|
|
|
|
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 7:18:57 PM | July Morning: Wrong
You claim that fewer guns equates less crime. Then how do you explain Vermont? The safest state in this country is the same state that has the least gun control. In fact, there is no state gun control. No CCW permits, no licensing fees,no hoops to jump through.If you are eligible to legally purchase a firearm,you can carry it as you go about your daily business. Anyone and everyone that passes the federal check can carry.Vermont consistently ranks in the top two safest states in America.
And this "feeling of empowerment" that you alledge gun ownership brings? You're obviously not a gun owner. When CC went into affect here, the anti-gun lobby was yelling from the mountaintops (well, ok, the hilltops) that there would be blood running in the streets,road ragers would be engaged in gun battles at 70MPH, and crime would sky rocket. Didn't happen. In fact, as I posted earlier, crime went down in the nearest major city.Stop watching so much TV.
Now, let's take a look at some other places. NYC,Baltimore,Washington DC, Chicago, E.St. Louis Ill, Los Angeles, Frisco. Very strict gun control,high violent crime rates. Coincedence? I hardly think so. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 11:30:33 PM | I, too, finally feel the need to clear up a few misconceptions.
1) all firearms sales by a dealer require a background check. even at gunshows. period.
2) requiring a dealer for all private transactions will affect many other industries-ie, when you sell your car to another individual, which local dealer are you giving a cut to?
3) requiring more legislation to regulate guns will open the door to more regulation on other aspects of free enterprise. current legislation is fine and stronger emphasis on social strength will go a long way to correct some of this. regulation is ok, regulation with prejudice is not. the current "fingerprinting " of guns goes along with the memory stored in your cars computer, ok till it doesnt work for you justly.
I, for one believe in the self regulation of our society , to a point. I wear a seatbelt, but dont think it should be a law.
I wear a helmet(airplane and motorcyles) but dont think it should be a law.
I have more examples ,but the gist of it is , we cant expect the government to pass legislation to replace common sense and social skills.
As for the Canadians that hold thier laws as a shining example, how would you feel if they came and took your car away because it had too much horsepower? thats what happened to hundreds, if not thousands of your citizens not too aweful long ago. no compensation. most of those guns and owners never having been involved in a crime.
do you need an Expedition to get to work? nope, but its your choice
do you really need a 3000 sqaure foot house? nope, but your choice
how about the government regulating your golf clubs? seem ridiculous....hmmm
I exagerrate the last things to make a point, just because its not your hobby, its the process to watch. my rant is over....lol | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 11:33:13 PM | | actually, the very strict gun control in those cities was instituted after the crime got to the point where across-the-board gun bans were the logical next step. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 11:39:58 PM |
I, for one believe in the self regulation of our society , to a point. I wear a seatbelt, but dont think it should be a law.
I wear a helmet(airplane and motorcyles) but dont think it should be a law.
i used to feel this way, but then i realized that a lot of traffic accidents are caused by people who don't have health insurance, and it ends up being the car insurance companies and the state who pay the hospital bills. and that gets passed down to us. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 12:30:22 AM | | The problem I am having with some of the information that's out there about having a gun for your own protection is that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that carrying a loaded gun around with them will save them from being robbed, kidnapped etc. The truth is that a person with a knife who is 20 feet away from you will be able to easily stab you, and possibly kill you, long before you are able to draw your gun and fire a single shot, and that's if you're wearing your gun in a holster, on your hip. If you have the proper training, and do a lot of practise you will be able to get the drop on the guy with a knife, but most people seem to think that just having the gun on their person is enough to protect them.WRONG! It just gives a false sense of security. If you have guns in your house to protect yourself from intruders the same thing is true because unless you plan on sleeping with the gun under your pillow, and your hand on the trigger, it's probably going to take far too long for you find your gun in the dark and shoot at anyone. If you have children in the house, and you are a responsible gun owner, then your gun is in a locked cabinet, and the bullets are somewhere else. Audible alarms, and large barking dogs are a much better deterent, along with several other things that boost house security making it too much of a challenge for the average crook. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:31:29 AM | Galway Girl,
Tell that to the two million people who used a legally owned firearm to defend themselves last year.
