PDA

View Full Version : A little research. Is it worth it?


ts
04-22-2007, 3:59 AM
I was curious to see the murder statics of the UK (no legal guns) vs. US. Here is what I came up with:

US Murders:
Murders: 12,658
Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 8,259
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

UK Murders:
Murders: 850
Murders (per capita): 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 62
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

(source: http://www.nationmaster.com)

Now it is very understandable the vast differences in numbers when comparing the US vs. UK. Since guns are illegal there. But as you can see, there are many more murders in the US then in the UK. I believe the reason is firearms.

850 vs. 12,658 is a HUGE gap. It is very easy (relativity speaking) psychologically to point a gun and pull the trigger. It is much harder to go up to someone and stab them multiple times.

Now lets be honest here guys, if guns were outlawed there would be less murder in the US. It is obvious that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." but that's the same thing as saying, "SUVs don't produce excess emissions, people who drive their SUVs do." Guns make it much easier to kill someone.

Now the obvious argument for this is, "If we outlaw weapons here - the bad guys would still get them and the law abiding citizens would be like fish in a barrel!" Why is it not like that in England? Next rebuttal that would come to my mind would be, "Because England is an island, we're in the US, we are bordered by 2 other countries." Well if I am not mistaken, every time I drive into Mexico there is a sign in San Diego that says "No Guns in Mexico". How hard do you think it would be to get a gun into the UK illegally? I doubt it is any harder then the US. Same goes for Ammo. Smuggling pieces of metal with no scents is much easier then smuggling drugs that dogs can pick up in less then a second.

So why don't we outlaw guns in the US? If the government devised a good way to obtain everyone's firearms I bet the crime rates would drop DRAMATICALLY. Things like Columbine, VT, etc. Would be a extreme rarity and a thing of the past, unless of course he had a really big sword.

The only reason not to outlaw firearms in the US is the 2nd Amendment. Now I for one do not want my firearms taken away, they give me great joy. Every time I look at my AK-47, I smile, when I shoot it gives me even greater joy. But logically speaking guns do make it much easier to kill people. Given if you want someone dead, you're going to do it - even if you're an astronaut driving with a diaper on with an BB gun. But all the acts of senseless violence such as drive by shootings, people going insane - getting a couple of guns and going around killing people at will before the police show up would be a thing of the past.

Now a good rebuttal for that would be, "Citizens should be armed." For anyone who has ever been in a bar fight, or at a party where people get drunk and fight - that's a scary thought. A black eye is no big deal, heals in a few days. If those people were armed. Or had weapons in their vehicle, well let's just say gun shot wounds don't heal as fast as a black eye - a lot of the times they don't heal at all.

Now let's move on to the bull s*it topic of "gun control" (it's hard to read without laughing, huh?) It is obvious to any semi-educated person (or even a non-educated gang member) that if a bad guy wants a gun, he is going to get it if you live in a country where guns are legal. I am sure many of you have one of those shady acquaintances that you don't want to know - but you run into him every once in a while, that can get you an illegal firearms. Call him up and ask him how much a gun with bodies is. Lot cheaper then Turners.

So not even going to argue gun control here - because it is obvious to everyone. It is either make guns legal (like they are partially now) or outlaw them completely. The real question one must ask them selves is the 2nd Amendment, The Right to Bear Arms worth 1 human life? What about 33 human lives? What about 8,197 human lives?

What do you guys think?
Tony

CalNRA
04-22-2007, 4:31 AM
Wtf?

Mssr. Eleganté
04-22-2007, 4:53 AM
Tony, take a look at what the murder rate was in the UK before they banned guns. It was even lower. Gun control didn't really start in the UK until the 1920's. But before that their murder rate was still way below the US murder rate.

So it's not the guns.

The US non-gun murder rate is something like 3 times higher than the UK non-gun murder rate.

We are just a more violent country.

Comparing US murder rates to UK murder rates is comparing apples to oranges. You need to compare UK murder rates before gun control to UK murder rates after gun control and US murder rates before gun control to US murder rates after gun control.

And also look at who is being killed by guns. Columbine and Virginia Tech are very dramatic examples of shooting deaths, but they are not statisticly significant examples. Most shooting victims in this country are violent life-long criminals. Last year in San Francisco, when the murder rate was approching some record level, the SFPD released information on all of the 60 or so murder victims that had died so far that year. The "victims" avereged something like 12 felony arrests and 20 misdemeanor arrests per victim. Imagine if we magically come up with a way to save all of these victims. That would be 60 or so more fellons on the street in San Francisco each year. After 10 years that would be 600 more fellons preying on the people of San Francisco. A study in Chicago found that the average murder victim there actually had more fellony arrests than the people convicted of killing them.

CalNRA
04-22-2007, 4:59 AM
the single biggest domestic terrorism catastrophe we have seen to date was caused by a truck, fertilizer and a really deranged man. Keep that in mind.

ts
04-22-2007, 5:09 AM
Tony, take a look at what the murder rate was in the UK before they banned guns. It was even lower. Gun control didn't really start in the UK until the 1920's. But before that their murder rate was still way below the US murder rate.

So it's not the guns.

The US non-gun murder rate is something like 3 times higher than the UK non-gun murder rate.

We are just a more violent country.

Very good point - but let's look at this in a Scientific way, I stated a theory - you stated my theory was incorrect. Why are we a more violent culture? We live in the age of the internet, you can play violent video games with people all over the world. Why are we a more violent country? I don't believe it is as simple as that - I am not too sure about this, but the guy who shot up all those people at VT, didn't he move here recently from Korea or something?

the single biggest domestic terrorism catastrophe we have seen to date was caused by a truck, fertilizer and a really deranged man. Keep that in mind.

Yes, that is terrorism. After a ban on trucks and fertilizers we will ban earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, floods, etc. What does that have to do with violence and guns? There is always going to be insane people doing insane things - the US government cannot ban fertilizers - but they sure do keep track of them now. As I said in the first post - if you are set on killing someone you will do it - knife, gun, bb gun and diapers, car, fertilizer, etc. I will keep that in mind (and you are correct) but it does not add anything to the thread at hand.

And also look at who is being killed by guns. Columbine and Virginia Tech are very dramatic examples of shooting deaths, but they are not statisticly significant examples. Most shooting victims in this country are violent life-long criminals. Last year in San Francisco, when the murder rate was approching some record level, the SFPD released information on all of the 60 or so murder victims that had died so far that year. The "victims" avereged something like 12 felony arrests and 20 misdemeanor arrests per victim. Imagine if we magically come up with a way to save all of these victims. That would be 60 or so more fellons on the street in San Francisco each year. After 10 years that would be 600 more fellons preying on the people of San Francisco.

Felon or no felon, it is still a human life. And yes the VT shooting are a very dramatic example, but it got a lot of media coverage - a lot more then the average nightly drive by in LA. If we are able to ban guns all together then those 600 people of San Francisco would not have the means to pursue the violent acts they want, unless they want to rob someone by knife point - where as pepper spray is a good deterrent against that.

xenophobe
04-22-2007, 5:43 AM
850 vs. 12,658 is a HUGE gap. It is very easy (relativity speaking) psychologically to point a gun and pull the trigger.

You're not seriously looking at your own statistics are you?

Population of England 49,138,831
Population of USA 298,444,215

So if you multiply the population of england by 6, you get the rough estimate of population of the United States.

Multiply 850 x 6 = 5100 deaths among the population the same size.

Wow... kinda narrows the absent minded gap, eh? :p

Actually, you said UK...

The population of UK is 60,609,153
The population of USA is 298,444,215

Which means the population of the US is roughly 4.9 times that of the UK.

The legitimate murder rate in comparison to the US if the UK had similar population...

4185

Guns are pretty much banned, yet the murder rate is 1/3 of that of the US.

Still rather insignificant numbers when you consider the totals...

Mssr. Eleganté
04-22-2007, 5:44 AM
Felon or no felon, it is still a human life.

Well, yes, they are still humans, but I see no reason to mourn their deaths. They prey on innocent people. We aren't even putting them to death. They are killing themselves off. These guys are mostly in their early 20's, yet they have been arrested over 30 times. How many crimes have they committed without being arrested? What is a good trade off? Would you allow your car to be broken into five times, your home to be robbed twice, and your grandmother to be beaten and mugged once, in order to save the life of a violent fellon? After all, you can replace the stolen objects and your grandmothers wounds might heal, but you can never replace the life of a life-long criminal gang member. :rolleyes:

If we are able to ban guns all together then those 600 people of San Francisco would not have the means to pursue the violent acts they want, unless they want to rob someone by knife point - where as pepper spray is a good deterrent against that.

Even if we make believe that banning guns would actually remove guns from the criminal culture, criminals still do incredible amounts of damage without using guns. While the murder rates in Europe are lower than those in the US, the crime rates are much higher. Do you really want to subject yourself to higher crime rates to save the life of a criminal? Have you ever had everything you and your family have worked years toward destroyed by the selfish acts of a criminal?

As a parting thought, take the number of people that have been murdered by criminals with guns in the United States over the last 100 years and add it to the number of people murdered by our government during the same time period.

Now take the number of people murdered by criminals with guns in Europe over the last 100 years and add it to the number of people murdered by European governments over the same time period.

ts
04-22-2007, 5:48 AM
You're not seriously looking at your own statistics are you?

Population of England 49,138,831
Population of USA 298,444,215

So if you multiply the population of england by 6, you get the rough estimate of population of the United States.

Multiply 850 x 6 = 5100 deaths among the population the same size.

Wow... kinda narrows the absent minded gap, eh? :p

it was 4:00 AM:o still 5,100 vs. 8,259. I also included the per capita due to that reason.

xenophobe
04-22-2007, 5:53 AM
Roughly 66% of all murder in the US is with a firearm.
1.48%... of all murder in the UK is with a firearm

Wow.... banning guns stops firearms related murders, but not murders.

tankerman
04-22-2007, 6:23 AM
Scientific? You said we are a more violent society?
You should be comparing violent crimes statistics, not just murder.
Present "facts" before you pass judgment. It is obvious that you did not compare any pertinent data, your conclusion is proof. England and Whales, are looking at 1,000,000 violent crimes for the first time in their history
Try Googling the words "U.K. violent crime rate" to start your "scientific study"
Facts are always helpful when debating.

