Gun Control

^If you shoot someone, and you hit them and they're injured; there's a good chance they're not going to shoot back because they're going to be in a lot of pain.

^Exactly. But, even if they did shoot back, I'd shoot again. Simple as that. If they weren't in my house in the first place none of this would have evolved, they put themselves in the situation, in my opinion.

Sheepy:

Do you think that's going to happen? Evidently not.
Do I think it's likely to happen? Actually, yes.
Hey, maybe I'm biased. Three of my friends have been burgled recently. They all walked in on the burglars while they were stealing things. The thieves saw them, and ran away. No such stabbing or shooting or punching...or harm in any way; two out of the three times they even left the stuff they were nicking in an effort to get out faster. So, do I think a burglar may just want to get the hell out of dodge if the unoccupied house happens to be occupied? From my recent experience, absolutely. But maybe your experience has been different, and has led you to feel like owning a gun is a necessary defence.

I believe it is necessary. I've had my house robbed about three times in my life and you know what? The first time it happened, we weren't home, thankfully. The other two times we were home and they've gotten physical, my 15 year old brother was asleep on the couch, he got punched and kicked in his sleep AND our two dogs died due to gunshot wounds, so, obviously, they were armed. Third time, they were armed also and my grandfather got shot twice in the shoulder. So, you know what? Yes, I do believe it's absolutely necessary.

If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws have guns. Just a penny for your thoughts.

Jewel Nicole:

I believe it is necessary. I've had my house robbed about three times in my life and you know what? The first time it happened, we weren't home, thankfully. The other two times we were home and they've gotten physical, my 15 year old brother was asleep on the couch, he got punched and kicked in his sleep AND our two dogs died due to gunshot wounds, so, obviously, they were armed. Third time, they were armed also and my grandfather got shot in the shoulder. So, you know what? Yes, I do believe it's absolutely necessary.

I feel a need to apologise. Obviously our opinions come from incredibly different experiences; I think you were right when you made the suggestion to agree to disagree. I know what it's like to have been burgled, but not what it's like to have people actually hurt afterwards. Given they were armed, I'm glad the damages weren't worse than they already were for you, and I'm sure I'd feel exactly the same way you did if I'd have to have gone through that three times.

I've been reading into it, and apparently in the UK, due to a rise in security systems, and the fact we also have a legal right to "reasonable defence" in the case of burglary, violent burglaries have actually been on the rise recently; that is, more burglars have started breaking into places, armed and violent.
So perhaps in the US, it's the same kind of thing; because burglars are allowed legal access to guns, they're more likely to be armed. but more than that, because of security systems, because of the right to defend yourself, and the fact the people you're robbing will probably also have a gun in the house, those who actually do try and burgle will probably do so violently.
---
All this being said, despite the fact that UK gun control is a lot tighter than that of the USA's, America has a violent crime rate of 436 crimes per 100k residents. The UK has five times that.

^No need to apologize, but thank you.

Yeah, that's why my opinion is so strong on this certain issue, y'know? It something that affected me pretty greatly.

Sheepy:

All this being said, despite the fact that UK gun control is a lot tighter than that of the USA's, America has a violent crime rate of 436 crimes per 100k residents. The UK has five times that.

I know, but it doesn't really bother me. It's funny how I live in a far more dangerous/violent country and I have no fear of attack and see no need to own a weapon. I think, instrinctvely, people who own a gun to use for self-preservation means must have some underlying fear of attack - which strikes me as odd, if you're supposedly much safer anyway. You have much less to fear, so much less need to protect yourself. Or that's how it seems to me, anyway.

^I agree. I think there are dangerous/violent areas in every country, the US just happens to be so huge, the peaceful quiet little towns bits even out the extremely violent gun-friendly ones. Not to mention that a lot of things that are classified as violent crimes have little to do with fire arms. Doesn't domestic violence (for example) count as violent crime? Even if that's not true, I'm not hypocritical enough to make an exception to my nonviolent resistence principles when I'm in danger of being attacked.
Interestingly enough though, a couple of weeks ago I was reading the blog post -or something on a forum? I dunno- of a girl who intends to backpack through Eastern Europe and most of the comments posted by people living in Britain were advising her against it saying that Eastern Europe is very very dangerous. I've cross my country alone by train twice and nobody attacked me, if that's very dangerous there seems little to be afraid of in the UK.

^The US has problems with guns, and the UK, I believe, has problems with knives.

And the whole "peaceful little towns" thing isn't necessarily true. A lot of crime happens in the little towns. Little towns are more likely to have problems with drugs, and illegal drugs seem to lead to violence. It's just not really gun violence that happens in the little towns.

Furthermore, the US population is around 307,006,550 people. The UK's population is around 60,975,000. So, the US's population is about 4 times larger than the UK's population. Since the US has more people, I think it would cancel out the "peaceful quiet little towns" claim.

Calico Jack:

^The US has problems with guns, and the UK, I believe, has problems with knives.

Glasgow/Scotland has problems with knife crime, many say, whereas London/Manchester/England is developing a gun problem.

However, I don't think these places should necessarily be described as "dangerous".

^Thanks for the clarification.

And yeah, I agree, I don't think they're necessarily dangerous. Detroit is said to be one of the more dangerous cities in the US. I've been there. It didn't seem too horrible.

Calico Jack:

^Thanks for the clarification.

And yeah, I agree, I don't think they're necessarily dangerous. Detroit is said to be one of the more dangerous cities in the US. I've been there. It didn't seem too horrible.

I live in Glasgow, have done all my life, and I've never once felt threatened or in danger :)

Calico Jack:

^The US has problems with guns, and the UK, I believe, has problems with knives.