One person carrying a weapon will not keep anyone from becoming a victim,but when a society as a whole has the right to do so, then criminals have lost their advantage because they don't know if their intended victim is armed and able to defend themselves. It's not about being able to "out draw" the bad guy(although, if you ,as an armed person, cannot defend yourself against a knife wielding attacker from 20 feet away,then you really should take a training refresher course,and I do advocate proper training), it's about deterrence.And, weapons are supposed to be carried in a holster, not rolling around in the bottom of your carry-on sized purse! I refer you again to Vermont, or even my own state. Because the people at large have the right to self defense, the criminals don't know who is armed. Here in my state businesses have the right to post signs at the door prohibiting concealed weapons on their premises. Guess which gas stations are getting robbed? Which one would you rob, the place where guns are prohibited,or the one where law abiding citizens,and their firearms, are welcome?
I do,however, understand your mis-conception about self defense and crime prevention,as the media and TV crime dramas do their best to sensationalize crime.
Then again, some people will always fear the right of the people to defend themselves more than they fear the criminals that would make victims out of them.
I recently read in another thread a post from one of your own countrymen,that in Canada, if you are confronted by an attacker, the law requires you to just "run away".
Is that typical Canadian response?
There is another side to this whole argument as well that is uniquely American,and that many choose to ignore or mis-interperet. The Second Amendment. The right of the people,and not just for defensive purposes. The Founders knew that an un-armed populace was helpless against tryanny,the very reason this country declared,and fought for, independence.The former British Empire, Hitler, Castro, they all ruled their people through military force,after dis-arming them.,as have most of the tryannts throughout history. Those who has the weapons rule over those who do not.
Until society figures out how to eliminate the people who commit the crimes,and remember, this is a people problem, the rest of us have the right to protect ourselves. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:44:51 AM | RSwindol says "I will say that if a gun is ever used for self defense,then a law has been broken."
Defending yourself,or your family, from an intruder in your own home is breaking the law? On what planet?
I never said that the person using the gun in self defense was the one breaking the law. I simply said that if a gun is every used in self defense, then a law has been broken. As far as your example of defending yourself or your family from an intruder goes...the intruder would be breaking the law.
The reason that I point this out is because you claim that the reason you do not hear about the successful use of a gun in an act of self defense is because it was a "non crime". But I am hear to tell you that if a gun is ever pulled in self defense, it is a fairly safe bet that a crime has been committed. Otherwise, why would the gun be pulled? Unless you are in the habit of just pulling guns on people for no reason. At which point I would say that a crime was still commited...by YOU.
Some cops never use their weapon in their entire career.
Now remember, we are not talking about necessarily shooting the gun. You statistic also stated that many times the guns were never fired. You would be hard pressed to find a career cop who never had to at least pull his gun out in defense.
Which would mean that some cops are using theirs way too much,don't you think?
Hey, some cops are on drug raid teams and use their guns on a weekly basis. Once again, this doesn't mean the guns were discharged.
Think about that the next time you're telling your daughter to yell "FIRE!" as someone is trying to throw her into a van.
The reason a woman should yell "Fire" when she is being attacked is because statistics show that people are more apt to respond to the word "Fire" than they are to "Help". Any current personal security consultant should know these tips.
And, why should store clerks be allowed to carry but not you or me? You may not feel as though your life is worth saving, but I'm not done with mine.
Ahh, the assumptions that gun owners make. You may want to read twice before posting a response. When did I ever say that law abiding citizens like you or I should not be allowed to carry guns? NEVER!!! I think you missed my entire point. Gun control is not about taking guns away from law abiding, able minded citizens. It's about preventing criminals and unstable individuals from obtaining them. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 6:17:53 AM |
I think you missed my entire point. Gun control is not about taking guns away from law abiding, able minded citizens. It's about preventing criminals and unstable individuals from obtaining them.
Gun control in my country is taking away handguns, which helps nothing.  | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:57:23 AM | The QUOTE above makes alot of sense. Gun control is NOT taking guns away from qualified people. People can use them for target shooting, self protection or hunting. Those uses are legitimate and should be allowed. Heck, I love venison (yum!)