Thank you for your scientific study, Mr. Wizard

CALI-gula
04-22-2007, 6:41 AM
Well there is a huge distinction in what is a "murder rate" between countries too. Keep in mind that the UK considers defending yourself against someone when using a firearm as murder. And if you own a handgun, and use it to defend yourself, you are still eviscerated because you owned it illegally. So the reporting of those statistics for the UK may be skewed right from the start.

BUT... what makes me think these statistics may be even MORE skewed and biased?

Hmmm... from the link you cited, might it be the part under both the Murder with Firearms and Murder with Firearms per Capita statistics and graphs, and under most of the "crime" stats, it says the source is:

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Not much better than the Brady Campaign, really.


And on Nationmaster: About Us

This website was created by Rapid Intelligence, a web technology company based in Sydney, Australia. We produce original sites that provide people with unique views of content.

"Unique views of content" - they said it, not me. :rolleyes:

.

SemiAutoSam
04-22-2007, 8:50 AM
If you think the Murrah building in OKC was brought down by a ANfo Bomb I have a Bridge to sell you. LOL

the single biggest domestic terrorism catastrophe we have seen to date was caused by a truck, fertilizer and a really deranged man. Keep that in mind.

AJAX22
04-22-2007, 8:59 AM
If you think the Murrah building in OKC was brought down by a ANfo Bomb I have a Bridge to sell you. LOL

if not anfo than what?

I'd venture to say that poor architectural design and a failure to tie the load bearing walls into the flooring was a big factor.

(and I never did understand how they achieved the result of a shape charge with a relativly low explosive)

but what else could they have used?

Kestryll
04-22-2007, 9:14 AM
if not anfo than what?

I'd venture to say that poor architectural design and a failure to tie the load bearing walls into the flooring was a big factor.

(and I never did understand how they achieved the result of a shape charge with a relativly low explosive)

but what else could they have used?


It was C-4 and Semtex, Cheney mixed them together and Bush planted the bombs while pretending to be on a drunken rampage.
Don't you know anything?

SemiAutoSam
04-22-2007, 9:27 AM
YEAA thats the ticket.

OOPS It seems we have ventured into an area that is frowned upon that and 911, Kennedy assassination, Ruby ridge, Branch davidians in Waco TX, hmm anything else oh yes Bohemian grove where the Presidents and Ex presidents do their devil worship See my Avatar its the BG ICON Skull and Bones, .

Google "Cremation of Care" for a fun BG Read..

These are some of the items that In MY Opinion (not Stating its fact) although its a fact to me. That some people are just not comfortable talking about. I honestly don't know what brought down the Murrah building in OKC nor am I completely sure what brought down the WTC in NYC or WTC Building 7 either. But I can tell you this witn almost 100% certainty I dont think OKC was a ANFO bomb Nor do I think WTC was the airliners that brought them down even if it was seen on TV.

We can believe what ever we want if you want you can believe what ever you see on TV or what your Government tells you. Its all a Matter of how gullible you are.

It was C-4 and Semtex, Cheney mixed them together and Bush planted the bombs while pretending to be on a drunken rampage.
Don't you know anything?

AJAX22
04-22-2007, 9:27 AM
It was C-4 and Semtex, Cheney mixed them together and Bush planted the bombs while pretending to be on a drunken rampage.
Don't you know anything?

oooooh yeah, the pliezenfepper theory.

tetris
04-22-2007, 9:32 AM
There are too many variables to say that the gap must be due to firearms. One major factor is the relatively smaller size of the impoverished classes in Britain, as well as the homogeneity of the population. They don't have the same problem with urban ghettos and gangs that the US does.

threadcrapper
04-22-2007, 9:43 AM
This isn't PC, but it's the truth. Most gun violence in America is minorities and mostly black in the inner cities. They have adopted a culture through rap music and movies, but mostly music, that makes being a gangsta and black on black crime cool and drug dealers and pimps are respected, rather than blacks who get a good education and go on to become doctors, lawyers and professionals. Those are considered sell outs to the white man.

As long as we have a black culture that makes the youth think carrying a "9" a and popping people is cool, we're going to have this high numbers of gun violence in America. The gangs and rap music is the problem. As long as these kids have bad schools and a 50+% dropout rate, they'll turn to the streets and do crime and that always means armed with guns. Bill Cosby tries to tell the black community the damage this culture of rap music driven thought has done to the black youth, but they laugh at him.

While people make jokes about whites and guns, the truth is most violence with guns on a daily basis is minorities in poor areas. So many gang deaths and inner city violence happens each day in America, if they were to report it, the stories would take up the entire newspaper.

SemiAutoSam
04-22-2007, 9:51 AM
Its sad to know that they think its cool to "Pop" people but then I guess that means its Cool to get strapped in the electric chair or die via lethal injection as well.

IMHO they should give what they get (the wife or son or other relative) of the victim gets to gun them down in a barrel so to speak. a controlled prison yard with no where to hide somewhat like a video game but IRL.

That would be justice served.

This isn't PC, but it's the truth. Most gun violence in America is minorities and mostly black in the inner cities. They have adopted a culture through rap music and movies, but mostly music, that makes being a gangsta and black on black crime cool and drug dealers and pimps are respected, rather than blacks who get a good education and go on to become doctors, lawyers and professionals. Those are considered sell outs to the white man.

As long as we have a black culture that makes the youth think carrying a "9" a and popping people is cool, we're going to have this high numbers of gun violence in America. The gangs and rap music is the problem. As long as these kids have bad schools and a 50+% dropout rate, they'll turn to the streets and do crime and that always means armed with guns. Bill Cosby tries to tell the black community the damage this culture of rap music driven thought has done to the black youth, but they laugh at him.

While people make jokes about whites and guns, the truth is most violence with guns on a daily basis is minorities in poor areas. So many gang deaths and inner city violence happens each day in America, if they were to report it, the stories would take up the entire newspaper.

threadcrapper
04-22-2007, 9:58 AM
Its sad to know that they think its cool to "Pop" people but then I guess that means its Cool to get strapped in the electric chair or die via lethal injection as well.

IMHO they should give what they get (the wife or son or other relative) of the victim gets to gun them down in a barrel so to speak. a controlled prison yard with no where to hide somewhat like a video game but IRL.

That would be justice served.

Yeah, they don't think about that they'll get 25 years to life or the chair. It's all about street cred and money from drugs and other illegal activity. They don't realize, probably until they're in prison, that they could have made better choices with their lives and how being a gangsta isn't that cool at all. But, it's too late. They did the crime and they'll do the time. When they kill someone in gang violence, they don't realize they're really killing two people. The victim and themselves, because they're going away for years or for the rest of their lives.

Incitatus
04-22-2007, 10:14 AM
You're not seriously looking at your own statistics are you?

Population of England 49,138,831
Population of USA 298,444,215



Add another 20,000,000+ illegal immigrants to the number on our column.

And if you consider that:

• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation

....then the logical conclusion is the US society itself isn't excesively violent. The parasites invading us from the South border are.

LAK Supply
04-22-2007, 10:21 AM
Almost ALL violence in my area has been carried out by Mexican citizens, not blacks. I think you will find that the border states experience a higher rate of violent crime due to this.

I always run into people that are arguing against border control, and I ask them if they'd like to live in Tijuana. With the "hard workers doing jobs Americans won't do" comes a lot of people who have nothing to fear here. They bring their crime and their gangs with them. . . . . .

The one thing consolation right now is that they usually only kill each other. However, that will change........

We had 3 shootings in 1 day here in Modesto a few months back. ALL were Mexican and gang-related.

SemiAutoSam
04-22-2007, 10:21 AM
Earlier in the year I called the area in LA that I was raised in "INFESTED" and I was Flamed by Various board members. But there are those here that are of the opinion that everything is just OK Nothing to be concerned about what so ever. If they didn't live there in the thick of it its not really something that they KNOW so their perspective is not 20/20.

I think this information backs up my claim wouldn't you ?



Add another 20,000,000+ illegal immigrants to the number on our column.

And you consider that:

• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation

cartman
04-22-2007, 10:55 AM
This isn't PC, but it's the truth. Most gun violence in America is minorities and mostly black in the inner cities. They have adopted a culture through rap music and movies, but mostly music, that makes being a gangsta and black on black crime cool and drug dealers and pimps are respected, rather than blacks who get a good education and go on to become doctors, lawyers and professionals. Those are considered sell outs to the white man.

As long as we have a black culture that makes the youth think carrying a "9" a and popping people is cool, we're going to have this high numbers of gun violence in America. The gangs and rap music is the problem. As long as these kids have bad schools and a 50+% dropout rate, they'll turn to the streets and do crime and that always means armed with guns. Bill Cosby tries to tell the black community the damage this culture of rap music driven thought has done to the black youth, but they laugh at him.

While people make jokes about whites and guns, the truth is most violence with guns on a daily basis is minorities in poor areas. So many gang deaths and inner city violence happens each day in America, if they were to report it, the stories would take up the entire newspaper.

Its not the music. I grew listening to rap and I didn't grow up gangbanging. When you take a group of poor people and the kids there see their parent(single most of time) either working hard for little or not at all, then they see some drug dealer in his nice car not working coupled by the fact that we are so soft on crime that its not much of a derrent why wouldn't they perpetuate the cycle

LAK Supply
04-22-2007, 11:30 AM
Earlier in the year I called the area in LA that I was raised in "INFESTED" and I was Flamed by Various board members. But there are those here that are of the opinion that everything is just OK Nothing to be concerned about what so ever. If they didn't live there in the thick of it its not really something that they KNOW so their perspective is not 20/20.

