NationStates Jolt Archive

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

I like the idea of more guns and more armed people. I'm kind of a hothead. I still keep my cool though when I'm carrying a gun. I think most people are the same way. Also I think that the real possibility of being shot will deter crime better than the tiny possibility that the police will get their heads out of their asses long enough to solve a crime and put the criminal away.

Or, alternatively, it will further legitimise the use of guns and violence to achieve a certain goal.

Rather than mug someone, one might just shoot them and take the stuff off their dead body.

And indeed, the correlation between guns and crime seems to be largely the obvious one: more guns means more crime committed with guns (unless, as in the case of Switzerland, the guns can't actually be used because they're so restricted).

I like the idea of more guns and more armed people. I'm kind of a hothead. I still keep my cool though when I'm carrying a gun. I think most people are the same way. Also I think that the real possibility of being shot will deter crime better than the tiny possibility that the police will get their heads out of their asses long enough to solve a crime and put the criminal away.

I know that carrying a gun would be a sobering factor on my temper as well. Not to mention on my drinking responsibility levels.

You already have a worse murder rate than India which LACKS an effective police force but does have good gun-control.

You think things will get BETTER with this?

I like the idea of more guns and more armed people. I'm kind of a hothead. I still keep my cool though when I'm carrying a gun. I think most people are the same way. Also I think that the real possibility of being shot will deter crime better than the tiny possibility that the police will get their heads out of their asses long enough to solve a crime and put the criminal away.Of course, making guns available to absolutely everyone will increase the chances of them getting in the hands of individuals that are not emotionally mature enough to keep cool, such as children.

Of course, making guns available to absolutely everyone will increase the chances of them getting in the hands of individuals that are not emotionally mature enough to keep cool, such as children.

Or stupid crazy angry people. I've met more than my fair share.

You already have a worse murder rate than India which LACKS an effective police force but does have good gun-control.

You think things will get BETTER with this?

We don't have the same society as India, which is a far more important factor than the presence of guns.

I know that carrying a gun would be a sobering factor on my temper as well. Not to mention on my drinking responsibility levels.

Maybe it would for you, but it wouldn't for everybody. After all, look at the number of drink driving deaths a year

You already have a worse murder rate than India which LACKS an effective police force but does have good gun-control.

You think things will get BETTER with this?

How do we even know India's crime rate? Lack of effective police means lack of reliable reporting of crimes and therefore lack of accurate crime statistics.

Criminals aren't too afraid of the police. Let's face it, the police are hardly ever at the scene of a violent crime. They're not a deterrent because most criminals honestly believe that they won't get caught. Now if the majority of people are armed, the would-be violent criminal needs to consider the fact that if he does something he may well be shot. Even if he's not shot, gunfire attracts attention and it raises the chances that the police actually will show up.

Maybe it would for you, but it wouldn't for everybody. After all, look at the number of drink driving deaths a year

I's don't has a car :D

By making guns more freely accessible you also make them more accessible to criminals. Surely what will actually happen is that where a crime is attempted it is more likely that one or both of the criminal and victim have guns, dramatically increasing the chances of a fatality. And then theres the risk of innocent bystanders taking a bullet in public areas when a crime is attempted. This "solution" will cause more problems than it will solve.

Finally, a topic MtaE might be able to get away with.

You think things will get BETTER with this?
Yes.

By making guns more freely accessible you also make them more accessible to criminals. Surely what will actually happen is that where a crime is attempted it is more likely that one or both of the criminal and victim have guns, dramatically increasing the chances of a fatality. And then theres the risk of innocent bystanders taking a bullet in public areas when a crime is attempted. This "solution" will cause more problems than it will solve.

Maybe at first, but after a few years I think that most people who are prone to commit violent crimes will have either been killed by one of their prospective victims or locked up when the police arrive to investigate the gunfire. In the long term it may drastically reduce the number of criminals in our society.

By making guns more freely accessible you also make them more accessible to criminals. Surely what will actually happen is that where a crime is attempted it is more likely that one or both of the criminal and victim have guns, dramatically increasing the chances of a fatality. And then theres the risk of innocent bystanders taking a bullet in public areas when a crime is attempted. This "solution" will cause more problems than it will solve.


Then explain the reduction in the US's crime rate and an increase in personally owned firearms and Concealed Carry states.

Giving guns to all American citizens sounds like welfare. If a citizen wants a gun then they should buy it out of their own pocket. MTAE is a welfare statist apparently.

Giving guns to all American citizens sounds like welfare. If a citizen wants a gun then they should buy it out of their own pocket. MTAE is a welfare statist apparently.

...Bwah?

I's don't has a car :D

My point is that a car can be just as dangerous in careless, angry or drunken hands as a gun, and yet there are still thousands of cases of careless/drunk driving. Saying "because it's dangerous people will be more responsible" is wrong

Maybe at first, but after a few years I think that most people alive now who are prone to commit violent crimes will have either been killed by one of their prospective victims or locked up when the police arrive to investigate the gunfire. In the long term it may drastically reduce the number of criminals in our society.

It MAY do. Or it might create a trigger-happy gun culture. Or assist rival youth gang groups to kill each other and innocents in the streets. More people die in the interim period. And then we don't know what will happen. Id rather not risk it, thanks!

It MAY do. Or it might create a trigger-happy gun culture. Or gang wars in the streets. More people die in the interim period. And then we don't know what will happen. Id rather not risk it, thanks!

And yet the majority of US states have Concealed Carry laws and your doomsday senario hasn't happened but crime actually went down. So your claom to causality is false.

It MAY do. Or it might create a trigger-happy gun culture. Or gang wars in the streets. More people die in the interim period. And then we don't know what will happen. Id rather not risk it, thanks!

Might? Bwahaha! As though that wasn't already true. You know, if you can't be arsed to think it out, as opposed to "we don't know, I won't do it!", I hardly care what you would or would not risk.

Maybe this would work if there were stricter laws on the use of guns in violent crime. Say a mandatory long sentence if you used a gun during any sort of criminal activity.

My point is that a car can be just as dangerous in careless, angry or drunken hands as a gun, and yet there are still thousands of cases of careless/drunk driving. Saying "because it's dangerous people will be more responsible" is wrong

Actually plenty of people are more responsible than before when it comes to drinking and driving. Largely due to harsh penalties for driving drunk and because there are plenty of reminders in tv commercials and in print ads about the consequences of drunk driving. Similar measures could be used to reduce the instances of irresponsible gun ownership.

Then explain the reduction in the US's crime rate and an increase in personally owned firearms and Concealed Carry states.

More importantly, explain the reduction in the US's crime rate and the slow down of the expansion of the hole in the ozone layer.



See, I can make two unconnected statements in an attempt to draw the reader to a conclusion, too.

Yes.
Look, MTAE has defeated his own argument already. In the OP. Which must be something of a record:
If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife.
In short, the relationship between crime (or at least violent crime) and the number of guns available is close to non-existent.

That's been shown again and again, and it works in both ways. Just like gun control won't reduce violent crime because it just makes people stab each other, everyone having guns won't reduce violent crime either, because the reasons people commit the deed doesn't go away.

A good example might be the Wild West. I think we can say with some confidence that most people at that time owned guns, and that violent crime was quite common.

If everyone has guns, the robber will just have to shoot first and ask questions later.

It MAY do. Or it might create a trigger-happy gun culture. Or assist rival youth gang groups to kill each other and innocents in the streets. More people die in the interim period. And then we don't know what will happen. Id rather not risk it, thanks!

It hasn't done that in the states that have liberal gun laws. They tend to have the lowest crime rates.

Maybe this would work if there were stricter laws on the use of guns in violent crime. Say a mandatory long sentence if you used a gun during any sort of criminal activity.

Because going after the criminals might work and then the various hoplophobes wouldn't have an inanimate object to demonize and blame.

people kill people.

Which is why we should arm people. Yes? No.

More importantly, explain the reduction in the US's crime rate and the slow down of the expansion of the hole in the ozone layer.



See, I can make two unconnected statements in an attempt to draw the reader to a conclusion, too.

Except that in the case of guns they're not unconnected statements and you know it.

More importantly, explain the reduction in the US's crime rate and the slow down of the expansion of the hole in the ozone layer.



See, I can make two unconnected statements in an attempt to draw the reader to a conclusion, too.

He did not necessarily state that the 'increase in personally owned firearms' caused the 'reduction in the US's crime rate'. Simply, that the increase did not raise the rate of crime.

And, of course, every time a bullet is fired, a slight amount of chlorine is released, which foats up and destroys the ozone.

Look, MTAE has defeated his own argument already. In the OP. Which must be something of a record:

In short, the relationship between crime (or at least violent crime) and the number of guns available is close to non-existent.

That's been shown again and again, and it works in both ways. Just like gun control won't reduce violent crime because it just makes people stab each other, everyone having guns won't reduce violent crime.

A good example might be the Wild West. I think we can say with some confidence that most people at that time owned guns, and that violent crime was quite common.

If everyone has guns, the robber will just have to shoot first and ask questions later.



Actually, I agree w/ most of what you said except the Wild West. Crime was actually very uncommon. Most of what you hear is just media hype and elaboration.

Which is why we should arm people. Yes? No.

No, yes.

Actually plenty of people are more responsible than before when it comes to drinking and driving. Largely due to harsh penalties for driving drunk and because there are plenty of reminders in tv commercials and in print ads about the consequences of drunk driving. Similar measures could be used to reduce the instances of irresponsible gun ownership.

No, legalise drunk driving; that will make people more responsible.

He did not necessarily state that the 'increase in personally owned firearms' caused the 'reduction in the US's crime rate'. Simply, that the increase did not raise the rate of crime.

Exactly. I don't claim causality.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen.
This is the most irresponsible policy suggestion I have ever heard. While banning guns may or may not be the answer, giving them free to every Tom, Dick and Harry is a recipe for vigilante law and general chaotic bloodbath.

Because going after the criminals might work and then the various hoplophobes wouldn't have an inanimate object to demonize and blame.

Oh, I'm sure that there would be instances where a crime wouldn't have occured if a gun wasn't present... but I'm tired of losing that fight. And the constitution isn't on my side on the issue. So, yeah. I agree with a bit of a sinking heart. When the free guns come around, I wouldn't take one and as long as that is my choice, I think mandatory laws like the one I suggested might make a person think twice before getting their gun. Especially, if they are rational and realize that they have a violent or impulsive nature. Not that I'm violent or impulsive - I just personally don't agree with guns and don't want them in my home.

Land of the free.

Look, MTAE has defeated his own argument already. In the OP. Which must be something of a record:

In short, the relationship between crime (or at least violent crime) and the number of guns available is close to non-existent.

That's been shown again and again, and it works in both ways. Just like gun control won't reduce violent crime because it just makes people stab each other, everyone having guns won't reduce violent crime either, because the reasons people commit the deed doesn't go away.

A good example might be the Wild West. I think we can say with some confidence that most people at that time owned guns, and that violent crime was quite common.

If everyone has guns, the robber will just have to shoot first and ask questions later.
There was violence along the frontiers, but most of it was related to clashes with Indians, bandits or foreign nations. There was not a great deal of "ordinary" crime. From 1870 to 1885, the era of the Wild West when "everybody wore a gun," arrest rates per 100 residents were much lower in the West than in eastern cities.53 Moreover, "the Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer place than American society istoday."54 Contrary to the impression left by movies and Western novels, crime and homicides were rare. For example:55


• In 1880, wide-open towns like Virginia City, Nev., Leadville, Colo., and Dallas had no homicides.

• By comparison, Cincinnati had 17 homicides that year.

• From 1870 to 1885, the five Kansas railheads of Abilene, Caldwell, Dodge City, Ellsworth and Wichita had a total of 45 homicides, or an average of three per year - a lower homicide rate than New York City, Baltimore and Boston.56

• Sixteen of the 45 homicides were committed by duly authorized peace officers, and only two towns " Ellsworth in 1873 and Dodge City in 1876 " ever had as many as five killings in any one year.57
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176g.html

Oh, I'm sure that there would be instances where a crime wouldn't have occured if a gun wasn't present... but I'm tired of losing that fight. And the constitution isn't on my side on the issue. So, yeah. I agree with a bit of a sinking heart. When the free guns come around, I wouldn't take one and as long as that is my choice, I think mandatory laws like the one I suggested might make a person think twice before getting their gun. Especially, if they are rational and realize that they have a violent or impulsive nature. Not that I'm violent or impulsive - I just personally don't agree with guns and don't want them in my home.

Land of the free.

As is your choice and I support that. I don't support "guns for all" either.

ireland has a corrupt and inneficent police force. they are unarmed. about 5 have been fatally shot in 70 years and most of those were related to the northern conflict

our murder rate is a fraction of the US's and our crime rate is a fraction of yours. you are caught with a gun of any sort you get 6 years minimum. farmers and hunters are the exception, and they need to pass psychological tests and random spot checks on their rifles.

so for me the idea that handing out guns to reduce crime is beyond contemptable. ludicriuls twaddle the gun lobby put out there to defend the bizarre

This is the most irresponsible policy suggestion I have ever heard. While banning guns may or may not be the answer, giving them free to every Tom, Dick and Harry is a recipe for vigilante law and general chaotic bloodbath.

Perhaps we need to clarify the 'fit' in "every fit US citizen".

No, legalise drunk driving; that will make people more responsible.

How about we compromise? We'll make it legal to shoot drunk drivers.

ireland has a corrupt and inneficent police force. they are unarmed. about 5 have been fatally shot in 70 years and most of those were related to the northern conflict

our murder rate is a fraction of the US's and our crime rate is a fraction of yours. you are caught with a gun of any sort you get 6 years minimum. farmers and hunters are the exception, and they need to pass psychological tests and random spot checks on their rifles.

so for me the idea that handing out guns to reduce crime is beyond contemptable. ludicriuls twaddle the gun lobby put out there to defend the bizarre

The "gun lobby" supports "handing out guns"? Really? Can you support that statement?

what about crime-filled areas outside the US. we are not all americans.

How about we compromise? We'll make it legal to shoot drunk drivers.

Will there be a season or year-round?

Uhm, say - and be honest - do you guys really want to give me access to guns?

(See? Even I don't want myself with guns... Not even when I'm angry. :p)

You're argument was pretty much thrown out the window 70 years ago.

Will there be a season or year-round?

We'll make it seasonal. Actually several two week long seasons covering all the major drunk driving holidays. Memorial day, Independence day, the night before Thanksgiving, et cetera.

The UK already has some of the highest rates of violent crime. Throwing guns into the mix is going to hinder, rather than help the situation.

He did not necessarily state that the 'increase in personally owned firearms' caused the 'reduction in the US's crime rate'.

Nope, but he placed the statements conveniently together to prompt the reader to his conclusion.

Simply, that the increase did not raise the rate of crime.

He didn't state that at all.

And, of course, every time a bullet is fired, a slight amount of chlorine is released, which foats up and destroys the ozone.

See? Guns are evil.

Actually plenty of people are more responsible than before when it comes to drinking and driving. Largely due to harsh penalties for driving drunk and because there are plenty of reminders in tv commercials and in print ads about the consequences of drunk driving. Similar measures could be used to reduce the instances of irresponsible gun ownership.

Yes, but my point is that some people will always act irresponsibly. By adding to the number of people with guns, you automatically add to the number of irresponsible users. With cars, this is (arguably) worth the risks, as vehicles vastly increase productivity and save lives. Guns are completly unneccesary for 95% of the general public.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176g.html
Fair enough, bad example.

This struck me though:
"The image of the lone man defending his homestead . . . is deeply embedded in the American psyche."

And that's where the problem is. I can't share that, no matter how hard I try.

Now, I assume that most gun crime is actually crime committed by threatening to use guns. So I point a gun at you and ask me to give me your money.
Apart from the fact that this might still work if I jump you, even if you do carry a gun, if I know that you have a gun on you, I could just not take the risk and simply shoot you, then take your money.

The increased risk to the criminal ultimately doesn't really exist. So there is no reason that we have to change our evaluation of the relationship between guns available and violent crime.

I'm leaving for the Turkey Day festivities, but I'll just put these out there (sorry if someone's already posted them):


Which countries have crime rates spiraling out of control? The US? Please provide sources.

While it may be true that someone intent on murder will use any means (to an end?), giving everyone a free handgun would make it incredible easy to act on a sudden murderous impluse. Just in skimming this thread I saw two people, DCD and Andalucia (sorry about the spelling if it's wrong), who said they have tempers. They said having a gun might make them think, but I'm afraid that's not true for a lot of other people. Every fit American with a gun? I'm not going out to a bar on Saturday night. It's bad enough there are cretins punching each other out, now they'll be armed.


Sorry, MTAE, I'm not buying it. I think guns need to be controlled. If you can demonstrate a need for one, you can get a license (and there should be provisions for sportsmen and hunters). I don't see why an average citizen requires an automatic weapon, however. Certainly not for hunting, unless the deer and the antelope have gotten a lot more dangerous lately.

The "gun lobby" supports "handing out guns"? Really? Can you support that statement?

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen.

Didn't read the OP properly?

Yes, but my point is that some people will always act irresponsibly. By adding to the number of people with guns, you automatically add to the number of irresponsible users. With cars, this is (arguably) worth the risks, as vehicles vastly increase productivity and save lives. Guns are completly unneccesary for 95% of the general public.

Yeah, every decision is a trade-off. By banning guns you sentence certain people to death or rape because they don't have the tool they need to deter or kill an attacker. See? Whatever you do some folks will die. I prefer to let people have a fighting chance.

Nope, but he placed the statements conveniently together to prompt the reader to his conclusion.



He didn't state that at all.



See? Guns are evil.

No, you just assumed I was making the causality when I was pointing out a contradiction.

Didn't read the OP properly?

MTAE is a representative of the "gun lobby" now?

The "gun lobby" supports "handing out guns"? Really? Can you support that statement?

context mate.

MTAE is clearly a right wing whacko and he is advocating handing out guns to other right wing whacko's, thats what he means by 'fit' waspish and suspicious.

not the whole gun lobby, they just tolerate the higherst murder rate in the developed world for their profit lines.

I'm leaving for the Turkey Day festivities, but I'll just put these out there (sorry if someone's already posted them):


Which countries have crime rates spiraling out of control? The US? Please provide sources.
While it may be true that someone intent on murder will use any means (to an end?), giving everyone a free handgun would make it incredible easy to act on a sudden murderous impluse. Just in skimming this thread I saw two people, DCD and Andalucia (sorry about the spelling if it's wrong), who said they have tempers. They said having a gun might make them think, but I'm afraid that's not true for a lot of other people. Every fit American with a gun? I'm not going out to a bar on Saturday night. It's bad enough there are cretins punching each other out, now they'll be armed.


Sorry, MTAE, I'm not buying it. I think guns need to be controlled. If you can demonstrate a need for one, you can get a license (and there should be provisions for sportsmen and hunters). I don't see why an average citizen requires an automatic weapon, however. Certainly not for hunting, unless the deer and the antelope have gotten a lot more dangerous lately.

