PDA

View Full Version : the future of gun rights --- militias?



Mobilus
03-20-2008, 10:34 AM
U.S. Supreme Court takes up gun-rights case | csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1121/p25s09-usju.html)

In agreeing to take the first gun rights case since the 1930s, the supreme court is finally going to answer the 1000000 dollar question, in fact, they even threw out the original point of the case and created a NEW question:

In agreeing to take up the Heller case, the court rejected questions posed by both sides in the litigation and wrote its own question. The question: "Whether the following provisions [three sections of the D.C. gun law] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

So it seems that the Supreme Court might possibly be about to interpret the 2nd Amendment the way it was written: that people only have an absolute right to own a gun if they are in a militia.

Opponents of that interpretation have often scoffed at the word "militia" and said that no one knows what is meant by it, and a militia could be "two guys in a basement." However, if you look back at the Federalist papers and the writings of Benjamin Franklin and George Mason, they were referring to state-run militias that were completely independent of the federal government. The last of these types of militias disappeared in the early 1900s and were replaced with the National Guard, which has never been 100% legal but has gone unchallenged.



How does everyone else feel about this? I think states SHOULD have their own militias that are independent of the federal government, not just for defense but for stuff like Katrina when the national guards are stolen by the fed.s for foreign wars. Or if those internment camps ever start filling up the states can fight back against the federal army.

I look at Europe and see the almost none-existent stats they have on violent gun deaths from banning guns. And sure, a few criminals still get guns but the statistics prove that they have almost no civilian gun deaths while we have shootings constantly and we keep hearing about mass murders at universities, schools, malls, etc. So I would be OK with only state-run militias having weapons. How about you?

BD-ICY
03-20-2008, 10:40 AM
I agree, State run Militias should be used...but there are going to be people that say they have the right to own a gun...Such as Hunters

Super
03-20-2008, 10:41 AM
I'm not sure how much that would solve the problem. Just because someone is in the militia, doesn't mean they can't get ticked off and shoot up a school or a mall. Unless they're planning to keep gun depots where the militia arms are stored. Even then, that wouldn't be very efficient if there ever really was a need to take up arms against the federal government. They could easily plant their own men in the munitions and foil any attempt to challenge them.

Raistlin
03-20-2008, 12:44 PM
The problem with laws abolishing guns is pretty simple. Criminals don't respect the laws and will have guns anyway. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who are disarmed.

Belphegor
03-20-2008, 01:05 PM
The problem with laws abolishing guns is pretty simple. Criminals don't respect the laws and will have guns anyway. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who are disarmed.Quoted for truth. This is why I support the carrying of firearms, and carry one myself.

Mobilus
03-20-2008, 01:12 PM
That's a fine argument, except for the fact that we have real data on societies over in Europe who have banned guns and while criminals still sometimes get guns, the amount of guns deaths is astronomically lower.

What should we tell the victims of gun deaths from legally-purchased guns? Their their losses are worth the right to have guns?

Calaspawn
03-20-2008, 01:35 PM
If guns are illegal, honest people won't be able to defend themselves against criminals who can get guns from illegal dealers...

Guns are important for self defense.

Super
03-20-2008, 01:47 PM
The problem with laws abolishing guns is pretty simple. Criminals don't respect the laws and will have guns anyway. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who are disarmed.

What is a criminal but a law-abiding citizen who one day decides to kill? I guess you could say those who want to kill will find a way to do it, but why make it so easy for them? With a gun, all they have to do is pull a trigger. I'm pretty sure it would be a lot harder to go on a school killing spree with a knife.

Calaspawn
03-20-2008, 01:56 PM
What is a criminal but a law-abiding citizen who one day decides to kill? I guess you could say those who want to kill will find a way to do it, but why make it so easy for them? With a gun, all they have to do is pull a trigger. I'm pretty sure it would be a lot harder to go on a school killing spree with a knife.

They will still have guns just like alcoholics still drank during the prohibition...

Raistlin
03-20-2008, 01:59 PM
That's a fine argument, except for the fact that we have real data on societies over in Europe who have banned guns and while criminals still sometimes get guns, the amount of guns deaths is astronomically lower.

We also have real data on areas within our own country that have implemented harsh anti-gun laws and had violence rates stay the same or increase.


What should we tell the victims of gun deaths from legally-purchased guns? Their their losses are worth the right to have guns?

What should we tell the victims of deaths in car accidents? That their losses are worth the right to drive cars?


What is a criminal but a law-abiding citizen who one day decides to kill?

You have got to realize how stupid that is. There is a distinction between the law-abiding citizenry that uses guns for sport or self-defense, and criminal-minded individuals who get their guns from the black market and use them to commit crimes. And unfortunately, the law-abiding citizens are the ones who are disarmed by gun laws.

Calaspawn
03-20-2008, 02:03 PM
Any banned product just turns into fodder to help the rise of organized/unorganized crime. When alcohol was banned the mafia became powerful, when drugs were banned the cartel became powerful.

Super
03-20-2008, 02:17 PM
They will still have guns just like alcoholics still drank during the prohibition...

You're not getting it. The people that have the ability to access the black market don't go around killing random people for fun. The average trash that feels like killing someone isn't going to have access to the black market. Depending on the strictness of the gun control law, a large amount of potential murderers could be deterred from killing simply because it would take too much effort to obtain a gun.



You have got to realize how stupid that is. There is a distinction between the law-abiding citizenry that uses guns for sport or self-defense, and criminal-minded individuals who get their guns from the black market and use them to commit crimes. And unfortunately, the law-abiding citizens are the ones who are disarmed by gun laws.

The majority of murders aren't by "criminal-minded individuals who get their guns from the black market". They're usually by unintelligent trash who decide to do whatever it takes to get what they want. Do you seriously think the ******* who walks into a 7/11 with a pistol, takes the money and shoots the clerk is going to be able to acquire that same pistol if there are strict enough laws against it? Most of these guns are purchased legally from gun stores by the assailant or stolen from someone who did. The paranoia
that causes people to buy guns to defend themselves fuels the actual need to defend yourself.

Raistlin
03-20-2008, 03:03 PM
You're not getting it. The people that have the ability to access the black market don't go around killing random people for fun. The average trash that feels like killing someone isn't going to have access to the black market.

You have three categories. Law-abiding citizens who have guns; law-abiding citizens who have guns and at some point go bezerk and start killing people (rare); criminal-minded invidividuals who acquire guns on the black market and use them to commit crimes.

The majority of the people affected by gun laws are in the first category. The criminals who don't respect the law and get their guns on the black market which also doesn't respect the law will still have guns.


The majority of murders aren't by "criminal-minded individuals who get their guns from the black market".

Gun crimes ARE usually committed by criminal-minded inviduals as opposed to the standard law-abiding citizen who has a gun for sport or self-defense.


Do you seriously think the ******* who walks into a 7/11 with a pistol, takes the money and shoots the clerk is going to be able to acquire that same pistol if there are strict enough laws against it?

Your standard law-abiding citizen, who is most affected by a ban on guns, doesn't do this type of thing. The criminal element, who is least affected by a ban on guns, does this type of thing.


Most of these guns are purchased legally from gun stores by the assailant or stolen from someone who did.

So if there weren't law-abiding citizens with guns, criminals wouldn't be able to get them because the black market would dry up for lack of supply. The sellers on the black market wouldn't simply find another source for the guns that they make their living selling to criminals!

Here are some stats.

- After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.

- Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their dwellings.

- Israel, Denmark and Finland have extremely high gun ownership rates and low crime rates.

- New Jersey adopted the most stringent gun law in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

- In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

- In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

- After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

Gore
03-20-2008, 03:06 PM
I have the right to own a gun.
There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to defend myself, my family and my home.
I'm paranoid and I know it - but that's not going to stop me from owning a weapon.

Plus, they're fun.

Super
03-20-2008, 03:42 PM
You have three categories. Law-abiding citizens who have guns; law-abiding citizens who have guns and at some point go bezerk and start killing people (rare); criminal-minded invidividuals who acquire guns on the black market and use them to commit crimes.
Yes, except the second category isn't rare at all. It's almost every ****ing murder that happens.


The majority of the people affected by gun laws are in the first category. The criminals who don't respect the law and get their guns on the black market which also doesn't respect the law will still have guns.
Considering the first 2 categories are pretty much the same people save for different mind sets, and the second having the most amount of murders, what you just said only supports my argument.


Gun crimes ARE usually committed by criminal-minded inviduals as opposed to the standard law-abiding citizen who has a gun for sport or self-defense.

Stop being redundant. A gun crime can't be committed by a law abiding citizen because that wouldnt make him law abiding.


Your standard law-abiding citizen, who is most affected by a ban on guns, doesn't do this type of thing. The criminal element, who is least affected by a ban on guns, does this type of thing.
You're right. He doesn't until he decides to. That's when he's not considered a law-abiding citizen any more. So if a criminal is just someone who was once a law-abiding citizen who decided to use the gun YOU gave him to protect himself to harm people, then the law would in fact prevent said criminals from achieving their goals.


So if there weren't law-abiding citizens with guns, criminals wouldn't be able to get them because the black market would dry up for lack of supply. The sellers on the black market wouldn't simply find another source for the guns that they make their living selling to criminals!
This paragraph is confusing me. If what you said is correct, you're actually supporting my point...



- After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.
Canada's murder rate is already a lot lower than the US's...


- Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their dwellings.
All that's saying is that Americans are stupid and abuse the same responsibility Swiss people have.



- Israel, Denmark and Finland have extremely high gun ownership rates and low crime rates.
America has high gun ownership and high crime rates...


- New Jersey adopted the most stringent gun law in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

That's because everyone still had ****ing guns. The only way this gun law would work is if all the licensed firearms were confiscated.


- In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

- In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

- After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

Same as for New Jersey.

Calaspawn
03-20-2008, 03:50 PM
You're not getting it. The people that have the ability to access the black market don't go around killing random people for fun. The average trash that feels like killing someone isn't going to have access to the black market. Depending on the strictness of the gun control law, a large amount of potential murderers could be deterred from killing simply because it would take too much effort to obtain a gun.

I just wanted to point out that what you just said is a complete load of crap. anyone with access to the black market is a criminal.

Super
03-20-2008, 04:05 PM
/facepalm.

You're an idiot. Is the average homicide committed by a mafia? No. They're the ones with access to the Black Market, though. The thing is, most of the firearms used to kill people aren't from there! Like I said, the average ******* who shoots up a 7/11 doesn't have access to the black market. He gets his guns the same way the people who want to protect themselves do. Do you even know what the black market sells? Definitely not pistols. They provide illegal automatic weapons and other things banned from street sale. If the average gun was banned, I suppose they would take up selling them, but like I said, the everyday **** head isn't going to be able to afford/get access to it.

Mobilus
03-20-2008, 04:41 PM
Raistlin, I think for a gun ban in the US to show the same benefits as over in Europe, they would have to banned all over the US since people can move freely from state to state.

Pete_Zahut
03-20-2008, 07:27 PM
If they decide to ban firearms here, it will most likely be handguns which can be easily concealed, rifles and shotguns will be legal

Raistlin
03-20-2008, 08:34 PM
Yes, except the second category isn't rare at all. It's almost every ****ing murder that happens.

I'd like to see the statistic that shows that the majority of gun crimes (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, rape at gunpoint, etc) are committed by those that fall into the second category as opposed to those that fall into the third, please.


