AK-47-full auto, with a Beretta and a couple boxes of Black Talons
you dont need to buy these kind of weapons to efficently kill other people.
and your post didnt answer the question asked.
the us has gun regulations and you cannot buy it straight away, but it is legal for an adult person to own a gun. this is more than you can have in a lot of european countries, where you cannot posses a firearm at all unless you are a policemen or military(even then in most cases you cannot take the gun home but have it locked down at the police office).
In first world countries the US has the strictest gun control laws, short of outright banning everything but shotguns.
what do first world countries have to do with the us in terms of gun control? i dont get the point of this sentence. sorry
Since marijuana is illegal, obviously no one does marijuana anymore,
Oh please, there are literally millions of marijuana users.
@ DaveLopo
Why do I disagree with your stance? Because like it or not, there are a lot of irresponsible idiots out there, who shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun. Idiots + guns = a dangerous combination, and out of a population of over 300m, just think how many gun owning idiots there are in the US.
I'm British, and we have far stricter gun laws - handguns are 100% illegal, as are semi-autos, and long barrelled shotguns of no more than 3 shots are heavily regulated and only legal when genuine and valid need is shown (self defence isn't a valid reason.) Rifles are also massively regulated with firearms licenses. Air weapons are available, but over a certain PSI you need a firearms license.
Of course some people still have them. Criminal and non criminal. But if you get caught with one illegally, you're in deep trouble.
The murder rate here in Britain is almost 4 times lower than it is in the US. The percentage of murders involving a gun is 6.6%. In the US, the percentage of murders involving a gun is way over 50%... and a gun is used in over 70% of murders of those aged 13-35.
You can probably see where I'm coming from - stricter gun control would lead to less murders, because the more guns you take out of the hands of the common idiot, the less of a chance there is, of said idiot shooting someone.
On a personal note, I very much enjoy target shooting and hunting, and I think it's a shame that morons reduce freedoms for the rest of us, however I'd rather live in a country with a low chance of getting shot, than one where I could go hunting and range shooting more often.
what do first world countries have to do with the us in terms of gun control? i dont get the point of this sentence. sorry
My bad. In third world countries it would be fairly easy to get weapons that are illegal in the US.
I was just trying to point out that there are measures taken to make sure people who shouldn't have guns don't get them. People who have felonies, domestic abuse charges, history of mental illness, etc can't legally buy firearms. I'm not saying it's an iron-clad system, but just getting rid of guns won't solve the problems with crime. That goes into societal issues.
As for some European countries, I found out that the amount of crime varies depending on level of gun control, and amount of guns in circulation. Not all European countries that have strict gun control have lower violent crime rates, and not all countries with high amounts of guns have high crime rates. It comes down, again to the society.
I've travelled fairly widely, and the UK is one of the most culturally violent places I have ever been to. Way more so than anywhere in the US has been (and trust me, I've been to some pretty nasty places there too.)
If it were cultural, should Britain not have massive problems with gun crime? After all, we are a very violent people, and the law abiding citizens among us have no guns to protect ourselves from the criminal classes Except that isn't the case. Whatever you feel about cultural differences, it's simple mathematics; the less people who have access to guns, fewer people are going to get shot.
