Gun Rights

[Soul Saver]

In the US, yes, you can obtain firearms waaay too quickly. Problem is that a large amount of civilians have guns, a larger percentage of criminals even moreso. Background checks? Hah.

I'm not against people having firearms for sporting/hunting, and self-defence purposes, but they should be controlled and registered strictly. I think that gun laws are a bit too strict here, in the type of weapons that are restricted, but not in the control of firearms. You can have double barrel shotguns, but you can't have handguns? You can't have pump-action shotguns?

If criminals want weapons, they can get them easily from the black market, which itself is subject to police and military operations. However, gun control does stop people who don't have connections from getting ahold of unregistered guns and then killing with them anonymously. As is evidenced by the much lower gun crime rates in countries with strict and effective gun and customs control.

It would likely be a very good idea to RFID tag all civilian firearms, to deter misuse, and to track their location(not the location of civilians, the locations of the guns. Civilian weapons without a tracking chip would be illegal. Only licensed state dealers would be able to license and sell them, after thorough background checks, and registration. People would need to have a rationale for buying firearms, along with a mandatory fee next to the cost of each firearm. Handguns, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles are the only weapons civilians really need for hunting, self-defence, and sport. Of course, strictly regulated private security companies would be allowed a greater range, especially personal defence weapons.

As for APCs and body armour, I don't think that there should be any restrictions on them, as they are purely defensive.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

All i'm asking for is that you show me statistics that support your point, not link me to a propaganda leaflet lol.

Quote the relevant statistics from the relevant countries.

Number of gun murders in the US compared to countries with gun control for instance.

Not a document that says "Oh well, um, we think that this stops 5000 rapes a day!" Without any proof.

All you really done was link me to the documentation equivalent of you lol. Lots of words, very few actual comparable statistics.

That document just says things like GUN CRIME INCREASED x% OVER THERE! without telling you what that %age is (Because if it DID tell you that, it would completely destroy its point)

That document has almost no hard stats, just lots of "This %age increased over here!"

Show me actual crime statistics, not "our survey of 100 people told us..." crap done by the NRA lol.

Thankies.

So...when you link a statistic from Moms against gun violence its a relavent source? But when I link statistics, polls, and graphs from a place that doesnt support gun control its zomg bias? Dont contradict yourself buddy .

Again your discrediting a perfectly good source, anyway lets begin. The bolded parts will be sources. They even list some of their sources as the FBI, how can you claim the FBI is an invalid source? =/.

Honestly after every damn % and fact at the bottom zomg theres 3-6 sources backing it up, and yet you say its "crap".

British crime statisticsThe U.K. measures crime using two different processes:​

British Crime Survey (BCS):

The Home Office conducts surveys of the​

population to determine how often subjects have been affected by criminal​

activity. Data is projected to reflect the entire population.

Police reporting: ​

Crimes are reported to the police and nationwide, census-level​

statistics are summarized.​

The BCS has been reporting a declining crime rate in the UK while police reporting has shown

an increase. The BCS has routinely been criticized because it under reports crime due to the

following factors:
• ​

Murdered and imprisoned people do not answer surveys.​

• ​

Some crimes are not surveyed when victims are below age 16. 479​

• ​

Does not include crime against institutions (bank robbery, etc.).​

• ​

Crimes are recorded at final disposition (conviction/acquittal), leaving many crimes​

completely unreported.480​

These deficiencies are so significant that even the British government does not believe the

accuracy of the BCS.

“[T]he BCS did not record ‘various categories of violent crime’, including murder
and rape, retail crime, drug-taking, or offences in which the victims were aged
below 16. The most reliable measure of crime is that which is reported to the
police. We're facing over a million violent crimes a year for the first time in
history.” 481
One curious tidbit: Murder rates initially appear to decline after 2002/2003. This is chiefly due
to some 172 murders by serial killer Dr. Shipman which were booked in 2002/03 and did not
recur in 2003/04.
More curious are the sudden leaps in reported violent crime when the British Home Office
enforced standardized methods for recording reported crime (which led the Home Office to
claim crime reports to be of poor quality, and thus rely on the suspect survey mechanism):
The 1998 changes to the Home Office Counting Rules had a very significant
impact on violent crime; the numbers of such crimes recorded by the police
increased by 83 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes … The National Crime
Recording Standard (NCRS), introduced in April 2002, again resulted in an increase of violent crimes for less serious offences.​

479 ​

This is a serious omission as most gang crime is committed by and against young people.​

480 ​

“Fear in Britain”, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, National Review, July 18, 2000481 David Davis, shadow home secretary, “Row over figures as crime drops 5%”, The Guardian, July 22, 2004​

Guns in America spark youth violence​

Fact: ​

Non-firearm juvenile violent crime rate in the U.S. is twice that of 25 other industrialized western nations. The non-firearm infant-homicide rate in the U.S. is 3.5 times higher. Thus we have a violence problem – not a “gun” problem.​

Fact: ​

Non-firearm related homicides of children out-rank firearm related homicides by children​

almost 5-to-1​

286 ​

Federal Bureau of Investigation “Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports”, 1996​

287 ​

Prof. John Lott, CBS News web site, March 20, 2000​

288 ​

National Center for Health Statistics, 1995​

289

​

General Accounting Office, “Accidental Shootings: many deaths and injuries caused by firearms could be​

prevented,” United States General Accounting Office, March 1991​

290 "Kids and Guns" bulletin, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, 2000. Covers years 1990​

Myth: Countries with strict gun control have less crime​

Fact: ​

In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but fromcountry to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate.​

Or, to use detailed data, we can contrast the per capita homicide rate with the per capita gun​

ownership rate between different industrialized countries (see graph below). Doing so shows​

zero correlation between the availability of guns and the overall homicide rate.​

Fact: ​

Countries with the​

strictest gun-control laws also​

tended to have the highest

homicide rates.324

Fact: ​

According to the U.N., as​

of 2005, Scotland was the most​

violent country in the developed

world, with people three times

more likely to be assaulted than
in America. Violent crime there
has doubled over the last 20
years. 3% of Scots had been
victims of assault compared
with 1.2% in America 325
Fact: ​

“ ... the major surveys​

completed in the past 20 years​

or more provides no evidence of

any relationship between the

total number of legally held
firearms in society and the rate
of armed crime. Nor is there a
relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of
bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by
criminals and terrorists.”​

324 ​

“Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis”, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston​

University.​

325 ​

“Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries”, The Times, September 19, 2005326 Colin Greenwood, “Minutes of Evidence”, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003.​

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/GunFacts_BFA.pdf​

I'll post more later, for now I want you again to read the stuff there, because quite frankly, I dont think you did, instead I think you read a few things and didn't like the facts because they're contrary to what you think, and instead you decided "its not a valid source" when all their info is well sourced, with at least 3-6 sources as I mentioned above. If you read the thing it says very clear STATES WITH RIGHT TO CARRY have less crime then those that don't, wheres my proof? HERE!​

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/GunFacts_BFA.pdf​

Read the thing again, its very clear in there, and has at least 7-10 sources backing up its claims. ​

THE AVAILABILITY OF GUNS - This part of the article was done my professors, and experts, which you claimed in another post are the only people who can have opinions about studies, and yet you claim what they say is false.​

In Japan, the murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms.357 This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide is also 21.​

The sources are clear, their not just %'s that are made up. And it responds to your claims that gun control is needed. ​

Hey Piedmon, here in my source it says this.