Considering the first 2 categories are pretty much the same people save for different mind sets, and the second having the most amount of murders, what you just said only supports my argument.

They're not "pretty much the same people". Most citizens are never in their lives going to go bezerk and start killing people, it is rare as I said. And I'm waiting for the statistic that shows that the second category commits most of the gun-related crimes.

I'm going to make this as simle as I can so there is no chance of anybody misinterpreting my argument. Out of all of the citizenry, very few people are ever going to become criminals. The ones that do are the ones that proceed to commit most of the gun-related crimes. You don't want to pass laws that disarm the general citizenry, very few of whom are ever going to become criminals, while leaving guns in the hands of the criminals.


You're right. He doesn't until he decides to. That's when he's not considered a law-abiding citizen any more. So if a criminal is just someone who was once a law-abiding citizen who decided to use the gun YOU gave him to protect himself to harm people, then the law would in fact prevent said criminals from achieving their goals.

Do you honestly not understand the distinction between John Q. Public who owns a gun for self-defense and is unlikely to ever make the transition you are describing, and a criminal-minded individual who buys a gun on the black market and commits crimes using it? Wow.


This paragraph is confusing me. If what you said is correct, you're actually supporting my point...

Re-read those two sentences, they were sarcastic in nature.


Canada's murder rate is already a lot lower than the US's...

That's beside the point. Canada's murder rate failed to decrease, while their rate of crimes often deterred by gun ownership increased, when they passed their gun control law. The comparison is Canada pre-gun-control vs Canada post-gun-control.


All that's saying is that Americans are stupid and abuse the same responsibility Swiss people have.

No, it's saying that there is not a correlation between high gun ownership rates and high rates of crime, plain and simple.


America has high gun ownership and high crime rates...

Yep. Some places have high gun ownership and high crime rates, while other places have high gun ownership and low crime rates. High gun ownership rates do not correlate to high crime rates.


That's because everyone still had ****ing guns. The only way this gun law would work is if all the licensed firearms were confiscated.

So that the only remaining guns are the unlicensed firearms in the hands of criminals, who are the ones making most of the trouble in the first place. Good idea.


Raistlin, I think for a gun ban in the US to show the same benefits as over in Europe, they would have to banned all over the US since people can move freely from state to state.

You are pointing to areas where there is low gun ownership and low crime rates (some European countries), and areas where there is high gun ownership and high crime rates (namely the US), to make the case that there is a correlation between gun ownership and crime rates. In reality there are plenty of areas with high gun ownership and low crime rates, and numerous examples of laws being enacted which restrict gun ownership and are followed by increases in crime rates.

Also, I noticed your point about the constitutional right to bear arms having been intended only for militias. No way. At the time the constitution was written, there were two types of militias. The "select militia" which was the forerunner to our national guard, and the general militia which referred to all able-bodied men with arms. The founding fathers did not restrict the right to bear arms to the "select militia". The founding fathers believed in the right of non-military citizens to bear arms. James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers that the primary check on government tyranny and an abusive army was citizens with their own arms. All subsequent 18th and 19th century legal interpretations understood the Second Amendment right to arms as a guaranteed constitutional right. It was among Blackstone's five "absolute rights of individuals" at common law. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was self-defining to the founders. Familiar to them in Colonial law, derived from the earliest known English codes and its Greek and Roman antecedents, proclaimed by every commentator known to them, the right to bear private arms was not only held as fundamental to republican institutions and popular liberty but was viewed as inherent in the natural right of self-defense. It is also worth noting that the Revolutionary War was sparked by the British attempt to confiscate the patriots' privately owned arms at Lexington and Concord. The notion that the founding fathers thought that the government had a Constitutional right to disarm peaceable citizens is ludicrous.

Super
03-21-2008, 08:05 AM
I'd like to see the statistic that shows that the majority of gun crimes (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, rape at gunpoint, etc) are committed by those that fall into the second category as opposed to those that fall into the third, please.

You're the one that's making the heinous assumption that the majority of murders are committed by individuals with ties to the black market and organized crime. You find me statistics. Go turn on the news and look at every murder that happens. You'll rarely hear anything about illegal firearms.



I'm going to make this as simle as I can so there is no chance of anybody misinterpreting my argument. Out of all of the citizenry, very few people are ever going to become criminals. The ones that do are the ones that proceed to commit most of the gun-related crimes. You don't want to pass laws that disarm the general citizenry, very few of whom are ever going to become criminals, while leaving guns in the hands of the criminals.
The truth is it's not "very few" people. There are a lot of bad people with guns. By giving every citizen a gun, you're also giving every potential murderer a gun. Then when that potential murderer loses the title of potential and decides to kill, you go "damn we need to give the citizens more guns to protect themselves."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt


In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000
violent crimes.

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime;

For 1987-92 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000
incidents of firearm theft.

So out of almost 1 million handgun assaults in 1992, on average, not even a 10th of victims were able to defend themselves with a handgun. So how efficient is it to own one? Look at the number of handguns stolen from "law abiding citizens". More handguns were stolen each year than were used for protection. Those stolen handguns that were bought to "protect" are now in the hands of bad men. So keep on selling your guns. It's obviously helping the situation. /sarcasm


They're not "pretty much the same people". Most citizens are never in their lives going to go bezerk and start killing people, it is rare as I said. And I'm waiting for the statistic that shows that the second category commits most of the gun-related crimes.
People aren't born into their "category". Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they decide not to be. It's completely crazy to say that almost everyone who kills someone gets their weapon from the black market. The black market isn't a ****ing ebay store. You don't just call em up and go "hey I'd like some guns because my neighbor pissed me off and I want to end his life". You have to realize that what you're trying to say is completely insane. Just look at the list of people who have been executed on death row. They're mainly poor, black, and/or incredibly stupid. Those kind of people don't get access to that kind of ****.


Do you honestly not understand the distinction between John Q. Public who owns a gun for self-defense and is unlikely to ever make the transition you are describing, and a criminal-minded individual who buys a gun on the black market and commits crimes using it? Wow.
Do you even know what the black market is? I thought I explained it in my last post... People with ties to it aren't going to be the one's breaking into your house at night. To gain access to the market, you have to be either very rich or very powerful. If the average dude who works at mcdonalds who goes home and beats his wife everyday can get access to it, it would fall apart because the police would be all over it. Your chances of being killed by a low life are a lot higher than getting killed by a member of a mafia or any organized crime.




That's beside the point. Canada's murder rate failed to decrease, while their rate of crimes often deterred by gun ownership increased, when they passed their gun control law. The comparison is Canada pre-gun-control vs Canada post-gun-control.

We're not Canada. You can't expect people of different cultures to react the same way to similar laws. Let me say this now. WITHOUT MASS DISARMING OF EVERY CITIZEN WITH A LICENSED FIREARM (SAVE FOR COPS) THE GUN LAW WILL NEVER WORK.



Yep. Some places have high gun ownership and high crime rates, while other places have high gun ownership and low crime rates. High gun ownership rates do not correlate to high crime rates.
This just comes down to the basic principles of an experiment. To test if there was a correlation, you would have to test one variable. All your doing is assuming every other country is exactly like the US and determining whether gun control affects crime or not. You can't do that. There are tons of other factors that can determine why the gun control didn't work. (like strength of police force, the relationship between minority groups, strength of ethical views, etc..) I could easily say "hey look, the people living in the Vatican aren't using any guns, so obviously not having any guns means no crime." but I don't think you'd let me make that comparison.



So that the only remaining guns are the unlicensed firearms in the hands of criminals, who are the ones making most of the trouble in the first place. Good idea.
That's why there are cops. And if you can get an unlicensed firearm, you'll most likely end up killing whoever you want, regardless of whether they can defend themselves or not. The reason being because the average killer who's just trying to get by, doesn't know how to obtain an unlicensed firearm.

Here are some statistics:
Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides (http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html)

After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.

Mobilus
03-21-2008, 10:42 AM
Actually Raistlin I agree with you about the point of every free person initially being the "general militia." The colonies were a dangerous place, with native raids, constant rebellions, French-Canadian incursions and later British Canadian incursions.


But what I agree with you on is not the form of the matter, but the function being carried over. The form being constant would be every person being able to own a gun whether or not they actually wind up serving in a "general militia." The function is that since we have grown astronomically, and hardly anyone is in anything close to a general militia, then only the people still working in those general militias should still have the right to own guns. I feel that this is at least a legal interpretation worthy of consideration otherwise the court probably would not have altered the question to set up a showdown on this very issue.

The form of the country has changed, but in my opinion the reference to "militia" is not a statement of form in the sense that it constantly identifies all Americans as the "general militia" but that it is referring to a function that requires participation.

Raistlin
03-22-2008, 05:32 AM
You're the one that's making the heinous assumption that the majority of murders are committed by individuals with ties to the black market and organized crime. You find me statistics.

I'm making the quite simple assertion that the majority of gun crimes (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, rape at gunpoint, etc) are committed by criminally minded individuals as opposed to John Q. Public. You are disagreeing and claiming that the majority of this is done by peaceable citizens who simply go berzerk and start using their legally owned firearms to do these things.

Statistic please.

And who said anything about organized crime? "Criminally minded individual" is not the same as mobster/mafioso.


So out of almost 1 million handgun assaults in 1992, on average, not even a 10th of victims were able to defend themselves with a handgun. So how efficient is it to own one?I don't care whether it's efficient, it's a right to own one.


Look at the number of handguns stolen from "law abiding citizens". More handguns were stolen each year than were used for protection. Those stolen handguns that were bought to "protect" are now in the hands of bad men. So keep on selling your guns. It's obviously helping the situation. /sarcasmAnd if there were no legally licensed firearms to steal, the black market would dry up instead of simply finding another source. /sarcasm


The black market isn't a ****ing ebay store. You don't just call em up and go "hey I'd like some guns because my neighbor pissed me off and I want to end his life". You have to realize that what you're trying to say is completely insane. Just look at the list of people who have been executed on death row. They're mainly poor, black, and/or incredibly stupid. Those kind of people don't get access to that kind of ****.

Do you even know what the black market is? I thought I explained it in my last post... People with ties to it aren't going to be the one's breaking into your house at night. To gain access to the market, you have to be either very rich or very powerful. Yes, you explained your misunderstanding of what the black market is. For instance you claimed that pistols are not sold on the black market. Retarded. You are also now claiming that only the very rich and very powerful have access to the black market. Retarded. It's not some club you have to be rich or powerful to join, and pistols certainly are sold on the black market. The black market is simply an underground economy. When someone buys a gun illegally, from anyone, that gun was purchased on the black market. You should educate yourself on a subject before you go about "explaining" it to others.


We're not Canada. You can't expect people of different cultures to react the same way to similar laws.The statistics I provided were a counter to examples provided from the other side of the argument pointing to specific areas with low gun ownership and low crime rates as if this correlation holds true across the board. I made my point.


Let me say this now. WITHOUT MASS DISARMING OF EVERY CITIZEN WITH A LICENSED FIREARM (SAVE FOR COPS) THE GUN LAW WILL NEVER WORK.And let me say this now. Disarming the citizenry is unconstitutional at the most basic level. Owning firearms is a right.

And when you outlaw guns, the outlaws who don't respect the law will still acquire guns while upstanding citizens who respect the laws will not. GREAT idea.


That's why there are cops.Hysterical. Would you like me to give you the statistic on the number of cops per citizen so you can understand how ridiculous I find the idea that you should give up your right to own a firearm and depend entirely on the police for your protection?


