. Of course, if a dealer did that, you'd have a pretty cheap black market.

Obviously there would be fewer guns on the street, but that doesn't correspond with crime rate. Like almost everyone has said, look at England and Australia. The crime rate has gone UP after their gun ban. Making it a more DANGEROUS place. You've had no arguement for that, you've just been repeating baseless opinion.

So besides not only having to go against statistics and make an intelligent decision from what other countries have done, the United States would also have to go against the Constitution. Get rid of the second amendment, and an avalanche of other arguements to the Constitution come falling down.

Ok, England also has many neighbors. Have you ever been there? You can take a train through 4 or 5 countries without ever having your bags checked.

Here, they would risk getting caught and going to prison for a long time. Canada has pretty strict laws on buying a gun so I doubt someone is going to buy one there and bring it back. With this logic though we are pretty screwed because if it is that easy to get weapons in this country terrorist are going to have a field day. I have more faith in our border patrol than that.


This was purely hypothetical anyway. We as American's have the right to bare arms. No one is going to take that away. What should go away are people owning more than 2 or 3 guns. It should be harder to get a gun. Guns should be registered and put on a database. That database then could be checked if a stolen gun is found, sold or used in a crime. If your kids use your gun or a gun you purchased for them to kill someone, not only should they go to jail but you should too.

It is my opinion that American's do not need guns. Most of you are afraid and feel you need that for protection. The gun make's you feel powerful. What ever. Take a self-defense class and it does the something for you. Some of you are hunters. I do not call sitting 300 yards away in a bush, waiting for something living to walk by so you can shoot it hunting. Get a knife, go out in the woods, make your own bow and arrow, track down an animal by following its tracks and kill it for food. That is hunting in my opinion.

That's pretty trusting, considering we have millions of illegal immigrants in our country right now.

Then you've obviously never hunted. Oh, and shooting something that is 300 yards away is a hell of a lot harder than you think it is.

The same way criminals get cocaine. It is smuggled across the border, as are many guns that are used by criminals.

Oh, and I forgot, have you ever seen an episode of The Wire on HBO this year? See those big semi-loads they're following? Imagine one of those full of guns, then getting through because someone bribed the guys at the pier.

It's extremely easy to get things into the country, all it takes is some patience and some know-how.

The only fear I see is your irrational fear of firearms.

Would you really put your "self-defense class" up against a criminal with a pistol?

Well, you walk on down to the supermart and stalk your boneless chicken breasts on the meat aisle then, you mighty hunter.

Hunters have far more skill, and a far greater connection with the animals they consume than you will ever know.

There you go, Darkblack, Charlatan warned you not to bang your head against the wall.

When your opponents resort to personal attacks that's your cue they don't have a very strong argument and that continuing would only be a waste of time.

Or it's a clue that he is completely mis-informed and has no clue what he's talking about.

I will only reply to one more thing on this topic.

Yes.

Oh, my apologies. I didn't realize I was dealing with a real ninja...

:rolleyes:

What personal attacks are you refering to?

12 years of kung fu. Not ninjitsu

Both sides of the arguement have been presented in at least a half dozen threads by now.

In your opinion, you've presented the stronger arguement.

In my opion I've presented the stronger arguement.

So far, the courts of popular and judicial opinion are agreeing with me.

I do agree with one thing you've said, this is a waste of time.

I don't know why you addressed that to me.

Judicial opinion does agree with me to the extent that its rulings have addressed public safety versus ownership rights. That is, we restrict ownership to felons and we restrict certain types of weapons.

What neither I nor judicial opinion support is an outright and total ban--so to that effect it agrees with you, as well.

Judicial opinion has never addressed whether an outright ban would increase or decrease overall public safety--so on that, it's silent.

Public opinion does support your position that gun ownership causes better public safety--but that doesn't concern me, the general public doesn't understand how to properly read scientific evidence.

