looz
Active member
The world is whatever you want to believe it is, don't ever let any study break that beautiful thought.
Small talk & Chit chat
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I'll believe the FBI statistics(the people actually responsible for collecting the data) rather than some foreign study on the US. So really your beautiful thoughts are your own studies.
Just look at the UK. Guns weren't really an issue. Took them away and now everybody is getting knifed and gassed.
Now you want to take knives away.
Killing people is illegal. Taking away anything that prevents self defense only makes it easier for the bad people. It's common sense. The stats back it up.
I wouldn't believe what I do believe if there was evidence to the contrary. I have nothing invested in this debate, I don't care if America has guns or not, I have no agenda or position, I'm just pointing out what the data implies. If it was a couple of odd studies, sure, but we're talking about many dozens of studies, based on hard verifiable statistics, all saying the same thing. I just can't dismiss such objective, peer reviewed evidence when there's so little against the general consensus. I've only ever seen one study that disagrees and that wasn't based on any actual verifiable data at all, just individual accounts, making it little more than anecdote.
Not sure where you got that stuff about the UK from, the widespread access to guns was outlawed back in the 1700's.
Not sure where you got that stuff about the UK from, the widespread access to guns was outlawed back in the 1700's.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Every study i've ever seen disagrees with you...
In the US roughly 30,000 people die per year from guns. 65% of those are by suicide. You cannot count this. People who want to kill themselves will regardless of tool. If you disagree fine, lets count it.
The FBI also reports on the other hand, they estimate anywhere from 500,000 to 1.5 million lives are saved per year by guns. It deters crime OR if a crime DOES occur, the good guy with the gun saves POTENTIAL more dead victims.
Guns save people and deters crime. On top of that as further proof, 98.7% of all gun shootings in the US occur in gun free zones. The states with the strictest gun control(meaning more gun free zones, less access to guns, etc) have the highest gun crime. States with the least have the lowest gun crime.
A vast majority of gun deaths occur in 4 cities in the US. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, Detriot. Which means it's not so much the gun as the issue, but the fact we have Gang issues in the US nobody talks about. They keep killing each other and it makes us look bad.
All these are widely available stats, so I do disagree with any study you have seen that says the contrary.
Last edited:
The evidence you stated, claims that more guns are used in self defence in violent crimes every year, than there are violent crimes that happen. Do you see why that study is infamous for being, essentially impossible? And why people prefer studies based on actual crime statistics, rather than by personal survey?
The fact is that study is built on the concept of people *claiming* they wouldn't have been attacked violently had they not pulled a gun, the reality is that most people assume they're in much more danger than any evidence indicates they actually are when threatened with a violent weapon. Carrying a gun in self defence makes you far more likely to assume someone who pulls a gun on you is intent on using it.
I don't take much notice of the whole "controlled gun states" thing because you guys don't have enforced borders between states, if someone wants to legally buy a gun in one state and take it to a controlled state it's hardly rocket science. In the UK it's of course still possible but the amount of effort required to sneak a weapon through customs, whether via post or person, is far higher, you get checked for weapons whether coming in via plane, boat or train.
The fact is that study is built on the concept of people *claiming* they wouldn't have been attacked violently had they not pulled a gun, the reality is that most people assume they're in much more danger than any evidence indicates they actually are when threatened with a violent weapon. Carrying a gun in self defence makes you far more likely to assume someone who pulls a gun on you is intent on using it.
I don't take much notice of the whole "controlled gun states" thing because you guys don't have enforced borders between states, if someone wants to legally buy a gun in one state and take it to a controlled state it's hardly rocket science. In the UK it's of course still possible but the amount of effort required to sneak a weapon through customs, whether via post or person, is far higher, you get checked for weapons whether coming in via plane, boat or train.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Yes, more guns are used in self-defense. This is not complicated to understand. Whether the firearm was used or not, it is almost always self-defense. If the firearm was used, the potential victims are counted. As an example, a bad guy comes in and shoots up a church, kills 5. A good guy with a gun shoots back, bad gun runs away. Saving the potential lives lost. It's not difficult to grasp. Not sure how you think this is more than violent crime. Violent crime was over 1.2million in the US in 2017.
You are misinformed. You cannont just simply buy a gun in any state and return to your home state. Your home state, where you live, is the law that applies to you. Which means yes it is relevant...
Last edited:
The percentage of people in America who claim they've used a gun in self defence is around the same number as the percentage of people in America who claim they've been abducted by aliens. We simply cannot rely on an individuals claims, especially when the tiny fraction of actual confirmed cases that do exist are in such sharp contrast.
