Check the stastistics and think again.shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
Poll: Research on the Police has shown....
- Thread starter David VanDusen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Criminals having guns or not is highly dependent on the original gun laws and general availability of guns in that country. In a country like the U.S., guns have been legal for a long time, so even guns that are useless for practical purposes such as hunting or target shooting have a market, which makes it easier for criminals to obtain. I'd be willing to bet that most of the illegal firearms used in crimes in the U.S. were either made or sold legally, then made their way underground through theft, pawn shops, etc. Contrast that with countries where guns were always highly regulated and the civilian population has little to no access to them, and gun crime with illegal weapons is way lower.shadyh8er said:
The problem with accidental deaths is that you can teach everyone everything about gun safety and there will still be morons. You may have been told not to keep your gun loaded, which is common sense, but somebody somewhere thinks to themself: "hell, when I get my house broken into I don't want to be fiddlin' with no bullets" and somehow they end up accidentally shooting a family member. Every person out there with a hunting license has taken an extensive gun safety training course, and there are still people who die every year during hunting accidents.
Hell, it's a complicated issue.
Ah yes, I remember back during that time of greater peace than modern day where everyone--civilians, law, and criminals alike--carried armed weapons: the Old West.shadyh8er said:
Where town-wide shootouts happen 9.9 times out of 10, and most accidental gun-related deaths occured in the hands of people with "the proper training". And let's not even get into what would happen if one drunken lunatic pulled out his piece in a bar full of armed drunken lunatics.
Truly crime and the American deathtoll will greatly decrease if we were to go back to such a time!
Only in movies. Check out Frontier Violence: Another Look sometime.TheDrunkNinja said:
In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year. In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
Present day:
DC ? 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York ? 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore ? 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark ? 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
Most Old West Towns saw about five murders a year. Even the most famous shootout of all time, the OK Corral shootout, only resulted in the deaths of three people, and that was all the deaths in Tombstone for the entire year.TheDrunkNinja said:
And the idea of shootouts in the streets is just not true. It's a myth perpetuate by Hollywood. Most of the above murders were conducted much as they are today, someone wanted money, someone else refused to pay, so the other guy shot him (or stabbed or beat him to death) and took the money anyway.
Pffhahahahahahahahaha!shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?
The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.
David VanDusen said:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While the constitution does not expressly prohibit an American citizen the right to own a gun, neither does it expressly allow for this. Look at the sentence structure: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is a reiteration of the right to "a well regulated Militia," and the part I think people most often forget, the justification of the militia, "being necessary to the security of a free State." Anyone who's been to a US civics class should know that that particular amendment was a protection against the kind of autocratic, all powerful state the colonies had just split from. To answer OP's question more directly, I don't think the constitution provides for a militia to protect people against violent crime, but to protect them from the excesses of state, precisely the reason for their Declaration of Independence so many years earlier.
That being said, amendments 9 and 10 also allow for pretty much any other right as not barred by the federal government (which guns are, strictly speaking, not), unless a state regulates it somehow. So, this would seem a more state-by-state issue rather than a federal one, though the justices were right in that ruling, there is no constitutional proviso governing cops at all.
All that being said, there's just one more thing to cover, do guns protect us? In the sense that, should you be under siege, or being attacked by a lion, you'd probably want a gun because it could save you, yes. In the sense that a gun is going to offer any sort of protection for yourself and your home, no. There is no evidence to suggest that having a gun will make you safer, aside from the odd reasoning of "if we both have guns he'll be too scared to shoot," and the odd anecdotal piece, most studies have actually shown the opposite. If an armed robber was assaulting/robbing a house, someone was far more likely to have gotten injured or killed if the house had a gun in it. Though if you think it through, most robbers, even armed, are more likely to be far more desperate than the person being robbed, so even if you both have a gun, chances are your gun will scare him, more than anything else and he'll shoot first.
How about some kind of police force that isnt basically either forced to work for the government, sometimes against the people they may or maynot be supposed to protect, or to leave the government alone? Can we get one of them, one that would actually be able to do its job of upholding the law when politicians and/or rich people are involved?
Do you happen to have similar comparisons for knife (or other violent) crimes?Da Orky Man said:
More guns means the percentage of crime committed with a gun will be higher, obviously. The problem that many people making your argument have though is they don't take into account that without guns people find other ways to make other people dead. As long as someone wants someone else dead, they will find a way to do it, gun or not.
Criminals will have them either way is the point. They are ne'er do wells, they will find a way to arm themselves. The point is to make it so the common man has a way to arm himself, legally.Limecake said:
Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.ACman said:Pffhahahahahahahahaha!shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?
The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.
But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?
That's why these things are based on percentages instead of actual amounts.Frostbite3789 said:Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.ACman said:Pffhahahahahahahahaha!shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?
The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.
But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?