LICENSING AND REGISTRATION​

Myth: Other countries register guns to fight crime​

Fact:

Most of these laws were enacted in the post World War I period to prevent civil uprisingsas had occurred in Russia. A report of “Committee on the Control of Firearms,” written by the

British Home Office officials in 1918, was the basis for registration in the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.126
Fact: ​

Though restrictions were few in the United States and the number of legally held

handguns exceeded those on the Canadian side by a factor of 10, rates of homicide were virtually identical.127​

Myth: Gun registration works
Fact: ​

Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness. 128

Fact: ​

Not in Australia. “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.”129 And this costs the Australian taxpayers over $200 million annually.130

Fact: ​

Not in Canada.

• More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others are silently ignoring the law.
• The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into a paper civil war.
• And all at a cost more than 1,646% the original projected cost131 (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada132). "The gun registry as it sits right now.

Sources:
126 Steven W. Kendrick, “Response to Philip Alpers' submission to the California State Assembly Select Committee
on Gun Violence”, January 2000
127 Professor Brandon Centrewall , American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 134, Page 1245-65
128 New Zealand Police Department, "Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act 1983", (Wellington, New Zealand: n.p., 1983)
129 Chief Inspector Newgreen. Registrar of Firearms for the State of Victoria, Registration Firearms System CRB File 39-1-1385/84
130 Gary Mauser , “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales”, The Fraser Institute, 2003
131 David Ljunggren, “Ottawa Under Pressure Over Gun Registry Fiasco”, Rueters, December 4, 2002
132 Prof. John Lott, “When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives”, Firing Line, September 2001
Gun Facts Version 5.0 Page 20
Copyright 2008, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info

All Rights Reserved is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association.133 "We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them", according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino .134
• The system is so bad that five Canadian provinces (British Columbia joins Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners who fail to register.135
• A bill to abolish the registry has been tabled (introduced) in the Canadian parliament which, if passed, would eliminate the registry completely.136
Fact: ​

Not in Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun

registration in 1972. The government estimated that between 17,000,000 and 20,000,000 gunswere to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving 80% unaccounted for.137
Fact: ​

Not in Boston, Cleveland, or California. These cities and states require registration of “assault weapons.” The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%.138 California originally had a 90% non-compliance rate.139
Fact: Criminals don’t register their guns.

- Kuja​

 

[Deleted member 176]

Non-firearm juvenile violent crime rate in the U.S. is twice that of 25 other industrialized western nations. The non-firearm infant-homicide rate in the U.S. is 3.5 times higher. Thus we have a violence problem – not a “gun” problem. [/quote[

What about the FIREARM juvenile violent crime rate?
​

Non-firearm related homicides of children out-rank firearm related homicides by children​

almost 5-to-1 ​

What are the ACTUAL FIGURES though?

Countries with the

strictest gun-control laws also

tended to have the highest
homicide rates ​

Um, even though america has the highest? and it has no gun control laws? Doesnt that kind of disprove itself?

3% of Scots had been
victims of assault compared
with 1.2% in America

What about comparing homicide rate, or assault with a gun? Thats the issue here isnt it?

not to mention that if you Take the MURDER rate in the US and the murder rate in scotland, and add them to the violent assault rate, the total number is HIGHER in the US. The reason assault is lower is because in america people are using guns and KILLING each other, not just hurting each other.

he major surveys

completed in the past 20 years

or more provides no evidence of
any relationship between the
total number of legally held
firearms in society and the rate
of armed crime ​

Does this include every major survey? does it list these surveys? How does it define a "major" survey?

you read the thing it says very clear STATES WITH RIGHT TO CARRY have less crime then those that don't, wheres my proof? HERE!

Uh huh, but what about GUN CRIME?


I could compare two countries and say "one has bananas, the other doesn't, therfore the crime increase is down to bananas!"


You have to compare GUN CRIME. If more crimes are comitted with GUNS in those states, or those countries where guns are legal (which they are) Then that proves that giving people access to guns (Which are the easiest method of taking a life (thats why your document doesn't focus on gun homicide rates )Will increase the number of people killing each other with guns, and also increase the overall homicide rate.

I did not see ONE country to country comparison IN NUMBERS there. not one. Can you PLEASE provide some?

Just an example so you understand what i mean.


France, 2000 people killed by guns every year
America 120,000 people killed by guns every year
France 500 gun assaults a year
America 50,000 gun assaults a year

Those figures are just examples btw, Can you provide something like that (since if you look back at my post, thats what i provided - you'll also notice that my sites just listed statistics, they didn't try to spin it like your source, or pick and choose certain countries to make it look better. Where they compared countries, they used the SAME countries for every comparison. Your site switched countries for every comparison to make it look better

​

​

​

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Non-firearm juvenile violent crime rate in the U.S. is twice that of 25 other industrialized western nations. The non-firearm infant-homicide rate in the U.S. is 3.5 times higher. Thus we have a violence problem – not a “gun” problem. ​

What about the FIREARM juvenile violent crime rate?

Still lower, again the problem here is these kids are violent, not a gun problem as the document mentioned.

Um, even though america has the highest? and it has no gun control laws? Doesnt that kind of disprove itself?

Good point, but look at some other places like...Scotland or Ireland have less than 10% of the population with guns, and their homicide rate is almost 50%, The U.S has almost 50% of its citizens with a gun, and a little over 50% gun related homicides, see the problem here??

What about comparing homicide rate, or assault with a gun? Thats the issue here isnt it?

See above

Uh huh, but what about GUN CRIME?

I could compare two countries and say "one has bananas, the other doesn't, therfore the crime increase is down to bananas!"

Yes gun crime, by crime thats what I meant, 64% of criminals(or a number close to that) felt threatened by the possibility that anybody around them could have a gun, and as such didnt carry out their crime.

You have to compare GUN CRIME. If more crimes are comitted with GUNS in those states, or those countries where guns are legal (which they are) Then that proves that giving people access to guns (Which are the easiest method of taking a life (thats why your document doesn't focus on gun homicide rates )Will increase the number of people killing each other with guns, and also increase the overall homicide rate.

Theres a pretty graph in the source we both agree is a great one(sarcasm ), and it clearly shows that theres other places that have almost as much homicide in the U.S, but have less guns. Also...since 1990 there has been a greater increase in handgun supply, and homicide rates up until 1998 have gone DOWN, its all in the source .


I'll give you a usernote, and a rep point, lol you deserve both. K i got one , also note that rape in the U.K and Australia has increased drastically, while in the U.S thanks to guns its dropped down, and you dissmiss it as a minimal issue, rape is anything but minimal, Judas explain your treachery!

- Kuja

 

[Contra Fates]

What can be said about statistics and gun control has pretty much already been said, so I'm just going to focus on something slightly different. I'm not a complete fan of classic gun control, so I'm going to give reasoning for being against it, and for it, and then what I think should actually be done about gun laws in the United States. Do keep in mind that some of these points are not my own opinions, but points that I find relevant.

Cons for Gun Control in the US:
1. There are too many guns already in circulation. Suddenly putting laws on them would seem a bit too late. If most of the guns owned are already owned, then what will increased gun control do? This is a point brought up by many, and it is something to think about. But, the perceived notion is for gun control to be future prevention, so an immediate effect would not be noticed, it would be effects in the long-run.

2. The Constitution. Unfortunately, there's still quite a lot of people who cling to the 'Right to bear arms' part of the Constitution, and they always present a resistant problem to those trying to pass gun control laws. What's ironic about this, is that many people use this as their defense, yet seem to think nothing of the 'Patriot Act.'