The reason being because the average killer who's just trying to get by, doesn't know how to obtain an unlicensed firearm.And the average drug user doesn't know how to obtain illegal drugs...


Here are some statistics:
Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides (http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html)Cool, a "working paper". Unfortunately there are numerous examples, both international and domestic, where high gun ownership does not translate to high crime rates and where strict anti-gun legislation fails to reduce crime or actually leads to an increase in the types of crimes that guns in the hands of upstanding citizens tend to deter.


in my opinion the reference to "militia" is not a statement of form in the sense that it constantly identifies all Americans as the "general militia" but that it is referring to a function that requires participation.

It's not a matter of opinion. As I said, there was the "special militia" which was the forerunner to our national guard and required participation, and the general militia which simply referred to all men who owned guns. The founding fathers did not restrict the right to bear arms to the "select militia".

Pete_Zahut
03-22-2008, 09:06 AM
Everyone is the black market, you dont need to be rich or powerful, all you need is the right amount of money for the right products, if im selling stolen goods at school or outside, I am the black market

Super
03-22-2008, 09:19 AM
I'm making the quite simple assertion that the majority of gun crimes (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, rape at gunpoint, etc) are committed by criminally minded individuals as opposed to John Q. Public. You are disagreeing and claiming that the majority of this is done by peaceable citizens who simply go berzerk and start using their legally owned firearms to do these things.

There is no distinction between criminally minded individuals and the John Q. Public. At least not one that the clerk at the gun store can distinguish. Like I've said 100 times already, you're a normal everyday guy until the day you get pissed off and feel like putting that gun to use. Maybe you were pissed off from childhood, but no one will know that until you start killing. Then people like you will say, "BUT HE'S CRIMINALLY MINDED, SO NO WAY HE COULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE JOHN Q PUBLIC!" At the age of 14, how many kids go "man, I'm a bad dude. Im probably going to kill somebody one day."? Then some of them grow a little, make some bad decisions. By then they already have a gun, or can easily steal one from someone trying to 'defend' themselves. Then he feels real desperate, so he sneaks into your house, takes your money and shoots you. All while your arsenal of defense lays in some drawer in a different room.


I don't care whether it's efficient, it's a right to own one.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. It's a simple fact of life that you may find very important one day.


And if there were no legally licensed firearms to steal, the black market would dry up instead of simply finding another source. /sarcasm
If there were no legally licensed firearms to steal, the price for a handgun would inflate drastically. Whatever source they find next, would have to give a really nice deal on their weapons to be able to sell it to the already broke low life that wants to rob someone.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.png

Note: Arguments include brawls due to the influence of narcotics or alcohol,
disagreements about money or property and other arguments.

Felony types include homicides committed during a rape, robbery, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and violations of prostitution and commercial vice laws, other sex offenses, narcotic drug laws, and gambling laws.

Gang homicides include gangland killings and juvenile gang killings.
So what was that you were saying about criminally minded individuals? Arguments. Someone who gets in an argument that spirals out of control isn't going to already have a gun from the black market lying around. (that's if we do get rid of all the legally licensed firearms.)



Yes, you explained your misunderstanding of what the black market is. For instance you claimed that pistols are not sold on the black market. Retarded. You are also now claiming that only the very rich and very powerful have access to the black market. Retarded. It's not some club you have to be rich or powerful to join, and pistols certainly are sold on the black market. The black market is simply an underground economy. When someone buys a gun illegally, from anyone, that gun was purchased on the black market. You should educate yourself on a subject before you go about "explaining" it to others.
No, you're right. I'm sure you know so much about it. Wikipedia right? Or no, maybe you saw it on the sopranos. The black market sells ILLEGAL items. What purpose would they have in selling handguns that can be picked up at your local gun store for a lot less money? I'm sure if you needed 300 handguns, it would make sense to seek those from the BM, but theres no reason for a "criminal-minded-individual" to get something from there when they can much more easily get it from his local gun store.


The statistics I provided were a counter to examples provided from the other side of the argument pointing to specific areas with low gun ownership and low crime rates as if this correlation holds true across the board. I made my point.

I never made an argument pointing to specific areas with low gun ownership and low crime rates. I'm in full agreement with you that there is nothing that holds true across the board when it comes to gun ownership. This issue is a lot larger than passing a law. For it to work, society needs to change as well.

And let me say this now. Disarming the citizenry is unconstitutional at the most basic level. Owning firearms is a right.[/QUOTE]
**** the constitution. What was written 200+ years ago doesn't always apply to today. If it needs to be changed, it should. (Don't get me wrong, this isn't as simple as I'm perpetuating it to be. This would require the majority of the nation to agree with me. This is, after all, a democracy, and I suppose people are free to be as ignorant as they please.)


And when you outlaw guns, the outlaws who don't respect the law will still acquire guns while upstanding citizens who respect the laws will not. GREAT idea.
Did you happen to see the statistic about how only 1/10th of gun crime victims are able to defend themselves with guns and how 300k of the other citizens get their guns stolen-guns then used to kill the other 820,000 people each year? If everyone didn't have guns (save for the few who would get theirs illegally), the number of gun crimes would obviously go down. That doesn't necessarily mean crime rates will go down. People will kill when the want to. Lets not make it as easy for most of them as pulling a trigger.


Hysterical. Would you like me to give you the statistic on the number of cops per citizen so you can understand how ridiculous I find the idea that you should give up your right to own a firearm and depend entirely on the police for your protection?
Letting everyone buy a gun obviously isn't helping much with the "protection" situation. If anything, the frequency of gun ownership makes America oh so much dangerous.


And the average drug user doesn't know how to obtain illegal drugs...

Alright buddy. I double dare you to go around looking for an illegal arms salesman standing at your local street corner.



Cool, a "working paper". Unfortunately there are numerous examples, both international and domestic, where high gun ownership does not translate to high crime rates and where strict anti-gun legislation fails to reduce crime or actually leads to an increase in the types of crimes that guns in the hands of upstanding citizens tend to deter.
Well you pro-gun idiots made the horrible decision to give away guns like they were candy in the first place. Now that everyone and their mom has a gun, we can't just say "alright, none of that, please" and expect anything to happen. Those statistics about domestic are worthless because you can move from state to state, and you can't compare other countries to the US, simply because we're not at all similar. I'm not pro-gun law because I don't advocate the use of guns as protection, it's just that this country has proven it can't handle the responsibility of owning a gun.

K? Pŕo?ćtiόnŹ
03-24-2008, 08:11 AM
I can't imagine what gangs would do if guns became illegal, I guess they cant buy them any moar =-\, I guess I better go tell my set to march on DC.

nano351
03-24-2008, 08:29 AM
if guns go illegal wtf am I supposed to hunt with?!?

Raistlin
04-07-2008, 09:23 AM
There is no distinction between criminally minded individuals and the John Q. Public.

Most members of the general public will never snap and transform into a dangerous criminal. You don't want to pass laws that disarm these people when you know that the handful that do end up becoming criminal-minded individuals are going to find a way to get the gun they need anyway.


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. It's a simple fact of life that you may find very important one day.

We're not debating whether or not you should, we're debating whether or not "can" should be legally changed to "can't". I think that since "can" is a constitutional right, it shouldn't be.


If there were no legally licensed firearms to steal, the price for a handgun would inflate drastically. Whatever source they find next, would have to give a really nice deal on their weapons to be able to sell it to the already broke low life that wants to rob someone.

The prices would definitely go up. Criminals would still get them though.


So what was that you were saying about criminally minded individuals? Arguments. Someone who gets in an argument that spirals out of control isn't going to already have a gun from the black market lying around. (that's if we do get rid of all the legally licensed firearms.)

First, the graph actually reinforces my point. Arguments are in the minority of homicides (add up the lines for a total). The only reason it is the largest category is because the graph isn't broken down by argument homicides vs non-argument homicides, instead the non-argument homicides are separated into several categories.

Second, my point is reinforced further when you realize that the graph only represents homicides, not all gun crimes. Since there aren't very many robberies, rapes at gunpoint, etc., occuring spontaneously due to arguments, "arguments" would obviously be buried under the other lines if this graph represented all gun crimes.


No, you're right. I'm sure you know so much about it. Wikipedia right?

Don't get an attitude with me just because you were wrong.


The black market sells ILLEGAL items.

Unlicensed firearms (including handguns) are illegal.


What purpose would they have in selling handguns that can be picked up at your local gun store for a lot less money? I'm sure if you needed 300 handguns, it would make sense to seek those from the BM, but theres no reason for a "criminal-minded-individual" to get something from there when they can much more easily get it from his local gun store.

Many can't pass the background check, and many don't want their purchase to be "on the record" due to what they intend on doing with it.


I never made an argument pointing to specific areas with low gun ownership and low crime rates.

Someone else did, I forget who.


**** the constitution. What was written 200+ years ago doesn't always apply to today. If it needs to be changed, it should. (Don't get me wrong, this isn't as simple as I'm perpetuating it to be. This would require the majority of the nation to agree with me. This is, after all, a democracy, and I suppose people are free to be as ignorant as they please.)

I think the right to bear arms is so basic and fundamental that it will always apply, similar to the right of free speech.


People will kill when the want to. Lets not make it as easy for most of them as pulling a trigger.

Banning guns would make committing gun crimes more difficult for those criminals who don't manage to get a gun anyway (most would). But it would make defending yourself against crime disproportionately more difficult for the law-abiding citizen.


Letting everyone buy a gun obviously isn't helping much with the "protection" situation. If anything, the frequency of gun ownership makes America oh so much dangerous.

If frequency of gun ownership caused a country to be dangerous, Switzerland would be a killing field.


Alright buddy. I double dare you to go around looking for an illegal arms salesman standing at your local street corner.

I can get one easily, but that is due to past life experience and still knowing people. For most people, sure, it's not going to be as easy as buying a bag of weed. It's really not that hard either, unless you just don't associate with any criminals.


Well you pro-gun idiots made the horrible decision to give away guns like they were candy in the first place. Now that everyone and their mom has a gun, we can't just say "alright, none of that, please" and expect anything to happen. Those statistics about domestic are worthless because you can move from state to state, and you can't compare other countries to the US, simply because we're not at all similar. I'm not pro-gun law because I don't advocate the use of guns as protection, it's just that this country has proven it can't handle the responsibility of owning a gun.

So domestic examples of gun control laws not helping, and in some cases making things worse, are worthless. So are international examples. Any evidence would fall under one of these two categories and therefore no amount of evidence is sufficient to cause you to reconsider your point of view. I'm not sure where else we can go with this debate.

Super
04-07-2008, 02:32 PM
I'm not sure where else we can go with this debate.

We're not going to go anywhere because you're not trying to find a solution. All you're trying to do is keep the status quo (which is currently terrible) or maybe even suggest arming every single citizen.

All these people buying guns are doing so because of wild fantasies of a burglar breaking into them homes and them stopping him via deadly force. So they put their gun in hard to reach place (for kids' sake) and the maybe the ammunition in a different place, then expect to find it in the middle of the night and instinctively know which way to turn off the safety and think that they'll end up saving their family from someone who's most likely only there to take a few things and leave. All this while gangs are getting their guns with absolutely no problem at all and killing each other in poor neighborhoods. (because that's where most crimes occur, poor neighborhoods)

If guns become scarce (which simply banning them won't cause) then the rising price will greatly decrease blue-collar crime over time. (not in a year, maybe not even 10). The problem is that we bred generation upon generation of people who are so used to gun ownership that expecting much change from them is useless.

