Guns
- Thread starter Talentless
- 5,167 comments
- 239,411 views
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
Because we try not to make knee-jerk rections to minor incidents that permanently remove one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to us by one of the founding documents of this country. 25,000 americans died to bring us a document like the bill of rights. We try not to let 30 people killed by one crazy bastard convince us to rip it up.
At the same time, what has happened to your violent crime statistics in Australia since outlawing so many guns?
Let's take a look:
Crime is up
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
Illegaly owned guns dominate gun-related crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
Crime is up in Australia and Canada and England and Japan...
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
Crime is up
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
Crime is up
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf
Crime is up
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4459
...wait just a minute here. I'm starting to think that disarming law abiding citiznes actually makes it EASIER to commit violent crimes. GASP
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
Mass shootings are very uncommon. I'm not surprised that only a few happened after what you think helped reduce these incidents. But, what happened to other crimes? Rapes, robberies, murders and other serious crimes went way up. Not a fair trade off. Plus, you're not safe.
If somebody wanted to shoot a bunch of people, they'll get the firearms they want and need to do it. It just cannot be stopped. Gun laws are worthless. Especially in America's society. There's more than enough proof of that. Are you denying the proof or do you selfishly only care about what you want you're just ignoring it?
- 3,425
What in Gods name makes you think something that may have been tolerated in your area will be tolerated in mine ?
We live in different countries with different traditions and populations. We are in NO WAY SIMILAR in culture .What we both speak english ?? Thats means your law would work in the US ?
Has it ever occured to you that your government is insane ? Because from my perspective all they did was punish every single law abiding responsible citizen because of the actions of ONE NUT .
You also OVERLOOK CHEERFULLY the CONSTITUTION of the US and its tradition of firearms ownership. You CAN"T wave a wand and make the guns go away. Some morons decided that drinking beer should be prohibited...WHAT happened ?? We created the hugest criminal enterprise in our history and became a country full of criminals and supporters of criminals . Did anyone stop drinking ? Sure 3-4 people maybe...the rest partied on ...and we had all the illegal booze we could swill...and a HUGE crime wave.
You live in a itty bitty little country will hardly any Urban culture as compared to the melting pot of 300 mil plus illegals that make up the US .
Yet your simplistic answer is ..hey look what we did it worked .
LOL...
In your entire HISTORY of a country you have what less than 1000 murders by firearms ?? or something like that ??
The us has 4 CITIES alone with mote than that . ( COMBINED almost double ).
Please its a simplistic argument ...and it ignores so many US traditions and laws and RIGHTS as guaranteed under our constitution.
You HAVE no right in your country to own a firearm only a privlage....YOU are at the mercy of your government and don't seem to be bothered too much by it ,.
Well GREAT ...GOOD for you ...you don't feel the need to run around killing each other . Unfortunately you could ban Guns and every sharp instrument in the US and the MURDER rate would SOAR . LOL...it would be OPEN season for every dealer or criminal who owned a gun . Unless you of course have inventeed the magic wand that can erase all the illegal guns and prevent new ones from being brought here from all over the world .
LOL...we do SO well keeping drugs and terrorist and illegal aliens out...we should be GREAT at keeping GUNS out .
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
If I may comment for a moment, here are a few sparatic thoughts:
- It is really quite sad that it took a tragedy such as this to have gun-control as a topic on the national level once again. This is something that should have been dealt with years ago, and in that, we should have come up with a reasonable solution to the issue. Did we? Nope. It was a stalemate in congress and in many states across the union, and nothing happened. Surprised? Not really.
- Given that the ownership and the use of guns are indeed a right guaranteed to citizens by the US Constitution by the Second Amendment, we cannot expect a knee-jerk reaction to alter the Constitution based on this single event. Granted, it was horrific, and generally-speaking could have been prevented, but that does not mean that we need to alter the basis of our nation.
