|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2012 04:42 Yongwang wrote:
Go to some of the immigration districts of London at night. Just do it and tell me you feel safe in your "gun free" society.
i grew up in what you would call an "immigration districts" of France (and also went to the worst suburbs in London and some parts of UK)
i probably wouldn't have make it if everyone knew i was carrying a gun all the time with me
|
On February 20 2012 04:43 Nothingtosay wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:41 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:33 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 04:30 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all. Because the main argument against gun control is that people can use them for self defense. If this is true, then taking that persons life is also implied as a possible consequence and thus it's a discussion of the value of human life. I don't think that's true. A bigger concern than people killing someone in self-defense (which is totally acceptable imo) is that a) by having no gun controll you make them easily obtainable for every nutjob that might like the idea of shooting someone b) you run a high risk of gun-related accidents (children getting their hands on them; shooting someone you think is an intruder but isn't; etc.) c) if guns are a normal part of every day life, people don't have as much respect as they should have towards a tool that's made to kill, so they are more likely to use them, even if they don't have to. That bold part is completely false.
How so? I think the fact that people feel the need to own a gun already proves my point. For me the wish to own a gun is as distant from reality as the wish to have a personal space shuttle in my garden(well... almost  ). The idea that guns are "normal" enough that people want to own one is weird to me already.
|
On February 20 2012 04:42 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime? The part where you think that the only factor affecting crimerates is how many guns there are in the hands of citizens. We've been having more solar flares as of late, and crime has been decreasing. I guess more solar flares mean less crime. Perfect logic. You need to prove your assumption.
Read an academic book called "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It gives an econometric analysis arguing this point. Holding for other factors, the author makes the point that yes, in fact more guns equals less crime. There really hasn't been any complete study that argues against this using the same kind of rigorous modeling.
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173516329l/299835.jpg)
|
On February 20 2012 04:42 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:41 lozarian wrote:On February 20 2012 04:06 NotSorry wrote:
Legal or not I will always have guns to protect my family and neighbors, outlawing guns isn't going to stop the little wanna-be gang bangers around here from getting them and using them on unarmed people Yet I have never felt the need or inclination to carry any form of weapon. I am not frightened that someone will shoot me, because due to the difficulty in obtaining guns in the uk - the only people with guns are those I don't associate with. We have wannabe gangs in the UK - and most of the time they're just bored teenagers standing around on the street. If you could buy a gun easily, yet still have it be a status symbol, an icon of power - pretty sure they would. If the wannabes can get guns easily, they'll get them. If they can't - they won't, because they're wannabes. And I don't tend to hang around mafia and thugs. If your only justification for having a gun is that you're scared of other people having guns... surely other people having fewer guns is just as good as mutually assured death. Just looked up a few statistics: since 2008 there have been 47 guns removed from London's streets by the police. That's 12 a year. There have been more than 4,500 arrests by the related force. Pretty much speaks for itself. If you have a gun or a knife, you can end up using it, which means that other people end up using it. Statistically those who carry weapons are far far more likely to end up injured than those who don't, this is not only true in the UK, where one could argue that having weapons increases tendencies to be doing something illegal, since it's already illegal: http://bit.ly/wb4xya(shortened the link) Legal or not - I will never carry a gun, because I want to protect my own and loved ones' health. Go to some of the immigration districts of London at night. Just do it and tell me you feel safe in your "gun free" society.
To be honest, there are very few places in London I can think of that I wouldn't feel safe. But since you clearly know more about my city than I do - please, suggest places, because I have felt less safe in the centre of London in the middle of the afternoon than in Brixton at 11 at night, and that's just because I think some tramp looked a bit grumpy and drunk, and might decide I looked at him funny, which would result in... a black eye?
|
On February 20 2012 04:29 Chanted wrote:
I think people in the US are stuck in a "loop" that us europeans probably really cannot understand. In Norway nobody I know owns a gun, maybe one or 2 have hunting weapons, but I cant think of anyone I know who has a gun. The knowledge that (almost) nobody owns a gun here, makes it alot easier for us.
