Since TL.net is a more liberal site, I just wanted to know why you favor gun control. While looking at the facts, I just can't see any good reason at it for all. Here are some of the reasons:
In 1982, 34% of prisoners reported that they had been shot at or scared off by a victim's handgun.
Between 1976 and 1991 Washington DC has had the highest crime rate in the country (Washington DC enacted a gun ban in 1976)
Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates.
Between 1987 and 1996 Florida had seen a 36% decrease in homicide, a 37% decrease in firearm homicide, and a 41% decrease in handgun homicide; the United States as a whole had seen a .4% decrease in homicide, a 15% increase in firearm homicide and a 24% increase in homicide (Florida enacted a right-to-carry law in 1987).
(Note: Most of my statistics were gained from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ,except the staistic on Great Britain where I read it from Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg)
I can see enacting a ban on assault rifles and submachine guns, but handguns have a right to stay. That's at least what the statistics tell me. However, I want to know YOUR reasoning behind wanting a gun control (if you believe in it that is). Now I'm not doing this for any specific reason but to learn more about the liberal side of thinking. Who knows, you guys might even impress me enough to join your side on gun control (however, it's probably just some false hope to be instilled in your arguments ).
There can always be other factors causing those incrases and declines in statistics, but I guess I can leave them as truths for the time being.
Here's one reason I'm for gun control. Typical TV ad situation of some kid going to a friend's house where the parents have a gun. They are playing around with it, it fires, and one of them dies. I sure as hell don't want this happeneing to anyone I know
Guns dont cause deaths. Idiots do. And there are quite a few idiots in the world dont you think?
On September 25 2006 16:12 thedeadhaji wrote: There can always be other factors causing those incrases and declines in statistics, but I guess I can leave them as truths for the time being.
Here's one reason I'm for gun control. Typical TV ad situation of some kid going to a friend's house where the parents have a gun. They are playing around with it, it fires, and one of them dies. I sure as hell don't want this happeneing to anyone I know
Guns dont cause deaths. Idiots do. And there are quite a few idiots in the world dont you think?
Very good point, and I hope that the legislatures can pass some bill that requires parents to keep guns locked up and out of reach of children and hold them personally responsible if their children die because of their gun. I know it is a really sad situation, but the sheer number of murders that have decreased have lowered, too. I don't want my friends to be the victim of some freak accident murder because of their parent's guns either, but I don't want them to be an unarmed victim of some random murder, either.
On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: Since TL.net is a more liberal site, I just wanted to know why you favor gun control. While looking at the facts, I just can't see any good reason at it for all. Here are some of the reasons:
In 1982, 34% of prisoners reported that they had been shot at or scared off by a victim's handgun.
Between 1976 and 1991 Washington DC has had the highest crime rate in the country (Washington DC enacted a gun ban in 1976)
Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates.
Between 1987 and 1996 Florida had seen a 36% decrease in homicide, a 37% decrease in firearm homicide, and a 41% decrease in handgun homicide; the United States as a whole had seen a .4% decrease in homicide, a 15% increase in firearm homicide and a 24% increase in homicide (Florida enacted a right-to-carry law in 1987).
(Note: Most of my statistics were gained from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ,except the staistic on Great Britain where I read it from Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg)
I can see enacting a ban on assault rifles and submachine guns, but handguns have a right to stay. That's at least what the statistics tell me. However, I want to know YOUR reasoning behind wanting a gun control (if you believe in it that is). Now I'm not doing this for any specific reason but to learn more about the liberal side of thinking. Who knows, you guys might even impress me enough to join your side on gun control (however, it's probably just some false hope to be instilled in your arguments ).
Ok, honestly, I went to the justfacts.com link you provided, saw the purple box with this quote:
The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of god.
- John F Kennedy
Instantly I thought 'ok, I'm not reading this because it's obviously written by a redneck'.
Then when I went to get the exact quote I noticed it was a gif that changes quote everytime you refresh ^_^
I figure that liberals think the 2nd amendment is outdated. Except for those few who need to hunt for food, guns are only used in crime. So, if it were possible, complete gun control is good. [2nd amendment is just for fighting against an injust gov't, and, since the gov't is so unbelievably powerful militarily, no chance of that]
However, since the criminals will always be able to get guns, I don't think gun control makes much sense.
Some wacko reasoning here , mind you, it's something anti-liberal I found: + Show Spoiler +
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns. 2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. 3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics." 4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991. 5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. 6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals. 7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you. 8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet. 9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125). 10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery. 11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise. 12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903. 13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia. 14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state. 15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution. 16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them. 17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons. 18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera. 19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity. 20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy. 21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20. 22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears." 23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed. 24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows. 25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves. 26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon." 27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted. 28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights. 29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands. 30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution. 31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit. 32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition. 33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too. 34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain. 35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection. 36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun. 37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not. 38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good. 39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon. 40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.
On September 25 2006 16:31 QuietIdiot wrote: Some wacko reasoning here , mind you, it's something anti-liberal I found: + Show Spoiler +
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns. 2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. 3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics." 4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991. 5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. 6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals. 7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you. 8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet. 9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125). 10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery. 11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise. 12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903. 13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia. 14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state. 15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution. 16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them. 17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons. 18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera. 19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity. 20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy. 21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20. 22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears." 23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed. 24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows. 25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves. 26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon." 27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted. 28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights. 29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands. 30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution. 31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit. 32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition. 33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too. 34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain. 35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection. 36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun. 37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not. 38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good. 39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon. 40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.
On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: [...] I want to know YOUR reasoning behind wanting a gun control [...].
- There's nothing wrong with protecting yourself. If guns are illegal, so are condoms.
- It's a deterrant. Nobody in their right mind would try to carjack a redneck in a shoddy pickup.
- With or without gun laws, bad things will still happen. For example, with guns being allowed, there will be accidental shootings, mostly due to poor habits of the owner (i.e. kids pick up a loaded revolver with the safety off that's just left in his dad's sock drawer, and shoots his friend in the neck). With guns being banned, crime would be rampant, as civilians have nothing to fight back with. If they ban guns, what will the average citizen use to defend themselves? The criminals won't care if guns are banned. They'll still have them.
On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates.
Look at the time of this ban, and also compare the rate of murder to USA....
You can always find exceptions to the rule. Anyways, this is media biased, as is everything in the USA. Violent gun crimes have gone now DRASTICALLY due to the gun ban. This is like global warming. Uninformed ignorant reporters make you think it's a huge deal, when in actuality the majority of things occuring due to global warming happen in a tiny area. Like polar ice caps melting? That is only occuring in a 90 square mile area in the Arctic circle, while polar caps are actually EXPANDING everywhere else. My point is, media spin fuckin sucks so know your shit yourself.
If I remember correctly, most guns used by criminals are taken illegally.
Edit: Hold on.
With more firearms comes more deaths. That's an inherent fact. However, you can't present this as conclusive evidence without some kind of control group to compare it to. So, for example, how would things change (or would they stay the same?) as the number of firearms decreases? We don't know. We can only speculate.
I just wanted to point out that chart is inconclusive and shouldn't be taken as any kind of concrete statement.
I saw the connection, but I tried to show where I thought it faltered. Protecting yourself is a right. Using a condom will protect you from std's and unwanted pregnancy without hurting someone else, so there is no argument there. However, if you have a handgun, you can choose to protect yourself from an attacker, or rob some random person walking down the street. When you buy a condom, the cashier knows that you are not going to needlessly harm anyone with that particular product, however, when you buy a gun, there is no telling what kind of good or evil you might have in mind.
On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: [*]Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates.
