To all NON AMERICANS, would you feel safer if your country allowed its citizens to carry/own guns?

Originally posted by pigsy2400
With me being british, my in-depth knowledge of American history is limited, of which I am sure I will be corrected.

Isn't the ownership of a gun, the right of every american in the constitution.

I thought that this was in the constitution due to the civil war between the americans and the english, so that americans could defend their homes against the british at that time.

For a law that was in place hundreds of years ago, it seems strange to non-americans that such an old outdated law still be hotly debated and defended.

For Example, in England it is still law that - ''All males over the age of 14 must carry out two hours a day of longbow practice.'' I would hazard a guess that less than 1% of the population own a longbow, letalone do that.

Actually, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was added not because of the Civil War, but because of how the Revolutionary War (also known as the War for Independence) was started by the British. The first two battles of the Revolution were not fought over taxes or anything else, but gun control.

The British marched on Lexington and Concord to disarm the Colonists.

The Second Amendment "Right to bear arms" is about personal protection, but more importantly about being able to stand up against tyrants.

reply to post by Luminaught

Our armies are made up of our citizens,

So are the UK's and the armies of almost every other country in the world.

who would turn their guns on the government.

Are you sure?

I'm sure the citizens of every other country that have been subjected to any form of dictatorship felt the same but facts suggest that it is a possibility.

I hope you're right because otherwise no amount of private weapons would be effective against the might of the US Armed Services.

And if you CAN rely on the Armed Services not to turn on the US people then surely that negates the excuse that the citizens need to be armed to protect themselves because the Armed Services will.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


If you like living In a police state just goody for you. They took the firearms to make the streets safe for the criminals and the government. If a criminal with a firearm orders you out of your house and takes everything you own of any value you will of course be a slave. We In the US don't care to live like that.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Maybe you have forgotten It was firearms and the United States that saved your (__*__) from the Japanese.

Originally posted by BRIGHT STAR
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Maybe you have forgotten It was firearms and the United States that saved your (__*__) from the Japanese.

Care to elaborate on how American citizens having guns saved our (__*__) from anyone?
Where not talking about the army or police force, were talking about the average American in the streets and suburbs of American cities.

Seriously a people that let a man like GW Bush (a man who would not have been trusted with a pair of scissors let alone a country in anywhere else) become Pres TWICE shouldnt be given the chance to make any decisions for themselves as far as Im concerned

So OP in conclusion it looks like there is a clear majority of non Americans who would not feel safer, or would feel less safe if citizens were allowed to carry guns.

Well there is another side to the whole gun issue.

Yes I'm American, and no I am not going to chime in whether or not I feel safer because that question was not presented to me.

I will say this though.. I own hunting rifles and shotguns and that's what they are used for.. Hunting...

Every year I hunt deer and elk (Quail and Pheasant) and usually fill my freezer.. I like having the choice of not being forced into purchasing grocery store meat that is pumped so full of chemicals it's unreal.. I don't want them to inject my meat with crap to "enhance color" and to "prolong the shelf life" (there are other ways to do this)..

I like being able to go out every year and get my meat the old fashioned way and at least then I know where it came from.

I'm not a full on "everyone should be armed" American... I do believe many areas have a need for gun laws that are more strict (and they are) namely heavily populated areas.. I cannot however attest that all the uses of a firearm are bad and that they make the world unsafe.. My guns have never hurt or killed anyone and god willing never will. I just thought it was worth mentioning that at least one use for firearms involves feeding myself and my family and I am not alone in this.

----------------------------------------

I also wanted to dispel some common misconceptions about the US and guns that are held by many citizens of other nations.. Gun laws differ from location to location for the reasons already mentioned in this thread.. We understand that in areas with gang violence (example) you do not want everyone in that area to be armed to the teeth... As such larger cities have extremely strict gun policies.. Where I am though... I don't mind that everyone around me owns a gun or six.. I don't live in the kind of area that would require much gun control.. in fact there is almost none here...

Going back to the core of the issue... Some places need gun control more than others..

Originally posted by Germanicus
If the State has guns then the People should have guns.

completelee agree i m from belgium

reply to post by Freeborn

No problem here.

I remember your posts from the other thread pretty well. You earned my respect with your "it's none of our business" stance. I was one of those that starred your posts. I just wish many more had your good sense of reality.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Im curious why if guns are such a great deterrent to violent crime the US still has such a high rate?

Firearms are only a deterrent to crime if the perpetrator feels there is a likely hood that he/she may be shot. One of the things many non US citizens fail to take into account is that if a crime is stopped by someone with a firearm, they no longer have the legal justification to shoot the alleged perp. Quite often criminals just run away in search of easier targets.

In the United States, areas that have less strict "gun laws" DO tend to have much lower crime rates than those areas with outright bans, or even very strict "gun laws".