- Blanket generalizations that laws passed in Europe and other 'progressive' nations on the subject of gun control will work in the United States will not work, no matter how much evidence may be given. The fact of the matter is, Americans love guns, and knowing that we are entitled to use them to not only hunt, but also to protect ones self, one must anticipate that a bad-seed will misuse the system and create havoc such as this. Granted, the laws did work in Australia, but what makes you think that would work in the United States? If someone really, and I mean really wants a gun, whats to prevent them from going to Canada or Mexico to get one? It has been proven time and time again that our borders are quite porous, and sneaking one across the border would be like sneaking into the coma ward at the local hospital. Beyond that, in a notion that will be expressed later, if the States were to decide their own gun laws (as they already do), there is nothing to stop someone in Virginia driving to North Carolina to buy a gun, and vice-versa. As long as you're an American with three forms of ID and a clear criminal record and mental health record, you can pretty much buy a gun anywhere in the US.
- Is this a decision to be made by the federal government? To that I say no. Changing the Constitution requires far too much effort to strip away or amend the rational of the Second Amendment, and although I am certain that the Liberal Democrats in the House and Senate may choose to do so, I do doubt the popularity of the bill, given the somewhat positive opinion many Americans have about guns and the general negativity towards gun-control.
- Is this a decision to be made by the States? Yes, it is. But that being said, many States already have drastically different laws on the subject of gun control, and in many cases it either works or it does not. States in the Mid-West, largely known for their hunting and other social shooting events, it is as best as I can recall, relatively easy to buy a firearm in many places. There are supermarkets and shopping malls that have guns readily available to customers, as I know I could easily walk down the hallway from my job and pick-up a handgun or rifle without too much of a problem. But is it the same in every state? Not hardly. Virginia has been criticized and applauded for the easy way to get a gun (largely depending on where you stand on the issue), and there are other states where it is radically difficult to do so.
- So what do we do? There obviously needs to be an overhaul on the current system that we have when it comes to gun control in the US. Does that mean that we make it X-times tougher to buy guns? No, certainly not. However, I believe that more stringent screenings should be allowed before the sale of a firearm, no matter what caliber, style, etc of weapon. Things like national status should be considered (this man was a forigner, he shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon), previous criminal convictions (do any time, and you probably shouldn't have one), previous issues with the police (probably shouldn't have one), age (less than 21? You can't own a gun...), and maybe even medical history (Zoloft? Prozac? No guns for you...).
- What about 'normal' people? In my mind, I often see the picture as a case in which more people with guns are largely going to deter actions such as these. Granted, there are obvious holes in that notion, but they are ones that I can accept. If we were to allow 'peace-keeper' status to given citizens with firearms, I would care to guess that crime-rates would largely diminish in many circumstances. As it is, even if you have a gun, you are less-likely to attempt something against another person who has one, as the damage they can deal you is equally as deadly as what you can deal them.
...And even if we made guns nearly illegal in the US, it isn't going to solve the problem, as people are going to find different ways to hurt people no matter what the means of doing so are. I understand that there is a problem with stabbings in the UK, so it doesn't take long to think that the same issue would occur in the US under similar circumstances. Beyond that, people love to come up with ways to incite destruction...
- So what makes this any different than anything we've seen before? If 32 people were killed by a guy with a hockey stick or a baseball bat, would we be attempting to ban sports equipment sales? What if he stabbed 32 people with a steak-knife? Would we attempt to ban sharp silverware from dinner tables? Guns are a scape-goat, and we all know it. In this situation, guns are both a manifestation of the devil, and also a kind of savior... What if the police weren't allowed to use guns? Would they have been able to stop them?
- I'm certain that this will all lead down a path to a few gross generalizations that will have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and will all get rolled together in some sort of way to control culture once again:
* Violent videogames are bad, mmmmkay
* Death-Metal kills people
* Too many people are violent in the US, but not the rest of the world (where they instead choose to blow themselves up)
* Americans are incompetent fools who can't see past the barrel of their own gun (even when Europeans have had a long-history of mass-shootings, same with the Aussies, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again)
...Etc...
- It is really quite sad that it took a tragedy such as this to have gun-control as a topic on the national level once again. This is something that should have been dealt with years ago, and in that, we should have come up with a reasonable solution to the issue. Did we? Nope. It was a stalemate in congress and in many states across the union, and nothing happened. Surprised? Not really.