I dont know about the rest, I dont like the idea of guns very much though. But the UK is becoming quite divided between the rich and poor right now in what is somewhat equivelent to the US, their ghettos are fast increasing so that I dont think that their violence increase has anything to do with the gun ban... Im just throwing that out there because I know its in as a reverse statistic, like "See even without guns the crime increases?" and thats true but its sort of distorting a very specific nations public welfare problem. I dunno: /
On September 25 2006 16:50 Lemonwalrus wrote: I saw the connection, but I tried to show where I thought it faltered. Protecting yourself is a right. Using a condom will protect you from std's and unwanted pregnancy without hurting someone else, so there is no argument there. However, if you have a handgun, you can choose to protect yourself from an attacker, or rob some random person walking down the street. When you buy a condom, the cashier knows that you are not going to needlessly harm anyone with that particular product, however, when you buy a gun, there is no telling what kind of good or evil you might have in mind.
Good point, I admit.
However, this is why I support very thorough background checks and as much as I'd hate to have to deal with the paperwork, I fully support the effort you have to go through to obtain any deadly weapon specifically designed for killing.
I personally will purchase a pistol when I'm of legal age for the sole purpose of defending myself. I will however, have taken and completed a firearms use and safety course before I even step foot in a gun store. I personally think this should be mandatory. As it is you can buy a firearm if you have a clean record. Safety courses aren't mandatory. I'm willing to bet there'd be a lower occurance of accidents of people know how to correctly use and operate a firearm, as well as how to store it to prevent accidental misfirings.
If I had children I would consider getting rid of any firearms I own for fear they'd accidentally stumble across it, even knowing that if I do my job adequately, that should never happen.
On September 25 2006 16:51 QuietIdiot wrote: Yeah well, let's not forget that canadian shoot-out not so long ago.
All the guy's guns were registered from what I've heard.
Were they registered to the shooter? If so, then I'd look for any psychological disturbances in his past. If he had any, he shouldn't have been approved for firearm ownership.
On September 25 2006 16:55 RobOwns wrote: [removed quote within quote]Good point, I admit.
However, this is why I support very thorough background checks and as much as I'd hate to have to deal with the paperwork, I fully support the effort you have to go through to obtain any deadly weapon specifically designed for killing.
I personally will purchase a pistol when I'm of legal age for the sole purpose of defending myself. I will however, have taken and completed a firearms use and safety course before I even step foot in a gun store. I personally think this should be mandatory. As it is you can buy a firearm if you have a clean record. Safety courses aren't mandatory. I'm willing to bet there'd be a lower occurance of accidents of people know how to correctly use and operate a firearm, as well as how to store it to prevent accidental misfirings.
If I had children I would consider getting rid of any firearms I own for fear they'd accidentally stumble across it, even knowing that if I do my job adequately, that should never happen.
Thanks. I can respect that. I'm not trying to say that I have the perfect solution, or even that there is a perfect solution, just that care must be taken to protect those without guns. Your idea of mandatory checks and training sounds like it could get the job done.
Reasons for Gun Control seem to be state independent. From my research, ie the last five minutes, only two states have "No permit required for concealed carry" of weapons. They have unrestricted use of guns in the states of Alaska and Vermont. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States)
In Alaska, the "Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 635" in 2005; which grew from 72 per 100,000 the year before and 180 per 100,000 from 2003. So it is safe to assume that unrestricted gun control is not working in Alaska and Violent Crimes are drastacally increasing.
Whereas in Vermont the Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 112 in 2005; which grew marginally from 107 per 100,000 in 2004, and was 137 per 100,000 in 2003. This is the least offenses per 100,000 of all the states. While Alaska was 44th state for least violent crimes.
I'm still a bit unsure why exactly you need guns for anything if you're a civilian. To protect yourself? From who? I've walked through rough parts of New Jersey and and New York at awful times of the night and have never held a gun in my life and if I were to be in trouble I cannot say holding a gun would change things for the better. Someone explain to me a situation where you actually need a gun that would otherwise alter a lifethreatening outcome. You're being mugged on the street by gun point. He's not out to kill you, but you take out your gun to protect yourself and he shoots you. Guys out to kill you, he shoots you, what use is that gun. Ban all guns seems like a good solution. While the obvious thug would still be able to get his hands on a gun, logic tells me even while warranting those exceptions, banning guns would be for the better.
[*]Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates.
that's just rubbish, guns have never been common in the UK, (as in i won't rob that helpless old woman cos she might be packing a 9mm, common) the fact that crime has rocketed would have had nothing to do with it, the ppl who had guns would still have them just illigally.
i'm against guns because to be frank, they scare the shit out of me. I've lived my live for 20 odd years now and the only time I've seen guns have been at airports and target ranges. i like it that way. The way i see it is that the more guns you have the more ppl get shot and to my mind that's bad.
I don't get the deterent argument either: If you have a gun you can just mug someone at gun point, even if you think the other person has one too you can still say "don't draw your gun or i'll shoot you" (or words to that effect, i'm not really bad-ass enough to make it sound convincing) what good is the deterent now?
a gun is a deterrent in that if the mugged person decides to fight back, the criminal get hurt more, but they are less likly to fight back because the hurt for them if they try and fail will be equally worse.
Also say fight back is susessful, and the robber dies, is that really a good thing? the law (and any country/state) would say no because even most gun crimes are not punishable by death.
edit: urg i hate writing give me numbers any day, the guy above me said the last 3 paragraphs much better than i did and faster, sorry
Everyone stating that criminals will still have weapons with a gun control ban just support what I believe in. With a gun control ban nobody would have a way to defend themselves. At least three-quarters of a million times in a year will a person defend himself against crime with a firearm. There was a shooting in a Law School in Virginia where a failing student decided to go on a shooting spree. He was tied down by three students, two of which had guns on their body at the time they subdued him.
However, I cannot dispute the fact that the increase in violent crime can only be attributed to gun control. I know that there are many other variables that correspond to violent crime. However, one must also see that there are paralells. Most of you people use statistics with plenty of variables and give the statistics as facts as well. I know that I probably should have pointed out the fact that some variables could have changed the outcome of the statistics; however, one cannot fail to see that there are plenty of examples of gun control and violent crimes showing a clear trend.
On September 25 2006 16:25 penitent exile wrote: I figure that liberals think the 2nd amendment is outdated. Except for those few who need to hunt for food, guns are only used in crime. So, if it were possible, complete gun control is good. [2nd amendment is just for fighting against an injust gov't, and, since the gov't is so unbelievably powerful militarily, no chance of that]
However, since the criminals will always be able to get guns, I don't think gun control makes much sense.
gun control would be awesome, but its something thats never going to happen. too unrealistic; its a utopian idea. most crimes involved with guns are acquired illegally. take away legal guns, how do you defend yourself? i wish it would happen, but if anything, crime will raise at an alarming rate, as scumbags begin to pray on people without any reservations
On September 25 2006 17:07 Sharkey wrote: In Alaska, the "Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 635" in 2005; which grew from 72 per 100,000 the year before and 180 per 100,000 from 2003. So it is safe to assume that unrestricted gun control is not working in Alaska and Violent Crimes are drastacally increasing.
Alaska pride! Yeah!
That said, the vast, vast, vast majority of killings up here are Natives, Filipinos, and Samoans. The Natives have to have access to guns because they get most of their meat from hunting and/or fishing. And the Filipinos and Samoans are in gangs, meaning that they get their guns illegally. So no, your statement about "unrestricted gun control not working in Alaska" is incorrect. I'd wager that extra gun control would result in a tiny decrease in the amount of murders and a reasonable increase in the amount of other violent crimes.
Culture and context have a much greater effect upon how a people act than laws ever will.
On September 25 2006 16:12 thedeadhaji wrote: There can always be other factors causing those incrases and declines in statistics, but I guess I can leave them as truths for the time being.
Here's one reason I'm for gun control. Typical TV ad situation of some kid going to a friend's house where the parents have a gun. They are playing around with it, it fires, and one of them dies. I sure as hell don't want this happeneing to anyone I know
Guns dont cause deaths. Idiots do. And there are quite a few idiots in the world dont you think?