Having a gun does make me think twice before I do something stupid. I might go ahead and beat the crap out of someone and do a couple of months in county jail if I'm angry enough, but I'm not going to risk shooting someone and doing a couple of years in prison unless it's absolutely necessary. Every time I go out with my gun I think twice before I act.

No, you just assumed I was making the causality when I was pointing out a contradiction.

Of course you were. How silly of me.

Yeah, every decision is a trade-off. By banning guns you sentence certain people to death or rape because they don't have the tool they need to deter or kill an attacker. See? Whatever you do some folks will die. I prefer to let people have a fighting chance.

But that doesn't mean they need to be more accessible like the already very accessible guns today.

Fair enough, bad example.

This struck me though:


And that's where the problem is. I can't share that, no matter how hard I try.

Now, I assume that most gun crime is actually crime committed by threatening to use guns. So I point a gun at you and ask me to give me your money.
Apart from the fact that this might still work if I jump you, even if you do carry a gun, if I know that you have a gun on you, I could just not take the risk and simply shoot you, then take your money.

The increased risk to the criminal ultimately doesn't really exist. So there is no reason that we have to change our evaluation of the relationship between guns available and violent crime.

There is a reason because the facts don't fit the belief. The availability of legal firearms does not correlate to increases in violent crime.

MTAE is a representative of the "gun lobby" now?

In the context of this thread, yes.

context mate.

MTAE is clearly a right wing whacko and he is advocating handing out guns to other right wing whacko's, thats what he means by 'fit' waspish and suspicious.

not the whole gun lobby, they just tolerate the higherst murder rate in the developed world for their profit lines.
Yeah, I think basically he means "give rich people free guns ftw".

I think that everybody should have guns. Especially children, they need to defend themselves from bad people.

In the context of this thread, yes.

No, he does not being that numerous other "pro-gun" individuals do not support him in it.

But that doesn't mean they need to be more accessible like the already very accessible guns today.

How accessible they are depends on where you live. In NJ they're not all that accessible legally at all. I've never owned a legal firearm, and I've owned several. In places like Wyoming or even Virginia, they're much easier to get. In New Jersey most licensed owners of pistols aren't allowed to carry them. In many states you're allowed to carry them concealed.

Having a gun does make me think twice before I do something stupid. I might go ahead and beat the crap out of someone and do a couple of months in county jail if I'm angry enough, but I'm not going to risk shooting someone and doing a couple of years in prison unless it's absolutely necessary. Every time I go out with my gun I think twice before I act.

You do but will everyone?

There is a reason because the facts don't fit the belief. The availability of legal firearms does not correlate to increases in violent crime.
But does it correlate with decreases? That's the question.

And the Wild West, being a rather different society than modern America, may not be a good way to check.

We'll give every once guns. But no ammo. That will solve everything.

You do but will everyone?

One can never say what everyone will do, but I think most people will do the right thing.

But does it correlate with decreases? That's the question.

And the Wild West, being a rather different society than modern America, may not be a good way to check.

No, it doesn't. Crime in the UK increased as well as Canada, Russia, and South Africa after severe gun bans as well as several cities in the US.

I'm not using the Wild West. Just correcting an incorrect stereotype.

Yeah, every decision is a trade-off. By banning guns you sentence certain people to death or rape because they don't have the tool they need to deter or kill an attacker. See? Whatever you do some folks will die. I prefer to let people have a fighting chance.

Firstly, I contest that the number of deaths caused by accidents, irresponsible use, or criminal use are likely to be far higher than the number saved by self defence.

Second, when we are talking murder/rape, I agree defend yourself in nearly any way you can. But the original example on this thread was mugging. Do you honestly believe muggers should be put to death? Because that's what will happen effectivly, if you dole out guns along with the right to deal out private justice to everybody.

Third, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most victims of rape either children or young women? I would never allow children to carry firearms, and young women aren't exactly the most gun friendly people. I would push to say that the majority of them would feel uncomfortable carrying a gun on a night out , let alone be capable of using it effectivly. Plus under MTAE's scheme, your murderer/rapist almost certainly has a gun too.

One can never say what everyone will do, but I think most people will do the right thing.

You're more optimistic than I. That's probably why you got elected Pope.

One can never say what everyone will do, but I think most people will do the right thing.

51% of the population re-elected Bush. You think about that.

Giving guns to all American citizens sounds like welfare. If a citizen wants a gun then they should buy it out of their own pocket. MTAE is a welfare statist apparently.



:D Someone thought this out!


Anyhow, I think it should be the same as it is now. Take into account these factors.

#1 Guns are free to criminals, it's only a factor of money or a lock to break

#2 Sticking a gun into someones face does make them alittle more polite, to foil a robbery the round need not leave the firearm to difuse the situation.

#3 Guns are here to stay, the pandoras box is open and no amount of legislation is going to keep them from the wrong hands.

Further I think everyone is missing the point here. We have crime because of crap laws and a crap legal system. One could murder someone and walk out 10 years later on parole. We (Europe, US) are also becoming societies that has lost the concept of personal accountability. We are far to quick to attack a inannimate object or scapegoat while forgeting that these are humans commiting these crimes and it must be those humans who are held accountable for them. Instead we try to prevent further things from happening and instead cause bigger problems than what was originally there.

One can never say what everyone will do, but I think most people will do the right thing.

Most people would never murder an innocent person. Most people wouldn't abuse a child. There is a vast yawning chasm between "Most people" and "Everyone"

No, it doesn't. Crime in the UK increased as well as Canada, Russia, and South Africa after severe gun bans as well as several cities in the US.
A misunderstanding.

I'm asking the question at the core of this thread: Does an increase in the availability of guns actually correlate with a decrease in violent crime?

The evidence in the other direction seems to be that the two variables don't have a direct connection, as you pointed out.

One can never say what everyone will do, but I think most people will do the right thing.

You're more optimistic than I. That's probably why you got elected Pope.

As an example, when you drive around the country, count the number of stop signs with bullet holes in them. I'm told that that comes from mixing alcohol and guns. Now multiply that number several fold by putting a gun in the hands of every "fit" American. Those stop signs will quickly become people. And how am I supposed to express my displeasure at the lack of driving skills in the general public if the general public is armed?

No, it doesn't. Crime in the UK increased as well as Canada, Russia, and South Africa after severe gun bans as well as several cities in the US.

I'm not using the Wild West. Just correcting an incorrect stereotype.

UK crime is going down these days it seems. Also, does that factor in population growth? Crime now may be worse than the Middle Ages for sheer volume but then, so's the population...

And our 'gun crime capital' had something like six firearms offences in the last year Under British Law, firearms tends to include powerful BB guns and imitation weapons (at least, that's how it is for aggravated burglary).

Firstly, I contest that the number of deaths caused by accidents, irresponsible use, or criminal use are likely to be far higher than the number saved by self defence.
No, I contest that statement. You contend that they would be higher. I don't think you're right.Definitions of contest on the Web:

an occasion on which a winner is selected from among two or more contestants
a struggle between rivals
to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; "They contested the outcome of the race"

Definitions of contend on the Web:

maintain or assert; "He contended that Communism had no future"

[QUOTE]
Second, when we are talking murder/rape, I agree defend yourself in nearly any way you can. But the original example on this thread was mugging. Do you honestly believe muggers should be put to death? Because that's what will happen effectivly, if you dole out guns along with the right to deal out private justice to everybody.

Third, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most victims of rape either children or young women? I would never allow children to carry firearms, and young women aren't exactly the most gun friendly people. I would push to say that the majority of them would feel uncomfortable carrying a gun on a night out , let alone be capable of using it effectivly. Plus under MTAE's scheme, your murderer/rapist almost certainly has a gun too.I don't have the data in front of me, but I remember reading that most women who are raped are between 14 and 40. That would probably make most of them adults. Gun safety could be taught in schools and by parents. When the society's attitude toward guns relaxes the taboo about not wanting to carry them will disappear and most women will have no problem with carrying one.

As for the muggers, I've pulled a gun on a would be mugger. Muggers don't politely ask for your spare change, they intimidate and threaten. Sometimes they use weapons. If you try to threaten me I'm going to make it clear that carrying out that threat means you will get shot.

A misunderstanding.

I'm asking the question at the core of this thread: Does an increase in the availability of guns actually correlate with a decrease in violent crime?

The evidence in the other direction seems to be that the two variables don't have a direct connection, as you pointed out.

Also, I would like to point out that I would possibly tolerate a rise in violent crime if it lead to a reduction of fatal violent crime. A mugging where the guy gets knocked to the ground is a violent crime. A bar fight is a violent crime. A shooting is considerably more serious than either

Firstly, I contest that the number of deaths caused by accidents, irresponsible use, or criminal use are likely to be far higher than the number saved by self defence.

Estimates range from about 100K to 2.5 million / year w/ averages about 1 million / year of defensive gun uses. By US averages, that amounts to thousands of lives saved/year.

Second, when we are talking murder/rape, I agree defend yourself in nearly any way you can. But the original example on this thread was mugging. Do you honestly believe muggers should be put to death? Because that's what will happen effectivly, if you dole out guns along with the right to deal out private justice to everybody.

Only if you assume that you're "only " being mugged and that CDC supports "guns for everyone".

Third, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most victims of rape either children or young women? I would never allow children to carry firearms, and young women aren't exactly the most gun friendly people. I would push to say that the majority of them would feel uncomfortable carrying a gun on a night out , let alone be capable of using it effectivly. Plus under MTAE's scheme, your murderer/rapist almost certainly has a gun too.

And why are "young women" not "gun friendly"? Could it be media stereotypes?

MTAE's scheme is as stupid as his poor=slavery concept.

51% of the population re-elected Bush. You think about that.

I thought he lost the popular vote.

UK crime is going down these days it seems. Also, does that factor in population growth? Crime now may be worse than the Middle Ages for sheer volume but then, so's the population...

And our 'gun crime capital' had something like six firearms offences in the last year Under British Law, firearms tends to include powerful BB guns and imitation weapons (at least, that's how it is for aggravated burglary).

Yes, I figured in population and didn't just include "firearm" crime but violent crime which was being asked. No correlation.

Third, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most victims of rape either children or young women? I would never allow children to carry firearms, and young women aren't exactly the most gun friendly people. I would push to say that the majority of them would feel uncomfortable carrying a gun on a night out , let alone be capable of using it effectivly. Plus under MTAE's scheme, your murderer/rapist almost certainly has a gun too.
Young women wouldn't need to defend themselves from rapists if they didn't dress so slutty. Keeping them defenceless will hopefully encourage them to dress properly.

I thought he lost the popular vote.

That was in 2000, wasn't it?

ireland has a corrupt and inneficent police force. they are unarmed. about 5 have been fatally shot in 70 years and most of those were related to the northern conflict

our murder rate is a fraction of the US's and our crime rate is a fraction of yours. you are caught with a gun of any sort you get 6 years minimum. farmers and hunters are the exception, and they need to pass psychological tests and random spot checks on their rifles.

so for me the idea that handing out guns to reduce crime is beyond contemptable. ludicriuls twaddle the gun lobby put out there to defend the bizarre
I agree, though in fairness corruption and ineffiency in the Gardaí isn't as pervasive as you make out.

Young women wouldn't need to defend themselves from rapists if they didn't dress so slutty. Keeping them defenceless will hopefully encourage them to dress properly.

Oh how I hope you aren't serious.

Young women wouldn't need to defend themselves from rapists if they didn't dress so slutty. Keeping them defenceless will hopefully encourage them to dress properly.

I like women when they dress slutty. If you can't deal with it go live in Pakistan or some other shit hole.

That was in 2000, wasn't it?

According to journalist Greg Palast he shouldn't have won in 2004 either. Many blacks and native Americans didn't have their votes counted.

No, I contest that statement. You contend that they would be higher. I don't think you're right.[QUOTE]Definitions of contest on the Web:

an occasion on which a winner is selected from among two or more contestants
a struggle between rivals
to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; "They contested the outcome of the race"

Definitions of contend on the Web:

maintain or assert; "He contended that Communism had no future"


I bow to your superior grammatical skill. However , I still think deaths would be higher. See below


I don't have the data in front of me, but I remember reading that most women who are raped are between 14 and 40. That would probably make most of them adults. Gun safety could be taught in schools and by parents. When the society's attitude toward guns relaxes the taboo about not wanting to carry them will disappear and most women will have no problem with carrying one.

As for the muggers, I've pulled a gun on a would be mugger. Muggers don't politely ask for your spare change, they intimidate and threaten. Sometimes they use weapons. If you try to threaten me I'm going to make it clear that carrying out that threat means you will get shot.

Teaching gun control and safety to kids is the same as teaching them sex ed. It'll probably help, but teenagers and adults still get pregnant unintentionally.

As for your point about the muggers, I think that increasing numbers of guns, easily accessible to all, will vastly increase the likelyhood that the mugger would have a gun too. It is significantly easier to panic and pull the trigger of a gun (push button, long range, defensive reaction), than to panic and stab someone (close up, physical, aggressive reaction). With two people pulling guns on each other, it's likely to end badly.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted;11985555]No, I contest that statement. You contend that they would be higher. I don't think you're right.

I bow to your superior grammatical skill. However , I still think deaths would be higher. See below



Teaching gun control and safety to kids is the same as teaching them sex ed. It'll probably help, but teenagers and adults still get pregnant unintentionally.

As for your point about the muggers, I think that increasing numbers of guns, easily accessible to all, will vastly increase the likelyhood that the mugger would have a gun too. It is significantly easier to panic and pull the trigger of a gun (push button, long range, defensive reaction), than to panic and stab someone (close up, physical, aggressive reaction). With two people pulling guns on each other, it's likely to end badly.

Then why hasn't it happened? Firearm safety has been taught to millions of children and the accident rates have dropped. Are there still some? Yes. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.

Once again. The numbers of privately owned firearms in the US has increased by tens of millions over the last decade along w/ dozens of states passing concealed carry laws yet crime over all decreased.

Your causality is false.

Re the OP and those who agree with him: And then people wonder why so many in France see Americans as a bunch of overgrown, immature children... :rolleyes:

Re the OP and those who agree with him: And then people wonder why so many in France see Americans as a bunch of overgrown, immature children... :rolleyes:

And how many people agree w/ MTAE on anything? I guess stereotyping isn't just an American trait then.

Re the OP and those who agree with him: And then people wonder why so many in France see Americans as a bunch of overgrown, immature children... :rolleyes:

Yeah? Well I'd bet you don't say that when you're over here. You're likely to get shot.:D

Re the OP and those who agree with him: And then people wonder why so many in France see Americans as a bunch of overgrown, immature children... :rolleyes:

We wouldn't have to put up with comments like that if we all had guns. I bet you wouldn't criticise America if you were held at gunpoint, would you? :mp5:

As for the muggers, I've pulled a gun on a would be mugger. Muggers don't politely ask for your spare change, they intimidate and threaten. Sometimes they use weapons. If you try to threaten me I'm going to make it clear that carrying out that threat means you will get shot.

Given that Guns would be easy to get hold of in this world of freely accessible firearms, I'd imagine an average mugging would involve the mugger drawing and pointing a gun at the intended victim first (or walking up from behind them and discreetly jamming into their ribs etc etc) and saying "Try and draw a gun and I'll shoot you". Then steals wallet (and quite probably gun as well) and runs off.

In the general point that if people wanted to murder someone they'd use a knife instead of a gun. I'm no expert but I'd imagine it's generally harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and making it harder for people to kill each other is something I'm generally in favour of.

Given that Guns would be easy to get hold of in this world of freely accessible firearms, I'd imagine an average mugging would involve the mugger drawing and pointing a gun at the intended victim first (or walking up from behind them and discreetly jamming into their ribs etc etc) and saying "Try and draw a gun and I'll shoot you". Then steals wallet (and quite probably gun as well) and runs off.

In the general point that if people wanted to murder someone they'd use a knife instead of a gun. I'm no expert but I'd imagine it's generally harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and making it harder for people to kill each other is something I'm generally in favour of.

Yet in states where gun laws are very liberal less of that sort of thing goes on. Maybe the possibility that they will get shot deters muggers.

Estimates range from about 100K to 2.5 million / year w/ averages about 1 million / year of defensive gun uses. By US averages, that amounts to thousands of lives saved/year.



Only if you assume that you're "only " being mugged and that CDC supports "guns for everyone".



And why are "young women" not "gun friendly"? Could it be media stereotypes?

MTAE's scheme is as stupid as his poor=slavery concept.

I would be interested to see a comparison betwwen those figures and murder and accidental death figures. Also, is that a US estimate or a world estimate? Your wording is unclear.

Yes, being mugged is horrible, but even if I was mugged I would'nt want my mugger killed, and if you dramatically increase the number of guns, you will undoubtly increase the number of guns in criminal hands, whether you want to or not.

Finally, I will be very impressed if you manage to come up with figures that say more women own guns, or go to shooting ranges than men.

Given that Guns would be easy to get hold of in this world of freely accessible firearms, I'd imagine an average mugging would involve the mugger drawing and pointing a gun at the intended victim first (or walking up from behind them and discreetly jamming into their ribs etc etc) and saying "Try and draw a gun and I'll shoot you". Then steals wallet (and quite probably gun as well) and runs off.

And yet numerous people manage to defend themselves even so. Go figure.

In the general point that if people wanted to murder someone they'd use a knife instead of a gun. I'm no expert but I'd imagine it's generally harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and making it harder for people to kill each other is something I'm generally in favour of.

ANd yet numerous countries/cities w/ strict "gun control" have higher murder and violent crime rates than the US/average.

Firstly, I contest that the number of deaths caused by accidents, irresponsible use, or criminal use are likely to be far higher than the number saved by self defence.

Nice theory. Stats?

I would be interested to see a comparison betwwen those figures and murder and accidental death figures. Also, is that a US estimate or a world estimate? Your wording is unclear.

http://www.98.net/ksa/gunfacts2.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Yes, being mugged is horrible, but even if I was mugged I would'nt want my mugger killed, and if you dramatically increase the number of guns, you will undoubtly increase the number of guns in criminal hands, whether you want to or not.

Prove it.

Finally, I will be very impressed if you manage to come up with figures that say more women own guns, or go to shooting ranges than men.

Did I say more women owned firearms than men? No I didn't. However, the number of women owning firearms and hunting have increased.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1303400&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

ANd yet numerous countries/cities w/ strict "gun control" have higher murder and violent crime rates than the US/average.
Statistics, bitte.

I'd be the coolest kid there is if I could get hold of one of these guns. I'd be like a gansta. :cool:

Yeah, every decision is a trade-off. By banning guns you sentence certain people to death or rape because they don't have the tool they need to deter or kill an attacker. See? Whatever you do some folks will die. I prefer to let people have a fighting chance.

Seeing as most rapes are comitted by persons whom the victim knew, I would question the assertion that more guns would reduce rapes in the vast majority of cases.

Statistics, bitte.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Seeing as most rapes are comitted by persons whom the victim knew, I would question the assertion that more guns would reduce rapes in the vast majority of cases.

So you couldn't defend yourself against someone you know?

One could murder someone and walk out 10 years later on parole.

