|
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 July 21 2012 07:41 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote:People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent. For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you. Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well. Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911 By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has doubled in a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception. Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program. The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy. http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/women/index.aspThe national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms. My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
You do have to agree though that the trends are favoring gun ownership. I don't care how you spin it, UK's gun crime rate has doubled to the point where they are now allowing armed patrols on the streets armed with SMGs (the MP5). Obviously it has gone up enough to the point where the UK feels it necessary to do something about it.
Two, yes, there's no correlation without any proof in these articles. But there's also no correlation that banning guns would do anything to violent crimes; if anything, it would actually increase it if you look at strict gun control regions like D.C., the UK, etc.
|
On July 21 2012 08:00 v3chr0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote:
ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force. Very well done. I think we can close this thread. lol We need you to solve World Hunger now.
LOL. Right. I'll be here when the world needs me. -_- Bastard.
|
On July 21 2012 08:18 Solarist wrote:
This is insane. Im shocked to see this many John Wayne wannabe psycopaths on a forum like TL.net.
Some people posting here should really get checked out.
Random teenager breaks into my house: Shoot him in the face
Hear suspecious noice downstairs, better assume its psycho rapists: Shoot them in the face
I really thought people with opinions like those expressed by alot of Americans in this thread were too braindead inbred to operate a computer. But alas my faith has been shattered.
Nice to see there's some sensible Americans in here aswell
Right. Because "Shoot him in the face" is the only option for dealing with criminals while using a gun.
That's idiocy. You're asserting that most or all gun owners would 'shoot to kill' regardless of whether their life was in danger. Jesus Christ.
|
On July 21 2012 08:09 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 08:02 Domus wrote:On July 21 2012 07:48 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 07:41 Domus wrote:On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote:People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent. For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you. Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well. Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911 By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has doubled in a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception. Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program. The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy. http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/women/index.aspThe national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms. My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc. I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is. No. I will not concede to how this article states it. Just to be clear, I am not really pro/con gun control. Like I stated earlier, I used to be against, but am pretty neutral on it these days. I think other issues should be addressed first to reduce violence. That said, the artice is just bad (and don't take that personally  ). The problem is that it claims a correlation where none is proven. If someone is shot with a gun, or suicides with a gun the correlation is clear. x persons died by using a gun. But in this article something happens that can't be claimed, it claims that the rates have gone down because there were more guns. This can't be proven, because then you would have to go into each individual case and say, was a crime prevented here because a gun was there as a deterent? Do you see that it is pretty much impossible to claim this? But...for a more clear picture look here, This gives you a good view of what the difference is between the USA and other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateWhere the USA has a homicide rate by firearm of 4.14, the UK has a homicide rate by firearm of 0.07. So the chance of homicide by firearm is about 59 times higher in the USA. Even if you take into acount some relative changes, there is still a huge difference. You're right, there is an appeal to a perspective based on an interpretation of facts. I never believed in trying to prove an absolute by using these statistics, but things can be reasonably inferred from the data. If you look at the data and interpret something else, well, you're welcome to do that, but to me the data is saying something, and it happens to fit what I would find logical, so if you have some data that is more absolute that directly counters my hypotheses I'd like to read it. I TOTALLY agree about the homicide rate. I would never try to assert that it is even CLOSE to the ballpark of the US. But don't forget to compare apples and apples and compare GUN CRIMES, not just homicide by firearms. This would include any crime where a gun appeared, whether just brandished or not. This is the statistic you would want to look at to determine whether gun control laws of UK are squashing gun crimes at an increasing rate or not. Sad reality is the gun crimes are going in the opposite direction. Now from that, I infer that means something (ie. gun laws do nothing, when someone wants a gun to commit a crime with, they'll get it whether its easy or not). You can disagree with my INFERRENCE, but you cannot disagree with the increase right?
I think it is hard to draw hard conclusions on trends on either side of the case. It takes some serious research to get a truly objective view, but both the pro and con sides distort the facts to serve their own purposes. Like I said earlier, I don't think the guns are the first issue to look at. A person uses a gun for a reason, I believe in taking away the reason.
So if people feel unsafe and feel the gun gives them safety, then it is up to society to address this unsafe feeling first. If people have no job perspective and resort to using guns for robberies, then society should look at how to tackle social-economic issues. If there are a bunch of crazy adolescents or adults involved in big shootings, then it is time to check if there is the right type of counsiling and early detection available in schools and if mental care is accessible to people.