Yeah, that image of the 2 kids messing around with a gun and accidentally killing one of them is an image so deeply ingrained into my mind and certainly many others that we sometimes ignore the evidence supporting less strict gun control. Not to mention Columbine was probably a huge leap for gun control activists.
Personally though, I still believe in gun control and think that those statistics have to be attributed to a multitude of other things. More specifically, I agree that a complete ban on firearms is unreasonable. I do believe that they could be more stringent with background checks and deciding who can legally own a gun. Some obvious criteria in addition to a more gruelling background check that could probably be improved upon is a clean criminal record, but that's already a prerequisite. Perhaps they should not allow parents of small children(or children living with them at all...) to own handguns.
On September 25 2006 17:31 drift0ut wrote: [removed quote within quote]
Also say fight back is susessful, and the robber dies, is that really a good thing? the law (and any country/state) would say no because even most gun crimes are not punishable by death.
honestly, if i had a gun for my OWN SAFETY (not some malicious intent) and some crackhead or some other lovely character came up to me and tried to jack me up, i would have no problem putting one in his head. come to think of it, id be glad to. the idiot would be back out there the second he got out of jail, most likely.
On September 25 2006 17:03 Lemonwalrus wrote: [removed quote within quote] Thanks. I can respect that. I'm not trying to say that I have the perfect solution, or even that there is a perfect solution, just that care must be taken to protect those without guns. Your idea of mandatory checks and training sounds like it could get the job done.
You're welcome. I think the problem with most guns today is that they get into the wrong hands to begin with. If you give a criminal a gun, he'll use it to benefit himself. Give a law-abiding citizen a gun, and they will use it only if they absolutely have to (ideally).
I've weighed both having guns be legal, illegal, and restriced. I think restriction needs more emphasis. If you cut off the larger problem at the root, then you fix a lot of the problems. Of course, this could cause more problems I've overlooked.
Of course, criminals always will have guns, no matter what the laws say. It's awfully difficult to tell what a person's intentions are just by looking at them, so getting as much concrete information about them is key. Have they committed any crimes? If yes, were weapons involved? How long ago was this? There are a lot of variables that need to be taken into account, and currently aren't, to the best of my knowledge. Again, restricting legal firearms to those who are clearly law-abiding is, in my opinion, the best course of action.
I'm open to alternatives, of course. I try to stay open-minded.
On September 25 2006 17:07 Sharkey wrote: Reasons for Gun Control seem to be state independent. From my research, ie the last five minutes, only two states have "No permit required for concealed carry" of weapons. They have unrestricted use of guns in the states of Alaska and Vermont. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States)
In Alaska, the "Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 635" in 2005; which grew from 72 per 100,000 the year before and 180 per 100,000 from 2003. So it is safe to assume that unrestricted gun control is not working in Alaska and Violent Crimes are drastacally increasing.
Whereas in Vermont the Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 112 in 2005; which grew marginally from 107 per 100,000 in 2004, and was 137 per 100,000 in 2003. This is the least offenses per 100,000 of all the states. While Alaska was 44th state for least violent crimes.
I'm glad you brought this up. I think one of the largest problems is that the laws change from state to state. I think this presents a multitude of problems. First, I could carry in one state, and go on vacation in another state, and be carrying illegally. Secondly, what's legal in one state isn't legal in another. I can't buy a butterfly knife because they're outlawed in Massachusetts, but I could have a friend in Maine buy one for me. The point I'm trying to make is that if different states can't even cooperate, how does the US, as a country, expect to control guns in general? I think the first step to improving gun conditions, in the US anyways, is to create a uniform law that all states abide by.
On September 25 2006 17:08 Konni wrote: robowns where do you live?
I live in the United States, unfortuntely. I didn't vote for Bush, so don't blame me.
On September 25 2006 17:23 pirate cod wrote: I'm still a bit unsure why exactly you need guns for anything if you're a civilian. To protect yourself? From who? I've walked through rough parts of New Jersey and and New York at awful times of the night and have never held a gun in my life and if I were to be in trouble I cannot say holding a gun would change things for the better. Someone explain to me a situation where you actually need a gun that would otherwise alter a lifethreatening outcome. You're being mugged on the street by gun point. He's not out to kill you, but you take out your gun to protect yourself and he shoots you. Guys out to kill you, he shoots you, what use is that gun. Ban all guns seems like a good solution. While the obvious thug would still be able to get his hands on a gun, logic tells me even while warranting those exceptions, banning guns would be for the better.
You make some good points. As someone who believes in taking the necessary steps to ensure one's own safety, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Police offers rarely have to draw their weapon. Actually, every police officer I've ever talked to personally, or heard speak, has said they've never had to draw their weapon, or they've had to only once or twice in their years of service. The idea behind carrying a concealed weapon is more to have it just in case than to not have it at all.
To the bold:
You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has a pistol in his hand.If you have a gun, you can put two in his chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have a gun, you can either hope he isn't going to shoot you, or be shot, and die.
I know that's a rather minimalist way of looking at things, but it's true.
On September 25 2006 17:51 ))(())(( wrote: [removed quote within quote]
honestly, if i had a gun for my OWN SAFETY (not some malicious intent) and some crackhead or some other lovely character came up to me and tried to jack me up, i would have no problem putting one in his head. come to think of it, id be glad to. the idiot would be back out there the second he got out of jail, most likely.
While I most certainly don't agree with what you would be using the gun for, you do raise a somewhat awkward yet valid point. However, I would probably just threaten him with it and if he got too "friendly" I would probably shoot him in the foot or something that wouldn't endanger his life.
On September 25 2006 17:57 hasuprotoss wrote: [removed quote within quote]
While I most certainly don't agree with what you would be using the gun for, you do raise a somewhat awkward yet valid point. However, I would probably just threaten him with it and if he got too "friendly" I would probably shoot him in the foot or something that wouldn't endanger his life.
I agree with this.
I don't think killing is okay unless you kill that person to prevent them from killing you. If someone, for example, were to walk up to me, draw a pistol, and then point it at me, giving no indication it's a mugging, I'd have to assume they're about to kill me, forcing me to take the appropriate actions. If I honestly think someone is about to kill me, well, I don't think I'd have much trouble taking them down first. However, killing another person because they want your money, in my opinion, isn't okay.
You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has a pistol in his hand.If you have a gun, you can put two in his chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have a gun, you can either hope he isn't going to shoot you, or be shot, and die.
Okay how often is this going to happen? From now on you better shouldn't go out without a helmet (falling rocks) and an iron cage around you (lightning bolts!). And don't forget to always carry a fake penis with you to distract any attacking killer condoms (referring to your first post in this thread).
On September 25 2006 17:51 ))(())(( wrote: [removed quote within quote]
honestly, if i had a gun for my OWN SAFETY (not some malicious intent) and some crackhead or some other lovely character came up to me and tried to jack me up, i would have no problem putting one in his head. come to think of it, id be glad to. the idiot would be back out there the second he got out of jail, most likely.
And what if that idiot crackhead had a gun himself. What do you think he's gonna do if you pull a gun on him, give up? Hell no. Since he already has the element of surprise, he's gonna fuckin put one in your head. But without the risk of death, he will most likely just take your wallet and run away. So either you are an expert marksman with 10 years of quick draw experience to outshoot him, or you get seriously injured yourself if not die. Is 20 bucks really worth it now to protect your manhood?
On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: Since TL.net is a more liberal site, I just wanted to know why you favor gun control. While looking at the facts, I just can't see any good reason at it for all. Here are some of the reasons:
[list][*]In 1982, 34% of prisoners reported that they had been shot at or scared off by a victim's handgun.
66% reported that they hadn't.
[*]Between 1976 and 1991 Washington DC has had the highest crime rate in the country (Washington DC enacted a gun ban in 1976)
The population of washingon has skyrocketed since and become a surprisingly impoverished and dangerous city.
