Gun Control - What will cause the downfall of America

[The Fail Tracer]

Let me start this topic off with the fact that I am in full support of the second amendment.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler, 1935

This has happened before to other nations, and it may soon happen to America. Gun control. It's not as pleasant as it is made to sound. Allow me to state my points as to why the right to bear firearms should remain.

We need guns to protect ourselves. It makes no sense to pass a law against guns considering that criminals aren't going to follow that law anyway. A robber isn't going to see a "No guns allowed" sign put up at a house and say, "Aw, man..." and throw his gun out because of it. If you would say, "Well, at least we have other weapons to protect ourselves," I will say that other weapons aren't going to do very well in this kind of situation. Never bring a sword to a gunfight. Also, is it okay to use a sword, a spear, anything sharp and dangerous - just not a gun?

Secondly, contrary to popular belief, the gun itself is not the criminal. It is the man pulling the trigger who is doing the dirty work. Also in spite of popular belief, children don't accidentally pull the trigger. They need to know how to prepare the gun and know what part of it ignites the bullet. They aren't going to even pay attention to the gun, most likely.

That's all I can think of so far to defend the second amendment. Gun control will increase the crime rate by far. Your thoughts?

 

[ArcPoint]

It's true, it definitely does not help crime rate. Because if the advocates of this ban on guns truly believes that it will reduce crime rates... they are under the belief that criminals obey laws, when in reality they don't. It's disarming the law-abiding citizens. I think this video illustrates my point perfectly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8&feature=related

However, there has been another argument for the gun ban, according to this article 55% of deaths by gunfire are a result of suicide, not homicide. They say that in a home with a gun in it, the people inside it have a higher chance of committing suicide. And according to Wikipedia
about 52% of suicides are by firearms. A convincing argument, but still. If I wanted to commit suicide, is not having a gun going to stop me? In my house I don't have a gun, but I have an entire bottle of Ibuprofen, if I were suicidal, I could just as easily kill myself.

I don't get how gun control actually helps reduce crime rate.

Here's an interesting little paragraph, just some food for thought:

"Is Gun Ownership Correlated with Violent Deaths?

In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.) Kleck concludes that "the homicide-guns study was not international at all, but merely reflected the unique status of the United States as a high-gun ownership/high-violence nation...Since the positive association Killias observed was entirely dependent on the U.S. case, where self-defense is a common reason for gun ownership, this supports the conclusion that the association was attributable to the impact of the homicide rates on gun levels." " Quoted from: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html#intl

 

[RazeveX]

Are you kidding? Children need to know precisely how a gun works to pull a trigger?

I live in Australia, where you cannot simply own a gun like you can in America. I know so many messed up people, and can only imagine the immense damage they could do if they had guns. You see, guns are not easy to get here. Sure, every now and then a criminal may have one; but the lives that would be lost out of rage, and more importantly, ACCIDENT, if everyone had one, would be far worse than they are now.

Why not give every country nuclear weapons while we're at it?

 

[Aesir]

Are you kidding? Children need to know precisely how a gun works to pull a trigger?

No but if a child manages to cause harm with a gun then it's really the fault of the parent for being both naive and irresponsible.

I live in Australia, where you cannot simply own a gun like you can in America. I know so many messed up people, and can only imagine the immense damage they could do if they had guns. You see, guns are not easy to get here. Sure, every now and then a criminal may have one; but the lives that would be lost out of rage, and more importantly, ACCIDENT, if everyone had one, would be far worse than they are now.

When you take away guns from the average person the only positive thing you have done is stopped accidents and suicides with guns. Irresponsible parents no longer have a gun in their house for their 8 year old to play with.

However that's where the positives end really, because the average person doesn't have a gun they're susceptible to violent crime. Crimes like ****, Kidnapping and even Burglary tend to go up or stay the same with the absence of civilian guns.

Why not give every country nuclear weapons while we're at it?

We're talking about gun control not the accessibility of nuclear weapons those two completely seperate issues, so don't get us side tracked .

 

[RazeveX]

When you take away guns from the average person the only positive thing you have done is stopped accidents and suicides with guns. Irresponsible parents no longer have a gun in their house for their 8 year old to play with.

However that's where the positives end really, because the average person doesn't have a gun they're susceptible to violent crime. Crimes like ****, Kidnapping and even Burglary tend to go up or stay the same with the absence of civilian guns.

This is where our disagreement is. I think that the amount of accidents, suicides, and rage induced attacks will far outweigh the damage of the few (relative) criminals who will be able to obtain guns. Also, you are not factoring in the people who may just use a gun if it is easy to get. Also, where are the authorities? I'll go into that later, if it comes up.

Since that is our major point of disagreement, I can't think of any real evidence to suggest either way.

Sure, you could get statistics of the internet to say pretty much anything, I guess, but here's the main reason why I don't think that they prove much on this subject.
People often use D.C as an example of a "failed" gun ban, because they can find statistics to say that it hasn't decreased the number of gun-related murders.
However, they fail to mention the states around D.C that still allow citizen gun ownership. If smashers travel long distances for smash tournaments, I can't see why a murderer wouldn't do so for a gun.

What would the result be if the entire nation had the same ban? We don't know yet.

 

[Aesir]

This is where our disagreement is. I think that the amount of accidents, suicides, and rage induced attacks will far outweigh the damage of the few (relative) criminals who will be able to obtain guns. Also, you are not factoring in the people who may just use a gun if it is easy to get. Also, where are the authorities? I'll go into that later, if it comes up.

Bolded: by the time the authorities are notified it could be 30 minutes before action is ever taken, so when they get there they'll probably be taking a picture of your dead body because your government thought it was safer for you to not have a gun at all.