Indeed; our legal system lacks any bite. It's utterly useless and a waste of money. I want to introduce much harsher punishments to deter crime, but many people care more about criminals than their victims; that's why our society is free-falling into a bottomless pit of rampant crime and anarchism. We attempt to alleviate the "causes" of crime instead of preaching the virtues of personal responsibility and duty; we are loath to punish those who commit crimes at the expense of the innocent. Criminals openly flaunt our very accommodating justice system, which protects the accused more than those who have suffered at those hands. We have enacted numerous roadblocks to delivering a fair verdict in the name of "civil rights." Men have gotten away with murder (and, consequently, people have died) because we, as a society, would not allow personal items to be searched without a warrant, etc. We need to curtain the liberties of thugs and give more rights to law-abiding citizens; we need to punish the wrongdoers, not pamper them.

Seeing as most rapes are comitted by persons whom the victim knew, I would question the assertion that more guns would reduce rapes in the vast majority of cases.

So when a drunken ex boyfriend shows up and tries to rape the woman who dumped him she won't be able to shoot him?

Indeed; our legal system lacks any bite. It's utterly useless and a waste of money. I want to introduce much harsher punishments to deter crime, but many people care more about criminals than their victims; that's why our society is free-falling into a bottomless pit of rampant crime and anarchism. We attempt to alleviate the "causes" of crime instead of preaching the virtues of personal responsibility and duty; we are loath to punish those who commit crimes at the expense of the innocent. Criminals openly flaunt our very accommodating justice system, which protects the accused more than those who have suffered at those hands. We have enacted numerous roadblocks to delivering a fair verdict in the name of "civil rights." Men have gotten away with murder (and, consequently, people have died) because we, as a society, would not allow personal items to be searched without a warrant, etc. We need to curtain the liberties of thugs and give more rights to law-abiding citizens; we need to punish the wrongdoers, not pamper them.


Well, the basic idea of innocent until proven guilty is that until people have been convicted they should be treated as law-abiding citizens, with rights involving police needing a warrant to search their houses etc.

Well, the basic idea of innocent until proven guilty is that until people have been convicted they should be treated as law-abiding citizens, with rights involving police needing a warrant to search their houses etc.

It is more important to convict criminals, and thus save innocent people, than to protect the most inconsequential rights of suspects. Who gets hurt if we search a potential criminal's house after he is apprehended? Who gets hurt if we turn a potential killer loose because we thoroughly respected his rights and allowed him to walk free and slaughter again? The correct course of action is clear.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
The ex-Soviet states have pitiful gun control, if any, South Africa has a competency check and a background check - not that stringent, central America and the Caribbean are full of organised armed crime, and Columbia in particular has the FARC and other groups, as well as constant drugs wars.

Yet in states where gun laws are very liberal less of that sort of thing goes on. Maybe the possibility that they will get shot deters muggers.

Or they simply prefer mugging in states where people are less likely to carry guns. If all states have the same policy it might simply result in less criminal migration rather than less crime.


ANd yet numerous countries/cities w/ strict "gun control" have higher murder and violent crime rates than the US/average.

ANd yet numerous countries/cities w/ strict "gun control" have lower murder and violent crime rates than the US/average.


And yet numerous people manage to defend themselves even so. Go figure.

And numerous people don't. Also given that under these policies muggers will expect people to carry guns I'd expect their normal tactics to change accordingly.

The ex-Soviet states have pitiful gun control, if any, South Africa has a competency check and a background check - not that stringent, central America and the Caribbean are full of organised armed crime, and Columbia in particular has the FARC and other groups, as well as constant drugs wars.

The ex-Soviet states have stringent "gun control" on those who follow the law. Same w/ South Africa, Central America and the Caribbean. It has not stopped criminals from obtaining and using them. There are also numerous countries on that list w/ more firearm ownership levels than the US and lower crime/murder.

Restricting citizens rights to own firearms does not mean crime will drop.

It is more important to convict criminals, and thus save innocent people, than to protect the most inconsequential rights of suspects. Who gets hurt if we search a potential criminal's house after he is apprehended? Who gets hurt if we turn a potential killer loose because we thoroughly respected his rights and allowed him to walk free and slaughter again? The correct course of action is clear.

My point was that you should treat suspected criminals the same as non-suspected criminals.

Also, unless you're advocating the idea that a police officer wandering down a street can break into any house he feels like on a whim, then you are arguing for some sort of warrant system.

Nice theory. Stats?

CDC Mortality report

As it stands now.
Okay, let's start with murder, 10,100 cases of firearm murder a year.
Add another 700 (approximatly) accidentaly death.
I'll leave suicide as it's a bit iffy in my opinion
I think all of these would likely increase. For example, If a quarter of americans own guns, then with all americans owning guns the number of accidents shoud quadruple. thats 2100 extra deaths in accidents alone.

Now at present a quarter of robberies are commited using firarms. A robbery involving a firearm is 3 times as likely to result in fatalities. Even if the numbetr of robberies dropped I think a far larger number of robbers would have a gun, and thus you would get a significant increase in fatality there.

Criminologist Philip J. Cook, a leading expert on gun violence, hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons


Now as for lives saved by self defence
Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.

0.2% of the 16,000 odd murders in the US equates to about 30 - 40 lives saved. Not exactly a staggering number. Gun ownership in the US was not quite as large as today but was still pretty significant. depending on time and estimates , 10-20% of americans had a gun. all be generous and give 10%. Now assume everyone has them - 10 times as many guns in defence, aboutt 300-400 lives saved

EXCEPT, thats not lives saved, it's number of times guns used in defence. Defence wasn't always successful.

ANd yet numerous countries/cities w/ strict "gun control" have lower murder and violent crime rates than the US/average.

So you admit there isn't a correlation w/ firearm ownership or are you still trying to blame the guns.


And numerous people don't. Also given that under these policies muggers will expect people to carry guns I'd expect their normal tactics to change accordingly.

Then why hasn't it happened? Stop dodging around the question. Why hasn't crime increased exponentially in areas w/ Concealed Carry and increased firearm ownership across the board?

Or they simply prefer mugging in states where people are less likely to carry guns. If all states have the same policy it might simply result in less criminal migration rather than less crime.
Muggers don't generally have the resources to pack up and move to a new city. They're generally poor drug addicts. I don't think migration is what's happening.

ANd yet numerous countries/cities w/ strict "gun control" have lower murder and violent crime rates than the US/average. Yeah, but many of those countries have much more intrusive law enforcement, like cameras on just about every street, and a different culture.


And numerous people don't. Also given that under these policies muggers will expect people to carry guns I'd expect their normal tactics to change accordingly. There is a big difference between risking being arrested and locked up for a month or two for mugging someone and being shot or spending a decade or more in prison for murder. I think muggers will take that into account.

CDC Mortality report

As it stands now.
Okay, let's start with murder, 10,100 cases of firearm murder a year.
Add another 700 (approximatly) accidentaly death.
I'll leave suicide as it's a bit iffy in my opinion
I think all of these would likely increase. For example, If a quarter of americans own guns, then with all americans owning guns the number of accidents shoud quadruple. thats 2100 extra deaths in accidents alone.

Now at present a quarter of robberies are commited using firarms. A robbery involving a firearm is 3 times as likely to result in fatalities. Even if the numbetr of robberies dropped I think a far larger number of robbers would have a gun, and thus you would get a significant increase in fatality there.




Now as for lives saved by self defence


0.2% of the 16,000 odd murders in the US equates to about 30 - 40 lives saved. Not exactly a staggering number. Gun ownership in the US was not quite as large as today but was still pretty significant. depending on time and estimates , 10-20% of americans had a gun. all be generous and give 10%. Now assume everyone has them - 10 times as many guns in defence, aboutt 300-400 lives saved

EXCEPT, thats not lives saved, it's number of times guns used in defence. Defence wasn't always successful.

Some medical examiners and coroners will falsify a report changing the cause of death from suicide to accidental shooting to spare the family additional grief. You can't really trust the figures for accidental death by firearms.

Just found this, thought it might be interesting to throw this case in.

Police: Shooting of 92-Year Old Woman "Tragic, Unfortunate"

POSTED: 7:41 pm EST November 21, 2006
UPDATED: 6:04 pm EST November 22, 2006

ATLANTA -- Three Atlanta police officers were shot and wounded and an elderly woman killed at a house in northwest Atlanta Tuesday night.

The woman, identified by relatives as 92-year old Kathryn Johnston, opened fire on the officers from the narcotics division at a house at 933 Neal Street, according to officials.

Atlanta Police Asst. Chief Alan Dreher said at a news conference Wednesday that an undercover officer made a drug purchase at Johnston’s address late Tuesday afternoon from a male suspect. Officers were able to obtain a search warrant after that.

Asst. Chief Dreher said as they were executing the search warrant, the officers announced themselves and then forced open the door. Officials say the warrant was a “No Knock” warrant – meaning that the officers did not knock before forcing open the door, but they did announce themselves.

Dreher said as soon as the officers forced open the door, Johnston shot at the officers and the officers returned fire to protect themselves. One officer was shot 3 times – once in the leg, on the side of the face and once in his bulletproof vest. One officer was hit in the leg and another hit in their arm. All officers are on paid administrative leave pending an investigation – as is common.

Officials say they have not made any arrests in the case and they have not located the male suspect. Dreher said suspected narcotics were recovered from the home but they are awaiting lab results to confirm the items are drugs.

Dreher said a marked patrol vehicle was parked in front of the residence and the word “Police” was written across the front and back of the narcotics team’s vests. He also said only a matter of minutes passed between when officers arrived on the scene and when they forced open the door.

Asst. Chief Dreher referred to the incident as a, “tragic and unfortunate incident.”

The woman's niece, Sarah Dozier, says that she bought her aunt a gun to protect herself. Relatives believe Johnston was frightened by the officers and opened fire.

Her relatives say Johnston had lived in the house for about 17 years.

"They kicked her door down talking about drugs, there's no drugs in that house. And they realize now, they've got the wrong house," Dozier said. "I'm mad as hell." Officials say they had the correct house and that the warrant they had was legal.

She says the officers "shot her down like a dog."

Police say the investigation is continuing.

Now, whether or not the police were right or wrong, there is no way anyone should start shooting at the police! They gave her warning, their clothes all had police or PD on them. However because she was confused, and frightened, and she had a gun, she died, and 3 police officers were wounded.

CDC Mortality report

As it stands now.
Okay, let's start with murder, 10,100 cases of firearm murder a year.
Add another 700 (approximatly) accidentaly death.
I'll leave suicide as it's a bit iffy in my opinion
I think all of these would likely increase. For example, If a quarter of americans own guns, then with all americans owning guns the number of accidents shoud quadruple. thats 2100 extra deaths in accidents alone.

And yet they've dropped even w/ more ownership. Look at the FBI links.

Now at present a quarter of robberies are commited using firarms. A robbery involving a firearm is 3 times as likely to result in fatalities. Even if the numbetr of robberies dropped I think a far larger number of robbers would have a gun, and thus you would get a significant increase in fatality there.

You think wrongly. Hasn't happened.




Now as for lives saved by self defence


0.2% of the 16,000 odd murders in the US equates to about 30 - 40 lives saved. Not exactly a staggering number. Gun ownership in the US was not quite as large as today but was still pretty significant. depending on time and estimates , 10-20% of americans had a gun. all be generous and give 10%. Now assume everyone has them - 10 times as many guns in defence, aboutt 300-400 lives saved

EXCEPT, thats not lives saved, it's number of times guns used in defence. Defence wasn't always successful.

You're comparing murders achieved to the % firearms were used annually according to one paper? Try comparing it to the per capita numbers of the time. You might also want to look up real numbers of ownership instead of just making them up.

Also, unless you're advocating the idea that a police officer wandering down a street can break into any house he feels like on a whim, then you are arguing for some sort of warrant system.

No, but if the police have detained a suspect based on some probable cause, they should not require a warrant to search his house. However, a policeman cannot break into a house alone.

Some medical examiners and coroners will falsify a report changing the cause of death from suicide to accidental shooting to spare the family additional grief. You can't really trust the figures for accidental death by firearms.

Hmm, firearm suicide accounts for 16,000 deaths a year. 700 seems kind of small, and not an unreasonable amount for accidents by comparison. Doesn't sound like many examiners do that.

I agree that there is likely to be some iffy ground between suicide and accident unless the event is witnessed, or there, is a not etc. But I would still say likely at least 500 accidental deaths per year.

ANd yet numerous countries/cities w/ strict "gun control" have lower murder and violent crime rates than the US/average.

Becaue, surely, gun control could be the only reason for that?


CDC Mortality report

As it stands now.
Okay, let's start with murder, 10,100 cases of firearm murder a year.
Add another 700 (approximatly) accidentaly death.
I'll leave suicide as it's a bit iffy in my opinion
I think

Stop. Don't care what you think.



Now as for lives saved by self defence

0.2% of the 16,000 odd murders in the US equates to about 30 - 40 lives saved. Not exactly a staggering number. Gun ownership in the US was not quite as large as today but was still pretty significant. depending on time and estimates , 10-20% of americans had a gun. all be generous and give 10%. Now assume everyone has them - 10 times as many guns in defence, aboutt 300-400 lives saved

EXCEPT, thats not lives saved, it's number of times guns used in defence. Defence wasn't always successful.

Between 1987 and 1990,
Err...is this a bit of an issue? Update, kthxbai.

I don't like this math we're doing here either, it's surely far more complicated than multipling like that, consideing anyone thinking among us realizes gun owenership and crime don't go together like that.

Just found this, thought it might be interesting to throw this case in.



Now, whether or not the police were right or wrong, there is no way anyone should start shooting at the police! They gave her warning, their clothes all had police or PD on them. However because she was confused, and frightened, and she had a gun, she died, and 3 police officers were wounded.

Already a thread on this. You have proof they had markings on their clothing. All the articles say plainclothes and a "no-knock" warrent which other articles claim they knocked.

Seems the police were incorrect. What would you do if people busted down your door in the middle of the night? Especially since criminals had been doing that in that area?

Already a thread on this. You have proof they had markings on their clothing. All the articles say plainclothes and a "no-knock" warrent which other articles claim they knocked.

Seems the police were incorrect. What would you do if people busted down your door in the middle of the night? Especially since criminals had been doing that in that area?

Doesn't matter.

Police enter, she shoots, they shoot.

Nothing unusual happened here.

Screw guns. They're too easy. Ban them. Everyone should carry swords. I think people would think twice about killing someone if they had to get much closer to do so.

Or, if not a ban on guns, then harsh and strict punishment laws. If you shoot somebody in anything other than self-defense then it's the firing squad for you. If you take somebody out because you were driving wrecklessly then you get to be a test dummy or stand in the middle of a demolition derby. Butt-ass naked just to improve the ratings, as it should also be televised. Just an idea.

I think people would be more careful and considerate if the consequences to their actions were things they would never want to happen to them in a million years. I know wouldn't work in all cases. Some people will just do what they want to do no matter what. Still, I think you have to consider what types of punishment would actually prevent a major number of people from doing something that they might do otherwise. Prison time does not seem to be a serious enough deterrent.

So you admit there isn't a correlation w/ firearm ownership or are you still trying to blame the guns.

I believe in a partial correlation, more about the society. Horses for courses etc (why does the USA need a blanket policy at all? There are significantly different cultures in different states, have tailored policies for each rather than one-size fits-all)



Then why hasn't it happened? Stop dodging around the question. Why hasn't crime increased exponentially in areas w/ Concealed Carry and increased firearm ownership across the board?
Simple answer, I'm not sure.
On the other hand are you saying that muggers won't alter their tactics if these policies went through. Even in those states I'd be interested to know what percentage of people have guns (and actually carry them). I wouldn't expect most of them (though obviously I'm guessing). Given that (admittedly shaky) theory a mugger is unlikely to mug someone and find they have a gun, and hence their normal procedure wouldn't expect one.

If as the OP suggests everyone had guns, then it's hardly unreasonable to suggest that the criminal community would adjust to this fact accordingly.


Muggers don't generally have the resources to pack up and move to a new city. They're generally poor drug addicts. I don't think migration is what's happening.
It was just a theory, probably a bad one now you point it out. I was thinking more of the smaller states. Perhaps the ones in those states prefer burglary or another less confrontational crimes. But I'm just making it up as I'm going along. I'll admit defeat on that idea, with the caveat that I feel that the culture within the states with looser gun controls plays some part.



Yeah, but many of those countries have much more intrusive law enforcement, like cameras on just about every street, and a different culture.
Effectively all cameras on every street are merely going to inform the police and most muggings will be over before they can get there. But again, it comes mainly down to culture. So as I said above, why a blanket policy?


There is a big difference between risking being arrested and locked up for a month or two for mugging someone and being shot or spending a decade or more in prison for murder. I think muggers will take that into account.
Given that as you said "they're generally poor drug addicts" I'd say their addiction would take precedence over the risks. Besides, it's basic logic to say "if I have my gun pointing at him and threaten him, he's pretty unlikely to try and grab his."


EDITED:

Becaue, surely, gun control could be the only reason for that?
No, I was making the same point you are in response to the implication that higher gun ownership rates reduced crime levels.

Let's see now. The US is # 4 on the following list:

Murders with firearms by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)

The number of murders in the US on that list states 8,259, which is still 1621 more then the other 28 countries listed 5 through 32 combined.

Perhaps MTAE wants the US to be number one on the murdered by firearms list?

Also take into account that the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world:


SOURCE
International Centre for Prison Studies - World Prison BriefDEFINITION
Data for 2003. Number of prisoners held per 100,000 population.Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita)

Let's see now. The US is # 4 on the following list:

Murders with firearms by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)

The number of murders in the US on that list states 8,259, which is still 1621 more then the other 28 countries listed 5 through 32 combined.

Perhaps MTAE wants the US to be number one on the murdered by firearms list?

That's obviously caused by the number of McDonald's in the country.

I was taught responsible firearm use from an early age.
I have owned firearms and never harmed another person.

I am not sure that I agree with arming everyone but if you are a responsible citizen your right to own firearms should not be infringed.

I am for harsher sentences for those that commit crimes of violence using firearms though.

By making guns more freely accessible you also make them more accessible to criminals. Surely what will actually happen is that where a crime is attempted it is more likely that one or both of the criminal and victim have guns, dramatically increasing the chances of a fatality. And then theres the risk of innocent bystanders taking a bullet in public areas when a crime is attempted. This "solution" will cause more problems than it will solve.

doubtful as crime goes up after confiscation from law abiding citizens - see australia and england data

Let's see now. The US is # 4 on the following list:

Murders with firearms by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)

The number of murders in the US on that list states 8,259, which is still 1621 more then the other 28 countries listed 5 through 32 combined.

Perhaps MTAE wants the US to be number one on the murdered by firearms list?

Also take into account that the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world:


SOURCE
International Centre for Prison Studies - World Prison BriefDEFINITION
Data for 2003. Number of prisoners held per 100,000 population.Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita)

And a quarter of the #1 slot w/ strict "gun control" and number 8 per capita which doesn't even include russia.