3. Absolute Gun Control makes the possibility of a Revolution nearly impossible. We live in a day and age where the victor in a war is the one with the best technology and weaponry. Should conditions of our country ever worsen to the point where a Revolution would be necessary, if there was absolute gun control, the people would have no way of fighting against military and police weaponry. Of course, I realize this is a bit far-fetched, but it is something to consider. If the only people who can carry guns are police and military personnel, it would make totalitarianism a very easy concept in this country.

4. People who want to commit crimes, will still commit crimes. If a person is hellbent on killing someone, they're going to do it, with or without a gun. An example of this, would be in Japan. The Akihabara Murders, in which a man, within a country without guns [as earlier mentioned], used a truck and knife in order to murder and injure many people. Now, instances like this don't discredit the fact that countries without guns DO have a much lower crime rate. It's true that Japan, and other countries with similar laws, have much lower crime rates than countries with easy access to firearms. But people still bring up the point that...those who want to kill, will still kill.

5. People may not be able to easily defend themselves. Now, this is what most people say, but it is a proven fact that homicides are a much higher percentage than justifiable homicides [self-defense]. If the amount of people using guns for protection what even somewhat significant, it would be recognized in statistics, but it's a very minimal number. A few examples of miraculous stories of people beating back criminals with guns, doesn't justify the amount of murders committed with guns, just for the sake of murder.

Pros for Gun Control in the US:
1. Reduced crime rate. As mentioned earlier within this thread, countries with a strict laws of gun control, have a much lower crime rate. Accidental gun-related deaths will also be reduced. This is the biggest reason for gun control, as it should be.
2. An increased feeling of safety. Many believe that owning a gun is necessary for protection, yet I would say that living in a society where very few people are killed...would make me feel safer than owning a dangerous weapon myself.

What I think should be done for Gun Control:
1. The only place where a person can purchase a gun, is through a police station.
Police are the most capable people to run thorough background checks. You'd be quite surprised to know what kind of information any cop can get. I once had a cop friend, and asked him to run a phone number, because I was being harassed with dirty text messages. He went out to his car, ran the phone number, and identified the guy who used it, what company his phone was with, where he lived, and what calls he made. If just a normal cop could pull up that kind of information with just a phone number, imagine what they can pull up with a driver's license or social security number.Not to mention, with guns being sold through police, it would be in their best interest to insure that proper safety and training courses were taken, before the person can acquire the gun with the proper license.

2. Possession of an unregistered, non-licensed firearm should equal a prison sentence of a minimum of five years.
This would act as a serious deterrent. There is no reason for a person to complain about legally owning a gun, unless they plan to commit a crime with it. If it became well known and publicized that if it was ever discovered that you own a gun that is not licensed or registered, and it would be guaranteed jail time, I can assure you that people would be lining up to get their guns legalized. If a citizen truly wants a gun for protection, then they'd have no problem with doing the legal way. The people who would want their gun [and are mentally and morally capable of doing so], will still be able to do so. So, the amount of guns in circulation, would be able to be checked.

Not to mention the fact that an 'illegal gun=5 years or more' law would be a good form of punishment for the criminals that not only commit a crime with a gun, but commit it with an unregistered, illegal firearm. Their sentences would be a guaranteed five years, let alone what else they'd have to face with the homicide charges themselves.

Now, of course someone might argue: "But this would mean more police hours wasted on gun control!' or 'our tax dollars would be going straight to prisons over-flowing with criminals!' To which I counter with: that may be so, but it opens an opportunity for more jobs [within these police-run gun shops], and also...if people are going to complain about spending money to keep criminals off the streets, then the justice system is doomed.

So, there you have it. What do you guys think about my proposals for gun control? Are they ideas that you would agree with, or something you'd be vehemently against?

 

[Deleted member 176]

Good point, but look at some other places like...Scotland or Ireland have less than 10% of the population with guns, and their homicide rate is almost 50%, The U.S has almost 50% of its citizens with a gun, and a little over 50% gun related homicides, see the problem here??

Sorry, but you just plain made that up. The gun homicide rate in scotland is nowhere NEAR 50%... Show me where you read that? In fact, i can't find ANYTHING that homicide in scotland is 50% of...

64% of criminals(or a number close to that) felt threatened by

And over half of parolees re-offend. Which proves that CRIMINALS LIE.

also note that rape in the U.K and Australia has increased drastically, while in the U.S thanks to guns its dropped down, and you dissmiss it as a minimal issue

No, not a minimal issue, just a minimal issue in relation to GUN CRIME. Unless there has been a spate of rapes in the UK involving the insertion of firearms into orifices?


Oh and just to repeat myself: I did not see ONE country to country comparison IN NUMBERS there. not one. Can you PLEASE provide some?

Not to mention you still didn't give me comparisons of gun crime between states with and without strict gun control laws. From what i've read, those with lax laws have MORE gun crime. Which tells me that tightening gun laws REDUCES gun crime. Since guns kill people more easily, and more often, than ANY other offensive weapon, thats a good thing.

I'm going to agree with contra that suddenly introducing strict gun control laws is, by this point, unfortunately unworkable. Even so i think some solution needs to be found, preferably by peoples smarter than moi ^.^

just to add to your number 5 point - More people are killed ACCIDENTALLY with guns, than are killed in self defence. So if you removed guns from circulation, you'd still be up innocent people alive, by subtracting the self defence number (assuming ALL of those would result in a death, which they wouldn't.) from the accident number, you would find that more people would be alive.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

You Lose Decado

Sorry, but you just plain made that up. The gun homicide rate in scotland is nowhere NEAR 50%... Show me where you read that? In fact, i can't find ANYTHING that homicide in scotland is 50% of...

Sorry Decado, but I said very clearly HOMICIDE rate, NOT gun homicide rate. lol

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/12/14114316/25,
I might be onto something with this, however while it doesnt say this here, in the U,S homicides out of 100,000 population is 3. When you put that into graph form what I said makes sense as Scotlands is 2.26, and Northern(key-word) Irelands is 2.06 almost as high as the U.S. you sir are wrong, and no i didnt make up anything, you just assumed I meant gun homicide. In the absence of guns, violence with Sharp Instruments has increased, that of course comes to me as no surprise.

And over half of parolees re-offend. Which proves that CRIMINALS LIE.

No crapzors Sherlock, So...what do we do to keep criminals off the street? I agree with you here, something had to be done to criminals so they dont repeat their offenses.

No, not a minimal issue, just a minimal issue in relation to GUN CRIME. Unless there has been a spate of rapes in the UK involving the insertion of firearms into orifices?

Its still an issue though. The U.S doesn't have as many gun resriction laws as the U.K, but as such theres less rape here, while the U.K saw a huge increase in that. Think about it. Facts and statistics aside, you cannot deny gun laws are to blame for this.

Oh and just to repeat myself,

Yes, cuz we all know how much you love to hear yourself speak /sarcasm.

I did not see ONE country to country comparison IN NUMBERS there. not one. Can you PLEASE provide some? Oh you did good job Kuja, your so right!

Estonia & Lithuania top the U.S in homicide rates, the status of their gun control laws in unknown to me. Israels'(a fine example ftw) murder rate is amongst the lowest and they have looser gun control laws like the U.S(not the same as the U.S, but looser then the U.K), i'll go ahead and throw Switzerland in the mix also. In Switzerland it is my understanding that alot of the people are petmitted to carry weapons in public, concealed of course. Their 100,000 population homicide rate is 1.08, while the Englands is 1.59, Scotlands is 2.26, both places have higher homicide & Robbery then Switzerland which has Israel's gun laws, and nearly the SAME gun avilability that the U.S has. As such your and everyones elses assumptions that guns cause violence is false. As such Switzerland is living proof guns don't cause violence. I Win!!!!!!!!

