NationStates Jolt Archive

It is interesting that people oppose gun ownership. I can understand their arguments. I am a staunch pacifist, afterall. Unfortunately, the government isn't and it has plenty of guns. Yet for some reason, opponents of gun ownership never seem to demand that soldiers and police can't have guns. Soldiers have automatic weapons, for crying out loud.

Are we to believe that people trained to kill can be trusted with automatic weapons while crack-addicted criminals will kill everyone if certain guns are legal? Why is it ok for some people to kill and not others? It's a huge inconsistancy if you ask me.

The crack addicts I have met (and there have been a few) generally don't own guns. They spend all their available money on crack. Drug dealers I have known often do have guns.

Good point, though I should point out that governments have killed far more people than drug cartels.

The crack addicts I have met (and there have been a few) generally don't own guns. They spend all their available money on crack. Drug dealers I have known often do have guns.
Joey P is right there, but having less guns about is surely going to make it harder for the drug dealers to get hold of them and also is going to stop your average kid from getting hold of one...There's people I know who I wouldn't trust with a gun, though they'd be perfectly allowed to get one under US laws...

Joey P is right there, but having less guns about is surely going to make it harder for the drug dealers to get hold of them and also is going to stop your average kid from getting hold of one...There's people I know who I wouldn't trust with a gun, though they'd be perfectly allowed to get one under US laws...
The drug dealers can smuggle tons of cocaine and heroin into the country. They will also smuggle in guns. Those who want guns and are willing to break the law will always be able to get them. I bought my first gun illegaly. Many others do the same.

It is interesting that people oppose gun ownership. I can understand their arguments. I am a staunch pacifist, afterall. Unfortunately, the government isn't and it has plenty of guns. Yet for some reason, opponents of gun ownership never seem to demand that soldiers and police can't have guns. Soldiers have automatic weapons, for crying out loud.

Are we to believe that people trained to kill can be trusted with automatic weapons while crack-addicted criminals will kill everyone if certain guns are legal? Why is it ok for some people to kill and not others? It's a huge inconsistancy if you ask me.
But soldiers don't bring thier assault weapons home with them.

But soldiers don't bring thier assault weapons home with them.

True, but they certainly do a lot of damage elsewhere.

But soldiers don't bring thier assault weapons home with them.
If I'm not mistaken swiss soldiers keep their guns at home.

The reason we let the military and police have guns is that they fight for us. If there were no military and police, we'd need guns ourselves to do their jobs.

The reason we let the military and police have guns is that they fight for us. If there were no military and police, we'd need guns ourselves to do their jobs.
Police almost never arrive in time to save a victim from a crime. Your defense is your responsibility.

I find it amusing that police say that criminals are better armed than they are. Why don't they just have better weapons? It's legal for them. Another thing that's funny about gun control is that Washington D.C. has some of the strictest anti-gun laws but one of the worst crime rates in the country. :mp5:

Police almost never arrive in time to save a victim from a crime. Your defense is your responsibility.

And if they didn't have guns it would be a lot harder for them to apprehend the criminal afterwards. And taking guns away from the military? That's just stupid.

You wouldn't have much of an army if you didn't let soldiers have guns, now, would you?

Besides, here in the UK where we have tighter gun controls than in the US, our police officers do not carry guns as standard. Some units do, but the average citizen is unlikely to ever see a police officer with a gun.
We do, of course, have some problems in some cities with gun crime, but otherwise I think our system works pretty well.

Obviously it would be much harder to implement a system like this in a society that has already grown used to having guns around them, so our way would probably not be suitable for the US to use, unless you introduced it over a long period of time, IMO.

I find it amusing that police say that criminals are better armed than they are. Why don't they just have better weapons? It's legal for them. Another thing that's funny about gun control is that Washington D.C. has some of the strictest anti-gun laws but one of the worst crime rates in the country. :mp5:

They don't have the funding to supply every officer with a top-of-the-line weapon.

Obviously it would be much harder to implement a system like this in a society that has already grown used to having guns around them, so our way would probably not be suitable for the US to use, unless you introduced it over a long period of time, IMO.

Actually, you can force progress I find.

But soldiers don't bring thier assault weapons home with them.


Maybe thats cause they have assault RIFLES, not assault weapons.

Maybe thats cause they have assault RIFLES, not assault weapons.

Way to point out the technicalities. You are a champion debater.