Indeed; our legal system lacks any bite. It's utterly useless and a waste of money. I want to introduce much harsher punishments to deter crime, but many people care more about criminals than their victims; that's why our society is free-falling into a bottomless pit of rampant crime and anarchism. We attempt to alleviate the "causes" of crime instead of preaching the virtues of personal responsibility and duty; we are loath to punish those who commit crimes at the expense of the innocent. Criminals openly flaunt our very accommodating justice system, which protects the accused more than those who have suffered at those hands. We have enacted numerous roadblocks to delivering a fair verdict in the name of "civil rights." Men have gotten away with murder (and, consequently, people have died) because we, as a society, would not allow personal items to be searched without a warrant, etc. We need to curtain the liberties of thugs and give more rights to law-abiding citizens; we need to punish the wrongdoers, not pamper them.

It seems we cannot have a thread where I can agree with you after all MTAE.
Curtailing peoples rights is the last thing we need.
And, until proven guilty in a court of law, people cannot be classified as "thugs"!

Our system of justice may not be perfect but curtailing rights, such as "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.", we do not make a safer society.
The founders of this nation were by no means foolish men.
Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights has served to make this country the great land that it is.

Why do you constantly seem to want to introduce a creeping totalitarian regime when you claim that you lived under one?

It is more important to convict criminals, and thus save innocent people, than to protect the most inconsequential rights of suspects. Who gets hurt if we search a potential criminal's house after he is apprehended? Who gets hurt if we turn a potential killer loose because we thoroughly respected his rights and allowed him to walk free and slaughter again? The correct course of action is clear.

The rights guaranteed us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in no way inconsequential.
And a suspect is just that.
You are not a criminal in this country when you are arrested!
You are a criminal only after you are prosecuted!

No, but if the police have detained a suspect based on some probable cause, they should not require a warrant to search his house. However, a policeman cannot break into a house alone.

If the police have probable cause they can easily obtain a warrant!
read the 4th Amendment I posted above closely MTAE.
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause

We need more police, much harsher sentences for crime, and to identify - and if possible, solve - the underlying causes of crime.

I disagree with having them "free." They would not be free, for one thing. Tax money is not free money. And for another, people should be able to buy them. There should also be controls such as people need licenses and to pass a basic psychological test, for example. I agree with the concept of more guns = better, though.

Why not let Darwin fix things .

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

Idiot, defenestrate thyself.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?



Wow, for once, a freaking AGREE with you! You are 100% right, (about this). ;)

The odd thing is, MTAE has finally found a topic where he cannot be accused of trolling.

Congrats, MTAE! :)

Self-defense is a human right, and the means to it should be easily available to all who desire it and can be reasonably trusted with it.

To strengthen the statist monopoly on the means of violence could turn out extremely badly if ever our present stability collapsed.

Guns should be used by the police and only by the police. Unless you're hunting for deer, you shouldn't even be owning a gun. Violence with fire-arms would simply increase if guns were made more freely accessible.

Jesus Christ, keep an eye on the skies, because Armageddon must be here: I actually agree with MTAE. The greatest deterrent to an armed villain is the idea that their fire might be returned. Criminals do what they do because they can get away with it. An armed and trained populace would reduce crime because the criminals would have to decide if their lives were worth the potential benefits of the crime. Workplace shootings, Columbine-style high school shootings and other scenarios where a lone gunman took control of an entire room/complex full of people would be nigh non-existent. Burglary and other non-violent crimes would practically vanish. And though almost all crime would become violent, the overall rate of violent crime would not increase appreciably. Guns wouldn't become more available to criminals than they are now: it is criminally easy for someone who doesn't care about the law to get their hands on a gun already.

The program would have to be regulated, of course. Ownership of a weapon would have to depend on completion of an appropriate training course and passing a shooting test that proves that you're not going to pose more of a risk to innocent bystanders than the criminal you're shooting at. Something like what police have to pass currently. And like your drivers license, there should be a renewal test every so often to make sure you still have the edge.

Guns should be used by the police and only by the police. Unless you're hunting for deer, you shouldn't even be owning a gun. Violence with fire-arms would simply increase if guns were made more freely accessible.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Criminals wouldn't shoot or rob if they knew their victim had a gun.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Criminals wouldn't shoot or rob if they knew their victim had a gun.

Sure they would. If a little old lady has a gun in her face, she's not going to pull a desert eagle out of her handbag and start blasting away, starting off a wicked-cool John Woo firefight. In the vast majority of muggings, the attacker would have a gun drawn, while the victim wouldn't.
It just gives the mugger more incentive to carry a firearm, and more incentive to blow someone's head off if they make a sudden move.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Criminals wouldn't shoot or rob if they knew their victim had a gun.

Of course they would. In fact, knowing that the person they're robbing almost definately has a gun would make a would be criminal more likely to just shoot first and rob second. Well, apart from the really stupid ones.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Criminals wouldn't shoot or rob if they knew their victim had a gun.
SHOOTING DOWN THE MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/final%20document.pdf)

Conclusion

No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states. How much farther one can go in arguing that shall-issue laws likely increase crime across the board or have heterogeneous effects across states (albeit most commonly pernicious) will be matters about which various analysts will differ. We conclude with Learned Hand’s admonition that an academic must “keep an open mind to every disconcerting fact, [and] an open ear to the cold voice of doubt….You may not carry a sword beneath a scholar’s gown.”112
My two cents worth for today.

Guns should be used by the police and only by the police. Unless you're hunting for deer, you shouldn't even be owning a gun. Violence with fire-arms would simply increase if guns were made more freely accessible.

I am a law abiding citizen that has never harmed another human being.
Why should I not be allowed to own a firearm for self defense and target shooting?
I only brandished my gun once the entire time I owned it and that was when a couple of guys with baseball bats showed up at my door to beat me because some girl was mad at my girlfriend.

I did not even have to point my .357 Magnum at them!
As soon as they saw it in my hand they ran away as fast as they could!

SHOOTING DOWN THE MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/final%20document.pdf)

Conclusion


My two cents worth for today.

OK, if you actually read that whole document, particularly the beginning and middle, instead of just the end, what you'll find is that the authors are saying, "If you interpret the data used previously to support this issue in a different way than the authors of that paper did, then you'll find a case against shall-issue laws." From which we learn that the same or similar set of data can be interpreted in various ways to support whatever conclusion the interpreters want to support. Someone please alert the media. :rolleyes:

Their statistical evidence shows precisely what I always tell people: if shall-issue laws are passed, some types of crime will decrease, some will increase. Their anecdotal evidence is just as speculative as the anecdotal evidence on the other side of the argument. "The argument would not have ended in a shooting death if a gun had not been present." Certainly not. It would far more likely have ended in a stabbing or bludgeoning or choking death. How many similar cases are there where the presence of a gun didn't lead to a shooting to end the argument? I have, personally, knocked on dozens of wrong doors in my life, and no one has ever shot at me for it.

If anything, this paper is nearly perfect support for the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are stupid assholes aplenty in this world, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. By removing the ability of a levelheaded, law-abiding citizen to own and carry a firearm, you remove an option that might otherwise prove beneficial to them in particular, almost certainly mortally desperate, situations. Controls to ensure that owners/carriers of guns are indeed levelheaded and law-abiding are as simple as those currently in place that allow any average Joe to get a job as a police officer. They are not perfect, as there are indeed many, many stupid assholes in the various police departments, but if we trust cops with guns, and they are normal people just like us, then there's no reason that if I can pass the same tests that a police officer can that I shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon. While it shouldn't be compulsory for every able-bodied citizen to take the tests and, upon passing them, carry a weapon, the option should not be restricted for those who wish to do so.

SHOOTING DOWN THE MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/final%20document.pdf)

Conclusion


My two cents worth for today.


And yet noone has been able to show evidence for the "more guns = more crime" meme that has been regurgitated ad nauseum as well.

And yet noone has been able to show evidence for the "more guns = more crime" meme that has been regurgitated ad nauseum as well.

I have proof lets compare New York City with Singapore

New York : Guns allowed

Singapore: Only the milltary and Police Force

Result : In New York, crime rate is higher than you can count, in Singapore very low

Even if he's not shot, gunfire attracts attention and it raises the chances that the police actually will show up.

Maybe, maybe not. But one things for certain. A lot of bar fights and road rage incidents are going to end up with a lot more exit wounds. Yeah, a guy pumped up on rage is going to use what's handy to vent it, but a gun does make it easier to vent, and gives him a greater range than your average spanner/hammer/baseball bat/bar stool.

Similar measures could be used to reduce the instances of irresponsible gun ownership.

There are still a fair number of Darwin award winners who don't think their gun is loaded when they point it at themselves I believe. Blowing holes in yourself apparently isn't a deterrant enough to prevent stupidity I guess.

I have proof lets compare New York City with Singapore

New York : Guns allowed

Singapore: Only the milltary and Police Force

Result : In New York, crime rate is higher than you can count, in Singapore very low

New York has stringent firearm laws. Singapore also doesn't allow chewing gum and executes drug dealers.

Sorry, no correlation. Try again.

Chewing is banned here so what? i dont step on it every five seconds and excuting drug dealers is our way of warning people to stay drug free and btw you only get excecuted if you bring a certain amount of drugs into the country

Chewing is banned here so what? i dont step on it every five seconds and excuting drug dealers is our way of warning people to stay drug free and btw you only get excecuted if you bring a certain amount of drugs into the country

And you think there only being a lack of legal firearms is the direct causality for low crime?

Keep trying.

Lets see guns are present in many crimes remove guns and what do you get?


Im not saying people cant use knives to stab someone but it you have to choose, would u have a gun in nudging youring forehead or a knife

Lets see guns are present in many crimes remove guns and what do you get?

Criminals (who won't follow the anti-gun laws anyway) attacking unarmed people.



Im not saying people cant use knives to stab someone but it you have to choose, would u have a gun in nudging youring forehead or a knife

So you're trying to say that criminals will follow the laws that say people can't own guns when they're breaking the law?

If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

if u completey ban guns from a country. how are they going to get one? Climb into the National Weopens Barracks and steal one?

If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

Source man give us the source.

if u completey ban guns from a country. how are they going to get one? Climb into the National Weopens Barracks and steal one?

So there is no such thing as smuggling in your world?

Source man give us the source.

FBI link previous page.

As for CCW laws:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/rtc.gif

Criminals (who won't follow the anti-gun laws anyway) attacking unarmed people.

The idea is to not let the criminals have them either. Not just say "no guns" but to enforce it.

I'm split over the issue of gun control in the USA personally, because I'm sceptical of how effective the police would be at enforcing the law. I like the theory and think it's the best way for the UK and theoretically for the US, but only if the police could enforce the law to a reasonable level, and I'm not sure they could.

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

Source man give us the source.

You're not going to give us the source for this claim then?

The idea is to not let the criminals have them either. Not just say "no guns" but to enforce it.

I'm split over the issue of gun control in the USA personally, because I'm sceptical of how effective the police would be at enforcing the law. I like the theory and think it's the best way for the UK and theoretically for the US, but only if the police could enforce the law to a reasonable level, and I'm not sure they could.

I fully support the police enforcing the laws against criminals. I don't feel the need to punish those who actually follow the laws and to leave them at the mercy of criminals and to have to rely on the authorities.

Do you really want the gov't deciding what you "need"?

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

Source man give us the source.

You're not going to give us the source for this claim then?

I gave you the source on the previous page. Try reading the thread.

So there is no such thing as smuggling in your world?

There sure is. And here in Canada, where we have a per capita gun ownership pretty much on par with the US (except they're long guns), we're finding that we're having more handgun shootings up here.

Upon investigation we invariably find that the handguns come from the US, where thanks to the ridiculously lax gun laws (far too many people legally have guns who wouldn't be licensed to cut your hair) and citizens who are idiots and don't properly secure their weapons, criminals find guns during car and home robberies and sell them on.

So yes Kecibukia, there's smuggling in our world. Thanks for being the source of deaths up here, just because you think that an armed society is a polite society.

I fully support the police enforcing the laws against criminals. I don't feel the need to punish those who actually follow the laws and to leave them at the mercy of criminals and to have to rely on the authorities.


Simple difference of view. I see the ideal as Police v Criminals, and don't really want the average citizen getting involved if possible.


Do you really want the gov't deciding what you "need"?
They already decide that I don't "need" certain drugs for example. If an elected government can't decide what should be banned and what shouldn't who can?

There sure is. And here in Canada, where we have a per capita gun ownership pretty much on par with the US (except they're long guns), we're finding that we're having more handgun shootings up here.

Upon investigation we invariably find that the handguns come from the US, where thanks to the ridiculously lax gun laws (far too many people legally have guns who wouldn't be licensed to cut your hair) and citizens who are idiots and don't properly secure their weapons, criminals find guns during car and home robberies and sell them on.

So yes Kecibukia, there's smuggling in our world. Thanks for being the source of deaths up here, just because you think that an armed society is a polite society.

You're welcome. Glad to accomodate your belief that citizens who follow the law are responsible for the actions of criminals.

Simple difference of view. I see the ideal as Police v Criminals, and don't really want the average citizen getting involved if possible.

Sure, but the average citizen is involved when the crime is against them.


They already decide that I don't "need" certain drugs for example. If an elected government can't decide what should be banned and what shouldn't who can?

I disagree w/ the drug thing as well. The elected Gov't should have to justify why citizens shouldn't be "allowed" things and not the citizenry justifying why they should.

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

Source man give us the source.

You're not going to give us the source for this claim then?
Yeah, I would like to see the source too. :)

Yeah, I would like to see the source too. :)

So now you're denying all the previous threads CH? :)

Sure, but the average citizen is involved when the crime is against them.
Yes, but I'd rather not have them engaging in gun fights on the streets or have anyone trying to play the hero. In general I'd much prefer to rely on the Police. Besides I stick by the notion (in complete lack of facts) that a society with fewer guns is a society you're less likely to get shot in.



I disagree w/ the drug thing as well. The elected Gov't should have to justify why citizens shouldn't be "allowed" things and not the citizenry justifying why they should.
Well, the idea goes that if the citizens wanted to be allowed to have the drugs they'd vote for a party that advocated legalising them.

You're welcome. Glad to accomodate your belief that citizens who follow the law are responsible for the actions of criminals.
I think he's moaning about the law, and implying that the people who passed the law (eg the citizens who voted in favour of it/for pro-gun candidates) for it.

Yes, but I'd rather not have them engaging in gun fights on the streets or have anyone trying to play the hero. In general I'd much prefer to rely on the Police. Besides I stick by the notion (in complete lack of facts) that a society with fewer guns is a society you're less likely to get shot in.

I don't want to rely on the police for protection. In the US, they have no legal obligation to even respond or enforce a restraining order. Thank the lawyers and courts for that one.



Well, the idea goes that if the citizens wanted to be allowed to have the drugs they'd vote for a party that advocated legalising them.

So tyranny of the majority? You support the laws banning gay marriage in numerous US states voted on by the public?


Edit: No, he's just doing some good old-fashioned US bashing.

You're welcome. Glad to accomodate your belief that citizens who follow the law are responsible for the actions of criminals.
The biggest problem is that too many guns are being stolen from so called "Law Abiding Citizens". They end up in criminal hands and in remote jurisdictions. If you can't be responsible for your guns then you should lose the privelege of owning them. :)

So now you're denying all the previous threads CH? :)
Me? Deny? I don't think so.

I just want to see your support of this comment:

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

The biggest problem is that too many guns are being stolen from so called "Law Abiding Citizens". They end up in criminal hands and in remote jurisdictions. If you can't be responsible for your guns then you should lose the privelege of owning them. :)

Like I said. You blame citizens for the actions of criminals.

Me? Deny? I don't think so.

I just want to see your support of this comment:

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

I provided the links. The FBI data is on the previous page, the CCW is also provided.

You also know I've presented the data numerous times in the past.

Me? Deny? I don't think so.

I just want to see your support of this comment:

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

You mean the same support you've seen in every gun thread before this? Including this thread?

I don't want to rely on the police for protection. In the US, they have no legal obligation to even respond or enforce a restraining order. Thank the lawyers and courts for that one.

Really? In the UK policeman have been given life imprisonment for failing to intervene in a fight that was going on.




So tyranny of the majority? You support the laws banning gay marriage in numerous US states voted on by the public?

No, but I support the right of the public to pass those laws. Democracy has its flaws, but I feel it's still the best system.

Yes, but I'd rather not have them engaging in gun fights on the streets or have anyone trying to play the hero. In general I'd much prefer to rely on the Police.

The only issue I have with this is that while you're saying you'd rather not have anyone trying to play the hero, you're also saying that you'd rather rely upon the police to be the heroes. Please understand that there is no magical or supernatural ability gained by strapping on a badge. Police are just regular people. Because of what their job entails they have a better perspective on criminal patterns and how to act when responding to crimes, but they don't have "Spidey senses" or perfect aim or perfect judgment when it comes to dealing with crime and criminals, just more experience. To say that police should handle all matters related to crime is analogous to saying that anytime Windows throws up a GPF you should immediately call your IT department to have them deal with the problem. The point I'm trying to make here is that police are just as fallible as we are, and they make plenty of mistakes. There is some control and accountability placed on that, but if the same control and accountability were placed on anyone, cop or otherwise, who wanted to own and carry a gun, then what is the difference between them and us?

There will always be times when it is up to an individual to respond to happenings in their own lives. We should all be allowed the means to respond appropriately when those situations occur. The argument might be made that denying a gun to a woman about to be raped and killed is the same as denying food to a person who is starving. In both cases, the tool necessary for the person to have the option to live has been made unavailable to them, forcing them to have no other choice than to accept death. I think that sucks.

You're welcome. Glad to accomodate your belief that citizens who follow the law are responsible for the actions of criminals.

If you don't secure your guns, then you're responsible when they're taken. Yup, that's right. You leave the door to your home swinging open when you go on vacation for two weeks, it's your fault you get robbed.

You don't properly secure your lethal weapons and someone takes them, you're responsible (not only you) for what gets done with them. You want the alleged benefits of owning a firearm, take full responsibility for what that means. And that means not letting that weapon out of your control to be used on others. If you can't, then you're not ready for gun ownership.

I think he's moaning about the law, and implying that the people who passed the law (eg the citizens who voted in favour of it/for pro-gun candidates) for it.

I'm not moaning about the law, I'm in Canada not the US. I'm saying that because so many of the allegedly "responsible" citizens who have firearms can't properly secure their weapons, they get swiped during car and home robberies and enter the criminal domain. We're finding that the bulk of shootings up here seem to be done with handguns smuggled in from the US that are stolen. If you can't maintain control of your handgun and where it is, you're not responsible enough to have it in the first place.

The biggest problem is that too many guns are being stolen from so called "Law Abiding Citizens". They end up in criminal hands and in remote jurisdictions. If you can't be responsible for your guns then you should lose the privelege of owning them.

You got it, Chief! :)

Like I said. You blame citizens for the actions of criminals.

Unless you have an immovable vault to put your guns in when they're not on your person, then yes, a citzen who's gun is stolen is responsible. It was your duty to keep in control of it, and there's more to that than just hitting a target accurately.