Basically what you're saying here is more guns = more deaths. However this is a false correlation in fact if anything there's a negative correlation, less guns = more deaths.

Source

If lack of guns means lower murder rates then we should see nations with gun bans with significantly lower murder rates. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Since that is our major point of disagreement, I can't think of any real evidence to suggest either way.

This is odd I hope you're not trying to just toss any evidence I offer over your shoulder because they're statistics.

Sure, you could get statistics of the internet to say pretty much anything, I guess, but here's the main reason why I don't think that they prove much on this subject.
People often use D.C as an example of a "failed" gun ban, because they can find statistics to say that it hasn't decreased the number of gun-related murders.
However, they fail to mention the states around D.C that still allow citizen gun ownership. If smashers travel long distances for smash tournaments, I can't see why a murderer wouldn't do so for a gun.

DC is just one of many instances. Many European countries who ban guns or implement strict anti-gun policies are not any safer they could even be less safe then if they had guns.

Even in countries whom are island nations don't experience a absence of violent crime. So the "going next door" is non-existent.

Furthermore if we look at some state policies:

The ABC anchor cited the case of Kennesaw, Georgia's law that requires its citizens to own guns, relaying a local police officer's observations that crime had dropped after the law passed. Lieutenant Craig Graydon, Kennesaw Police Department: "Well, after the city ordinance passed, there was actually a decrease in reported crime in the Kennesaw area, especially violent crime." Stossel described two instances in which guns were used by law-abiding citizens to stop criminals, including students at the Appalachian School of Law who went to their cars and retrieved their guns after a gunman attacked their school in January 2002.

Source

 

[RazeveX]

First, let me say that I was quite impressed by the straight forward structure of your response, with sources and all.

The problem is, you're assuming that those European countries are directly related to American society and culture. Not only that, we both have to ignore pretty much any other factor that could cause higher or lower firearm murder rates in order to base our arguments on these statistics.

Personally, I feel that my country, Australia, is more similar culturally and socially to America than Europe.
We have strict gun control laws, and crime has been going down as gun control laws get even stricter.
For instance, take this graph of Australian firearm-related deaths:

If the graph didn't come out well, then try the source page.

These statistics seem to directly contradict the correlation you suggested, that generally states "less guns = more deaths" (refer to this link if you need confirmation that gun laws were tightened over that time).

You may think it self indulgent of me to use my own countries statistics to argue my point, but it's what i know best. More than that, it's all I need to muddy the waters, to put question to whether statistics like the ones both you and I have posted are indeed a reliable prediction of what would happen in America if gun laws were tightened.

For more information, try here, or here.

 

[Aesir]

Personally, I feel that my country, Australia, is more similar culturally and socially to America than Europe.

Why because they both loathed Britain? The US and UK are actually indistinguishable sometimes, UK is basically the European America. In anycase I disagree with that claim because Australia and America really don't have anything in common.

---

I'm going to clarify now, when I said "less guns = more deaths" I wasn't saying that was the only out come. Guns will either have no effect or a negative effect on crime.

from the The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia

SSAA researcher, Samara McPhedran, said that "The authors have failed to adequately account for the influence of other factors on suicide deaths, or the decline in firearm-related violence across all states beginning around 1979. These very fundamental flaws invalidate the claim that changes to Victoria's gun laws in 1988, together with further restrictions introduced in 1996, were the driving forces behind the decreases."

(taken from one of the wiki articles)

If I'm not mistaken the violent crime rate in Australia was in steady decline long before the introduction of anti-gun policy. That's not to say they didn't have positive effects if I didn't mean to come off as a critic of the policy.

What this policy did do is lesson the effect of mass shootings, a decade without mass shootings is impressive.

However That doesn't mean the Aussie example is clad proof that guns = more deaths. Because of the already existing trend it's hard to say if these results would have happened if the government took a more hands off approach or if it really was because of strict gun laws.

However in American in places with high amounts of legal gun ownership we do see more guns = saves lives. Like the Kansas example I cited before. No matter how you slice it gun regulation is very random sometimes it works and other times it's a disaster.

To clarify again this is why we shouldn't limit our selves to one country, because it tends to not prove much of anything. Instead we should look at many different countries and compare policies and draw conclusions from that.

 

[Deleted member]

We don't need guns. No one posting here is going to carry a gun on them. The guns you may own later in life will be stored in your house. In that case, registering your firearm is not going to affect your pathetic "self-defense" argument.

The original post advocates the Second Amendment - which begs the question. Is the US Constitution still viable? I'd argue that it's incredibly outdated. That amendment was necessary a long time ago. It's not doing us any good as is.

It is incredibly easy to obtain a gun in America. For the record, I'd argue that if cocaine was legal (meaning you could purchase it at licensed stores) it would be much more common. This is the current gun situation.


Edit: Stop comparing the United States to other countries. America is a very unique place. Values and systems that work / don't work in other regions should not be held with such weight. I simply don't think they're comparable.

 

[Aesir]

We don't need guns. No one posting here is going to carry a gun on them. The guns you may own later in life will be stored in your house. In that case, registering your firearm is not going to affect your pathetic "self-defense" argument.

No we still need guns, we'll always need guns. I'm sure a lot of Germans in the late 30s thought they didn't need guns, look how that turned out.

The self-defense argument is anything but "pathetic" it's completely valid.

The original post advocates the Second Amendment - which begs the question. Is the US Constitution still viable? I'd argue that it's incredibly outdated. That amendment was necessary a long time ago. It's not doing us any good as is.

Non-regulated? agreed it's not doing us any good but that right shouldn't be thrown away. That's why a reasonable compromise is to treat it like a car, if you want to own a gun you need to register it and be licensed to use it.