- Given that the ownership and the use of guns are indeed a right guaranteed to citizens by the US Constitution by the Second Amendment, we cannot expect a knee-jerk reaction to alter the Constitution based on this single event. Granted, it was horrific, and generally-speaking could have been prevented, but that does not mean that we need to alter the basis of our nation.
- Blanket generalizations that laws passed in Europe and other 'progressive' nations on the subject of gun control will work in the United States will not work, no matter how much evidence may be given. The fact of the matter is, Americans love guns, and knowing that we are entitled to use them to not only hunt, but also to protect ones self, one must anticipate that a bad-seed will misuse the system and create havoc such as this. Granted, the laws did work in Australia, but what makes you think that would work in the United States? If someone really, and I mean really wants a gun, whats to prevent them from going to Canada or Mexico to get one? It has been proven time and time again that our borders are quite porous, and sneaking one across the border would be like sneaking into the coma ward at the local hospital. Beyond that, in a notion that will be expressed later, if the States were to decide their own gun laws (as they already do), there is nothing to stop someone in Virginia driving to North Carolina to buy a gun, and vice-versa. As long as you're an American with three forms of ID and a clear criminal record and mental health record, you can pretty much buy a gun anywhere in the US.
- Is this a decision to be made by the federal government? To that I say no. Changing the Constitution requires far too much effort to strip away or amend the rational of the Second Amendment, and although I am certain that the Liberal Democrats in the House and Senate may choose to do so, I do doubt the popularity of the bill, given the somewhat positive opinion many Americans have about guns and the general negativity towards gun-control.
- Is this a decision to be made by the States? Yes, it is. But that being said, many States already have drastically different laws on the subject of gun control, and in many cases it either works or it does not. States in the Mid-West, largely known for their hunting and other social shooting events, it is as best as I can recall, relatively easy to buy a firearm in many places. There are supermarkets and shopping malls that have guns readily available to customers, as I know I could easily walk down the hallway from my job and pick-up a handgun or rifle without too much of a problem. But is it the same in every state? Not hardly. Virginia has been criticized and applauded for the easy way to get a gun (largely depending on where you stand on the issue), and there are other states where it is radically difficult to do so.
- So what do we do? There obviously needs to be an overhaul on the current system that we have when it comes to gun control in the US. Does that mean that we make it X-times tougher to buy guns? No, certainly not. However, I believe that more stringent screenings should be allowed before the sale of a firearm, no matter what caliber, style, etc of weapon. Things like national status should be considered (this man was a forigner, he shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon), previous criminal convictions (do any time, and you probably shouldn't have one), previous issues with the police (probably shouldn't have one), age (less than 21? You can't own a gun...), and maybe even medical history (Zoloft? Prozac? No guns for you...).
- What about 'normal' people? In my mind, I often see the picture as a case in which more people with guns are largely going to deter actions such as these. Granted, there are obvious holes in that notion, but they are ones that I can accept. If we were to allow 'peace-keeper' status to given citizens with firearms, I would care to guess that crime-rates would largely diminish in many circumstances. As it is, even if you have a gun, you are less-likely to attempt something against another person who has one, as the damage they can deal you is equally as deadly as what you can deal them.
...And even if we made guns nearly illegal in the US, it isn't going to solve the problem, as people are going to find different ways to hurt people no matter what the means of doing so are. I understand that there is a problem with stabbings in the UK, so it doesn't take long to think that the same issue would occur in the US under similar circumstances. Beyond that, people love to come up with ways to incite destruction...
- So what makes this any different than anything we've seen before? If 32 people were killed by a guy with a hockey stick or a baseball bat, would we be attempting to ban sports equipment sales? What if he stabbed 32 people with a steak-knife? Would we attempt to ban sharp silverware from dinner tables? Guns are a scape-goat, and we all know it. In this situation, guns are both a manifestation of the devil, and also a kind of savior... What if the police weren't allowed to use guns? Would they have been able to stop them?