The only issue I have with this is that while you're saying you'd rather not have anyone trying to play the hero, you're also saying that you'd rather rely upon the police to be the heroes. Please understand that there is no magical or supernatural ability gained by strapping on a badge. Police are just regular people. Because of what their job entails they have a better perspective on criminal patterns and how to act when responding to crimes, but they don't have "Spidey senses" or perfect aim or perfect judgment when it comes to dealing with crime and criminals, just more experience. To say that police should handle all matters related to crime is analogous to saying that anytime Windows throws up a GPF you should immediately call your IT department to have them deal with the problem. The point I'm trying to make here is that police are just as fallible as we are, and they make plenty of mistakes. There is some control and accountability placed on that, but if the same control and accountability were placed on anyone, cop or otherwise, who wanted to own and carry a gun, then what is the difference between them and us?

I am rather banking on that thing called police training. Same as I'd prefer someone with IT training to fix my computer rather than me hsbing a bash at it.

There will always be times when it is up to an individual to respond to happenings in their own lives. We should all be allowed the means to respond appropriately when those situations occur. The argument might be made that denying a gun to a woman about to be raped and killed is the same as denying food to a person who is starving. In both cases, the tool necessary for the person to have the option to live has been made unavailable to them, forcing them to have no other choice than to accept death. I think that sucks.
The argument might be that a husband catching his wife cheating has a gun in his pocket rather than a banana. If (as seems to be indicated to near as damnit by all the other sources flying around) that culture is more important than actual gun numbers, then I'd rather have a culture with few guns than many.

Really? In the UK policeman have been given life imprisonment for failing to intervene in a fight that was going on.

There is more of a difference in crime w/ differences in society than in correlation to firearms.




No, but I support the right of the public to pass those laws. Democracy has its flaws, but I feel it's still the best system.

Direct democracy would also have prevented blacks and women from voting.

If you don't secure your guns, then you're responsible when they're taken. Yup, that's right. You leave the door to your home swinging open when you go on vacation for two weeks, it's your fault you get robbed.

So now we've gone from breaking and entering to "leaving your home open on vacation. Gotcha. I guess stupid analogies are the best way to go when you don't have evidence/

You don't properly secure your lethal weapons and someone takes them, you're responsible (not only you) for what gets done with them. You want the alleged benefits of owning a firearm, take full responsibility for what that means. And that means not letting that weapon out of your control to be used on others. If you can't, then you're not ready for gun ownership.

Now you get to define "properly secure" and justify how that would not woek to restrict private ownership or self-defense of the home as well as define how it would be enforced w/o warrentless searches.



I'm not moaning about the law, I'm in Canada not the US. I'm saying that because so many of the allegedly "responsible" citizens who have firearms can't properly secure their weapons, they get swiped during car and home robberies and enter the criminal domain. We're finding that the bulk of shootings up here seem to be done with handguns smuggled in from the US that are stolen. If you can't maintain control of your handgun and where it is, you're not responsible enough to have it in the first place.

Continue blaming the victims. Yay. I guess criminals aren't responsible anymore. You also get to prove that the "bulk" of shootings are the fault of those who follow the law in the US.



You got it, Chief! :)



Unless you have an immovable vault to put your guns in when they're not on your person, then yes, a citzen who's gun is stolen is responsible. It was your duty to keep in control of it, and there's more to that than just hitting a target accurately.


No, the criminal is responsible for his actions stealing the firearm and using it illegally. You want to blame the object and the victims.

I am rather banking on that thing called police training. Same as I'd prefer someone with IT training to fix my computer rather than me hsbing a bash at it.


The argument might be that a husband catching his wife cheating has a gun in his pocket rather than a banana. If (as seems to be indicated to near as damnit by all the other sources flying around) that culture is more important than actual gun numbers, then I'd rather have a culture with few guns than many.

I have no problem w/ your choice. I have a problem w/ people saying that I shouldn't or can't be allowed firearms because they're afraid of them or want to blame me for the actions of criminals.

So now we've gone from breaking and entering to "leaving your home open on vacation. Gotcha. I guess stupid analogies are the best way to go when you don't have evidence/

The analogy is to make it plain that if you're careless with something, then you shoulder some of the blame for the consequences. Stupid analogies I've observed in this thread so far is "a gun is like a knife, in that they can both be used to kill you".

Now you get to define "properly secure" and justify how that would not woek to restrict private ownership or self-defense of the home as well as define how it would be enforced w/o warrentless searches.

Second part first - part of proper licensing should be that you agree that at any time you can be inspected for compliance to whatever state and federal regulations are in force for storage and handling of firearms. That's easy enough.

As for the first part, can I assume that you'll take anything that secures a weapon to "endanger a citizen if they 'need' it"? i.e. trigger locks, barrel plugs, locking racks, and gun safes? That doesn't impinge on ownership in the slightest, but if your gun isn't in your hands then it shouldn't be accessable to anybody but the licensed owner.

Continue blaming the victims. Yay. I guess criminals aren't responsible anymore. You also get to prove that the "bulk" of shootings are the fault of those who follow the law in the US.

And this is where you run with the ball right off of the field and into the parking lot. Because I say that someone who didn't properly secure their weapon is responsible for it being stolen, you say that somehow equals the thief being without blame, and whoever subsequently commits illegal actions with that firearm is also without blame? I didn't say that, but you've said it a couple of times now. Wonderful. So far, if that's the real you and not a pose for the purposes of argument, that shows a lack of clear thinking that would make me dubious about giving you a firearm license. Not because you're for less restrictions, but because you miss the point and run off into absurdities.

No, the criminal is responsible for his actions stealing the firearm and using it illegally. You want to blame the object and the victims.

Can't blame an object, and that's not what I want to do. Nor have I yet said anything to the effect of "it's the gun's fault". The citizen who didn't secure his weapon IS responsible for what subsequently happens to it. Secure your dangerous toys better, or don't own them.

The analogy is to make it plain that if you're careless with something, then you shoulder some of the blame for the consequences. Stupid analogies I've observed in this thread so far is "a gun is like a knife, in that they can both be used to kill you".

And did I make any of those?



Second part first - part of proper licensing should be that you agree that at any time you can be inspected for compliance to whatever state and federal regulations are in force for storage and handling of firearms. That's easy enough.

So licensing which does nothing to prevent a criminal from stealing or using smuggled firearms and warrantless searches of homes by the police. Nope, those aren't intrusive.:rolleyes:

As for the first part, can I assume that you'll take anything that secures a weapon to "endanger a citizen if they 'need' it"? i.e. trigger locks, barrel plugs, locking racks, and gun safes? That doesn't impinge on ownership in the slightest, but if your gun isn't in your hands then it shouldn't be accessable to anybody but the licensed owner.

And not a single one of those can prevent theft. All they do is make it more expensive to own, restrict the ability to use them in self-defense and give the authorities more reasons to declare you a criminal.



And this is where you run with the ball right off of the field and into the parking lot. Because I say that someone who didn't properly secure their weapon is responsible for it being stolen, you say that somehow equals the thief being without blame, and whoever subsequently commits illegal actions with that firearm is also without blame? I didn't say that, but you've said it a couple of times now. Wonderful. So far, if that's the real you and not a pose for the purposes of argument, that shows a lack of clear thinking that would make me dubious about giving you a firearm license. Not because you're for less restrictions, but because you miss the point and run off into absurdities.

And now you go off into the realm of fantasy and personal attacks. Because I don't recognize that your beliefs are facts, you now say I shouldn't be "allowed" firearms while continuing to run w/ your farsicle examples of "safe storage".



Can't blame an object, and that's not what I want to do. Nor have I yet said anything to the effect of "it's the gun's fault". The citizen who didn't secure his weapon IS responsible for what subsequently happens to it. Secure your dangerous toys better, or don't own them.

And your definition of "secure" does nothing to prevent crime and only continues to punish the victims and not the criminals.

Keep reaching.

I am rather banking on that thing called police training.

Exactly. And, as I've stated, their "training" isn't anything which is out of reach for the average person. And some candidates fail their training based on tests they have to pass at its completion, and are not allowed to get a job as a police officer. If the tests are the thing we use to determine if a person should be allowed to be a cop or not, and I can pass the tests, the obviously I am at least as capable as someone who has attended the police training in order to pass the tests, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps I have obtained a copy of the curriculum and have completed all of the training tasks on my own. Perhaps I've completed a different but equivalent or more stringent training at someplace other than the police academy. Perhaps I'm just a natural. Regardless, if a human being can pass these tests and obtain a job as a police officer, it seems to me that if another human being has a different job, say as an IT specialist or a senator or a burger-flipper, and they can pass the tests, then they should be afforded the opportunity to carry weapons and respond to crimes in their immediate vicinity the same way police are able to after passing the same tests.


Same as I'd prefer someone with IT training to fix my computer rather than me hsbing a bash at it.

And yet I'm fairly certain there have been several occasions where your computer has done something you didn't want it to do and you've gone ahead and "had a bash at it," for better or for worse. Granted, we're not talking about someone's life being on the line, just whether or not you're going to be able to use your computer, but no one is denying you access to the tools you need to be able to fix the thing. The only difference between you and an IT professional is that they've already read the information that is freely available to you to read.

There will certainly be some cases where experience will prove invaluable in either case. Moving back to the case of police, missing persons come immediately to mind. The police will have experience determining the nature and cause of a missing persons case that average people will simply not have. They are the experts that should definitely be called in that case. Another case is threat assessment and determining danger in somewhat ambiguous situations, such as the aftermath of a shooting, e.g. is the gunman still around? Is anyone still in danger? But when a guy walks into a McDonald's (for example) with a shotgun and demands everyone give him their valuables, it doesn't take a cop to perform a threat assessment. The people in that building are obviously in danger. They can remain in danger until the police get there, or they can have the option of removing the immediate source of the danger, as well as removing a criminal, possibly permanently, from the pool.

The argument might be that a husband catching his wife cheating has a gun in his pocket rather than a banana. If (as seems to be indicated to near as damnit by all the other sources flying around) that culture is more important than actual gun numbers, then I'd rather have a culture with few guns than many.

The argument might also be that she shouldn't have been cheating in the first place, and so deserves what she gets. If it were realistic for her to expect to be shot for getting caught cheating, I think that would be good incentive for her to explore the plethora of channels available to her to perform more constructive action, including NOT cheating at all, talking honestly and openly with her husband about her needs, or even divorce before she takes on another lover. Most of those also have the added benefit of not compromising her personal integrity.

I'm not suggesting that people should not be held responsible for the consequences of acting on their emotions, either. I did catch my wife cheating, and I did feel like killing both of them. If you've never experienced that sort of rage, I hope you never have to. I have guns. I carry a knife in my pocket that has been described by many as "scary," though to me it is simply a tool I use to cut things (e.g. drywall, phone/network cable, cardboard, tape, etc.). I have had the training, practice and experience to use both the guns and the knife, and I was quite capable on a few occasions of killing both her and her lover. In fact, if I truly felt like it I would have no problem tracking either of them down right now and doing the job. They still live because I realize that it would be the wrong thing to do, and if I let her inability to be a good person and do the right thing affect my ability to do so, then that would be far worse than anything else she has done to me. I do not believe that I am any better than anyone else, and so I expect that all people should be able to rationalize the difference between right and wrong in tense situations and do the right thing. For those who cannot, let the sentence fit the crime.

The analogy is to make it plain that if you're careless with something, then you shoulder some of the blame for the consequences. Stupid analogies I've observed in this thread so far is "a gun is like a knife, in that they can both be used to kill you".

I absolutely agree with and support the idea that if you failed to properly secure your weapons then you should be held to some degree of responsibility for their misuse. This goes not only for individuals, but for groups of individuals, including countries and multi-national groups like Hamas or the Catholic Church. Not that the Catholic Church has a cache of weapons available for use by its followers, but rather as an example of a "borderless state."

How is the analogy "a gun is like a knife in that they can both be used to kill you" a stupid one? I can see that the only purpose of a gun is to bring about death or disability, while a knife has other uses outside of this scope, but in the end, if you're talking about having a will to kill someone, what is the difference? The issue seems to be less about available weapons and more about self-control in general on the part of human beings.

And did I make any of those?

To quote myself, "Stupid analogies I've observed in this thread so far is "a gun is like a knife, in that they can both be used to kill you".

I didn't quote you saying it, I was replying to the stupid analogies comment you made.

Is it at all relevant whether or not you said it?

So licensing which does nothing to prevent a criminal from stealing or using smuggled firearms and warrantless searches of homes by the police. Nope, those aren't intrusive.:rolleyes:

First of all, you didn't say anything about intrusive. You said "Now you get to define "properly secure" and justify how that would not woek to restrict private ownership or self-defense of the home as well as define how it would be enforced w/o warrentless searches."

To be frank, about the most intrusive thing I can think of offhand is a piece of fanged metal popcorn shedding kinetic energy through my body. If you want license to have doing that to me as an option, then you can put up with inspections to make sure you're complying with the duties and restrictions put on you that come with that resposibility.

They do nothing? I'm not sure what a vault is where you're from, but here it's the common term for a safe that can't be moved. If you have a gun safe, sink it halfway into your concrete floor and you have a vault of sorts. Are we going to go into things like "a thief could bring an excavator, or a cutting torch and get through" or "there's no system that can't be broken"?

Fine. The idea is to make it either so difficult or so time consuming that a) a thief will give it a miss and/or b) that authorities have time to arrive while Robbie McRobberton is busy with his oxy-acetylene trying to get your goods.

So when you say the locks, inhibitors, and safes and vaults would do "nothing" to prevent theft and subsequent misuse, what exactly are you talking about? Do you have many non-corporeal criminals where you are? Do they all have 100kg pneumatic drills on their person when they're coming to steal your dvd player from your studio apartment?

And not a single one of those can prevent theft. All they do is make it more expensive to own, restrict the ability to use them in self-defense and give the authorities more reasons to declare you a criminal.

I'm not sure about the criminal part, unless you mean that with a bigger checklist there are more things for people to be lazy about. Although if you cock that up, you should simply lose your license and gun(s). I don't know how militant your police are where you're from.

As for expense, so what? I don't exactly see you making food, potable water, and housing available within the price range of 100% of your citizens. Those are necessities. While self defense MAY be a necessity, ownership of a gun to do it is not. If expense is going to be an issue, then are you going to argue that guns should be free so that nobody is denied one?

And now you go off into the realm of fantasy and personal attacks. Because I don't recognize that your beliefs are facts, you now say I shouldn't be "allowed" firearms while continuing to run w/ your farsicle examples of "safe storage".

Really?

So far, if that's the real you and not a pose for the purposes of argument, that shows a lack of clear thinking that would make me dubious about giving you a firearm license. Not because you're for less restrictions, but because you miss the point and run off into absurdities.

I said exactly why I said that, and yet somehow you're now informing me that it's because you don't recognize my beliefs as facts. THAT is why I said the bit about "missing the point and running off into absurdities".

And your definition of "secure" does nothing to prevent crime and only continues to punish the victims and not the criminals.

Like I said, I love the part where you say it does nothing. I'd love to see you break into a house and pop a vault with whatever you happened to have on you. Apparently it's a piece of cake, since it would do nothing to stop you.

Keep reaching.

Same to you.

I provided the links. The FBI data is on the previous page, the CCW is also provided.

You also know I've presented the data numerous times in the past.
The fact is that you make this claim:

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

Knowing full well that there are other factors involved in the drop in US crime during that period.

It would appear that you are trying to claim "causality" based on what you posted, when we both know that your claim is not justifiable on a stand alone basis.

I absolutely agree with and support the idea that if you failed to properly secure your weapons then you should be held to some degree of responsibility for their misuse. This goes not only for individuals, but for groups of individuals, including countries and multi-national groups like Hamas or the Catholic Church. Not that the Catholic Church has a cache of weapons available for use by its followers, but rather as an example of a "borderless state."

That's an interesting point, actually. I was still on the level of individuals and hadn't really thought of that sort of integrated grouping. Nice!

How is the analogy "a gun is like a knife in that they can both be used to kill you" a stupid one? I can see that the only purpose of a gun is to bring about death or disability, while a knife has other uses outside of this scope, but in the end, if you're talking about having a will to kill someone, what is the difference? The issue seems to be less about available weapons and more about self-control in general on the part of human beings.

Because not everybody is fit enough or coordinated enough to swing a chair, or use a knife (since you're within intimate range of someone when you're using one), but with a gun you've cut across all of that. You can wound or kill someone at range even if you're a 103 year old woman with a walker and your victim is He-man muscled soldier.

Some would tout that as a benefit, and in some cases it may well be. But our biological surrender reflex (affects both the one surrendering and the one being surrendered to) doesn't kick in fast enough when death is instantaneous and from a distance.

Plus, since you can pick up someone and kill them even though you've never shot a gun before, even with a knife this is less likely. Anybody who's ever trained with weapons will tell you that guns are in their own category.

I'm not really sure...there's a lot of people who would happily shoot their enemies and if everyone had the same gun...

The fact is that you make this claim:

Originally Posted by Kecibukia View Post
If your causality is true, why did crime in the US drop for years even w/ more firearms being owned and less restrictive carry laws?

Knowing full well that there are other factors involved in the drop in US crime during that period.

It would appear that you are trying to claim "causality" based on what you posted, when we both know that your claim is not justifiable on a stand alone basis.

It would appear you're wrong. I didn't claim causality and have specifically said numerous times I wasn't. I was responding to the reverse causality of "more guns = more crime" and you know it.

So now we've gone from breaking and entering to "leaving your home open on vacation. Gotcha. I guess stupid analogies are the best way to go when you don't have evidence/

Now you get to define "properly secure" and justify how that would not woek to restrict private ownership or self-defense of the home as well as define how it would be enforced w/o warrentless searches.

Continue blaming the victims. Yay. I guess criminals aren't responsible anymore. You also get to prove that the "bulk" of shootings are the fault of those who follow the law in the US.

No, the criminal is responsible for his actions stealing the firearm and using it illegally. You want to blame the object and the victims.
Well doesn't it seem sad to you that hundreds of thousands of guns are being stolen from you so called "Law Abiding Citizens"?

How many guns are stolen (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf)?

The Victim Survey (NCVS) estimates that there were 341,000 incidents of firearm theft from private citizens annually from 1987 to 1992. Because the survey does not ask how many guns were stolen, the number of guns stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents of gun theft.
How are you going to prevent this from happening?

Don't keep telling us that you are Law Abiding Citizens!!

To quote myself, "Stupid analogies I've observed in this thread so far is "a gun is like a knife, in that they can both be used to kill you".

I didn't quote you saying it, I was replying to the stupid analogies comment you made.

Is it at all relevant whether or not you said it?

When replying to me, yes.



First of all, you didn't say anything about intrusive. You said "Now you get to define "properly secure" and justify how that would not woek to restrict private ownership or self-defense of the home as well as define how it would be enforced w/o warrentless searches."

So forcing warrantless searches and expensive safes is not "restricive"?

To be frank, about the most intrusive thing I can think of offhand is a piece of fanged metal popcorn shedding kinetic energy through my body. If you want license to have doing that to me as an option, then you can put up with inspections to make sure you're complying with the duties and restrictions put on you that come with that resposibility.

So now you're assuming that anyone who owns a firearm is going to commit illegal actions because you're afraid.