Seriously, someone who used a gun to protect his home and family in self defense should not be put on trial for doing so. Such an experience would be traumatic enough without the aggravation of being put on trial.
DW of Smith & Wesson country and proud of it!! | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:59:14 AM | Galway girl - having a CCW means that if a bad guy gets the drop on you and takes yer wallet, you can pull it from hiding and shoot him in the back when he turns to run away. On the other hand, having a concealed weapon in the home is quite handy for getting rid of pesky burglars...just ask Joe Horn of Texas.
Of course, Size is actually what deters criminals...a recent survey amoung prisoners shows that they avoid targetting people who are taller/looked stronger than themselves Even When the Robber had a Gun!! 96% said they actively avoided confrontations with larger/stronger individuals...go figure.
Until we can afford to put a Bobby on every corner and somehow manage to dispose of the 42 guns per person in the world (not counting those that will be manufactured this year...) at present, crime's not going to stop. Because then you'd have to deal with all the sword/knife/axe wielding 6'foot-plus bungholes that couldn't be stopped unless you had a gun.
It isn't the most wonderful system, but arming EVERY man & woman over the age of 18 is really the only solution. It would increase homicides slightly, but just imagine how much more polite folks would be then?? And as the past has already shown, in a town where everyone is armed, every crime BUT homicide goes down precipitously.
Actually, in one city in the US, they require every male over 18 to have a weapon...their crime rate is VERY, VERY, LOW. And homicides, strangely, didn't increase at all for the last 4 years. it just made everyone much, much NICER. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 10:46:01 AM | | Well, Longshot, I don't know where you get your stats from so I can't dispute them, but I don't see these incidents all over the evening news where people defended themselves using a handgun. By the way, I have no 'misconception' about self defense and the use of handguns, I've done the training, thank you. If your gun is in on your hip, in a holster, a guy with a knife can be on you within three seconds if he's within 20 feet of you and you don't know how to draw to draw you gun properly, and shoot at close range. Do you think the bad guys don't know this? A gun is of no use to you if you don't know how to use it properly. In fact, you are probably in more danger of the bad guy taking it from you and shooting you. It's also obvious that a lot of the bad guys have guns, too. I don't think I know anyone who "fears the right of people to defend themselves", but I know a lot of people who fear a world where everyone is walking around with a gun on their hip. How long would it be before people were getting shot in disputes over parking spots? Wait, I think that's already happened. As far as the other post regarding Canadian law, since I didn't read it I can't comment directly, but I can tell you that in Canadian law you are expected to disengage from a situation if the opportunity arises. In other words, if you stand there and beat the life out of someone, or shoot them dead instead of leaving when you have the chance then the law will not look favourably on you. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 2:22:44 PM | RSwindol; Now I think you have missed at least some of my point. When I referenced "non-crimes" I was referring to the completion of the intended crime. If someone enters my home, then of course a crime has been committed,whether I'm there to stop it or not. It's not seen on the evening news because the media chooses not to report on what is considered, let's just say,a "non-event" if that clears things up for you. In my time in the personal security field, I never brandished a weapon,nor did I ever want to,so no, I'm not in that habit,and,as I said, your tips are sound advice,and we could add several more, but that's for another thread. btw, Are you in the personal security business, since you seem to know what "current" consultants should know. Also, as I said before, my stats are for the use of firearms for defense by civilians,not cops,so it doesn't matter,in this discussion, how many cops use or don't use (or fire) their weapons on duty.In fact, armed civilians actually prevent or interrupt more crimes than cops. Cops, no matter how hard they try, usually don't get to the scene until after the crime is done.
Galwaygirl: As I've just tried to explain(probably with little result) to RSwindol, no, you don't see instances of people defending themselves very often on the evening news because the media chooses not to report those stories very often,unless there is a human interest or humorous side to the story, like the 80 something year old woman who held two men at gunpoint while waiting for the sheriff to arrive,after she caught them trying to steal her property but,by and large, these stories go unreported.