- I'm certain that this will all lead down a path to a few gross generalizations that will have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and will all get rolled together in some sort of way to control culture once again:
* Violent videogames are bad, mmmmkay
* Death-Metal kills people
* Too many people are violent in the US, but not the rest of the world (where they instead choose to blow themselves up)
* Americans are incompetent fools who can't see past the barrel of their own gun (even when Europeans have had a long-history of mass-shootings, same with the Aussies, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again)
...Etc...
- 20,145
- Australia
- VIPERGTS01
Which wont make any difference as criminals still have their guns and citizens still can get handguns legally. At the time of the Monash University shooting I legally owned 5 handguns, the result of the new laws due to Monash University shooting I lost one but replaced it with another of almost equal power.
The new handgun laws was media and politcally driven.
Haha I think that has occured to everyone here at one time or another.
Thats right, although I did profit a few hundred dollars from the new laws.
- 7,956
- BradleyH131
I'm not saying that Australia or any other countries are some eutopia with no gun deaths. But the rest of the developed world has no where near the firearm death rate the US does.
Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
"This is reflected in our constitution, whose second amendment guarantees that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Though the application of this amendment applied to maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership, the second amendment has been consistently interpreted to protect private ownership of many types of guns."
Tradition is not a basis for a system of laws. Women traditionally weren't allowed to vote. Why are they allowed to now?
I guess it's just unfathomable to me how you can live in a society where you have to have the ability to kill someone cold from across the street to be safe.
Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)
ledhed
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
"This is reflected in our constitution, whose second amendment guarantees that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Though the application of this amendment applied to maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership, the second amendment has been consistently interpreted to protect private ownership of many types of guns."
Tradition is not a basis for a system of laws. Women traditionally weren't allowed to vote. Why are they allowed to now?
Good point. But I personally am prepared to give up a right I (And probably 90% of the population) never felt the need to use, in possibly making the country a safer place to live.
I'm more then safe. I personally feel safe knowing the next time I get into an argument with someone I'm most likely not going to get shot in the face. I'm sure the police who protect me can do their job a lot better knowing that every person walking down the street can take them down from 50 yards.Solid Lifters
I guess it's just unfathomable to me how you can live in a society where you have to have the ability to kill someone cold from across the street to be safe.
V1P3R
(Banned)
- 6,310
Actually... as cold or whatever you wish to label me, I do see past it. I see that many other contries lose so many more lives daily because situations like iraq that have been going on for a looooong time. We, feel so bad when we lose 1 or 5 or 20 but it's a drop in the bucket compared to other countries. Further proof is how America cries over the little amount lost in the iraq war.
That ought to piss off a lot of people(americans). xD
- 17,865
- 509
YSSMAN, we radically disagree on car stuff, but here I see very similar thinking.
There are several very valid reasons mentioned as to why we should be able to have fire arms.
My family lives in an area that is primarily rural. You could die in your house and no one would notice for a week. Guy breaks in at night, shoots family dead, leaves. Cops wouldn't get a call till someone smelled it, etc. And note, these people that break and enter typically have illegally obtained fire arms.
Next point - I know several people that hunt regularly and probably could not afford to eat so well if they could not hunt for the meat. One guy I know would come down from the mountain he lived on once or twice a year, bought ammo, casing, powder, and some bulk food stuffs, and then would disappear for the winter and such.
Australia and the UK are not the US. They are both completely surrounded by water, thus making the borders a bit easier to control. We have enough trouble controlling people and drugs from enter the country, how would guns be any different? All it would do is put more guns in the hands of criminals, dis arming the citizens that are responsible with a fire arm. Your countries tend to have knee jerk reactions to these things.
But think about this - if this guy really wanted to kill people, he would have found a way. Bomb, car, knife, fire, etc. Like my dad use to say, "locks keep honest people out." If someone truly wants to do something, they will find a way, making gun laws would only keep honest people from having them.
And about reactions to random calamity. Apparently in Germany, they have people that go off the deep end and proceed to drive down the auto bahn... the wrong direction. People generally die in this sorts of things, yet they haven't banned cars.
The response to this is always "well, guns are made to kill, cars are not." Guns are not made to kill people, and quite abit of the market consists of sporting guns. More or less, they are tool to get a job done. There are several uses for them besides killing people, such as target shooting, hunting, animal control, and some really random things (my dad use to shoot things out of trees that would get stuck - just shoot the branch off).