They do nothing? I'm not sure what a vault is where you're from, but here it's the common term for a safe that can't be moved. If you have a gun safe, sink it halfway into your concrete floor and you have a vault of sorts. Are we going to go into things like "a thief could bring an excavator, or a cutting torch and get through" or "there's no system that can't be broken"?

So a safe is the only thing you mentioned? You didn't mention locks, etc? Do you know how expensive safe's are? Does the cost of that not equal to making ownership restrictive? Does everyone have concrete floors to bolt them to?

Fine. The idea is to make it either so difficult or so time consuming that a) a thief will give it a miss and/or b) that authorities have time to arrive while Robbie McRobberton is busy with his oxy-acetylene trying to get your goods.

Or just pick them up and open them later. So now the police respond to all robberies?

So when you say the locks, inhibitors, and safes and vaults would do "nothing" to prevent theft and subsequent misuse, what exactly are you talking about? Do you have many non-corporeal criminals where you are? Do they all have 100kg pneumatic drills on their person when they're coming to steal your dvd player from your studio apartment?

See above. I guess a thief can't just pick up a locked firearm and cut it later. But you think everyone should have a concrete bolted safe. I guess that goes back to making it impossible for people to defend themselves w/ them if they have to be locked up and making it too expensive for them to own.



I'm not sure about the criminal part, unless you mean that with a bigger checklist there are more things for people to be lazy about. Although if you cock that up, you should simply lose your license and gun(s). I don't know how militant your police are where you're from.

As for expense, so what? I don't exactly see you making food, potable water, and housing available within the price range of 100% of your citizens. Those are necessities. While self defense MAY be a necessity, ownership of a gun to do it is not. If expense is going to be an issue, then are you going to argue that guns should be free so that nobody is denied one?



Really?

I said exactly why I said that, and yet somehow you're now informing me that it's because you don't recognize my beliefs as facts. THAT is why I said the bit about "missing the point and running off into absurdities".

And yet I keep responding to the point while you're making claims of "people leaving their homes wide open on vacation.



Like I said, I love the part where you say it does nothing. I'd love to see you break into a house and pop a vault with whatever you happened to have on you. Apparently it's a piece of cake, since it would do nothing to stop you.

And you keep going back to "vaults" that people would be forced to own and have inspected by warrantless searches completely ignoring that you mentioned numerous others that can be picked up.



Same to you.

So we have you requiring "vaults", warrantless searches, licenses, and victims being responsible for crime while I require the onus being on the Gov't to justify why I shouldn't be "allowed" firearms.

Well doesn't it seem sad to you that hundreds of thousands of guns are being stolen from you so called "Law Abiding Citizens"?

How many guns are stolen (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf)?

The Victim Survey (NCVS) estimates that there were 341,000 incidents of firearm theft from private citizens annually from 1987 to 1992. Because the survey does not ask how many
guns were stolen, the number of guns stolen probably exceeds the number
of incidents of gun theft.

How are you going to prevent this from happening?



Don't keep telling us that you are Law Abiding Citizens!!

How often are you going to blame the victims CH? Notice your own highlighting. THEFT FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS. Why don't you want to crack down on actual criminals? Oh, wait, that would require you to recognize crime doesn't have to do w/ the legal possession of firearms.

Because not everybody is fit enough or coordinated enough to swing a chair, or use a knife (since you're within intimate range of someone when you're using one), but with a gun you've cut across all of that. You can wound or kill someone at range even if you're a 103 year old woman with a walker and your victim is He-man muscled soldier.

Some would tout that as a benefit, and in some cases it may well be. But our biological surrender reflex (affects both the one surrendering and the one being surrendered to) doesn't kick in fast enough when death is instantaneous and from a distance.

Plus, since you can pick up someone and kill them even though you've never shot a gun before, even with a knife this is less likely. Anybody who's ever trained with weapons will tell you that guns are in their own category.

Of course they are, and I think I mentioned that, i.e. a gun is a tool designed specifically with death or disabling in mind. However, don't be fooled into believing that a 103 year old woman can just pick up a gun and go on a killing spree. Go to a target range, rent the smallest gun you can (.22 in most cases) and go through a few rounds on the range. With the first shot it will become immediately apparent that a degree of physical strength and stamina is necessary to fire a gun, and that a certain degree of skill is necessary to hit anything but the broad side of a barn from point blank range. Everybody who I take down to the range to fire a gun for their very first time says EXACTLY, verbatim, the same thing: "This is nothing like in the movies!" They are all surprised at how difficult it is. It is arguably easier than using a knife, but you're talking about being in close physical proximity again. Accidents with kids shooting themselves (obvious physical proximity) or their friends don't happen when the friend is standing across the room. Nor is the death necessarily instantaneous or even guaranteed, as any hunter who's had to chase down and locate a felled deer in the brush will verify.

Don't keep telling us that you are Law Abiding Citizens!!

Uhh...why not? I mean, getting something stolen from you isn't breaking the law, is it?

So forcing warrantless searches and expensive safes is not "restricive"?

I'm not sure how you keep mixing up "inspection" with "warrantless search". The latter is something that law enforcement isn't supposed to be doing, while the former is something you'd agree to during the licensing process. To use a non-firearm example, funeral (undertaking) homes are inspected to see that they're up to code on how they handle bodies and such. That's not a warrantless search. So where is it you're having the problem comprehending the difference?

And YOU'RE the one that wants guns more freely accessable. The implication is that you want fewer restrictions on gun licensing and ownership. Being required to pass your firearms course and have the facilities for properly securing your firearm(s) is presumably restrictive to you because it means that someone who collects cans for a living can't afford it. Meh. Lots of things that are actually critical to life can't be afforded by everybody. A gun isn't one of those things.

So now you're assuming that anyone who owns a firearm is going to commit illegal actions because you're afraid.

Interesting. Let's see what I actually said:

To be frank, about the most intrusive thing I can think of offhand is a piece of fanged metal popcorn shedding kinetic energy through my body. If you want license to have doing that to me as an option, then you can put up with inspections to make sure you're complying with the duties and restrictions put on you that come with that resposibility.

And if you're able to tie it back to what I said earlier about all the US-owned-and-stolen guns that end up where I live in the hands of criminals, you'll see that all of these firearm owners are the source. How you jumped to "anyone who owns a firewarm is going to commit illegal actions" is a mystery to me.

So a safe is the only thing you mentioned? You didn't mention locks, etc? Do you know how expensive safe's are? Does the cost of that not equal to making ownership restrictive? Does everyone have concrete floors to bolt them to?

No, a safe isn't the only thing I mentioned. That wasn't a list of exclusionary items, either. Just because you have a trigger lock doesn't mean you don't need a physically secure place to put your weapons.

And this ridiculous way of arguing you're using, "Does everony have concrete floors to bolt them to?" is easily turned around.

"Is everybody who owns a firearm going to be a responsible citizen? No? Then your points and opinions are without merit. Keep reaching."

If you don't have the means to properly fulfill your duties as a licensed firearm owner, then you don't get to have guns. You're not the only person with rights that is affected when you have a gun.

Or just pick them up and open them later. So now the police respond to all robberies?

If they're secured in a NON-MOVABLE vault (for lack of a better word), then they can't just pick them up and open them later, can then? As for the police responding to all robberies... I don't know about where you live, but here there's a world of difference between "Hi, I came home and someone has broken in and stolen my tv" and "There's someone in my house right now using tools trying to open my gun safe".

You're in a democratic country - if police don't show up for that latter example, time for you to change how things work.

See above. I guess a thief can't just pick up a locked firearm and cut it later. But you think everyone should have a concrete bolted safe. I guess that goes back to making it impossible for people to defend themselves w/ them if they have to be locked up and making it too expensive for them to own.

You see above. Trigger locked, barrel blocked, in the vault when not on your person. Too expensive? Too bad. Armor on your car isn't easily affordable for everybody who's afraid of being shot at in traffic either. Defend yourself some other way - you have zero right to an easily affordable gun.

Stuff you quoted but didnt manage to reply to:

I'm not sure about the criminal part, unless you mean that with a bigger checklist there are more things for people to be lazy about. Although if you cock that up, you should simply lose your license and gun(s). I don't know how militant your police are where you're from.

As for expense, so what? I don't exactly see you making food, potable water, and housing available within the price range of 100% of your citizens. Those are necessities. While self defense MAY be a necessity, ownership of a gun to do it is not. If expense is going to be an issue, then are you going to argue that guns should be free so that nobody is denied one?

And yet I keep responding to the point while you're making claims of "people leaving their homes wide open on vacation.

Sure - you say that anybody who wants to can rip off a gun and it's okay. Is that style of arguing more to your liking?

And you keep going back to "vaults" that people would be forced to own and have inspected by warrantless searches completely ignoring that you mentioned numerous others that can be picked up.

Since the numerous others are then followed by being put IN the vault, you're the one missing the point. And you sure have a bug up your ass about standard inspections. Are you one of those weirdos that equates "regulatory' with "satanic nazis"?

So we have you requiring "vaults", warrantless searches, licenses, and victims being responsible for crime while I require the onus being on the Gov't to justify why I shouldn't be "allowed" firearms.

Almost. I require proper storage of instruments of death, regular inspections to be sure of compliance with licensing strictures, thefts of firearms that occur as a result of failure to comply to said strictures resulting in penalites against the license-breaker and the onus being put on the individual to justify why they should be allowed to possess a dangerous weapon.

Of course they are, and I think I mentioned that, i.e. a gun is a tool designed specifically with death or disabling in mind. However, don't be fooled into believing that a 103 year old woman can just pick up a gun and go on a killing spree. Go to a target range, rent the smallest gun you can (.22 in most cases) and go through a few rounds on the range. With the first shot it will become immediately apparent that a degree of physical strength and stamina is necessary to fire a gun, and that a certain degree of skill is necessary to hit anything but the broad side of a barn from point blank range. Everybody who I take down to the range to fire a gun for their very first time says EXACTLY, verbatim, the same thing: "This is nothing like in the movies!" They are all surprised at how difficult it is. It is arguably easier than using a knife, but you're talking about being in close physical proximity again. Accidents with kids shooting themselves (obvious physical proximity) or their friends don't happen when the friend is standing across the room. Nor is the death necessarily instantaneous or even guaranteed, as any hunter who's had to chase down and locate a felled deer in the brush will verify.

I've been hunting, and I'm in Canada. Gun rental in the US is a whole different realm of weirdness to me. ;)

And a spree of one death is already too many - I'm responding mostly to the fallacy that having a gun somehow makes you safer or more able to defend yourself. I'm not saying gun ownership is wrong, not in the slightest. We have as many guns per capita here as the US does.

I just think one needs to be careful.

I've got a better idea: Why don't we stop teaching people that might makes right? Wouldn't that be more effective than giving every nutcase in the country a gun?

I'm not sure how you keep mixing up "inspection" with "warrantless search". The latter is something that law enforcement isn't supposed to be doing, while the former is something you'd agree to during the licensing process. To use a non-firearm example, funeral (undertaking) homes are inspected to see that they're up to code on how they handle bodies and such. That's not a warrantless search. So where is it you're having the problem comprehending the difference?

Yes it is because it's the gov't determining how you store your private property in your home and not a business. That's the difference. Why can't you comprehend that?

And YOU'RE the one that wants guns more freely accessable. The implication is that you want fewer restrictions on gun licensing and ownership. Being required to pass your firearms course and have the facilities for properly securing your firearm(s) is presumably restrictive to you because it means that someone who collects cans for a living can't afford it. Meh. Lots of things that are actually critical to life can't be afforded by everybody. A gun isn't one of those things.

And me wanting less restrictions on firearms means what exaclty? Another attampt at a personal attack? Now you're deterimining what people "need" along w/ making more stupid analogies.



Interesting. Let's see what I actually said:
And if you're able to tie it back to what I said earlier about all the US-owned-and-stolen guns that end up where I live in the hands of criminals, you'll see that all of these firearm owners are the source. How you jumped to "anyone who owns a firewarm is going to commit illegal actions" is a mystery to me.


maybe because of your little assumption that:

"If you want license to have doing that to me as an option"

So you're saying that you're afraid that anyone who owns a firearm is a direct danger to you and should be restricted.



No, a safe isn't the only thing I mentioned. That wasn't a list of exclusionary items, either. Just because you have a trigger lock doesn't mean you don't need a physically secure place to put your weapons.

So more restictions and expense and more things to make the citizen a criminal.

And this ridiculous way of arguing you're using, "Does everony have concrete floors to bolt them to?" is easily turned around.

"Is everybody who owns a firearm going to be a responsible citizen? No? Then your points and opinions are without merit. Keep reaching."

You're the one trying to restrict property and rights, not me.

If you don't have the means to properly fulfill your duties as a licensed firearm owner, then you don't get to have guns. You're not the only person with rights that is affected when you have a gun.

Responsibilities set by whom? You? At least you admit you want the Gov't to decide what we are "allowed".



If they're secured in a NON-MOVABLE vault (for lack of a better word), then they can't just pick them up and open them later, can then? As for the police responding to all robberies... I don't know about where you live, but here there's a world of difference between "Hi, I came home and someone has broken in and stolen my tv" and "There's someone in my house right now using tools trying to open my gun safe".

So now everyone needs a non-movable vault. Seems you're discriminating against the poor. Seems they're the ones most likely needing to defend themselves. There's also a big difference when afterwards, the news report says "The body was found on the floor in front of a gun safe. It is assumed they were attempting to open it to defend themselves agaisnt the intruders"

You're in a democratic country - if police don't show up for that latter example, time for you to change how things work.

It's already been established by the courts and lawyers that the police don't have a responsibility towards the individual. I do work to change things. I push for laws that help people protect themselves and punish criminals.



You see above. Trigger locked, barrel blocked, in the vault when not on your person. Too expensive? Too bad. Armor on your car isn't easily affordable for everybody who's afraid of being shot at in traffic either. Defend yourself some other way - you have zero right to an easily affordable gun.[/quote}

Ahh, "Zero rights" as determined by those who want to restrict them. So you're now the ones determining "rights"? Do you have a right to own a computer? Would you accept "inspections" and licensing of your computer/software to prove you're not breaking the law?

[QUOTE=Really Wild Stuff;11992361]Stuff you quoted but didnt manage to reply to:

You think self defense "may" be a necessity. I think it is and want the option of being able to do it w/ a firearm and not what the Gov't decides I "need" to do it. There is food/water/shelter available. It also doesn't require mandated storage in private homes to make it innaccessible due to others fears. Another false analogy.


Sure - you say that anybody who wants to can rip off a gun and it's okay. Is that style of arguing more to your liking?

So now you're trying to say I want people to be criminalized? Seems you did make that statement that I quoted. Do you deny it?

Since the numerous others are then followed by being put IN the vault, you're the one missing the point. And you sure have a bug up your ass about standard inspections. Are you one of those weirdos that equates "regulatory' with "satanic nazis"?

Oh, look. More attempts to demonize because I don't want the Gov't coming into my home "inspecting" my private property.



Almost. I require proper storage of instruments of death, regular inspections to be sure of compliance with licensing strictures, thefts of firearms that occur as a result of failure to comply to said strictures resulting in penalites against the license-breaker and the onus being put on the individual to justify why they should be allowed to possess a dangerous weapon.

Yay, more demonization and blaming victims of crime. Thefts occur because of criminals breaking the law, not because of people in their homes. First you said that you weren't "blaming firearms" but now you refer to them as "instruments of death". Can you be anymore disingenous? At least admit to yourself that your rants have nothing to do w/ crime and it's your own personal dislike of firearms.

I've been hunting, and I'm in Canada. Gun rental in the US is a whole different realm of weirdness to me. ;)

And a spree of one death is already too many - I'm responding mostly to the fallacy that having a gun somehow makes you safer or more able to defend yourself. I'm not saying gun ownership is wrong, not in the slightest. We have as many guns per capita here as the US does.

I just think one needs to be careful.

And being careful does not mean "safe storage" or licensing, or inspections. It means education.

You admit that Canada has just as many firearms /capita as the US but lower crime. It had lower crime even before the constantly increased restrictions (which the Gov't said it wouldn't do).

It's not the firearms.

I've been hunting, and I'm in Canada. Gun rental in the US is a whole different realm of weirdness to me. ;)

And a spree of one death is already too many - I'm responding mostly to the fallacy that having a gun somehow makes you safer or more able to defend yourself. I'm not saying gun ownership is wrong, not in the slightest. We have as many guns per capita here as the US does.

I just think one needs to be careful.

It's not too weird. It's not like they let you take it out of the shop.

I agree: carrying a gun doesn't make you safer. In fact, in many cases it will make you less safe, as you'll be identified as a threat by those afraid of such things, like armed criminals. But in a situation where your safety has already been called into question or compromised, it provides you with an option that might save your life.

There is also the argument that if several, though not necessarily all, people opt to carry, then things will ultimately become safer because now criminals with a will to be violent will have to contemplate the presence of several deadly, geographically dispersed opponents to their activities.

As far as deaths, the first person who ever died violently at the hands of another was the "one too many." But the cat's out of the bag. We can't put the evils back into Pandora's box, so we're going to have to accept their presence and live with them. Hopefully, we can do so in such a way that the majority of us can respect and love one another enough that we don't follow a path of mutually assured destruction.

Yes it is because it's the gov't determining how you store your private property in your home and not a business. That's the difference. Why can't you comprehend that?

Because the manner in which private but licensed property has an effect on other people. It's the same reason you can't just store certain biological and chemical precursors however you like.

And me wanting less restrictions on firearms means what exaclty? Another attampt at a personal attack? Now you're deterimining what people "need" along w/ making more stupid analogies.

Here's a stupid analogy you seem to be pushing: easier access to guns with less oversight is better because it means you can shoot people easier. People who break into your home to rob you deserve to be shot. If someone successfully steals your firearm, it's not your fault or your problem because you weren't the thief.

Dangerous thinking for society as a whole.

maybe because of your little assumption that:

"If you want license to have doing that to me as an option"

So you're saying that you're afraid that anyone who owns a firearm is a direct danger to you and should be restricted.

Anybody who has a firearm should not be able to do anything they want with it, nor should they facilitate other people getting hold of it. Hence the restrictions.

So more restictions and expense and more things to make the citizen a criminal.

Now you've got to the point where you think that insisting on proper storage for a dangerous weapon makes the owner a criminal? Where is this coming from?

You're the one trying to restrict property and rights, not me.

Funny, I wasn't aware you had the unrestricted right to do whatever the hell you wanted, especially when that has an effect on other people's rights.

Responsibilities set by whom? You? At least you admit you want the Gov't to decide what we are "allowed".

Responsibilties set by whatever body governs firearms in your area. I'm not in your area, nor am I an official in any such body. So no, not me.

And what exactly is a democratic government for if not to administer the area of the people that created it?

As an aside, while I've observed this "distrust of all things government" thing that lots of United Statesians have, it's not really something we do here. If our government gets out of line, we smack it and move on. The government is our financially-out-of-contol servant, not our master. Ask the other Canadians here in the forums if they disagree with that.

I realize that things may be different in your area, but then change them and put a government in that does its job. Don't sit there and say it can't be trusted - it's made up of your fellow citizens. To equate government with evil is just misanthropic.