If a knife-wielding assailant,20 ft. away, realizes that the intended victim is armed, there is a much better than 50/50 chance that the bad guy will change his mind about turning you into his next victim. If he has a gun, then he is probably going to shoot you anyway, because life has become so cheap to people like that. Let him know that his life is cheap.too. Any advisor,past or present, will tell you that you should never cooperate and never,never,get in the car with him! If he is going to kill you, and you must assume that is his plan, make him do it in public.But, an even better plan is to keep from becoming a victim in the first place.
Gun battles over parking spots? I've not heard of this,but here,where carrying is allowed, there are no reports of such incedents, no shootouts at the local Wal-Mart,I don't know if the woman in front of me at the checkout is armed or not,and neither do the criminals. In fact, most of the shootings now reported are drug and gang related, and those are going to happen anyway. I agree that ways must be found to keep guns from criminals, but how? Background checks are already in place,dealers are highly regulated, stiffer sentences imposed,permitting requirements must be met including a state certified training course which not only teaches firearm safety, but how and WHEN a firearm may be used. A firearm I purchased last year came with a note from the manufacturer that the weapon had been test-fired and the bullet saved so it could be used for ballistics tests if ever requested by the police of a certain state that I'll not mention here.
There are almost 40 states in the US that allow for some type of concealed carry and that number is rising, not falling. Would this be happening if stricter gun control really works the way you believe? I believe, but have not researched this, that you would be hard pressed to find a state with dramatic increases in violent crime after implementing CCW.
This entire thread was started because of the tragic stabbing deaths in Japan,and the entire point I have been trying to make is this: If just one law-abiding legal firearm owner had been at the scene,most of those lives could have been saved, but Japan does not allow gun ownership to the general population. The same holds true for Virginia Tech(carry is legal in Va,just not on school grounds), Columbine. the McDonalds restaurant in Texas(Which happened before TX allowed carrying),and most other incedents of mass murder. I don't think I know anyone(with the exception of an over-zealous cop that was once married to my cousin) that is carrying a weapon with the hope of someday having the opportunity to use it against another human being.
Crooks will have guns, you can no more stop that than you can stop the flow of drugs, allowing law-abiding citizens to to legally and properly arm themselves not only levels the field,it works. Things may be different in Canada, but here we have the right(There's that whole "2nd Amendment thing' again!)
Starting to feel like I'm trying to nail jello to a tree here,so I'll move on. Have fun with this one. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 2:40:46 PM |
You claim that fewer guns equates less crime. Then how do you explain Vermont? The safest state in this country is the same state that has the least gun control. In fact, there is no state gun control. No CCW permits, no licensing fees,no hoops to jump through
Now, let's take a look at some other places. NYC,Baltimore,Washington DC, Chicago, E.St. Louis Ill, Los Angeles, Frisco. Very strict gun control,high violent crime rates. Coincedence? I hardly think so.
Are there fewer firearms in NYC, Baltimore, Washingtod DC, Chicago, Vermont, etc.?
You did not address the issue of the number of guns, only the ease of their availability for purchasing and carrying around.
You did not say anything about their numbers.
Your points are null and void, from the point of view of answering my statement and trying to prove it wrong. Sorry. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 3:40:47 PM | I've watched both sides play the numbers for years, since my militia days back in the late 80's. This thread could go for months or years and no minds will be changed and no arguements won.
Personally I'm not going to rely on the good will of my fellow man or the response times of a fat assed cop with no obligation to protect me and mine... | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:01:12 PM | july morning if your attempting to insinuate that there are more guns in new york city then the whole state of vermont there maybe a little problem with your reasoning skills. Especially considering the restrictive gun laws in that city. not to mention that in washington D.C. a law abiding citizen is not allowed to own a firearm not even a police officer is allowed to bring a weapon home without the chiefs permission.
The point the previous poster was making was that the ability of the average LAW ABIDING person to purchase, if they choose, a firearm in the state of vermont has had the affect of reducing crime in that state contrary to what the gun control people belived would happen. Now in places like washington D.C. and NYC that have severly restrictive gun laws where the average LAW ABIDING person cannot purchase or own a firearm the crime rate is extrememly high.