Though I am not one that would claim that firearms would ever GREATLY reduce our crime rate. My position is that, though there are many other factors involved, every time, in the history of the United States, that more firearms were available to the law abiding public, our violent crime rate has went down. That statement also holds true for the period of 1993 to 2010. In 1993 we had 24,526 murders and non-negligent homicides. In 2010, despite ever growing numbers of legal gun sales, we were down to 14,748.

My assertion is that legal firearm sales, and legal firearm ownership, are only a very small factor in overall violence rates here in the US.

You would be one of the most heavily armed civilian populations yet you are all more fearful about crime and home invasions than the rest of the world (civilised Western world)

That is only an assumption on your part. And a false on at that. I haven't locked my automobiles, or home, in over 25 years. There are many here that can make similar claims. Can you honestly make a claim like that?

And as the article you linked stated different things count as crimes in different places, Im guessing if everyone who went to the emergency room in the US as a result of violence was listed in the figures and not just reported crimes it would tell a different story.

You obviously don't understand the way crime stats are collected here in the US. If a doctor suspects a wound is caused by violence, it IS his/her LEGAL OBLIGATION to report that injury to the police.

Wouldnt a can of mace be just as good as a gun?

It's hard to believe you are so naive as to ask such a stupid question, but I'll answer it anyway: Considering the range of a can of mace, and the range of a firearm, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

surely for a gun to be a deterrent the perp would need to know you have it, but then how often would you actually get the chance to pull it out prior to knowing you needed to?

Another silly question, but: More often than you obviously think.

Unless you walk around with it in your hand ready to fire the gun as safety/deterrent argument is BS

That is only another improper assumption on your part.

Despite all evidence and common sense Americans still delude themselves into thinking guns make them safer.

There we have a comment that is only meant to insult Americans. Why am I not surprised?

Just admit you like guns and would want one even if you knew no criminals had them

You're pretty damn good at making false assumptions. I don't currently own any firearms, nor am I currently interested in purchasing any.

Now that I have diligently answered ALL of your questions, without making snide comments about the populations of either of the countries you claimed as "home", I feel that you owe me an answer to the following:
Considering Eurostat shows that the United Kingdom has the highest violent crime rate in the entire UNITED STATES of EUROPE, why do you obviously feel that firearms are the primary CAUSE of violent crime?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Care to elaborate on how American citizens having guns saved our (__*__) from anyone?

Though I don't feel that the statement you were responding to is accurate, the United States did, indeed, help prevent a Japanese invasion of Australia.

Where not talking about the army or police force, were talking about the average American in the streets and suburbs of American cities.

We are, indeed, talking about the average American in the streets, suburbs, and cities. Those are the very people that make up our armed forces, and police forces.

Seriously a people that let a man like GW Bush (a man who would not have been trusted with a pair of scissors let alone a country in anywhere else) become Pres TWICE shouldnt be given the chance to make any decisions for themselves as far as Im concerned

Statements like that make it very obvious that your true intention regarding this thread has more to do with deriding Americans, than it does with serious concerns regarding firearm ownership.

See ya,
Milt

If it really gets serious and people are needed to defend the country I surely would not rely on those cowards who think they need a gun to defend themselves.

That argument is the stupidest of all.

reply to post by DaMod


I heard you and I understand the differences. Maybe I am even a little jealous, not living that life.
If only all those pros would ask for their right to hunt dear. Sadly they ask for their right to kill their countrymen, even their government. That's too crazy.

Hi American here, not really here for the debate. But read the first page or two and think this is an interesting thread.

I will try to answer any questions if you want to ask.

reply to post by Siddharta

[qoute]If it really gets serious and people are needed to defend the country I surely would not rely on those cowards who think they need a gun to defend themselves.[/qoute]
That's an interesting comment. Who, and what means would you depend on?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by thehoneycomb

Hi American here, not really here for the debate. But read the first page or two and think this is an interesting thread.

I will try to answer any questions if you want to ask.

Many it this thread seem to be more interested in deriding Americans than asking legitimate questions.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Thanks for the reply, I thought youd forgot/ignored me

Firearms are only a deterrent to crime if the perpetrator feels there is a likely hood that he/she may be shot. One of the things many non US citizens fail to take into account is that if a crime is stopped by someone with a firearm, they no longer have the legal justification to shoot the alleged perp. Quite often criminals just run away in search of easier targets.

I agree but I imagine criminals by the time you are aware they are criminals would have you in a position where to pull out a gun would endanger your life.

In the United States, areas that have less strict "gun laws" DO tend to have much lower crime rates than those areas with outright bans, or even very strict "gun laws".