Smart people and well-off people who kill for their own ****ed up reasons will always do so. The focus should be towards the low-class dropouts-the ones that would really have trouble if the law got in their way.

(Don't compare this to drugs either, because you can't grow pistols in your basement)

SC_Modder
04-07-2008, 03:37 PM
While of course a lot of people do own guns exactly for the "OH NOES BURGLAR" reason you just pointed out, that isn't all of them. A lot of people collect firearms, such as those used in past military conflicts or from other countries, as a hobby. These people are obviously responsible gun owners. What are you going to tell them when you outlaw gun ownership?

Super
04-07-2008, 03:42 PM
Tough luck.

Some redneck's hobbies aren't worth people getting killed.

nano351
04-07-2008, 03:47 PM
Tough luck.

Some redneck's hobbies aren't worth people getting killed.
I beg to differ

Super
04-07-2008, 03:51 PM
That's good for you.

Raistlin
04-08-2008, 05:05 AM
We're not going to go anywhere because you're not trying to find a solution. All you're trying to do is keep the status quo (which is currently terrible) or maybe even suggest arming every single citizen.

You didn't respond to any of my points. GG on those.

I haven't suggested any such thing as arming every single citizen. What I have done is argue against the idea that guns should be banned. When I said there is nowhere left for this debate to go, I was referring to the fact that you have put yourself in a position where no amount of evidence is sufficient to cause you to reconsider your point of view. Any evidence would either be domestic or international and you have decided that anything that falls into either of those two categories (which is everything) is worthless.

Azu
04-08-2008, 06:42 AM
What's the point of this argument? It doesn't seem like any-body's minds are being changed, so shouldn't this be in the flame board?

Raistlin
04-08-2008, 06:57 AM
What's the point of this argument? It doesn't seem like any-body's minds are being changed, so shouldn't this be in the flame board?

It's a serious discussion, nobody is flaming.

kds
04-08-2008, 09:57 AM
Ignore him, go on with your argument.

Super
04-08-2008, 04:12 PM
Any evidence would either be domestic or international and you have decided that anything that falls into either of those two categories (which is everything) is worthless.

Do you think otherwise? There have been no worthwhile efforts to suppress gun crime in this country. What evidence is there going to be? The problem of gun crime stems from a much bigger issue involving society. Many things would have to be changed before we can effectively decrease crime. What I know for sure is that what we have now isn't working and arming each citizen won't either.

Raistlin
04-08-2008, 04:43 PM
Do you think otherwise? There have been no worthwhile efforts to suppress gun crime in this country. What evidence is there going to be?

There is plently of evidence. No nationwide bans on handguns within the US, no. There have been numerous city/state bans and the evidence from those shows that the number of gun crimes did not decrease (in some cases it increased). Of course, you dismiss those examples by arguing that localized bans are ineffective since people can go get a gun in another area. However evidence from nationwide gun control laws in other countries shows that nationwide efforts also fail to decrease the number of gun crimes.

p00onu
04-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Super, what are you going to do if you are asleep in your bed one night and two subjects armed with firearms break into your house in the middle of the night with the intent to take anything they can from your house and not let anyone stand in their way?

Are you going to grab your teddy bear and your phone and hide in the closet until the police arrive in 15 minutes by which time it is very possible that you may be discovered?

Super
04-11-2008, 02:05 PM
Super, what are you going to do if you are asleep in your bed one night and two subjects armed with firearms break into your house in the middle of the night with the intent to take anything they can from your house and not let anyone stand in their way?

Are you going to grab your teddy bear and your phone and hide in the closet until the police arrive in 15 minutes by which time it is very possible that you may be discovered?

No, I'm going to take several minutes finding and loading a gun and then run downstairs hoping I switched the safety the right way in the dark then end up getting shot by the other subject who was most likely on guard watching the other's back. But hey, I had a gun. I guess it's the thought that counts, right?

That's of course in the crazy situation that that ever does happen. In the 98% chance of that never happening at all, I'll be happy I have a gun in my drawer reassuring my false sense of security.

p00onu
04-11-2008, 03:41 PM
No, I'm going to take several minutes finding and loading a gun and then run downstairs hoping I switched the safety the right way in the dark then end up getting shot by the other subject who was most likely on guard watching the other's back. But hey, I had a gun. I guess it's the thought that counts, right?

That's of course in the crazy situation that that ever does happen. In the 98% chance of that never happening at all, I'll be happy I have a gun in my drawer reassuring my false sense of security.

Heh, that was a nice little dodge. Now answer the question.

Super
04-11-2008, 03:49 PM
How was that a dodge? If two armed individuals break into your house, what chance do you or I have? Only an idiot wouldn't hide in that situation. At that point you're not going to know whether they're armed or not, or where they even are. Good look trying to be a hero and getting yourself killed. I probably won't come your funeral. Besides, the average crook makes sure the house is empty and usually runs away if he's spotted. He doesn't go around searching for people in closets. In any case, a decent security system is enough to scare away anyone planning to steal your tv.

You're not going to be able to prove the effectiveness of owning a gun. Don't even try. You're more likely to get hit by a tornado than get killed in a robbery. (In the average white suburban neighborhood)

p00onu
04-11-2008, 04:58 PM
How was that a dodge? If two armed individuals break into your house, what chance do you or I have?

Do you have a better chance of defending yourself with or without a gun?

Super
04-11-2008, 05:38 PM
That's like saying "would you survive better when jumping off a plane with or without a parachute?" The solution is to not jump off the plane. (in this case, stay the **** away from the people with the guns)

CrazyGerbilEater
04-11-2008, 07:37 PM
lol, the problem with trying to take weapons away from americans is that the people who have the guns legally, dont want them taken away. and a few people WILL fight back, as i would. id probaly shoot up my school if they tried to take away my guns, lol. not to mention the huge protests in states that have large populations of hunters.

You can take my gun from my cold dead fingers.

and who couldn't hold their house from two intruders with a pistol? start shooting around a corner, and no intruders going to get close, because their not prepared to actually risk their lives, the guns are only a form of intimidation. theyll probaly piss their pants and run as soon as you start shooting back, or they see you with a gun.

shotguns or semiauto with banana clip ftw. noone in their right mind is going to try to rob you when they see you coming at them with one of those.

hunting is also ftw!!!

guns will never be taken away, any attempt to do so would cause major turmoil in our society.

p00onu
04-11-2008, 11:13 PM
That's like saying "would you survive better when jumping off a plane with or without a parachute?" The solution is to not jump off the plane.

Haha you are still trying to dodge the question. So let me put it simply.

If you are in a situation where you must either defend yourself or face potential death, would you rather have a gun or not?

If you want to compare it to the parachute question: If the plane was going to crash and you were forced to bail out, would you rather have a parachute or not?


(in this case, stay the **** away from the people with the guns)

So when an armed criminal breaks into your home, you tell them to not come closer because you are trying to stay away from people with guns?

Super
04-12-2008, 08:52 AM
Haha you are still trying to dodge the question. So let me put it simply.

If you are in a situation where you must either defend yourself or face potential death, would you rather have a gun or not?

If you want to compare it to the parachute question: If the plane was going to crash and you were forced to bail out, would you rather have a parachute or not?
Why do you keep asking these dumbass questions? If you're forced to face anything dangerous, obviously being prepared is preferred. That's to assume though that this situation is common enough to call for preparations. It's a basic of risk assessment. Millions of middle-class Americans buying guns to prevent something that has a 1 in a hundred thousand chance of happen is just plain stupid. (the something here being that a burglar breaks into your house and does go out of his way to harm you) Why do you think airplanes don't carry parachutes for every passenger?


So when an armed criminal breaks into your home, you tell them to not come closer because you are trying to stay away from people with guns?
If he does feel compelled to find your whereabouts and sees you there saying "don't shoot", he most likely won't shoot. There's tons of factors that can contribute to whether he does fire or not, such as if he was wearing a mask (he might shoot if you know his identity), if he was actually planning to kill you, or if he's just using the gun to scare you from doing anything.

My point is that you don't need a gun unless you live in a dangerous neighborhood. At that point, it's the government's fault for not taking measures to reduce crime in poor areas anyway.

Raistlin
04-12-2008, 11:14 AM
I didn't feel like quoting from two separate posts, but in response to your comment about taking several minutes to find and load your gun, worrying about whether the safety is on or off in the dark, etc., that is pretty unrealistic. You can get to your closet from your bed in about three seconds. You can grab the ammo case, punch in the combination and slide in a clip in about five or six seconds. And anyone who has handled their gun more than once (firing range etc.) knows which way the safety switch has to be turned to fire.


If he does feel compelled to find your whereabouts and sees you there saying "don't shoot", he most likely won't shoot.

That is some pretty optimistic thinking... why would you want to put your life in his hands in the first place?


My point is that you don't need a gun unless you live in a dangerous neighborhood.

There are robberies in nice neighborhoods also. I lived in Okemos, Michigan for a while (an extremely affluent community) and there was a string of home invasions there.


At that point, it's the government's fault for not taking measures to reduce crime in poor areas anyway.

I probably won't take much comfort in that when I'm dying on the floor because I wasn't prepared.

Super
04-12-2008, 11:19 AM
There are robberies in nice neighborhoods also. I lived in Okemos, Michigan for a while (an extremely affluent community) and there was a string of home invasions there.

Was anyone killed?

p00onu
04-12-2008, 02:11 PM
If you're forced to face anything dangerous, obviously being prepared is preferred.

Thank you for proving the point I was making.


That's to assume though that this situation is common enough to call for preparations. It's a basic of risk assessment. Millions of middle-class Americans buying guns to prevent something that has a 1 in a hundred thousand chance of happen is just plain stupid.

If that is how you think, then I suppose you think that childhood vaccinations for millions of children who probably wont come in contact with most of the diseases they were vaccinated against is stupid too.


Why do you think airplanes don't carry parachutes for every passenger?

It would be hard to train every passenger in correct parachute usage. However, why do you think every building has smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Fire extinguisher classes are just as numerous as gun safety classes.


At that point, it's the government's fault for not taking measures to reduce crime in poor areas anyway.

Crime doesnt only happen in poor areas.

Go ahead and rely on the police who have average response times of 10-15 minutes, while by the time they arrive, the crime will have already been committed.


Was anyone killed?

Could someone have been killed?

Super
04-12-2008, 02:31 PM
Thank you for proving the point I was making.
Lulz. Hooray, you convinced me that's its better to be prepared in less-than-likely situations. Maybe I should carry some explosives too just in case I ever get caved in.


If that is how you think, then I suppose you think that childhood vaccinations for millions of children who probably wont come in contact with most of the diseases they were vaccinated against is stupid too.
What? Why would I believe that? Those are two completely different things. If we weren't vaccinated, the disease would spread all over again. The reason we don't come into contact with those diseases is because everyone already has the vaccination so the disease has no way to spread. We have plenty of guns, though. Doesn't seem like crime is being affected much.


It would be hard to train every passenger in correct parachute usage. However, why do you think every building has smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Fire extinguisher classes are just as numerous as gun safety classes.
Fire is more common and much more destructive than murder.



Crime doesnt only happen in poor areas.

Go ahead and rely on the police who have average response times of 10-15 minutes, while by the time they arrive, the crime will have already been committed.
I'll take my chances. I'd much rather have my television stolen than take a chance at getting shot at. But hey, different people, different priorities, right?