A handful of academic theorists have argued for a causal relationship between gun ownership and crime rates but the rest of us have refuted their claims and recognize that, even if they hadn't created imaginary people and misused statistical data, at best, they found a spurious correlation.

Those of us who know what we are doing with statistical data examine other factors, such as, employment rates, cultural factors, crime trends, etc. along with weapon ownership to understand crime rates rather than claiming a single factor is responsible for patterns of crime.

edit:
As to how many gun threads that exist, I'm fairly certain most of us were satisified to see them over in Tilted weapons, but someone keeps moving them over here. These threads aren't started by advocates of gun control--depending on the starter of this thread's stance, this might be the only one.

So, you'ra saying that 12 years of Kung Fu will allow you to close with an attacker 21 feet away (the average range shootings occur at according to DOJ) and disarm him before he can shoot you?

I seriously hope you never have to find out for real...

I'd just venture to guess that the last time he had to make a choice about that was the last time either you or I did...never.

The reason the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms is that the had just broken away from a monarchy and they in their wisdom knew that an armed populous could overthrow an opressive government. The founding fathers were for a minimally intrusive government. Anyone want to give up their guns now and trust the government not to get too big? All the great dictatorships do not let the population be armed. You figure it out.

The personal blindness to the arrogance of this statement (not to mention it's contradictory nature) along with This Brush Off is a good example of why I addressed my previous post to you.

From what I've seen on this board, you typify the average person who wants to ban guns.

You throw out statistics and "facts" that are refuted and when you are called on it, you resort to reporting half stories and massaging data while claiming victory, or statements like, "Those of us who know what we are doing..." to attempt to reclaim your untenable position.

A perfect example is what you just said. You've just stated what gun proponents have been saying all along, that there are many factors involved in crime, not just guns. (This, btw, goes along perfectly with what I said in the other post about homicide rates in Switzerland vs. the US.)

Yet as sure as the sun will rise in the east, I'll bet you still feel like you're 'refuting' my position.

Tell me, are you practicing for politics?

Then why bother with classes at all if it's not going to be an issue?

Where do you live? I've always wanted to move to a place with absolutely no crime...

You can think what you like. I have a degree in sociology and am working towards my Ph. D. in Criminology, Law, and Society. The only knowledge I have of you in regards to guns and crime is that you post a lot of opinions accompanied by pictures of you shooting them. If you aren't a layperson in regards to crime statistics, my apologies to you--if you are, then my statement that you likely don't know how to analyze them holds true.

What was the link you posted supposed to indicate--that I posted a non-scholarly cite regarding gun ownership myths for those of you who couldn't access my university's crime stats database? I didn't write the page and I didn't feel like quibbling with you over every single citation it might have referenced. The page wasn't for me--I have access to journals and government data straight from the source--and I don't particularly care if you avail yourself of any information I take the time to provide for you. I wasn't even entering this debate, other than to explain to another poster that he was wasting his time, until you addressed your post to me.

If you claim that gun ownership does not cause a reduction in crime then we are in agreement--so I don't understand why you keep pitting your "position" against mine and claiming that I haven't refuted you. If we agree, then I'm not trying to refute you.

Everyone on this board, however, must be chuckling at your assertion that you (along with people who share your opinion in this matter) don't believe guns reduce crime because almost every post from the "pro" gun advocates is along the lines of "crime in country X is high because guns have been banned" and "crime in state Y is low because they allow people to carry concealed weapons."

I'm not practicing for politics. I just become irked when people misuse data from my professional field and, since I enjoy teaching, I attempt to minimize the ignorance I find all over the internet.

edit:
You took my statement out of context. The paragraph before it clearly points out that a handful of scholars in my field have been misusing data to drum up public opposition to gun control legislation. "Those of us..." is referring to the rest of us in my field--it wasn't a jab at you. It's hardly an arrogant statement to claim that spurious correlations do not prove causation and that anyone arguing otherwise is either lying or does not know what he or she is doing.