And the whole "peaceful little towns" thing isn't necessarily true. A lot of crime happens in the little towns. Little towns are more likely to have problems with drugs, and illegal drugs seem to lead to violence. It's just not really gun violence that happens in the little towns.

Furthermore, the US population is around 307,006,550 people. The UK's population is around 60,975,000. So, the US's population is about 4 times larger than the UK's population. Since the US has more people, I think it would cancel out the "peaceful quiet little towns" claim.

Uniform Crime Reporting data disagrees. According to this chart, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants rate decreases as the population decreases. Cities with 1,000,000 inhabitants and over have 868.9 violent crimes/100,000 inhabitants, yet cities with under 10,000 inhabitants have only 326.4. Moreover, the US population density is much lower than that of the UK.

Calico Jack:

Furthermore, the US population is around 307,006,550 people. The UK's population is around 60,975,000. So, the US's population is about 4 times larger than the UK's population. Since the US has more people, I think it would cancel out the "peaceful quiet little towns" claim.

The USA is also thirty two times the size of Britain. You have more people, but it's spread across a much greater landmass. To put it in perspective - the UK is slightly smaller than the state of Louisiana, only with an extra 57 million inhabitants crammed into the same area. I think it follows that there are going to be a lot more 'peaceful quiet little towns' in the USA simply because our population density is much higher (compare your 32 people per square km to our 254).

Stephen Fry:

Glasgow/Scotland has problems with knife crime, many say, whereas London/Manchester/England is developing a gun problem.

However, I don't think these places should necessarily be described as "dangerous".

I don't even know if 'developing' is the right word for Manchester. I'm old enough to remember the 'Gunchester' thing going on throughout the 90s, which is a problem I hear talked about less and less now (although knife crime is still an issue). I think it's getting better and not worse especially since a lot of gang members got life a few years back (despite Chris Graying in one of his more hilarious moments as shadow Home Sec comparing Moss Side to Baltimore/The Wire, rofl). Then again, the issue with Manchester tends to be more one of social depravation on a massive scale rather than an issue of gun control. I'm still not scared of Manchester, though.

ella.:

If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws have guns. Just a penny for your thoughts.

I absolutely agree. Criminals who have guns most likely didn't go out and buy them legally, you know? They'll still get ahold of them, and then where will the lawful citizens be?
And I think people would be a lot less likely to steal or commit any type of crime if more people were armed. The criminal wouldn't know who might pull a gun on them, so chances are, they wouldn't do anything in the first place.

I am all for educating people on the proper ways to handle a gun. But seriously, guns don't kill people; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Static Age:

I absolutely agree. Criminals who have guns most likely didn't go out and buy them legally, you know? They'll still get ahold of them, and then where will the lawful citizens be?
And I think people would be a lot less likely to steal or commit any type of crime if more people were armed. The criminal wouldn't know who might pull a gun on them, so chances are, they wouldn't do anything in the first place.

I am all for educating people on the proper ways to handle a gun. But seriously, guns don't kill people; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

But you're still more likely to shoot a family member than a robber.

The Doctor:

But you're still more likely to shoot a family member than a robber.

That includes psychos who intentionally shoot family members, abused spouses and children who shoot their attacker, ect. Only about 2% of civilian shootings involve shooting the wrong person. And if someone is properly trained in gun control, and isn't hopped up on drugs, they aren't going to shoot at the first thing that moves. That's just negligence. And you don't necessarily have to shoot for the gun to be useful, just being armed with it can often keep a criminal at bay.

The Doctor:

But you're still more likely to shoot a family member than a robber.

That isn't just for accidental shootings though. That also includes domestic violence, which is the majority of those kinds of shootings.
And if guns are properly locked up and away from children, then that won't happen. And if children are educated about what a gun is, and that they are not supposed to go near one if they see it, then that would also help. Education is the most important thing,

Cereal Killer:

That includes psychos who intentionally shoot family members, abused spouses and children who shoot their attacker, ect. Only about 2% of civilian shootings involve shooting the wrong person. And if someone is properly trained in gun control, and isn't hopped up on drugs, they aren't going to shoot at the first thing that moves. That's just negligence. And you don't necessarily have to shoot for the gun to be useful, just being armed with it can often keep a criminal at bay.

I live in one of those 'peaceful little towns' in the middle of America. My family and I constantly leave the door unlock when we leave the house. And in his peaceful little town, about 75% of households own a gun, mine being one of the exceptions. But the majority of guns here are used for hunting.

And since I live in a red state, people are very protective of their guns and their rights. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bare arms, which I agree with. But there is a huge difference between a shotgun and a semi-automatic assault rifle.

England's Dreaming:

I live in one of those 'peaceful little towns' in the middle of America. My family and I constantly leave the door unlock when we leave the house. And in his peaceful little town, about 75% of households own a gun, mine being one of the exceptions. But the majority of guns here are used for hunting.

And since I live in a red state, people are very protective of their guns and their rights. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bare arms, which I agree with. But there is a huge difference between a shotgun and a semi-automatic assault rifle.

I'm glad someone else on here has experienced living in a town where the majority of people own a gun. It truly does cut down on crime rates, there are statistics to prove that.
I do agree that owning a shotgun is quite a bit different than owning an assault rifle, but when it comes down to it, the people who already legally own the guns, probably aren't going to do any more with the assault rifle then they would with the shotgun. Most of those people would probably just have it to have it. And take it out target practicing. And there are hoops to go through before someone is able to own that kind of firepower.
I agree with you though.