It comes down ultimately that people want an easy thing to blame, besides society and such. Like YSSMAN said, they (Guns) are a scape-goat. They get banned and something else will be blamed for murder, etc. Just because you think it works for your country, do not think it works here. And just because mass shootings are less common in your country, consider the population difference, and as ledhed pointed out, the whole picture behind violent crimes, not just the random big incidents.
Fact is, many of you are reacting like people do about plane crashes and other things that receive unbalanced news coverage. You are overlooking the things that kill far MORE people, and the much larger picture, because something gets more news coverage.
There are several very valid reasons mentioned as to why we should be able to have fire arms.
My family lives in an area that is primarily rural. You could die in your house and no one would notice for a week. Guy breaks in at night, shoots family dead, leaves. Cops wouldn't get a call till someone smelled it, etc. And note, these people that break and enter typically have illegally obtained fire arms.
Next point - I know several people that hunt regularly and probably could not afford to eat so well if they could not hunt for the meat. One guy I know would come down from the mountain he lived on once or twice a year, bought ammo, casing, powder, and some bulk food stuffs, and then would disappear for the winter and such.
Australia and the UK are not the US. They are both completely surrounded by water, thus making the borders a bit easier to control. We have enough trouble controlling people and drugs from enter the country, how would guns be any different? All it would do is put more guns in the hands of criminals, dis arming the citizens that are responsible with a fire arm. Your countries tend to have knee jerk reactions to these things.
But think about this - if this guy really wanted to kill people, he would have found a way. Bomb, car, knife, fire, etc. Like my dad use to say, "locks keep honest people out." If someone truly wants to do something, they will find a way, making gun laws would only keep honest people from having them.
And about reactions to random calamity. Apparently in Germany, they have people that go off the deep end and proceed to drive down the auto bahn... the wrong direction. People generally die in this sorts of things, yet they haven't banned cars.
The response to this is always "well, guns are made to kill, cars are not." Guns are not made to kill people, and quite abit of the market consists of sporting guns. More or less, they are tool to get a job done. There are several uses for them besides killing people, such as target shooting, hunting, animal control, and some really random things (my dad use to shoot things out of trees that would get stuck - just shoot the branch off).
It comes down ultimately that people want an easy thing to blame, besides society and such. Like YSSMAN said, they (Guns) are a scape-goat. They get banned and something else will be blamed for murder, etc. Just because you think it works for your country, do not think it works here. And just because mass shootings are less common in your country, consider the population difference, and as ledhed pointed out, the whole picture behind violent crimes, not just the random big incidents.
Fact is, many of you are reacting like people do about plane crashes and other things that receive unbalanced news coverage. You are overlooking the things that kill far MORE people, and the much larger picture, because something gets more news coverage.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
It really doesn't piss me off at all. As a matter of fact, we're lucky to have lost that few people in Iraq (mostly to bomb explosions, not small-arms fire), and although the shootings are horrible acts here in the US no matter how many people were killed, it could have been much, much worse.
...But people always say that we are so obsessed with our guns that we really don't care who has them, and what they do with them, as long as we can shoot back. And they're right. I've got three bolt-action rifles sitting in my father's basement, and I could very easily go over to my Grandfather's house and find three times that, not to mention a wide-assortment of handguns (everything from his military-issue Colt, to a late 19th-Century .45 Magnum)...
The whole notion that if something were to happen near me, God forbid, and that I can reach for a gun to protect myself and my family is indeed a right that I hold near and very dear to my heart, as is the case with many other Americans. We deem it necessary to protect one another with the weapons by which we can also kill each other, and be that as it may, it is our own strange safety-net of sorts when it comes to civil order. If you've got someone robing your house, a gun is usually a good way to get the guy to leave, particularly with a warning shot. Its also a good way to disburse of a crowd, be they civil or not.
Quite frankly, situations such as these are only a greater case in which I have to purchase a handgun for myself (with a license of course), and beyond that receive weapons training. Protection of myself and my family, above all, is paramount, beyond that the protection of my property, and that of my nation as well. The Second Amendment was created for a reason, and in my interpretation of the Amendment, the guarantee to the right of citizen control of firearms is what I gather...