So now everyone needs a non-movable vault. Seems you're discriminating against the poor. Seems they're the ones most likely needing to defend themselves. There's also a big difference when afterwards, the news report says "The body was found on the floor in front of a gun safe. It is assumed they were attempting to open it to defend themselves agaisnt the intruders"

You're sure leeching on to the vault idea. You asked for examples, I gave a non-exhaustive list off the top of my head to you, and now you say that it discriminates against the poor. Can every single person afford just the gun? No? Then it's still discrimination. Are you going to buy a bunch of them and hand them out?

You're telling me that when someone breaks into your home, you STAY in your home while they're there? It's clear you've never done security work, or had any such training.

If you hear someone break into your home, you put as much distance and as many barriers between you and them as possible. Unless they're there specifically to harm you, let them have your stuff. It's just stuff. You don't own anything worth getting harmed over.

It's already been established by the courts and lawyers that the police don't have a responsibility towards the individual. I do work to change things. I push for laws that help people protect themselves and punish criminals.

Where do you push for these laws? Anywhere in real life, or just on the NS forums?

And which police and courts are you talking about. Do you have a link?

Ahh, "Zero rights" as determined by those who want to restrict them. So you're now the ones determining "rights"? Do you have a right to own a computer? Would you accept "inspections" and licensing of your computer/software to prove you're not breaking the law?

No, YOU'RE the one trying to determine rights. The burden is on you. So far, you're demonstrated nothing of the sort. You don't have to provide proof for a negative.

And no, you don't have a right to a computer. Every time you click "I agree" on a EULA you're entering into an enforcable contract. And yes, as a matter of fact, I'd accept inspections of my machines at any time with no notice. I'm not breaking the law. I have no child pornography on my computers, nor anything else that would label me a criminal. So who cares if I get inspected?

You think self defense "may" be a necessity. I think it is and want the option of being able to do it w/ a firearm and not what the Gov't decides I "need" to do it. There is food/water/shelter available. It also doesn't require mandated storage in private homes to make it innaccessible due to others fears. Another false analogy.

I don't think a *gun* is a necessity. You think it is, apparently. Ever been in a situation where you needed a gun? You're still alive, so you've clearly never been killed. So for what other reason do you NEED a gun? So far you haven't needed it for protection.

As to the food/water/shelter being available, I see far too many people on the streets sleeping to buy that. Until it's as available to everybody as you want to make guns, your priorities are ass backwards.

So now you're trying to say I want people to be criminalized? Seems you did make that statement that I quoted. Do you deny it?

YOU'RE saying that "victims" are being criminalized if they're held responsible for not properly securing their weapons. I'M saying that if you don't secure your weapon properly and it gets ripped off and used to harm somebody, that the gun owner did wrong. You betcha.

Oh, look. More attempts to demonize because I don't want the Gov't coming into my home "inspecting" my private property.

Tough. You don't get to live outside of authority and still benefit from what that authority maintains.

Yay, more demonization and blaming victims of crime. Thefts occur because of criminals breaking the law, not because of people in their homes. First you said that you weren't "blaming firearms" but now you refer to them as "instruments of death". Can you be anymore disingenous? At least admit to yourself that your rants have nothing to do w/ crime and it's your own personal dislike of firearms.

Demonization, eh? Let's see:

Almost. I require proper storage of instruments of death, regular inspections to be sure of compliance with licensing strictures, thefts of firearms that occur as a result of failure to comply to said strictures resulting in penalites against the license-breaker and the onus being put on the individual to justify why they should be allowed to possess a dangerous weapon.

Not sure where the demonization comes in, but the gun that was ripped off from the irresponsible gun owner and then subsequently used to shoot someone should have been kept out of the hands of the criminal in the first place. If you can't control your weapon, you shouldn't have one.

And sure I could be more disingenuous, but I love how you make things up. My personal dislike of firearms? I'm an owner of more than one. I sure do hate those things - that's why I rant. Keep making assumptions.

And being careful does not mean "safe storage" or licensing, or inspections. It means education.

You admit that Canada has just as many firearms /capita as the US but lower crime. It had lower crime even before the constantly increased restrictions (which the Gov't said it wouldn't do).

It's not the firearms.

We don't have lower crime. We have a lower rate of firearms being used for/during crimes. There's a difference.

Sure, we tend to think that human life is important. Everybody's, not just our own. That's a general statement, and subject to all of the counter examples that any such general statement is target for.

What you DON'T get here are a bunch of people with handguns. You don't find stores everywhere that are gun shops. You can't even buy ammunition without your license.

As for the education bit, sure that's important. But, and try not to take this as a personal attack, in general the US population doesn't seem to be very students.

Educate everybody first, THEN try handing out guns. Not vice versa.

There is also the argument that if several, though not necessarily all, people opt to carry, then things will ultimately become safer because now criminals with a will to be violent will have to contemplate the presence of several deadly, geographically dispersed opponents to their activities.

"An armed society is a polite society." That might work with some cultures, but it doesn't seem to have worked well with the US.

As far as deaths, the first person who ever died violently at the hands of another was the "one too many." But the cat's out of the bag. We can't put the evils back into Pandora's box, so we're going to have to accept their presence and live with them. Hopefully, we can do so in such a way that the majority of us can respect and love one another enough that we don't follow a path of mutually assured destruction.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for banning all guns. But I don't think it should be as casual as buying a box of condoms, with next to no oversight on how gun ownership is managed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for banning all guns. But I don't think it should be as casual as buying a box of condoms, with next to no oversight on how gun ownership is managed.

I agree precisely and wholeheartedly with that statement. As I've said, there need to be controls. I don't want guns "distributed" or made cheaper. I want those of us who can prove that we are as able as police are to be able to carry guns the same way they do.

I think there are a lot of reasons the "armed/polite" society hasn't worked out well in the US, including failure to implement proper controls, lack of education (including deliberate misrepresentation in entertainment) and the general culture of entitlement here (which really, really pisses me off). There's a way through it, I'm sure. I just hope we can come to our senses over the issue before the pendulum swings too far in either direction.

I agree precisely and wholeheartedly with that statement. As I've said, there need to be controls. I don't want guns "distributed" or made cheaper. I want those of us who can prove that we are as able as police are to be able to carry guns the same way they do.

Thank you!

And that's the stuff! ;)

I'm going to work now, so hopefully there won't be a buttload of overly inane posts for me to read when I get back.

Have fun!

Because the manner in which private but licensed property has an effect on other people. It's the same reason you can't just store certain biological and chemical precursors however you like.

Slippery slope and a false analogy. A firearm/= biologic/chemical precursors. Try again.



Here's a stupid analogy you seem to be pushing: easier access to guns with less oversight is better because it means you can shoot people easier. People who break into your home to rob you deserve to be shot. If someone successfully steals your firearm, it's not your fault or your problem because you weren't the thief.

Let's see. Now you're just randomly making stuff up. Good job. How is that an analogy?

Dangerous thinking for society as a whole.

So personal accountability is only for "society" and not for criminals?



Anybody who has a firearm should not be able to do anything they want with it, nor should they facilitate other people getting hold of it. Hence the restrictions.

Never said people "could do anything they want w/ it". Having it in my home is not "facilitating other people getting ahold of it". Try again.



Now you've got to the point where you think that insisting on proper storage for a dangerous weapon makes the owner a criminal? Where is this coming from?

By making the restrictions so onerous that any violation makes the owner a criminal. Kind of what you're pushing for by constantly making the onus on the owner for "proper storage".



Funny, I wasn't aware you had the unrestricted right to do whatever the hell you wanted, especially when that has an effect on other people's rights.

Funny. I never made that strawman especially since owning firearms has no effect on your rights whatsoever.



Responsibilties set by whatever body governs firearms in your area. I'm not in your area, nor am I an official in any such body. So no, not me.

[QUOTE=Really Wild Stuff;11992532]And what exactly is a democratic government for if not to administer the area of the people that created it?



As an aside, while I've observed this "distrust of all things government" thing that lots of United Statesians have, it's not really something we do here. If our government gets out of line, we smack it and move on. The government is our financially-out-of-contol servant, not our master. Ask the other Canadians here in the forums if they disagree with that.

I realize that things may be different in your area, but then change them and put a government in that does its job. Don't sit there and say it can't be trusted - it's made up of your fellow citizens. To equate government with evil is just misanthropic.

Yet you critisize the actions of my governing body of making less restrictive requirements so you are trying to determine my rights. I don't trust the gov't yet I participate in it. You keep making these accusations and demonizations of what you think I believe. Did I say the Gov't is "evil"? Not trusting it /= "evil".

You're sure leeching on to the vault idea. You asked for examples, I gave a non-exhaustive list off the top of my head to you, and now you say that it discriminates against the poor. Can every single person afford just the gun? No? Then it's still discrimination. Are you going to buy a bunch of them and hand them out?

False dichotomy. There are numerous inexpensive firearms out there. Keeping them affordable /= "handing them out". Just as maiking people spend thousands of dollars to "safely store" them does not ensure that crime will drop.




It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. I've worked security. Been trained in the military, and will defend my home against intruders.

If you hear someone break into your home, you put as much distance and as many barriers between you and them as possible. Unless they're there specifically to harm you, let them have your stuff. It's just stuff. You don't own anything worth getting harmed over.

So you just assume they're there for your stuff and won't hurt your family. Fine. You do that. I'll go on the offensive.



Where do you push for these laws? Anywhere in real life, or just on the NS forums?

By voting for the politicians that support them, letter writing, supporting organizations, etc. Unlike some, I don't just sit at my computer and blame others.

And which police and courts are you talking about. Do you have a link?

Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales
Warren v. District of Columbia


No, YOU'RE the one trying to determine rights. The burden is on you. So far, you're demonstrated nothing of the sort. You don't have to provide proof for a negative.

2nd, 9th, 10th amendments. You are trying to restrict property rights.

And no, you don't have a right to a computer. Every time you click "I agree" on a EULA you're entering into an enforcable contract. And yes, as a matter of fact, I'd accept inspections of my machines at any time with no notice. I'm not breaking the law. I have no child pornography on my computers, nor anything else that would label me a criminal. So who cares if I get inspected?

So you care so little of your personal life and trust the government to the extreme. Good for you. I don't. I believe the Gov't should have to prove wrong before invading my home.



You think it is, apparently. Ever been in a situation where you needed a gun? You're still alive, so you've clearly never been killed. So for what other reason do you NEED a gun? So far you haven't needed it for protection.

So because I haven't needed it for protection, I never will? Target shooting, hunting, varmint control, re-enactments, collecting, to name a few. I'm sure you won't consider most of those to be "valid" reasons. I also don't believe I have to NEED something to justify to the gov't as to why I should own it.

As to the food/water/shelter being available, I see far too many people on the streets sleeping to buy that. Until it's as available to everybody as you want to make guns, your priorities are ass backwards.

And more personal attacks. So because I can't feed the world, I shouldn't own a gun in your false analogy. Gotcha. You shouldn't own a computer then either.



YOU'RE saying that "victims" are being criminalized if they're held responsible for not properly securing their weapons. I'M saying that if you don't secure your weapon properly and it gets ripped off and used to harm somebody, that the gun owner did wrong. You betcha.

The gun owner did wrong by being criminalized. Gotcha.



Tough. You don't get to live outside of authority and still benefit from what that authority maintains.

So you maintain the Gov't should be able to do whatever it wants even against the Constitution/Governing Statements and Natural Rights? Fine. You keep that belief.



Demonization, eh? Let's see:



Not sure where the demonization comes in, but the gun that was ripped off from the irresponsible gun owner and then subsequently used to shoot someone should have been kept out of the hands of the criminal in the first place. If you can't control your weapon, you shouldn't have one.

Your definition of "control" is to prevent most people from owning them and to put the onus of "proof" onto the citizenry.

And sure I could be more disingenuous, but I love how you make things up. My personal dislike of firearms? I'm an owner of more than one. I sure do hate those things - that's why I rant. Keep making assumptions.

Like all of yours. Why do you own those "instruments of death"? Why should you be trusted w/ them if you consider them that? Are all of yours locked up in a "vault" at all times except when in use?

Thank you!

And that's the stuff! ;)

I'm going to work now, so hopefully there won't be a buttload of overly inane posts for me to read when I get back.

Have fun!

Yay! More personal attacks.

Nobody has yet justified why crime has decreased in the US even w/ more firearms and less restrictive laws yet "more guns = more crime" and more restrictive laws will cause crime to decrease.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody

Who in their right mind will *mug* somebody when he could *shoot* somebody instead?

MTAE...:rolleyes:

Nobody has yet justified why crime has decreased in the US even w/ more firearms and less restrictive laws yet "more guns = more crime" and more restrictive laws will cause crime to decrease.
You keep trying to push this point and again I will ask you are you suggesting "causality"? You know that there are other extenuating circumstances that caused a decrease in crime, such as the Brady Law, and increased incarceration rates in the US?

Also, I believe that your claim of "more firearms" is a red herring. While there may be more firearms, there are less and less gun owners.

Uhh...why not? I mean, getting something stolen from you isn't breaking the law, is it?
You don't think it is a problem that a minimum of 341,000 guns are stolen annually in the US? Let's work out the numbers on that:

Assuming that all States had the same population, 341,000 stolen guns would be equivalent to 6820 gun thefts per State per year or a total of 131 guns per week, per State. That just boggles the mind?

Finally, a topic MtaE might be able to get away with.

Ok, i didnt actually read all of the middle pages, but how can this be true?

Some of his other stuff was ok, even the stuff that was morally disgusting had a few points... but this, quite frankly, is stupid.

I wouldnt feel safe at all if i knew everyone around me had a gun, self defence classes are reasonable, but look at all the problems guns are causing in america! If every angst highschooler had easy or free access to a gun? Considering there were like 3 school shootings in a week in america a little while ago, i would have thought that making guns less available would be more sensible.

"Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?"
Anyone that thinks theres no-one around, the difference is that now the guy doing the mugging will certainly have a gun, and even if someone does notice and decides to shoot
a) if they miss then the guy will turn around and shoot them back and then kill the original guy
b) they might even hit the person being mugged, the mugger proceeds to kill the helpful bystander
c) even if they kill the mugger, thats one mugging prevented but one more person dead
d) it might not even be a mugging, if its just some guys messing around and some helpful bystander makes a mistake then they could easily kill someone completely innocent (i can see this happening a lot)

This is a terrible idea, oh, and those radical terrorists everyone complains about? arming them all? really?
Speaking of which, shall we legalise taking guns onto planes now aswell? i mean, think how disadvantaged those tourists visiting the US/other parts of the US would be if they didnt have guns and everyone else did

Sorry if i've repeated what others have said

Guns!!!

In the land of the Free, you should be able to sell mufflers (silencers) too.

I'm thinking of the young here. When Daddy shoots mommy in a trailer, it causes life-long tinnutus on the young. Why can't you buy silencers? Silencer-ban must be unconstitutional somehow... right? Completely free here, never had any problems.

Completely free here, never had any problems.

Yeah, same here in Blighty. That said, we can't own pistols like you Finns can.
I think the reason silencers are free in Finland is that the population is so lovely that they rarely shoot each other anyway.

Yeah, same here in Blighty. That said, we can't own pistols like you Finns can.
I think the reason silencers are free in Finland is that the population is so lovely that they rarely shoot each other anyway.Ummm... No.... we like to stab our neighbours with knives. The silencers are for more silent shooting ranges.

Ummm... No.... we like to stab our neighbours with knives.

Well, hell, who doesn't?

Well, hell, who doesn't?
The folks with guns..? I.E. pussies

Exactly. And, as I've stated, their "training" isn't anything which is out of reach for the average person. And some candidates fail their training based on tests they have to pass at its completion, and are not allowed to get a job as a police officer. If the tests are the thing we use to determine if a person should be allowed to be a cop or not, and I can pass the tests, the obviously I am at least as capable as someone who has attended the police training in order to pass the tests, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps I have obtained a copy of the curriculum and have completed all of the training tasks on my own. Perhaps I've completed a different but equivalent or more stringent training at someplace other than the police academy. Perhaps I'm just a natural. Regardless, if a human being can pass these tests and obtain a job as a police officer, it seems to me that if another human being has a different job, say as an IT specialist or a senator or a burger-flipper, and they can pass the tests, then they should be afforded the opportunity to carry weapons and respond to crimes in their immediate vicinity the same way police are able to after passing the same tests.
vigilanteism?




And yet I'm fairly certain there have been several occasions where your computer has done something you didn't want it to do and you've gone ahead and "had a bash at it," for better or for worse. Granted, we're not talking about someone's life being on the line, just whether or not you're going to be able to use your computer, but no one is denying you access to the tools you need to be able to fix the thing. The only difference between you and an IT professional is that they've already read the information that is freely available to you to read.

And they understand it and can fix it. Given that my attempts have rarely ended well and once resulted in wrecking the computer, I'd really not like the analogy to be applied to people.


There will certainly be some cases where experience will prove invaluable in either case. Moving back to the case of police, missing persons come immediately to mind. The police will have experience determining the nature and cause of a missing persons case that average people will simply not have. They are the experts that should definitely be called in that case. Another case is threat assessment and determining danger in somewhat ambiguous situations, such as the aftermath of a shooting, e.g. is the gunman still around? Is anyone still in danger? But when a guy walks into a McDonald's (for example) with a shotgun and demands everyone give him their valuables, it doesn't take a cop to perform a threat assessment. The people in that building are obviously in danger. They can remain in danger until the police get there, or they can have the option of removing the immediate source of the danger, as well as removing a criminal, possibly permanently, from the pool.

What they have to judge is whether it is safer to simply let the guy take the valuables, or try and pull out a gun, take the safety off and hit a guy in a crowded restaurant before he notices and shoots someone. Police on the other hand are specially and consistently trained for this sort of thing.

My basic argument is that in an ideal society without crime then there'd be no need for guns etc. Given that there is a requirement, and the requirement for at least some people to wield such weapons these people need to be more accountable. In the above scenario if a policeman goes in in a bad way then he is held accountable. If it's a random person and it goes badly then that person can simply vanish into the crowd and isn't accountable.


The argument might also be that she shouldn't have been cheating in the first place, and so deserves what she gets. If it were realistic for her to expect to be shot for getting caught cheating, I think that would be good incentive for her to explore the plethora of channels available to her to perform more constructive action, including NOT cheating at all, talking honestly and openly with her husband about her needs, or even divorce before she takes on another lover. Most of those also have the added benefit of not compromising her personal integrity.

I'm just using that as an example of where having a gun close to hand may cause a murder where one wouldn't have happened.


I'm not suggesting that people should not be held responsible for the consequences of acting on their emotions, either. I did catch my wife cheating, and I did feel like killing both of them. If you've never experienced that sort of rage, I hope you never have to. I have guns. I carry a knife in my pocket that has been described by many as "scary," though to me it is simply a tool I use to cut things (e.g. drywall, phone/network cable, cardboard, tape, etc.). I have had the training, practice and experience to use both the guns and the knife, and I was quite capable on a few occasions of killing both her and her lover. In fact, if I truly felt like it I would have no problem tracking either of them down right now and doing the job. They still live because I realize that it would be the wrong thing to do, and if I let her inability to be a good person and do the right thing affect my ability to do so, then that would be far worse than anything else she has done to me. I do not believe that I am any better than anyone else, and so I expect that all people should be able to rationalize the difference between right and wrong in tense situations and do the right thing. For those who cannot, let the sentence fit the crime.
You're more optimistic than me, I don't trust people enough to be entirely happy with that situation arising.

The "free" hand-guns would be payed for through taxes. Plus, handguns aren't neccessarily enough. If several people break into your house at once it won't do much if any good.

The "free" hand-guns would be payed for through taxes. Plus, handguns aren't neccessarily enough. If several people break into your house at once it won't do much if any good.

That's why I'm glad I have an AR-15 with 30 round magazines. That, and I'd hate to have to reload after a few shots while at the range.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

Again, the Farmy Dome idea totally preempts crime. Why don't you listen to my ideas?

yeah great idea, give the drugged up gangsta's the guns they so desperately want but cant afford so that they can increase the crime rate, excellent job my friend im sure congress will take you up on your offer immediately. i'm a huge republican conservative ish person but im completely for gun control. trusting americans with guns is like trusting democrats with congress, its just dumb.

yeah great idea, give the drugged up gangsta's the guns they so desperately want but cant afford so that they can increase the crime rate, excellent job my friend im sure congress will take you up on your offer immediately. i'm a huge republican conservative ish person but im completely for gun control. trusting americans with guns is like trusting democrats with congress, its just dumb.

Here's the thing, though. Convicted felons and people that have been institutionalized (for mental issues) can't legally own/operate/posess firearms.

On the subject of not trusting people to own firearms, as long as the firearms are stored and used safely and responsibly, I see no reason that any sane, law abiding citizen of the US should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

You keep trying to push this point and again I will ask you are you suggesting "causality"? You know that there are other extenuating circumstances that caused a decrease in crime, such as the Brady Law, and increased incarceration rates in the US?

I guess we're at the point where you just ignore multiple posts CH? Didn't read the previous ones I guess. I keep pushing the point and asking for evidence because people are still using the more guns = more crime meme and I keep pointing out it isn't true.

Also, I believe that your claim of "more firearms" is a red herring. While there may be more firearms, there are less and less gun owners.

False. Your "evidence" is based off of a ten year old phone survey conducted during an anti-gun administration. We've been through this before.

I guess we're at the point where you just ignore multiple posts CH? Didn't read the previous ones I guess. I keep pushing the point and asking for evidence because people are still using the more guns = more crime meme and I keep pointing out it isn't true.

False. Your "evidence" is based off of a ten year old phone survey conducted during an anti-gun administration. We've been through this before.
I just don't have the time. I wish I did have the time because I can punch all kinds of holes in your gun culture society. And when I do come up with compelling arguments, I get the usual song and dance routine such as the one you offered in this post. Since when are Republicans "anti-gun"? They were in control of both the House and the Senate for the past 12 years?

I believe Florida was the first RTC State back in 1987. "An armed society is a polite society"? As of 2005, Florida has the 4th highest Violent Crime Rate (VCR) at an index of 708. It ranks 7th highest in robbery and 5th in aggravated assault. It ranks 25th in murder and 19th in forcible rape. It ranks 13th in burglary. It also ranks 16th in property crime.

New York State has very restrictive gun control laws. It ranks 22nd for VCR at an index of 445, 29th for murder, 49th for forcible rape, 4th for robbery, and 25th for aggravated assault. It ranks 49th in burglary. It also ranks 48th in property crime. Not too bad, especially when considering that 85% guns used in crime come from out of State sources.

Let's consider Alaska. Alaska has zero restrictions on gun control. Alaska ranks 48th in population, yet has the 8th highest VCR with an index of 632. "An armed society is a polite society"? Alaska is 1st in forcible rape, 6th in aggravated assault, 29th in burglary.

I could go on and on but I think it is rather pointless at times. :D

Didn't this thread die, like, a week ago?

yeah great idea, give the drugged up gangsta's the guns they so desperately want but cant afford so that they can increase the crime rate, excellent job my friend im sure congress will take you up on your offer immediately. i'm a huge republican conservative ish person but im completely for gun control. trusting americans with guns is like trusting democrats with congress, its just dumb.

Now you are sounding like some democrats :p

Actually, I recomended going out and training all the "Brothers" on how to use thier firearms so that instead of a stray round hitting some poor kid or innocent person, they would be killing each other. Of cource I recomended this because of our revoliving door prisons and light punishment of these criminals.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

Actually in this case, I have to agree with you. I think that universally, people should be given the right to have concealed weapons licenses.

However, I do not think it should be mandatory. Merely an option.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?


i dont think the government should be handing out guns willy nilly.
way to much chance the gun would fall into the hands of kids or unstable nutjobs.

i am 100% pro 2nd amendment however,and think the gov's right to deny me the right to self defense stops at insuring i am not a convicted felon,or a habitual drunk,on a restraining order,or adjudicated mentally unsound.
other then that,i think they should be forced to have shall issue permits for the citizen.

take a look at n.j.'s or cali's laws on the books...14 pages for n.j.
maybe they should enforce the laws they have and n.j. and cali's crime rate wouldn't be half what it is.
take a look at camden or la's gun crime...hell washington d.c. or nyc for that matter.
then take a look at the gun laws they have.

it will tell you a few things.

n.j. and cali have an outright ban on assault rifles,no one can get a permit to carry a handgun,real assault rifles(machine guns...not scary looking copies) have been banned for as long as i can remember...didn't put a dent in crime,just smoke and mirrors for the elected to act like they are tough on crime,without really doing anything about it.
not that people commit crimes with assault rifles or machine guns,or ever really did(barring the prohibition era)
but in n.j. or d.c. r nyc...you cant carry a handgun..period..yet people get shot left and right!
very effective laws they have there..lol...and even more effective law enforcement!

just handing out guns would be a mistake in my opinion,but denying honest people the means to defend themselves is equally foolish.

florida is a good example of what i am saying,just the possibility that the potential victim may be armed is in and of itself a deterrent.
but handing out guns....no way

rant off

florida is a good example of what i am saying,just the possibility that the potential victim may be armed is in and of itself a deterrent.
The statistics that I posted earlier do not bear out what you are saying.

Give everyone a weapon is good way to ensure many bodies with one kilo of lead in them.

There were several examples of shootings with the police, there the susspects were hit with over 50 bullets, or where an old woman was shot, etc.

If everyone has a gun, police officers are much more nervous, and such things happen.

In Europe, you wouldn't see such things.

I say: let any mentally stable adult buy any firearm they want.


then put a five dollar tax on every bullet sold.


the people who buy a gun load it with six bullets and leave it under the bed for the robbers will do just fine.

the people who buy three boxes of bullets a week to do drive-bys will go broke in no time.

I have proof lets compare New York City with Singapore

New York : Guns allowed

Singapore: Only the milltary and Police Force

Result : In New York, crime rate is higher than you can count, in Singapore very low


guns are banned in nyc!

try again

I was taught responsible firearm use from an early age.
I have owned firearms and never harmed another person.

I am not sure that I agree with arming everyone but if you are a responsible citizen your right to own firearms should not be infringed.

I am for harsher sentences for those that commit crimes of violence using firearms though.


ditto!

yeah great idea, give the drugged up gangsta's the guns they so desperately want but cant afford so that they can increase the crime rate, excellent job my friend im sure congress will take you up on your offer immediately. i'm a huge republican conservative ish person but im completely for gun control. trusting americans with guns is like trusting democrats with congress, its just dumb.

Your ignorance astounds me. You know, not everyone is a gangsta whoze itchin' to pop a cap in everyonz ass because teh world is totally like gangsta video games.

Do you realize that in America in the 1930s, practically everyone had a loaded darenger? Everyone was much more civil and respected each other more, and crime was much lower because people would think, "Should I insult this man? Should I try to take that woman's purse?" Well no, they wouldn't commit these petty crimes because they knew they'd have the possibility of getting shot. Not lethaly, but I'm sure getting shot with a darenger would hurt and result in a trip to the hospital.

There was a test in a small county somewhere in a Southern State where EVERYONE was given a pistol and crime simply stopped. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

I'm 16, and I keep a rifle in my room (so people know I'm all business). But it doesn't mean it's dangerous. I don't keep it loaded, I know that shooting people is frowned upon, and I'm not stupid with it.

After all, my gun (in my hands anyways) has actually killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.

I say: let any mentally stable adult buy any firearm they want.


then put a five dollar tax on every bullet sold.


the people who buy a gun load it with six bullets and leave it under the bed for the robbers will do just fine.

the people who buy three boxes of bullets a week to do drive-bys will go broke in no time.

thats coming soon....

what about the target shooter,or people like me that like to be prepared for everything?

i have well over 15,000 rounds of various ammo.

you just made me a black marketeer...and a rich one to boot.

and your forgetting about people(thousands) that reload.

i dont..yet...but if i hear about a tax like that coming,bet your last dollar i will be reloading like a mad man.

that will work about as well as prohibition or the "drug war"

I just don't have the time. I wish I did have the time because I can punch all kinds of holes in your gun culture society.

Nope, no ignorant bias there.

And when I do come up with compelling arguments, I get the usual song and dance routine such as the one you offered in this post.

And your usual "let's play w/ statistics and outright lies.

Since when are Republicans "anti-gun"? They were in control of both the House and the Senate for the past 12 years?

So you're saying the Clinton Administration weren't anti-firearm?

I believe Florida was the first RTC State back in 1987. "An armed society is a polite society"? As of 2005, Florida has the 4th highest Violent Crime Rate (VCR) at an index of 708. It ranks 7th highest in robbery and 5th in aggravated assault. It ranks 25th in murder and 19th in forcible rape. It ranks 13th in burglary. It also ranks 16th in property crime.

And what was it before CH? Did crime drop in Florida or did it increase w/ the CCW holders committing more crimes?

New York State has very restrictive gun control laws. It ranks 22nd for VCR at an index of 445, 29th for murder, 49th for forcible rape, 4th for robbery, and 25th for aggravated assault. It ranks 49th in burglary. It also ranks 48th in property crime. Not too bad, especially when considering that 85% guns used in crime come from out of State sources.

And what was it before CH? Maybe you'ld like me to post the FACT that it was an increase in the effectiveness of the police and nothing to do w/ firearm laws. Especially when you are now blatantly lying in that only TRACED firearms were considered out of state and that only a small percentage of firearms are traced. I guess you just convienently forget that fact over and over again.

Let's consider Alaska. Alaska has zero restrictions on gun control.

A blatant lie by CH.


Alaska ranks 48th in population, yet has the 8th highest VCR with an index of 632. "An armed society is a polite society"? Alaska is 1st in forcible rape, 6th in aggravated assault, 29th in burglary.

And all of these are due to firearm laws. I guess you're even now forgetting that you admit there are other factors involved gut other times you just like to blame firearms


I could go on and on but I think it is rather pointless at times. :D

Especially since you have issues w/ the truth.

Nope, no ignorant bias there.

And your usual "let's play w/ statistics and outright lies.

So you're saying the Clinton Administration weren't anti-firearm?

And what was it before CH? Did crime drop in Florida or did it increase w/ the CCW holders committing more crimes?

And what was it before CH? Maybe you'ld like me to post the FACT that it was an increase in the effectiveness of the police and nothing to do w/ firearm laws. Especially when you are now blatantly lying in that only TRACED firearms were considered out of state and that only a small percentage of firearms are traced. I guess you just convienently forget that fact over and over again.

A blatant lie by CH.

And all of these are due to firearm laws. I guess you're even now forgetting that you admit there are other factors involved gut other times you just like to blame firearms

Especially since you have issues w/ the truth.
That is why I stated earlier...why bother. Every time I punch holes in your gun culture propaganda, you call me a liar and make stuff up. For you see, it is your very own NRA that likes to cherry pick stats and make then seem like they are the absolute truth to the claims they make, such as "More RTC, less crime.". I guess they claim causality huh? I already punched big holes in the wonderful Florida example and all you want to do is call me a liar.

In the year 2000, after 13 years of RTC, Florida had the highest VCR in America. After 19 years, they still rank 4th highest, as of 2005.

In the year 2000, New York had the 12th highest VCR in America, and as of 2005, New York is ranked 22nd highest. I know, I know, the police in Florida are more incompetent then the police in New York. :rolleyes:

I say: let any mentally stable adult buy any firearm they want.


then put a five dollar tax on every bullet sold.


the people who buy a gun load it with six bullets and leave it under the bed for the robbers will do just fine.


Looks good on paper but with one problem, can you fire it more then once at a robber without practice? Most certainly not. Also, if bullet sales drop due to that, will the availability of bullets not also drop, resulting in it being harder for defending homeowners to get the necessary rounds?

Maybe this would work if there were stricter laws on the use of guns in violent crime. Say a mandatory long sentence if you used a gun during any sort of criminal activity.

How does anyone recocile the OP with the commomlaw pratice of innocent until proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt. What is to say people will not conspire to say another is committing a crime? Is robbery a crime worthy of death as the OP states. Will we be giving firearms training and legal courses to all citizens as well to know when they are within their rights to use deadly force? This idea is beyond stupid, but what more would I expect from MTAE?

That is why I stated earlier...why bother. Every time I punch holes in your gun culture propaganda, you call me a liar and make stuff up. For you see, it is your very own NRA that likes to cherry pick stats and make then seem like they are the absolute truth to the claims they make, such as "More RTC, less crime.". I guess they claim causality huh? I already punched big holes in the wonderful Florida example and all you want to do is call me a liar.

And more BS from CH. Did I quote the NRA? Nope. Seems like you're the one doing the cherry picking here. Why don't you throw a few more strawmen on the fire. It will keep you warm. Maybe "gun crime" is due more to people like Frank Melton than your average firearm owner. Do you know who he is? One of NY Mayor Bloombergs buddies and a founding member of that anti-gun coalition. Recently convicted for illegally carrying a firearm along w/ numerous other felonies.

In the year 2000, after 13 years of RTC, Florida had the highest VCR in America. After 19 years, they still rank 4th highest, as of 2005.

Nice little cherry. Who's picking them now? I guess the CCW states that count as the lowest don't matter, do they?

In the year 2000, New York had the 12th highest VCR in America, and as of 2005, New York is ranked 22nd highest. I know, I know, the police in Florida are more incompetent then the police in New York. :rolleyes:

I guess MD being #5 in '05 doesn't matter does it? I guess the police quality doesn't matter now?

I guess your cherries only work for you.

Why don't you look at Washington DC CH? I guess it having twice the crime of FL doesn't matter. Oh, wait. You'll blame everyone else for that too. You like blaming victims of crime. Accountability of criminals doesn't matter in your little world.

I guess NY's crime increasing in '05 while Florida's decreased is just a fluke now? I guess VA which you're always lambasting having a lower VCR than NY is a fluke? Or did they introduce more anti-gun measures? Or are you going to make up more "proof" as you cherry pick statistics of your own.



You blatantly lied about firearm laws CH. You know it and I know it. You've lied in the past and you're lying now.

I voted yes, but it shouldn't be the gov't handing weapons out. It's a personal choice for size, caliber, or whether or not you even want to own one at all. What should be going on is that if you are allowed to buy it (US citizen and not a felon, drug addict, or mental patient) you should be allowed to carry it concealed. People getting a free weapon are not going to have any respect for the power of it. Those that provide it for themselves will have more respect for the safe handling. If the gov't just goes and starts handing them out, it would be a disaster.

I like the idea of more guns and more armed people. I'm kind of a hothead. I still keep my cool though when I'm carrying a gun. I think most people are the same way. Also I think that the real possibility of being shot will deter crime better than the tiny possibility that the police will get their heads out of their asses long enough to solve a crime and put the criminal away.

Na, the criminals will just carry bigger guns.

*in thick Australian accent* "That's not a gun....THIS is a gun!!!"

And more BS from CH. Did I quote the NRA? Nope. Seems like you're the one doing the cherry picking here. Why don't you throw a few more strawmen on the fire. It will keep you warm. Maybe "gun crime" is due more to people like Frank Melton than your average firearm owner. Do you know who he is? One of NY Mayor Bloombergs buddies and a founding member of that anti-gun coalition. Recently convicted for illegally carrying a firearm along w/ numerous other felonies.

Nice little cherry. Who's picking them now? I guess the CCW states that count as the lowest don't matter, do they?

I guess MD being #5 in '05 doesn't matter does it? I guess the police quality doesn't matter now?

I guess your cherries only work for you.

Why don't you look at Washington DC CH? I guess it having twice the crime of FL doesn't matter. Oh, wait. You'll blame everyone else for that too. You like blaming victims of crime. Accountability of criminals doesn't matter in your little world.

I guess NY's crime increasing in '05 while Florida's decreased is just a fluke now? I guess VA which you're always lambasting having a lower VCR than NY is a fluke? Or did they introduce more anti-gun measures? Or are you going to make up more "proof" as you cherry pick statistics of your own.

You blatantly lied about firearm laws CH. You know it and I know it. You've lied in the past and you're lying now.
This is what happens when people start pounding your arguments with eye opening data....you call them liars, and making suggestions that they are blaming the victims of crime. And your singling out New York for a 1% uptick in VCR, when the previous 15 years was a continuous downward spiral is laughable. One year makes a trend? Talk about a strawman argument, especially considering that Florida's VCR (708) is 58.8% higher then New York's rate (445.8). Do you realize that you are more then twice as likely to be aggravatedly assaulted in Florida then you are in New York?

Bring forth your strawmen....I have the matches.

This is what happens when people start pounding your arguments with eye opening data....you call them liars, and making suggestions that they are blaming the victims of crime. And your singling out New York for a 1% uptick in VCR, when the previous 15 years was a continuous downward spiral is laughable. One year makes a trend? Talk about a strawman argument, especially considering that Florida's VCR (708) is 58.8% higher then New York's rate (445.8). Do you realize that you are more then twice as likely to be aggravatedly assaulted in Florida then you are in New York?

Bring forth your strawmen....I have the matches.

And more CH BS. So you still stick to the claim that AK has "Zero" firearm laws? Your words CH. Do you deny that you put the onus of gun crime on those who have been burglarized and that you have openly stated that you believe an increase in crime will be due to CCW holders?

Do you realize that you are twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime in DC than in FL? Or howabout half as likely to be "aggrevatedly assaulted in KY (where the national machine gun shoot is) than in NY?

Did I state the FL drop was a "trend"? Nope. More strawmen from CH. You've claimedNY's firearm laws cause crime drops yet it increased along w/ the national while FL's dropped and dropped overall over the last 15 years along w/ the rest of the US.

Now whose "cherry picking" CH? You claimed I was and yet you're the one plucking the most fruit.

So much for your "arguements".

Edit: Hell, even the NY police commisioner at the time doesn't credit the crime drop on anti-gun laws.

http://www.emergency.com/crimdrop.htm

And another blatant lie (since it's been pointed out numerous times) that the Brady Law did not effect crime rates as the states that were exempt (due to stricter gun control) had higher crime rates to begin w/ and slower crime drops over the same period.