Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 29, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 197

The real benefit of guns in America.

:iconmacklinin:
Macklinin Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012
First some background.

I'm from Australia, where semi-automatic firearms have been banned for sixteen years, and coincidentally there hasn't been a mass murder for the same period.

Now the substance.

A friend of mine recently told me that the best thing about having so many guns in America is that it reduces the number of Americans by about thirty thousand each year.

Okay, so it wasn't a very politically correct or sensitive thing to say, but perhaps a few rednecks need to learn what the rest of the world is thinking (if they care).
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icongator1949:
gator1949 Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013
just regulate magazine sizes that are open to the public. 10 round mag is big enough, hell, it might be too big. but if your going to buy 30, 50, 100 round mags for your gun, thats just idiotic.if you get those mags, your either gonna kill people, or your a terrible shot when target shooting.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013
You do know that thirty round mags are the standard size of just about every military out there, yes?
Reply
:icongator1949:
gator1949 Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013
yeah, but im saying not allow the public to own 30 round mags.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2013
Reply
:iconherbaldrink:
HerbalDrink Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
Hey guys, what do SF and gun political debates have in common?

They rely on pure speculation.
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013  Hobbyist
^
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I think the USA is too far gone to ever turn back :-(
Reply
:icondisappearing-inkwell:
Disappearing-Inkwell Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
the second amendment to the United States Bill of Rights exists (right to bear arms), but if it were entirely up to the government, that would be the first right they would take away, because in their eyes, taking away guns means the crime rate will go down, when in reality, criminals would not follow a law banning guns.. because, their criminals. and if anything,crime rate will skyrocket.

i don't know about Australia's ban on certain guns, or if it has anything to do with the lack of mass murders, but, i can almost guarantee that in general, crime-rates have increased.

logically, if every family in both America and Australia owned at least one gun, both of their crime rates would go down.

obviously, criminals don't follow laws...
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I really can't believe people use the 'criminals don't follow laws' excuse seriously :roll:Guess what? Only criminals murder as well. May as well make that legal!

In 1980's, there was years that we had multiple mass shootings in a single year. fast forward to 2000's, and you have none. nada. zilch. The only thing that had changed was gun laws.

Which would you rather? A few people being robbed, or large groups of people killed? I sure as hell know which situation is more favourable.
Reply
:icondregs-of-humanity:
dregs-of-humanity Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
Australia has more guns now than at any point in history, certain types of weapons have been made harder to get but guns have never been common in Australia except in rural areas where people have a decent reason to own guns (defense of property by murdering someone is not considered an acceptable reason in most civilised nations).

Crime has risen in Australia but homicide has dropped, most of the crime in Australia is directly related to alcohol and drug addiction, something guns will not solve in anyway. Domestic violence is a big problem in Australia, adding guns to the mix is just going to turn wife-bashers into wife-shooters.

There is absolutely nothing logical about your last statement, criminals in Australia rarely have guns because its incredibly hard to smuggle guns onto the island and before the '96 gun laws were introduced we already had a comprehensive gun registration and licensing system.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2012
Way to cherry pick your presentation. Homicides by gun in Aussieland actually went UP after that ban went into effect. All deaths by gun went up a bit before the number started to decline. The real truth is that the homicide rate in Australia has been on the decline for over thirty years and there is no quantifiable evidence that gun bans are the source of this reduction in homicide rates.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Homicides might have went up, but massacres went down. More people are killed in massacres, than homicides, thus it's still a positive outcome.
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist
That seems like a red herring. Massacres are not common anyway. Saying one particular law or action as the reason for the decline is impossible.

Almost like me saying my peeing in the backyard keeps demons away for a year because I've never seen a demon.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
12 years up to and including 1996.

Milperra massacre
Hoddle Street massacre
Queen Street massacre
Strathfield massacre
Port Arthur massacre

Massacres after 1996

...
...
...
...
...

Oh yes, There is Absolutely no proof. In a decade, the massacre rate drops by 100%. YUP. NOTHING TO DO WITH LAWS PREVENTING MASSACRES, NOT AT ALL LADEDADA
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist
Correlation does not mean causation.

The mass shootings listed were 3-4 years a part (for the most part), not very common. One event in over 1000 days. They were spikes in the already declining gun murders prior to the gun crack down. The decline in gun related murders have continued to fall at the same rate as well.

There are more factors to mass murders than simply owning a gun. Saying that crack down is the reason for the decline is very short sighted.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
So what else happened in 1996 that completely changed our gun culture?
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013  Hobbyist
Like I already said, for almost a decade before that legislation was passed, gun related homicides were on a decline. It continued to decline after the legislation at pretty much the same rate.