It is incredibly easy to obtain a gun in America. For the record, I'd argue that if cocaine was legal (meaning you could purchase it at licensed stores) it would be much more common. This is the current gun situation.

Criminals usually don't go through the proper channels to obtain guns, they get them illegally from shady gun dealers and undgerground gun trafficing.

 

[RazeveX]

Why because they both loathed Britain?

Bloody poms...I'm sorry, what were you saying?

If I'm not mistaken the violent crime rate in Australia was in steady decline long before the introduction of anti-gun policy. That's not to say they didn't have positive effects if I didn't mean to come off as a critic of the policy.

I can't find any sources of firearm related deaths early enough, but I'm willing to take your word for it; I'll drop it as an argument for now.

Edit: Stop comparing the United States to other countries. America is a very unique place. Values and systems that work / don't work in other regions should not be held with such weight. I simply don't think they're comparable.

I'll just leave this to Aesir, since your strange point would affect his argument more than mine...

To clarify again this is why we shouldn't limit our selves to one country, because it tends to not prove much of anything. Instead we should look at many different countries and compare policies and draw conclusions from that.

Alright, fair enough.

Your previous graph on no. of guns crossed with firearm deaths seems to have met an opponent.

A wiikipedia page titled "List of countries by firearm-related death rate" seems to give an alternate conclusion. Since tables are difficult to post here, take a look at the source here.


Funnily enough, the US is the highest on the list, at 10.0; whilst other countries (these are all industrial nations) are much lower in comparison.

Wikipedia have neat little bundles on the Gun Politics of most industrialized countries (try searching "Gun Politics in COUNTRY"). I checked out quite a few of them, and found a significant correlation; that most of the low firearm-death rated countries also had stricter gun control laws, and vice versa.

Thus the trend, in actuality, appears to suggest that stricter gun laws = fewer gun related deaths. Makes sense, no?

 

[Aesir]

Alright, fair enough.

Your previous graph on no. of guns crossed with firearm deaths seems to have met an opponent.

Actually it was murder rate anyone can tell you, you don't need a gun to murder someone.

A wiikipedia page titled "List of countries by firearm-related death rate" seems to give an alternate conclusion. Since tables are difficult to post here, take a look at the source here.

I looked into Norway in particular (personal reasons). What's interesting about Norway politics is a high population of fire arm ownership with a low fire arm crime rate, how does this contradict the previous graph?

Funnily enough, the US is the highest on the list, at 10.0; whilst other countries (these are all industrial nations) are much lower in comparison.

Yeah firearms are an issue in America no lie about that.

Wikipedia have neat little bundles on the Gun Politics of most industrialized countries (try searching "Gun Politics in COUNTRY"). I checked out quite a few of them, and found a significant correlation; that most of the low firearm-death rated countries also had stricter gun control laws, and vice versa.

Thus the trend, in actuality, appears to suggest that stricter gun laws = fewer gun related deaths. Makes sense, no?

Possibly largely because there would be so few of them, which is an obvious correlation. Unfortunately that wasn't the point I was making. The point I'm making is the effect of crime on gun ownership. The above graphs you posted took one instance of murder, but didn't account for any of the other ways to murder someone. (or the effects guns have on other violent crimes)

Besides in countries like Norway where firearms are in abundant they seem to not have much of an issue.

(glad someone responded, was afraid I would have to go ultra libertarian to keep this alive.)

 

[RazeveX]

Actually it was murder rate anyone can tell you, you don't need a gun to murder someone.

The above graphs you posted took one instance of murder, but didn't account for any of the other ways to murder someone. (or the effects guns have on other violent crimes)

Why make our statistics less accurate by throwing in the personal, irrelevant details of murderers? If guns were illegal, but thousands got murdered by chainsaws every year, is that a fault of the gun control system? More importantly, would loosening that gun control system really improve murder rates?

I really can't see how factoring in all death is more relevant than just firearm-related death. Note, I didn't say murder. Suicide, accident and manslaughter are all other common ways a gun can harm someone. Murder statistics essentially miss those entirely (yes, I am aware we both used them anyway).

I looked into Norway in particular (personal reasons). What's interesting about Norway politics is a high population of fire arm ownership with a low fire arm crime rate, how does this contradict the previous graph?

Well, there seems to be even more conflicting evidence: your new research contradicts my suggested correlation. So does it end up proving anything on either side? Does any of it suggest the effects in America?

I could go into in depth research and find that likely more countries that support my claim than dispute it; but I think the fact that there is a fair amount of dispute makes it hard for both of us to use any of it as conclusive evidence.

The point I'm making is the effect of crime on gun ownership.

Hmm....I think you mean the effect of gun ownership on crime....otherwise I don't get it.

It will be hard to find research or statistics to point either way, but I will search for them. Not now, though; I'm drowsy...

(glad someone responded, was afraid I would have to go ultra libertarian to keep this alive.)

lol yeah, there isn't much action going on in these threads.

 

[Aesir]

Why make our statistics less accurate by throwing in the personal, irrelevant details of murderers? If guns were illegal, but thousands got murdered by chainsaws every year, is that a fault of the gun control system? More importantly, would loosening that gun control system really improve murder rates?

I know this might be a little hard to grasp but guns actually save lives. If I could not own a firearm because my government thinks self defense isn't a viable excuse to own one, then my store gets held up by a guy with gun that he obtained illegally. Has gun control really done it's job? No.

Or whats stopping a criminal from making a home made weapon and robbing your store? without a viable means to protect yourself you're at risk. So gun control tends to have a negative effect on crime largely because there's nothing for the criminal to fear.

I really can't see how factoring in all death is more relevant than just firearm-related death. Note, I didn't say murder. Suicide, accident and manslaughter are all other common ways a gun can harm someone. Murder statistics essentially miss those entirely (yes, I am aware we both used them anyway).