[SIZE=-1]Switzerland[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]And then there is Switzerland, where the laws are similar to those in Israel and gun availability is comparable to that in the U.S. In Switzerland, handgun licenses are available to any law-abiding applicant. In half the Swiss cantons (similar to U.S. states), licensees are free to carry their personal handguns concealed. Beyond this freedom of ownership, every law-abiding military-age Swiss male is issued a firearm and he must keep it at home to perform his mandatory militia obligation.

Ripped right from the article. Those who enlisted in the army are also allowed to keep machine gun at home.
[/SIZE]
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/12/14114316/6

Statistics right in front of you! There I have posted what you wanted, sorry for taking so long. Lol. You can argue that anyway you like, but I gave you a valid example of a place that has looser gun laws then the U.K, has gun availability comparable to the U.S's and its homicide is lower than the U.K's, Scotlands, and France. I have proven that gun availablity isn't the reason for homicide, instead I listed below what is the true factor.

In conclusion Decado, guns as Switzerland has proven dont cause violence. PEOPLE by nature are violent, and as such denying violent people the access to a gun isn't going to change much(note I said much). If i was to give a boy whos not violent a gun, his chances of going out and killing somebody are...very low, yes he could, but the chances are low. If I gave a juvenile Delinquent a knife, he'd most likely use it on somebody. As such this is a violence problem NOT a gun problem. Now, we should be disputing what causes people to be violent. And instead focus on that.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/what-causes-domestic-violence/, Here is what one man has to say about the causes of violence, note hes an MD.

Again I'm sorry for what I said in my thread about that girl, I missread the message .

I know you dont agree with me, and I don't expect you to, but you have to admit that I proved my point.

Contra Ill respond to what I think about your ideas later. I read like 1 or 2, and so far so good

*ahem* Back to square one

- Kuja

 

[Deleted member 176]

n the U,S homicides out of 100,000 population is 3. When you put that into graph form what I said makes sense as Scotlands is 2.26, and Northern(key-word) Irelands is 2.06

Um, that means homicide rates are LOWER meaning you are WRONG. people having guns = HIGHER homicide rates. And where the hell did that aribtrary number of 50% come from? you DID just make it up it seems.

No crapzors Sherlock, So...what do we do to keep criminals off the street? I agree with you here, something had to be done to criminals so they dont repeat their offenses.

Your missing the point. most of your "evidence" is based on small (keyword here is SMALL) surveys of criminals (the criminals you just admitted lie) Guess what, most of them are going to say, oh yes sir, im scared of comitting crimes now, honest. Guns? oh sure, thats the reason. Can i have my parole now officer? See the problem with that method?

wow... let me try this again... I did not see ONE country to country comparison IN NUMBERS there. not one. Can you PLEASE provide some? Oh you did good job Kuja, your so right!

Lastly, no one SAID guns cause violence. The thread is about whether or not stricter gun controls would REDUCE violence in the US. Guns are just tools, of course they don't cause violence. They DO maximise the damage of that violence by making it EASIER to kill people, for a person who is already willing to do so. Is this making any sense to you whatsoever yet, ro do i have to repeat EVERYTHING i say 5 times until you understand it properly?
i even gave you an EXAMPLE of what i wanted. Country A has 10,000, country B has 20,000.

The point is that you will compare 2 or 3 countries side by side on EVERYTHING. You can't just go "oh i found two countries worse than us for this, and another country worse for that! which proves my point!"

If you take ALL of the countries with and without, those WITH gun control laws are safer. Anyone can pick and choose examples like that, to makes themselves look good, thats not what this is about, Your argument fails, sir.

I know you dont agree with me, and I don't expect you to, but you have to admit that I proved my point.

You proved an irrelevant point. It would be like me turning around and saying Guns don't cause teenage pregnancy! True, but totally irrelevant to whether or not gun controls would reduce crime in the US. Your tact of "Aha, i will prove a totally unrelated point to make myself look good and hope no one notices that i just changed the subject!" Has failed sir. Try again.

The best part though, is you defeated your own arguement. You flat out SAID that america had a lot of violent people, and you think its a GOOD idea to give violent people deadly projectile weapons? Really?


Hey there, you feel like killing someone? cool, I'll make it easy for you, here, now you can kill them by twitching your finger at them from 20 feet away. Explain to me how that makes sense to you please?

 

[the real CloudStrife]

ok ive read everything here ( i live in australia myself) and i DONT own a gun

i do however own a large amount of knives ( for a 16 year old lol)

and i carry a knife everywhere i go ( throwing ect) i dont however stab people for no reason there for protection only as i live in a rough sort of place with lots of disgruntled aboriginal people( no im not racist i discriminate against them because of lots of reasons i wont go into now)

anyways
GUNS i personally beleive are stuped and dis honerable weapons look at history people used to live and die by the blade ( swords knives ect) they also used bows ect

but as soon as guns came in it was slaughter slaughter slaughter

i disagree with guns ( no im not a hipee at all dont gimmie that look)

i just think that they are dis honerable weapons and that we should revert back to swordsmanship and such

but thats just me

( i also own various swords and i know HOW to use them too lol)

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Um, that means homicide rates are LOWER meaning you are WRONG. people having guns = HIGHER homicide rates. And where the hell did that aribtrary number of 50% come from? you DID just make it up it seems.

Do you think I'm stupid or something? I said very clearly that the Homicide Rate is LOWER, but its almost as high as the U.S's, so please cut the crap. I never said it was 50%, I said very clearly ALMOST 50%. Heres where I got it from. If you scroll down you'll see a pretty little graph that corroborates what I'm saying. After you read it, I'll drive you to Visionworks to help you pick out a nice pair of glasses .

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publi...nFacts_BFA.pdf - This source is valid whether you like it or not.

Your missing the point. most of your "evidence" is based on small (keyword here is SMALL) surveys of criminals (the criminals you just admitted lie) Guess what, most of them are going to say, oh yes sir, im scared of comitting crimes now, honest. Guns? oh sure, thats the reason. Can i have my parole now officer? See the problem with that method?

Again your just making stuff up, one of my sources had surveys, all of a sudden now they all do? My sources are good solid facts, perhaps if you looked at them you'd know that. What you say is true about the Parole Officer thing, but that doesn't influence the criminal to claim he was afraid, cut the crap, its getting annoying.

wow... let me try this again...

I did not see ONE country to country comparison IN NUMBERS there. not one. Can you PLEASE provide some? Oh you did good job Kuja, your so right!

Lastly, no one SAID guns cause violence. The thread is about whether or not stricter gun controls would REDUCE violence in the US. Guns are just tools, of course they don't cause violence. They DO maximise the damage of that violence by making it EASIER to kill people, for a person who is already willing to do so. Is this making any sense to you whatsoever yet, ro do i have to repeat EVERYTHING i say 5 times until you understand it properly?

i even gave you an EXAMPLE of what i wanted. Country A has 10,000, country B has 20,000.

I did what you said, you told me to find one country, with lax gun control laws, and has lower homicide then a place that does, and guess what? I Found 2, take that BS elsewhere. Crime rose in places like Britain, Australia, and while Gun Control in the Soviet Union was issued, crime was 21% higher than in the U.S(see my source below).