So to Casio, and I by no means wish to incite any negative feelings, but I think it is hard for someone who isn't American to understand the way that our Constitution works in a situation like this. Quoting some random source, particularly one that apparently comes from Utah, by no means represents a true explanation of the Second Amendment. You have to understand that people have been fighting over the meaning of the Constitution for the majority of the existence of this nation, and you are likely to either follow it word for word (as that author appears to do) or apply it to reasonable situations and modern times (as most Americans do). In that we see the split between the pro and anti-gun control folks, and that too is largely split down political lines in the United States as well.
The Democrats are probably going to go nuts on this in the House, and the Senate is a tough-call. Either way, and bill sent to the President is likely to get vetoed, and furthermore, any Constitutional change will likely be overturned by the states and the citizens, as once again I will say that America would rather live with events such as these (despite how horrible they are) than have their guns taken away...
- 17,865
- 509
Might be, but not I. I do admit the losses to those families who do lose someone are massive (having had death in my immediate family, I somewhat understand), but the number of lives we have lost have been, as you put it, a drop in the bucket.
Most people try to be wishy washy about this stuff, and as I said earlier, miss the forest for the tree basically. Like an onion, there is more than just one layer, and it sucks a bit the more layers you pull back. They fail realize thats what they need to do to fully understand the situation, rather than just say "hey, it works" after only glossing over superficial data.
@ Casio - find how many guns in those countries first, as I think that would be a more important factor than just population. You cannot just post a graph that does not consider other elements; its never as simple as variable A directly affects variable B, and C through Z are unaffected.
- 3,425
I'm not saying that Australia or any other countries are some Utopia with no gun deaths. But the rest of the developed world has no where near the firearm death rate the US does.
Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
"This is reflected in our constitution, whose second amendment guarantees that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Though the application of this amendment applied to maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership, the second amendment has been consistently interpreted to protect private ownership of many types of guns."
Tradition is not a basis for a system of laws. Women traditionally weren't allowed to vote. Why are they allowed to now?
Good point. But I personally am prepared to give up a right I (And probably 90% of the population) never felt the need to use, in possibly making the country a safer place to live.
I'm more then safe. I personally feel safe knowing the next time I get into an argument with someone I'm most likely not going to get shot in the face. I'm sure the police who protect me can do their job a lot better knowing that every person walking down the street can take them down from 50 yards.
I guess it's just unfathomable to me how you can live in a society where you have to have the ability to kill someone cold from across the street to be safe.
Casio that OPINION piece you quoted on the second amendment has been totally discredited about 900000000000 times.
If you PERSONALLY take the time to read the amendment and actually do some research into the INTENT of the amendment and WHY it was added . along with the history of the US . You will find that the second amendment is there to allow an ARMED PUBLIC to GUARANTEE their ability to defend themselves from GOVERNMENT TYRANNY . As well as PROTECT themselves from rattle snakes and human snakes.
The US is a unique country. I am OLD enough to remember when it was safe to walk around without a gun or fear of being shot by a kid who thinks shooting someone in the butt is funny and using a gun is fashionable.
Now if someone was to even attempt to tell me our society hasn't been influenced by our MEDIA of all types and has been desensitized to violence by being BOMBARDED with it day in day out in ALL forms of Movies -television-music ..NEWS ....I would dismiss them as deluded and possibly dangerous.
Maybe just nuts .
My life has spanned several generations of youth culture..I have a 17 year old son and a 26 year old daughter.
So I PAY ATTENTION......no choice..and what I see is the trend to wards solving problems using weapons , especially among drug gangs and youth gangs ...getting worse.
The random nut jobs shooting up schools are hoping to be immortalized in film by Michael Moore...and knowing they are dead or jailed for life need to leave SOMETHING of their miserable existence behind...and thanks to 24 hour a day NEWS coverage..they have BECOME immortal.
All I had was 3 stations and UHF ...no cable... and nuts were forgotten as fast as possible...NOT made into national campaigns and movie stars. And put on TV until the next Blondie airhead O.D's and the news guys have something else to pound on for weeks .