Maybe if the graph gave insight to how many people are murdered via guns vs. everything else it would give you better insight toward the effect of guns. Because just showing fire arm deaths doesn't really prove much of anything, only that strict gun control makes accidents less likely to happen.

 

[Crimson King]

One thing I see people ignoring is this: why do you think that if guns are made illegal criminals will no longer be able to get them?

Mexico has a THRIVING blackmarket and organized crime economy that runs off of drugs and guns with the government knowing about it and protecting it, because if it is left unprotected, there would be more death. In the end, if someone wants a gun, with Mexico left south of our unprotected borders, guns will be easy to get.

As I've stated numerous times with this argument, when you outlaw guns you are making outlaws out of law-abiding citizens. Criminals will not surrender their weapons.

 

[Deleted member]

Consider the following:

A kid wants to shoot up a school. He can

a) Walk to the local store and pick up a 12-gauge

or b) Somehow get to Mexico and buy one off the black market

It's not about making them illegal, it's simply making them harder to obtain. Register them. Have the government know who has them. They're dangerous. This is such a silly argument.

 

[RazeveX]

One thing I see people ignoring is this: why do you think that if guns are made illegal criminals will no longer be able to get them?

Mexico has a THRIVING blackmarket and organized crime economy that runs off of drugs and guns with the government knowing about it and protecting it, because if it is left unprotected, there would be more death. In the end, if someone wants a gun, with Mexico left south of our unprotected borders, guns will be easy to get.

As I've stated numerous times with this argument, when you outlaw guns you are making outlaws out of law-abiding citizens. Criminals will not surrender their weapons.

It won't stop everyone from getting them; it simply makes them harder to get.

Oh and @aesir: I still disagree. We can both see why the other things such a way, however.


Gun's don't save lives. A gun's primary purpose is to kill; that is it's design.

Your example with the store being held up only solidifies my point.

Scenario 1: Store clerk does not have a gun.
If the clerk plays along, then only in an uncommon situation will he get shot. The criminal just wants money; money that will be given back as soon as they are identified through security cameras and tracked down by the police.

Scenario 2: Store clerk does have a gun.
Criminal comes in with his gun. Clerk picks up his gun. Both aim at each other.

I REALLY can't see that situation resolving without one of them getting shot.

When everyone has guns, you're pretty much accepting that someone will be injured or killed every time a conflict arises.

Sorry i couldn't give a full proper response; I really have to go.

 

[Aesir]

Oh and @aesir: I still disagree. We can both see why the other things such a way, however.


Gun's don't save lives. A gun's primary purpose is to kill; that is it's design.

Your example with the store being held up only solidifies my point.

Scenario 1: Store clerk does not have a gun.
If the clerk plays along, then only in an uncommon situation will he get shot. The criminal just wants money; money that will be given back as soon as they are identified through security cameras and tracked down by the police.

Wrong. There are two main problems with your scenario.

1. It assumes that said criminal would allow himself to identified, most smart criminals conceal their identity. So if they complied the store owner would likely never see the money again.

2. It also assumes the criminal won't shoot the clerk anyway, there is no guarantee that the criminal won't shoot the clerk just to be safe. Or because they criminal wasn't satisfied with the goods.

Both of these points are very well common.

Scenario 2: Store clerk does have a gun.
Criminal comes in with his gun. Clerk picks up his gun. Both aim at each other.

I REALLY can't see that situation resolving without one of them getting shot.

When everyone has guns, you're pretty much accepting that someone will be injured or killed every time a conflict arises.

Sorry i couldn't give a full proper response; I really have to go.

Yes situations like this occur

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090123/LOCAL07/301239980/1043/LOCAL07

But again consider the consequences of not being armed. You put your self at an unnecessary risk of being killed even if you comply.

An innocent persons life gets spared, as for a criminal who would be shot? that sucks for him I guess he should try obeying the law for once, you tend to avoid getting shot by business owners that way.

 

[yummynbeefy]

whoop wrong thread

 

[RDK]

Good Lord, is this actually being debated? Some of the arguments in here are so asinine it makes me cringe.

Consider the following:

A kid wants to shoot up a school. He can

a) Walk to the local store and pick up a 12-gauge

or b) Somehow get to Mexico and buy one off the black market

Yeah, because I'm sure some random 15-year old is going to somehow seduce the person at the Gun Shop front desk into letting him buy a shotgun. What's equally likely is the kid traveling to Mexico just to buy a gun so he can shoot his school up. I'm sure the conversation would go a little something like this:

Psycho Kid: "Mom, Dad, I'm going down to Juarez to buy a gun so I can shoot that sonova***** Johnson at school tomorrow."

Mother: "Okay son, just be home for dinner."

Father: (Beaming proudly after taking a drag from a token 1950's pipe): "That's my boy!"

It's not about making them illegal, it's simply making them harder to obtain. Register them. Have the government know who has them. They're dangerous. This is such a silly argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you already have to register your weapon before buying it.

If not, I don't see the big deal in making this some sort of policy. The big thing is making sure I as a citizen have the right to protect myself. If an armed burglar knows I have no means of fighting back when he comes to rob me, where's the incentive not to?

IGun's don't save lives. A gun's primary purpose is to kill; that is it's design.

Wrong. Guns do and have pretty much always saved lives. Killing sometimes saves lives, especially when you're killing the psycho motherf*cker that broke into your house and is attempting to rob you.

Try telling the Secretary of Defense that guns don't save lives, and propose to him that the American army get rid of all their guns. He'll laugh in your face, and I probably would too.

Your example with the store being held up only solidifies my point.