But for repeatment sake:

Britain & Whales Homicide Rate per 100,000 Population: 1.58

Switzerland Homicide Rate per 100,000 Population: 1.08

The point is that you will compare 2 or 3 countries side by side on EVERYTHING. You can't just go "oh i found two countries worse than us for this, and another country worse for that! which proves my point!"

If you take ALL of the countries with and without, those WITH gun control laws are safer. Anyone can pick and choose examples like that, to makes themselves look good, thats not what this is about, Your argument fails, sir.

Your generalising, What your saying is your opinion, and not a fact. I can be like you and place links to sob stories like this which prove gun control does/ doesn't work(http://www.junkscience.com/apr02/wsj-lott.htm). If there are places that have guns everywhere give or takew with lower homicide then a place that has gun control, then guess what...maybe stricter gun laws aren't needed? With that said, Ill put it into terms you can understand. According to you with strict gun control laws places are safer, yet Switzerland a place with the same access to guns as the U.S, and not so strict laws has lower homicide and robbery than some places that do have strict gun laws, as such what your saying makes no sense, could it instead have something to do with the people that live there...? As such places aren't safer because theres no guns, their safer because the people aren't as violent.

You proved an irrelevant point. It would be like me turning around and saying Guns don't cause teenage pregnancy! True, but totally irrelevant to whether or not gun controls would reduce crime in the US. Your tact of "Aha, i will prove a totally unrelated point to make myself look good and hope no one notices that i just changed the subject!" Has failed sir. Try again.

What I said had relevance to the topic, and wasn't out there in the ballpark as you make it out to be, this comment was completely uneccesary, and not even relevant about the point I made. Please, CUT THE CRAP.

The best part though, is you defeated your own arguement. You flat out SAID that america had a lot of violent people, and you think its a GOOD idea to give violent people deadly projectile weapons? Really?

I read my post, and nowhere did I say that nor allude to it, You didnt even provide a quote of me saying anything of the sort, so your obviously lieing and attempting to make me look stupid truly pathetic on your part. Im dissappointed in you.

Hey there, you feel like killing someone? cool, I'll make it easy for you, here, now you can kill them by twitching your finger at them from 20 feet away. Explain to me how that makes sense to you please?

Criminals will kill everyone with whatever they can get their hands on, look at Scotland, they have no guns, so they use Sharp Instruments, and their Homicide Rate is almost as high as the U.S's. While its still lower, you claimed places with gun control laws are safer, yet Israel is well known for being one of the safest places to live in.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/Britain.pdf - Read This, thats why it "doesnt make sense to me".

I fail to see what points your trying to prove, You said guns dont cause violence because they are a tool. With that said, why would controlling them change anything? Oh wait a second...it wouldn't! People are the ones who are violent, and as such we need to crack down on what causes them to be violent and prevent this. If we issue gun control then things will turn out like Scotland, for example where violence with sharp objects increased, as such gun control didn't work as it was intended. Your beginning to get on mah nerves!

- Kuja

 

[Deleted member 176]

I did what you said, you told me to find one country, with lax gun control laws, and has lower homicide then a place that does, and guess what? I Found 2,

No, I asked you to find a country and compare to AMERICA. I also asked that when you compare two countries you compare ALL stats, not just one stat. I also asked that you compare State to State homicide numbers based on gun control laws (and no that doesnt just mean you can pick the 5 states that back your point like your "source" and conviniently ignore the 40 or so that prove you wrong )

I can be like you and place links to sob stories

See, now you are just embarassing yourself. What i linked to had pure facts in numbers. There were no "stories" Unlike with your source. My sources said things like

"In 1999 there were X deaths caused by firearms in the US"

Yours had things like

"so you think firearms cause violence? THINK AGAIN!"

So please, show me the sob story i linked to. When you can't, kindly stop lying. Cheers.

According to you with strict gun control laws places are safer

Correction, according to me, giving guns to already violent people is a BAD IDEA. I never said that every country with lax gun control was more dangerous than every country with strict gun control. If you bothered to read my posts, and stopped making up "quotes" from me, you'd know that.

I read my post, and nowhere did I say that nor allude to it

Still lower, again the problem here is these kids are violent, not a gun problem as the document mentioned.

Um, and you say that *I* am the one with the reading problem? even your SOURCE blames america being violent.

Criminals will kill everyone with whatever they can get their hands on, look at Scotland, they have no guns, so they use Sharp Instruments, and their Homicide Rate is almost as high as the U.S's

again, you just proved me correct. They keyword right there is ALMOST. Because it is HARDER to kill someone. Plus you have to remember that the per 100,000 thing doesn't really work so well with a place like scotland. Scotland only has a few million people living in it, most of them are crammed into 4 or 5 cities. The US has about a hundred million people who live in the middle of nowhere. Almost all of scotalnds population lives within 2 hours of each other. Why not compare scotland to a state where over 70% of the residents stay in built up areas? How about New York? It has a similar population to scotland. Why not compare the homicide rates there? You realise that 2 per 100,000 in scotland only adds up to about 75-100 or so homicides per year, yes? There are cities in america with half that population and several times the homicides. As i said, The people in scotland almost all live in built up areas. America isn't like that. If you compare scotland to built up area of similar population, you will struggle to find one with a lower homicide rate

I fail to see what points your trying to prove, You said guns dont cause violence because they are a tool. With that said, why would controlling them change anything?

Wow... i really do have to repeat myself three times on everything before you can understand it.

let me say it very slowly and in caps.

GUNS. MAKE. IT. EASIER. TO. KILL.

Just a side note: I love how hard you had to look to find what, no places with a higher homicide rate than the US. Instead you ran off and found different countries. Even though the topic is about whether or not gun control in the US is needed. Not about the socio economic status of switzerland. lol.

Point is, and this is pure fact. GUNS. MAKE. IT. EASIER. TO. KILL.

Have i said that enough times? good.

Now you said the stats only show that america has more violent people, correct?

So if thats true, then why do you think it is a good idea to give these people firearms, and make it EASIER for them to KILL SOMEONE with their violence?

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Decado you realize ive been playing Devils Advocate this whole time right lol =).

To be blunt, i've been pulling your leg this whole time.


Would controlling guns make things better in the U.S? Most definately!

Now heres the problem: Pretend this

Sin FFX = Crime
Final Aeon = Control

Once the Final Aeon defeats Sin, aka when Gun Control is issued, crime for a while drops, and we experiance the equilavance of FFX's "The Calm", but then crime with something else increases, the question is, will things be better or worse?

- Kuja

 

[Socrates]

I love this issue.

Kuja and Decado you both seem to be very passionate about this topic.

You've both made good points, but Decado theres a few things wrong with your argument.

Firstly Kuja who recently admitted he was just pulling your leg, posted some pretty good sources. You however mentioned they were just small surveys. I agree with Kuja here, you sir have been quite unfair, as the statistic you posted about Gun Control is obviously bias, you have to be open to all sources, as they only tell you what supports their argument, I believe Kuja mentioned this, and he is right.

Now, you seem to stress that America being such a violent society shouldn't have access to guns, and claim places with Gun Control being safer then places that don't. The problem with saying this is that not everybody will agree with you on that. How do you define safe exactly? The U.S has a problem with trigger-happy criminals, while England for example has a problem with rape. Clearly its not safe for women in England. As such to simply say because England has fewer homicides then the U.S doesn't mean its safer. Your merely talking about one view of safe, and ignoring a few others, rape being one of them.