How many people argueing here have ever actually used a gun, own a gun, or bought a gun? To buy a gun, even in Texas, requires a background check by the ATF and possibly FBI (they can usually do this over the phone with your driver license or state ID in about half an hour, computerized records really help) while you fill out several pages of forms just to buy one. If you have a felony conviction or have a history of mental illness, no gun. I have also never seen a gun in a store without an instruction manuel and the salesperson will always go over the basic firearms rules (always treat it as if it was loaded, don't point it at anything you don't want to destroy, etc.). This is the same process for a .22 rifle, an AR-15, a shotgun, a pistol, or anything else available for regular legal sale. Any rifle or shotgun with a barrel of less than 16 inches or capable of fully automatic fire (can fire more then one round per pull of the trigger) HAS to be registered with the ATF and requires a $200 tax stamp alongside the normal requirnments, and there are very few fully automatics easily available for less than several thousand dollars on the civilian market (way more then a criminal is willing to pay). Now, a lot of people on here are saying guns are bad becouse they can hurt people. Well, what can't, you'll have trouble finding many things in your house that can't if you put your mind to it. Apparently, people think getting rid of guns will cut crime. This is false, as criminals rarley tend to follow the law and will just get their guns from where they usually do, the black market. Very few firearms used in crimes are ever usually legal, most are "Saturday Night Specials", $50 handguns bought off the street without a serial number. Uzis, another apparently common criminal weapon, are mostly illegal except for very wealthy collectors who would never use it in a crime due to it's price tag. While getting rid of legally owned firearms would cut down on gun crime, we would simply see a rise in knife and other forms of crime. Getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of criminals, in fact, it can encourage them. An unarmed target is much better then an armed one. Some countries even require that civilians own firearms, such as Switzerland I believe. Every man has a FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE in their house, and you can't even get that in America legally. However, I haven't heard of significant gun crime there. Taking guns away to stop crime is nothing more then a knee jerk reaction by people looking for a quick fix. The real answer is, crime is a problem, but guns aren't. Criminals tend to show quite a lot of intelligence when it comes to arming themselves and those that can't get guns will soon have them replaced. Instead of mass shootings, we could have mass stabbings, mass shootings with a bow and arrow (surprisingly lethal if well made), or even chemical attacks (I know it doesn't sound likely, but you would be surprised what certain kitchen/bathroom cleaners can do if mixed together, seriously, be very careful dealing with thoe chemicals). The crime issue is a social one, and one that must be addressed as such, but it is not a weapons issue. People have a right to defend themselves and enjoy their hobby, not have it taken away out of fear. Fear never leads to rational decisions, look at history.
@Firefly That's all well and good, but even if guns were outlawed in the US, then there would still be illegal weapons coming in. Gun violence would drop at first but either rise again or stay at the lower level. There are just too many openings in the border to keep all guns out. Britain also has less people than the US, so the US will have more shootings.
If you look at my earlier post I talked about Sweden and their militia. They still have less violent crimes than Britain and the US.
Proportional data? As in you took the 60 Million in Britain and Focused it into the 300 Million in USA -- Without even thinking of how ethnically diverse the two are, Britain is less than the USA, Not only that -- But Britain is smaller, therefore the crowding within itself makes it harder to kill someone in my opinion.
Anyway -- WW2 Survivors, If they cared for the War, Would say Guns aren't bad? WW2 was a bloody mess, and I'm glad I don't originate from anywhere near it.
Anyway, Guns aren't bad -- Because they exist. Its like saying "is Alkohawl bad?!!" You know its "bad", Hell, Guns "Kill" things -- Well, let me ask you something, now that they're here to stay, we can all agree that they are BAD. Seeing as self defense is not needed on the subject of just guns, the purpose is the defense in means of injury/killing -- Therefore bad.
They exist, We need them, Without them we'd be doomed. I don't think it has anything to do with # of Shootings per country, I just think it has to do with a lil' bit of legalism here and there, control, to me, is justified if there is blood.
To add: Gun Violence would actually rise.
*This is not a racist comment But drastically, More Mexicans would Smuggle more, Not needed to be Illegal crap into the USA, just causing more tension. Not to mention, Canadians go over the border all the time. They're allowed to carry a lil' pistol with 'em. Are we supposed to guard that border, too?
Proportional data? As in you took the 60 Million in Britain and Focused it into the 300 Million in USA -- Without even thinking of how ethnically diverse the two are, Britain is less than the USA, Not only that -- But Britain is smaller, therefore the crowding within itself makes it harder to kill someone in my opinion.
The UK is very ethnically diverse with long traditions of the people within it's borders hating each other. Not to mention the recent influx of increasingly radical Muslims.
Also, crowded equates to more violence not less. That's why there are higher murders per capita in cites versus in rural areas.
But drastically, More Mexicans would Smuggle more, Not needed to be Illegal crap into the USA, just causing more tension.
Mexico has stricter gun control laws then the US.
Not to mention, Canadians go over the border all the time. They're allowed to carry a lil' pistol with 'em. Are we supposed to guard that border, too?
It's very difficult to get handguns in Canada. I'm not sure that's a good example.