Again Im assuming but I would say places that have strict gun laws are densely populated non rural areas where crime is always higher, I doubt very much the fact crime is higher in these places is due to less guns in the publics hands. To me this is common sense but it keeps getting thrown around as proof that guns lower crime.

My assertion is that legal firearm sales, and legal firearm ownership, are only a very small factor in overall violence rates here in the US.

And my assertion is, the reason you have so many gun deaths and gun killing sprees is because guns are easily and legally available.

That is only an assumption on your part. And a false on at that. I haven't locked my automobiles, or home, in over 25 years. There are many here that can make similar claims. Can you honestly make a claim like that?

Its an assumption based mainly on what I hear on this website, Americans want guns due to the fact they are worried about being raped/robbed/ home invaded. While the rest of the world also has these fears it doesnt drive the majority of the population to seek out guns.
As for locking my doors, only ever happens if Im not going to be home for a few days. While I dont own a car over here at home if it was outside my driveway I always locked it.
From what I hear you would be in the vast minority of people who dont lock their doors in the US.

You obviously don't understand the way crime stats are collected here in the US. If a doctor suspects a wound is caused by violence, it IS his/her LEGAL OBLIGATION to report that injury to the police.

I had been told that a crime doesnt not become a statistic in the US until a police report is made, Ive heard this from several sources including a report my mother brought home on domestic violence (she used to work at a womens refuge) even if a neighbour reports a husband beating his wife and the police show up nothing is done unless the wife makes a report, this is not the case in the UK where all crime whether reported or not is included in statistics.
I would be happy to be corrected on this if the laws have changed in the past 4 years.

It's hard to believe you are so naive as to ask such a stupid question, but I'll answer it anyway: Considering the range of a can of mace, and the range of a firearm, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Why would you need a gun for "safety" if the person is out of mace range?
Can you give me an example of how mace would be less effective?
It seems like its the better option, most people would be incapaciteted instead of dead or just running away therefore giving you the chance to get the police involved and catch them.

surely for a gun to be a deterrent the perp would need to know you have it, but then how often would you actually get the chance to pull it out prior to knowing you needed to?

Another silly question, but: More often than you obviously think.

Really so having a gun gives you spidey senses?
Criminals dont often announce themselves from 50 ft away, by the time you know they are trying to hurt you they normally have a knife or gun already in your face I would assume.
As for home invasion which is the only way I can see you being able to defend your statement, smashing something or yelling will scare them off if you hear them before they are on top of you. If that doesnt scare them they are also most likely armed and whats going to result if you have a gun is a shootout in which there is a good chance you will end up dead.

Unless you walk around with it in your hand ready to fire the gun as safety/deterrent argument is BS

That is only another improper assumption on your part.

Care to explain why?

There we have a comment that is only meant to insult Americans. Why am I not surprised?

Not at all, Its meant to be my observation of those who delude themselves into thinking guns everywhere is safer

reply to post by Siddharta

Sadly they ask for their right to kill their countrymen, even their government.

Sadly you are basing your opinion on the braggarts among us.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

I previously answered ALLl of the questions you asked of me, why did you ignore my ONE question to you?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

You're pretty damn good at making false assumptions. I don't currently own any firearms, nor am I currently interested in purchasing any.

My bad, since you were on a thread about guns defending them I assumed you were a proud gun owner.
Can I ask why you dont have or want a gun?

Considering Eurostat shows that the United Kingdom has the highest violent crime rate in the entire UNITED STATES of EUROPE, why do you obviously feel that firearms are the primary CAUSE of violent crime?

I never said that, all I have said is that they are not a deterrent to violent crime like so many of you seem to believe. And in terms of gun crime having them so easily available is the reason it is so high in the US.
As many of you have pointed out criminals everywhere can get guns if they ant them yet we dont have anywhere near as much gun related crime as you. And we certainly dont have school students going on killing sprees with automatic weapons every other year.

Though I don't feel that the statement you were responding to is accurate, the United States did, indeed, help prevent a Japanese invasion of Australia.

Yeah but so did everyone who fought in WW2, Australia had been fighting the Japanese for years before Pearl harbour. It was done out of self interest and not to "save" us.
Despite that I admit there is a chance Australia could have been invaded if not for the US, so Thanks I guess

We are, indeed, talking about the average American in the streets, suburbs, and cities. Those are the very people that make up our armed forces, and police forces.

Same as over here but when not on duty they dont carry around a gun.
You were just being facetious with that comment

Text Statements like that make it very obvious that your true intention regarding this thread has more to do with deriding Americans, than it does with serious concerns regarding firearm ownership.

Not at all, I was quoting a comedian and the purpose of the thread was to see if I was alone or in the minority of people who thought guns were pointless and even self defeating. It appears I wasnt and that with a very few exceptions it only Americans who feel the need for guns