I think this information backs up my claim wouldn't you ?

There are some people that just don't want to hear the truth. Why worry about what's really going on when you can pretend nothing's wrong and not feel bad about ignoring it.

hoffmang
04-22-2007, 12:05 PM
Back on topic....

Murders may not be the right benchmark to compare. Looking at violent crime, it looks like the UK doesn't kill as often as our criminals do, but they seem to use their firearms to perpetrate all sorts of other crimes short of murder.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/OPINION/702280473/1029

It makes some sense as here if you brandish a weapon you better be ready to use it.

The other major factor that needs to be compared is the per capita size of their drug economy as compared to ours. I'll bet there is more revenue dollars per head of population in the US than in the UK.

-Gene

Gshock
04-22-2007, 12:26 PM
automobiles kill roughly 45,000 each year, should we outlaw cars to? Lets be realistic, heroin, crack, meth, and marijuana are outlawed yet there seems to be plenty of that crap around and banning guns would NEVER take them out of the hands of criminals

Bad Voodoo
04-22-2007, 12:31 PM
The real question one must ask them selves is the 2nd Amendment, The Right to Bear Arms worth 1 human life? What about 33 human lives? What about 8,197 human lives?

Our constitutional rights, all of them, are worth roughly 390 million lives if that's what it takes to defend them.

-voodoo

xenophobe
04-22-2007, 1:21 PM
I also failed to mention, that for the 10 previous years before the firearms ban, firearms related crimes stayed at a pretty constant rate in the UK. After banning handgun possession and severely restricting long arms, the crime rate almost doubled each year afterwards.

I compiled this info for a thread a while back on a different forum, but could not find it... Maybe I'll recompile the information later...

tankerman
04-22-2007, 1:32 PM
There are too many variables to say that the gap must be due to firearms. One major factor is the relatively smaller size of the impoverished classes in Britain, as well as the homogeneity of the population. They don't have the same problem with urban ghettos and gangs that the US does.
Were did you come up with this info? I just looked it up and 40% of London is minority, with 25% being foreign born. The greater London Metropolitan area as of 2001 was approx. 7.1 million. You do the math. Also, stop ignoring other violent crimes. The majority of violent crimes are not committed with guns. VIEW ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

ts
04-22-2007, 2:06 PM
Some of you guys are making great points - your answering the where, when, and how - but your forgetting the most important one: WHY. That's what I want to know. You blame it on gangs - you don't think the UK has gangs and rap music? Hell the rapper Tech N9ne tours the UK all the time. Give me WHY.

ts
04-22-2007, 2:41 PM
The US "gang" culture is completely different from other countries. I don't think anyone here can fully explain why. Maybe a sociological paper has been done that addresses why the gangs in the US are more violent, or why the murder rate is higher. There are so many factors to consider; it's not only gangs, or firearm control.

Well, in many other countries the gang culture is much worse - but let's not just focus on gangs specifically, let's look at all violent crimes and all violent firearms crimes. There are many factors to consider, let's here some - answers. Let's hear the answer to the question Why, or at least a good theory with some evidence to give it credibility. Personally, I would love to see more unbiased statistics about countries that out lawed firearms with countries that have lax firearm laws.

LAK Supply
04-22-2007, 3:10 PM
Well, in many other countries the gang culture is much worse - but let's not just focus on gangs specifically, let's look at all violent crimes and all violent firearms crimes. There are many factors to consider, let's here some - answers. Let's hear the answer to the question Why, or at least a good theory with some evidence to give it credibility. Personally, I would love to see more unbiased statistics about countries that out lawed firearms with countries that have lax firearm laws.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread..... Might it have something to do with the 3rd world countries to our South and their hard-core criminals flooding up here to take advantage of the economic situation? There are a LOT of drug mafia personnel that are up here from South America and Mexico. . . . . They don't quite have the respect for human life (or anything else for that matter) that even a lot of organized crime based in the US does.

The gangsters that are based in the US keep it toned down; they try to operate under wraps to keep their operations going. While they may not care about who they kill they definitely care about getting caught because their operations are going on in their own backyard. Things can get tough for organized crime when every applicable law enforcement agency in their area is breathing down their neck.

The criminals that are operating out of other countries do not care about that; they are headquartered in another nation anyway. They tend to be much more blatant about what they are doing because they can always just run back across the border anyway. They also come from a culture that has no regard for killing innocent people. If you are viewed as the enemy then you're fair game. Just look down at the border; our LEO's are getting shot at by foreign drug dealers. You won't generally see that occur when it comes to organized criminals here......at the end of the day they still have to live here.

ts
04-22-2007, 3:28 PM
Keep in mind guys, we're talking about the entire US here - not just CA. There are illegal immigrants in every country.

leelaw
04-22-2007, 3:52 PM
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." but that's the same thing as saying, "SUVs don't produce excess emissions, people who drive their SUVs do."
You lost me here.. unless you're suggesting that SUV drivers fart a lot.

Technical Ted
04-22-2007, 3:58 PM
I just happened to catch an interesting comment by Christine Roman on Lou Dobbs (CNN) regarding the attack on the Second Amendment. Unfortunately I was in the middle of something and didn't stick around to listen to the whole thing.

Roman, mentioned that strict gun control does not make a population safer. Washington DC was an example.

She also mentioned that a Center for Disease Control study on gun control's relation to gun related deaths was inconclusive.

Then she said, "The country with the strictest gun control laws in North America is Mexico." Then a series of still crime scene photos of dead bodies, the victims of drug cartels, smugglers and other criminal activity.

Basically the gist of the report seemed to be: "when guns are outlawed, law abiding citizens become the prey of outlaws.

cartman
04-22-2007, 4:14 PM
The US "gang" culture is completely different from other countries. I don't think anyone here can fully explain why. Maybe a sociological paper has been done that addresses why the gangs in the US are more violent, or why the murder rate is higher. There are so many factors to consider; it's not only gangs, or firearm control.

Our gang culture is different because unlike other countries anyone with determination can make it big. We're the land of oppertunity. Including bangers selling drugs. Also we have the biggest drug problem so theres more to exploite in the drug market here.

CALI-gula
04-22-2007, 5:32 PM
Some of you guys are making great points - your answering the where, when, and how - but your forgetting the most important one: WHY. That's what I want to know. You blame it on gangs - you don't think the UK has gangs and rap music? Hell the rapper Tech N9ne tours the UK all the time. Give me WHY.


Why? It's not the rap. It's not the guns. It's not video games. It's not Looney Toons. And it's not McDonalds.

It's because here in the United States, since the late 1960's, we have been forced to honor irresponsibility and inability like they were God-given talents. We have been forced to tolerate and kow-tow to the border-line insane and lowest common denominator, to patronize the stupid as irreverent, to hold the underachiever as irresponsible for his actions, and forced to go as far as to honor such mental backwash with "special recognition" and put them on a pedestal, rather than outright telling them "Hey, you're a failure, get with the program".

We can't give kids "F" grades anymore, instead we have to give them a “W” for "Wonderfully Tried". We can't tell kids they LOST a game (God forbid!) we have to give them a pat on the back and say "There are no losers here today, everyone played equally as well, everyone won". Well no, someone played better, and someone did not play as well; better luck next time, but in this case YOU SUCKED!

Since the 1960's the hippie generation has been trampling us with the mantra to honor everyone for their freedom of expression or stupidity, no matter how distorted or out-of-line, and we must further do it with "free love" while actually looking upon their defects as “wow, that’s acting from the heart and should be commended”. It’s a real bowing to "He can't help it, he's my brother" even when the brother is a pedophile priest, Jeffery Dahmer, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or this jackass Cho.

Our schools and our administrations have gotten into this social perversion that we must take on everyone else's inability, everyone's deviant behavior, and/or their crimes as our own, and instead of giving them an early indication in a brash manner of "Hey, fix this or else" with one chance, we have to instead lay a path of easement for the worst offenders giving them 30 chances without fear of retribution for their actions. "Ohhhh how WE have failed them". We actually encourage their behavior by expressing that it is beyond their control, not their fault, it's a chemical imbalance, the poor, poor victim of OUR oversight!

But worse, we then go as far as to deny what they are doing is even wrong, like they are helpless involuntary animals acting out because our society has made them into these creatures. We give them labels like ADD, ADDHD, clinically depressed, Emotionally disabled, drug them 9 ways to Sunday to placate them, and let them co-habit with our kids that do not have these problems, instead of cracking them on the knuckles with a ruler when they act out.

And this lack of taking responsibility started about the same time. Parents prior to the mid-1960's believed teachers and neighbors when they were told their kid was causing trouble, now there is this blindness knee-jerk reaction of "Not my child". Now, nobody needs to ante up for their actions - there is always something about our society to blame, and someone always willing to reinforce “It’s not their fault” even when the person feels guilty! Soon, the repeat offender starts believing this crap!

Then this concept is carried to our national face - "Not out neighbor" or "Not our citizens" for fear that our society may have produced even one embarrassment and assbackwards psycho. We can't accept that a mental midget exists - we have to take on that hippie outlook and say "Let's pander to everybody - it's not their fault".

Even now, after Cho's documented actions, the press is trying to find blame in society, ironically even when they are avoiding placing blame on external reasons of his environment. They might be saying it wasn't guns, it wasn't video games, it wasn't rap music, but then they turn it into "He was teased" or "He wasn't privileged like the other kids" or "he should have been treated more fairly" - well boo frickin' who! HE DID THIS, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BEATEN DOWN LONG AGO!

Cho was a deviant piece of crap and should have been dealt with swiftly when he acted as he did many months, even years earlier. Teased? He should have been beat up a couple of times to know what humility REALLY feels like. VT students were TOO civil to him, he was actually quite lucky. He should not have been given break after break and patronized with counseling. When he acted the way it had been described by many, he should have been removed from the game with permanence. There should have been rules and signs on campus noting expulsion was a threat for his kind of disruptive actions he had been doing for months, and it should have been acted upon, rather than threatening expulsion if you should bring a gun onto campus (a lot fo good that did!). Instead, they waited too long to dole out punishment on that little *****, and his "freedom of expression" was allowed to escalate.