Scenario 1: Store clerk does not have a gun.
If the clerk plays along, then only in an uncommon situation will he get shot. The criminal just wants money; money that will be given back as soon as they are identified through security cameras and tracked down by the police.

Scenario 2: Store clerk does have a gun.
Criminal comes in with his gun. Clerk picks up his gun. Both aim at each other.

I REALLY can't see that situation resolving without one of them getting shot.

When everyone has guns, you're pretty much accepting that someone will be injured or killed every time a conflict arises.

Sure! While we're at it, let's outlaw arms and legs as a mode of defense, making it impossible to punch someone who's assaulting you, or even run away. That way, someone who, somehow, bypassed the system will be able to just walk up to you and take what they want from you! Maybe even rough you up a little. Whatever tickles his fancy.

That way, you don't injure yourself in an unnecessary struggle. Because we all know it's the government's job to make sure we don't injure ourselves.

 

[RazeveX]

Good Lord, is this actually being debated? Some of the arguments in here are so asinine it makes me cringe.

Hmm, not one sided at all. So, like, if i take your side, do I become a full debater or what? Because apparently my current arguments are "so asinine it makes you cringe".

Although, you're scenario with the 1950s pipe was quite the funny. So you win.

(jks)

Wrong. Guns do and have pretty much always saved lives.

I didn't say that; I said that they were designed to kill, which as far as I can see is hard to argue against. If they weren't they might as well have a flag with "BANG" on the side pop out if that isn't the case. Seriously though, I have been told that the reason bullets aren't designed to pass right through people is to cause more damage. To me that sounds like "designed to kill". All I was stating was that their primary purpose is to kill. That was all I was stating; your reply didn't address that.

Killing sometimes saves lives, especially when you're killing the psycho motherf*cker that broke into your house and is attempting to rob you.

Yeah, better to almost guarantee one person be dead than to get robbed.

Seriously, how does a stand off between you and a "psycho motherf*cker" not end in a gunshot? Or anything worse?
When a gang of people with shotguns rob a bank, do you stand up and say "No, that's wrong, guns down guys." No, you don't (I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong), because you'll get your *** shot. Gun's don't give citizens security; they give them a false sense of it (also covered in my last post; when the time comes, it doesn't help at all).

You seem set on "killing the psycho motherf*cker"; as if you'd do it without a second though. Almost as if you would attribute this "psycho motherf*cker" mentality with anyone who broke into your home.

Tell me; if you had a teenage daughter (don't know if you do), and some guy really liked her so much that he was a little messed up and broke into your house to see her, would you shoot him?

On those facts, it seems the obvious answer is no. However, when the situation comes up, all you see is a silhouette shouting "WHERES YOUR DAUGHTER" or something equally concerning, ignoring your gun (or perhaps not even seeing it). Could you say you wouldn't shoot him to protect your daughter? It seems like you'd be too focused on that "psycho motherf*cker" mentality.


If I'm out of line in any of this...well.......shoot me.

(couldn't help myself)

Try telling the Secretary of Defense that guns don't save lives, and propose to him that the American army get rid of all their guns. He'll laugh in your face, and I probably would too.

Citizens (wheres the **** inequality sign) Trained Soldiers.

Also, they most commonly use their weapons in a war scenario; where death is acknowledged as an inevitability.

Sure! While we're at it, let's outlaw arms and legs as a mode of defense, making it impossible to punch someone who's assaulting you, or even run away. That way, someone who, somehow, bypassed the system will be able to just walk up to you and take what they want from you! Maybe even rough you up a little. Whatever tickles his fancy.

That way, you don't injure yourself in an unnecessary struggle. Because we all know it's the government's job to make sure we don't injure ourselves.

Again, a gun isn't a security measure. A concrete wall is a security measure. A condom is a security measure. STRUGGLING is a security measure. RUNNING AWAY is a security measure. A GUN, on the other hand, is a weapon. It is the thing that causes the harm.

A gun can only help you if you shoot the **** person, unless you believe that the gun will somehow intimidate criminals; and I don't believe that a criminal with a gun is going to be intimidated by a scared, shaking citizen with a gun (the majority of people).

And they're right in being the way they are, too; it shouldn't be easy to shoot someone.

- RazeveX

 

[Cheapless Jared]

Good Lord, is this actually
Yeah, because I'm sure some random 15-year old is going to somehow seduce the person at the Gun Shop front desk into letting him buy a shotgun. What's equally likely is the kid traveling to Mexico just to buy a gun so he can shoot his school up. I'm sure the conversation would go a little something like this:

Hehe, kinda touchy subject there, columbine and all.

 

[Deleted member]

yeah, I'm not supposed to do this, but I think it hits gun control from a different angle than the ones covered here:

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=38969

so what kind of gun control is it that the federal government throws you in jail when your gun breaks? I think it's a bit more direct than cutting their sales.

 

[RDK]

yeah, I'm not supposed to do this, but I think it hits gun control from a different angle than the ones covered here:

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=38969

so what kind of gun control is it that the federal government throws you in jail when your gun breaks? I think it's a bit more direct than cutting their sales.

Wow.

When I saw this video, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The United States judiciary system should be the laughing stock of the world right now.

Charging someone for the misfire of a weapon on a shooting range is just the height of stupidity at this point. I mean the government literally has to be trying to be stupid. It's almost like they sit around a table and go "Alright--how can we possibly be laughed at even more? Oh--I know!".

 

[Narukari]

yeah, I'm not supposed to do this, but I think it hits gun control from a different angle than the ones covered here:

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=38969

so what kind of gun control is it that the federal government throws you in jail when your gun breaks? I think it's a bit more direct than cutting their sales.

I'm going to have to be a bit harsh on you.

Did you even listen to that report, or read the comments below it. The "report" part of it never actually says the gun broke. It only said that it misfired.