[*]Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates.
Japan has a gun ban and has one of the lowest crime/homicide if not THE lowest in the world.
[*]Between 1987 and 1996 Florida had seen a 36% decrease in homicide, a 37% decrease in firearm homicide, and a 41% decrease in handgun homicide;
The population among elderly people has dramatically increased in Florida. 80 year old grannies arent known for homicide.
(Note: Most of my statistics were gained from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ,except the staistic on Great Britain where I read it from Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg)
Like most people, you selected a source of information designed to validate your points. This is not the method of a truth seeker. If you are honestly curious about gun ownership and homicide rates, you need to seek out information which disproves your theory and question their motives as well.
You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has a pistol in his hand.If you have a gun, you can put two in his chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have a gun, you can either hope he isn't going to shoot you, or be shot, and die.
Okay how often is this going to happen? From now on you better shouldn't go out without a helmet (falling rocks) and an iron cage around you (lightning bolts!). And don't forget to always carry a fake penis with you to distract any attacking killer condoms (referring to your first post in this thread) [removed quote within quote]
It probably won't ever happen. I never said it would happen. I simply gave an example.
Rocks don't fall out of the sky for no apparent reason where I live. Maybe you should consider moving. O.O
If I'm outside in thunderstorms, it's my own fault if I get hit.
I also never once mentioned killer condoms. You missed the point, and took my idea out of context.
On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: [removed quote within quote] And what if that idiot crackhead had a gun himself. What do you think he's gonna do if you pull a gun on him, give up? Hell no. Since he already has the element of surprise, he's gonna fuckin put one in your head. But without the risk of death, he will most likely just take your wallet and run away. So either you are an expert marksman with 10 years of quick draw experience to outshoot him, or you get seriously injured yourself if not die. Is 20 bucks really worth it now to protect your manhood?
On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: Since TL.net is a more liberal site, I just wanted to know why you favor gun control. While looking at the facts, I just can't see any good reason at it for all. Here are some of the reasons:
[list][*]In 1982, 34% of prisoners reported that they had been shot at or scared off by a victim's handgun.
66% reported that they hadn't.
You fail to see the importance. There are many ideas as to why the 66% hadn't reported so. Maybe their victims didn't have a gun. You, sir, are an idiot who tries to distort facts.
[*]Between 1976 and 1991 Washington DC has had the highest crime rate in the country (Washington DC enacted a gun ban in 1976)
The population of washingon has skyrocketed since and become a surprisingly impoverished and dangerous city.
You fail to see that the violent crime rate with FIREARMS has skyrocketed as well. So gun control ISN'T WORKING, and yet you validate it because it will work? What the fuck?
(Note: Most of my statistics were gained from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ,except the staistic on Great Britain where I read it from Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg)
Like most people, you selected a source of information designed to validate your points. This is not the method of a truth seeker. If you are honestly curious about gun ownership and homicide rates, you need to seek out information which disproves your theory and question their motives as well.
I fail to see your point. I put forward points to make gun control seem irrational. I asked YOU, the people who I would think agree with gun control, to come up with the facts and statistics and reasoning behind it. I fail to see how I fail to see to seek the truth. Stop bloviating, and shut up.
Konni really nails it on the head. Lets say guns are banned, death by homocides drop drastically.
You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has an axe in his hand.If you have an axe, you can hide behind your door, wait to see what his priorities are and as he comes into your bedroom to kill you and your wife you nail him right in the chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have an axe, you can either hope he isn't going to chop you, or be chopped, and die.
What's the difference? Ban guns. The ability to kill is less likely, crimerates drop as it's alot easier to run from a guy with a 2x4 with a rusty nail lodged in it than a gun. And you can protect yourself with a less lethal but still efficient weapon.
Whoa, unneccessary hostility. Newb made his points, but you don't have to attack him because his opinions differ from yours.
On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: 66% reported that they hadn't.
It would be 100% if there was a gun ban.
On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: Japan has a gun ban and has one of the lowest crime/homicide if not THE lowest in the world.
Japan also has an entirely different societal structure than most other countries. Apples and oranges.
On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: Like most people, you selected a source of information designed to validate your points. This is not the method of a truth seeker. If you are honestly curious about gun ownership and homicide rates, you need to seek out information which disproves your theory and question their motives as well.
I have to agree with you here. Although, it's human nature to do that. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's nothing wrong with that, especially seeing as he isn't writing a paper that will be published in an academic journal. It's just a forum post designed to spark some discussion.
You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has an axe in his hand.If you have an axe, you can hide behind your door, wait to see what his priorities are and as he comes into your bedroom to kill you and your wife you nail him right in the chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have an axe, you can either hope he isn't going to chop you, or be chopped, and die.
What's the difference? Ban guns. The ability to kill is less likely, crimerates drop as it's alot easier to run from a guy with a 2x4 with a rusty nail lodged in it than a gun. And you can protect yourself with a less lethal but still efficient weapon [removed quote within quote]
The problem with that is that a gun ban wouldn't stop criminals from having guns. They are criminals, so they won't mind having to break the law to get their hands on guns, whereas law abiding citizens won't purchase guns for defense because it is illegal. Therefore the criminal will be more likely to have a gun, and the victim will be less likely to have a gun.
On September 25 2006 17:45 hasuprotoss wrote: Everyone stating that criminals will still have weapons with a gun control ban just support what I believe in. With a gun control ban nobody would have a way to defend themselves. At least three-quarters of a million times in a year will a person defend himself against crime with a firearm. There was a shooting in a Law School in Virginia where a failing student decided to go on a shooting spree. He was tied down by three students, two of which had guns on their body at the time they subdued him.
I find it very strange you would choose this example to support your case. Look at it: An apparently normal person had enough and went on a shooting spree.
How exactly would he have been able to do this if guns were banned? Its not suggested he was an organised criminal, more than he simply walked into a shop one day and left with a lethal weapon.
On September 25 2006 18:15 hasuprotoss wrote: I fail to see your point. I put forward points to make gun control seem irrational. I asked YOU, the people who I would think agree with gun control, to come up with the facts and statistics and reasoning behind it. I fail to see how I fail to see to seek the truth. Stop bloviating, and shut up.
and from your first post starting this topic: I just wanted to know why you favor gun control.
you've lost me
btw. bloviating is a good word well done, had to look that one up (i know lots of words but can't spell 'em so end up useing the same old crappy ones again and again
On September 25 2006 18:22 Lemonwalrus wrote: [removed quote within quote] The problem with that is that a gun ban wouldn't stop criminals from having guns. They are criminals, so they won't mind having to break the law to get their hands on guns, whereas law abiding citizens won't purchase guns for defense because it is illegal. Therefore the criminal will be more likely to have a gun, and the victim will be less likely to have a gun.
to be honest, it's probably "too late" to be enacting gun control in the US. obviously it would have been better if guns were extremely hard to come by in the first place. i read this and immediately thought "wow.. how stupid can you get? no guns = weakened gang power, less robberies, accidental deaths, less reason to be afraid at night, etc." but instead, everyone's got them and are used to using them like some everyday object. so forcing people to get rid of them will just end up with the criminals keeping theirs and the relatively law abiding citizens having to lose theirs.. hence the problems. everyone has the same attitude, but the criminals have more power.
imo i wouldn't trust the everyday person to own a gun. people have their ups and downs and when something like that is readily available you never know what might happen. if you really wanted to rid everyone of their guns, you'd have to ease them into the idea over time. when people are accepting that guns are no longer necessary, then you can put in anti-gun laws. my guess is, that won't happen anytime soon though.
On September 25 2006 18:21 RobOwns wrote: Whoa, unneccessary hostility. Newb made his points, but you don't have to attack him because his opinions differ from yours.
[removed quote within quote]has one of the lowest crime/homicide if not THE lowest in the world.