Society has changed. And restricting guns ownership is STUPID and dangerous and doesn't WORK .
Washington D.C,has the STRICTEST gun laws in the world almost ...they rank two or three in murder rate . Camden ..N.J. SAME deal..N.J. gun laws are among the most strict in the country..NYC...SAME.....ETC...
GUN LAWS DO NOT WORK .
Look up ALL the existing laws that are not being ENFORCED and wonder for a minute ...how adding more will do any better ..
Please go EDUCATE yourself on the existing laws..you will find that IF they were enforced..GUN CRIMES would plummet..and Cities that do have PROVEN that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
In Phila. we have a Mayor who thinks the POLICE cause crime...he is insane and our murder rate reflects his attitude. Its open season ...he is anti -law enforcement...and people have an attitude that reflects his.....so you get so called witness's deliberately misleading the police and laughing about it...after a old man gets killed in a gang war ..because he didn't duck .
He gets on the radio and says he wont put police in schools because they carry guns ........HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ....THE STUDENTS have better GUNS than the COPS .
We do not live in a polite or honorable society anymore. Only in pockets of the country will you find it ..and in some pockets of urban areas where the PEOPLE themselves have decided to police themselves.
Hence you see laws change to allow a home owner to shoot first and clean up the mess later . .....And crime against property almost disapears...lol.
Criminal want to make money ...hard to do dead .
BTW the DATA is almost 10 years old...ummmm didn't you look at it ? How is it relevant today ?
( hey a new graph may be WORSE ). But it MEANS NOTHING...except the rest of the world doesn't shoot each other as much as the US .
When you find out WHY people have decided its OK to shoot each other ..POST THAT..that will be relevant and actually usefully. Comparisons mean NOTHING...because you are NOT comparing two LIKE subjects.
Get it through your head that laws used in other countries will not always , and for the most part, be compatible with US law or our constitution. people who run for office that are pushing for gun laws get destroyed at the polling places..except for the nanny states...they hang in the suburbs and let Darwin do his thing in the cities.
Just as we got rid of the dumbest law ever against so called "assault weapons" ( you can only BUY your AR-15 with a 10 round magazine...but then go home and order an extended MAG that holds 50 .) .
And BTW ..take the bayonet lug off and make it a little nicer looking..
less scary....BUT THE SAME DAMNED RIFLE YOU MORON !!!
same ...Ban AK 47...Chinese sell SAME RIFLE take a few parts off make it look nicer...CHANGE the name ..US BUYS THEM BY THE SHIPLOAD !! LOL..
AND after you place you ten round mag in storage ..you can buy a nice drum magazine that will give you 50 -100 rounds of 7.65 ROCK AND ROLL BABY !! Sure give us more dumbest laws.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
I'll remind everyone that most US gun-related fatalities are suicides. Take the suicides out, and take the illegally obtianed gun-related fatalities out and I think you'll see a much different picture.
Australia increased gun control, what happened? Crime went up.
Canada increased gun control - crime went up.
England increased gun control (even disarmed many police officers) - duh, crime went up
It has been mentioned that Washington D.C. has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US - crime went up.
Face it folks, gun control laws encourage crime.
It was asked of me recently if I would support gun laws if our nation could start with a clean slate. If suddenly all illegal guns could be vaporized and no illegal guns were able to be brought into the country - would I support making guns illegal? The answer is no.
Crime is caused by an imbalance of power in favor of someone who is willing to use it. Take the power away from a criminal and he'll decide it isn't worth it. The ability to physically dominate someone tests peoples' morality - and some come up short.
So the best way to deter crime is to even the playing field. This is the part where gun control activists will point out that you can even the playing field two ways - by arming everyone, or by disarming everyone. Would we rather live in a disarmed society? No.
You cannot even the playing field by disarming everyone. People are inherently uneven when it comes to defending themselves. If there are no guns, a 20 year old male still has more power than a 70 year old female - and that will encourage crime. Give both of them guns and you have an even playing field. Take away the guns and you have a recipe for crime.