The comments right below the video spell out exactly what happened. Remember that whenever you see something on the news about a case, it's usually only a google away from looking at the case records yourself.

Instead of a news report that presented almost no facts, why don't we take a look at the investigation report.

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3


Just take a look at page 2, statements 7-8. The gun had an unlabeled third option on the selection switch. Kiernicki asked him what it was for, and Olofson told him that the burst fire didn't work well. Kiernicki then went to the firing range and put the selection switch to the third position and fired a few three round bursts.

There we go, Olofson knew that the gun could fire a three-round burst, then gave that gun to Kiernicki.

It isn't a far stretch of imagination that Olofson modified the gun himself to fire the three-round burst.

Wow.

When I saw this video, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The United States judiciary system should be the laughing stock of the world right now.

Charging someone for the misfire of a weapon on a shooting range is just the height of stupidity at this point. I mean the government literally has to be trying to be stupid. It's almost like they sit around a table and go "Alright--how can we possibly be laughed at even more? Oh--I know!".

So quick to judge aren't we? What did the Judiciary System do wrong with this?

1. They saw a gun fire a three-round burst at a firing range.
2. They figured out the owner of the gun.
3. They got a search warrent (Page 3) and proceded to search the owners house for evidence.
4. They compiled the evidence and prosecuted him for illegal activities.

I don't see any sort of stupidity in the way they handled this case. Nor do I think this case is a reason for the US Judiciary System to be considered a laughing stock.



Sorry for being kind of rude in my opening, but I have almost no respect for televised news anymore.

 

[.Marik]

Statistics indicate that gun ownership has been linked to a steady rise of violent crimes.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

I'm sure several of you realized the link between guns and crime a while ago.

Now, the problem lies with whether individual law-abiding citizens can carry around guns.

See, in situations such as this, there are way too many variables.

Violent criminals will want guns for illegal activities. No matter if it's outlawed, criminals are always going to obtain illegal firearms. If that were the case, why are drugs so rampant? Crime rates? It doesn't stop them from getting these contraband products, but it may make obtaining them a little harder, which may stop casual citizens from commiting crimes and causing accidental deaths and/or injuries.

Anyways, people feel that they need guns to feel protected. Criminals may use guns.

But, this isn't always the case. There are knives, chains, and other means of intimidating, extorting and damaging someone.

Why can't criminals commit crimes and injure/kill others with knives? Brute strength? This is a area of concern also, and banning guns won't stop this. Gun crimes may go down (this is unlikely) but then certantly, deaths resulting from attacks with knives and use of force will increase.

The reason why gun crimes are currently high, is because they are easy to kill someone with. You can be sitting in your car, and blow someone's head out. Much easier than stabbing someone to death. Although this may be irrelevent. Media also suggests that it's "cool" to carry around guns, smoke weed, and such. A negative influence, you may call it.

Now, I'm neutral. I believe that banning guns won't help the crime rate go down, because criminal don't even listen to the law, and there are other weapons and methods to murder and maim someone with.

And another thing I want to mention. Some attacks happen in groups, where a solitary gun is basically useless. Ordinary citizens may not even possess the mental strength to kill or fight off an experienced criminal, who is going to be ruthless and tear the person apart. What if an ex-criminal needs a gun if he's attacked? This is usually the case. Average citizens usually don't even become involved in gangs, and illegal practices such as prostitution and drug and gun trafficking. What if they snitched? Need protection? Mafia gangs are much more ruthless than average wannabe gangsters. Shouldn't they be allowed to carry firearms also?

So. My stance on this subject remains neutral.

 

[Aesir]

Try and take a stance when you're in a debate, when you take a neutral stance it's really hard to respond to that.

Statistics indicate that gun ownership has been linked to a steady rise of violent crimes.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

If you look at one of the first posts in this thread you'll see I dealt with this claim. Sure more guns can mean more violent crime, but lack of guns also means more violent crime. What does this mean? the sales of guns really holds very little water on the effect of gun crime, if you really wanna stop gun crime you crack down on illegal gun trafficking, not remove them from the public life.

That whole article seems to present facts in a way that is misleading, whether this is intentional or not I don't know but it's clearly misleading.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm going to have to be a bit harsh on you.

Did you even listen to that report, or read the comments below it. The "report" part of it never actually says the gun broke. It only said that it misfired.

I'm just putting forth material I find interesting that others might find interesting as well for the sake of the debacle. Get over yourself.

 

[.Marik]

It's misleading because there are too many variables, I've already mentioned this.

There's no definite evidence that outlawing or allowing guns will stop crime rates.

I'm neutral, simply because I'm not certain that any side will produce positive results. So I don't feel like making a decision yet.

 

[Narukari]

I'm just putting forth material I find interesting that others might find interesting as well for the sake of the debacle. Get over yourself.

Actually you're not even supposed to do that unless your a temp debater.

The problem is that you need to look over the information you got with a fine tooth comb. Listen carefully to the news report and identify what are actually "facts".

1. The gun misfired.

This could mean almost anything. Since the gun didn't fire the way the user wanted it too, it was called a misfire.

2. Olofson's service record.

None of this actually matters in a court of law. The law applies to everyone.

3. He was prosecuted.

This means it was from a jury of his peers. They were presented all the evidence and they decided that he was guilty. It wasn't the government that decided he was guilty.

---------------------------

I heard way too much "from what I know", "I think", "people claim", in that news report. Anytime they say anything like that, they are allowed to bend the truth far from what actually happened.

The main problem isn't that you posted the news report. It was that you then stated that the government was throwing him in jail because his gun broke. That was completely false.

 

[RazeveX]

It's misleading because there are too many variables, I've already mentioned this.

There's no definite evidence that outlawing or allowing guns will stop crime rates.