Japan also has an entirely different societal structure than most other countries. Apples and oranges.
On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: Like most people, you selected a source of information designed to validate your points. This is not the method of a truth seeker. If you are honestly curious about gun ownership and homicide rates, you need to seek out information which disproves your theory and question their motives as well.
I have to agree with you here. Although, it's human nature to do that. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's nothing wrong with that, especially seeing as he isn't writing a paper that will be published in an academic journal. It's just a forum post designed to spark some discussion.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I probably went over my head, but the fact is that he attempted to prove me wrong by not backing up any of his statistics. I agree with L!MP, if a gun ban could have been enacted before guns were far abound in America there would be a better chance of gun control working; unfortunately, it is too late.
NewbSaibot, if you decide to actually make some points and prove your opinion is actually better by providing your own research, then I would be happy to try and debate with you farther.
I don't have a gun. Everyone else does. Most people need motives to kill someone, unless you're Nino Brown, which is why I feel safe. If one random fella comes up a shoots me. It sucks, but that's a chance similar to the scenarios that Konni said.
Obviously thugs will get their hands on guns. But think of it like this. If heroin were legal, do you not think that more people would be doing it as it would be more easily accessible. Sorry I can't think of a better comparison as of now I don't really like that one but oh well.
On September 25 2006 17:46 DJEtterStyle wrote: [removed quote within quote] Alaska pride! Yeah!
That said, the vast, vast, vast majority of killings up here are Natives, Filipinos, and Samoans. The Natives have to have access to guns because they get most of their meat from hunting and/or fishing. And the Filipinos and Samoans are in gangs, meaning that they get their guns illegally. So no, your statement about "unrestricted gun control not working in Alaska" is incorrect. I'd wager that extra gun control would result in a tiny decrease in the amount of murders and a reasonable increase in the amount of other violent crimes.
Culture and context have a much greater effect upon how a people act than laws ever will.
Yeah, I was 'just' reporting the facts. But I agree with you that facts can only say so much, if you don't interrept them, they become useless and not applicable to real life situations. But if you do interpret them, their is a probability that they will be biased. I am glad that you corrected my assumption, that is all it was, about the violent crime rate in Alaska. Do you have any stats about violent crime rate in Alaska and how it pertains to certian ethnic groups. Is their a correlation between them and violent crimes, or is it between poor people (who often happen to be miniorities) and violent crimes. If you could provide facts about your statements it would deliver much more validity to your assumptions. But overal thanks for correcting me, I really appreciate it.
On September 25 2006 17:56 RobOwns wrote: You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has a pistol in his hand.If you have a gun, you can put two in his chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have a gun, you can either hope he isn't going to shoot you, or be shot, and die.
I know that's a rather minimalist way of looking at things, but it's true.
You are walking down the street. Everything goes black. You just got shot in the head by a maniac with a rifle, who yesterday had happily strolled into a shop and purchased said weapon with no problems.
I suppose my point is, where do you stop? Say if everyone still had swords, you could buy a suit of armour for protection. When everyone has pistols you can buy some kevlar and a gun of your own. Are you safe? Hell no. What about if someone shoots an rpg at you? Maybe you should carry a nuke to protect yourself. I just think guns are one step too far on the ladder.
On September 25 2006 17:45 ))(())(( wrote: [removed quote within quote]
gun control would be awesome, but its something thats never going to happen. too unrealistic; its a utopian idea. most crimes involved with guns are acquired illegally. take away legal guns, how do you defend yourself? i wish it would happen, but if anything, crime will raise at an alarming rate, as scumbags begin to pray on people without any reservations
This is the kind of fear-monger thinking that keeps america scared and buying guns(Which is what the gun manufacturers want of course). A person with this type of idealogy would rather put one far fetched instance ahead of the safety of hundreds of people who are victimized via legally acquired weapons... America may have a problem with poverty, but it doesnt mean that banning fire arms in the states would turn our world into Thunderdome. There are many other countries, some far poorer than america that have firearm bans, much easier to evade law enforcement and they do OK. Considering we are the richest country in the world I am sure it could be kept under control.
By the way, im not suggesting its a good idea for the US to ban guns. I cant see any way for that to work properly. Im simply arguing for the systems of countries where guns have never been freely obtainable.
On September 25 2006 18:35 red.venom wrote: [removed quote within quote]
This is the kind of fear-monger thinking that keeps america scared and buying guns(Which is what the gun manufacturers want of course). A person with this type of idealogy would rather put one far fetched instance ahead of the safety of hundreds of people who are victimized via legally acquired weapons... America may have a problem with poverty, but it doesnt mean that banning fire arms in the states would turn our world into Thunderdome. There are many other countries, some far poorer than america that have firearm bans, much easier to evade law enforcement and they do OK. Considering we are the richest country in the world I am sure it could be kept under control.
I see the point you make here. Would violent crimes increase or decrease with a gun ban on America? It can only be speculated at this point and I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that violent crimes will go up. However, I am not a criminologist or whatever so I can't really say my speculation is completely correct.
Why does everyone seem to think theyre gonna be billy badass if they have a 9 strapped to their side? "Aw man i'd cap some motha fucka if he came up on me from behind". Like their gun puts them in total control of the situation and themselves. Unless you have experience killing people, i dont wanna hear it. A criminal stands a much higher chance of defeating you in a gun fight thanks to a number of reasons, such as preparedness, experience, planned attack, surprise, hostage (girlfriend?), etc etc. He has been waiting in that alley for you, devising a strategy. You have been lookin at your girls tits after that long movie, her by your side, fumbling in your pocket for your keys. And now suddenly youre just gonna turn the table on someone who already has a gun pointed at you? Even if doesnt have a gun and you do, you think magically everything is just gonna work out in your favor?
The simple fact is when a gun is involved in any type of struggle the chance of someone dying skyrockets. Brandishing a firearm is a crisis is only inviting further danger to yourself. Unless the attacker is 30 feet away and from now on you will just start pulling your gun on any suspicious looking villain to keep that safety bubble intact.
Hasuprotss wrote:You fail to see the importance. There are many ideas as to why the 66% hadn't reported so. Maybe their victims didn't have a gun. You, sir, are an idiot who tries to distort facts.
And so is the website you linked to.
You fail to see that the violent crime rate with FIREARMS has skyrocketed as well. So gun control ISN'T WORKING, and yet you validate it because it will work? What the fuck?
What im saying is of course violent crimes are going to increase in a city who's population increases whether there is a gun law or not. There is a reason there are more crimes in Los Angeles than in Dinglewood Kansas.
Referring to Japan's gun control:
A good point. So maybe their is some other variable. Yet, I don't see the fact that gun control works, and it won't work in America.
You dont see any connection here at all? You think it purely coincidental? What do you think would happen if Japan abolished their gun laws? Do you honestly think nothing would change at all? I agree that it wont work in america, and ill explain why later.
Referring to florida's elderly popluation:
Doesn't change the fact that the crime rate DECREASED and that gun control played at least a minor role in the issue.
Crime has a certain demographic. When that demographic completely vacates a location, so will the crime. Florida's gun laws had nothing to do with their crime rates. Florida now has a dense population of senior citizens, so regardless of how many street thugs there are, their sheer size in numbers will skew the statistic lower (the fundamental reason why you should never rely on statistics only to paint a picture).
I fail to see your point. I put forward points to make gun control seem irrational. I asked YOU, the people who I would think agree with gun control, to come up with the facts and statistics and reasoning behind it. I fail to see how I fail to see to seek the truth. Stop bloviating, and shut up.
You fail to seek the truth because you know a better source of information exists and yet you avoid it. You cant play it off like you came here hoping to find the answers to all your questions and be converted and if that didnt happen, well you did your best, and in the end you were right all along and gun control is useless.