Galwaygirl is correct on the 20 ft rule, in every combat pistol course and defensive tactics course I have been through, and in the acadamey you are taught that if a suspect with a knife or other weapon is at or within 20 ft do not try to draw your weapon instead go to hand to hand or use your PR or ASP. Thats for an officer using a standard side carry retention holster, we are not talking about breakaway or speed draw holsters. IPSC courses I have taken dealt with ways to combat the 20 ft rule, but that was IPSC and not POST certification. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:43:27 PM | btw, Are you in the personal security business, since you seem to know what "current" consultants should know.
I'm not in the personal security business per se, but I am a licensed Private Investigator. It's not my primary job, but it makes me a few extra bucks on the side and I also go to a few seminars a year based on the investigation field. Personal security is always a priority while in the field. Yelling "Fire" instead of "Help" is something that I learned at one early last year.
Here is something that you may find interesting. This data is a bit old because statistics and reports like these are hard to come by. But it still makes sense.
* Persons who have used firearms to settle disputes often believe that they prevented assault. In fact, it is often impossible to tell whether or not an assault would have actually taken place had the gun not been used. In fact, in a survey of prison inmates, 63% of those who fired guns during their crimes described their actions as self defense.
*****This one-sided perception alone is enough to drastically skew statistics******
* National Crime Victimization Survey (A crime victimization statistics leader) interviewers only ask about self defense when a respondent actually reports a crime.
*****So For all of the people out there who pull a gun on their attacker and end up getting killed in doing so, there is no data. Only people who survived the attack are surveyed. This too skews the data to make it seem as if there is little risk in retaliating with a firearm.******
*The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates implies that firearms should not be disregarded as a defense against crime. Yet the results also show that defensive gun use is infrequent compared to incidence of crime. Altogether their results suggest that criminals face little threat from armed victims.
******The are multiple reasons for this, but the main reason would be that the assailant typically has the element of surprise on his side.******
Also, as I said before, my stats are for the use of firearms for defense by civilians,not cops
Can you provide me a link to these stats? Because The National Crime Victimization Survey not only collects data from civilians, but also from police officers, so if the stats that you were providing me happened to come from this popular Survey organization, then I doubt that it was excluding police officers unless specifically expressed otherwise.
Again, I am not saying that people like you and I should not be allowed to carry guns. But I happen to believe that people are fooling themselves if they truly believe that they are much more safe by carrying a gun.
An armed attacker is much more likely to use his weapon once he finds out that you have one too. Once he realizes that he has lost the upper hand, he will become desperate and even more irrational. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 5:37:35 PM | RSwindol; ok you talked me into one last post for this thread. Most of the stats I 've used can be found from the Gun Owners of America website. Although they are a hard-line no compromise organization, they do provide the stats and references.
The point I had hoped to express,and apparently did a poor job of, is that society as a whole is better off when it's citzens are allowed to exercise their right to self defense, and the best self defense is one you never need.
OP; My training was twenty five years ago, so tactics may have changed some since then. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 8:10:46 PM | What's the point of talking about LAW ABIDING people and their guns?
I don't know how many guns in NYC or Vermont PER CAPITA. But I know more than in Toronto or Calgary or Berlin or Paris.
If 1,000 people have 3,000, 9,000, or 200 guns among them, more-or-less equitably distributed, it has very little to do with relating gun numbers to population. However, if for every 1000 civilians there is zero guns amont them, more-or-less equitably distiributed, that's a more solid support of my argument should the 0 guns / 1000 people society have fewer murders among themselves than a 3000 guns / 1000 man society.
I can't help but have the impresson that you're now grasping at arguments that have no bearing on the issue, and you're pitting them against me as if I'd asserted a denial of them. I think this discourse is breaking up due to berserk grasping for straws.
I like to go with the poster who said nobody's going to convince anyone. You may have an edge, though, with the loaded gun in your desk. If the arguments that counter your points become too invincible, you can shoot yourself. I, in the same situation, have to strangle myself to death or punch myself out dead cold. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 8:54:03 PM | July morning the whole point is that if the government outlawed guns then yes no LAW ABIDING citizen would have a gun. However criminals would still have guns because they dont abide by the law in the first place. It is a wonderful dream that if a law was passed that all would abide by it, hell if that were the case there would be no crime and no need for guns in the first place. But that is sadly not the case.