In many other countries, they correct that situation swiftly - they don't wait around for them to wig out and go on a shooting spree - they fire that person, incarcerate that person, give them an "F", cane their feet, or make them work hard and not live a life so frivolous and decadent that they can seem self important and cultivate entitlement to what everyone else has, for little or no work at all.

This VT shooter felt entitled to the things others had, and did not feel he had to work hard to get it. He was full of himself and jealous because he did not have a BMW or Rolex, but felt he was entitled to those things anyway. And when he didn't have them? He became embittered about it, and instead of working harder to get those things, he felt society should just hand those things over to him and give him a break, just like it had done throughout his life, over and over again, making concessions for his behavior. And then he acted out in rebellion to it.

That concept of giving a break to those with superficial "special needs" forced upon our society, to repeatedly tolerate his asinine behavior, teased or not, creates him. If he had had his knuckles cracked with a ruler a few times or been put on the short-list of individuals not getting an 8 and 9th chance to act like an a-hole, and forced to work harder, it would have been different.

There is no threat anymore of real punishment, and no impending doom for acting out - the very reason these shooting sprees happen in "gun free" zones. The people that commit them have no fear of resistence or retribution against them, just as it had been that they lived a life long spree of enjoying no form or resistence or retribution for their earlier deviant actions.

Criminals don't "choose" gun-free zones, they just grow with them due to a lessening of fear for each offensive action. What does that mean? Well, they start out by stealing a pack of gum, and there is no real resistence, so they get away with it. Then they build up to breaking into cars. Then it's stealing a purse off an old lady. Then mugging someone at knife-point. Time and time again, they get bolder and bolder, not cognitive of their being in a CCW-free zone, but each time they easily get away with a crime, with no resistence, they realize how easy it would be if they had a gun.

Likewise, these spree-shooters are often in environments that repeatedly give him concessions, encourage their excuses for anti-social behavior, and give them chance after chance, all within a gun-free zone. With little resistence to their ealier actions they realize how easy it would be in that environment to shoot up the place. Do you think he would have chosen the local Police station to do this very same shooting spree? No. Key word: resistence.

Therefore, the Second Amendment IS worth it because the full expression of the Second Amendment as INTENDED would have stopped this little ***** in his tracks, or maybe he would not have even taken up a gun in the first place, in a location where others might have guns too, just as I highly doubt he would have chosen a police station to commit his shooting spree.

Now days we allow people to apologize too easily, to blame their actions on passion, or let them avoid responsibility by saying "it was the alcohol" or because "that's just my nature" or because I was abused, therefore I abuse, and we even go farther to make them famous for it. We even have people becoming millionaires off of their criminal acts, and WE are funding them with our buying dollars!

Cho is now famous because "Hey, that's just who he was". Even now the press is making concessions for him, and looking to blame society for failing him! They are trying to study him now so we can further EASE the path and troubles of similar people in the future!? That is a recipe for doing nothing more than encouraging that behavior. Spare the proverbial rod, and spoil the child.

The only thing our society failed at doing was giving him some real humility. And it's funny how CCW zones have a way of making people VERY humble!

.

Charliegone
04-22-2007, 5:36 PM
Why? I would say we have different cultures. When I say that I don't mean, Mexican, White, Black, etc, I mean as a whole. What things do we value here in America? Individualism, competition, etc..in the UK it is completely different, its the reason why the US of A separated from the UK. They have a more "community" minded thought set. Now..which way is better? That is something that is debatable.

fairfaxjim
04-22-2007, 5:40 PM
Some of you guys are making great points - your answering the where, when, and how - but your forgetting the most important one: WHY. That's what I want to know.

To quote my dear departed mother, BECAUSE!

hoffmang
04-22-2007, 5:47 PM
I posit that the major difference is the size of the drug market.

The UK drug market is estimated between £2147.7M and £6546.0M. The pound is about $2 right now which makes the comparison easy. My data source was http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_SizeOfTheDrugMarket.ht m

The US Drug Market in 2000 looks like it was $65B. That's 5 times the size of the high UK estimate. See http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion19.htm

Killing the competition is worth a lot more in the US.

That and there seems to be some honor among thieves in the UK.

-Gene

berto
04-22-2007, 5:58 PM
Our British cousins are subjects of a winner of the lucky sperm lottery who can tell their elected representatives to piss off. They have no recourse other than crossed fingers that the military she commands won't play ball. We have other options.

Now on to your question if the Second Amendment is worth it. You're goddamn right the Second Amendment is worth it because it gives you a fighting chance not to be the one human life, one of the 32 human lives (Cho doesn't count) or one 8,197 human lives lost because some degenerate piece of crap decides to take a shot at you.

ZapThyCat
04-22-2007, 9:11 PM
Oh give me a frickin break. The UK can stop guns from getting across the border a little better, since you only have two ways... by air or by sea.

On the other hand, here in the good old US of A, we have an OPEN BORDER with a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. Thousands of illegals, hundreds of them drug runners, cross the border EVERY DAY. This third world country is a country in the midst of a revolution, it's politicians are corrupt (like ours aren't), it's police are corrupt, it has weapons floating around and virtually NO regulation. You can go to Mexico and find RPG's all over if you search and have the connections. You can't do that here. Now you can make the arguement that you should regulate Mexico too.... good luck. The criminals will STILL GET THE GUNS they want, and the law abiding citizens will still obey the law. NOW HOW HIGH DO YOU THINK THE MURDER RATE WILL BE?

TheMan
04-22-2007, 9:52 PM
Now lets be honest here guys, if guns were outlawed there would be less murder in the US. It is obvious that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." but that's the same thing as saying, "SUVs don't produce excess emissions, people who drive their SUVs do." Guns make it much easier to kill someone.


SUVs make it much easier to kill someone too. So do knives, baseball bats, hammers, etc. A Gun is a tool.

If guns are outlawed there MIGHT be less murder by gun, but even that is not definite. Guns don't make people get the urge to kill, people get that on their own. The result, as seen in other countries, is that murder by other means goes up because the people are still murdering, they have just picked another tool for the job.


What do you guys think?


I think you need to work on your scientific/analytic skills. You need to figure out a way to break this down so that there is only one variable- the presence/lack of guns. Economic conditions, as well as social and cultural variables need to be eliminated. Good luck with that.

alex00
04-23-2007, 11:21 AM
So why don't we outlaw guns in the US? If the government devised a good way to obtain everyone's firearms I bet the crime rates would drop DRAMATICALLY.


Like the plan they devised to collect all the illegal drugs? I'm sure glad the illegal drug problem is over. Or maybe you mean like the way the government collected all the booze during prohibition? Nobody drank in the twenties, right?

When the government schedules us for mandatory gun turn in, I'll just make sure I'm last in line. Guns will never go away. As long as the technology exists, I want to be on the side that has them.

Your faith in government being able to collect all the guns is misplaced. But I'm sure you know that by now.

AJAX22
04-23-2007, 11:37 AM
I always love how people rage about how good the UK gun controll laws are and then sort of slink away when you ask them how the brittish round up of the IRA's weapons is coming.

Sam Hainn
04-23-2007, 12:24 PM
This original post is a border-line troll post. The statistics are from the UN and this has already been done as 'Bowling for Columbine' - watch it if you want to stroke it up for the Brady Bunch - same bull****.

hoffmang
04-23-2007, 12:30 PM
The original post is not at all a Troll post. It is an attempt to face the arguments against us.

Instead of taking it seriously - folks here are mocking it. Those appear to be valid numbers. As such, the honest options are to find fault with the numbers themselves or the interpretation of what the numbers mean.

It takes intellectual effort - something that seems a little lacking here at times.

-Gene

mblat
04-23-2007, 2:18 PM
Some of you guys are making great points - your answering the where, when, and how - but your forgetting the most important one: WHY. That's what I want to know. You blame it on gangs - you don't think the UK has gangs and rap music? Hell the rapper Tech N9ne tours the UK all the time. Give me WHY.

Genetics. This country human material is formed from either of descendant of immigrants or immigrants themselves. And it takes a lot of balls to let everything go and move to different country. It doesn’t seem a big deal for us, because we either ourselves have done it or our parents did it. However, for majority of population on this planet it is still a big deal. And it was MUCH bigger deal when there was no social security, no DMV with booklets in 50 different languages, no free healthcare, no…… That really took a lot of guts and believe in yourself to move back then.
Now, what does it mean that we have population based largely on immigrants? IT means several things. For one it means that our predecessors were people who are willing to take risks. It often means that they were in some kind of trouble in native countries. It means that they were willing to go “against the grain”.
Basically our population has higher percentage of alphas that any other country. More alphas mean more violence.

On different level violence also means that our society aren’t stagnant. And I am not quite certain what worse: violent society that constantly changes and force you to adapt to those changes or very peaceful one where you spend your entire life in total safety.

Kestryll
04-23-2007, 2:27 PM
The original post is not at all a Troll post. It is an attempt to face the arguments against us.

Instead of taking it seriously - folks here are mocking it. Those appear to be valid numbers. As such, the honest options are to find fault with the numbers themselves or the interpretation of what the numbers mean.

It takes intellectual effort - something that seems a little lacking here at times.

-Gene


Gene has hit it right on the head.

Whether or not the original post was 'trolling' or not if all we can do when faced with an argument is fall in to a defensive position attacking the poster then we've lost already.

I don't care whether it is someone here, on another board or in real life these kinds of things HAVE to be addressed when they come up!
What if a coworker had asked you this? Or a family member?
Are we going to start mocking them and telling them they are full of it?
That will help change their minds won't it?

Here's a thought, quit laying in to people for being 'newbs' or having a different opinion. Instead go do a little research and EDUCATE them. Not only will you have answers for them and others, they may well be the ones answering these questions down the road!