Could someone have been killed?
Certainly. A 747 could have fallen from the sky and killed several people.
Seriously, stop with the hypothetical situations.

The very need for so many guns in America is a measure of how much the government has failed. Its sole purpose is to protect its citizens and their property. The failure to upbring a more peaceful society has caused the US to distribute guns like candy since they would much rather have people out there fending for themselves than give up their money-driven way of life to actually help them.

p00onu
04-13-2008, 12:19 PM
Lulz. Hooray, you convinced me that's its better to be prepared in less-than-likely situations. Maybe I should carry some explosives too just in case I ever get caved in.

Heh, If you want to carry a crate of explosives around on your back, that's your problem. A gun however is small, compact, and easy to carry.


What? Why would I believe that? Those are two completely different things. If we weren't vaccinated, the disease would spread all over again. The reason we don't come into contact with those diseases is because everyone already has the vaccination so the disease has no way to spread. We have plenty of guns, though. Doesn't seem like crime is being affected much.

No, they aren't really all that different. You being exposed to any of those diseases is not very likely at all. They vaccinate to protect you from getting sick. People carry guns to protect themselves in situations where their life might be threatened.


Fire is more common and much more destructive than murder.

The liklihood of your home burning down is still very unlikely. Destructive to whom? IMO Murder is pretty damn destructive.


I'll take my chances. I'd much rather have my television stolen than take a chance at getting shot at. But hey, different people, different priorities, right?

I wont take any chances of maybe or maybe not getting shot at. I will shoot back and defend myself. My life and those of my loved ones are my number one priority. Property is next. I will react the same way every time.


The very need for so many guns in America is a measure of how much the government has failed. Its sole purpose is to protect its citizens and their property. The failure to upbring a more peaceful society has caused the US to distribute guns like candy since they would much rather have people out there fending for themselves than give up their money-driven way of life to actually help them.

That is just stupid. You measure government failure on a crime rate? Yeah, cause the ONLY thing the govt. is responsible for is keeping the crime rate low.

If you want to place your life in the hands of the government instead of your own hands, then you have obviously placed too much trust in this govt. that you claim has failed you. Wise decision...

That seems to be more of a gamble with your life than simply being prepared. If that's what you want to do, fine, but dont try to hinder others from protecting themselves.

Chance favors the prepared.

Super
04-13-2008, 01:21 PM
Heh, If you want to carry a crate of explosives around on your back, that's your problem. A gun however is small, compact, and easy to carry.
Explosives can actually be pretty damn small. You can probably fit a c4 charge in your pocket.



No, they aren't really all that different. You being exposed to any of those diseases is not very likely at all. They vaccinate to protect you from getting sick. People carry guns to protect themselves in situations where their life might be threatened.
But I just explained to you that the reason the chances of getting the disease is small is because of the vaccinations. If we didn't vaccinate everyone, the disease would spread again like wildfire.



The liklihood of your home burning down is still very unlikely. Destructive to whom? IMO Murder is pretty damn destructive.
A building catching on fire, depending on its size and if we didn't have fire safety equipment, would cause a fairly large number of casualties and would be very hard to stop from spreading. A guy with a gun that goes haywire would most likely run out of bullets before he could even kill a fraction of the people there. You could say that if the number of guns was proportionate to fire extinguishers and sprinklers, that murder could be prevented as well, but then you would be forgetting that fire extinguishers can only stop the fire whereas guns can stop and start killing sprees.


I wont take any chances of maybe or maybe not getting shot at. I will shoot back and defend myself. My life and those of my loved ones are my number one priority. Property is next. I will react the same way every time.
Seems to me like you'd rather put yourself in the line of fire than let the criminal take your stuff and leave. You sure you have your priorities in line?


That is just stupid. You measure government failure on a crime rate? Yeah, cause the ONLY thing the govt. is responsible for is keeping the crime rate low.
No, the government in it's true essence is to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. This is the foundation for any just government. It has been like that since the beginning of civilization.


If you want to place your life in the hands of the government instead of your own hands, then you have obviously placed too much trust in this govt. that you claim has failed you. Wise decision...
The reason I can't and won't place my trust in my government is because it has failed to achieve its purpose of ensuring my safety.


That seems to be more of a gamble with your life than simply being prepared. If that's what you want to do, fine, but dont try to hinder others from protecting themselves.
The mass distribution of guns is an excuse for the government not to change its ways and actually protect its citizens effectively. If we gave everyone in this country a gun, there would be no reason to have a police force at all. If we were all able to defend ourselves without the help of the government, there would not be a purpose for one. Then we'd just be in anarchy.

Chance favors the prepared.
Irresponsibility causes the need for preparation in this case.

Don't get me wrong, there will always be crime to some extent. I just think it's ridiculous that so many citizens are arming themselves because they're afraid for their lives. We're obviously doing something wrong that goes far beyond gun control. The truth is the government we have now isn't "for the people, by the people", it's "for some people, by some people, and the rest can fend for themselves". No amount of guns or lack of guns will decrease crime. The people that want to do bad things will be just as frequent. The number of guns out there only decreases their chances of getting away. Would you rather build a lot of prisons or not need to put any people in prison? The government we have now is willing to build as many prisons as it needs instead changing the things that are causing so many people to do fucked up things in the first place.

p00onu
04-13-2008, 03:28 PM
Explosives can actually be pretty damn small. You can probably fit a c4 charge in your pocket.

Well the size and quantity of the explosives needed to get you out of the situation can be argued so let's save that for another thread.


But I just explained to you that the reason the chances of getting the disease is small is because of the vaccinations. If we didn't vaccinate everyone, the disease would spread again like wildfire.

If America was completely disarmed, crime rates would go up.


A building catching on fire, depending on its size and if we didn't have fire safety equipment, would cause a fairly large number of casualties and would be very hard to stop from spreading. A guy with a gun that goes haywire would most likely run out of bullets before he could even kill a fraction of the people there. You could say that if the number of guns was proportionate to fire extinguishers and sprinklers, that murder could be prevented as well, but then you would be forgetting that fire extinguishers can only stop the fire whereas guns can stop and start killing sprees.

There are fires with and without casuaties. Just like there are with crimes. Fire extinguishers can save lives just as an armed and responsible citizen can.

Case in point:
Suzanna Gratia Hupp remembers reaching for a butter knife as a madman shot her parents dead at a packed cafeteria one cold October day in 1991.

"I was looking for a weapon, any weapon, because my handgun was 100 feet away, outside in my car. I made an incredibly stupid decision to follow the law, and that cost my family's lives," she says as she reflects on the massacre that ended with 24 people dead inside the Luby's Cafeteria at Killeen, a military town in Central Texas.

"A gun is not a guarantee, it simply changes the odds," says Hupp, 37

If she had her gun with her in that restaurant, she would have had a much better chance to defend her parents and herself.


Seems to me like you'd rather put yourself in the line of fire than let the criminal take your stuff and leave. You sure you have your priorities in line?

Yes. I will not take the chance that the criminal may or may not attempt to harm me. I have formal firearms training for tactical application. I am confident that I have far more training than your average criminal and If someone would like to break into my house, then they better be ready to deal with my Glock 22 packing 162 grain hollowpoints. I have the training and I go and practice at the range monthly. This is far more than your average criminal posesses.


The reason I can't and won't place my trust in my government is because it has failed to achieve its purpose of ensuring my safety.

Yes, it has, so who is left to ensure your safety?


The mass distribution of guns is an excuse for the government not to change its ways and actually protect its citizens effectively. If we gave everyone in this country a gun, there would be no reason to have a police force at all. If we were all able to defend ourselves without the help of the government, there would not be a purpose for one. Then we'd just be in anarchy.

I disagree. The arming of trained and responsible citizens coupled with a police force has already been proven in other countries. Take Switzerland for example.


Irresponsibility causes the need for preparation in this case.

The irresponsibility of the government perhaps. Dont expect that to change anytime soon. Your safety is ultimately your responsibility. Criminals in this case and the need for preparation. You will never eliminate crime, so you best be prepared to deal with it when/if you ever have to. Hiding and/or running away will not always work.


Don't get me wrong, there will always be crime to some extent. I just think it's ridiculous that so many citizens are arming themselves because they're afraid for their lives. We're obviously doing something wrong that goes far beyond gun control. The truth is the government we have now isn't "for the people, by the people", it's "for some people, by some people, and the rest can fend for themselves". No amount of guns or lack of guns will decrease crime. The people that want to do bad things will be just as frequent. The number of guns out there only decreases their chances of getting away. Would you rather build a lot of prisons or not need to put any people in prison? The government we have now is willing to build as many prisons as it needs instead changing the things that are causing so many people to do fucked up things in the first place.

Gun control only helps criminals. They will always find a way to get a gun, while your law abiding citizens who cannot get a gun are left defenseless. Yes there are police, but where are they when you really need them? 10 minutes away usually. You say no amount of guns or or lack thereof will decrease crime. You contradict that earlier when you discussed guns being proportional to fire extinguishers. Sure guns can start and stop killing sprees.
But if everyone in an area is armed, and one person starts a shooting spree. There are a lot of armed people to stop that person rather than a bunch of people doing nothing.

The prison thing doesnt really help or hinder your argument.

Dont get me wrong. I'm not in support of handing out guns to the masses like candy. I'm in favor of less restrictive gun laws where the law abiding citizen is able to procure the necessary means for home defense. Im not in support of every Joe Shmoe carrying a gun on them. I am in support of right to carry laws where Concealed Carry Weapons Permits are issued to any qualifying person who applies for one. Mind you, CCWs are issued only after a person has gone throught a background check, the proper training, and has demonstrated proficiency and knowledge of both the firearm they intend to carry and of local, state, and federal laws.

Super
04-13-2008, 04:08 PM
If America was completely disarmed, crime rates would go up.
You can't prove that and I can't disprove that, so lets not go there.


There are fires with and without casuaties. Just like there are with crimes. Fire extinguishers can save lives just as an armed and responsible citizen can.
That little anecdote of the lady in the cafeteria is a perfect example of how this is not happening. It seems like most people who own guns aren't very responsible or even armed at the right time.


Yes. I will not take the chance that the criminal may or may not attempt to harm me. I have formal firearms training for tactical application. I am confident that I have far more training than your average criminal and If someone would like to break into my house, then they better be ready to deal with my Glock 22 packing 162 grain hollowpoints. I have the training and I go and practice at the range monthly. This is far more than your average criminal posesses.
It's also far more than the average citizen with a handgun possesses. So why don't we require mandatory military training for every citizen? That way everyone will be responsible with a gun. Oh, I know why, it's because that would bode very expensive and detrimental to the government.



Yes, it has, so who is left to ensure your safety?

Myself, but that hardly requires a gun.


I disagree. The arming of trained and responsible citizens coupled with a police force has already been proven in other countries. Take Switzerland for example.
But achieving what Switzerland has would require a change on our government's behalf. Like I said before, our current government isn't very fond of change.


The irresponsibility of the government perhaps. Dont expect that to change anytime soon. Your safety is ultimately your responsibility. Criminals in this case and the need for preparation. You will never eliminate crime, so you best be prepared to deal with it when/if you ever have to. Hiding and/or running away will not always work.
And it's a sad fact that every American should be ashamed of.