The only arguments I grasp at are the ones that you yourself try to use. you didnt state per capita you asked for a flat number of how many guns. Its not my fault that you framed the question incorrectly.
You also still didnt answer the question of washington D.C. where no private civilian may own a firearm. Yet the crime rate is still very high. only criminals there have guns and the police, and some police cant take thier weapon off duty.
You have yet to actually counter any argument its sad really. You framed a question in one way you were answered and then add a new cavet to the question like it was your intention the whole time. You then flippently suggest that some one should kill themselves. I truly dont understand if your trying to be funny or are just bent. I am leaning toward a measure of both. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:28:01 PM | It's actually pretty simple for those that say only criminals will have guns if they are "banned".
Most guns that are obtained by criminals are stolen from legal owners... if people are not allowed to legally own them then.... umm where are they gonna come from?
Most of Canadas illegal guns come from the US...
Think long term.
Importing guns from other countries just is not profitable.
Besides... no one has ever suggested banning guns... just restricting them.
If we are just gonna make up stats (as most of you have done) then 90% of americans have no NEED for a gun... grow up | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 10:10:05 PM | | The problem is those that think that banning all guns will some how magically make all crime disolve. Like there wasnt mass killings and crime before firearms. I have no problems with the current laws in effect restricting gun ownership, I just dont think there has to be more restrictions. We just need to enforce the restrictions currently in place. A criminal will find a way to get a gun even if they have to make one. It isnt hard anyone can do it, if you think criminals lack the imagination ask a convict how to make a shiv from a regular plastic trash bag that can pierce through a metal filing cabnet. You are correct in one respect some one does need to grow up. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 3:11:35 AM |
Are there fewer firearms in NYC, Baltimore, Washingtod DC, Chicago, Vermont, etc.?
You did not address the issue of the number of guns, only the ease of their availability for purchasing and carrying around.
You did not say anything about their numbers.
Your points are null and void, from the point of view of answering my statement and trying to prove it wrong. Sorry.
nyc has very strict gun regulation. you literally can't own one unless you're a government employee. that is about as much gun control as any city will ever have... and there are many gun related crimes. does gun control stop gun related crime? hardly. if you want to talk about numbers, there you go. your 0 guns per 1000 people argument makes absolutely no sense, because you are talking about regulated firearms, not unregulated. the problem that people seem to have is assuming that regulating firearms takes the firearms out of the hands of criminals, because they always forget to consider the illegal weapons that aren't being regulated. the restrictions on the everyday citizen are high, and as long as they are enforced, guns won't be sold legally to criminals. that doesn't stop criminals from buying firearms from other criminals....and we want the government to try to prevent it? they can't control drugs, why would we assume they could control guns?
numbers aside.. (what numbers we're really talking about, i don't know..), i stand by my assumption that gun violence is just another form of violence, and it can't be stopped with laws and regulations, since violence itself is illegal. the biggest way to combat violence is education. one example of ass backwards politics is that in nys, the unemployment office can force you to stop going to college if a job presents itself, no matter what kind of job it is. talk about teaching blind men to fish...or however that goes. if you really look at the stupid regulations that this country has instituted, it really makes you wonder if more regulation is needed.
so what, we ban guns across the board in the usa. let's paint a picture. so what you're really saying is that now every law abiding citizen doesn't have a gun. how has this exactly taken the guns out of the hands of criminals? do the police go through the streets, searching everybody, including their homes, cars, etc.. how many rights are we willing to give up for this ban exactly. so what, you take the legal guns.. those guns aren't the ones causing the problems in the first place. but whatever. where was i... oh yeah, and the price of firearms just went up (supply and demand, because now that nobody has them, everybody wants them), and now there's this huge surplus of weapons sitting around in various places...and believe me, where there's government, there's corruption. so those weapons flood the streets (or in a fairy tale world, they don't..., but for argument's sake, they do), lacking their serial numbers, into the hands of anybody with the cash. luckily, the dea has done such a great job in preventing drug trafficing that for criminals to afford the new higher price of weapons, they merely have to sell a few more bags of crack a day for a week. even if every legally obtained gun gets melted down into a little metallic flower, i don't see how any of this took the illegal weapons off the streets. sure, people will be less likely to throw the gun into a river after committing a murder, but as we saw with australia, violent crime will just rise.