If you do not feel inclined to do that or feel a post is just 'trolling' then ignore it. If it's truly a troll they'll go away faster if yo don't 'feed' them.

The members here ae smarter than this thread displays, we've seen it before so let's se it regularly.

Sam Hainn
04-23-2007, 2:46 PM
Naw, it's why I stated the post was border-line troll post - didn't mean to call anyone a troll. I was commenting that it's content will inevitably get people going. I should have explained better. My comment on the Bowling for Columbine approach stands. These numbers come from the United Nations & Australia. look at that website & see where the numbers come from. They are'nt biased at all and if basing this discussion on those numbers then it's all invalid - we need figures from a non-biased group.

jtyoshi
04-23-2007, 3:45 PM
Scientific...analysis...lol

US Murders:
Murders: 12,658
Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 8,259
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

Guns are banned right according to your statement
Mexico Murders:
Murders: 13,829
Murders (per capita): 0.130213 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 3,589
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0337938 per 1,000 people

(source: http://www.nationmaster.com)
======================
#1 You compared US to UK murder rates
Your Premise: UK = banned guns = lower murder rate
Your Assumption: All countries that ban guns results in lower murder rate and ignores social, political, and economic considerations.
Your Conclusion: Guns cause murder

Your flawed: There is substantial evidence shown by the same source you cited that shows contrary evidence.
IE...
Mexico(0.13) VRS US(0.04) murders per capita
Mexico has banned firearms and a murder rate 3 times that of the US.
======================
#2 You compared murders with firearms US to UK
You claimed that because guns are easier to use in a murder, therefore a country with guns banned will reduce murders with firearms.

Once again I'll cite Mexico our Neighbor that has banned firearms ownership.
Murder with firearms
Mexico 0.34 VRS US 0.28 per capita
Clearly banning firearms does not stop the use of firearms in crime.
You once again cited your specific idea of UK vrs US and then tried to universally apply.
=================================
#3 You claim that banning of guns will suddenly result in a reduction in murder and yet have not offered any data to support it. Since you so strongly advocated for a scientific approach, wheres the data?
=================================

You stated
"Now the obvious argument for this is, "If we outlaw weapons here - the bad guys would still get them and the law abiding citizens would be like fish in a barrel!" Why is it not like that in England?"

Look at Mexico and tell me why it IS like that.
==================================
You stated
"Next rebuttal that would come to my mind would be, "Because England is an island, we're in the US, we are bordered by 2 other countries." Well if I am not mistaken, every time I drive into Mexico there is a sign in San Diego that says "No Guns in Mexico". How hard do you think it would be to get a gun into the UK illegally? I doubt it is any harder then the US. Same goes for Ammo. Smuggling pieces of metal with no scents is much easier then smuggling drugs that dogs can pick up in less then a second."

If anything your "Scientific source" supports that the fact that guns are harder to smuggle firearms into. Mexico neighboring the US has a HIGHER firearm murder rate and borders the US. Where as the isolated UK has a lower Firearm murder rate.
=================
You argued that if the government devised a way to snatch up all the firearms, that murder would suddenly drop. So are you advocating the removal of firearms from our police and domestic armed forces as well?

If you've ever read the second amendment you would know our right to bear ARMS is for the sake of prevent a tyrannical government. But hey, if you don't like guns, you can always move to Mexico where private ownership of firearms is prohibited.

Your whole argument has 0 scientific premise. Towards the end you just start making unsupported claims that I don't even need to refute.
================================

Do your own research next time :-)

NwG
04-25-2007, 12:25 AM
You ask a lot of rather open ended questions in this thread that get people talking and thinking.. Others come back with there ideas and answers to be asked another open ended question..

Tony how about you post some of your views on the replies to this topic rather than push it along with more questions? Please don't just sit back and play debate mod. You started this thread, how about some input?

You ended your first post with this...

"The real question one must ask them selves is the 2nd Amendment, The Right to Bear Arms worth 1 human life? What about 33 human lives? What about 8,197 human lives?"

IMO your view of the 2ed Amendment and the way you question it makes me wonder how you look at our right to keep and bear arms..

The 2ed Amendment is far more than just to allow the people to have guns. It was put in place because of a real and true fear of an over reaching gooberment. While many.. MOST don't see something like that happening today, it is still a very real and true fear. This is a topic all in it's own. I find it odd that it didn't come up all that much in this thread after you clsed you first post the way you did...

To answer your question...
Not only is the 2ed Amendment but the whole Bill of Rights, the United States of America worth every life it takes to keep the freedoms we are granted.

8,197 lives? Try MILLIONS of Americans gave everything they could including there lives to protect those freedoms.. The fact that people take advantage of said freedoms and commit murder and other crimes is a sad but true reflection of our freedoms..

People have a choice as to what freedoms they will give up in the name of public safety..If you think that a gun free country would be a better place to live, you have the choice to move to one of those countries.. Be thankful that men much wiser than us had the forthought to ensure we retain all the freedoms started with...

hoffmang
04-25-2007, 1:18 AM
One of the key ways we have to look at the total killed by firearms each year is to pull out the deaths that shouldn't even be considered weighing against an RKBA.

Those would be:

Suicide (there are some laws that might help curtail this number but its a discrete issue.)
Prohibited persons pulling the trigger.
Legal self defense shootings
Good LEO shootings
Shootings of associates where the associate is known through illegal activities.

When you pull those out, the number of firearms deaths in the US is pretty darn low. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I can tell you that the usual numbers bandied about certainly don't have all (or even most) of those categories excluded.

-Gene

artherd
04-25-2007, 1:36 AM
IThe real question one must ask them selves is the 2nd Amendment, The Right to Bear Arms worth 1 human life? What about 33 human lives? What about 8,197 human lives?

Yes, yes, and hell yes.

Consider the alternative: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4252

artherd
04-25-2007, 2:04 AM
I can assure you, having worked as a government contractor over the span of several decades that you are dead wrong on every count.

I hear this a lot, and I think it is very much different now than when the 2nd amendment was written. I don't think they anticipated the tanks, aircraft, missiles, bombs, and the high powered weapons of today. I don't think civilians can compete with the current military. They have machines guns, we don't (at least not easily at all). Anyways, I don't think in the current modern civilization, the U.S. government will ever go against it's own people.

C9X19
04-25-2007, 8:04 AM
I can assure you, having worked as a government contractor over the span of several decades that you are dead wrong on every count.

That's right. Also, those that are enlisted have sworn in to PROTECT the Constitution from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.

mblat
04-25-2007, 8:36 AM
I hear this a lot, and I think it is very much different now than when the 2nd amendment was written. I don't think they anticipated the tanks, aircraft, missiles, bombs, and the high powered weapons of today. I don't think civilians can compete with the current military. They have machines guns, we don't (at least not easily at all). Anyways, I don't think in the current modern civilization, the U.S. government will ever go against it's own people.

Iraq? Ring a bell at all?

HowardW56
04-25-2007, 9:09 AM
I was curious to see the murder statics of the UK (no legal guns) vs. US. Here is what I came up with:

US Murders:
Murders: 12,658
Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 8,259
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

UK Murders:
Murders: 850
Murders (per capita): 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 62
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

(source: http://www.nationmaster.com)

Now it is very understandable the vast differences in numbers when comparing the US vs. UK. Since guns are illegal there. But as you can see, there are many more murders in the US then in the UK. I believe the reason is firearms.

850 vs. 12,658 is a HUGE gap. It is very easy (relativity speaking) psychologically to point a gun and pull the trigger. It is much harder to go up to someone and stab them multiple times.

Now lets be honest here guys, if guns were outlawed there would be less murder in the US. It is obvious that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." but that's the same thing as saying, "SUVs don't produce excess emissions, people who drive their SUVs do." Guns make it much easier to kill someone.

Now the obvious argument for this is, "If we outlaw weapons here - the bad guys would still get them and the law abiding citizens would be like fish in a barrel!" Why is it not like that in England? Next rebuttal that would come to my mind would be, "Because England is an island, we're in the US, we are bordered by 2 other countries." Well if I am not mistaken, every time I drive into Mexico there is a sign in San Diego that says "No Guns in Mexico". How hard do you think it would be to get a gun into the UK illegally? I doubt it is any harder then the US. Same goes for Ammo. Smuggling pieces of metal with no scents is much easier then smuggling drugs that dogs can pick up in less then a second.

So why don't we outlaw guns in the US? If the government devised a good way to obtain everyone's firearms I bet the crime rates would drop DRAMATICALLY. Things like Columbine, VT, etc. Would be a extreme rarity and a thing of the past, unless of course he had a really big sword.

The only reason not to outlaw firearms in the US is the 2nd Amendment. Now I for one do not want my firearms taken away, they give me great joy. Every time I look at my AK-47, I smile, when I shoot it gives me even greater joy. But logically speaking guns do make it much easier to kill people. Given if you want someone dead, you're going to do it - even if you're an astronaut driving with a diaper on with an BB gun. But all the acts of senseless violence such as drive by shootings, people going insane - getting a couple of guns and going around killing people at will before the police show up would be a thing of the past.

Now a good rebuttal for that would be, "Citizens should be armed." For anyone who has ever been in a bar fight, or at a party where people get drunk and fight - that's a scary thought. A black eye is no big deal, heals in a few days. If those people were armed. Or had weapons in their vehicle, well let's just say gun shot wounds don't heal as fast as a black eye - a lot of the times they don't heal at all.

Now let's move on to the bull s*it topic of "gun control" (it's hard to read without laughing, huh?) It is obvious to any semi-educated person (or even a non-educated gang member) that if a bad guy wants a gun, he is going to get it if you live in a country where guns are legal. I am sure many of you have one of those shady acquaintances that you don't want to know - but you run into him every once in a while, that can get you an illegal firearms. Call him up and ask him how much a gun with bodies is. Lot cheaper then Turners.