I think that in the US, safety is tied up to owning a gun, and also the knowledge that "everyone" has a gun making it harder to be that person who says, oh lets try and change this, I dont need a gun, only to get gunned down or shot in his home by a criminal.
What I see as problematic is the lack of will towards making a change that is undoubtably for the better. ITS BETTER WHEN EVERYONE DOESNT HAVE A GUN. I understand why it wont happen over night, I just dont understand how Americans cant understand that statement.
What you don't understand is that it is impossible for no one except duly constituted authorities to have guns. There is no amount of time that will accomplish that.
It is not better when everyone doesn't have a gun, because 1) that is literally impossible, and 2) as can be seen in a large number of countries around the world, no one but the government having guns is an open invitation to lethal government repression.
I don't understand why when it has only been a generation since half of Europe lived under dictators and only 3 generations since more than half of Europe lived under dictators, that Western Europeans cannot understand that they have not transcended history or gotten themselves some kind of free pass from reality based on their enlightened morality (or whatever nonsense they believe about themselves that oozes from their attitude whenever they start criticizing other countries, the US in particular). You can't escape human nature.
To be honest, there are very few places in London I can think of that I wouldn't feel safe. But since you clearly know more about my city than I do - please, suggest places, because I have felt less safe in the centre of London in the middle of the afternoon than in Brixton at 11 at night, and that's just because I think some tramp looked a bit grumpy and drunk, and might decide I looked at him funny, which would result in... a black eye?
Whether you feel safe or not is irrelevant, as is his charge that you would not.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/ny-fares-well-vs-london-in-a-new-study/83495/
These numbers have not improved for London vis-a-vis New York in recent years. You live in a more violent, less safe society, despite the great proliferation of guns in the US compared to that of the UK.
It's been this way for a while:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/12/world/world-news-briefs-british-crime-rates-found-higher-than-us-totals.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0611/hosb0611?view=Binary
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=population of uk
|
On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime?
yeah, thats why there is so much less crime in the US than there is in any first world european country where weapons arent allowed
|
High number of guns doesn't decrease crime anymore than it increases crimes. They are two complete seperate issues.
If you gave a gun to every Norwegian or Dane or whatevere they wouldn't go out and shoot eachother. If you removed every single gun from the USA they would still stab or beat eachother to death.
The crimes rates in the US are much more likely to be caused by the lack of resocializing "criminals" as well as the ever greater divide between rich and poor.
|
On February 20 2012 04:46 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:44 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 04:41 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:33 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 04:30 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all. Because the main argument against gun control is that people can use them for self defense. If this is true, then taking that persons life is also implied as a possible consequence and thus it's a discussion of the value of human life. While I agree that OrchidThief doesn't seem to understand the pleasure of target shooting the rest of your post is just, I don't know what to say. Well I do, but I play darts or something instead. It's the fact that you need a gun to show how precise you are that I find repulsive because of what the intend of guns is. How about this; one life is worth one life. Taking the life of someone who goes around threatening other people's lives has therefore got positive utility. You see it as eye for an eye, I see it as two dead lives. Like I said, fundamental difference in the value of a life. I get that one dead life is the mugger, but where do you get the second one?
Eh, guess my point wasn't very relevant to self defense, but more of a capital punishment sort of deal. My bad. The point was still that taking a life in self defense still leaves you with a person who died from the ordeal, which I don't see as justified.