people are so hellbent on a socialist government, but when we get there.. they're all going to be ****ing. canada's great, right? how much do you guys pay in taxes? how long does it take to see a specialist when you're sick? sure, you have less crime.. but you have less people, and less illegal immigration. while i won't blame all of our problems on the illegals, i will say that ms13 definitely knows how to kill people around here. and guess what. they use knives usually. lack of education breeds poverty, poverty breeds crime... illegal immigrants are generally uneducated and poor. i can't wait for that highway from mexico to canada to be built.... maybe they'll just keep driving through. this is a completely different debate though, so feel free to not respond. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 3:36:03 AM | oh, and while we're talking numbers, here's some random statistics that i thought were amusing.
there are virtually no cases where a person was armed, and their gun was taken and used against them. 98% of attempted rapes fail against women who are armed. though, the founder of handgun control inc once said that women should just give the attacker what they want, and not try to use a weapon. american gun owners use their guns almost 2 and a half million times per year to ward off criminal attackers. most of the time, the guns aren't even fired, but the presence is more than enough to prevent an attack.
oh, and here's a breakdown of the current federal gun regulations:
Prevent possession of a firearm or ammunition by anyone who:
-Has been convicted of a felony
-Uses or is addicted to illegal drugs
-Has been adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution
-Is an illegal alien or in the country under a nonimmigrant visa
-Was dishonorably discharged from the military
-Has renounced U.S. citizenship
-Is a fugitive from justice
-Has been convicted of domestic violence or is under a restraining order related to domestic violence
what more do we need? if your social ends with any number between 23 and 32? or random denials of permits for no apparent reason? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 6:09:30 AM |
July morning the whole point is that if the government outlawed guns then yes no LAW ABIDING citizen would have a gun. However criminals would still have guns because they dont abide by the law in the first place.
Ay, there is the crux of every gun-ownership worshipper's fallacy.
If nobody has guns but the police and the armed forces, where would the criminals get their guns? From the police or army / navy / air force armouries? Think again.
In no other country but the US can a criminal get a weapon. In Canada a criminal can import it from the US. In Hungary, in Chad, in Nepal, in Australia, there are no criminals with guns because these countries are so far away from the US that it's not practical to get the guns there from Vermont.
This is the stupidest argument: "If guns are banned, nobody will have guns but criminals." It may hold water until all guns are confiscated, and yes, I admit, that may take time; but once the US will live as a normal society like every other in the planet, IN TERMS OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND ACCESSIBILITY TO GUNS BY THE CIVIL POPULATION the US people are the laughing stock of the world. What, an Albanian or a Tawainese asks, the US allow their citizens to have guns? And they complain about the high incident of violent crimes? AND they insist on having all this awesome firepower be freely available? They're crazy, my friend.
The only things that stop America from becoming an all-out shooting arcade are a strong legal system, and an advanced level of crime detection. Don't tell me a law-abiding moral citizen will never use his gun. You are moral, you are law abiding, yet you have a loaded gun in your desk, itching to use it. My word...
Have you ever heard of school kids shooting each other down in any other country? This is the disgrace of your society, and perfectly preventable by banning guns.
And the funniest thing is the reluctance of the Americans to see this. It takes no rocket science to see the logic of "no guns -- no gun related crimes" but they still cannot see it. And don't tell me Americans are stupid. They are not. They are only tradition-loving, rights-respecting, freedom-cherishing people. More so than almost all if not really all other nations. They just got mixed up with not seeing their own peril and stupidity with this gun issue. It's like telling a Catholic that either there is one god or three, but you cannot have only one god which is actually three.
Imagine that a snake pit of poisonous snakes are installed in every home in the living room in America. Analogous to the gun issue, there will be public education forums how to avoid the children and the toddlers falling into it. You grow up listening to advice how to not fall into it in the middle of the night when you go for a glass of water. You tell your guests not to get so drunk as to not have the judgement to fall into it. And all this will be supported by a snake-loving group that claims that intruders are more likely to fall into the snake pit and die than the residents; that it's for the home-owners self-defence; that if only honest and law-abiding citizens had the snake pits, there would be fewer snake-poisoning related deaths; that if snakes were banned, only criminals would have them; that the snakes are the essential rights of any man to have them; and the government should have less control over these snake pits.