Using FBI data only, we can see that firearms assaults are almost 7 times more common in states with the most guns, but whenever weapons are involved in crime, it's ridiculously rare the crime at hand is inherently violent, most uses are not in assaults but in robberies. Cases of mass murder are, for the most part, freak occurrences, the vast majority of cases where people are exposed to weapons are in crimes where the weapon is used as a tool to instil fear and make the desired crime easier to commit. American guns are four times more likely to cause an accidental shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide than they are to be used for self-defense. The fact is, suicide rates are x3 higher in American households that keep locked guns, rising up to x9 higher in American household that keep guns loaded & unlocked, suicide is often a cry for help, and personally I do think having it a click away would make it far more tempting, compared to the scary thought of falling to your death, a slow and painful overdose, or the slow bleed out of a self inflicted knife wound. Similarly studies show that carrying a firearm makes you more inclined to assume you'll be the victim of one, and more inclined to use it frivolously, or when it wasn't actually required.
America doesn't have a minimum standard for their law enforcements ability to use a weapon, with training & standards varying significantly across states and often considered a joke by the law enforcement of many other countries, with many cases of American cops using weapons out of fear, or running through simple training procedures that aren't relevant, resulting in preventable deaths. The idea that mostly untrained citizens are anywhere near as effective is quite outlandish.
Using FBI data only, we can see that firearms assaults are almost 7 times more common in states with the most guns, but whenever weapons are involved in crime, it's ridiculously rare the crime at hand is inherently violent, most uses are not in assaults but in robberies. Cases of mass murder are, for the most part, freak occurrences, the vast majority of cases where people are exposed to weapons are in crimes where the weapon is used as a tool to instil fear and make the desired crime easier to commit. American guns are four times more likely to cause an accidental shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide than they are to be used for self-defense. The fact is, suicide rates are x3 higher in American households that keep locked guns, rising up to x9 higher in American household that keep guns loaded & unlocked, suicide is often a cry for help, and personally I do think having it a click away would make it far more tempting, compared to the scary thought of falling to your death, a slow and painful overdose, or the slow bleed out of a self inflicted knife wound. Similarly studies show that carrying a firearm makes you more inclined to assume you'll be the victim of one, and more inclined to use it frivolously, or when it wasn't actually required.
America doesn't have a minimum standard for their law enforcements ability to use a weapon, with training & standards varying significantly across states and often considered a joke by the law enforcement of many other countries, with many cases of American cops using weapons out of fear, or running through simple training procedures that aren't relevant, resulting in preventable deaths. The idea that mostly untrained citizens are anywhere near as effective is quite outlandish.
Last edited:
looz
Active member
Getting a gun is trivial compared to any country with proper gun control - all you need is a contact in a more lenient state.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Is it like that because that's what the media says?
It's not the case at all.
You first have to get your license which requires you pass a test, and get a background check. A thorough one at that too.
When you buy a gun, you get yet another background check. IF you get cleared, you then wait 10 days to just be able to recieve the gun. No matter WHERE you bought it from, it's where your current residancy IS that matters. You can't just go out of CA to TX, buy a gun, and come back. That's illegal. Only some states allow this, but all those states have the least gun control(and the lowest crime rate).
This process happens every time you purchase a firearm. You are constantly being background checked to. If you do something bad, it gets flagged.
"proper gun control" is an opinion. While it's not impossible to do here, it certainly isn't easy. They search your whole life. You sign your life away and give them all the thumb/finger prints, etc.
I think the problem US has in defending its right to bare arms against the world is that you have an absolute clown running the NRA. (if hes still in charge)
If pierce morgan can rile up the guy, and also ask questions that could not be refuted then the world will think on the negative end of the scale in regards to US and gun laws.
personally I think they do more dmg than its worth. However, I don't live there so I cant add any value in my opinion.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I respect your criticism. I don't have an opinion on the NRA. They do good and bad.
Really even if guns "were" more harmful, I'd still rather have them than NOT having them. It's to protect me from the government. The government serves the people, our right to bear arms is to prevent them from extending their reach and to prevent tyranny.
That's really the end of story for Americans... well any American who gives a damn I guess.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Having talked with American soldiers I can tell you first hand that if a government were to try anything truly tyrannical against the people it's meant to be serving, The army would take up arms against the government.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Last time that happened America defeated a tyrant leading the greatest army the world had ever seen at that time, there was no hope then either. Anyway thanks for your opinion, I'll let the roughly 150,000,000 other gun owning Americans know what you have to say. If that makes me(us) delusional, well then so be it. Doesn't bother me any.
To be fair the American army couldn't defeat a load of Vietnamese farmers and children armed with sticks and has been devastated by civilians armed with whatever they can find many times since then too, countering guerilla warfare really isn't their strong point. Also let's be honest as we know from that era the American army has no issue using those weapons on its own civilians when the commands are issued, they slaughtered protesters and students in their streets, like with most armies, commands are commands, judgement comes later, British too has a spotty recent history.