Gun control only helps criminals. They will always find a way to get a gun, while your law abiding citizens who cannot get a gun are left defenseless. Yes there are police, but where are they when you really need them? 10 minutes away usually. You say no amount of guns or or lack thereof will decrease crime. You contradict that earlier when you discussed guns being proportional to fire extinguishers. Sure guns can start and stop killing sprees.
But if everyone in an area is armed, and one person starts a shooting spree. There are a lot of armed people to stop that person rather than a bunch of people doing nothing.
But again, this isn't the situation. What you're trying to achieve is improbable. It's just as hard to train a responsible gun-wielding society at this point as it is to raise a society that won't be so bent on crime.


The prison thing doesnt really help or hinder your argument.
But it does. All the problems with crime lie in the government and in society.
I'm just pointing out the mentality of such government of society. If that mentality doesn't change, neither what you want nor what I want will occur.

Dont get me wrong. I'm not in support of handing out guns to the masses like candy. I'm in favor of less restrictive gun laws where the law abiding citizen is able to procure the necessary means for home defense. Im not in support of every Joe Shmoe carrying a gun on them. I am in support of right to carry laws where Concealed Carry Weapons Permits are issued to any qualifying person who applies for one. Mind you, CCWs are issued only after a person has gone throught a background check, the proper training, and has demonstrated proficiency and knowledge of both the firearm they intend to carry and of local, state, and federal laws.
Most people won't go through the trouble. It would also take a significant amount of people to do this before crime could be impacted in any way.

nano351
04-13-2008, 05:29 PM
How was that a dodge? If two armed individuals break into your house, what chance do you or I have? Only an idiot wouldn't hide in that situation. At that point you're not going to know whether they're armed or not, or where they even are. Good look trying to be a hero and getting yourself killed. I probably won't come your funeral. Besides, the average crook makes sure the house is empty and usually runs away if he's spotted. He doesn't go around searching for people in closets. In any case, a decent security system is enough to scare away anyone planning to steal your tv.

You're not going to be able to prove the effectiveness of owning a gun. Don't even try. You're more likely to get hit by a tornado than get killed in a robbery. (In the average white suburban neighborhood)
erm perhaps you should learn how to use the gun before trying to attack people with it. A simple semi-auto 12 gage would do fine. Easy to load and the saftey's right next to the trigger :big_smile:

Raistlin
04-14-2008, 08:49 AM
Was anyone killed?

Nice attempt at obfuscating the fact that you were wrong about home invasions only occuring in bad neighborhoods.

The question isn't whether anyone was killed, the question is whether anyone was at risk of being killed. The answer is yes.

And yes, there was a robbery in a townhouse that ended up with three people about my age being shot in the back of the head execution style.

nano351
04-14-2008, 01:53 PM
hm usually when someone robs a home they are very careful to get a house when no one is home. Also they usually won't bring a gun because if they get caught then it will be much worse if they have that gun with them.

Raistlin
04-14-2008, 01:56 PM
"Usually" isn't good enough for me when it comes to life threatening situations.

Super
04-14-2008, 02:31 PM
Nice attempt at obfuscating the fact that you were wrong about home invasions only occuring in bad neighborhoods.
I never said only. I said most. It's a fact that richer neighborhoods have significantly lower crime rates than a slum.


The question isn't whether anyone was killed, the question is whether anyone was at risk of being killed. The answer is yes.

No, that's exactly what the question isn't. Everyone is at risk of getting killed at every moment of their lives. It all comes down to chance. Risk doesn't justify rash action. Our society has already proven that it can't handle firearms effectively. It would be fairly simple to devise a personal defense device that doesn't use deadly force. Tasers could be plenty effective as it is. It makes no sense to distribute things to the masses that can do as much damage as it prevents.


And yes, there was a robbery in a townhouse that ended up with three people about my age being shot in the back of the head execution style.
So because one of the robbers out of the entire string of robberies killed 3 people, that means the entire neighborhood should arm itself? I want to see a link to the news article, also.

p00onu
04-14-2008, 09:48 PM
You can't prove that and I can't disprove that, so lets not go there.

Fair enough.


That little anecdote of the lady in the cafeteria is a perfect example of how this is not happening. It seems like most people who own guns aren't very responsible or even armed at the right time.

Wrong. In the article, it states that she was authorized to carry a concealed weapon. Meaning she was trained, responsible, and authorized to carry a firearm. However, the current gun laws prohibited her from carrying that weapon inside a restaurant. That law obviously didnt hinder the man who decided to kill all those people in there. Since she followed the law, she was unarmed and defenseless. Where was the government? The police didn't arrive until after the shooting had taken place and all those people were murdered. But it's ok because we already established that the govt. has failed to protect the people.


It's also far more than the average citizen with a handgun possesses. So why don't we require mandatory military training for every citizen? That way everyone will be responsible with a gun. Oh, I know why, it's because that would bode very expensive and detrimental to the government.

Maybe so, but I dont have military training. I am a civilian who has decided to get a CCW when I turn 21, and has thus gone and acquired the necessary training to afford me such a permit. As stated earlier, CCW holders put themseves through the training needed for the permit. The government only profits from the sale of the permits.


Myself, but that hardly requires a gun.

So put yourself in that texas restaurant where the man came in and killed all those people. You would be content in defending yourself with a pocketknife?


But achieving what Switzerland has would require a change on our government's behalf. Like I said before, our current government isn't very fond of change.

Indeed, but it has been established that such a system works.


But again, this isn't the situation. What you're trying to achieve is improbable. It's just as hard to train a responsible gun-wielding society at this point as it is to raise a society that won't be so bent on crime.

I'm not saying that the govt. is responsible for the training of the citizens. I believe that a responsible gun-wielding society should come from the active participation and interest of the citizens who wish to partake in such a venture. I think that a gun-wielding society would help to create a society less bent on crime. Think about it. If you are a criminal, would you be more or less inclined to commit a crime against someone if there is a good chance they are armed?


Most people won't go through the trouble. It would also take a significant amount of people to do this before crime could be impacted in any way.

I think there are plenty of people who would be willing to go through the trouble if the laws permitted them. For example, in California, it is almost nearly impossible to get a CCW, and in some states you simply cant. Yes it would take a significant amount of people, but as with most new things, it takes time to get the ball rolling and to gain popularity. It would take some time, but I believe it would be effective.


Risk doesn't justify rash action.

It depends on the risk.


Our society has already proven that it can't handle firearms effectively.

How so?


It would be fairly simple to devise a personal defense device that doesn't use deadly force. Tasers could be plenty effective as it is. It makes no sense to distribute things to the masses that can do as much damage as it prevents.

Tasers are gaining popularity yes. But they also have their drawbacks. For example you get one shot to nail em with the prongs, after that you must be face to face to use it at which point you could be overpowered. I'm sorry but if I'm put in a life threatening situation, I want the advantage. If someone has a gun and intends to do me harm, I want a gun too. Why should we not be afforded the same level of force to respond with as may be used upon us?


So because one of the robbers out of the entire string of robberies killed 3 people, that means the entire neighborhood should arm itself?

Those who would like to arm themselves should be allowed to. What's to say that it wont happen to you? Likely or not.

From what I gather, it seems that you think I am in favor of throwing a gun in everyone's hands and turning the public loose. I am most certainly not. I am in favor of arming those who want to be armed and are willing to get the necessary training and carry the responsibility. If you dont want to arm yourself then that's fine. Just please dont try to hinder those who wish to be afforded the right to defend themselves with a firearm.

Zhuinden
04-15-2008, 12:39 PM
The thread was too long so I read only the first and the fourth pages, but I think it's fair enough.

Here in Europe, or at least in Hungary, you cannot own a firearm unless you're either a cop or a hunter. You must pay a ****load of cash to become a Hunter though, it's not one of the cheapest things out there. Now, how many shootings have there been in the last few years at schools because some kid was humiliated or had a bad life as a child? Oh wait, I personally don't remember any, but I'm sure there haven't been as many as in the USA. Searching for shootings at schools in hungarian gave me many links that are related to shootings in Chicago, Virginia Tech, Estonia, Finland, etc etc.

So over here, it's not a big deal that you don't have a firearm. Of course, there are a few law twists that make this country stupid, but this isn't the one. There are hardly any shootings, unlike in the USA, where you can just walk into a store and say "I'd like to buy a pistol" and the next day a whole classroom of people are murdered.

About the discussion of the law-abiding people and those who just go berserk and become "criminal"... I think there are fewer people who actually are already criminal and have psychological problems and go kill people with guns than those who are normally law-abiding people, but one day, so many stuff happen to them that it all gets added together, and they get enraged and get filled with hatred, and actually go on a killing spree. Life sucks, that's why it's more likely. Some people can take it well, some people can't. Some people don't care that life is supposed to have a high value, some people do. Those who don't, and experience a ****load of bad stuff go on these berserk rampages.

There is always a reason why someone starts murdering people, but the media and the huge lot of stupid people don't care. That's the problem. There's usually a valid reason behind it.


In my opinion, people shouldn't be whining about how many shootings there are, if they mash their claws into their freedom of self-protection when the reason why there are so many shootings is because that freedom can be abused this way. It would be easier if it were illegal, and all weapons would be confiscated. It's not like a random person would go buy a pistol from the blackmarket for 10x of the price they could get it in the shop, it's too expensive and a normal person doesn't have access to the black market. The rates of homicide commited with guns would significantly decrease.

Although this is pretty much what Super said so I guess I haven't really said anything new, regardless. Sorry! ^^ I completely approve what Super said though.

Raistlin
04-16-2008, 05:14 AM
I never said only. I said most. It's a fact that richer neighborhoods have significantly lower crime rates than a slum.

Your words were "My point is that you don't need a gun unless you live in a dangerous neighborhood". The victims of crime in affluent neighborhoods would take issue with this blanket statement.


Everyone is at risk of getting killed at every moment of their lives. It all comes down to chance. Risk doesn't justify rash action.

There's nothing rash about a responsible citizen owning a legal firearm for protection/hunting/sport. It's a fundamental right written into the constitution.


It makes no sense to distribute things to the masses that can do as much damage as it prevents.

For your argument to carry any weight you would have to agree that the first course of action is to ban the things that only do damage and prevent nothing. Cigarettes... alcohol... fatty foods...

In the hands of a resonsible citizen, a firearm does not do as much damage as it prevents. And the responsible citizen is the one who will be disarmed, while leaving firearms in the hands of the criminals who will not respect the ban.


So because one of the robbers out of the entire string of robberies killed 3 people, that means the entire neighborhood should arm itself?

The victims of all robberies (not only those who were killed - you have a right to protect your property as well) would have been better off if they had exercised their constitutional right to own a firearm - and you can't know ahead of time whether you will be the one to have your home invaded, so the responsible citizen is wise to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.


I want to see a link to the news article, also.

Good luck finding one then, I'm certainly not going to spend half my day looking for it. My argument does not rise or fall on the basis of examples specifically from Okemos - it's a fact that home invasions occur in affluent communities on a regular basis.

Raistlin
04-16-2008, 05:20 AM
The thread was too long so I read only the first and the fourth pages, but I think it's fair enough.

Here in Europe, or at least in Hungary, you cannot own a firearm unless you're either a cop or a hunter. You must pay a ****load of cash to become a Hunter though, it's not one of the cheapest things out there. Now, how many shootings have there been in the last few years at schools because some kid was humiliated or had a bad life as a child? Oh wait, I personally don't remember any, but I'm sure there haven't been as many as in the USA. Searching for shootings at schools in hungarian gave me many links that are related to shootings in Chicago, Virginia Tech, Estonia, Finland, etc etc.