|
On February 20 2012 04:43 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:38 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:26 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:24 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:17 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:15 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:14 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote:
Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life? What if he has a GUN on top of that? That would certainly make things a lot more scary than his intentions alone. What if he does? What if he has a knife? What if he has a hand grenade? It doesn't matter what he is using, what matters is the scenario. What? It absolutely does matter. I'd certainly prefer it if he had a knife instead (grenades should be covered by the same laws that guns are anyway). The scenario is different depending on how easy it is for him to hurt or kill you. And I would personally prefer the kind of scenario where he doesn't only have to move his finger by an inch at long range to do so. With a knife, you'd have to get up close and personal with them, preferably with a knife of your own, and hope to hell they aren't bigger, stronger, or more experienced in a fight. With a gun, you just have to hope you get a shot off first, and you are the one with the home field advantage. Are you serious? I'm a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who shoots first? There are only a few similar ways that scenario would end and none of them looks like something out of an episode of Chuck. You're a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who wins in a knifefight? With guns in the mix, at least your neighbors might hear the gunshot and call the police and/or be there to apprehend your attacker. Yeah, after I'm DEAD. Thinking you have ANY KIND of advantage in a gun-to-gun scenario against somebody who has fired a gun in the past with intent to harm/kill is borderline delusional. This is not a game, whatever theoretical advantages you have you'll be pissing away in fear. In a knife scenario, there is no knife fight. There's me running the hell away (natural instinct that kicks in instantly) making as much noise and dialing as many numbers as possible. With a greater probability of avoiding lethal wounds in any scenario. If he ever manages to get near to me in the first place. So, let's suppose this scenario: Your bedroom is downstairs. Your children's bedrooms are upstairs. You have just been awakened in the night, by the sound of a serial killer breaking into your house. He is heading upstairs. What's your response?
I don't doubt your ability to construct scenarios that were ideal for the point you're trying to make. Even in your scenario, however, nobody having a gun gives both me and the kids greater chances for survival and in my opinion gives me a better fighting chance as well (with a club-like object, for example).
I, however, am talking about probabilities. Over a sum of ALL possible scenarios (yours being one of the least likely ones), I'm way better off if nobody has a firearm.
This is not difficult to prove - the necessity for close range, the greater difficulty of causing lethal wounds, and basic psychology all make the scenario a lot more difficult for the attacker compared to him having an instant-kill-trigger he can activate in a fraction of a second. It's obvious really.
|
On February 20 2012 04:49 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime? yeah, thats why there is so much less crime in the US than there is in any first world european country where weapons arent allowed
Guess you failed to read everything? No one said anything about US having a lower crime rate then anyone. How hard is it to read??. My post was to people like you who think that one statistic is the end all be all of the discussion. If Crime is on the decline here over the last 20+ years, then you theory of guns = more crime is incorrect many things cause more crime there are thousands of factor's. Since we have the numbers to prove the decline of murder and crime in general i don't know how you can blame only guns.
|
On February 20 2012 04:27 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:20 saMas wrote:
Imo give US more guns to shoot each other = profit for the rest of the world
no but honestly guns are the reason US has a high crime rate and high muder rate....... captain obvious to the rescue! nananananan There are countries with equal or higher arms per capita rates, with nowhere near the crime-rates of USA. There isn't a proven causality even if there might be some correlation. The liberal guns laws of the USA and the high crime rates are two seperate subjects.
That about says it all in this debate.
There are social problems in the US that give us an especially high crime rate, and taking guns away should not be used as the solution. Even within the US, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of examples of areas with very high gun ownership and low crime. Taking away guns instead of first doing everything we can to address the actual problems causing the high crime rates seems lazy, and pretty foolish.