Last edited:
Except we don't live in the 1950s and 60s anymore where scrunity didn't exist.
Police could beat a black man and get away with it. Do it today, and 1, its 80% chance caught on camera sending the country into rage and 2, is instant dismissal and career destruction.
So commands are not just commands anymore.
I wasn't on the topic of law enforcement, those attacks I mentioned were military police, but I think you're way off on that remark still. Sure they occasionally hit headlines now but even when there's video evidence often these cases are successfully swept under the rug, while most of these police officers get let back onto the force after the media hype dies. To imply America has made progress regarding its police forces is not true at all, they've just gained awareness, actually tackling the problem has not really gone anywhere yet. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...004124-22ef-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html
To imply most of the convicted "bad apple" cops in these cases have faced career destruction, is flat out factually incorrect, most have faced 6 months or so off the force with pay, even even then only about 1 in 10 at the most cases of fatal shootings are caught on body cam(A lot of body cams get turned off just before the incidents).
Heck, even black undercover cops still get beat up by other cops.
But I'm not talking about bad apples, the cases I refer to are ones where complex moral judgements are made on behalf of soldiers who arn't given the info to make the moral decisions for themselves. The biggest issue with this concept of civilian revolt is the fact that no one can really know who the good guy is until it's too late, I'm sure cops and military would always try to act in the best interests for everyone but as many MPs from the event I mention show, they can't really know whether what they did was right until they get all the facts later, and many find they disagree with their own actions. Unless it's a foreign invader which is pretty cut and dry but incredibly unrealistic as a threat atm, then it's really hard to see how in the current political climate, the vast majority of Americans would be able to quickly perceive their own leader as tyrannical from the information available to them, regardless of what that leader was doing.
The whole gun debate vs bad guys thing relies far too much on black and white logic and gives no where near enough consideration for the complexity of human perception, basically, imo.
To imply most of the convicted "bad apple" cops in these cases have faced career destruction, is flat out factually incorrect, most have faced 6 months or so off the force with pay, even even then only about 1 in 10 at the most cases of fatal shootings are caught on body cam(A lot of body cams get turned off just before the incidents).
Heck, even black undercover cops still get beat up by other cops.
But I'm not talking about bad apples, the cases I refer to are ones where complex moral judgements are made on behalf of soldiers who arn't given the info to make the moral decisions for themselves. The biggest issue with this concept of civilian revolt is the fact that no one can really know who the good guy is until it's too late, I'm sure cops and military would always try to act in the best interests for everyone but as many MPs from the event I mention show, they can't really know whether what they did was right until they get all the facts later, and many find they disagree with their own actions. Unless it's a foreign invader which is pretty cut and dry but incredibly unrealistic as a threat atm, then it's really hard to see how in the current political climate, the vast majority of Americans would be able to quickly perceive their own leader as tyrannical from the information available to them, regardless of what that leader was doing.
The whole gun debate vs bad guys thing relies far too much on black and white logic and gives no where near enough consideration for the complexity of human perception, basically, imo.
Last edited:
g0ggles1994
Active member
This.
Might as well throw my hat in this ring. I agree with being able to bare arms for personal protection; I'd definitely sleep better at night knowing I can protect my family should something terrible happen, especially considering how inept the police are with the tory cutbacks that have been happening.
The argument of 'the public won't win against the army' is irrelevant, purely because they are normal people like us; there's a much higher chance they would help the people overthrow the goverment rather than protect it.
I do agree in principle, I definitely see why it'd be comforting to have that protection, and I completely agree with keeping firearms legal within the US, particularly for recreation or hunting, but when it comes to government tyranny, if we look at how this situation usually pans out(Because many, many nations use similar principles), there's rarely a clear cut "bad government" and "good government" or sides of one or whatever, generally the population disagrees on who's bad and how bad they are and for what reasons they're bad, depending on which groups are being targeted or victimised. Generally, the military has to pick a side, whether they stay loyal to the government they're sworn to protect, or whether they make the difficult decision of going against their own government because they believe it is no longer functional, this is NEVER an easy or obvious choice to make, and having the decision made via military coup can be ugly, but arguably is a much better choice than civil war, which is always the inevitable conclusion if it reaches the point where civilians need to intervene.
There's a lot of good arguments for keeping firearms legal in America imo, but I'd say opposing government tyranny or using for self defence are probably the two most flawed arguments(And fundamentally, least supported by any evidence or history) by a long shot, and kinda undermines the more sensible ones. (Being Maltese, a significant portion of my family are American or reside in the US, mostly north east).
Last edited:
