Shenmue Dojo

Before I talk a bit about this, lemme just stress the fact I see no harm in owning a handgun for home protection, or a rifle or two to hunt with, even though I am personally against hunting.

My views on the 2nd amendment are that it was written over 200 years ago when it took 30 minutes to reload and a native american attack was not uncommon.

Obviously I am in favor of gun control, but not of outright banning them.


Anyway. America has a sick obsession with guns, like, unhealthy. Everybody has to be carrying, everybody. You're not a man if you don't own a gun. There's nothing wrong with owning a device that can shoot 200 RPM, there's several logic reasons one would need to own such a gun.

The only problem is that every gun statistic on the planet goes against what these gun nuts are trying to preach to us about how guns are our friends and protect us


1)Just by owning a gun, you are 4.5 times more likely to get shot than someone who doesn't own a gun
2)More bystanders get injured in shootings than the people who the shooters are actually trying to shoot.
3)Using a gun to defend yourself? Studies show that people who had time to react and counter a gun assault were 5.45 times more likely to be shot
4) Statistically speaking, by having a gun you think more people have guns which causes people to accidentally shoot others
5) The same statistic shows that Blacks were the most targeted out of the people
6) The most gun violence happens in poor, uneducated, rural towns
7) By owning a gun, the chances of a person committing suicide S-K-Y-R-O-C-K-E-T

Now there are a bunch of statistics that show guns aren't bad and that bacon grease kills more people than handguns do, but generally speaking, anytime a gun is involved, it is more likely the situation will get worse rather than better.

Isn't there some stat going around that more people in America have been killed by guns since the tragedy in Sandy Hook than deaths in 9/11?

Speaking as a non-American, I say there definately needs to be more gun control, but outright banning them will never work them. I say work needs to be done to stop the sale of assault weapons to the general public. You can't say it's for self defense when the intent of the gun is to kill as many people as possible. The clue's in the word "assault".

And for this argument about it being in the constitution, yeh that's great and all, except those were different times back then. You know, at a time when there wasn't such a thing as an army and the threat of the British invading was a bit high. Different times now.

Well, Utah and Montana have very relaxed gun control laws and yet they have some of the lowest crime rates in the US. But I agree, it's not guns that are the problem, it's people. Switzerland has a high gun ownership rate and yet it is one of the safest countries in the EU while England has guns banned and yet it does have a considerable violent crime rate in the Eu.

Gun ownership isn't for everybody. I will admit that. But I don't think resulting to certain regulation is going to really control crime rates. In Chicago, they got heavy gun control and yet it is one of the most violent cities in the US.

I wouldn't mind heavy regulation on assault weapons, or an out right ban on them. They seem overkill for home protection or even hunting. I've never heard of anyone using an ar15 to stop burlgars from robbing their homes. Frankly, if you can afford one of those you can afford an even better alarm system, so it becomes rather useless. In the last year there two stories in my local news about a person shooting a burglar in their homes with pistols. Back in the 90's during the LA riots a bunch of store owners in an asian market barricaded themselves and armed themselves with hunting rifles and shotguns to keep away rioters, and they did, and I think that's cool.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is I do think guns have a place in people's lives, but much like everything, it needs to be in moderation. Unless you want to destroy your house by spraying it with bullets from a semiauto assault rifle.

And for this argument about it being in the constitution, yeh that's great and all, except those were different times back then. You know, at a time when there wasn't such a thing as an army and the threat of the British invading was a bit high. Different times now.

To be fair though, every time I've had this discussion with gun advocates, the best point in their defence that they usually make, is that the prime reason for the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to defend themselves from their own government, and if need be, stage a violent revolution. I can somewhat understand this argument, as letting the people who hold power and authority have a monopoly on firearms does seem somewhat dangerous, I guess.

I think my main arguments against that line of thought though, is that, While I know this may seem somewhat naive of me, I sort of feel that democracy in the US has reached a point where guns are simply not needed to instigate a political change or revolution. I think the main weapons in this day and age (at least in a place like the US) are things like media, and the various ways in which the powerful keep the powerless accepting the staus quo. I think if enough people in the US genuinely wanted to overthrow the government and instate a new regime, they could do it and without the need for violence. They just need to get their minds from out of under the thumb. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I believe.

MiTT3NZ wrote: Speaking as a non-US citizen, I believe that non-US citizens (I'm looking at you Piers Morgan), nor people who don't actually live in the US (sheltered and hotel/chauffer lifestyle doesn't count, Mr. Morgan) don't have a valid opinion. At all.

Also, to reference crime rates in another country based in another continent is moot due to cultural differences and the country's overall state. And besides that, the US has a rather unique system in which what may be illegal in one state is perfectly legal in another. So, whilst gun control may be the answer in Texas for example (using names - not the states themselves - as an example only), it may not be for Illinois.

Bottom line is that laws ain't as black and white as people like to think due to how over-bureaucratised capitalist countries are, so the US as a whole will probably ramble on with this debate for a good few years until (hopefully) the perfect solution is met for each state and each citizen that inhabits it.

But if you want my invalid opinion, it's people - not guns - who are the problem. Make all these "scary-looking" and "demonised" guns illegal, and only the responsible gun owners suffer. Criminals will always be able to get hold of the weapon they want because, as their label suggests, they disregard the law.

this is the most intelligent reply to this topic thus far and probably the most intelligent that will be posted on this forum.

RyoHazuki84 wrote: Well, Utah and Montana...

Utah and Montana? Really? You think the states with two of the lowest populations in the US are viable statistics for this sort of thing?

Kids shouldn't be running around schools shooting other kids to little pieces. The real factor is that certain human beings are disturbed creatures who have a lack of self control. Call me cynical, but human beings are just evil in their core; take away all "morals" and "rules" people are just fucking evil and unpredictable. The scariest serial killers are those who don't understand the value in having "self control", they just don't understand why what they are doing is just wrong. To them, they live in their own world where they can fuck or kill whatever they please and some put these dead bodies/body parts in their own houses as "trophies" or just as something that is just there. It's just normal to them...

So yeah, what I'm saying is, is that humans can be fucking evil and humans are the problem, not what land they are born in.

So there's serial killer animals running around with guns and swords? Animal wars? Animals that rape? Nope.