I'm neutral, simply because I'm not certain that any side will produce positive results. So I don't feel like making a decision yet.

This. Right here. Is something that no one should be doing in a debate. Ever.
(Sorry to make an example of you, but it needs to be said.)

Everyone wants to be completely RIGHT. It's in our nature.
And you know that you can't be sure of anything; specifically the gun control case at hand.

There is no definite evidence of anything; in fact, philosophical arguments can be quite convincing in claiming that we don't know anything. Does that mean we should remain neutral on everything? Of course not; we may be less wrong, but we'd also be much less right.

Is the earth REALLY round? I mean, I haven't seen it myself from space yet...you know, I'm gonna remain neutral.

The wierdest thing is that you said:

I'm not certain that any side will produce positive results. So I don't feel like making a decision yet.

The point is that you can't just "stay neutral" if you're entering a debate. Imagine if you were suddenly given the final say on the decision; what would you do? Why?
There is no middle ground; your decision would be classified into one of the sides of this argument, and your reasons would be arguments.

 

[Ryan Ludovic]

First, we should ask "Why are we even granted permission to own guns to begin with?"
To rob one another?
To kill one another?
To force intent on one another?

Or is it to protect ourselves?

The common misconception is that, guns are to protect ourselves from other people with guns. The argument then becomes "Well if niether of us had guns, we'd not shoot one another." However, and unfortunately, the reason the amendment was granted for us to own guns, is to protect ourselves from a tyranny-hungry government. The purpose is that WE the people keep the government in check.

If you don't believe me, then why is it that Hitler, on November 11th, 1938, Placed major weapon possesion laws against the Jewish people? Was it to stop them from killing one another? Or was it so it was easier to kidnap them, murder them, or place them in concentration camps?

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

- Adolf Hitler

YES! I realize that some of you consider it rediculous of me to compare the United States to Nazi Germany, but take this in context of a scientific experiment.

If you create a potion that will promote hair growth, but it kills your lab rats, will you feed it to your rats a second time without first considering the possability that your lab rats may die consistantly?

So let us suppose we do enforce gun control. What would the scenario be? We would have no guns, and it is most likely assumed that we'd get arrested for possesion of one. The cops would still have weapons, and possibly ones that would be far from street legal these days, see article below, and the criminals would buy guns illegally, still being able to murder, rob, and force intent on others. So where is the benifit for us honest people?

Phoenix police union officials are proposing that 200 senior officers be allowed to buy their own semiautomatic rifles to use on the job after some said they felt more at risk and asked for additional firepower.

Read Full Article

It is clear, and undeniable that we are following the path of a facist dictatorship that Hitler last persued. The question is not whether we are, but how far we will take this? Will we stop at the guns? Will martial law take place? Will people have officers knocking on their doors at 4 AM in the morning because they have been labeled a 'terrorist' by one of the new 100,000 employees of the government? Will the lab rats die again?

Only this time, I ask you, if you were the lab rats, would you want to take the risk?

 

[.Marik]

words

I'm not going to repeat the reasons for my decision of remaining neutral.

I don't have to take a side of any debate. I don't think either side will provide any more positive results than the other side, making my anonymous support for either one of them pointless.

There are a lot of variables. I choose to remain unsupportive of either cause of action.

Now I'm just repeating myself. So I'll stop unless you wish to continue the matter.

 

[Ryan Ludovic]

I'm not going to repeat the reasons for my decision of remaining neutral.

I don't have to take a side of any debate. I don't think either side will provide any more positive results than the other side, making my anonymous support for either one of them pointless.

There are a lot of variables. I choose to remain unsupportive of either cause of action.

Now I'm just repeating myself. So I'll stop unless you wish to continue the matter.

If you take no sides in this debate, you are spamming, and taking away from important aspects of the debate.
To put it quite bluntly:
There is no confusion nor issues with your reasoning in which you decided to not pick a side, only the fact that you are presenting it as a response to a debate.
We all remain full of respect of your opinions, however, it's just the irony that you introduce your stance as neutral to a debate that you are not obligated to participate in if you feel that way that warrents the previous comments.

 

[|RK|]

The problem with gun control lies within the term itself. You cannot possibly hope to get rid of all the guns, or eliminate the people who make them. Therefore you cannot control guns. The only thing that could come from gun control is the death of innocents. As people have said many times before me, I'm certain, criminals will not give up their guns. Many people will be worse off simply because of gun control.

I am also certain that there are many of those who make guns that would have no problem with selling guns underground. If a civilian is to have possession of one of these newly underground weapons, by let's say, defending themselves against an attacker, the question that would come up is "Why did the civilian have an illegal weapon?" Should the criminal have escaped, their mere presence would have ruined the civilian's life, for acting in the interest of his safety. With the criminal escaped, the only one getting punishment would be that civilian.

Many people argue for gun control, when with it, there would be more fear, terror, and crime. The chance that a bystander could be in possession of a gun, or a family member, are drastically lowered (note I use lowered, not eliminated), and crimes are far more likely. A situation said bystander or family member could have saved you in ends up in fear, misery, and subject to the criminal's will, whatever it may be. We would be a society subject to fear and terror, simply because people believe that it would help.

I was reading an article a while back, and while not directly related, it is related nonetheless. Two men were helping two old ladies cross a busy street in a snowstorm. One man pushed the other three out of the way of an oncoming pickup truck, and was hit himself. This man suffered bleeding in the brain, broken bones, and a dislocated shoulder. His hero's reward was a jaywalking ticket that he learned of in intensive care. The other man also received a ticket. Despite his intentions, the police said that the jaywalking contributed to the incident. Perhaps it did, but you cannot deny that it was rather unfair to give him a ticket, despite his heroic actions, and the physical price he had to pay.