Of course the individuals should always be punished when they use firearms for violence, i am not saying there is no individual responsiblity. But the gun itself is not the real issue, the reasons for using the gun are. In the end if those issues are addressed people won't feel the need to own gun, and just view them at toys to be used while at the shooting range/hunting.
|
On February 20 2012 03:05 Dr. Von Derful wrote:
Gun control only serves to make it harder (or impossible) for law abiding citizens to have and use them for either home defense, the illusion of safety, or whatever reason they feel they want to have said weapon. If someone wants to obtain a gun to kill someone, gun control isn't going to put up any barrier to prevent this to happen as they are most likely already obtaining this weapon illegally.
That being said, gun ownership only poses one problem in my mind and that is vigilantism or the "Make My Day" law. Unfortunately, a large contingent of gun owners aren't qualified to be using them and should they deem it necessary to use them to protect others, they only serve to endanger or further exacerbate a dire situation.
I'm all for relaxed gun control laws. I find it obscene that any government can remove the ability of a populus to defend itself from terrorist and tyrants alike. I do feel that there needs to be some sort of mandatory / provided class(es) or training that completely familiarizes the individual with the use of the weapon, proper storage, understanding of munition the weapon uses, maintenance of the weapon and situations in which a concealed carry permit would be merited.
I don't understand why everyone thinks this when countries like South Korea have shown that gun control is effective and prevents a lot of ppl from getting one illegally.
|
On July 21 2012 07:31 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote:People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent. For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you. Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well. Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911 By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has doubled in a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception. Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program. The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy. http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/women/index.aspThe national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms. I'm tired of hearing about what the founding fathers thought, not only were they alive nigh 200-300 years ago, but our country shouldn't be based on what a few guys thought was right a long ass time ago.
What was relevant back then is still relevant... the founding fathers thought people should be able to own firearms to protect their own property. It's not that hard to understand. People had private property back then too.
|
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
I feel our gun laws throughout the Country have completely ignored the first part of the Second Amendment.
|
On July 21 2012 08:24 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 08:18 Solarist wrote:
This is insane. Im shocked to see this many John Wayne wannabe psycopaths on a forum like TL.net.
Some people posting here should really get checked out.
Random teenager breaks into my house: Shoot him in the face
Hear suspecious noice downstairs, better assume its psycho rapists: Shoot them in the face
I really thought people with opinions like those expressed by alot of Americans in this thread were too braindead inbred to operate a computer. But alas my faith has been shattered.
Nice to see there's some sensible Americans in here aswell Right. Because "Shoot him in the face" is the only option for dealing with criminals while using a gun. That's idiocy. You're asserting that most or all gun owners would 'shoot to kill' regardless of whether their life was in danger. Jesus Christ.
Sadly thats been the opinion expressed by a ton of pro-gun people in this thread (Let0 or something comes to mind). I dont suggest you read the previous pages, its pretty disgusting
|
On July 21 2012 08:26 Solarist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 08:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 08:18 Solarist wrote:
This is insane. Im shocked to see this many John Wayne wannabe psycopaths on a forum like TL.net.
Some people posting here should really get checked out.
Random teenager breaks into my house: Shoot him in the face
Hear suspecious noice downstairs, better assume its psycho rapists: Shoot them in the face
I really thought people with opinions like those expressed by alot of Americans in this thread were too braindead inbred to operate a computer. But alas my faith has been shattered.
Nice to see there's some sensible Americans in here aswell Right. Because "Shoot him in the face" is the only option for dealing with criminals while using a gun. That's idiocy. You're asserting that most or all gun owners would 'shoot to kill' regardless of whether their life was in danger. Jesus Christ. Sadly thats been the opinion expressed by a ton of pro-gun people in this thread (Let0 or something comes to mid). I dont suggest you read the previous pages, its pretty disgusting
I will say though, that if I lived in the States, that guy did an amazing job of convincing me to get a gun, just to protect myself from people like him 
|
On July 21 2012 08:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 07:41 Domus wrote:On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote:People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent. For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you. Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well. Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911 By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has doubled in a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception. Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program. The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy. http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/women/index.aspThe national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms. My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc. You do have to agree though that the trends are favoring gun ownership. I don't care how you spin it, UK's gun crime rate has doubled to the point where they are now allowing armed patrols on the streets armed with SMGs (the MP5). Obviously it has gone up enough to the point where the UK feels it necessary to do something about it. Two, yes, there's no correlation without any proof in these articles. But there's also no correlation that banning guns would do anything to violent crimes; if anything, it would actually increase it if you look at strict gun control regions like D.C., the UK, etc.
What, no! This is not gun ownership by citizens. These guns are used by trained police officers. The MP5s are only used by London Metropolitan Police. They are comparabable to a SWAT team, and are used against organized crime, and as first line anti-terrorism. Do you remember the terrorist attack in London?
|
On July 21 2012 08:26 Solarist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 08:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 08:18 Solarist wrote:
This is insane. Im shocked to see this many John Wayne wannabe psycopaths on a forum like TL.net.
Some people posting here should really get checked out.
Random teenager breaks into my house: Shoot him in the face
Hear suspecious noice downstairs, better assume its psycho rapists: Shoot them in the face
I really thought people with opinions like those expressed by alot of Americans in this thread were too braindead inbred to operate a computer. But alas my faith has been shattered.
Nice to see there's some sensible Americans in here aswell Right. Because "Shoot him in the face" is the only option for dealing with criminals while using a gun. That's idiocy. You're asserting that most or all gun owners would 'shoot to kill' regardless of whether their life was in danger. Jesus Christ. Sadly thats been the opinion expressed by a ton of pro-gun people in this thread (Let0 or something comes to mid). I dont suggest you read the previous pages, its pretty disgusting
Anyone who thinks you should use a firearm in self defense without the intent to kill is childish and shouldn't be allowed any where's near a weapon. It's literally the first thing they will teach you. It's a killing tool and nothing else. You Do not point it unless you are killing what you are pointing at. Ntheres no "quick shoot and disable his trigger finger". Don't be so naive.
|
I believe that in places like the US where there are so many guns already, attempting to ban guns would be unfeasible, however I do think that much tighter regulation of who is allowed to own guns and forced registration of all guns you own as well as yearly checks on these gun owners to check that they are of a suitable mindset when it comes to their guns.
|
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote:
ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
That's a bad argument to make since crime prevention is about statistics, and not about perfection. If you can prevent 7 out of 10 to accomplish a deed, by changing the laws, that's certainly a step in the right direction.
Random oddballs can't obtain guns in Sweden, because the criminal syndicates shuns them even more than society does. Organized criminals are generally not crazy, like I pointed out, mental/emotional stability and the ability to stay detached to things are the most important traits for a criminal by trade. Would you say that a guy who pretends that he's The Joker is emotionally stable? If you look at a high-school class, it's not the emo or silent guys that joins criminal syndicates. These ppl don't have the assertiveness to walk down that path. Rather it's generally the outgoing and smart but misdirected guys that takes that path. If you asked a criminologist to estimate how likely it would be for a swedish person who fits the same category to obtain a firearm and accomplish the same deed, he would say that the chance is almost non-existant. In USA that's not the case.