America compared to other nations is a very violent place. There have been ideas tossed around to why things are the way they are, as such I think its a mixture of things. Something you don't seem to understand is that if guns in the U.S are controlled like in England for example, criminals aren't affected. Homicides are caused predominatly by criminals. You will stop gun-related deaths by the common man, but in retospect that number isnt very high.

Criminals don't obtain their guns by legal terms, they obtain them by illegal terms. You mentioned criminals are liers and don't play by the rules, as such why have stricter gun control laws if they go unaffected? All your doing by enforcing Gun Control is making a temporary fix, and not a lasting one.

Many American teenagers obtain Marijuana ilegally, Gun Control won't stop School Shootings, to even think so is very naive. Illegal things will always find a way to American soil, you said somewhere in one of your posts I think that they won't, trust me they will. The U.S BATF, cannot dictate exactly how many guns are owned in the U.S, legal and illegal combined together. This is why gun registration won't work, Germany for example tried this idea out, and as high as 8 million guns went unregistered, somebody mentioned this as an idea, trust me it wont work.

That aside, the number 1 use for a gun in America is to commit suicide. Lets take guns out of the equation, now we have Illegal Drugs, and Strangulation. With guns out, people wont stop commiting suicide they'll simply use something else, and as such Illegal Drugs will replace guns in the number 1 spot. Nothing was solved and time was wasted.

This leads to my next argument. People will just find another thing. You said so yourself a gun is a tool, and your correct. Now people will just look for something else to arm themselves with, like a knife for example. A knife isn't as dangerous as a gun, as it serves the purpose in a Kitchen. But something like this will be the preferred thing a person might arm himself with.

Your in a way giving Criminals the upper-hand, a gun is a tool for both self-defense and killing. This works as a negative and a positive, why? Because like all good ideas some bad people mess them up. Your basically saying you want to defend Americans against themselves.

With Gun Control your stripping the common man of his right to purchase a weapon, while a criminal still has the right, because he doesn't care what you think. Its a seperation of morals that your creating here. Many crimes in the U.S have been stopped because of guns, to simply say guns cause more harm then good is a naive statement.

In the end, I do not support Gun Control, and I'm a proud disputer of it.

~ Socrates The Great

What can be said about statistics and gun control has pretty much already been said, so I'm just going to focus on something slightly different. I'm not a complete fan of classic gun control, so I'm going to give reasoning for being against it, and for it, and then what I think should actually be done about gun laws in the United States. Do keep in mind that some of these points are not my own opinions, but points that I find relevant.

Cons for Gun Control in the US:

1. There are too many guns already in circulation. Suddenly putting laws on them would seem a bit too late. If most of the guns owned are already owned, then what will increased gun control do? This is a point brought up by many, and it is something to think about. But, the perceived notion is for gun control to be future prevention, so an immediate effect would not be noticed, it would be effects in the long-run.

Gun Control is a temporary fix, you and I won't know if its effects in the long run would really help, because well we'll probably be dead .

2. The Constitution.

Unfortunately, there's still quite a lot of people who cling to the 'Right to bear arms' part of the Constitution, and they always present a resistant problem to those trying to pass gun control laws. What's ironic about this, is that many people use this as their defense, yet seem to think nothing of the 'Patriot Act.'

Thats not true at all, I think we should do whatever to prevent terrorism, and have a right to bear arms, I think your speaking about some people, and not everyone.

3. Absolute Gun Control makes the possibility of a Revolution nearly impossible.

We live in a day and age where the victor in a war is the one with the best technology and weaponry. Should conditions of our country ever worsen to the point where a Revolution would be necessary, if there was absolute gun control, the people would have no way of fighting against military and police weaponry. Of course, I realize this is a bit far-fetched, but it is something to consider. If the only people who can carry guns are police and military personnel, it would make totalitarianism a very easy concept in this country.

Thats not entirely true either, many consider Japan to be more advanced then the U.S technology wise, so clearly thats not entirely true. What your saying falls into the "what-if" catagory, but it could happen, but it is a bit far-fetched.

4. People who want to commit crimes, will still commit crimes.

If a person is hellbent on killing someone, they're going to do it, with or without a gun. An example of this, would be in Japan. The Akihabara Murders, in which a man, within a country without guns [as earlier mentioned], used a truck and knife in order to murder and injure many people. Now, instances like this don't discredit the fact that countries without guns DO have a much lower crime rate. It's true that Japan, and other countries with similar laws, have much lower crime rates than countries with easy access to firearms. But people still bring up the point that...those who want to kill, will still kill.

Hence where the saying "Guns dont kill people, People kill People", guns are one out of thousands of things that could be deadly in the right hands. Places with lower crime rate tend to have something else higher, Japan for instance has a high suicide rate, while its crime rate remains low.

5. People may not be able to easily defend themselves.

Now, this is what most people say, but it is a proven fact that homicides are a much higher percentage than justifiable homicides [self-defense]. If the amount of people using guns for protection what even somewhat significant, it would be recognized in statistics, but it's a very minimal number. A few examples of miraculous stories of people beating back criminals with guns, doesn't justify the amount of murders committed with guns, just for the sake of murder.

People won't be able to defend themselves, 90% of U.S violent crimes didn't involve the use of a firearm, I'll throw some numbers, 6% of people who resisted with a gun were injured, 25% were injured doing nothing at all, 40% were injured resisting with a knife, and 45% were injured with a non-violent related resistance.

Pros for Gun Control in the US:

1. Reduced crime rate. As mentioned earlier within this thread, countries with a strict laws of gun control, have a much lower crime rate. Accidental gun-related deaths will also be reduced. This is the biggest reason for gun control, as it should be.
2. An increased feeling of safety. Many believe that owning a gun is necessary for protection, yet I would say that living in a society where very few people are killed...would make me feel safer than owning a dangerous weapon myself.

Israel has lower crime rate then England, and doesn't have gun control. Accidental Gun Deaths...eh sure why not.

In a way your tricking yourself into believing a blissful lie.

What I think should be done for Gun Control:

1. The only place where a person can purchase a gun, is through a police station.
Police are the most capable people to run thorough background checks. You'd be quite surprised to know what kind of information any cop can get. I once had a cop friend, and asked him to run a phone number, because I was being harassed with dirty text messages. He went out to his car, ran the phone number, and identified the guy who used it, what company his phone was with, where he lived, and what calls he made. If just a normal cop could pull up that kind of information with just a phone number, imagine what they can pull up with a driver's license or social security number.Not to mention, with guns being sold through police, it would be in their best interest to insure that proper safety and training courses were taken, before the person can acquire the gun with the proper license.

The problem is these crimes aren't committed by that many law-abiding citizens, criminals dont acquire a gun by legal means, as such what your proposing is fine, but won't help very much, sure it will deny the access of a gun to somebody who's crazy, but doeesn't have a criminal record. So I agree with you, why not do it .

2. Possession of an unregistered, non-licensed firearm should equal a prison sentence of a minimum of five years.

This would act as a serious deterrent. There is no reason for a person to complain about legally owning a gun, unless they plan to commit a crime with it. If it became well known and publicized that if it was ever discovered that you own a gun that is not licensed or registered, and it would be guaranteed jail time, I can assure you that people would be lining up to get their guns legalized. If a citizen truly wants a gun for protection, then they'd have no problem with doing the legal way. The people who would want their gun [and are mentally and morally capable of doing so], will still be able to do so. So, the amount of guns in circulation, would be able to be checked.