So over here, it's not a big deal that you don't have a firearm. Of course, there are a few law twists that make this country stupid, but this isn't the one. There are hardly any shootings, unlike in the USA, where you can just walk into a store and say "I'd like to buy a pistol" and the next day a whole classroom of people are murdered.

About the discussion of the law-abiding people and those who just go berserk and become "criminal"... I think there are fewer people who actually are already criminal and have psychological problems and go kill people with guns than those who are normally law-abiding people, but one day, so many stuff happen to them that it all gets added together, and they get enraged and get filled with hatred, and actually go on a killing spree. Life sucks, that's why it's more likely. Some people can take it well, some people can't. Some people don't care that life is supposed to have a high value, some people do. Those who don't, and experience a ****load of bad stuff go on these berserk rampages.

There is always a reason why someone starts murdering people, but the media and the huge lot of stupid people don't care. That's the problem. There's usually a valid reason behind it.


In my opinion, people shouldn't be whining about how many shootings there are, if they mash their claws into their freedom of self-protection when the reason why there are so many shootings is because that freedom can be abused this way. It would be easier if it were illegal, and all weapons would be confiscated. It's not like a random person would go buy a pistol from the blackmarket for 10x of the price they could get it in the shop, it's too expensive and a normal person doesn't have access to the black market. The rates of homicide commited with guns would significantly decrease.

Although this is pretty much what Super said so I guess I haven't really said anything new, regardless. Sorry! ^^ I completely approve what Super said though.

You should read the rest of the thread, as most of what you said has been dealt with already.

Azu
04-16-2008, 07:57 AM
There's nothing rash about a responsible citizen owning a legal firearmActually I think he was saying that if firearms are legal, it's easier for IRRESPONSIBLE citizens to get firearms, and that's the problem, not responsible citizens getting them.



ban the things that only do damage and prevent nothing. Cigarettes... alcohol... fatty foods...Agreed.

Raistlin
04-16-2008, 08:08 AM
Actually I think he was saying that if firearms are legal, it's easier for IRRESPONSIBLE citizens to get firearms, and that's the problem, not responsible citizens getting them.

He was arguing that risk (of home invasion) doesn't justify rash action (owning a gun for protection). My response is that there is nothing rash about a responsible citizen owning a gun for protection. Irresponsible citizens are certainly a problem. But the solution isn't a ban on firearms. A ban would take firearms out of the hands of many, many responsible citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals who don't respect the ban.

Mobilus
04-16-2008, 08:40 AM
He was arguing that risk (of home invasion) doesn't justify rash action (owning a gun for protection). My response is that there is nothing rash about a responsible citizen owning a gun for protection. Irresponsible citizens are certainly a problem. But the solution isn't a ban on firearms. A ban would take firearms out of the hands of many, many responsible citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals who don't respect the ban.
However we do have to weigh that against all of the crimes committed by legally-purchased weapons. I wonder if there are any statistics or data on amount of crime prevented or estimated deterred by legally-owned firearms vs. the amount of crime and death and injury that they cause.

Raistlin
04-16-2008, 08:50 AM
However we do have to weigh that against all of the crimes committed by legally-purchased weapons. I wonder if there are any statistics or data on amount of crime prevented or estimated deterred by legally-owned firearms vs. the amount of crime and death and injury that they cause.

I get your point, but the statistics wouldn't be all that useful since many of the crimes committed with a legally purchased firearm would still be committed in absence of the legally purchased firearm (either using an illegal firearm or a different weapon). We would need a statistic on how many of the crimes committed with legal firearms would actually not have occured in absence of the legal firearm and I don't know how one would come up with that statistic.

Mobilus
04-16-2008, 02:09 PM
Good point, many one on one acts of violence could still possibly have occurred with knives, blunt objects etc., whereas multi-kills like the VA-Tech. massacre would not have been as possible (though possibly still possible with bombs but bombs are illegal anyway but not the components to make them....(although making bombs is not as easy as going out and buying a gun and then pulling its trigger)).


It is easy to look at Europe which has banned guns and try to compare, however, I know there are many cultural differences as well as other civic differences but at the end of the day we have to look at the best stuff we've got and Europe is as close as we are gonna get for statistical analysis purposes to the US.

Azu
04-17-2008, 11:36 AM
criminals who don't respect the ban.Isn't it the government's job to enforce the law and make sure people DO follow it?

Having to fight for yourself to defend your property is the same as the old "wild wild west", isn't it?

p00onu
04-17-2008, 06:05 PM
Isn't it the government's job to enforce the law and make sure people DO follow it?

Having to fight for yourself to defend your property is the same as the old "wild wild west", isn't it?

They dont have the manpower or resources to endure EVERY person in the USA follows the law at every given moment.

No, it isn't. It will always be that way. Society will always have criminals.

Super
04-17-2008, 06:16 PM
Society will always have criminals.
That doesn't justify standing back and not doing anything to reduce the number of them. There's plenty of things we could like, oh... prohibition? Fire arms are just a defense against the problem. They're not actually solving anything. That catalysts that create criminals are there, and even though the idea of you being able to defend yourself with a gun might deter them, they'll still have the mentality to do bad.

CrazyGerbilEater
04-17-2008, 06:21 PM
(although making bombs is not as easy as going out and buying a gun and then pulling its trigger)).
.

making bombs is infinitly easier, i could go out in my garage, 3 hours of work id have enough bombs to take out a fair sized restraunt by myself, just come in with 2 bags, eat, leave a bag, walk over to other side of resteraunt, then leave. program my calculater to set them off(already done btw, was doing it for fun).

bombs are alot easier to make than most people relize.

or give me a week and i could take out an office building, i can buy fireworks, dismantle them, and make some tnt(homemade tnt), set some bags around some support columns, or just put them on different floors where lots of people are.

if you are really out to kill someone, youll find a way to do it. a gun is simply the first thought. id rather a criminal or some angry person to take a gun and go on a rampage, then stop, plan, and use homemade explosives.

Mobilus
04-17-2008, 07:19 PM
making bombs is infinitly easier, i could go out in my garage, 3 hours of work id have enough bombs to take out a fair sized restraunt by myself, just come in with 2 bags, eat, leave a bag, walk over to other side of resteraunt, then leave. program my calculater to set them off(already done btw, was doing it for fun).

bombs are alot easier to make than most people relize.

or give me a week and i could take out an office building, i can buy fireworks, dismantle them, and make some tnt(homemade tnt), set some bags around some support columns, or just put them on different floors where lots of people are.

if you are really out to kill someone, youll find a way to do it. a gun is simply the first thought. id rather a criminal or some angry person to take a gun and go on a rampage, then stop, plan, and use homemade explosives.

...except that in massacres like Columbine they used BOTH guns and bombs....

Do you really want to maximize all possible vectors of death by giving them both to choose from?

Besides, making a bomb big enough to take out a building from common materials is hard work, requiring several hours of effort and the end product is not nearly as compact as a firearm and would arouse suspicion if you wanted to lug around a bomb and hide it somewhere.

Conclusion: people who use bombs have often used guns anyway or had guns available so getting rid of guns does nothing to increase the likelihood of people turning to bombs.

If you want to see a bomb infested society look at Israel-Palestine. During periods of prohibition of firearms and when firearms were legal the bombings didn't really change frequency of happening. Granted there is a war going on but what we're trying to look at is in the worst case scenario what would the removal of guns do in light of preventing and/or not preventing death/injury in a modern society.

p00onu
04-17-2008, 11:01 PM
That doesn't justify standing back and not doing anything to reduce the number of them. There's plenty of things we could like, oh... prohibition? Fire arms are just a defense against the problem. They're not actually solving anything. That catalysts that create criminals are there, and even though the idea of you being able to defend yourself with a gun might deter them, they'll still have the mentality to do bad.

Yes, however this is a mute point seeing as we already came to the agreement that it's the government's job to do something about it and it hasn't. Prohibition didn't really work and it was repealed.

Yes, they will still have the mentality to do bad, which pretty much supports my point that there will always be criminals.

The fact that there will always be criminals and the govt. isnt doing anything about it is the reason I want to be able to defend myself with a firearm.

Azu
04-17-2008, 11:59 PM
No, it isn't. It will always be that way.Do you mean it isn't, or do you mean it is?

Otaku
04-18-2008, 09:40 AM
How many people are addicted to guns and use them frequently as opposed to people addicted to alcohol and drink frequently? :rolleyes:

CrazyGerbilEater
04-18-2008, 12:07 PM
How many people are addicted to guns and use them frequently as opposed to people addicted to alcohol and drink frequently? :rolleyes:

any person who lives out of city limits, most of them farms, they use their guns very often, every day or other day. when i go out to talk with my dads friends, they have rifles sitting up next to things near them so if they see a crow or somthing they want to shoot, they can do so.

and how would police moniter these farms, the answer is they cant. a few may be caught, but overall people will just continue to use their guns. hiding a gun is simple, so just confiscating them wont answer it. it will all go underground, making it actually easier to aquire guns illegally since the underground market will be that much more active and widespread.

Otaku
04-18-2008, 12:13 PM
Addicted was the key word. :p

CrazyGerbilEater
04-18-2008, 12:41 PM
Addicted was the key word. :p

define addicted

Otaku
04-18-2008, 01:37 PM
Addicted as in alcoholism...

Azu
04-18-2008, 02:46 PM
define addictedHaving an urge to do something even though there is no logical reason to.

CrazyGerbilEater
04-18-2008, 03:49 PM
have you never gone out and shot a gun into a dirt mound spontaniously??

if not your missing something.

or squirrel hunting, fun

Azu
04-18-2008, 09:19 PM
Me? No. I don't like to kill without reason.

CrazyGerbilEater
04-19-2008, 08:44 AM
dont like squirrel?? bit tough to eat, but otherwise its fine.

plus squirrels are annoying, takeing them out is helping by keeping the pests under control.

i shoot crows on sight, i HATE THEM.

Azu
04-19-2008, 11:14 AM
If I killed anything that ever annoyed me by neighborhood would be empty.

p00onu
04-20-2008, 09:03 AM
Hey guys, this isn't the lets talk about shooting anything we want to thread. So lets try to keep this on the topic of gun control.

Also, Super I'm still waiting for your reply to: http://www.bwhacks.com/forums/574434-post62.html

I was rather enjoying our discussion.

Super
04-20-2008, 10:13 AM
Wrong. In the article, it states that she was authorized to carry a concealed weapon. Meaning she was trained, responsible, and authorized to carry a firearm. However, the current gun laws prohibited her from carrying that weapon inside a restaurant. That law obviously didnt hinder the man who decided to kill all those people in there. Since she followed the law, she was unarmed and defenseless. Where was the government? The police didn't arrive until after the shooting had taken place and all those people were murdered. But it's ok because we already established that the govt. has failed to protect the people.
Most murders aren't killing sprees. By the time she got her gun, a few people would already have been killed anyway. But I already agreed with you that there's nothing wrong with people that prove themselves responsible enough to effectively use and conceal a firearm carrying one. I think if you pass the background check you were talking about earlier, you should be allowed to bring the gun into places like restaurants. That's really besides the point, though, considering most people with guns don't go through those background checks. You can't decide things like these based on an anecdote. (refer to what I say further down about mass murders)


Maybe so, but I dont have military training. I am a civilian who has decided to get a CCW when I turn 21, and has thus gone and acquired the necessary training to afford me such a permit. As stated earlier, CCW holders put themseves through the training needed for the permit. The government only profits from the sale of the permits.
The thing is though, most of the people that get ccw's are concentrated in certain areas. If you go to shoot up a public place in Texas (and the law you were talking about earlier isn't in effect), chances are you'll get killed by someone with a ccw. If it's in a place with less crime, you'll most likely end up killing everyone. Mass murders are most often very random considering an insane person can grow up anywhere, unlike blue-collar murders which occur mostly in desperate neighborhoods.