So not even going to argue gun control here - because it is obvious to everyone. It is either make guns legal (like they are partially now) or outlaw them completely. The real question one must ask them selves is the 2nd Amendment, The Right to Bear Arms worth 1 human life? What about 33 human lives? What about 8,197 human lives?

What do you guys think?
Tony


So, how long have you been on the Brady Center’s payroll?

hoffmang
04-25-2007, 9:39 AM
So, how long have you been on the Brady Center’s payroll?

So how long have you been closed minded and obtuse to the point of not understanding that this thread is an attempt to teach/learn how to better argue and defend against arguments that are not pro-gun?

-Gene

Bishop
04-25-2007, 4:20 PM
Now it is very understandable the vast differences in numbers when comparing the US vs. UK. Since guns are illegal there. But as you can see, there are many more murders in the US then in the UK. I believe the reason is firearms.
While the per capita numbers are technically more accurate, you're forgetting that we have many more areas of dense population than the UK. Areas of dense population always have higher crime rates, and since the UK doesn't have as many of these areas as we do, there needs to be another adjustment for the numbers to be accurate. You should also note that most of London (their high crime area) is covered by CCTV. Big brother at its finest. Are you willing to sacrifice your privacy for security? Mr. Franklin has a quote for people like that.

850 vs. 12,658 is a HUGE gap. It is very easy (relativity speaking) psychologically to point a gun and pull the trigger. It is much harder to go up to someone and stab them multiple times.
There's no doubt about it; a gun is the most effective weapon for killing another human being. But you're just focusing on the negative of this, the malevolent uses. Guns make killing easy, which makes them an equalizer. This can be a good thing if you are at the disadvantage. The old and frail can protect themselves from the young and strong. The 100 pound woman can protect herself from a 300 pound rapist. The few can protect themselves from many. And, as in the case of VTech, regular people just trying to live their lives can protect themselves from a deranged psychotic bent on murdering as many people as he can before turning the gun on himself. Perhaps you'd be comfortable in a knife fight with someone larger and stronger or against more than one person, but I'd rather have the gun.

Now lets be honest here guys, if guns were outlawed there would be less murder in the US. It is obvious that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." but that's the same thing as saying, "SUVs don't produce excess emissions, people who drive their SUVs do." Guns make it much easier to kill someone.
If guns were outlawed there would be less murder in the US??? What is your comment about the ~32 states that have right to carry laws, and little or no gun control? What about the fact that many of these states that have seen a decrease in violent crime after passing "right to carry" laws and getting rid of restrictions? Are those states going to enjoy a lower murder rate if we disarm them? If so, why did they enjoy a decrease in violence when they did the opposite? It's not as obvious as you think.

"SUVs don't produce excess emissions, people who drive their SUVs do." Actually that's right. If the SUV sits on the lot, it produces no emissions. It's simply a tool. Without a human operator it can do almost no harm. You seem to be implying that tools that make it easier to commit malicious acts are somehow to blame for those acts, and that's called projection.

Now the obvious argument for this is, "If we outlaw weapons here - the bad guys would still get them and the law abiding citizens would be like fish in a barrel!" Why is it not like that in England? Next rebuttal that would come to my mind would be, "Because England is an island, we're in the US, we are bordered by 2 other countries." Well if I am not mistaken, every time I drive into Mexico there is a sign in San Diego that says "No Guns in Mexico". How hard do you think it would be to get a gun into the UK illegally? I doubt it is any harder then the US. Same goes for Ammo. Smuggling pieces of metal with no scents is much easier then smuggling drugs that dogs can pick up in less then a second.
Washington DC has proven that bans don't work. Nothing is going to change that fact. If there was no place in America where guns were banned, we would just be speculating, but DC is proof that gun bans just don't work. Guns will always find their way into America just as any banned good will find it's way into places with bans. All the crack-downs and threats and laws in the world won't change this fact.

By the way, England is also experiencing a dramatic increase in youth gang crime. Most of these attacks are committed with little more than loose bricks. Most of these kids find themselves back on the street in a few months with a year on probation. It's just a game to them, and people in these areas are scared for their lives to go walking at night. Arm these citizens, and see how quickly these kids realize it's not just fun and games.

So why don't we outlaw guns in the US? If the government devised a good way to obtain everyone's firearms I bet the crime rates would drop DRAMATICALLY. Things like Columbine, VT, etc. Would be a extreme rarity and a thing of the past, unless of course he had a really big sword.
Lets suspend reality for a bit. If we waved a magic wand and made all the guns disappear, we'd still have a crime problem. If we waved a magic wand and made all the crime disappear, we wouldn't have a gun problem. Guns aren't the problem, crime is. Don't say guns make it easier for criminals to do evil, because I already said that guns make it easier for citizens to STOP criminals from doing evil.

You seem to think that it's OK to infringe on our rights if it will lower crime rates. This is a slippery slope, my friend. I understand that you've nothing but good intentions, but well-intentioned laws coupled with incrementalism have destroyed the rights of the law abiding.

The only reason not to outlaw firearms in the US is the 2nd Amendment. Now I for one do not want my firearms taken away, they give me great joy. Every time I look at my AK-47, I smile, when I shoot it gives me even greater joy. But logically speaking guns do make it much easier to kill people. Given if you want someone dead, you're going to do it - even if you're an astronaut driving with a diaper on with an BB gun. But all the acts of senseless violence such as drive by shootings, people going insane - getting a couple of guns and going around killing people at will before the police show up would be a thing of the past.

The constitution has a repeal process. It's a cumbersome one, but it's meant to be. If the vast majority of citizens wanted the 2nd amendment out of their constitution, it would be. Clearly, this is not the case. If a deranged diaper-clad astronaut is capable of murder without a gun, wouldn't you want to allow the victim a means to protect herself? 911 is government sponsored dial-a-prayer. You can only get them to show up quickly if you are in immediate danger, and even if you do, that "quick" response time can still be 3-5 minutes. You've already said that criminals will obtain guns, how can you claim that drive by shootings will be a thing of the past? These gangs are EXTREMELY well funded and well armed. This isn't just some kid breaking into neighborhood houses to steal stuff to pawn, these are terrorists fighting for territory to sell another banned material, drugs. Lot of good the war on drugs is doing, how do you think the war on guns will fair?

Now a good rebuttal for that would be, "Citizens should be armed." For anyone who has ever been in a bar fight, or at a party where people get drunk and fight - that's a scary thought. A black eye is no big deal, heals in a few days. If those people were armed. Or had weapons in their vehicle, well let's just say gun shot wounds don't heal as fast as a black eye - a lot of the times they don't heal at all.
This is a common claim made by the gun control alarmists. They claim that neighborly disputes will turn into homicides, barroom brawls will turn into bloodbaths, and the streets will generally run red with blood. This simply doesn't happen. At all. Look it up, it just doesn't happen. Generally people who get drunk and commit violence have a blemish on their record, and under current laws, this might keep them from owning a gun at all. But have you ever thought that if idea of getting drunk and kicking the **** out of some guy who pissed you off in the bar could result in getting shot and possibly dying, you might think twice about it? But hey, as long as one person breaks the rules, it's ok to take rights away from everyone else right?

Now let's move on to the bull s*it topic of "gun control" (it's hard to read without laughing, huh?) It is obvious to any semi-educated person (or even a non-educated gang member) that if a bad guy wants a gun, he is going to get it if you live in a country where guns are legal. I am sure many of you have one of those shady acquaintances that you don't want to know - but you run into him every once in a while, that can get you an illegal firearms. Call him up and ask him how much a gun with bodies is. Lot cheaper then Turners.
Gun control was made to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun control doesn't work. You admit it doesn't work. Do you think banning will be a sudden success? If so, what are you basing this on?

So not even going to argue gun control here - because it is obvious to everyone. It is either make guns legal (like they are partially now) or outlaw them completely. The real question one must ask them selves is the 2nd Amendment, The Right to Bear Arms worth 1 human life? What about 33 human lives? What about 8,197 human lives?
This is a question YOU have to ask YOURSELF. We all know what OUR right to bear arms is worth to us. It's possible that a thief could break into your place and take your guns and use them for evil. It COULD save 1 life if you destroy all your guns. Why do you still own guns?

Bishop
04-25-2007, 4:20 PM
You argue that since we're allowed to own guns now we're already living in the ideal society where criminals have guns, and citizens have guns like gunnies claim they want. This is not true because in the states with the high murder rates, citizens are NOT allowed to carry guns. The logic is flawed. If everyone had the right to carry, and we saw an increase in violent crime, then we could talk, but as I said before, history shows that just doesn't happen. To make matters worse, the police encourage people NOT to use guns. People have been trained not to use force, and to rely on the police. Once the truth gets out about the polices' inability to protect you and your family, people will buy more guns, and the crime rate will go down. It's what we're seeing in Virginia with the increase in gun purchases and applications and renewals of CCWs.

Aside from all the things you've said, you're forgetting the actual POINT of the 2nd amendment. To prevent tyranny by the government. Our framers recognized that eventually, all governments will become tyrannical, and gave us our second amendment to protect the rest. So long as we remain "a people numerous and armed" the government will think twice about openly trampling our rights, and oppressing us. The 2nd amendment isn't about shooting at the range, shooting deer, or shooting bad guys... It's about shooting political tyrants.

Rob454
04-25-2007, 4:35 PM
If they outlawed guns here Youll just have a HUGE black market for them. it would be liek the Prohibition. they outlawed alcohol and it didnt work. speakeasy's were everywhere. The goverment realized that it wont work and they lifted the ban. Outlawing guns wont work here either. There is TOO MUCH MONEY being made not only on the guns but the accessories for them. Cammo clothes, hunting gear which goes hand in hand with camping gear. A multi billion $$ industry gone overnight? I dotn think so. youll have companies screaming suppliers and the wall street screaming bloody murder. Our stock market will take a nose dive.
Rob
Rob

triggerhappy
04-25-2007, 5:19 PM
Go ahead, ban guns. I'll still have mine, so I guess I get to be supreme dictator after all. This thread is like the "If wishes were horses" idea my wife tells the kids. Ya can't go back, and ya can't have my guns, so...