Again the only people who don't obtain a gun legally are criminals, you didn't mention how you'd crack down and find people with an unregistered gun. The U.S BATF as I mentioned doesn't know how many illegal guns are out in circulation, as such this idea is a good one, but its unrealistic.

Not to mention the fact that an 'illegal gun=5 years or more' law would be a good form of punishment for the criminals that not only commit a crime with a gun, but commit it with an unregistered, illegal firearm. Their sentences would be a guaranteed five years, let alone what else they'd have to face with the homicide charges themselves.

An excellent suggestion, except an illegal gun is more than likely not registered .

Now, of course someone might argue: "But this would mean more police hours wasted on gun control!' or 'our tax dollars would be going straight to prisons over-flowing with criminals!' To which I counter with: that may be so, but it opens an opportunity for more jobs [within these police-run gun shops], and also...if people are going to complain about spending money to keep criminals off the streets, then the justice system is doomed.

Roughly $100,000 is the cost of maintaining one criminal in jail for a whole year, this would be quite expensive, I'd like to know exactly what jobs your talking about, and no I'm not doubting you .

So, there you have it. What do you guys think about my proposals for gun control? Are they ideas that you would agree with, or something you'd be vehemently against?

I think you made some very good points, and suggestions. But sadly I dont think they would happen anytime soon. Keep up the good work, and its nice to meet a fellow Floridian .

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Rockman X]

The article said that they had robbed before, and hadn't used the guns, so it was unlikely that they would this time.
However, I can see what you mean, you can't predict exactly what is going to happen.

I'm going to be an asshole and come waaaaaay back to this story about the Sonic manager who shot one of the men trying to rob his story. At least one of them was armed with a gun, which justifies the manager's actions even more in my opinion.

Okay, now back to current discussion.

Now, you seem to stress that America being such a violent society shouldn't have access to guns, and claim places with Gun Control being safer then places that don't. The problem with saying this is that not everybody will agree with you on that. How do you define safe exactly? The U.S has a problem with trigger-happy criminals, while England for example has a problem with rape. Clearly its not safe for women in England. As such to simply say because England has fewer homicides then the U.S doesn't mean its safer. Your merely talking about one view of safe, and ignoring a few others, rape being one of them.

I also read a couple weeks back that England has a very large problem with young teenage girls creating gangs and they make up a significant portion of yearly crime. And the particular bunch of girls this story was focusing weren't armed with guns, they had been harassing an old folks' neighborhood for over a year, especially one old lady in particular. It culminated in them beating her with...well I forgot, poles or something.

Also, France is having the same issue with young teenage girls participating in violent crimes. They've had a 140% increase in their crime rate from 2002. The particular showdown mentioned in this article had no guns involved, I might add.

Many American teenagers obtain Marijuana ilegally, Gun Control won't stop School Shootings, to even think so is very naive. Illegal things will always find a way to American soil, you said somewhere in one of your posts I think that they won't, trust me they will. The U.S BATF, cannot dictate exactly how many guns are owned in the U.S, legal and illegal combined together. This is why gun registration won't work, Germany for example tried this idea out, and as high as 8 million guns went unregistered, somebody mentioned this as an idea, trust me it wont work.

I do believe I talked about this in one of my posts several pages back. Gun control, especially banning guns, would only harm the law-abiding citizens who want guns for self-defense. It won't have any effect on criminals because generally they obtain their weapons illegally in the first place.

Also, I do believe Erythritol made the argument a couple pages back about how Japan is a very safe country with a very low crime rate, and how the only people with guns are the yakuza and they just shoot at each other. That argument has one key flaw: America is not Japan. You cannot ban guns here and expect criminal-minded blacks, Mexicans and whites to behave the same way the Japanese do.

This leads to my next argument. People will just find another thing. You said so yourself a gun is a tool, and your correct. Now people will just look for something else to arm themselves with, like a knife for example. A knife isn't as dangerous as a gun, as it serves the purpose in a Kitchen. But something like this will be the preferred thing a person might arm himself with.

I made this argument a while back too. It's nice to see it's having to be repeated because people don't want to accept the fact that violent criminals will always find ways to kill. Taking guns away wouldn't solve anything. All that would happen is people would go back to more brutal killings with knives or bludgeoning tools.

Many crimes in the U.S have been stopped because of guns, to simply say guns cause more harm then good is a naive statement.

Like that story I linked at the beginning of my post where the Sonic manager kept his store from being robbed

 

[Deleted member 176]

Rather than repeat myself over and over, i'll just focus on one point here.

Guns make it easier for criminals to kill.

The number of crimes commited with firearms in countries with strict gun control is MUCH lower than the number of crimes comitted with firearms in countries with lax gun control. This proves (and it's common sense) That if people have easier access to guns, guns are more likely to be involved in a crime.

Since guns are undisputably the easiest way to kill and maim a person, and countries with strict gun control almost always have less gun crime, then logically (Using the socratic method even) strict gun control will result in it being more difficult for criminals to kill and maim people.

please refrain from stating opinion as fact. Things like "This will only be temporary" without any corroborating evidence is just an opinion, not a fact

Most countries manage just fine with thier police force being armed. The maxim of "if guns are outlawed, only out laws will have guns" Sounds good as a slogan sure, and its a nice piece of brainwashing, but it's not true. The "Sheriff" is also armed, and any criminals caught even HAVING a gun would be sentenced to a long mandatory jail sentence.

It works perfectly well in other countries, so stating "oh it wouldnt work here" without any coroborrating evidence, is just you trying to force your opinion on people as fact. Sorry, but it's just not a fact

 

[Donald Trump]

I'm going to be an asshole and come waaaaaay back to this story about the Sonic manager who shot one of the men trying to rob his story. At least one of them was armed with a gun, which justifies the manager's actions even more in my opinion.

I meant fired, not was armed, I probably could have worded it better.

Israel has lower crime rate then England, and doesn't have gun control. Accidental Gun Deaths...eh sure why not.

In a way your tricking yourself into believing a blissful lie.

Hmmm Israel, that tiny state surrounded by nations that want to destroy Israel? Surely you aren't drawing parallels between Israel and the UK or the US because neither have this problem.
So of course crime will be lower, they are more concerned with the palestinians crossing the border and blowing everyone up then they are with rival Jewish gangs.

Thats not true at all, I think we should do whatever to prevent terrorism, and have a right to bear arms, I think your speaking about some people, and not everyone.

The constitution, written back in the 18th century. The right to bear arms then was so that people living in the west and mid-west could kill any Native Americans that they ran into. It serves no purpose.
As for guns being used to combat terrorism, no.
If those people in the tower had guns would ity have made a difference?
Terrorists are not invading, at most they would plant a bomb. Unstoppable. Ergo guns are not and will not be used to combat terrorism.

This leads to my next argument. People will just find another thing. You said so yourself a gun is a tool, and your correct. Now people will just look for something else to arm themselves with, like a knife for example. A knife isn't as dangerous as a gun, as it serves the purpose in a Kitchen. But something like this will be the preferred thing a person might arm himself with.

Like Decado said, you cannot kill multiple people with a knife, the killer would be subdued.
Are you trying to convince us that people can arm themselves woth less deadly weapons. Which is a point for gun control.

 

[Socrates]

Rather than repeat myself over and over, i'll just focus on one point here.

Guns make it easier for criminals to kill.

The number of crimes commited with firearms in countries with strict gun control is MUCH lower than the number of crimes comitted with firearms in countries with lax gun control. This proves (and it's common sense) That if people have easier access to guns, guns are more likely to be involved in a crime.