Let's understand a little something about crime. Most crimes are committed out of a persons belief in necessity. If you make it dangerous for a criminal to attack someone, by instilling a fear of death into every criminal because they must now face the very likely possibility that every citizen is armed, do you really think they will just stop robbing people, and choose to live under the bridge, suck dick for a living, and banana peels out of the dumpster? No, they will simply guarantee their crimes to be a success. When a man attacks you from behind to steal your wallet, he isnt hoping that he is successful, he feels he will 100% be successful. With the opponent having a weapon at their disposal, he must now escalate his measure to guarantee success. So instead of him simply puching you in the face and kicking you while you are down, he will just casually walk up from behind you and kill you on the spot, before you even have a chance to defend yourself. Not worth the risk for him since everyone has a gun.
In america right now, it's pretty much as good as you can get if you arent willing to reform people, improve quality of life, invest in law enforcement, etc etc, which most people arent. Since criminals are just "bad people" and theres no way to change them, let alone how bad it makes you feel to improve those who's lives are worse than yours. So we let them rott, and become hazards to our own health. If we disarm everyone, yes crime will probably increase. The country is too far blown, there are too many illegally spread firearms distributed amongst the criminals. But it could be a lot worse if we let firearms go completely unrestricted.
I live in the south, and I was listening in on a conversation between a friend of a friend they were having together a few weeks back, regarding his recent purchase of a new handgun. It went something like this:
"Yea man so when i was in New York, I had to wait like 2 fuckin weeks to get my baretta! What the fuck is that shit? Man so inconvenient. Anyway once i got down here (south carolina) i figured i might as well stock up on all the shit i want so i dont have to put up with that hassle next time. So i went to the gun store today and picked up a .45 on the spot, filled out a little paperwork, bam im done, no hassles."
I mean thats fuckin bullshit right there, nobody should be able to do that.
On September 25 2006 18:47 hasuprotoss wrote: [removed quote within quote]
I see the point you make here. Would violent crimes increase or decrease with a gun ban on America? It can only be speculated at this point and I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that violent crimes will go up. However, I am not a criminologist or whatever so I can't really say my speculation is completely correct.
An honest question:
if violent crime goes up, but the number of innocent ppl killed or cripled drops dramatically, is that bad?
i don't think there is an easy answer, but i'd rather be mugged 20 times than killed.
i would dispute that violent crime would rise. i see having easy access to guns as having easy access to mug with near certian success, as you would be the one with the gun pointing at them so they are in your power. however that is just speculation
On September 25 2006 18:33 ShabZzoY! wrote: [removed quote within quote]
You are walking down the street. Everything goes black. You just got shot in the head by a maniac with a rifle, who yesterday had happily strolled into a shop and purchased said weapon with no problems.
I suppose my point is, where do you stop? Say if everyone still had swords, you could buy a suit of armour for protection. When everyone has pistols you can buy some kevlar and a gun of your own. Are you safe? Hell no. What about if someone shoots an rpg at you? Maybe you should carry a nuke to protect yourself. I just think guns are one step too far on the ladder.
You stop when the firearm is overkill. That's why automatics are restricted. Your analogies are unrealistic, and don't present the point you're attempting to make as well as you could have. I still get what you're trying to say.
If gun laws are changed to prohibit sale of firearms to those who aren't fit to own one, there will be less problems. If firearms are legally available to anyone and everyone, then well, you get the US.
If firearms are entirely banned, well then criminals still have them, and you're punishing those who play by the rules. There's nothing wrong with a law-abiding citizen owning a firearm.
On September 25 2006 17:51 ))(())(( wrote: [removed quote within quote]
honestly, if i had a gun for my OWN SAFETY (not some malicious intent) and some crackhead or some other lovely character came up to me and tried to jack me up, i would have no problem putting one in his head. come to think of it, id be glad to. the idiot would be back out there the second he got out of jail, most likely.
I'm pretty sure that's how most people feel. That is, until they actually have to kill someone.. I think most people who've had to kill someone to defend themselves wish they could have done it some other way.. The guilt associated with it must be huge, although I guess I'm not speaking from personal experiences either =]
On September 25 2006 19:53 Sadist wrote: that guy who talked about a burgler.
Imagine if your kid tried to get into the house from sneaking out and you "accidentally" shot him in the face.
nice going dad!
thats funny, i used a similar scenerio for a coworker once, someone who also said "hell yea if someone breaks into my house im shootin first askin questions later!".
I just said "what if your son came home from college vacation early, to surprise you, and made a little too much noise sneaking in the house?" I cant even remember what he said, if anything.
Long story short: Do you trust yourself, and everyone you know with a gun? Everyone knows someone who's a little off. And we all know they aren't always harmless. Do you trust yourself in your biggest moments of anger or lifes biggest surprises? Many of us do. Some of us might not.
No guns = less crime. You cannot back this up with valid statistics without vast cultural differences. Why? Any fool can be powerful with a gun in their hands. They have the power to take life with the simple click of a trigger.
Guns give courage to the person who owns it. Robbing someone with a knife is messy and dangerous, and you have to have some confidence to do that. Robbing with a gun is much different.
If the only people who had guns was the authorities, i.e. military / police, most people would benefit from it. And i'm rather positive there would be less crime. You take enough of those odd-ball cases where random guy who's life sucks goes on a killing spree at the office or school, and it adds up crime wise. Especially in european and north american countries where the people have higher education. So long as they live in a more enlightened country.
Sadly, this is too hard to stop now. The manufacturers of arms are now too large to put an end to without a massive public protest.
One argument is that people will get guns much like they do drugs, if they outlaw guns. I don't buy that as easily. Guns would be harder to smuggle, especially internationally. They could crack down on them much more forcefully if the public demanded it.
On September 25 2006 18:33 Sharkey wrote: [removed quote within quote]
Yeah, I was 'just' reporting the facts. But I agree with you that facts can only say so much, if you don't interrept them, they become useless and not applicable to real life situations. But if you do interpret them, their is a probability that they will be biased. I am glad that you corrected my assumption, that is all it was, about the violent crime rate in Alaska. Do you have any stats about violent crime rate in Alaska and how it pertains to certian ethnic groups. Is their a correlation between them and violent crimes, or is it between poor people (who often happen to be miniorities) and violent crimes. If you could provide facts about your statements it would deliver much more validity to your assumptions. But overal thanks for correcting me, I really appreciate it.
I really didn't mean for my post to come off as an attack upon you. All I'm really saying--and all that you're really saying, I see--is that careful examination of facts is necessary in order to draw any sort of conclusion. We can't just look at a fact and say, "Oh, ok, so I guess gun control doesn't work." We have to examine societies and cultures and history and this and that and that thing over there plus that one hiding behind the sofa before we can say anything meaningful, and even then we're prone to be somehow off-base.
I'm not going to address any specific statistics or trends because it's been clearly shown that these can be easily cherrypicked from both sides. However I did want to outline what I see to be a misrepresentation from the pro-gun side.
It seems like hasuprotoss is dividing the US into the evil criminal and the innocent civilian as if this is the only time a legally owned gun would be deliberately used. Just because you would show thoughtful restraint (and I admit both you and RobOwns have genuinely considered the extent and ramifications of your own personal use), does not imply that the rest of the armed civilian population would act the same way and take the same precautions. The reality is that the spectrum of law-abiding citizens is a lot broader than that and there would be quite a few who I don't think should own a gun. Here are a few contrived scenarios which I don't think are all that far from reality.
- A racist (and I've met a few who believed that all blacks are worthless criminals) could easily shoot someone cutting through their property for having the wrong skin color. - Road rage. The most common weapon used in road rage altercations are firearms. Just the fact that some people manage to escalate such a situation to the point where a gun gets drawn shows that they really shouldn't be allowed to own one in the first place. - Overprotective father. Some conservative values dad who caught his daughter banging the milkman might overreact. While working for a farmer a few years back, he used to laugh about how his dad chased some kid off the property with a shotgun who was trying to see his sister. - Domestic dispute. Couple get into a fight, emotions running high. Perhaps one suspects infidelity. Or feels emotionally abused. Decides to do something stupid. And just as a sidenote, I am always amazed at the number of thwarted murders-for-hire (I believe there was one in the news recently) and how seemingly normal the perpetrators are. It just goes to show that what seems like perfectly law-abiding citizens are sometimes unstable enough to commit vicious crimes.