Think about it. Unless that legislation retroactively was decreasing the number of gun related murders, then it's not the sole reason to the low numbers today. You're trying to find a simple solution to a very complex problem.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Except you know, 1996 was the peak of gun related homicides.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
That is one dumbass statement. More people dying is surely not a positve outcome.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
So if, in a decade, 30 more people than usual are murdered, but there are 40 less people being massacred, 'more people are dying'? Nice 'logic'. ;)
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013
People are murdered, be it in individual acts or massacres, so what is the difference really? Does it make you feel any safer knowing you might die in a single killing versus a massacre? Really?
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Most people don't go into crowded public places to commit homocide, unlike massacres. So yeah, I do feel safer.

I mean, do you worry that someone would pull out a gun in a middle of a lecture just specifically to kill you?

Do you worry that someone would pull out a gun in the middle of a middle of your child's school just to specifically kill you?
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013
Odds are much more likely that a person would be killed in an individual attack. Giving credence to greater odds of being a victim in a mass shooting is unfounded fearmongering.

Your questions are loaded in favor of false assumption and therefore not worthy of an answer.
Reply
:iconkensai-kaze:
Kensai-Kaze Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Not just rednecks, in every state(maybe not Alaska or Maine) has areas and people like this: [link] im not joking all, I had one too many close calls whenever I visit my friends or I pick them up to go to a party at a different location within these areas.

Now I own civilian assault rifles I use them as reference material, target shoot whenever my military friends are around, and maybe in home defense since I had one break-in 4 years ago.

The problem with bans is that it only effects the lawful sale of assault rifles to law abiding civilians(through an FFL dealer) whom are willing to pay a tax and go through a background check to own them. But the ban DOESN'T effect what is already in the hands of criminals(like in the video) or what is being illegally brought in through US-Mexico boarder. How do these criminals get their drugs? Cartels and a few home grown supplies. How do they get their weapons? Cartels, guns that has been stolen, and guns that has been floating around for years.

Here look at this: [link]


Also, last years numbers for firearm related deaths was around 8,600 according to the FBI, a 40 year low.
Reply
:iconaviscelox:
AvisCelox Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Because every American who owns a firearm is a redneck.
Reply
:icondavidscript:
DavidScript Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Your friend and I need to hang out sometime.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I have a feeling that number is highly exaggerated or confused with the amount of deaths per year because of cars crashing.

also I wonder if you break that stat down how many of these gun deaths are the result of gang on gang violence. Police duty, and of course Suicides.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
It's including suicides, which account for between 50-66% of the figure, varying by year. The US has an average (slightly below average, but not substantially so) suicide rate, and many nations which ban guns altogether, such as Japan, higher higher suicide rates. Including them is misleading, obviously.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
that is a LOT of suicide by gun! D:

now I wonder how much percentage of all suicide in the US is done by a gun and/or how much isn't.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Around 50%, although it varies by year. Most suicide by gun are by the gun owner, although I can't find exact figures. 83% of all deaths using legally and privately owned guns are apparently suicide; this is sometimes used as a gun control argument, but I think it's generally by people who don't recognize the right to die.
Reply
:iconwhiskyomega:
WhiskyOmega Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Professional General Artist
In some way I like the way your friend thinks, but the humanitarian in me still thinks the USA could use some gun control even if it isn't like ours (I'm from Canada and our laws are much the same as yours). I agree with the USAs Second Amendment, but they don't need access to semi-automatic and Military grade weapons to do it. (they don't really need to worry about their own government turning against the common people anymore: it can't afford it)
Reply
:iconkensai-kaze:
Kensai-Kaze Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
from a previous reply:
"Not just rednecks, in every state(maybe not Alaska or Maine) has areas and people like this: [link] im not joking all, I had one too many close calls whenever I visit my friends or I pick them up to go to a party at a different location within these areas.

Now I own civilian assault rifles(currently 3) I use them as reference material, target shoot whenever my military friends are around, and maybe in home defense since I had one break-in 4 years ago.

The problem with bans is that it only effects the lawful sale of "assault rifles" to law abiding civilians(through an FFL dealer) whom are willing to pay a state tax and go through a background check to own them. But the ban DOESN'T effect what is already in the hands of criminals(like in the video) or what is being illegally brought in through US-Mexico boarder. How do these criminals get their drugs? Cartels and a few home grown supplies. How do they get their weapons? Cartels, guns that has been stolen, and guns that has been floating around for years.

Here look at this: [link]


Also, last years numbers for firearm related deaths was around 8,600 according to the FBI, a 40 year low."