You are the most unsafe when you have no weapons and weapons are accessible to criminals. This scenario occurs when guns are made illegal, but illegal guns abound.
But if you had a choice between being armed and having an armed criminal in your house, or being unarmed and having an unarmed criminal in your house, you should choose the former.
Australia increased gun control, what happened? Crime went up.
Canada increased gun control - crime went up.
England increased gun control (even disarmed many police officers) - duh, crime went up
It has been mentioned that Washington D.C. has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US - crime went up.
Face it folks, gun control laws encourage crime.
It was asked of me recently if I would support gun laws if our nation could start with a clean slate. If suddenly all illegal guns could be vaporized and no illegal guns were able to be brought into the country - would I support making guns illegal? The answer is no.
Crime is caused by an imbalance of power in favor of someone who is willing to use it. Take the power away from a criminal and he'll decide it isn't worth it. The ability to physically dominate someone tests peoples' morality - and some come up short.
So the best way to deter crime is to even the playing field. This is the part where gun control activists will point out that you can even the playing field two ways - by arming everyone, or by disarming everyone. Would we rather live in a disarmed society? No.
You cannot even the playing field by disarming everyone. People are inherently uneven when it comes to defending themselves. If there are no guns, a 20 year old male still has more power than a 70 year old female - and that will encourage crime. Give both of them guns and you have an even playing field. Take away the guns and you have a recipe for crime.
You are the most unsafe when you have no weapons and weapons are accessible to criminals. This scenario occurs when guns are made illegal, but illegal guns abound.
But if you had a choice between being armed and having an armed criminal in your house, or being unarmed and having an unarmed criminal in your house, you should choose the former.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
Doubtful. Especially if she's got the granny gun - the shotgun. She can just point in his general direction and pull the trigger. But generally speaking skill with guns is determined by practice - though some, like the shotgun, require very little practice to be decent with.
Our granny is 70 years old, he's only 20. She's had quite a few more years to practice than he has. So if anything she has an advantage from that point of view.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
No need for steady hands with a rifle/shotgun. No need for spectacular vision with a shotgun etc. And she doesn't have to be as fast because she has the tactical advantage of being on the defensive. She can stand in the doorway waiting for him to come around - while he might not even know anyone is home.
It works out pretty well. WAAAY more even than hand-to-hand combat.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
Well, with this scenario you described this guy is pretty much screwed anyway.
She could just be waiting him with a pan or a baseball batt to hit him on the head.
That's really risky. 70 year old granny isn't going to have reflexes that are fast enough to swing something that quickly and accurately, or with much strength.
He could stick an arm up and be fine... or he could duck... or he could take the hit right on the head and possibly not even go down.
No, granny loses that battle 9 times out of 10 unless she has a gun.
livemusic
Premium
- 10,239
- Blumenau, SC
- livemusic81
The scenario makes things even for her, not the gun. In a old-west style duel she would most definitely lose.
If both are unarmed, and both have practice in a martial art, like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for instance, which doesn't require strenght, in a hand-to-hand confront they're even. And...
Danoff
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
Oh crap, not this 'old chestnut' again.
This 'proof' you've quoted is a completely fabricated lie which is often used by anti-gunners who try to use it for supporting their side. It's been proven, by our government, that the Second Amendment was intended for even the basic citizen, and not just for 'militias.'
Don't you think it's funny how the anti-gun side has to fabricate 'facts' and 'statistics' or manipulate them to 'prove' their side of the issue, yet pro-gun people tend to never lie about their side? Who do you think can and should be trusted on this issue? People who constantly lie, or the people who tell you the truth?
Now, I'm not trying to pick on anyone for 'lying,' but it does show how much the lying has effected people's opinion about this issue.
- 38,910
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
It's still fairly rediculous in my opinion that you require no training, no education and that there is no sense of resposibility put upon these people who are supposedly "protecting democracy".Solid Lifters
However, if we take a look at Switzerland, where everyone does military (or a civil) service and the personel are even given guns to take home! So why are the gun homicide rates so low in Switzerland? Because these people really do have the ability to protect their nation, because they are trained, and they do know their resposibilities.
Similar threads
- Poll