|
|
|
On February 20 2012 04:49 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime? yeah, thats why there is so much less crime in the US than there is in any first world european country where weapons arent allowed
I posted a pair of studies regarding this on page three; http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=3#50
|
On February 20 2012 04:41 lozarian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:06 NotSorry wrote:
Legal or not I will always have guns to protect my family and neighbors, outlawing guns isn't going to stop the little wanna-be gang bangers around here from getting them and using them on unarmed people Yet I have never felt the need or inclination to carry any form of weapon. I am not frightened that someone will shoot me, because due to the difficulty in obtaining guns in the uk - the only people with guns are those I don't associate with. We have wannabe gangs in the UK - and most of the time they're just bored teenagers standing around on the street. If you could buy a gun easily, yet still have it be a status symbol, an icon of power - pretty sure they would. If the wannabes can get guns easily, they'll get them. If they can't - they won't, because they're wannabes. And I don't tend to hang around mafia and thugs. If your only justification for having a gun is that you're scared of other people having guns... surely other people having fewer guns is just as good as mutually assured death. Just looked up a few statistics: since 2008 there have been 47 guns removed from London's streets by the police. That's 12 a year. There have been more than 4,500 arrests by the related force. Pretty much speaks for itself. If you have a gun or a knife, you can end up using it, which means that other people end up using it. Statistically those who carry weapons are far far more likely to end up injured than those who don't, this is not only true in the UK, where one could argue that having weapons increases tendencies to be doing something illegal, since it's already illegal: http://bit.ly/wb4xya(shortened the link) Legal or not - I will never carry a gun, because I want to protect my own and loved ones' health.
You make it all sound like some bad movie, it has nothing to do with associating with the "wrong" people, they don't invade your house to steal shit because they know you, they do it because it looked like an easy mark or high rewards. Hopefully you never have to live in a ghetto and learn the reality of what people with nothing will do.
|
On February 20 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:When I compare the murder rate in the US to that of other developed countries, I wish we had less guns. Its really staggering just how much more murder occurs here compared to Japan or Korea 
The rate of murder by other means is also much higher than those countries.The guns aren't the problem, the people are.
|
|
|
On February 20 2012 04:54 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:49 teddyoojo wrote:On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime? yeah, thats why there is so much less crime in the US than there is in any first world european country where weapons arent allowed Guess you failed to read everything? No one said anything about US having a lower crime rate then anyone. How hard is it to read??. My post was to people like you who think that one statistic is the end all be all of the discussion. If Crime is on the decline here over the last 20+ years, then you theory of guns = more crime is incorrect many things cause more crime there are thousands of factor's. Since we have the numbers to prove the decline of murder and crime in general i don't know how you can blame only guns.
how does it happen your crime rates are higher in the first place? and its not like there are other reasons for a decline in crime rates.
|
No guns at all for the general population other than for hunting.
Guns brings out the worst in people.
|
Also not proper academics if the academics calling him biased are themselves biased. Gun issues are one of the most bias-heavy on either side in academia. In any case, from the Wiki link:
Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[27] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[28]
Right-to-carry ("open carry") seems to decrease crime, while concealed carry has negligible effect. Probably because you can't tell if someone is concealed-carrying so you roll the dice and take your chances, but if they have a revolver or pistol in plain sight on their hip, you know full well you could get shot if you try to rob them.
No guns at all for the general population other than for hunting.
Guns brings out the worst in people.
So why should members of the government, the one organization proven time and again historically to have the capacity and the will to carry out murder on an organized, systematic and systemic scale, be the only ones allowed to have guns?
And 700,000 people were murdered in a few weeks in Rwanda overwhelmingly with machetes and other blades. Lack of guns doesn't prevent anything.
|
On February 20 2012 04:56 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +However, this is an imperfect world. Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle. The law enforcement has finite resources and can't always be there in time. Therefore I believe a person should have the right to arm themself for the purpose of self defence. I've always thought that this is the best way of looking at this debate. In countries were firearms aren't widespread and are hard to obtain (i.e. Britain), it is reasonable to heavily restrict them. The chance of me needing a gun to defend myself are incredibly small, and I'm very unlikely to ever encounter someone with a gun. On the other hand, in countries were firearms are widespread and are not hard to obtain (i.e. USA), it is unreasonable to heavily restrict them. Restrictions do need to be in place to stop people having guns they plainly don't need for self-defence (sniper rifles, assault rifles etc.), but I think it's silly to prevent citizens from owning guns in countries were criminals already have easy access to guns.
What about hobby shooters specifically long distance shooters and competitions (where Sniper rifles) are par for the course?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