Hezus.
I give up. Go shoot at each other. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 7:26:58 AM | July, you crack me up. Nice red herring arguments, though.
Do you have any idea how long it would TAKE for ALL the guns to be collected?? We're talking DECADES here. There are 22 guns per person for every person in the World currently in circulation. That's not even counting those made This Year. the US average is 42 guns per person.
Canadians have guns. They also have very strict licensing rules. There also are not very many Canadians per capita other than in large cities like Toronto. So, much like Rural areas in the US, there isn't much crime. I'll also state that Canadian on the whole over the last 200 years have been a very polite people. New Yorkers & other "big city" americans, on the other hand...well, politeness really doesn't exist there. And one other thing...most of Canada is colder than Hades for about 6 months of the year...what fool in their right mind is going to stand in an alley and wait in sub-zero temps for HOURS to find a victim?? Not too many, eh? Canada is a totally different world in comparison to the US.
School shootings have been happening in other countries Before and After Columbine. Ever hear of the Beslan School shooting?? How about the Mercaz HaRav Massacre?? The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland?? C'mon, do your homework. Just because you are a rabid anti-gunner does not mean that you cannot put forth proper logical arguments.
One other thing...any moron can make a gun in a short amount of time from scratch...it takes a slightly smarter one to make gunpowder...so you will NEVER get rid of all guns, but even if you do , there will be those who will build NEW ones illegally for criminal purposes. All it takes is a drill, a 4x4, a rubber band, and a nail...bulky, but workable. Or a piece of pipe, an end cap, a drill, a fuse, and a matchlock. Guns & ammo are EASY to make...you cannot ever get rid of them even if you closed down every firearm manufacturer in the world.
Bear in mind also that blackpowder weapons are not required to be registered by US nor Canadian Law. There are literally millions of them out there and there are NO files on who owns them at all. And let us not forget Flare Pistols while we are at it...
No Guns-No related Gun Crimes?? MEADOW MUFFINS!! The 1988 Firearms Act in the UK banned all centerfire rifles and all shotguns that held more than two rounds, not to mention handguns, but oddly the violent gun crime rate is increasing...to quote the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve, "The strangest irony is that, ever since the trend that is now culminating in the destruction of shooting clubs began, the level of violence with handguns and all forms of weaponry has been rising. I believe that the two are linked. The more we get down to selfish, individualistic forms of society. They are tolerated, because the House has never addressed the problem of how the culture of violence is foisted on our society. It has nothing whatever to do with gun clubs. I am utterly convinced that it will have no bearing whatever on reducing the incidence of violence through the use of handguns. On the contrary; I am convinced that it will do the reverse. By destroying shooting clubs, which have served this country well by channelling that recreation and enthusiasm, we shall create more problems for ourselves. We disregard that at our peril." Even the BRITS realize that gun bans don't work.
Switzerland requires EVERY male citizen to own a gun...got an awfully low violent crime rate, don't they?? In fact, it's LOWER than any other country per capita. Gee, ya think they MIGHT be on to something there??
The US can NEVER really be compared to Canada, or for that matter, the vast majority of countries simply because of the way we were formed, the way we have built the country from "Sea to shining sea", and the general ornryness of the people therein. We cherish our freedoms, even if it means that sometimes those freedoms bite us in the butt. For example, only in the US would we RE-introduce Grizzley Bears (which eat about 3 people a year)...sure, lets add MORE ways to die/get horribly maimed to our country. Like we don't have enough SUV's doing that already.
Furthur, we're still going to need our guns to shoot those stinkin drug runners that are crossing our border daily. As long as there are drug runners headed our way with cocaine strapped to their backs, we're going to need guns. We face incursions by heavily armed smugglers multiple times a day, not to even mention the heavily armed DRUG USERS here...you Canucks don't really have that problem...and you Canucks also don't have a clue what goes on down here. So SHADDAP AND SIT DOWN.  | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