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is VIOLENT behavior. Period. I have been shooting since I was six, and I haven't shot one single person (even if they needed it). Perhaps the reason there are less killed in the UK, is they are more likely to assist in the ravaging of their own wife, than to fight it out. Look at the place, there isn't a whole lot of spine there. It's appples and oranges, man.

Sam Hainn
04-25-2007, 5:34 PM
So how long have you been closed minded and obtuse to the point of not understanding that this thread is an attempt to teach/learn how to better argue and defend against arguments that are not pro-gun? -Gene

Fine, then let's base the discussion on statistics from a viable source! These statistics came from the UN gun-ban club and were gotten from a website managed by an Australian source. Too biased to be credible. The discussion is instantly over if you expose the facade of these numbers.

tankerman
04-25-2007, 8:19 PM
Lets flip this around and look at the fact that Finland, Switzerland and Israel have some of the lowest murder rates in the world and the most liberal gun gun ownership laws. Murder rates of 2.9, 1.7, 2.4 per 100,000. So according to this comparison the "effective gun ban" argument just does not hold water.

ts
04-27-2007, 2:14 AM
So how long have you been closed minded and obtuse to the point of not understanding that this thread is an attempt to teach/learn how to better argue and defend against arguments that are not pro-gun?

-Gene

BOOM! you got it! Now do I believe it is worth it? From the moment I started writing my argument I thought about how many American lives were lost previously to protect that right, if that right were to be taken away from us they would have all died in vain.

Logically speaking, if there were no guns in America there would be less murder - obviously. At the same time if we didn't have free speech we wouldn't have to listen to all the dumb asses we see every day on TV. It's called the American way.

I decided not to post in this "debate" because I don't agree with what I typed and Gene understood the point of the thread perfectly. I am a gun owner arguing against guns and the thread went on for 7 pages with out a clear logical (no 2nd Amendment bull s*it) reason why we should not out law guns completely.

Now as far as shipping guns into the UK, come on - field strip a Glock, send it and it's there, mix it in with other metals and plastics and such - I bet you can fetch up to $1000 for a Glock 19 in the UK. (not that I am telling anyone to do this) Smuggling guns is not hard. Drugs = hard, Radioactive material = hard, metal and plastic = easy as hell.

I am starting work with RFID tags at the docks, they measure temperature, radiation levels, hazards, etc. Ship a car over, rip open the seats - how many Glocks you think you can fit in there? They don't X-Ray that stuff. It is just as easy to get small arms into the UK from another country as it is to get small arms into the US from Mexico.

As far as gangs and drugs go - there's drugs and gangs everywhere, take the 2 days out of your life, compute all the statics and see what comes up - I would be curious to see what comes up.

Now for the logical reason why I think we shouldn't ban guns in the us:






Wait for it...













Wait for it...













Wait for it...












because I like them. Besides that I can not think of one other LOGICAL reason to allow a private citizen to own a firearm. I am not talking legally or constitutionally, just logically. And the reason why they are still legal isn't the 2nd Amendment. It's because you guys like them, and the guys at the NRA like them, and the guys at ARF like them - and every time they try to ban guns we stand up against them. So if you want to take my guns away then f*ck you. Just like how they took the Crispy M&M's away, man I sure did love those things... now there gone. They give me happiness, they give me protection, and occasionally they are pieces of art (talking about the guns here, not the M&M's).

Edit:

The original post is not at all a Troll post. It is an attempt to face the arguments against us.

Instead of taking it seriously - folks here are mocking it. Those appear to be valid numbers. As such, the honest options are to find fault with the numbers themselves or the interpretation of what the numbers mean.

It takes intellectual effort - something that seems a little lacking here at times.

-Gene

Gene has hit it right on the head.

Whether or not the original post was 'trolling' or not if all we can do when faced with an argument is fall in to a defensive position attacking the poster then we've lost already.

I don't care whether it is someone here, on another board or in real life these kinds of things HAVE to be addressed when they come up!
What if a coworker had asked you this? Or a family member?
Are we going to start mocking them and telling them they are full of it?
That will help change their minds won't it?

Here's a thought, quit laying in to people for being 'newbs' or having a different opinion. Instead go do a little research and EDUCATE them. Not only will you have answers for them and others, they may well be the ones answering these questions down the road!

If you do not feel inclined to do that or feel a post is just 'trolling' then ignore it. If it's truly a troll they'll go away faster if yo don't 'feed' them.

The members here ae smarter than this thread displays, we've seen it before so let's se it regularly.

I was met with a lot of hostility when posting this, the lack of intelligence on this forum at times that Gene and the owner of CalGuns pointed out is quite disappointing. I am a fellow gun owner, CalGun members, and I have more posts then many people calling me a "troll'. If I am met with hostility for asking a question then how would you treat someone that flat out disagrees with you? Keep an open mind. I'll leave you with this quote:

“Anger is the common substitute for logic among those who have no evidence for what they desperately want to believe.”
-Isaac Asimov

NwG
04-27-2007, 3:13 AM
LOGICAL reasons to allow a private citizen to own a firearms;

Provide a source of food
Dispatch varmints and predators
Personal protection from,
Crime
Gooberment
Invasion

There have been many people over the years and today that keep guns that don't like them at all. I know a fair number of people that hate guns but keep one to defend there family.. Point being guns are still around becuase we have a need for them. Yes we like them. Yes that is one reason they are still around. IMO that is not the main reason they are still legal. #1 because of the 2ed Amendment and what it warns us of. #2 as tools weather it be shooting a yote or stopping a crime.. #3 would be America's great love of firearms..

Your topic is sound and the replies good, but when you include your personal thoughts on the subject you are part of the debate.

ts
04-27-2007, 1:31 PM
LOGICAL reasons to allow a private citizen to own a firearms;

Provide a source of food
Dispatch varmints and predators
Personal protection from,
Crime
Gooberment
Invasion

There have been many people over the years and today that keep guns that don't like them at all. I know a fair number of people that hate guns but keep one to defend there family.. Point being guns are still around becuase we have a need for them. Yes we like them. Yes that is one reason they are still around. IMO that is not the main reason they are still legal. #1 because of the 2ed Amendment and what it warns us of. #2 as tools weather it be shooting a yote or stopping a crime.. #3 would be America's great love of firearms..

Your topic is sound and the replies good, but when you include your personal thoughts on the subject you are part of the debate.

I am speaking hypothetically, if the government had a way to outlaw all guns and effectively strip every citizen of every firearm one would not need one for crime. (let's just say they had a radar and every firearm popped up on that radar so they would be able to obtain all of them)

The criminals would not have firearms, so a bow and arrows or a knife would suffice. (It would be funny to here on the news "There was a drive by arrowing tonight in South Central LA")

99% of us go to the supermarket to buy our meat - the Native Americans used a bow and arrow to kill game for food.

There are poisons and traps for varmints and predators (unless your talking about The Predator and Arnold took him down with a tree trunk)

We wouldn't stand a chance against the government - they have 30 round mag's with 3rd sear pins and body armor. Let's just martial law was declared - tanks rolling down the street and LAV's with .50cal machine guns mounted on them. Most people would support the government over any sort of rebellion. You'll basically have the choice - die or surrender. But thats a completely separate topic.

If an invasion of the US does occur private citizens with their own firearms are not going to be able to do anything against modern warfare techniques. Unless your rifle can shoot down a bomber or defuse a nuclear device.

All those reasons can be debunked easily, by someone who owns firearms, likes them, and has respect for them. The government has no problem disobeying the constitution, example "Patriot Act".

Charliegone
04-27-2007, 3:15 PM
I am speaking hypothetically, if the government had a way to outlaw all guns and effectively strip every citizen of every firearm one would not need one for crime. (let's just say they had a radar and every firearm popped up on that radar so they would be able to obtain all of them)

The criminals would not have firearms, so a bow and arrows or a knife would suffice. (It would be funny to here on the news "There was a drive by arrowing tonight in South Central LA")

99% of us go to the supermarket to buy our meat - the Native Americans used a bow and arrow to kill game for food.

There are poisons and traps for varmints and predators (unless your talking about The Predator and Arnold took him down with a tree trunk)

We wouldn't stand a chance against the government - they have 30 round mag's with 3rd sear pins and body armor. Let's just martial law was declared - tanks rolling down the street and LAV's with .50cal machine guns mounted on them. Most people would support the government over any sort of rebellion. You'll basically have the choice - die or surrender. But thats a completely separate topic.

If an invasion of the US does occur private citizens with their own firearms are not going to be able to do anything against modern warfare techniques. Unless your rifle can shoot down a bomber or defuse a nuclear device.

All those reasons can be debunked easily, by someone who owns firearms, likes them, and has respect for them. The government has no problem disobeying the constitution, example "Patriot Act".

Ok.
I can give you some fairly logical reasons for gun ownership.

1. The police have no obligation to protect or serve as stated in this court case.


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

taken from: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

hence who's obligation is it to protect one's self? More of a reason to own a firearm.

2nd. In times of trouble, the police and military cannot be relied on. I'm sorry but they just can't. My proof? Katrina and The LA Riots. They are proof that when the shtf, they can't do jack squat and the innocent's are subjected to criminals.

3rd. Self protection.
Just look around us. Why is it that in GB robbery and home invasions are committed more often than in the US? Thats right, they have no ideal means for self protection. Heck, even in D.C. they can't have any (though that might change due to Parker). So what are people to do? Submit to the criminals ways and live in fear?

I know you will try to say, well so and so many people die a year, but imagine a country where the rate of people being raped, robbed and beat up in their OWN homes is very high. Can you imagine what impact that has on people? That means the population will slow become mentally unstable and afraid to even socialize. Heck that alone can destroy society. When you die you die. The end no more. That's it. Murder rates involving guns does not always determine how safe or how peaceful a country is. How many of us have been victims of robbery or rape? Probably not a lot, but can you say the same for someone in GB?