You do know what a rate means don't you? Ie number of murders per 100,000 head of population?Frostbite3789 said:Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.ACman said:Pffhahahahahahahahaha!shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?
The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.
But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?
But then I remember the US school system.
And you realize with a higher number of participants, percentages in all manner of surveys tends to rise, yes? It gives you a much higher chance of getting both people who are and aren't violent.ACman said:
Lets say if you put 10 random people in a room, you're not likely to find a murderer. Take a 100 people and you're much more likely to have such a person, or more such people. It has a lot less to do with the country and more to do with individual people.
Edit: I forgot, that European superiority complex. No sense in trying to argue with it. Since they're clearly better than us.
You do know that US has the highest homicide rate per 100,000 people of any first world country right , It's not ignorant hate its objective factFrostbite3789 said:Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.ACman said:Pffhahahahahahahahaha!shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?
The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.
But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?
In fact the only place to out do you is south africa and that place is a total shithole but then again I'll leave you to your own devices you'd do a fairly good job of justifying hate even if you where right
Seeing as i don't want to double post I'll work this in
And you realize with a higher number of participants, percentages in all manner of surveys tends to rise, yes? It gives you a much higher chance of getting both people who are and aren't violent.
Lets say if you put 10 random people in a room, you're not likely to find a murderer. Take a 100 people and you're much more likely to have such a person, or more such people. It has a lot less to do with the country and more to do with individual people.
Edit: I forgot, that European superiority complex. No sense in trying to argue with it. Since they're clearly better than us.
Did you stop to think about the sentence for more than a second in fact i can't even begin to think where you got that idea
while it is true that the more people you have the more likely you are to find a psycho the overall percentage will stay the same no matter how many people you have ten or a billion so overall the number of people wont affect the number of murders per 100'000 unless you have less than a 100'000 which the us clearly doesn't in fact you want more people because it make it more accurate
*puts on top hat and monocle*
Why yes good sir I am better than you in almost every way
Just to address the first part of your (false) dichotomy, the founding fathers did indeed support the right of citizens to bear arms, but they were talking about muskets, arquebuses, and dueling pistols. The founding fathers are not a good basis for our laws today. The founding fathers were the products of a completely different age. When they wrote the constitution, they had the enlightenment movement in Europe fresh on their minds; slavery was still growing in America, and very few people actually opposed the practice; guns were rather difficult to use and required near impossible skill to use effectively and accurately; the economy was focused in agriculture and had very little industry; environmental concerns were non-existent; rich, land owning, white men were considered (by most of the founding fathers at least) to be the only citizens allowed to vote and participate in government. It was an extremely different time, with extremely different concerns. The founding fathers would not, in any way, be prepared to deal the problems of the 21st century and would likely set us backward a few decades if put in charge of the country.David VanDusen said:
Back to the choice you've given me.
I believe that neither obligation bound police, nor armed citizens would help anything. Police with an obligation to protect the citizenry would be extremely ineffective in many complex situations. An obligation to protect the citizenry while enforcing the law would do nothing but open policemen up to unnecessary legal complications and backlash from the policemen who realize this. Increasing the percentage of armed citizenry would only cause an increase in zeal from those pushing for increased restrictions on gun ownership and a variable increase in the number of incidents (purposeful and accidental) involving guns. The only sure way to help protect the citizenry, that doesn't involve crazy oppressive military and police governments, would be to pull more people out of poverty. Poverty, arguably the largest influence on crime rates, is a real problem in many place all throughout the US, and if we were to somehow decrease the number of people in these situations that encourage people to adopt a life of crime, then crime rates would drop. If the US government could change those figures by significant numbers, then it would effectively protect the citizenry in the best possible way, by preventing them from ever being in danger in the first place.
That's really not how statistics work dude. If I took 30,000 Europeans and 30,000 Americans I would be more likely to find a victim of gun crime in the American group.Frostbite3789 said:
And its an Australian superiority complex (Because we're better) but I could have come from the US and my view wouldn't be any different. Why you'd make such an assumption I don't know.
An obligated police force that works toward respecting and getting respect from the community is the best bet. Crime is lowest when a good police force works with a community, creating trust. The alternative, fear, works, but only until things go south, then one spark and BOOM! riots.
It's what happened in the UK. A only alright police force not repsected and possibly feared by the community shoots an unarmed man. The economy is down. The government is evil. When protests break out over the incedent, it unfortunately boiled over and the riots started.
The rioters deserve punishment, but the Met in London didn't do their job right. And their solution? Plastic bullets.
Way to go, Met. Way to go, Cameron. Not going to end well.
It's what happened in the UK. A only alright police force not repsected and possibly feared by the community shoots an unarmed man. The economy is down. The government is evil. When protests break out over the incedent, it unfortunately boiled over and the riots started.
The rioters deserve punishment, but the Met in London didn't do their job right. And their solution? Plastic bullets.
Way to go, Met. Way to go, Cameron. Not going to end well.