It is interesting that people oppose gun ownership. I can understand their arguments. I am a staunch pacifist, afterall. Unfortunately, the government isn't and it has plenty of guns. Yet for some reason, opponents of gun ownership never seem to demand that soldiers and police can't have guns. Soldiers have automatic weapons, for crying out loud.
Are we to believe that people trained to kill can be trusted with automatic weapons while crack-addicted criminals will kill everyone if certain guns are legal? Why is it ok for some people to kill and not others? It's a huge inconsistancy if you ask me.

Wow ....

Wow....

Ok I am over it. I think what you are asking is a genuine question to the people that are anti-guns. I have to agree with you that hypocricy is rampant in their arguments.

and new york has stricter gun control laws than alabama and alabama has worse crime rates so whats your point

its DC that throws off the national average, there is something fucked up going on there in general which is an extreme extreme

Actually, you can force progress I find.

But it would be a very big issue to force on a democratic society.

and new york has stricter gun control laws than alabama and alabama has worse crime rates so whats your point
its DC that throws off the national average, there is something fucked up going on there in general which is an extreme extreme

No DC proves that gun control or no gun laws makes no difference to a person that wants to do a violent crime. You can find an argument to say gun control works and find teh exact info to say gun control don't work. that is why attacking legal gun ownership is dumb, we should be attacking the mindset of criminals.

Police almost never arrive in time to save a victim from a crime. Your defense is your responsibility.
Yet the evil criminal is more likely to have the gun. If guns are legal then most law-abiding citizens are more likely to be on the recieving end. Think about it. What percentage of criminals have guns, and what percentage of non-criminals have guns?

Hypothetical situation.

Person is walking home late at night. Mugger drags Person into alleyway at gunpoint. Mugger demands wallet. If Person refuses, Person is pistol whipped. If Person still refuses to had over wallet, then Person is shot. This is assuming that Person has no gun.

Now what if Person does have a gun?

Person is walking home late at night. Mugger drags Person into alleyway at gunpoint. Mugger demands wallet. If Person reaches for gun, Person is shot. If Person refuses, Person is pistol whipped. If Person still refuses to had over wallet, then Person is shot. This is assuming that Person has no gun. Mugger has two guns now!

No DC proves that gun control or no gun laws makes no difference to a person that wants to do a violent crime.
2 words: cherry picking

DC is an EXTREME case with crime rates triple that of the 2nd highest in the controlled category, there is something ELSE going on there than just gun regulation

Yet the evil criminal is more likely to have the gun. If guns are legal then most law-abiding citizens are more likely to be on the recieving end. Think about it. What percentage of criminals have guns, and what percentage of non-criminals have guns?

Hypothetical situation.

Person is walking home late at night. Mugger drags Person into alleyway at gunpoint. Mugger demands wallet. If Person refuses, Person is pistol whipped. If Person still refuses to had over wallet, then Person is shot. This is assuming that Person has no gun.

Now what if Person does have a gun?

Person is walking home late at night. Mugger drags Person into alleyway at gunpoint. Mugger demands wallet. If Person reaches for gun, Person is shot. If Person refuses, Person is pistol whipped. If Person still refuses to had over wallet, then Person is shot. This is assuming that Person has no gun. Mugger has two guns now!
AKIMBO!

I am also a Pacifist, by nature, not choice. But I want there to be as little gun control as possible, to make it easier for me and my buddies come 2005.

2 words: cherry pickingDC is an EXTREME case with crime rates triple that of the 2nd highest in the controlled category, there is something ELSE going on there than just gun regulation

I think its something in the water. Ok either that or just a bunch of dumb people running around, but that can be said in every city it seems

I think its something in the water. Ok either that or just a bunch of dumb people running around, but that can be said in every city it seems
dc is kind of nutty, maybe its road rage or protestors or something like that

It is interesting that people oppose gun ownership. I can understand their arguments. I am a staunch pacifist, afterall. Unfortunately, the government isn't and it has plenty of guns. Yet for some reason, opponents of gun ownership never seem to demand that soldiers and police can't have guns. Soldiers have automatic weapons, for crying out loud.

Are we to believe that people trained to kill can be trusted with automatic weapons while crack-addicted criminals will kill everyone if certain guns are legal? Why is it ok for some people to kill and not others? It's a huge inconsistancy if you ask me.
OK, so we should take guns away from Police and Military. Wow, thats just screaming out to some guy in Mexico to jump the border, and rip up Texas robbing banks and houses because the Texas Rangers are armed with... sticks.

So, in the war on Terrorism, we should deprive our soldiers of weapons, and provide them with... rocks, and tell them to try to talk the terrorists into dropping their weapons.

This is definitely one of the most alarming propositions I have EVER heard of. Thank God we do not live in this type of existence.