Once again, just because they're capable of inflicting mass loss of life doesn't mean that I or 99.7% of law abiding citizens whom buy these "assault rifles" go in the gun shop with the intent to kill people.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Lever-action weapons can manage 2 shots per second in the hands of a capable user. Note that the maximum firing speed of most semi-automatic weapons is... *drumroll* ...45-65 shots per minute. Or, in other words, a half-competent user can fire just as quickly with a non-semiautomatic weapon as with a semiautomatic; note that this apparently means lever-action guns fire faster, but the limiting factor for sustained shooting is the gun, not the action. (Bolt-action, on the other hand, manages about 20 shots per minute in the hands of an experienced user; expect something like 10 shots per minute with a familiar but inexperienced user.)

The maximum rate of fire isn't determined by the weapon type. It's determined by the user and the weapon; the limiting factor with a half-competent shooter is the fact that the gun will overheat and the barrel will warp. The effective rate of fire is about the same for all weapons, however, at 10-20 shots per minute, capping out around 65 in the hands of truly expert users. (Regardless of the action of the gun, you still have to aim.)

Expert lever-action shooters can take down targets faster than a machine gun in the hands of an average shooter. Or, to reiterate once again: Skill, not action. [link] for an amusing video.
Reply
:iconswordofscotland:
SwordOfScotland Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013

I can easily fire 15-18 rpm with my bolt action rifle.

Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Magazine-fed or manual reload? Either way pretty impressive.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012
Lever-action rifles usually don't have 30 rounds to unload:P
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Some do; Browning designed magazine-fed lever actions. If semiautomatics are banned, expect to see more magazine-fed lever-actions.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
I prefer my old fashioned lever actions.

I guess if manufacturer's need to, we can have chain feeds for hunting rifles right?:P
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Thirty thousand? Try sixteen thousand. And about 8,000 of them are black. Granted, black people can be rednecks too, but that's not generally what people think about when they think redneck.
Reply
:iconredmarlin:
redmarlin Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012
"Australia has banned semiautomatic weapons. Machine guns though, hot damn, we have a ton of those. One in every house."
Reply
:iconprincess-amy:
Princess-Amy Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Your thread maade me laugh, But seriously what kind of retarded country allows its citezens to have weapons of war in their homes.
Reply
:iconkensai-kaze:
Kensai-Kaze Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
from a previous reply:
"Not just rednecks, in every state(maybe not Alaska or Maine) has areas and people like this: [link] im not joking all, I had one too many close calls whenever I visit my friends or I pick them up to go to a party at a different location within these areas.

Now I own civilian assault rifles(currently 3) I use them as reference material, target shoot whenever my military friends are around, and maybe in home defense since I had one break-in 4 years ago.

The problem with bans is that it only effects the lawful sale of "assault rifles" to law abiding civilians(through an FFL dealer) whom are willing to pay a state tax and go through a background check to own them. But the ban DOESN'T effect what is already in the hands of criminals(like in the video) or what is being illegally brought in through US-Mexico boarder. How do these criminals get their drugs? Cartels and a few home grown supplies. How do they get their weapons? Cartels, guns that has been stolen, and guns that has been floating around for years.

Here look at this: [link]


Also, last years numbers for firearm related deaths was around 8,600 according to the FBI, a 40 year low.

Once again, just because they're capable of inflicting mass loss of life doesn't mean that I or 99% of law abiding citizens whom buy these "assault rifles" go in the gun shop with the intent to kill people."
Reply
:iconprincess-amy:
Princess-Amy Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
The point i was making is not what you do with them, But that such weapons of mass killing should not be available to civillians full stop.
Anyone caught with one illegally should be given life in prison on the assumption they would have commited mass murder with it.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
You don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, do you?
Reply
:iconprincess-amy:
Princess-Amy Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, but i also don't believe that a law abiding person needs semi automatic weapons.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
Yet you just said that anyone simply caught owning those weapons should be locked up for life on the basis that they MIGHT commit a crime with it. Sorry, but you can't put your foot in your mouth and then pretend you didn't mean what you said.

And I don't recognize your right to make that decision.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Okay then. Why don't we allow everyone to have missile launchers, tanks and nuclear weapons. As you said, you can't restrict someone from owning something because they might commit a crime :aww:
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
I rest my case on the stupidity of your posts, gasbag.
Reply
:iconprincess-amy:
Princess-Amy Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
You don't have to recognise my right to make any sort of decision, what i decide is reasonable and unreasonable is up to me.

Perhaps you might like to tell me why you might legally want to own a high powered weapon of war and what use it has in your peaceful civillian life?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
Simple.

Because I want one and can afford, because I've shot one before and enjoyed it, because I want to own a piece of history, and because my owning one doesn't do a damn thing to you, so grow a pair and quit being scared of your own shadow.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: