Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Mooshi on December 11, 2010, 05:57:11 pm
-
This is a topic I've been wanting to do for awhile. I don't remember what I was reading to be linked to cases, but I thought let's do this.
This thread is about guns ranging from gun control all the way to should it be legal to shoot someone in your home without being liable. There are pros and guns from both supporters and those against firearms. What is your opinion?
---
I strongly disagree that preventing citizens from owning guns stops crime. If anything, teaching everyone to use a firearm and even have one in each home will be what prevents crimes. There is always the black market and if thugs are armed and you are not..do you think the police would get to you in time? I sure don't. Now if everyone were trained and armed, you'd have to be a very brave (or stupid) to risk your life knowing the person you are targeting is also armed. Take a look at Switzerland. Every male citizen is issued a fully automatic assault rifle at age 20. Is that country riddled with crime? No. It's among one of the safest countries in the world. Of course, the Swiss are also trained to be responsible. They take firearms very seriously. No offense to my home country, but Americans (as they stand today) are too stupid to be trusted with military class weapons. This can be changed with an attitude adjustment + proper training. Instead of the liberals trying to strip away the 2nd amendment, I believe we should learn from the Swiss.
-
Take a look at Switzerland. Every male citizen is issued a fully automatic assault rifle at age 20.
I guess that's how swiss cheese got so many holes? The Swiss do target practice. :D
-
Leave it to the Wisconsinite to bring cheese into a gun debate! :D
-
Kobuk...I wish to have cheese cubes to throw at you. :P :D
Anywho, anyone else have any non-food related comments about gun control? >.>
-
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
-
Well regardless of whether guns kill people or not, over here the rate of firearm related crime has dropped since they introduced tougher gun laws and did the massive buyback, so I don't mind such laws.
-
I like my guns. Every one should have the right to protect themselves but with that said there are some people i wouldent trust with a butter knife more less any thing that fired a projectile.
From all the articles ive seen taking away law abiding citizens fire arms does not lower crime. It may decrease it initialy but once the criminals figures out they can now run arround un opposed by any one it sharply spikes to rates higher then before. Its not the law abiding citizens every one has to worry about its the ones who dont follow the laws.
To the OP it kinda irks when you judge every american with a blanket statement like there is no american who is trained to safely / properly use and maintain civilian / military grade weps. I know quite a few civilians who can shoot and just generaly handle fire arms better then a large percentage of military personel.
Why not try ( a good number of americans or mabey many americans )
On the subject of home intrusion. Personally i belive if some one uninvited enters your home and you fear for your safety or safety of a family member you should be able to put them down.
-
Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean every American is dim. However...I have come across a lot that fit the discription of your wouldn't trust with a butter knife statement. Believe me, I'm surrounded by idiots. However, I have met a few that are sane. I guess it's hard not to blanket term a country that has an unhealthy obsessed with "reality" tv. Those are the lot that drown out the rest of us. And those are the type of people I do not have much hope for when it comes to operating a firearm. :P
As per the breaking in, I remember reading a story of a burglar that sued the homeowner for shooting him and won. The defendant's home insurance had to pay and then they quickly dropped him. Liberals... Thankfully, this rarely happens - nice to know some judges aren't blind. I'm a firm believer that if someone breaks in and you feel your life or your famlies life is in danger, you should be able to take them down without legal problems. The other persons fault for breaking in. Dead men tell no tales...harsh, but better than wounding them and being sued. Even some police will tell you this.
-
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Especially the small-caliber ones - they pose a choking hazard for children. We must immediately ban all bullets smaller than .50 caliber! Think of the children! (just kidding, although actual gun-control legislation seems almost as silly) As usual, I'm with Mooshi.
-
Read this: http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.
The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."
Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."
"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."
In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.
Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.
-
I think the reason crime goes down instead of up is because thugs are cowards. It's easy to get your way when you have overwhelming force vs someone who is unarmed and scared. Once you're on even ground, you're no longer defenseless. That's the way I see it, anyway.
-
I think the reason crime goes down instead of up is because thugs are cowards. It's easy to get your way when you have overwhelming force vs someone who is unarmed and scared. Once you're on even ground, you're no longer defenseless. That's the way I see it, anyway.
Exactly the way I (and probably lots of other of us Amurricans) see it. Heck, when I get my own place I'm buying a revolver for actual protecting and a pump shotgun for intimidation. Seriously, that "ch-chck" is one of the most intimidating sounds on earth. I wouldn't even have to fire if they heard that noise.
However I don't approve assault rifles being allowed for public sale. They're called assault rifles. You can't seriously tell me you're going to go hunting with those. What the U.S.A has now is pretty good.
-
I support the right to own guns. As Alsek pointed out in the case of Kennesaw, which was immediately what I thought of (I live in GA, of course that bears weight to me), the rate of crime drops when guns are allowed or even mandated.
Now, the question is, in this day and age of modern firearms, does anyone need an assault rifle? AKs and .50s are neat and all, but who needs one in the civilian world?
Of course, I do feel better gun safety needs be taught. Or taught more widely, to be frank.
-
I think the reason crime goes down instead of up is because thugs are cowards. It's easy to get your way when you have overwhelming force vs someone who is unarmed and scared. Once you're on even ground, you're no longer defenseless. That's the way I see it, anyway.
Exactly the way I (and probably lots of other of us Amurricans) see it. Heck, when I get my own place I'm buying a revolver for actual protecting and a pump shotgun for intimidation. Seriously, that "ch-chck" is one of the most intimidating sounds on earth. I wouldn't even have to fire if they heard that noise.
However I don't approve assault rifles being allowed for public sale. They're called assault rifles. You can't seriously tell me you're going to go hunting with those. What the U.S.A has now is pretty good.
I personally own a few assault rifles and see no issues with having them. AK / AR / SKS and will be getting an ACR eventully. You dont only use assault rifles for hunting / killing. I use mine for target practice / just shooting for fun in general and i like to tinker with em.
I do belive that they should run background checks and such before selling one to some one but i dont think they should hide them away so only a select few know how and where to find them either.
-
Americans are too damn trigger happy about guns. :P Guns for this. Guns for that. Assault rifles, Semi-automatics, pistols, etc., etc., etc. How much is too much? How many guns does the average citizen need anyway for home protection? It really is crazy in this country the way people need and use guns. I understand the Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. But some people take it way too far.
Nuff said. :P
-
P.S. - *goes to a gun store and points to all the selections*
I'll take two of those pistols, 6 of those semi-automatics, 4 machine guns, 10 hunting rifles, and 230 boxes of ammo, please.
*goes to guard my Mountain Dew stash* >:(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkqnAh_5ODw
-
P.S. - *goes to a gun store and points to all the selections*
I'll take two of those pistols, 6 of those semi-automatics, 4 machine guns, 10 hunting rifles, and 230 boxes of ammo, please.
*goes to guard my Mountain Dew stash* >:(
Hah, what you said reminded me of the gun stores in the 'Grand Theft Auto' series. "Ammunation", they're called :D.
-
Americans are too damn trigger happy about guns. :P Guns for this. Guns for that. Assault rifles, Semi-automatics, pistols, etc., etc., etc. How much is too much? How many guns does the average citizen need anyway for home protection? It really is crazy in this country the way people need and use guns. I understand the Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. But some people take it way too far.
Nuff said. :P
Its not only just about home protection some people just like owning / collecting them. Same as an anime fan who has shelves of managa or a movie buff who dedicates a whole room to movies and movie memorebilia < ---- SP? or a furry who has tons of stuffed animals. Do they need them? No. Do they want then just because? Yes. : )
Personally ide love to have a .50 rifle not because i really have any use for it but just because i want one.
-
I know people who collect guns. Actually...I would if I could afford the guns. haha
But I prefer older models. Some old WWII or early military issue rifles would be amazing to have.
But, otherwise, guns are typically needed for hunting as well.
So home-protection is only one aspect of firearm ownership.
-
Gun control is using 2 hands, hitting the target. :)
Are some Americans crazy about guns? Sure, and like anything else, some do take it too far. Blame ignorant rednecks, or gang bangers or that darn constitution, even the supreme court justices don't all agree on the meaning.
"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."
Says nothing about hunting, or enjoying a hobby, or honing a skill. A militia is thought of to be made from a group of citizens, not part of the government. IMHO, the rest stands for itself. Could it be that this is to protect ourselves from an oppressive government even more than protecting our lives and property from "bad people"?
We do regulate guns in this country, in some parts, more than others. In some ways we allow more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, than we regulate other amendments. I own guns legal in Colorado, that I cannot take into other states. Does having 4 extra rounds make that much of a difference? No, but it is my choice. Do I need a full automatic rifle? No, but if I want to pay the price and get the permits, I can if desired. I also choose to live in a state that has a "Make my day" law.
What amazes me is that with all of the guns that are available, there isn't more random shooting on the street. That tells me that even if the laws aren't perfect, they mostly work. Do we need more laws, permits, or adjustments to current laws? Maybe. Gun crimes that occur are from people that choose to break laws that exist. Making laws only apply to those that choose to obey. Sounds sort of silly, but unless we decide to heavily regulate people rather than things, we will never fix the problem. The fear of that kind of regulation is one of the reasons I own at least one gun. ;)
-
Does having 4 extra rounds make that much of a difference?
It does if you run out of ammo in the middle of a gunfight. ;)
-
For home defense, hopefully you won't need much ammo. One or two shots would scare of most robbers.
-
For home defense, hopefully you won't need much ammo. One or two shots would scare of most robbers.
Hopefully the ch-chink of a shotgun will strike fear into their hearts. ;)
I personally will legally own a firearm once I turn 21. I will also apply for my GFL (firearms license) so I can conceal carry on me when I'm out and alone. I will more than likely at this time be going into the downtown area of my city and it also has a lot of crime because of the tourists. Also add that I'm a female and more than likely an easier target in the eyes of a would-be attacker. I've shot multiple firearms under the close eye of my friend and he is more than happy to correct me if I'm doing something incorrectly. I wouldn't want to use it on somebody, but it's more of a "I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it" kind of thing, I guess. As it stands now, I won't even go downtown without my friend who conceal carries.
I believe that if we impose harsher gun control regulations that it will affect the law-abiding citizens who own a firearm more so than your common street thug. The street thug is already breaking the law by mugging you so why should he care if the pistol he's using is legal or not? Teaching people the proper way to handle, shoot, and clean a gun is the best way to cure the "scare" most people have when it comes to guns in my opinion. Like somebody has said before, it's not the guns who kill people it's the people who kill people.
I also feel that if a person wants to own an assault rifle it's their own decision. If they have the money for it and have their eye on it then by all means go on ahead and buy it. They can't use it in a lot of cases, but for them it's usually the idea of having it is what makes them happy. It's along the same lines as somebody buying a super-fast car like a Porsche or a Ferrari. You can't (legally) do the highest speed on that car, but the idea of owning one makes the buyer happy. :)
-
I just found some interesting statistics online:
In 2006, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, people with guns murdered 27 people in Australia; 59 in England and Wales; 60 in Spain; 190 in Canada; 194 in Germany; and 10,177 in the United States.
(Not a typo.)
I don't know a whole lot about the issue, so I'll let others unpack what that means and doesn't mean.
-
I just found some interesting statistics online:
In 2006, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, people with guns murdered 27 people in Australia; 59 in England and Wales; 60 in Spain; 190 in Canada; 194 in Germany; and 10,177 in the United States.
(Not a typo.)
I don't know a whole lot about the issue, so I'll let others unpack what that means and doesn't mean.
I really don't know if it's totally reputable. The Brady Center is supported by The Brady Campaign who is one of the biggest rallying forces for extreme gun control.
-
Something about that number does seem a bit odd. The one thing that is true is that big cities will have a higher crime rate than being in the country. Crime is everywhere, but there are other factors you must look at as well. We need to do away with political correctness and look at the bigger picture like which locations in the US have the highest homicides, find out what these locations have in common - this is including which races are commiting the most crime and why. The excuses that I call shenigans on are the ones that involve playing the race card or using key words such as "under privlaged". I don't buy that. We have people who migrate to the USA from a legitimate poor country that become successful here. Things such as black on black crime is just an unexcusable embarassment in this country. (Before anyone brings up oppression - slavery ended over a hundred years and other groups have been oppressed for far longer such as the jews.)
-
The numbers do sound bad, but I would like some more information.
What about the differences in population numbers of the countries listed?
What are the total numbers of murders in each country?
What are the nature of the crimes? Are we including gang bangers and drug scum taking out each other?
How many of the murders were committed by people that got a hold of the guns illegally?
A better question would be, why are the people in the US so willing to kill each other?
And to muddy the water even more, how many people were killed in the same year by drunk drivers?
I suppose if I'm going to go here, I should find some numbers for comparison. From http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-2006.html (http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-2006.html) This site states for 2006: 42,532 total traffic deaths, 15,829 alcohol related deaths. Sorry for the mini derail.
That's the problem with statistics, many times they just lead to more questions. It's a good thing if your a researcher with a grant. I have better things to do, like going target shooting in the morning before the rain and snow comes in. Owning a gun does no good if it cannot be used in a responsible manner, part of that means staying proficient. :)
-
http://www.guncrime.org/race_ethnicity.html
Firearm violence for blacks age 12 or older was: 40% higher
than the rates for Hispanics, 200% higher than the rates for
whites. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006)
Black people are 9 times more likely than white people to be
victims of gun related homicide (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2006)
In London 70% of gun crime is committed by Black youths
(Murder Blues, BB1, 2005).
The police said that the group they found most difficult to
deal with were young black men because they were often
fearful that they may be carrying weapons in particular guns
and knives. They said that in general they find ethnic
minorities difficult to understand (Race Against Crime,
Channel 4, 1999).
The police are now more cautious when carrying out stop and
searches as they are afraid of being accused of harassment
they say that black people are most likely to accuse them and
that black people do not trust the police and in fact
discriminate against them. (Race Against Crime, Channel 4,
1999).Black people have a lot of distrust for the police and
many think they are racist.
www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/racism/5012-
High-Murder-Rates-Cities-with-Large-Black-Populations.html
Other cities such as Baltimore, Detroit and Washington, D.C.,
with large black populations, experience the nation's highest
rates of murder and violent crime. This high murder rate is,
and has been, predominantly a black problem.
According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and
2005, blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed
over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46
percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black
homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.
Blacks are not only the major victims of homicide; blacks
suffer high rates of all categories of serious violent crime,
and another black is most often the perpetrator.
Liberals and their political allies say the problem is the easy
accessibility of guns and greater gun control is the solution.
That has to be nonsense. Guns do not commit crimes; people
do.
It's easy to say we're all the same, but statistics don't lie. Once you take off the PC glasses, you'll see that blacks commit the most crime out of any race within the United States. The cities with the highest crime rate also have a large black population. It's not ugly racism, they are facts and facts aren't "racist". Too many people call racism when you go against their beliefs and honestly, that's a pitiful arguing point. The second group of people for crime are hispanics. What's interesting is that the media goes into a frenzy over Mexico's crime within proximity of the US, but hardly say anything about "African-Americans" because someone will complain how reporting that is racist. In our over-PC world. If we go international, the most dangerous countries have either a high hispanic or black population. Columbia and S.Africa are 1 and 2 btw. You could bring inequality into this if you're offended and I'll bring up President Obama. That arguement is no longer valid. Yes, all races commit crime, but some more than other. It isn't racism, it's reality.
-
Doesn't anyone study American history? Does anyone know why we have a second amendment?
It has nothing to do with hunting, self deference, or shooting robbers.
Also for the record, when the second amendment was invented, it was not uncommon for people to own rifles the caliber of which was in the 60s.
Know your information if you're going to make an argument. If we don't know our history, and if we start making changes to laws without understanding why they are there, we are doomed to repeat our past mistakes.
I'll take a world where i may have to use a firearm in my own defense over a world where the government doesn't allow me to have one. (:
-
Putting in a staff pre-emptive warning to please ask everyone to be careful and not turn this thread into about race/racism relating to guns as the issue of race/racism can be very sensitive to some people. Thanks.
-
I don't believe sparing feelings to hide the truth. It's only one factor in the overall picture relating to deaths caused by guns. All logic says more guns equate to more violence, but this isn't always the case. Some countries have many armed people with a low crime rate and others have a lower armed rate with more crime. There is also the motivation to look at. Often times illegal activites fuel gun violence. More often than not, drugs are involved. Our world can be messed up at times. x_x
-
Putting in a staff pre-emptive warning to please ask everyone to be careful and not turn this thread into about race/racism relating to guns as the issue of race/racism can be very sensitive to some people. Thanks.
0-0 You know, I don't see how guns are supposed to be related to races whatsoever..... Am I missing something here or maybe it's an american thing and I'm out of the loop...
-
I don't believe sparing feelings to hide the truth. It's only one factor in the overall picture relating to deaths caused by guns. All logic says more guns equate to more violence, but this isn't always the case. Some countries have many armed people with a low crime rate and others have a lower armed rate with more crime. There is also the motivation to look at. Often times illegal activites fuel gun violence. More often than not, drugs are involved. Our world can be messed up at times. x_x
Well the topic of race in general is -always- a touchy subject, even before political correctness came into play. It's not so much hiding the truth, but just keeping the peace overall in the forum. Heated debates can always be taken to a PM. ;)
@Alsek: I just got done with my Georgia History/USA History class this semester and we went through most of the amendments. While the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, it does encompass the concept of a militia which was for defense/security of a "free State". In 2008's court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment DOES provide the right to possess a firearm unconnected to a militia and to use said firearm in a lawful way (such as self-defense in your home). The way the Amendments were written provided a lot of wiggle room as we all know (which is both good and bad) so while it does not spell out self-defense in black and white, it can be inferred.
-
0-0 You know, I don't see how guns are supposed to be related to races whatsoever..... Am I missing something here or maybe it's an american thing and I'm out of the loop...
Sadly, it's an American thing. To say gun violence itself is a racial issue, though, is overly simplistic. I think gun violence is largely a poverty issue. Poor people are the ones who are desperate enough to commit crimes and embrace violent lifestyles, because they have so few opportunities to lead a normal life. And because of chronic socioeconomic segregation, the poorest of the poor in this country - especially in our cities - are black. Hence those figures. Skipping straight to "gun violence is a black problem" misses the steps in between.
-
The reason I mentioned race was because "they're poor" is an overused excuse for crime rates. Columbian drug lords are far from "poor". Every group has their poor people, but some are more easy to enrage than others. Not every Asian country is like Tokyo, Japan. There is a lot of poverty in the poorer areas, but you don't see constant gang war in China do you? Maybe there is DNA at work here and we're too PC to talk about it. Animals lack the control humans have when we're angry, this has been proven. There is a part of the human brain that acts like a switch. The "fuse" so to speak. This is responsible for us to keep us from strangling someone who ticks us off. Animals lack this switch and go off raw instinct. Maybe when humans evolved, split off to form the "races", maybe some races are more prone than others to go off animalistic rage. We all have bad days, but for some, pulling out a gun and pulling the trigger isn't an afterthought - it's "normal".
-
The reason I mentioned race was because "they're poor" is an overused excuse for crime rates. Columbian drug lords are far from "poor". Every group has their poor people, but some are more easy to enrage than others. Not every Asian country is like Tokyo, Japan. There is a lot of poverty in the poorer areas, but you don't see constant gang war in China do you? Maybe there is DNA at work here and we're too PC to talk about it. Animals lack the control humans have when we're angry, this has been proven. There is a part of the human brain that acts like a switch. The "fuse" so to speak. This is responsible for us to keep us from strangling someone who ticks us off. Animals lack this switch and go off raw instinct. Maybe when humans evolved, split off to form the "races", maybe some races are more prone than others to go off animalistic rage. We all have bad days, but for some, pulling out a gun and pulling the trigger isn't an afterthought - it's "normal".
Uh, no. I'm sorry, but that is a very ignorant comment to make. There have already been "scientific studies" conducted surrounding races and their "capacity" to do and appreciate things. Needless to say, they were shot down.
How about it's something called "desensitizing"? Crime is more prevalent in low-income neighborhoods and communities as most people know. There's children in these communities growing up with their cousins in gangs, their uncles running dog fighting rings, and many other horrible things that no child should ever be brought up with. When you're surrounded by such things, you are desensitized to how really wrong these things can be. Since it's the relative "norm" in your neighborhood, you're more than likely to get caught up in it. My mother has had her SECOND GRADE kids come up to her and tell her about how a family member of theirs took them to watch a dog fight. They say this without any ounce of remorse because it's normal for them. It's also normal for inner city youth to casually talk about how their father is incarcerated or their uncle is on parole.
So no, Mooshi, it's not Nature. It's nurture that causes this.
And to top it off, you have gun crimes from every race. If you want to step into organized crime there's Latino, Caucasian, Black, and Asian "mobs" that so this stuff all the time. They are more often than always involved in drugs at some level and usually when there's drugs there's guns.
-
Upbringing is another excuse I don't buy. There is some truth to the environment, but ultimately it falls on the individual. We have people who become successful in life with a poor background and we also have people who were spoiled rich brats that kill for no reason at all. Speaking of nurturing, I was raised by the same people as my younger brother. I'm 23 and he's 15 - guess who has been arrested twice and has a criminal record? Him. Can't blame the environment all the time.
-
Upbringing is another excuse I don't buy. There is some truth to the environment, but ultimately it falls on the individual. We have people who become successful in life with a poor background and we also have people who were spoiled rich brats that kill for no reason at all. Speaking of nurturing, I was raised by the same people as my younger brother. I'm 23 and he's 15 - guess who has been arrested twice and has a criminal record? Him. Can't blame the environment all the time.
I'm not blaming the environment entirely, but it's ignorant to say it's in one's DNA. The reason why a spoiled rich "brat" can kill can be deduced down to attention. A bad way to to get attention, but it's attention all the same and even that can be deduced to nurturing. Nurturing doesn't always have to have a good connotation.
-
Speaking of nurturing, I was raised by the same people as my younger brother. I'm 23 and he's 15 - guess who has been arrested twice and has a criminal record? Him. Can't blame the environment all the time.
Nor can you blame race, evidently!
-
It's a lack of responsibility and intelligence that's really at fault when it comes to crimes commited by guns. That at other little factors that add up. We're not all the same, everyone is different. Some groups of people are more suspect to gun abuse, but honestly, everyone has the potential to commit homicide. The key difference being desensitivity to these sort of things. Well, to a point. I'm not affected by gore, but have no desire to go all GTA on someone. o_O Too many people in the US are uneducted about the second ammendment. People like Alsek know the origin of it, but unfortunetly we have crazies twisting the meaning to mean "gun crazy nuts want our children to shoot each other!!" or some other liberal spin. :P
-
Nor can you blame race, evidently!
No, anyone is capable of abusing a firearm. You put up numbers showing a high crime rate in the US compared to other countries and I added to that with statistics. It isn't blaming any race, it's pointing out who is most likely to commit these crimes. Don't shoot the messenger! :D
-
It isn't blaming any race
Maybe when humans evolved, split off to form the "races", maybe some races are more prone than others to go off animalistic rage.
I'll just walk away and let the two Mooshis debate each other.
-
It's a lack of responsibility and intelligence that's really at fault when it comes to crimes commited by guns. That at other little factors that add up. We're not all the same, everyone is different. Some groups of people are more suspect to gun abuse, but honestly, everyone has the potential to commit homicide. The key difference being desensitivity to these sort of things. Well, to a point. I'm not affected by gore, but have no desire to go all GTA on someone. o_O Too many people in the US are uneducted about the second ammendment. People like Alsek know the origin of it, but unfortunetly we have crazies twisting the meaning to mean "gun crazy nuts want our children to shoot each other!!" or some other liberal spin. :P
Uh, that's EXACTLY what I said.
And I'm with Arbutus. Let the Mooshis debate all they like. ;)
-
Imo they should increase the punishments for firearm related crimes.
Any one with a criminal record / violent record should never be allowed axcess to any fire arm and if found with one in there posession they should be locked up for a VERY long time.
Persons found commiting violent crimes using fire arms should get a minimum of 20+ years up to death depending on the sevarity of the crime.
Im all for an eye for an eye.
All the upbringng excuses and such dont ammount to crap. i dont care if your parents beat you or you had to run from gang bangers every day if any thing that should make you want to be a better person not make you wanna to sink to there level.
-
Imo they should increase the punishments for firearm related crimes.
Any one with a criminal record / violent record should never be allowed axcess to any fire arm and if found with one in there posession they should be locked up for a VERY long time.
In most cases, I believe that adding a gun to a crime already adds time to to the sentence. As it is already illegal to sell guns to most criminals, anyone who knowingly sells a firearm to someone with such a record should also be held partially accountable for the crimes committed by the person with the gun. I think that would be called an accessory to the crime.
-
I'm sorry if anyone was offended about the race issue, but that is one of the many variables that too many people are afraid to acknowlege. It isn't a sign of ignorance. Not too long in the news there was a NYC cabbie who was instructing his fellow cab drivers to racially profile who they pick up because they were tired of being shot at and killed. If you watch CNN, you've probably seen this story. The cabbie in question was hispanic/black himself. I have much respect for this guy because he told it the way it is "we're killing our own". Made me shake my head at the far left who are attacking this guy, especially that racist Al Sharpton. To fix a problem you have to acknowlege there is one first. Only then can things get better.
-
*sigh* Why does stuff always happen whenever I disappear after my modem gets struck by lightning?
For once Mooshi, I have to disagree with you. Black people are not more prone to violence; in my experience, it's them white fellas you've gotta watch out for. :P Although, racial profiling is pointless in any case, since criminals can be of any race (which hopefully goes without saying). Now can we please move on?
-
Of course anyone can commit crime. :P I was mearly reporting statistics and these statistics show who is most likely to commit these crimes. I don't make up the rules...people should set a better example instead of being another statistic. It was also from personal experience. Kinda hard to forget who shot my brother or who I usually end up seeing on the local news. None of that is my fault.
Here is something interesting I found. You can come to your own conclusions, but here are the most dangerous cities in the USA.
St. Louis is followed by Camden, New Jersey; Detroit,
Michigan; ; and Oakland, California. Cities that
are more notorious for their crime rates, like New York City
and Los Angeles, don't even make the top 25.
Here are the top 25 most dangerous cities in America.
1. St. Louis, MO
2. Camden, NJ
3. Detroit, MI
4. Flint, MI
5. Oakland, CA
6. Richmond, CA
7. Cleveland, OH
8. Compton, CA
9. Gary, IN
10. Birmingham, AL
11. Baltimore, MD
12. Memphis, TN
13. New Orleans, LA
14. Jackson, MS
15. Little Rock, AR
16. Baton Rouge, LA
17. Buffalo, NY
18. New Haven, CT
19. Hartford, CT
20. Dayton, OH
21. Kansas City, MO
22. Washington, DC
23. Newark, NJ
24. Cincinnati, OH
25. Atlanta, GA
-
If anybody has the free time, you can look up how many of those crimes were gun related and the cause of crime. :D I can safely bet a major motivation was drug related.
-
If I can make a comment regarding firearms, as was the original topic...
I have mixed feelings regarding the possession of firearms. One one hand, I believe that there is no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, but I do support ownership of pistols/revolvers/long guns, for sport shooting and personal defense.
In the end, what I really hate is the cowboy gun owners. The one's who flaunt their right to carry, bringing oversize revolvers to gatherings, demanding that they be allowed to carry wherever they choose, and such.
-
If I can make a comment regarding firearms, as was the original topic...
I have mixed feelings regarding the possession of firearms. One one hand, I believe that there is no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, but I do support ownership of pistols/revolvers/long guns, for sport shooting and personal defense.
( There is no real need for a civilian to have fully automatic weapons. Its a want. But if we all only went and bought just what we need it would be a very boring life. )
In the end, what I really hate is the cowboy gun owners. The one's who flaunt their right to carry, bringing oversize revolvers to gatherings, demanding that they be allowed to carry wherever they choose, and such.
Yeah i agree the ones who like to flash there gun at the drop of a hat or they wont shut up about how awsome there gun is do get rather iritating.
Bringin large revolvers to meetings i dont really see a problem with specially if its an arms gathering.
As for demanding to carry any where they want as long as its legal in there area i dont see a problem with this either. If there in the legal right and some one is giving them crap because they choose to carry then i dont see a problem with them giving the person / busness hell.
-
If I can make a comment regarding firearms, as was the original topic...
I have mixed feelings regarding the possession of firearms. One one hand, I believe that there is no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, but I do support ownership of pistols/revolvers/long guns, for sport shooting and personal defense.
( There is no real need for a civilian to have fully automatic weapons. Its a want. But if we all only went and bought just what we need it would be a very boring life. )
In the end, what I really hate is the cowboy gun owners. The one's who flaunt their right to carry, bringing oversize revolvers to gatherings, demanding that they be allowed to carry wherever they choose, and such.
Yeah i agree the ones who like to flash there gun at the drop of a hat or they wont shut up about how awsome there gun is do get rather iritating.
Bringin large revolvers to meetings i dont really see a problem with specially if its an arms gathering.
As for demanding to carry any where they want as long as its legal in there area i dont see a problem with this either. If there in the legal right and some one is giving them crap because they choose to carry then i dont see a problem with them giving the person / busness hell.
That's the thing though, most private businesses can make the decision to not allow weapons on premises, and the customer needs to abide by those rules. Gun conventions obviously are an except in to my not liking guns in large gatherings rule. But what about a Sci-Fi/Anime/Furry Convention?
-
But what about a Sci-Fi/Anime/Furry Convention?
ide rather they allow it. I carry any time i leave my house and insted of tryin to hide my perfectly legal firearm like some hoodlum ide like to be able to carry it on my person. i know most of not all cons have plenty of secuity but they cant be everywhere all the time and it gives me pice of mind knowing if the **** hit the fan i would have the means to defend my self and not have to put my life in some one elses hands.
as for the private property thing i do see your point but depending on the buisness its not always there call if they can or cant allow firarms. Its the corporations.
For example the walmart near where i live pretty much escorted me out the door because i was open carying and they told me it was policy to not allow civilians to carry fire arms in the store. They were wrong. According to walmart coporate office walmart goes by the local laws and if they allow open carry in that area then the walmart store in that area does as well.
Now if its a small mom and pop buisness and they dont allow guns in the store then the gun owner should remove his / her firearm or find another store to do buisness with.
-
It can be noted that fully-automatic weapons are seldom used to commit crimes. Bonnie & Clyde got the Browning BARs they used in their famous crime spree by first stealing them from a National Guard armory. I obtained a video, Machine Gun Magic, which shows automatic weapons in private hands being demonstrated. Cleary an exciting program.
The procedure for obtaining such a gun is also outlined--Fill out the proper forms, Obtain a letter of approval from your police chief/sheriff, and pay a $200 fee. If getting law enforcement approval is a roadblock, then form a corporation. Such guns aren't cheap and owners can expect a visit from a government official to assure that the gun is stored properly.
Personally, I'm not sure I'd want a GE Minigun, but there are some in private hands. As long as they're used responsibly, ownership shouldn't be an issue.
As for self defense: It's important to bear in mind that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. x_x
-
Shabbernigdo, I'd like to then ask you a question. Are you honestly that much afraid for your safety that you feel a need to carry a firearm in WalMart? It's not exactly an area known for violent crime, after all.
This isn't the wild west anymore people, we don't need to defend our towns from the black hat gang anymore.
And again, I don't have an issue with responsible gun ownership, for self defense of your home, and such.
-
Shabbernigdo, I'd like to then ask you a question. Are you honestly that much afraid for your safety that you feel a need to carry a firearm in WalMart? It's not exactly an area known for violent crime, after all.
This isn't the wild west anymore people, we don't need to defend our towns from the black hat gang anymore.
And again, I don't have an issue with responsible gun ownership, for self defense of your home, and such.
Its not for fear its a just incase. The same reason people have first aid kits in there car. Just another form of insurance as i see it. No walmart isint know for violent crimes but agian neither is Krogers yet both brother and my dad where involved in roberys there during the middle of the day.
There are a lot of places that are not know for violent crimes but they do happen. college / malls / stores. Even if theres a one in a million chance you will every use it for self defence why not have it just in case. Even if you never draw you weapon. If an unsavory type knows you are able to defend your self or are not going be an easy mark they are more then likely gonna go find some one who dosent look like they can put up a fight / easy target.
Your right this isint the wild west any more a lot of the people are much worse now days and as i see it its only getting worse. A lot of people these days seem to be lacking a lot of morals or any form of common sence.
-
Pretty much my philosophy with guns in open areas is that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I am very much reminded of that recent shooting that took place in a school board meeting in Florida. A man came in after a vendetta against the school board for firing his wife and spray painted the letter "V" on the wall. He then took out his gun and shot at the school board president. If it were not for the guardsman keeping his gun in his car, the president would have probably been injured or worse.
It can happen anywhere. Restaurants, schools, churches, and pretty much any place can have this happen. Like I said before, I just cannot go downtown without my friend who conceal carries his .38 or .45 caliber firearm. Too many muggings, rapes, and shootings occur down there and while I am on the chubby side, I cannot fight against a man in all cases. I should have a right to protect myself in an area I feel unsafe in.
-
I'm not a fan of open carry, but there is a time and place for it. In many places it is allowed, and if someone wants to exercise their rights, they can. I am against open carry as a form of protest. Guns are a tool to be respected. Not something to be used to push an agenda. But that's me. At least so far, we can still make our statements in a more passive way. The whole freedom of speech thing. If that changes, we can then revert to the next amendment.
There is also the argument that concealed carry is safer than open. If I was intent to do harm, I would be more worried about the guns I cannot see. A whacked out bad guy might not be sensible enough to avoid or even temped to take the weapon. Police do train for this scenario, and it still happens. An old friend was a volunteer to his police department to train officers by playing the bad guy. He did this with great enthusiasm, and was able to take weapons, until the cops caught on to what he was doing. Of all the people I know that open carry, none have ever trained for this.
As a total aside, I really want to live fire a machine gun. :D
-
I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.
-
I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.
I'm curious, you say that the only thing keeping guns from being user for good is a fear of them. I would ask you, then, what good can a gun do? It is a tool with one purpose only, and that is ending another life, either for hunting or for killing.
Guns also give a false sense of security. Like many people who own cars with four wheel drive, a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to do something foolish, like intervene in a situation that they should not be getting involved in, and getting people killed.
-
I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.
I'm curious, you say that the only thing keeping guns from being user for good is a fear of them. I would ask you, then, what good can a gun do? It is a tool with one purpose only, and that is ending another life, either for hunting or for killing.
Guns also give a false sense of security. Like many people who own cars with four wheel drive, a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to do something foolish, like intervene in a situation that they should not be getting involved in, and getting people killed.
Yes. The fear and "taboo" sense around weapons and firearms is preventing their use for good. Less and less people are teaching their children about firearms, and how to operate them safely and effectively. At least this is my theory.
Yes, the only thing that guns were specifically designed to do was to be weapons. This leads to a sad, but true fact: Sometimes, you NEED to take a life. No matter how rare the instance may be, there times when if a life is not taken, then more lives will be. Just look at the Virginia tech shooting that happened a while ago. Had that person been put down on the spot, then he wouldn't have murdered all those innocent people. I can see where your coming from, and I agree that people do do foolish and stupid things with guns, but walls are put up to keep the lazy people from climbing over. If there is a ban on all guns of all kinds, then the only people who will have them would be the people who want to kill someone so much that they will find a way. And if they can't, they will always use the next best thing.
-
I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.
I'm curious, you say that the only thing keeping guns from being user for good is a fear of them. I would ask you, then, what good can a gun do? It is a tool with one purpose only, and that is ending another life, either for hunting or for killing.
Guns also give a false sense of security. Like many people who own cars with four wheel drive, a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to do something foolish, like intervene in a situation that they should not be getting involved in, and getting people killed.
Unfortunately there may come a time where you need to take another person's life. Depending on what you carry and how far you are away from the person you may not necessarily take the person's life. Not all calibers can drop a man, but can do some damage. I also believe that if somebody is "man" enough to potentially take my life or cause severe harm to me then they are "man" enough to accept the same kind of punishment. More than likely, you'll feel worse about harming them than they are about harming you for whatever gain they may get from it.
I personally don't feel that the security is false at all. Worst case scenario happens, I have something that can protect me guaranteed. The police will take minutes to get to your home if something bad happens when everything can go downhill in a matter of SECONDS. There are also vast differences in your comparison of firearm-related deaths and vehicular-related deaths, Furlong. Per a 100,000 population, only 2.52% were involved in a firearm-related death while 14.8% were killed in vehicular-related accidents. It's also a lot easier for a criminal to get a car than it is to get a gun. Heck, it's easier for anybody to get a car than a gun if you do it through legal avenues.
-
When the CCW laws were reformed here, the naysayers threw about all sorts of claims that one couldn't be stopped from bringing a gun to school, church, tavern, sports events: that blood would run in the streets, etc. Yet here we are several years after reform and none of those wild claims came to pass. CCW students are trained to avoid dangerous situations, but also to shoot at the center of mass and to keep shooting until the attack stops. The courses are quite popular here.
Here in MI, one may not enter a church, school, post office, bar, large sports arena, and any place posted against CCW. So there are still plenty of safe workplaces for robbers and other baddies.
-
So there are still plenty of safe workplaces for robbers and other baddies.
Lol
-
When the CCW laws were reformed here, the naysayers threw about all sorts of claims that one couldn't be stopped from bringing a gun to school, church, tavern, sports events: that blood would run in the streets, etc. Yet here we are several years after reform and none of those wild claims came to pass. CCW students are trained to avoid dangerous situations, but also to shoot at the center of mass and to keep shooting until the attack stops. The courses are quite popular here.
Here in MI, one may not enter a church, school, post office, bar, large sports arena, and any place posted against CCW. So there are still plenty of safe workplaces for robbers and other baddies.
My dad went to the CCW class. The only problem is that it takes a gawd awful time to get the permit so he got discouraged. This kind of stuff is just stupid. Im from MI too BTW :D
-
The class I took lasted a weekend. Then there was the fingerprinting at the sheriff's department, passport-quality photos, then the permit board at the county building, plus $120. Renewing the permit means reviewing a 3-hour video, plus another $120 and new photos. One advantage to the permit is the ability to purchase pistols without first obtaining a permit to purchase from the police dept. So if you are in another part of the state and see a good deal on a sidearm, then you may buy it then and there.
The range time was the fun part of the course. It helps to have a gun you are familiar with and can shoot well--and quickly.
Sometimes I wish they still issued the restricted CCW. "Hunting and Target Practice Only." Easier to obtain under the old system and far cheaper. No training was required for the full CCW either, and you could carry anywhere. But to obtain that full-fledged CCW, you almost had to know someone in the system. 8)
-
The class I took lasted a weekend. Then there was the fingerprinting at the sheriff's department, passport-quality photos, then the permit board at the county building, plus $120. Renewing the permit means reviewing a 3-hour video, plus another $120 and new photos. One advantage to the permit is the ability to purchase pistols without first obtaining a permit to purchase from the police dept. So if you are in another part of the state and see a good deal on a sidearm, then you may buy it then and there.
The range time was the fun part of the course. It helps to have a gun you are familiar with and can shoot well--and quickly.
Sometimes I wish they still issued the restricted CCW. "Hunting and Target Practice Only." Easier to obtain under the old system and far cheaper. No training was required for the full CCW either, and you could carry anywhere. But to obtain that full-fledged CCW, you almost had to know someone in the system. 8)
geez. all i had to do was pay 60$ for an 8 hour class ( 4 hours of range time and 4 hours of class ) then get my finger prints and pick up my license and i was done.
-
We were also told to only use factory-loaded ammo--for reliability, and liability--the ammo maker has deeper pockets than you when the deceased perp's family tries to sue. At Gunsite they say that every bullet comes with a lawyer attached.
-
Americans are too damn trigger happy about guns. :P Guns for this. Guns for that. Assault rifles, Semi-automatics, pistols, etc., etc., etc. How much is too much? How many guns does the average citizen need anyway for home protection? It really is crazy in this country the way people need and use guns. I understand the Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. But some people take it way too far.
Nuff said. :P
Except that the second amendment was not so that people would have a way to hunt and personal self defense. It was so that the people would have a way to defend themselves as a militia, because the United Stated has no standing army at the time. Still, it earned us a reputation, at the beginning of the second world war Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto Advised "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
STILL, we fail to recognize the MAIN purpose of the second amendment; and that is to give the people a means to fight their OWN GOVERNMENT should it fall to tyranny. Many forget that the first shots fired in the revolutionary war were those agains the british soldiers who had come to confiscate the weapons of the people so they couldn't fight back. Give me a foil hat, but I believe in the saying "Buy it Cheap and Stack it Deep". Those with power will not willingly give it up. Give someone too much power and even the constitution and any number of elections won't even oust them.
-
At the time the Constitution was written, an individual could own warships. Congress could issue writs of marque to privateers to wreak havoc on the high seas. Imagine Bill Gates with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier he could hire out to the government.
Until 1968, one could not only own tanks, mortars, bazookas, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns--they could be shipped direct to the buyer. Now you need a destructive devices permit. Owning a semi-auto copy of a selective-fire military battle rifle pales by comparison IMHO.
-
Recently on my trip to FC, I got on a cab and the driver added a comment on how if something like mexico's crime stuff were to happen in USA the population would take guns and do things themselves...
That thought scared me. People blindly taking "justice" on their own is a scary thought, IMHO. I mean, the actual possibility of am average person being able to go out and shoot whoever they think is right is something that shouldn't be able to happen.
Oh well
-
Have to say that if armed gangs were killing people in the streets, killing off or bribing the police force, military, I would certainly hope the citizens would stand up and fight for their protection. If armed citizens were using a national disaster as an excuse for roaming the streets to eliminate those that they don't like, they deserve the same fate as the gangs.
If the police or military can't/won't protect the people, who will, the UN? For me that is the heart and soul of the 2nd amendment. If needed, I can protect myself and the ones I care for.
-
Have to say that if armed gangs were killing people in the streets, killing off or bribing the police force, military, I would certainly hope the citizens would stand up and fight for their protection. If armed citizens were using a national disaster as an excuse for roaming the streets to eliminate those that they don't like, they deserve the same fate as the gangs.
If the police or military can't/won't protect the people, who will, the UN? For me that is the heart and soul of the 2nd amendment. If needed, I can protect myself and the ones I care for.
I really could not have said this any better myself. The 2nd amendment mentions the "militia" which at that time was really any able-bodied man who was able to defend his country.
Hopefully America won't come to that.
-
Have to say that if armed gangs were killing people in the streets, killing off or bribing the police force, military, I would certainly hope the citizens would stand up and fight for their protection. If armed citizens were using a national disaster as an excuse for roaming the streets to eliminate those that they don't like, they deserve the same fate as the gangs.
If the police or military can't/won't protect the people, who will, the UN? For me that is the heart and soul of the 2nd amendment. If needed, I can protect myself and the ones I care for.
It almost came to that with the looting riots during the Rodney King trial. Merchants had to take to the rooftops with rifles and shotguns to protect their property. The police were elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect the individual--that comes from a high court ruling IIRC.
-
Advocacy for completely banning sales and purchase of firearms is unfounded, unreasonable, and unpopular, except among certain leftist minorities.
The essential issue of gun control is preventing the criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms while not preventing level-headed, law-biding citizens from purchasing firearms.
The controversy: how do we do that.
In the United States, the system of gun control is frighteningly asymmetric, ineffective, and overbearing. Criminals purchase weapons illegally with ease, while massive amounts of red tape often prevent law biding citizens from purchasing even a .22LR handgun. In some places dominated by certain leftist groups, firearms are almost completely legally unobtainable.
The most prevalent method by which the government attempts to distinguish between the criminals, the insane, and the law-biding is the background check. But how much of this intrusive practice should a law-biding citizen be subjected to in order to purchase a firearm? How can one be sure with any amount of screening that the government would accurately identify the criminals and the insane?
If we had more thorough background checks that would successfully identify the criminals and insane, the only result would be an expansion in the illegal firearms trade, and the invasion of the privacy of only the law-biding citizens.
But is there any alternative method by which we can single out the individuals who would abuse firearms?
-
One must only look at Australia and Europe, then compare them to Kennesaw GA.
The statistics don't lie.
-
Gun restrictions often translate to higher crime rates.
-
One must only look at Australia and Europe, then compare them to Kennesaw GA.
The statistics don't lie.
Yeah, the Swiss have a MUCH lower crime rate, and they are REQUIRED to own a rifle.
-
One must only look at Australia and Europe, then compare them to Kennesaw GA.
The statistics don't lie.
Yeah, the Swiss have a MUCH lower crime rate, and they are REQUIRED to own a rifle.
The problem to pointing to specific countries is that there may be other factors involved. I was just looking over information from wikipidia on homicide rates in various countries and comparing that to gun ownership rates, and I couldn't see any direct correlation. Of course, one problem with this data is that the gun ownership is measured in number of guns per hundred residents. A more relevant figure would by what percentage of the population are gun owners. From my experience (completely US based), most people have zero guns, but those that are gun owners tend to have several with a small percentage which have very large collections. This would throw any figures based on this way off.
As far as Switzerland goes, I'd stress that they are REQUIRED to own them, and thus it's a completely different environment then in the US. Personally, I think requiring this specifically of males within a certain age is a form of discrimination. But that's another topic. (For example, despite being male, I have absolutely no desire to have or use a gun. While there are plenty of females that do. )
-
I think some kind of study or experiment in a high-crime area in America could be informative on what sort of policies we should pursue. If it was possible for, say, Los Angelos to ban all guns, we could see just what sort of effect it would have on their homicide rate. I would expect crime to go up immediately after a ban as people fight over the remaining guns which couldn't be confiscated. Perhaps, though, as the gun supply became lower, homicide would go down?
I'm not totally against gun ownership. Like Varg mentioned, Switzerland has more guns and less crime. Other countries have banned guns and have very low crime. There are many factors to consider. There will always be some violent people in every society, and the fact is, guns make it really easy to injure or kill. They also make it easy to intimidate and extort others. It's a lot of power to give citizens.
Personally, I think the solution to lowering crime in America might be to legalize drugs, since (I think) most violent crime is drug-related.
The thing about requiring males but not females to own guns is strange, especially if Switzerland is pursuing equality in most other policies. I wonder why not just require all adults over a certain age?
-
Perhaps, though, as the gun supply became lower, homicide would go down?
I'm not sure i understand this line of reasoning though i see it all the time. Guns to not increase desire or willingness of an individual to commit homicide. As is pretty clear from Australia and England, people don't need fire arms to commit homicide, and will if they're inclined to whether or not they have them. Those willing to commit homicide are also likely not going to be phased by laws banning their ownership.
This of course is a large part of the argument for those who support the ownership of firearms for law abiding citizens. I'm 126 pounds. (i'm 6'3''... i'm scrawny.)
If i'm unarmed because I'm obeying the law and someone wanted to kill me, they could. If I'm enabled to control the situation, then no one has to get hurt at all, including the would be assailant.
Maybe it's just me... I have a lot of police officers in my family. I was raised around a lot of people who think like this.
-
I'm not sure i understand this line of reasoning though i see it all the time. Guns to not increase desire or willingness of an individual to commit homicide.
No, but they increase the ability. People are impulsive. People do things when they're angry that they regret later. Shooting someone with a gun is easier than beating someone with your fist, and the shooter is less likely to get hurt. Of course people will hurt each other regardless, but the severity of injury will change with the weapon used.
Also, I also mentioned it's easier to intimidate someone with a gun.
Please understand I'm not trying to prescribe anything or take anyone's gun away, I'm just stating some observations.
-
I'm not sure i understand this line of reasoning though i see it all the time. Guns to not increase desire or willingness of an individual to commit homicide.
No, but they increase the ability. People are impulsive. People do things when they're angry that they regret later. Shooting someone with a gun is easier than beating someone with your fist, and the shooter is less likely to get hurt. Of course people will hurt each other regardless, but the severity of injury will change with the weapon used.
true but based on that logic just about any thing you can get your hands on will increase the ability.
Pen / screwdriver / pointy stick / golf club / hockey stick any of these in capable or determined hands can easily be lethal.
I mean if some one really wanted to take out a bunch of people easily there are better and easier things to get then a gun. A car perhaps.
also i cant rember if its the fbi or atf but one of them have studys published on the net that show statistics and such for violent crimes in areas with strict gun control VS areas without and the areas without the strict gun control were by far less prone to violent crimes and other types of crimes in general.
my brother knows where the papers are located if i talk to him later ill put up a link to them incase any one wants to see em.
-
true but based on that logic just about any thing you can get your hands on will increase the ability.
Pen / screwdriver / pointy stick / golf club / hockey stick any of these in capable or determined hands can easily be lethal.
Right, and to take it even further, tactical nukes make it even more easy to kill people. But we don't allow citizens to have tactical nukes. We do allow them to have pens and screwdrivers. Where do guns fall? They are much more powerful than a pen, and much less powerful than a tactical nuke. So the level of regulation should fall somewhere between those two extremes.
It seems like you and Alsek are trying to say pens and guns are the same because they can both be weapons, which just seems absurd to me. All things being equal, if someone tried to mug you with a pen, would you seriously hand over your wallet?
I would very much like to see the paper you're talking about.
-
What I'm saying is that firearms make citizens equals in strength and power in comparison to one another.
Take them away and you're left with whichever is bigger and stronger... Which, imao is more likely to be the criminal.
I don't know if you've ever been alone in a house when someone's tried to break into it, but it's not the time you want to be thinking about whether you're fast enough to run or strong enough to fight.
I've had it happen to me twice, and was not armed either time with anything other than a knife or pepper spray. I'm pretty lucky. >.>
(by the way, i can tell you from personal experience living next to two highways that the police take about 10 minutes to get there for break in calls.)
-
I see your point, Alsek.
I think we are making different points, though. Like I said before, I am not arguing for or against banning guns. I'm simply talking about the power guns have relative to other weapons, and how we should take that into consideration.
-
What I'm saying is that firearms make citizens equals in strength and power in comparison to one another.
False. Not all citizens will have a gun even if they are completely allowed to. Nor should they be required to. But someone intent on committing a crime is far more likely to be one of the ones with a gun. Therefore you are not in any way equalizing things for everyone by freely allowing guns.
Also, using a gun requires skill. So even if everyone had them, they still wouldn't be equal in strength and power.
I don't know if you've ever been alone in a house when someone's tried to break into it, but it's not the time you want to be thinking about whether you're fast enough to run or strong enough to fight.
I've never been in a situation like that, but I can tell you that if I was, having a gun available to me wouldn't improve the situation. I don't like guns and would not be comfortable if I had to use one, particularly in a situation where I don't have time to think things over throughly beforehand (and the intruder isn't going to wait). Thus if anything, having a gun available would increases the likelihood of the event being more traumatic.
Don't act like guns are some kind of panacea for crime. They are not.
-
False. Not all citizens will have a gun even if they are completely allowed to. Nor should they be required to. But someone intent on committing a crime is far more likely to be one of the ones with a gun.
That would be your own choice.
someone intent on committing a crime is far more likely to be one of the ones with a gun. Therefore you are not in any way equalizing things for everyone by freely allowing guns.
Someone committing a premeditated crime is just as likely to have a firearm whether or not there are laws against it. There's laws against breaking and entering, murder, and assault too but that doesn't seem to stop them. It's not common for people to legally purchase a firearm to commit a crime with in the same way that it's not common for them to schedule their visits.
I've never been in a situation like that, but I can tell you that if I was, having a gun available to me wouldn't improve the situation. I don't like guns and would not be comfortable if I had to use one, particularly in a situation where I don't have time to think things over throughly beforehand (and the intruder isn't going to wait). Thus if anything, having a gun available would increases the likelihood of the event being more traumatic.
Don't act like guns are some kind of panacea for crime. They are not.
Maybe it wouldn't for you, but it would for me and anyone else who is trained and proficient it can greatly improve the situation.
Crime isn't going to go away. There isn't a perfect solution that strikes a proper balance between citizens having enough freedoms / power and the governments having enough control to end crime. Yes, having to deal with someone breaking in and the idea of possibly having to shoot someone... That's all terrible. I agree. It's a tough situation... But that's what crime is. Hopefully if you had control of the situation you wouldn't need to use it. Between you and me, though?
If some punk kid broke into my grandparents' home with a crowbar, i happen to know that neither my grandparents or the kid would have to die. :P
That's a lot better than the alternative.
-
False. Not all citizens will have a gun even if they are completely allowed to. Nor should they be required to. But someone intent on committing a crime is far more likely to be one of the ones with a gun.
That would be your own choice.
No, it's not my choice. I have no control over all the citizens. Don't assume that this argument is only talking about me. It's not. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of people do not own or use guns, and it would be that way even if there were no restrictions on gun ownership at all. And the people that do have them most certainly don't use them with the same level of skill.
I'm not suggesting what should or shouldn't be done in terms of gun control. I'm simply pointing out that your "equalizer" argument is flawed.
Or were you suggesting that everyone should be required to train to use firearms? To me, that sounds like every bit as much of a breach of an individual's freedom as restricting guns could be.
It's not common for people to legally purchase a firearm to commit a crime with in the same way that it's not common for them to schedule their visits.
It's not common for them to purchase a firearm through legal means because we put restrictions on getting them such as registering ownership and such. If we didn't do that sort of thing, if we just freely let anyone buy them, then it would certainly be common for criminals to get guns through legal means. So it's not the "same way" as their not scheduling their visits.
Also, I don't buy the whole "criminals will have them either way" argument that often comes up in these kind of topics. It's way too simplified. That argument makes it sound like there are two kinds of people: criminals with connections to underground networks, and law abiding citizens without such connections. In truth, there are a large number of people that fall in between. For example, a "criminal" can be an otherwise normal citizen. Take, for example, someone that gets violent when they are drunk. This person may not have any sort of connections to criminal networks or anything like that. And they may be an otherwise law abiding citizen. But when in an altered and potentially violent state with a firearm at hand... bad, bad things could happen.
Point is, laws which restrict gun ownership DO restrict them for a lot of criminals (and would-be criminals) as well. So the "criminals will have them either way" arguments greatly oversimplify things.
In short, this is a much more complex issue than you seem to be trying to make it out to be.
-
If criminals can get equipment and pharmacueticals they're not supposed to have, then why can't they get firearms too? There's this underground phenomenon called The Black Market.
There will always be those citizens too timid to defend themselves from intruders, either as a personal preference/principle, or in the belief that they will always have law enforcenebt arrive in the proverbial nick of time. If someone's beating me about the head with a golf club, then I must act to subdue my attacker as I may not survive the 5 minutes it may take the police to arrive--under ideal conditions.
-
If criminals can get equipment and pharmacueticals they're not supposed to have, then why can't they get firearms too? There's this underground phenomenon called The Black Market.
Dude, did you even read what I said? Of course I know there is a black market, the point is that not all people that fall under the term "criminal" have access to it.
(seriously, was that point not clear in my above post?)
-
Just looked on a site called impact guns. it costs 10 grand and up to buy fully automatic firearms when their semi auto counterparts are around 4 grand. This, people is not the answer. in fact, 2 had a good point in his rant on this stuff. You can't kill the problem like this. You need to do so at the source. Until you can stop the urge for people to kill other people, it's no use just banning everything. Let me use this in another perspective. People say that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. When is the violence going to stop? Well, i have to say, when is the banning/overtaxing of "dangerous objects" going to stop? Just because I want to buy a fully automatic M4 at a decent price does not mean i'm going to go out and kill hundreds of people. Then one could bring up the argument that there is no reason to own such a thing other than killing people. To that i say, why do you care? If i am a well rounded individual, and am not intending on killing people, then i'll just have it to say i do. Or in a more practical case, for a WROL situation aka when the crap hits the fan.
probably not relevant to the immediate discussion at hand, just got really pissed about these laws and had to articulate myself
-
the point is that not all people that fall under the term "criminal" have access to it.
(seriously, was that point not clear in my above post?)
While that is true.. the problem is even if you are hindering SOME criminals from having them you ARE in fact still hindering ALL law abiding citizens from having them. You are still only utterly disarming one side.
-
You are still only utterly disarming one side.
Three things. First, "utterly"? It's not like the only options are a complete and total ban vs no restrictions at all. There is a lot of middle ground. Second, the "one side" is mostly people that are not armed anyway. And third, the "one side" does not exist in so clear of terms as you make it sound. As I said before, there is a lot of shades of gray there. People are not just completely law abiding or completely criminal.
Why must people insist on over simplifying things? Black and white thinking almost always leads to flawed results.
-
Second, the "one side" is mostly people that are not armed anyway.
Where do you get that idea?
-
Second, the "one side" is mostly people that are not armed anyway.
Where do you get that idea?
As I've said multiple times already, a large portion of the population is not really interested in owning guns. This is from my personal experience. Note, I'm not saying that there isn't a large number of people that are interested in it, I'm simply pointing out that there is also a large number of people that are not. In fact, this should be self evident: if the vast majority wanted to own guns, gun control wouldn't be a serious topic.
Don't get tripped up by the word "mostly", I was using this in the same way I was using "one side". If we are using black and white thinking, since that's not how things really are, we end up drawing dividing lines that don't really exist. And if we are doing this, then we can also make the over-generization to say that "people that want to own a firearm are more likely to be criminal". Is that fair? Of course not! Over-generizations rarely are. And that's the central point to what I've been saying.
-
Banning guns wont stop murder anymore than banning drugs stopped people from doing drugs.
Pass a law to make it harder for folks to get guns, and you'll only make it harder for the 'good guys' the law abiding citizen, to get one. The criminal will still get his from the same place he got them before... the black market.
A gun is the one thing that can put a 98 pound elderly woman on equal standing with a 270pound, 34 year old bodybuilder.
-
Banning guns wont stop murder anymore than banning drugs stopped people from doing drugs.
Pass a law to make it harder for folks to get guns, and you'll only make it harder for the 'good guys' the law abiding citizen, to get one. The criminal will still get his from the same place he got them before... the black market.
A gun is the one thing that can put a 98 pound elderly woman on equal standing with a 270pound, 34 year old bodybuilder.
So is the idea to keep repeating the same talking points and people will start to believe it? I mean, I just pointed out serious flaws with this reasoning and people keep on repeating it without even addressing the flaws.
-
It's perfectly sound logic. My 67 year old grandmother owns, and is extremely accurate with handguns.
The fact that you're afraid of they doesn't change the fact that my grandmother has the right and the ability to defend herself. No one's forcing you to own a handgun but i would ask that if someone breaks into my grandmother's home she not be asked to challenge them to a boxing match, or to escape the house at high speed by climbing out the second story window.
-
It's perfectly sound logic. My 67 year old grandmother owns, and is extremely accurate with handguns.
This is essentially a dodge. I am not saying that a gun can't give someone the upper hand that won't otherwise have one. The thing I've been complaining about is the over-generization that goes into arguments like most of RedneckFur's post (and others. Only using it as it's the most recent.)
-
The response to your argument comes later in the post, right about here:
The fact that you're afraid of they doesn't change the fact that my grandmother has the right and the ability to defend herself. No one's forcing you to own a handgun but~
Lots of people have rights that they don't use. The fact that you are afraid to use yours shouldn't inhibit others from doing so. You might even be capable of running. That doesn't make it an option for everyone.
On that note, i would like to point out that whether or not you own a handgun, the simple fact that other people do can still prevent you from getting harmed due to the effect it has on society.
For example, Vermont, which allows it's citizens to own and conceal firearms without a license, permit, without paying a fee, or going through a mandatory waiting period, constantly ranks as one of the top five safest states in the country. [1]
57% of criminals polled by the department of justice said that they were more worried about running into an armed, "victim," than they were the police. [2]
74% felons polled said that one of the reasons criminals avoided homes with people in them was that they were afraid of being shot during the crime. [2]
60% Said that they would not attack a victim if they knew the victim had a gun. [2]
I don't mean to come off as rude or arrogant but there are some serious facts and statistical evidence to be considered as well. What happens to an individual and even the unmeasurable amount of protection an individual gains simply from the change in culture has a huge impact on this argument. Crime isn't going to go away in a world where citizens have any reasonable amounts of personal freedom. As ugly as the concept of any human being forced to inflict serious harm on another can be, It's still a lot better than the alternative. Fortunately, most gun owners seem to keep a reasonable grasp on reality and try to keep everyone involved, including the would be assailant out of the hospital and out of the morg.
The mass majority of firearm owning homeowners only show their firearms in order to scare away the felon, while 8% are forced to wound them. [3]
I hope as long as i live i will never have to defend myself. But if i do i would rather be negotiating from a position of strength. If you really think it's possible to change the hearts and minds of people and someday reach a utopian world where guns are never used, i think you'll see the lack of firearm ownership occurring as a side effect rather than a cause. I hope we get there someday. ^^
As a side note, i will be out of town until sunday. I may pop my head in tomorrow but don't intend to debate.
1. Morgan Quinto Press http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm
2. U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report
3. Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185
-
First, whether I personally am "afraid" to use a gun or not is irrelevant. Why is that so hard to understand? As I've already said, I'm not talking about me. Further, your use of the word "afraid" is rather insulting. Fear is not the only reason someone can choose to not use a gun. Is everything you choose not to do because you are afraid to do it? I doubt it, so don't imply that of other people.
Second, despite the fact that I specifically said otherwise, you still seem to act like I'm arguing that guns should be banned or some such. Which is totally not the case. In fact, I'm actually largely undecided on the issue, which is why I didn't respond in this thread for a long time. (actually, I'm against outright banning guns. I'm undecided on restrictions.)
What I've been doing here is simply trying to keep people from making fallacious arguments, in this case primarily over-simplifications. That's it. And that's why I find it it very irritating that people seem to be continuing to make the exact same fallacious arguments immediately after I just debunked them.
At least your latest post looks like it has some interesting information in it.