|
On July 21 2012 08:24 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 08:09 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 08:02 Domus wrote:On July 21 2012 07:48 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 07:41 Domus wrote:On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote:People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent. For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you. Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well. Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911 By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has doubled in a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception. Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program. The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy. http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/women/index.aspThe national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms. My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc. I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is. No. I will not concede to how this article states it. Just to be clear, I am not really pro/con gun control. Like I stated earlier, I used to be against, but am pretty neutral on it these days. I think other issues should be addressed first to reduce violence. That said, the artice is just bad (and don't take that personally ). The problem is that it claims a correlation where none is proven. If someone is shot with a gun, or suicides with a gun the correlation is clear. x persons died by using a gun. But in this article something happens that can't be claimed, it claims that the rates have gone down because there were more guns. This can't be proven, because then you would have to go into each individual case and say, was a crime prevented here because a gun was there as a deterent? Do you see that it is pretty much impossible to claim this? But...for a more clear picture look here, This gives you a good view of what the difference is between the USA and other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateWhere the USA has a homicide rate by firearm of 4.14, the UK has a homicide rate by firearm of 0.07. So the chance of homicide by firearm is about 59 times higher in the USA. Even if you take into acount some relative changes, there is still a huge difference. You're right, there is an appeal to a perspective based on an interpretation of facts. I never believed in trying to prove an absolute by using these statistics, but things can be reasonably inferred from the data. If you look at the data and interpret something else, well, you're welcome to do that, but to me the data is saying something, and it happens to fit what I would find logical, so if you have some data that is more absolute that directly counters my hypotheses I'd like to read it. I TOTALLY agree about the homicide rate. I would never try to assert that it is even CLOSE to the ballpark of the US. But don't forget to compare apples and apples and compare GUN CRIMES, not just homicide by firearms. This would include any crime where a gun appeared, whether just brandished or not. This is the statistic you would want to look at to determine whether gun control laws of UK are squashing gun crimes at an increasing rate or not. Sad reality is the gun crimes are going in the opposite direction. Now from that, I infer that means something (ie. gun laws do nothing, when someone wants a gun to commit a crime with, they'll get it whether its easy or not). You can disagree with my INFERRENCE, but you cannot disagree with the increase right? I think it is hard to draw hard conclusions on trends on either side of the case. It takes some serious research to get a truly objective view, but both the pro and con sides distort the facts to serve their own purposes. Like I said earlier, I don't think the guns are the first issue to look at. A person uses a gun for a reason, I believe in taking away the reason. So if people feel unsafe and feel the gun gives them safety, then it is up to society to address this unsafe feeling first. If people have no job perspective and resort to using guns for robberies, then society should look at how to tackle social-economic issues. If there are a bunch of crazy adolescents or adults involved in big shootings, then it is time to check if there is the right type of counsiling and early detection available in schools and if mental care is accessible to people. Of course the individuals should always be punished when they use firearms for violence, i am not saying there is no individual responsiblity. But the gun itself is not the real issue, the reasons for using the gun are. In the end if those issues are addressed people won't feel the need to own gun, and just view them at toys to be used while at the shooting range/hunting.
Totally agree with you. If we could somehow solve all of our social and psychological problems that cause people to shoot up theaters or thieves or gangsters to rob rape and kill, we could most definitely begin to talk of how to dispose of these expensive metal tackdrivers. Until the time when the filth of humanity is remedied, I advise everyone to know how to properly use a handgun to defend yourself and your family against those who would do you harm, because statistics say, while the rate is surely on the decline, it is far from extremely rare to encounter a situation where it could really help you protect yourself.
|
I am in South Africa, and our stats being what they are, none of what I say may be relevant to this debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
I don't feel like I'm living in a warzone, but there is a definite air of danger. Last week, my friend's wife got home to three black men beating up her father. Her 3 month old baby girl was in the room tied up with the nanny, after a scuffle in which she luckily escaped mostly unharmed (not for lack of trying on their part) they fled the scene. This turned out VERY well. I will not begin to mention here what normally happens to 3 month old baby girls in this country in this scenario.
I understand the psychological argument for not carrying guns, I would love to live in the world where it's not necessary to do so. I have one goal though, and that is to protect my young family. I have no chance if 3 men enter my home (or place of work, or my car) and thus I carry a gun. It gives me a fighting chance, and it equalizes a fight.
End of argument for me. Unfortunately a no-brainer.
My condolences to the families of the shootings in colorado, and to america in general. From a country where this kind of deathtoll will scarcely make the news.
|
1. How exactly do you think a gun is going to help save you from an armed criminal? It does nothing in the hands of a non-professional other than make you a target in such a situation.
2. Canada is not a part of the United States. Stop referring to yourselves as Americans, you demean the rest of the continent. We have decidedly low gun crime here, and less guns, in an otherwise similar society. You figure it out.
3. How smart is it to give just anyone the right to own a weapon whose sole purpose is the killing of other humans? Do you really think that borderline psych cases are staring at their legally-acquired arsenals, thinking happy thoughts of home defence? Or could it just be that those who are most likely to acquire dishonourable, point-click-die weapons are also most likely to want to use them???