It is interesting that people oppose gun ownership. I can understand their arguments. I am a staunch pacifist, afterall. Unfortunately, the government isn't and it has plenty of guns. Yet for some reason, opponents of gun ownership never seem to demand that soldiers and police can't have guns. Soldiers have automatic weapons, for crying out loud.

Are we to believe that people trained to kill can be trusted with automatic weapons while crack-addicted criminals will kill everyone if certain guns are legal? Why is it ok for some people to kill and not others? It's a huge inconsistancy if you ask me.

Gun control does not equal gun banning. Soldiers have been trained in the proper care and use of the guns they have. That is all I would ask of the common citizen. They should be trained in the proper care, use, and storage of said weapons and acquire a license (which should get more and more stringent depending on the type of gun).

If I'm not mistaken swiss soldiers keep their guns at home.

Not only Swiss soldiers. Here in Norway where I am from, the national guard keep automatic weapons and ammo at home, though stored locked in, which are not to be opened during peace time, and controls are present. This came after WWII where there was no time to mobilize, and the Germans seized all military installations before there was sufficient time to hand out weapons to soldiers.

The need for guns at home for the military has faded over the years, and is now all but gone. And there have been some rather horrible murders comitted with these rifles, soldiers killing their entire family and themselves.

So now (last year) the norwegian government decided that weapons should still be kept at home, but stripped for some essential parts, wich kind of makes the whole thing just plain silly.....

Way to point out the technicalities. You are a champion debater.


Well, there is a significant differance between assault rifles and assault weapons.

As to the underlying point being made, it has been beaten to death in other threads.

No DC proves that gun control or no gun laws makes no difference to a person that wants to do a violent crime. You can find an argument to say gun control works and find teh exact info to say gun control don't work. that is why attacking legal gun ownership is dumb, we should be attacking the mindset of criminals.

No, DC shows that gun control does not reduce crime. If it made no differance to crime rates then states with liberalized concealed carry laws wouldnt have lower crime.

And if they didn't have guns it would be a lot harder for them to apprehend the criminal afterwards. And taking guns away from the military? That's just stupid.

I'm not suggesting we take way guns from the agents of the government. I'm saying that if ordinary people can't have guns, it is hypocritical to let government enforcers have them as that gives them way too much power.

No, DC shows that gun control does not reduce crime. If it made no differance to crime rates then states with liberalized concealed carry laws wouldnt have lower crime.
new york has higher crime rates than alabama, stick your cherry picking lies in your ear

DC doesnt prove nothing, its an extreme case and i dunno wtf is going on

Americans scare me ... well some do.

I'm not suggesting we take way guns from the agents of the government. I'm saying that if ordinary people can't have guns, it is hypocritical to let government enforcers have them as that gives them way too much power.

You know that government officials are human beings too, right?

Gun control is being able to use the weapon in an accurate and safe manner.

I agree with you Letila!

Why should the Government restrict my right to carry an RPG-7 in the open loaded and ready to fire?!

I'd legalize it if I was elected.

new york has higher crime rates than alabama, stick your cherry picking lies in your ear

DC doesnt prove nothing, its an extreme case and i dunno wtf is going on

NYC, where the crime comes from also has one of the nations strictest gun control policies.

Alabama has much much looser gun laws.

Actually, you can force progress I find. But it would be a very big issue to force on a democratic society.

And is it really progress?

NYC, where the crime comes from also has one of the nations strictest gun control policies.

Alabama has much much looser gun laws.
wait im sorry i said that wrong, excuse me

ALABAMA has HIGHER crime rates than NEW YORK

im sorry i dont think when im writing stuff sometimes

You know that government officials are human beings too, right?

Which is why they shouldn't be trusted with power if humans are inherently bad and will abuse it.

ALABAMA has HIGHER crime rates than NEW YORK

It's also much more conservative.

It's also much more conservative.
does that somehow hold an inherent point?

does that somehow hold an inherent point?

Just a subtle way of saying Conservatism is evil and should be wiped out by Anime Porn... I mean... Anime... ya.

Letila you know I'm joking :rolleyes:

Gun control effort should be criminal control efforts.

Literally, it takes a human to pull a trigger.

No replies to my point? *sniffle*

I believe that allowing people to own guns is good. However, I think there should be more control to who purchases the guns, and for what they are being used for.

What if someone broke into your home and they were armed? I would think that you would feel safer if you also had some type of a weapon in the house. You could then save the life of you and your family if need be.

Places that do sell guns should have a stricter policy, however, for their customers. That way the crazy people in the world wouldn't be sold guns. Only the ones that would use them for the right reasons.

I believe that allowing people to own guns is good. However, I think there should be more control to who purchases the guns, and for what they are being used for.