As for the above comments, I can say we can stand a chance against the government. They might have the bigger guns, but bigger guns don't always win wars. Its persistence (as we are seeing in Iraq) and dedication that wins wars. Hell, they can probably bomb the s*** out of the big cities and such, but what good would that do if they trying gain support from others (other citizens, lets say in this scenario, that are not "with us.") In an invasion, ak's and ar's won't do, but you do know the military has armories all around right?:D Ok I'll stop for a second..tired of typing.:D

Glock22Fan
04-27-2007, 4:16 PM
Here's one reporter's view of gun crime in the UK. A little bit dated, but still relevant.

It is from the Electronic Telegraph, the online version of one of England's most respected newspapers.

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/uk/telegraph_1.html

This direct link is the only way in to it at present, there will soon be a new page with a series of links to UK reports.

Sam Hainn
04-27-2007, 6:27 PM
BOOM! you got it!

BOOM! You don't get it - you are using statistics that have no merit based on their source and entity who created them. As far as can be learned from reading this thread, it was empty on true argument about the issue from both sides due to the useless numbers. It was more valuable as a study in how to waste time.

SgtBulldog
04-27-2007, 6:32 PM
Personal sovereignty.

Does your body belong to anybody but yourself?

If not, then one has the right and obligation to defend that body from usurpation.

tankerman
04-27-2007, 6:54 PM
So how long have you been closed minded and obtuse to the point of not understanding that this thread is an attempt to teach/learn how to better argue and defend against arguments that are not pro-gun?

-Gene
He proved (Tonayo) in his follow up posts to your post that neither you or him get it. He buried himself in his rebuttal. It(thread) is not an attempt at what you are saying.
He jumped on your EXCUSE, you gave him an easy out, and then he still kept making absurd statements
The basis for the what you think is an attempt to argue/defend is to weak to have been a premeditated. The evidence keeps piling up, the more he posts.

NwG
04-27-2007, 8:06 PM
I am speaking hypothetically, if the government had a way to outlaw all guns and effectively strip every citizen of every firearm one would not need one for crime. (let's just say they had a radar and every firearm popped up on that radar so they would be able to obtain all of them)

The criminals would not have firearms, so a bow and arrows or a knife would suffice. (It would be funny to here on the news "There was a drive by arrowing tonight in South Central LA")

Do you really think you could stop a knive attack with a bow? Or would you rather have a good old knive fight? Look at police training.. Inside 21 feet the guy with the knive usually beats the guy with the GUN! Whatever hypothetical situation you can think of, a firearm is still the best way to stop an attack. I really don't see your point...

99% of us go to the supermarket to buy our meat - the Native Americans used a bow and arrow to kill game for food.

And there are still people, in the US today, that depend on meat taken by firearms to survive. Useing you very own analigy.. Is it worth the life of 1 American, starved to death, to prevent gun crime? 5 Americans? 100?

There are poisons and traps for varmints and predators (unless your talking about The Predator and Arnold took him down with a tree trunk)

Tell that to the farmers and ranchers and let me know what kind of reply you get.. Better yet.. "Here Mr. Rattle Snake.. Take this blue pill and wait 5 min before you bite me!"

We wouldn't stand a chance against the government - they have 30 round mag's with 3rd sear pins and body armor. Let's just martial law was declared - tanks rolling down the street and LAV's with .50cal machine guns mounted on them. Most people would support the government over any sort of rebellion. You'll basically have the choice - die or surrender. But thats a completely separate topic.

Look at Iraq.. Or any place where armed citizens have risen up and resisted a large army.. They usually do rather well.. 250 Million guns in the US.. If only 10% of those guns are in the hands a person willing to fight for there right you have a force of 2.5 Million armed fighters.. I think that stands a pretty good chance..

If an invasion of the US does occur private citizens with their own firearms are not going to be able to do anything against modern warfare techniques. Unless your rifle can shoot down a bomber or defuse a nuclear device.

Again look at Iraq.. Better yet look at what the Afgan's did when the Red's brought all there modern warfare...

All those reasons can be debunked easily, by someone who owns firearms, likes them, and has respect for them. The government has no problem disobeying the constitution, example "Patriot Act".

You rebuttals are getting very weak. Tankerman summed it up very well..

What exactly are you getting at here? Your personal views have gone beyond "talking points"

ts
04-27-2007, 8:27 PM
You rebuttals are getting very weak. Tankerman summed it up very well..

What exactly are you getting at here? Your personal views have gone beyond "talking points"

These are not my personal views. My personal view is this - all men/women are not created equal and a firearm is an excellent equalizer.

When Samuel Colt released the Peacemaker revolver, people said this, "God made man, sam colt made em' equal."

As for my previous argument - a firearm is the best way to stop an adversary. Take away that you can use your fists, a blunt object, knife, bow, spear, etc. The difference is that if someone decides they want to go kill a bunch of people it is much easier to stop them if they do not have a firearm.

People can still hunt with a bow and arrows, it has been done for thousands of years.

There are many other ways to kill animals then firearms.

I will try to ignore the absurd statement relating the US government to the Iraqi government.

My rebuttals are not getting weak, your's are.

Look at the way war was fought for the past 700 years. People marched with drums, no stealth, they used bow and arrows and moved up to basic firearms without much range.

Then WWI came along and they had automatic machine guns, etc. Thus trench warfare came into play - the battle field suddenly got a lot more bloody.

If you feel my sources are not credible then please post other sources for statistics. Last one posted with from a CCW site, real unbiased.


Edit: for all those saying that the 2nd Amendment is keeping our guns in our hands, well here's a recent thread that say otherwise, and many of you agreed. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56361

hoffmang
04-27-2007, 8:43 PM
The UN numbers are not wrong. I find the UN a despicable dictator's club, but sadly their numbers are correct. If you have some evidence that they are incorrect I suggest you post it. Until then, you're a dog (http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html) posting you opinion.

So, here is the thing that is misleading about the numbers. The rate of white firearm homicide is about 3 per 100K, where the UK number is about 2 per 100k. However, the non white firearm homicide rate is something link 17 per 100k.

Gun control is racist. Our firearm homicide numbers are not good and we should try to figure out what we could do to stop criminals from killing each other. However, the problem isn't about limiting the law abiding.

Those of you who don't wish to actually present facts in your arguments are lazy. Lazy people aren't paying the price for freedom.

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
04-27-2007, 8:56 PM
Here lil Puppy.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/jomc050/idog.jpg

derek@thepackingrat.net
04-27-2007, 9:10 PM
I think John Locke's notion of legitimized revolution sums it up well regarding government and civil society balance of power. To assume that people who have invested their trust into the state will not abuse it is illogical in itself.

This is not to say that a revolution is inevitable; however, it's the principle behind it is what maintains checks and balances if the state power fails to adhere to the expectations of the people.

If all guns were to be banned for crime, it would only be logical for police/military to no longer have them as well. In a fantasy world were where every single firearm cannot be made (not legally, but physically), then I can see a legitimate world without guns and only knifes, etc would be the highest threat to peace.

To ban anything that harms human life - may it be cars, guns, etc, you can say it would be logic to ban it. The problem with only applying logic to guns, and not everything else that harms human life is not logical. Why ban one thing that takes away life and not another?

I think a phrase I found somewhere sums it up well... "attempting to ban guns is like trying to put tooth paste back into it's container."

This post is of value to many on this board since it'll only strengthen our arguments.

Charliegone
04-27-2007, 9:46 PM
I feel inclined to post something else that I think is important. So you said in your first post that if guns were banned, we would see less school shootings, etc and the such, in other words less "gun related" crime. That is logical since guns would be true, BUT (yes but) the problem will still remain. Simply removing the effect, does not mean there will be less violence, it will slow down, but it will not stop. Still, we cannot ignore the fact that criminals are criminals, they will try to get firearms regardless of the laws, and our borders with two huge countries doesn't help in controlling them either. We also have to consider the differences in GB and here.

Land mass
Police efficiency
Population
etc

Plus it would be fiscally impossible to confiscate every single firearm in the US ...Australia spent how many bucks to confiscate all the firearms they can get their hands on?...also read this...even with strict regulations, this guy was still able to get their hands on it.

"The gun control debate was significantly changed by the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Thirty five people were killed when Martin Bryant opened fire on tourists with two military-style semi-automatic rifles: a CAR-15 (which had been handed in to the Victoria Police for destruction 3 years earlier[citation needed]) and an L1A1 SLR. These weapons were of a type that was legal to possess in Tasmania at the time, but Bryant did not possess a firearms license (meaning that he acquired the firearms illegally). "

As I stressed before, criminals are criminals they WILL get what they want to commit crimes, regardless of the laws placed to prevent things like massacres. IMHO, the Victoria Police department here failed ...and guess on who they took it out on? It could have been prevented had the police been more aware, but of course we can't rely on them to do everything can't we?(I'm not bad mouthing cops, just it is impossible to catch everything)

5968
04-28-2007, 11:24 PM
Maybe you shoud check out Australia. Last time I checked, banning firearms did wonders to reduce the crime there. LOL!!

ts
04-29-2007, 1:59 AM
Maybe you shoud check out Australia. Last time I checked, banning firearms did wonders to reduce the crime there. LOL!!

Australia has less total crimes per capita then the US and UK. Check out some sources... LOL!

Mssr. Eleganté
04-29-2007, 2:28 AM
Australia has less total crimes per capita then the US and UK. Check out some sources... LOL!

But were the total crimes per capita lower or higher before their forced gun buyback programme? If a country confiscates guns to prevent crime and then the crime rate goes up, was the confiscation program successful?

5968
04-29-2007, 11:14 PM
Australia has less total crimes per capita then the US and UK. Check out some sources... LOL!

Their crimes per capita may be lower, but they still went up after the gun buy back!

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html