I don't raise these scenarios to claim gun control or gun bans are the answer. Of course there are times when a gun does save an innocent life. I just wanted to show that the "good" side is often a lot fuzzier than gun advocates are willing to admit. The simple reason is that we don't all deal with our perceptions and emotions equally.
It's reasonable to believe you should have the right to carry a gun to protect yourself and your family. What you then need to do is ask yourself how you feel about the drunken fratboy who picks fights with guys by trying to hook up with their girls thereby getting himself kicked out of bars early and him owning a gun.
Do you trust everyone you know with a car? I have a friend I would trust much more with a gun than a car.
I personally enjoy using guns recreationally. And why shouldn't I? Because I might go berserk and shoot people? I also might fall asleep at the wheel and cause a massive accident. That's alot more likely. Responsibility is the issue with guns as much as cars. If gun owners are responsible, their kids won't be able to shoot their friends. Also, if kids were slightly educated about guns they wouldn't be shooting eachother by accident anyway.
I also like the idea that if someone were out to kill me, I could shoot them rather than (hopefully) fighting them off with a kitchen knife or baseball bat. I certainly wouldn't shoot just anyone breaking into my house, just letting them know you're armed would send them running 99% of the time as they would likely just be thieves not murderers. None the less, if guns are used by criminals they should be used against them.
Guns do give power to the people. Look at the Iraq situation. A characteristic of totalitarian regimes is to take away all gun ownership.
I just remembered this while reading this thread, but.. When I was 9 I was shot in the back of the head with a pellet gun. I lived in a mixed urban/suburban area of Seattle, pretty busy place... My friends dad got the gun and kept it in his closet. My friend said after I got out of the hospital "I just wanted to see how it would feel, I didnt think you would get hurt." Now dont get me wrong, he was a child as was I, and he had some family problems.. But I did consider him my friend and trust him. That pellet could have easily been in one of my eyes, and I dont want to think about what would have happened if it was a .22 rifle or some other real gun. Random violence can happen to anyone and it is usually by someone you know on a day to day basis(If I should believe "facts" i have read in places).
I guess I kinda repressed the trauma of it(It was at a park about 15 blocks from where I lived, so I walked home with blood pouring down my neck and back). Afterwards all he was saying was "Dont tell my parents. Dad is gonna whup me with an extension cord" and crying. He didnt even walk all the way to my house with me.
The high pressure of any situation with a firearm just doesnt seem like something any human being can handle, because it is the ability to take life with the click of a trigger. And any amount of media grooming can tell you that you are a callous tough guy, and can handle it, but faced with the task.. I dont know, my random thought on this subject. : ]
Edit: And Inkblot, I have known some shitty/scary drivers. And I would trust any of them more with a car than with a gun. Cars arent explicitly used for harm.
Sure guns may have recreational purposes, but I question the need of someone to kill animals or discharge ammunition at targets just as much. It is a rush, but when you have the gun in your hands dont you think about what it would be like to turn it on someone near you? I have shot a few rifles and pistols before and the thought crossed my then 16 year old mind.
- a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
- When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run.
- An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
- Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
- Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
- A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
I know it was already posted but all it didn't get much attention.
I learnt about how oven spray can cause blindness yesterday. I am now going to be super careful when I clean the oven >_> I am glad I live in New Zealand where being shot by a gun only happens because of dumb Hunters mistaking people for Deer or other wild life.
On February 08 2011 12:14 Harrison Bergeron wrote: Yeah, I totally support gun control because...
- a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
- When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run.
- An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
- Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
- Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
- A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
I know it was already posted but all it didn't get much attention.
Did you not see the:
Warning: The last post in this thread is over two months old. If you bump this, you better have a good reason.
?
Or did you think you had "a good reason"?
I honestly don't see how bumps like this happen. I'm not trying to make a condescending "I don't know how you could be so stupid" either. I just for real wonder what chain of events precedes someone posting a straightforward reply to a conversation that ended five years ago.
The way I see it, you lose the right to bear arms as soon as you stop being a responsible citizen. I don't think gun control laws are strict enough in my opinion.
They should create a law that forces a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence for anyone caught breaking the law while in possession of a gun (of course not counting traffic misdemeanors). Once you are found guilty of a crime and you are at any time found in possession of fire arms, mandatory 10 year minimum sentence.
Guns are for law abiding citizens. If you want to own a gun, obey the law. Problem, criminals?
I love gun control. I learned it at age 4 and have had to defend my home from invaders twice (I was armed both times and never had to fire shot, it's presence in my hand was enough thankfully). Not that I wouldn't have shot the pricks they just didn't make any more aggressive movements. I have no problem putting a bullet between the eyes of someone that plans to take my life or do harm to my family, thats just how I was raised from a very young age. Granted I never took it seriously and thought them something to plink around with. Until you're put in a position where one man is armed and you are as well, real gun control sounds all super awesome.
If you control a gun the way it's supposed to be controlled it can be used for a couple important things: 1.) Pop a cap in someone's ass before you take their stuff Defend yourself and your family from other armed people 2.) Shoot Bambi, Simba, Huey, Dewey, and Louie Kill game for food and sport.
if there was a way to completely make sure americans dont own guns (take away the ones they already have), except for police officers, I would be for that. In korea, thats how it is. But thats not possible so i would advocate for just handgun allowance. if your kid plays with your gun and hurts himself, its ur fault for not placing a gun where he can't get it
I think it's important to realize that "gun control" is not the same as "remove all guns from all non-criminals and make everyone defenseless and sitting ducks and be complete pussies about everything".
How about making sure that any random person can't just buy a gun without a background check, obtaining a permit, etc.? Being careful about who purchases weapons would be nice.
Oh, by the way, here's another reason why gun control might be nice:
Banning anything is naturally going to make it more desired -- Check prohibition in the 20s, or just think about when you were a kid... drinking booze isn't nearly as fun when it's legal. Not saying this is similar to guns in any way, but when somebody can't have something is when most people want it more.
There is a difference between responsible gun ownership and just allowing everyone have a gun. Here in massachusetts theres a 16 hour safety course you have to go through to get your license. Not to mention the course costs $100.oo and the license is $100.00 more. To anyone that trusts the government and local police to keep them safe just think back to hurricane Katrina. That's why I bought a S&W 1911. I'm a super liberal but there's no way I'll ever trust the government again.
i agree with op, this gun control in canada is out of control and we have the statistics to back it. our ability to murder each other is severely gimped and we cannot possibly compete with america's numbers due to our liberal gun legislation
its a really good point that 34% of prisoners were scared off by their victims guns! im sure these prisoners are thankful that they all had access to weapons so that they could return fire. liberal gun laws make robbery much more difficult and in a free country you should be able to do whatever you want
On February 08 2011 13:58 seupac wrote: i agree with op, this gun control in canada is out of control and we have the statistics to back it. our ability to murder each other is severely gimped and we cannot possibly compete with america's numbers due to our liberal gun legislation
its a really good point that 34% of prisoners were scared off by their victims guns! im sure these prisoners are thankful that they all had access to weapons so that they could return fire. liberal gun laws make robbery much more difficult and in a free country you should be able to do whatever you want
I think that has more to do with how cold it is in Canada, as there is a correlation between increased temperature and crime rates. In other words, people in Canada aren't killing each other as often because it's terribly cold most of the year.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
If there weren't guns those people would just use knifes or other weapons. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
The chart you linked represents only firearm-based homicide. You are misreading it if you think that it means all homicide.