So put yourself in that texas restaurant where the man came in and killed all those people. You would be content in defending yourself with a pocketknife?
No, but I'd still have pretty high chances if I had that taser.


Indeed, but it has been established that such a system works.
In a society vastly different from ours.



I'm not saying that the govt. is responsible for the training of the citizens. I believe that a responsible gun-wielding society should come from the active participation and interest of the citizens who wish to partake in such a venture. I think that a gun-wielding society would help to create a society less bent on crime. Think about it. If you are a criminal, would you be more or less inclined to commit a crime against someone if there is a good chance they are armed?

If you're a criminal, you usually don't take the time to reason things like that. Think about it, if you think you can kill a person and not get caught, you probably have the same delusion that you can kill a person before they get a chance to respond with their gun. And in cases like those mass murders, chances are the killer ends up committing suicide anyway, and if he doesn't he ends up going to jail and gets the death penalty. The fact that there might be someone with a ccw there probably wont matter too much.


I think there are plenty of people who would be willing to go through the trouble if the laws permitted them. For example, in California, it is almost nearly impossible to get a CCW, and in some states you simply cant. Yes it would take a significant amount of people, but as with most new things, it takes time to get the ball rolling and to gain popularity. It would take some time, but I believe it would be effective.
That's putting a lot of faith into society. Do you really think society can change in that single aspect without having to change other aspects as well?



It depends on the risk.
You're more likely to get killed in a car accident. That doesn't mean you should stop driving. What's even funnier is that theres so many people that carry a gun and smoke at the same time, when smoking has such a larger chance of killing you.


How so?
We have one of the highest crime rates in the world among industrialized nations. You'd think with all these people with guns, crime would be affected. It's not.


Tasers are gaining popularity yes. But they also have their drawbacks. For example you get one shot to nail em with the prongs, after that you must be face to face to use it at which point you could be overpowered. I'm sorry but if I'm put in a life threatening situation, I want the advantage. If someone has a gun and intends to do me harm, I want a gun too. Why should we not be afforded the same level of force to respond with as may be used upon us?

If someone one breaks into your house, a taser would be plenty effective. You also have the same chance of missing with a gun, giving the criminal enough time to respond and kill you. And theres nothing stopping us from inventing a more effective non-lethal weapon. The answer to your question is because being afforded that level of force also affords the criminal with that level of force since he most likely got his gun the same way you did, or at least just as easily. I guarantee you if guns were strictly banned, more criminals would revert back to knives than pay a **** load of money for a gun from the black market. Like petty robberies for example. If you're going to a convenient store to steal $80 for the register, you're not going to go out and spend $2000 on a gun. (mostly likely because you don't have $2000)


Those who would like to arm themselves should be allowed to. What's to say that it wont happen to you? Likely or not.
Like I said, I'll take my chances. There's so many things that can randomly kill me.


From what I gather, it seems that you think I am in favor of throwing a gun in everyone's hands and turning the public loose. I am most certainly not. I am in favor of arming those who want to be armed and are willing to get the necessary training and carry the responsibility. If you dont want to arm yourself then that's fine. Just please dont try to hinder those who wish to be afforded the right to defend themselves with a firearm.
It doesn't matter what you're in favor of, it's what's actually going on that matters. It's too late to only arm those that have the necessary training and use their gun responsibly. There's a ton of people that have a gun that couldn't defend themselves with it if their life depended on it. But aside from that, only arming the trained and responsible would end up in less gun distribution, so you're in agreement with me that more guns won't solve the problem. (at least not now, taking into account what you said about it taking time)

But seriously, wouldn't it be easier and more effective to change society in a way that won't bring up so many criminals than change society in a way where everyone (or at least a significant amount of people) are trained to kill? I know it would probably be less convenient, but having to worry about getting shot all the time can't be any more convenient.

Azu
04-20-2008, 12:18 PM
Like I said, I'll take my chances. There's so many things that can randomly kill me.

I don't think he's saying thieves are more likely to kill him then driving a car and/or smoking.

I think he means that if he never goes near any roads, never smokes, never eats unhealthy food, and he kills all the thieves, then there will be less chance of him dieing, so that's what he'll do.

Super
04-20-2008, 01:14 PM
Or you can enjoy life as it is and accept your fate when it comes. There's about 4 gun deaths per 100,000 people each year, yet 40% of households in America have a gun. That's a .004% chance of you getting killed by a gun every year. When you take into account that a lot of those deaths occur in areas of high crime and that many American households out of those 40% live in low-crime suburbs, there's really no point in arming yourself.

Azu
04-20-2008, 03:17 PM
Some people are just afraid of everything though, so they don't want to leave their homes and they don't want to be unarmed. It won't do any good to try to talk him out of it.

p00onu
04-20-2008, 03:51 PM
No, but I'd still have pretty high chances if I had that taser.

Ok. Keep in mind, you still only get one shot with the taser.


If you're a criminal, you usually don't take the time to reason things like that. Think about it, if you think you can kill a person and not get caught, you probably have the same delusion that you can kill a person before they get a chance to respond with their gun. And in cases like those mass murders, chances are the killer ends up committing suicide anyway, and if he doesn't he ends up going to jail and gets the death penalty. The fact that there might be someone with a ccw there probably wont matter too much.

I think that criminals who give some thought to their crimes would take that into account. The person with the ccw could make all the difference between many or few people getting killed. Just because the mass murderer will usually end up dead doesn't mean those who ended up dead because of it dont matter.


That's putting a lot of faith into society. Do you really think society can change in that single aspect without having to change other aspects as well?

Yes and no. I think we have the capacity for such change. I bet you back in the 1800's we never thought slaves would be free. Look how far we have come in that respect.


We have one of the highest crime rates in the world among industrialized nations. You'd think with all these people with guns, crime would be affected. It's not.

That depends on too far too many factors, lets not go there.


If someone one breaks into your house, a taser would be plenty effective. You also have the same chance of missing with a gun, giving the criminal enough time to respond and kill you. And theres nothing stopping us from inventing a more effective non-lethal weapon. The answer to your question is because being afforded that level of force also affords the criminal with that level of force since he most likely got his gun the same way you did, or at least just as easily. I guarantee you if guns were strictly banned, more criminals would revert back to knives than pay a **** load of money for a gun from the black market. Like petty robberies for example. If you're going to a convenient store to steal $80 for the register, you're not going to go out and spend $2000 on a gun. (mostly likely because you don't have $2000)

You dont have the same chance of not hitting your assailant with a gun. With a gun you get many more shots than you do with a taser. I dont see how you can simply expect criminals to revert back to knives if guns were banned simply based on price.


Like I said, I'll take my chances. There's so many things that can randomly kill me.

Do you swim during thunderstorms? Probably not, you are taking a precaution of staying out of the water just in case lightning struck you. You have a greater chance of falling victim to a violent crime yet you still take precaution to reduce the risk of dieing from lightning but not from arming yourself to protect you in the event of a violent crime?


It doesn't matter what you're in favor of, it's what's actually going on that matters. It's too late to only arm those that have the necessary training and use their gun responsibly. There's a ton of people that have a gun that couldn't defend themselves with it if their life depended on it. But aside from that, only arming the trained and responsible would end up in less gun distribution, so you're in agreement with me that more guns won't solve the problem. (at least not now, taking into account what you said about it taking time)

There is also a ton of people who could defend themselves with a gun if their life depended on it. You are misinterpreting what the use of "gun distributing" is here. I'm discussing carrying concealed weapons via permit. You are talking about only letting people with a ccw own a gun. If you want to own a gunt for sport or what have you, that's fine. But if you want to CARRY it that is different. I dont want to disarm those who dont wish to carry a weapon yet still own one. Dont confuse what I am trying to say here.


But seriously, wouldn't it be easier and more effective to change society in a way that won't bring up so many criminals than change society in a way where everyone (or at least a significant amount of people) are trained to kill? I know it would probably be less convenient, but having to worry about getting shot all the time can't be any more convenient.

No, why do you think that trained and responsible citizens carrying firearms for defense is going to increase the likelihood of you getting shot?


Or you can enjoy life as it is and accept your fate when it comes. There's about 4 gun deaths per 100,000 people each year, yet 40% of households in America have a gun. That's a .004% chance of you getting killed by a gun every year. When you take into account that a lot of those deaths occur in areas of high crime and that many American households out of those 40% live in low-crime suburbs, there's really no point in arming yourself.

You got any sources for those stats?

Super
04-20-2008, 04:20 PM
Ok. Keep in mind, you still only get one shot with the taser.
Then I'll keep a tranq gun with me too just in case.


I think that criminals who give some thought to their crimes would take that into account. The person with the ccw could make all the difference between many or few people getting killed. Just because the mass murderer will usually end up dead doesn't mean those who ended up dead because of it dont matter.
Yes, and I suppose the change you want would help out these situations to some extent, but I still think rampages will occur just as often. The kind of change I want would keep them from happening more often instead of just decreasing their deadliness.



Yes and no. I think we have the capacity for such change. I bet you back in the 1800's we never thought slaves would be free. Look how far we have come in that respect.
The only people this change would really effect though would be the victims of the mass murders. Murders in poor neighborhoods would remain the same. People aren't going to still have their gun at their side when they're at home and a robber/murderer breaks in, and the college kid at the convenient store isn't going to have a gun to protect himself from the robber. I really doubt such a change would affect crime rates all that much.


You dont have the same chance of not hitting your assailant with a gun. With a gun you get many more shots than you do with a taser. I dont see how you can simply expect criminals to revert back to knives if guns were banned simply based on price.
I expect a good number of them to. Not all of them. This would also take some times until a good number of guns were filtered out of society.


Do you swim during thunderstorms? Probably not, you are taking a precaution of staying out of the water just in case lightning struck you. You have a greater chance of falling victim to a violent crime yet you still take precaution to reduce the risk of dieing from lightning but not from arming yourself to protect you in the event of a violent crime?
The difference is though, that when you give guns to people that don't commit crimes, people who want to commit crimes consequentially get easier access to them. Not swimming in your pool doesn't make it thunder less. By protecting yourself with a gun, your making people without a gun less safe.



There is also a ton of people who could defend themselves with a gun if their life depended on it. You are misinterpreting what the use of "gun distributing" is here. I'm discussing carrying concealed weapons via permit. You are talking about only letting people with a ccw own a gun. If you want to own a gunt for sport or what have you, that's fine. But if you want to CARRY it that is different. I dont want to disarm those who dont wish to carry a weapon yet still own one. Dont confuse what I am trying to say here.

No, why do you think that trained and responsible citizens carrying firearms for defense is going to increase the likelihood of you getting shot?
Because those who aren't trained and responsible can get a gun as well. You just said it yourself: You don't want to disarm the people that don't want to carry a gun. What I don't get is why? If they don't carry a gun, they might as well not own one. That's the only efficient way to protect yourself: with a gun at your side. Allowing the people that "just want to own one" own a gun makes it just as easy for people that "just want to own one so they can kill someone with it" get one.



You got any sources for those stats?
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)