I find it silly you claim things without corroborating evidence are just ones opinion and not a fact, when clearly here you are stating an opinion. Switzerland, and its a well accepted fact has lax gun control and roughly the same availability to guns as the U.S has. Your argument proves nothing, only that people are violent and act out on their emotions. 90% of U.S violent crimes didn't even involve the use of a gun or firearm. Your claim is entirely false. If you want my source, I saw one of Kujas and got my info from there. Go find it

Since guns are undisputably the easiest way to kill and maim a person, and countries with strict gun control almost always have less gun crime, then logically (Using the socratic method even) strict gun control will result in it being more difficult for criminals to kill and maim people.

Gun Control doesn't affect criminals, it affects me, and you the common law abiding citizen, the only decrease in gun crime you'll see is from gun crime commited by a person without a criminal record. If you want to make it more difficult or a criminal to get a gun crack on the places they buy from, not tell Wal-mart to stop selling them.

please refrain from stating opinion as fact. Things like "This will only be temporary" without any corroborating evidence is just an opinion, not a fact

I find it funny you said this, i've ran into people like you before who simply want all arguments to be backed up with evidence. Really under that assumption I guess if i said 2 + 2 = 4, it would be my opinion, unless I had Euclid backing me up. Whats even funnier, is you made a claim about how guns are used so much in crime, when in the U.S the most violent of crimes a whopping 90% didn't even involve the use of a gun. Contradict yourself much? Sourcs only tell you what supports their argument, as such its pointless as you'll most likely discredit it.

Most countries manage just fine with thier police force being armed. The maxim of "if guns are outlawed, only out laws will have guns" Sounds good as a slogan sure, and its a nice piece of brainwashing, but it's not true. The "Sheriff" is also armed, and any criminals caught even HAVING a gun would be sentenced to a long mandatory jail sentence.

You haven't proven the statement "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" statement, you merely found a loophole in the statement and capitalized on it. Its not brainwashing it is the truth. You make it sound like catching criminals with guns is an easy thing, considering in the U.S the BATF doesn't even know how many illegal guns are in circulation. Ill be back with a statistic regarding how many criminals are caught with an illegal firearm. Some countries work just fine with having only the Sheriff armed because those countries have less violent inhabitants, not fewer guns.

It works perfectly well in other countries, so stating "oh it wouldnt work here" without any coroborrating evidence, is just you trying to force your opinion on people as fact. Sorry, but it's just not a fact

I could say the same about you, I've read what you said, and you havent proved anything. You posted 3 statistics, and summarized them. Thats it, you have no right at all telling anybody this. It wouldn't work, Universal HealthCare for example works in Australia because its system allows it to work, in the U.S it wouldn't because the rich don't pay taxes(forgive me for going off-topic), I've observed your responses to Kuja, and I could post a source about why it wouldn't work and guess what? You'd discredit it, and repeat yourself. As such I'm more intelligent then that and I wont fall into your pathetic attempt at a trap.

As such your not an expert, just because you live in a place with gun control, and you think its better doesn't mean know more than everyone else, and ultimately whats better.

~ Socrates the Great

I meant fired, not was armed, I probably could have worded it better.

Hmmm Israel, that tiny state surrounded by nations that want to destroy Israel? Surely you aren't drawing parallels between Israel and the UK or the US because neither have this problem.
So of course crime will be lower, they are more concerned with the palestinians crossing the border and blowing everyone up then they are with rival Jewish gangs.

Hello Placebo, i've read some of your posts in other disscussions, and you seem like an intelligent young man.

Ok, Switzerland is a better example, it has lower homicide then the U.K, and roughly the same gun availability as the U.S. And its not surrounded by people who want to destroy it

The constitution, written back in the 18th century. The right to bear arms then was so that people living in the west and mid-west could kill any Native Americans that they ran into. It serves no purpose.
As for guns being used to combat terrorism, no.
If those people in the tower had guns would ity have made a difference?
Terrorists are not invading, at most they would plant a bomb. Unstoppable. Ergo guns are not and will not be used to combat terrorism.

The problem with your argument, even though its a valid one, is that if we trace the origins of all of the constitution, and decide "oh wait", we have a problem.

Then how should we combat terrorism through negociation? Please spare me.

Like Decado said, you cannot kill multiple people with a knife, the killer would be subdued.
Are you trying to convince us that people can arm themselves woth less deadly weapons. Which is a point for gun control.

How deadly the weapon is a red herring. Granted you cannot kill multiple people with a knife, your example only works in the scenario of a robbery, and even then 40% of people in the U.S were injured resisting with a knife, while 6% were injured resisting with a gun.

Knives are very easy to conceil, this by no means doesn't mean its as deadly as a gun, I don't think you'll see a bank robbery committed with a knife, but people will find easy replacements, like a bomb per say?

No offense but think for yourself, and don't just repeat what Decado says.

~ Socrates the Great

edit: Sorry for double posting

 

[Deleted member 176]

Gun Control doesn't affect criminals

Please explain why countries with strict gun control laws have less GUN crime than those with lax gun control laws then. Why is it that Scotland, which your OWN SOURCE said is full of violent crime, has a much lower incidence rate of gun crime?

I would request that you show me 5 countries with gun control which have a higher firearm/gun crime incidence rate than 5 comparable countries with lax gun control.

I don't think you'll see a bank robbery committed with a knife, but people will find easy replacements, like a bomb per say?

Umm... you're saying a bomb is as convinient as a firearm for robbing a bank or killing someone? o.o... really?

No offense but think for yourself, and don't just repeat what Decado says.

You should really be careful with statements like that when your entire arguement has been "I agree with what Kuja said, and my only sources are his sources"

Oh and um speaking of which, I've found some very strange similarities between you and Kuja by the way... I'm pretty sure multiple accounts is against the rules...

Fortunately the staff can check this rather easily using the IP checking tool. Here's hoping it's just a coincidence that you both have very similar styles, the exact same arguement using the exact same source etc... and hopefully a check will show that you actually have different IP addresses. It would be rather sad if someone would go to all that trouble just to invent a person who agrees with them.

 

[Socrates]

Please explain why countries with strict gun control laws have less GUN crime than those with lax gun control laws then. Why is it that Scotland, which your OWN SOURCE said is full of violent crime, has a much lower incidence rate of gun crime?

I would request that you show me 5 countries with gun control which have a higher firearm/gun crime incidence rate than 5 comparable countries with lax gun control.

I'll be back with an answer to that. Im assuming you'd like a source, and not just my word for it? =P

Umm... you're saying a bomb is as convinient as a firearm for robbing a bank or killing someone? o.o... really?

No, im merely saying people will try something else, I'm not argueing convienance here.

You should really be careful with statements like that when your entire arguement has been "I agree with what Kuja said, and my only sources are his sources"

Your right, only I've said I agree with him like once or twice...

Oh and um speaking of which, I've found some very strange similarities between you and Kuja by the way... I'm pretty sure multiple accounts is against the rules...

Fortunately the staff can check this rather easily using the IP checking tool. Here's hoping it's just a coincidence that you both have very similar styles, the exact same arguement using the exact same source etc... and hopefully a check will show that you actually have different IP addresses. It would be rather sad if someone would go to all that trouble just to invent a person who agrees with them.

Go ahead and check me and Kuja are NOT the same people . Nor do I have anything to hide.


~ Socrates the Great

 

[Deleted member 176]

No, im merely saying people will try something else, I'm not argueing convienance here.

I am, If guns are the most convinient way, taking them away will make it more DIFFICULT for criminals. This is a good thing, no?