What if someone broke into your home and they were armed? I would think that you would feel safer if you also had some type of a weapon in the house. You could then save the life of you and your family if need be.

Places that do sell guns should have a stricter policy, however, for their customers. That way the crazy people in the world wouldn't be sold guns. Only the ones that would use them for the right reasons.
and your attempting to draw a gun on a guy breaking into your house already armed and thus probably got a hair trigger at the momemt has a good 90% chance of getting your ass shot


cops dont kill people accidently because their finger slipped

does that somehow hold an inherent point?

Sure it does. Maybe it's higher crime rate is due to conservatism rather than guns.

Sure it does. Maybe it's higher crime rate is due to conservatism rather than guns.
so we should outlaw conservatism? sounds fine to me

The Police needs guns to defend themselves against the anarchists.

The Police needs guns to defend themselves against the anarchists.

Nowadays, it's almost always the police attacking the anarchists and even back when anarchists tried assasination, they were more likely to be attacked than initiate an attack.

and your attempting to draw a gun on a guy breaking into your house already armed and thus probably got a hair trigger at the momemt has a good 90% chance of getting your ass shot





What's your source? Both for this and for the higher Alabama crime rate?

"Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. "(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)

In most defensive gun uses, the gun is not fired. In only 1% of instances are criminals wounded, and in only 0.1% are criminals killed.

A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)

Thirty-six states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry guns for protection. Twenty-six states have adopted RTC laws in the last 15 years. Half of Americans, including 60% of handgun owners, live in RTC states.

Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws` effectiveness concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent." (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998)

RTC states have lower violent crime rates on average: 24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower murder, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (FBI) People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public."

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/ranks.html

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/ranks.html

Thank you. Now according to these sites Alabama is higher on the total number of crimes committed, including vandalism, theft etc. If you look at the number of violent crimes committed Alabama is considerably lower in both total number and per capita. Neither site states the percentage that firearms were utilized.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/ranks.html
Alabama violent crime rate per 100,000 = 438.6
New York violent crime rate per 100,000 = 516.0

New York has a higher violent crime rate than Alabama. Perhaps there is truth to the tighter gun controls = higher violent crime rates.

Hypocracy is the norm in today's society. I would give examples, but I wouldn't know where where to start. :eek:

It constantly amazes me how so many of those who despise the policies of the government only trust said government to carry guns.


You cannot expect government power-mongerers to give a damn what unarmed civilians think.

It is interesting that people oppose gun ownership. I can understand their arguments. I am a staunch pacifist, afterall. Unfortunately, the government isn't and it has plenty of guns. Yet for some reason, opponents of gun ownership never seem to demand that soldiers and police can't have guns. Soldiers have automatic weapons, for crying out loud.

Are we to believe that people trained to kill can be trusted with automatic weapons while crack-addicted criminals will kill everyone if certain guns are legal? Why is it ok for some people to kill and not others? It's a huge inconsistancy if you ask me.
1) Soldiers and police are extensively trained to use their weapons.
2) Soldiers and police tend not to use their weapons indiscriminately.
3) When it is found out that soldiers or police have abused their use of weapons, they are generally punished, just as "crack-addicted criminals".

The drug dealers can smuggle tons of cocaine and heroin into the country. They will also smuggle in guns. Those who want guns and are willing to break the law will always be able to get them. I bought my first gun illegaly. Many others do the same.
But making them illegal:
1) makes them that much harder to get a hold of in the first place (even if not impossible)
2) makes it that much easier to identify those who would break the law to obtain them, since anyone who possessed them would have them illegally.

Not only Swiss soldiers. Here in Norway where I am from, the national guard keep automatic weapons and ammo at home, though stored locked in, which are not to be opened during peace time, and controls are present. This came after WWII where there was no time to mobilize, and the Germans seized all military installations before there was sufficient time to hand out weapons to soldiers.

The need for guns at home for the military has faded over the years, and is now all but gone. And there have been some rather horrible murders comitted with these rifles, soldiers killing their entire family and themselves.

So now (last year) the norwegian government decided that weapons should still be kept at home, but stripped for some essential parts, wich kind of makes the whole thing just plain silly.....
Gotta love bureaucracy (sp?).

But making them illegal:
1) makes them that much harder to get a hold of in the first place (even if not impossible)
2) makes it that much easier to identify those who would break the law to obtain them, since anyone who possessed them would have them illegally.
And 3) violates Amendment II.

My dad has a bumper sticker on his 15-year-old truck that says:

Gun Control [insert phonetic spelling here]: vt. Hitting where you aim.