FFS apply a different perspective, U.S. I am sick of this mindless "derp right to self-defence" bull.
|
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote:
...and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Very true, especially every time someone runs amok and takes dozens of innocent lives.
|
On July 21 2012 08:46 radient737 wrote:I am in South Africa, and our stats being what they are, none of what I say may be relevant to this debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ratehttp://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearmsI don't feel like I'm living in a warzone, but there is a definite air of danger. Last week, my friend's wife got home to three black men beating up her father. Her 3 month old baby girl was in the room tied up with the nanny, after a scuffle in which she luckily escaped mostly unharmed (not for lack of trying on their part) they fled the scene. This turned out VERY well. I will not begin to mention here what normally happens to 3 month old baby girls in this country in this scenario. I understand the psychological argument for not carrying guns, I would love to live in the world where it's not necessary to do so. I have one goal though, and that is to protect my young family. I have no chance if 3 men enter my home (or place of work, or my car) and thus I carry a gun. It gives me a fighting chance, and it equalizes a fight. End of argument for me. Unfortunately a no-brainer. My condolences to the families of the shootings in colorado, and to america in general. From a country where this kind of deathtoll will scarcely make the news.
That sums it up rather well. It's as if some people live in the land of bumblebees and carebears. If push comes to shove and you are not willing to defend your loved ones through any means possible you aren't fit to have a family. If you ever become in that position I guarantee you would be wishing you had a firearm.
|
On July 21 2012 08:26 Sofestafont wrote:
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Nevermind that a constitutional right was set in place in a time when 1) Two Wars had just been fought in America. (French + Indian and Revolutionary War) B) 60%+ of our food required the ability to hunt. C) "Wilderness" was still a thing. At the time we were only 13 states (Most of which now are the East Coast Metropolis) Every thing west of Pennyslvania was unexplored and possibly dangerous.
The right for citizens to have guns then was well reasoned and accepted.
In modern times, war is fought with airplanes and bombs, food is manufactured and delivered to stores near us, and our entire continent has been explored. I see no practicle use for guns outside the use of law enforcement.
Also, my uncle was previously a cop. There is an entire interview/counselling process that follows a discharge of any firearm by police.
|
On July 21 2012 08:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 08:26 Solarist wrote:On July 21 2012 08:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 08:18 Solarist wrote:
This is insane. Im shocked to see this many John Wayne wannabe psycopaths on a forum like TL.net.
Some people posting here should really get checked out.
Random teenager breaks into my house: Shoot him in the face
Hear suspecious noice downstairs, better assume its psycho rapists: Shoot them in the face
I really thought people with opinions like those expressed by alot of Americans in this thread were too braindead inbred to operate a computer. But alas my faith has been shattered.
Nice to see there's some sensible Americans in here aswell Right. Because "Shoot him in the face" is the only option for dealing with criminals while using a gun. That's idiocy. You're asserting that most or all gun owners would 'shoot to kill' regardless of whether their life was in danger. Jesus Christ. Sadly thats been the opinion expressed by a ton of pro-gun people in this thread (Let0 or something comes to mid). I dont suggest you read the previous pages, its pretty disgusting Anyone who thinks you should use a firearm in self defense without the intent to kill is childish and shouldn't be allowed any where's near a weapon. It's literally the first thing they will teach you. It's a killing tool and nothing else. You Do not point it unless you are killing what you are pointing at. Ntheres no "quick shoot and disable his trigger finger". Don't be so naive.
And YOU are naive if you don't think guns don't have the ability to persuade a would be criminal to flee, or to injure or maim or incapacitate without killing. Simply brandishing the firearm is enough for most petty thugs, because they aren't going to risk their life to find out if you are the kind of motherfucker who would squeeze. Alot of the time they use unloaded or disrepaired firearms in crimes. Guns are also really really loud and scary when you fire a warning shot.The threat is more than half the battle.
Look at statistics on how many people were SUPPOSED to die and survived a gunshot wound, and that was when the would-be killer was aiming at a killzone. All I need to do is not hit them there if I want them to have a high chance of survival. Even a gutshot would take days to kill you. LOL you act as if everyone needs to be Wyatt Earp. The legs are just as easy to hit and will put someone on the ground without killing them.
And that's IF you ever need to squeeze, rarely would you ever find yourself in the situation where you have to. But God knows, if a loaded gun is aimed at me or my family, it's going in their chest, I'm not going to take a second to find out if they are bluffing or not. I will call the ambulance just as soon as I holster it too.
This is all in stark contrast to the attitude "If you step on my property, I'm shootin' to kill whether you're armed or not" as has been falsely labeled on gun owners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