The above story illustrates what the world is already like today. If you are in possession of a gun, and you are defending yourself or others, it is not hard to believe that it will turn out with obvious negative effects for you, despite your intentions. There should be no gun control, for a safer future, not ruled by fear and tyranny. Many of us have guns because we need to defend ourselves, and ridding ourselves, law-abiding citizens of guns will only make guns harder for criminals to find, not impossible. Let's ask ourselves this: "Do we really want to put criminals in charge?"

 

[.Marik]

If you take no sides in this debate, you are spamming, and taking away from important aspects of the debate.
To put it quite bluntly:
There is no confusion nor issues with your reasoning in which you decided to not pick a side, only the fact that you are presenting it as a response to a debate.
We all remain full of respect of your opinions, however, it's just the irony that you introduce your stance as neutral to a debate that you are not obligated to participate in if you feel that way that warrents the previous comments.

What don't you people understand?

I'm not wrong just because I have a neutral stance on things I feel are incorrect.

Banning guns won't stop the crime rate.

Not banning guns won't stop the crime rate.

What more do you want me to clarify on?

And Aesir, I saw that little post of yours. How is having a neutral train of thought a "no-no"? I don't see how that is reasonable.

Just think of me as the man in the shadows, watching you folks debate this matter. I don't have an answer, so I don't support either side. So I remain, watching. Waiting to see what occurs out of it. What might convince me in the end.

That's all there is to it. Stop taking everything I post out of context.

 

[Aesir]

And Aesir, I saw that little post of yours. How is having a neutral train of thought a "no-no"? I don't see how that is reasonable.

You can have a neutral stance that's fine, however when you enter a debate you need to take a side. Otherwise whats the point of you contributing? It's a topic ender. "I don't know which side to take but here's a bunch of statistics for either side."

So again if you're going to enter the debate you need to pick a side, even if you have to pick a lesser of the two evils (in your mind) you still need to pick one.

Just think of me as the man in the shadows, watching you folks debate this matter. I don't have an answer, so I don't support either side. So I remain, watching. Waiting to see what occurs out of it. What might convince me in the end...

Then why did you post exactly? I thought you were going to take up the pro-gun control side with your post but it appeared I was wrong.

Granted there needs to be more activity but taking a neutral stance is the exact wrong way to promote activity.

 

[|RK|]

Then allow me to convince you, Marik...? You state that banning guns won't stop the crime rate nor will not banning guns. However, as stated in my previous post, banning guns will increase the crime rate. Surely you don't want that? Not banning guns will significantly lower the chances of living in a fear-filled world. As for the side-debate currently going on, let me note a quote form my favorite historical fiction book, Give Me Liberty. It is a book based on the Revolutionary War, and I highly recommend giving it a read. The quote is as follows:

"But those who try to straddle the fence between both or claim to be neutral, will only be suspected and hated by both sides."

Marik, you must understand that it is counterproductive to announce yourself as the man in the shadows, or claim to be neutral in a topic for reasonable debate. If you wish to remain neutral, the best thing to do is watch the arguments for either side as you previously stated that you would do. When you are convinced, then join us. However, when you cause a topic to be cluttered by a meaningless side-argument about neutrality, it only derails the original topic and ruins your reputation. Let this be a plea to all of you: Please refrain from continuing this debate. The saying goes "It takes two to tango."

 

[.Marik]

Well, I understand where you are coming from.

I'm not exactly sure what side to choose, due to neither aspect actually solving the problems that may be faced in various situations.

I honestly cannot say what side I support.

*Edit* RK Joker, I agree... I'm just cluttering the topic.

But I can't see myself supporting one side, knowing that it won't necessarily change anything.

 

[Narukari]

First, we should ask "Why are we even granted permission to own guns to begin with?"
To rob one another?
To kill one another?
To force intent on one another?

Or is it to protect ourselves?

The common misconception is that, guns are to protect ourselves from other people with guns. The argument then becomes "Well if niether of us had guns, we'd not shoot one another." However, and unfortunately, the reason the amendment was granted for us to own guns, is to protect ourselves from a tyranny-hungry government. The purpose is that WE the people keep the government in check.

If you don't believe me, then why is it that Hitler, on November 11th, 1938, Placed major weapon possesion laws against the Jewish people? Was it to stop them from killing one another? Or was it so it was easier to kidnap them, murder them, or place them in concentration camps?



YES! I realize that some of you consider it rediculous of me to compare the United States to Nazi Germany, but take this in context of a scientific experiment.

If you create a potion that will promote hair growth, but it kills your lab rats, will you feed it to your rats a second time without first considering the possability that your lab rats may die consistantly?

So let us suppose we do enforce gun control. What would the scenario be? We would have no guns, and it is most likely assumed that we'd get arrested for possesion of one. The cops would still have weapons, and possibly ones that would be far from street legal these days, see article below, and the criminals would buy guns illegally, still being able to murder, rob, and force intent on others. So where is the benifit for us honest people?



It is clear, and undeniable that we are following the path of a facist dictatorship that Hitler last persued. The question is not whether we are, but how far we will take this? Will we stop at the guns? Will martial law take place? Will people have officers knocking on their doors at 4 AM in the morning because they have been labeled a 'terrorist' by one of the new 100,000 employees of the government? Will the lab rats die again?

Only this time, I ask you, if you were the lab rats, would you want to take the risk?

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

------------------------

My grandpa goes hunting every year and we cook thanksgiving dinner off a deer that he is able to find. Skeet shooting is an olympic sport. Killing people isn't the only reason why people possess guns.

When someone decides to kill someone else, it won't be the lack of a gun that stops them from doing it. Blaming murder on guns is as silly as blaming misspellings on your pencil.