Your point still stands, but I think that there are a lot more reasons behind homicide rates than gun policies, including drug trafficking and cultural tendencies.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
If there weren't guns those people would just use knifes or other weapons. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
That argument is so flawed. The inhibition threshold to pull a trigger from afar is obviously much lower than the one to charge someone with a knife. Never bring a knife to a debate about gun control ...
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
If there weren't guns those people would just use knifes or other weapons. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
Lax firearm laws make it far too easy for someone to harm others.
You could still go on a knifing rampage, sure, but you'd be stopped before your kill-streak got too high. What is stopping an unstable gunman from doing what he/she pleases in a crowded shopping centre? Also, the line 'guns do not kill people, people do' is ignorant and fallacious. A gun is a very deadly weapon which can cause a huge number of casualties before the assailant is stopped. The same cannot be said for fists and chairs. There are certain people I know, even associate with regularly, that I would 100% not want them to be able to access a gun.
Australia learnt quickly following the Port Arthur massacre that guns and the general population don't mix, and since then we've had precious little firearm-related deaths. Gang-violence in Melbourne maybe, but statistically it is hardly significant.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
If there weren't guns those people would just use knifes or other weapons. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
Accessibility. How many people would *just use* a grenade instead of a gun? Let me just whip out my nuke. How are they going to get these other weapons?
Easiness. If I want to hurt you, I'm not going to put myself in potential danger by getting close to you with a knife. I'm going to safely point a gun at you from a few feet away.
Intimidation. It's a fucking gun. That means something. It's got a reputation. Even if I don't want to harm you, you'll most likely give me your possessions if I show you my gun.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
If there weren't guns those people would just use knifes or other weapons. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
That's a stupid argument because guns make it easier to kill people, and whenever you lower the difficulty barrier, more people become willing to do something.
It's WAY harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. There is a much larger psychological barrier to killing a person up close and feeling their blood soak your hand, as opposed to shooting someone at a distance. Also, unless it's a sneak attack, the person you attack with a knife may fight back, struggling to keep your knife arm away. The person you shoot with a gun won't stand a chance.
The problem with the US is they've gone so extreme about owning every type of gun. In Canada, I believe there was a year where we had more guns per capita than the USA. However, almost all guns in Canada are hunting rifles or shotguns for farmers and hunters. Those guns are almost never used for crime because you can't hide them when you run away, the giant gun is a dead giveaway that you're the criminal. In the US everyone loves handguns which are easy to conceal and are the weapon of choice for robberies and murder.
On February 08 2011 14:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Easiness. If I want to hurt you, I'm not going to put myself in potential danger by getting close to you with a knife. I'm going to safely point a gun at you from a few feet away.
That's just not a realistic statement. The US is higher on gun crimes per capita but it's also higher in violent crimes per capita. Blaming guns, in a way, is a fleeting solution to what's actually a bigger problem in America- for a plethora of reasons, American society is more violent than other first world countries.
It's folly to think the violence issues in America are simply due to lax or unenforced gun laws. They might help in one specific area, but that's not the core of the problem.
EDIT: And this is coming from someone who hates the Second Amendment.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
But I would assume similar European countries don't have kids growing up wanting to be gangster and live the 'thug lyfe.'
On February 08 2011 14:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Easiness. If I want to hurt you, I'm not going to put myself in potential danger by getting close to you with a knife. I'm going to safely point a gun at you from a few feet away.
That's just not a realistic statement. The US is higher on gun crimes per capita but it's also higher in violent crimes per capita. Blaming guns, in a way, is a fleeting solution to what's actually a bigger problem in America- for a plethora of reasons, American society is more violent than other first world countries.
It's folly to think the violence issues in America are simply due to lax or unenforced gun laws. They might help in one specific area, but that's not the core of the problem.
I don't understand why your statement is a response to that particular quote of mine. Can you please explain?
You don't think that shooting someone with a gun is easier and safer for the criminal than stabbing the victim? If I wanted to harm someone and I could use either a gun or a knife, I think the choice would be a simple one.
I don't think that guns are the only reason why we have violence in America, nor have I ever said that. I'm just saying that guns make it easier to kill people.
Look at the homocide rates in The U.S compared to 'similar' european countries with stricter gun laws.The U.S basically has 10 times or more the amount of homocides :v.
If there weren't guns those people would just use knifes or other weapons. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
That's a stupid argument because guns make it easier to kill people, and whenever you lower the difficulty barrier, more people become willing to do something.
It's WAY harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. There is a much larger psychological barrier to killing a person up close and feeling their blood soak your hand, as opposed to shooting someone at a distance. Also, unless it's a sneak attack, the person you attack with a knife may fight back, struggling to keep your knife arm away. The person you shoot with a gun won't stand a chance.
Until people realize how much culture/regions/accessibility matter in this debate, it won't go anywhere. The emptiness in half of canada compared to the dozens of inner city areas and sophisticated crime in the US makes Canada/US incomparable.
If I remember correctly, most guns used by criminals are taken illegally.
Edit: Hold on.
With more firearms comes more deaths. That's an inherent fact. However, you can't present this as conclusive evidence without some kind of control group to compare it to. So, for example, how would things change (or would they stay the same?) as the number of firearms decreases? We don't know. We can only speculate.
I just wanted to point out that chart is inconclusive and shouldn't be taken as any kind of concrete statement.
What? The number of guns I have sitting on the coffee table next to me does not in any way corrolate to more people dying.
You could arm everybody in the country without anybody(figuitively) dying due to gun crime. See Switzerland.
On September 25 2006 17:23 pirate cod wrote: I'm still a bit unsure why exactly you need guns for anything if you're a civilian. To protect yourself? From who? I've walked through rough parts of New Jersey and and New York at awful times of the night and have never held a gun in my life and if I were to be in trouble I cannot say holding a gun would change things for the better. Someone explain to me a situation where you actually need a gun that would otherwise alter a lifethreatening outcome. You're being mugged on the street by gun point. He's not out to kill you, but you take out your gun to protect yourself and he shoots you. Guys out to kill you, he shoots you, what use is that gun. Ban all guns seems like a good solution. While the obvious thug would still be able to get his hands on a gun, logic tells me even while warranting those exceptions, banning guns would be for the better.
Who is supposed to protect you if you deny responsibility? Look up Warren vs D.C. Even if police were supposed to protect you, seconds count when the police are only minutes away.
If I'm being mugged on the street by a guy at gunpoint I pull a gun and shoot him. He doesnt shoot me, that simple. Everybody has this (false) idea that a person will always be shot if his gun is in the holster vs a person who already has a gun out. This is a myth. Look at any convenience store robbery camera when the cashier was armed.
On February 08 2011 14:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Easiness. If I want to hurt you, I'm not going to put myself in potential danger by getting close to you with a knife. I'm going to safely point a gun at you from a few feet away.
That's just not a realistic statement. The US is higher on gun crimes per capita but it's also higher in violent crimes per capita. Blaming guns, in a way, is a fleeting solution to what's actually a bigger problem in America- for a plethora of reasons, American society is more violent than other first world countries.
It's folly to think the violence issues in America are simply due to lax or unenforced gun laws. They might help in one specific area, but that's not the core of the problem.
I don't understand why your statement is a response to that particular quote of mine. Can you please explain?
You don't think that shooting someone with a gun is easier and safer for the criminal than stabbing the victim? If I wanted to harm someone and I could use either a gun or a knife, I think the choice would be a simple one.
I don't think that guns are the only reason why we have violence in America, nor have I ever said that. I'm just saying that guns make it easier to kill people.
Because people DO take the risk to commit other types of crimes. That was my point. It's not just because of guns that people commit crimes. Americans generally commit more crimes regardless of the weapon they're using.
Anyways, I'm closing this down. We don't need another gun control debate and more importantly, we all got trolled by tdot. >.>
EPT
).
![[image loading]](http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/courtney_chart.gif)
, mind you, it's something anti-liberal I found:
