Poll: Research on the Police has shown....

[thelonewolf266]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Except the crime rates in America blows that theory right out of the water.

 

[imnot]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

10 The more civilians are armed, the more criminals feel the need to be armed;
20 The more criminals are armed, the more civilians feel the need to be armed;
30 ++ARMED_CRIME;
40 IF (Everyone armed == TRUE) END;
50 GO TO 10;

You either don't run the program, or you run it to completion.

You just won the most confusing post award 2011! congrats!

I dont think everyoen hsould have guns, its not very helpfull. And as a non American I find it kind of woerd when yanks talk about the new winchester repeater or whatever they got for christmas.
no offecne.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

As for a source for my argument, I point to you, Chicago. Some of the harshest gun control laws in America. And also the one of the highest crime rates in America. Coincidence?

The problem with America is that once you already legalized guns once, you can't do gun control afterwards, because too many people will have them, which results in too many criminals having them. It's like a contagious virus: Once it's out there is no stopping it.

Beautiful! Someone has the same opinion as me! Awesome going random person, ive never heard someone express my view so neatly.

In a perfect world no guns

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.[/QUOTE]

Now the whole "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" only holds if you take a country WITH guns already in circulation and ban them. Thus the guns legally held get removed and those illegally held do not. In a perfect world no one would have guns otherwise you encourage an arms race between:

The police, the criminals, and a scared civilian population.

However once guns are in a system may as well try and contain it while allowing guns for everyone, else we get the idea you described.

Also the more guns = less crime is a crock. The threat of injury doesnt deter criminals, life in prison sure doesnt, what makes you think a gun will? All criminals commit crimes on the basis they will succeed, and do so oppertunisitically. In countries with the DEATH penalty for STEALING we see similar crime rates to those with leniant laws. Fear of death doesnt deter desperate criminals. They all think they will succeed. In england we have less lethal assaults than america, pretty much every unsolved murder in this country is reported, theres so many murders in america you cant possibly report them all, they are not even news worthy. Its a bit sad really. Guns here are rare and few are in circulation means the streets are safer for everyone. Im happer someone cant kill me on a whim from very far away.

Also i love your "civilians better trained with firearms than criminals".... criminals are not a different species. They can ALSO train with guns. Any criminal good at their job will know how to use a gun. And wont hesitate for a second in blowing out your brains. Training is one thing, being able to end a life with a snap of your fingers is another.

 

[El Danny]

You can argue about this all you want it's not going to be resolved in an online discussion. All I will contribute to the debate is this: The second amendment was written just after the US had won its war of independence. It existed purely so that if the government became tyrannical, the people had the power to overthrow it like they removed British rule. Arguing that the reasons the founding fathers wrote anything into the constitution as being still valid now is like arguing that medical practices of the era should still be followed. The logic behind them does not apply to the modern day.

It was illegal to kill you then, Can I kill you now?

I think what he's saying is it isn't relevant now, because it's out-dated.

The law on murder is still relevant because it isn't outdated...

 

[thelonewolf266]

Do you have a source?

Snip

See that's the american mentality that gets me its not about preventing violence its about giving people the ability to fight back when it happens to them therefore increasing the amount of violence.The focus should be on removing the ability of anyone to attack others whether that's through education or restricting dangerous items like firearms.Norway is a prime example of a society where the penal system focusing on changing criminals into law abiding citizens not just hurting and punishing them which just continues the circle of violence.The results speak for themselves.

 

[theonecookie]

Oh boy, gun control debate!

Hide yo kids, people, 'cuz it's flame on time here!

And on the issue of armed citizens: No thank you. The homicide rate over here is 0.6 per capita as opposed to the US's 5 point something. We're good, thanks.

I would say that you clearly didn't see the message. If your crime rate is that low then by all means keep doing what you're doing. However, I'm talking about the US Constituion and the problem with the Laws in my country. I'm not suggesting that we go to wherever you are (which you failed to mention) and play in your stand box.

I'm always amased at these arguments, especially the type that suggest america would fall apart under a wave of crime if guns were made illigal.

I live in england, we cope just fine without the power to blow each others heads off, and i'd much rather face a mugger armed with a knife than one with a handgun- regardless of how I myself am armed.

The gentlemen in this video might not agree with you considering, but it is all a matter of "chance" really. http://youtu.be/CZJkk7pkr_U

Wait What. are you suggesting that if guns where legal that man wouldn't have been stabbed

Well I guess your right he wouldn't have 6 stab wounds he'd have 6 bullet holes in his chest and a tad bit of logic suggests that would have been somewhat more lethal than the stab wounds

But I guess in your world he would of pulled out a gun him self and just shot the guy because you know everybody takes a gun partying with them in America Herped de derp

 

[BrionJames]

Even if guns were regulated to the point that nobody had them, there would still be crime. People would still steal, rape, mug, and murder each other. A gun may improve someone's odds of surviving an attack by a criminal, but most people lack the proper attitude to possess a weapon of such magnitude. Understanding it's effects and having the mind frame that anytime you point it at someone, it can and may take their life. If citizens are not capable of accepting that when they draw their weapon then they should not possess a firearm. I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which has more in relation to Canada then the States despite being a part of them. Hunting and fishing were a norm and everyone knows how to use them(guns that is). The only violent crimes I remember happening were with knives. The point being, that better regulations need to go in place, so that mentally unstable individuals do not gain possession of said weapons.

 

[Naeras]

At what point are we allowed to declare all gun-control related threads as automatic flame-bait?

There is a sensible and rational discussion to be had here, but it's not going to be had, and it never will be had, and even in the greatest halls of American power it is not had because there is far more to it than the issue of whether citizens should be armed or not. All that pride you place in a two-hundred years out of date document, all the crazed rednecks who'd storm Washington if guns were controlled even a little better than they are now, all the politicians who will say the opposite of one side just to be contrary instead of any rational reason for disagreement.

I'm going to get quoted for saying this a lot, I can tell, mostly by people screaming that the debate needs to be had because dammit this is a constitutional right but frankly I'm bored of the whole argument.

Here's an idea America. Arm every single citizen with a large bore shotgun then stand back and wait. Once you've solved the problem of global overcrowding on your own the rest of us can go back to not giving a shit about what you do in your country.

I'll be back in six pages to see if a single rational argument has come out of this thread, or if it's been locked for devolving into one side whining about 'constitutional rights' and the other side whining about 'maybe if not everyone was allowed to be armed then the criminals wouldn't have weapons and thus the citizens wouldn't need weapons to defend themselves.'

Thank you. You just saved me from writing that post myself.

 

[deckai]

I'll be leaving now and I'm not interested in this discussion in either case, but I believe that video makes a good point with an appropriate amount of snarkyness.
I'm sure there's no connection between the amount of gun-related deaths in a country and the amount of gun owners. None at all. Just a coincidence. The US just happens to have other factors that push their homicide rate up a teeeensy bit. Weapon accesibility has nothing to do with people being killed.

Before you leave, please look at johnzaku post, three post above yours....
there might be other factors why the amount of gun related deaths is so high in the US But saying there is no correlation is just wrong.


OT: I don't believe people have a right to bear guns, it should be a privilege. If you can't prove that you can handle weapons properly you shouldn't be allowed to use them. But to be honest, I would prefer if the only weapons civilians had access to, were hunting rifles (even those, only for licensed hunters). The police and military should be the only one with access to anything else. Also the argument, that criminals will always find a way to obtain guns, isn't really correct, if they really want, they could, but isn't as easy everyone think it is, either there are already a lot o guns circulating (because everyone and their grandma has one) or they need to pay a lot of money to get them, and I doubt your mugger from the corner could afford them.

 

[Grospoliner]

As far as I'm concerned, we should have a separation of powers when it comes to everything. Citizenry should be permitted to arm so long as they're not felons or psychologically impaired (which goes for everyone else for that matter) and be permitted to defend themselves. Naturally we need to have standing police to investigate and arbitrate over civilian crimes and we need a separate division capable of policing the police who have total authority over investigating the police but no authority to police any other crimes.

Also, the police should universally be trained, evaluated, and governed by a unified police agency, no locally controlled jurisdictions as they are far to easy to buy. We absolutely need stricter training regiments and policing guidelines, especially when we have cops that nearly kill law abiding citizens for no reason.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtml

When the police do not know the law, they become a liability against the people. We need to be exceptionally harsh when it comes to police that violate the law, especially when in pursuit of the law. Ignorance in the line of duty is not defensible ever.

 

[Kopikatsu]

There is a sensible and rational discussion to be had here, but it's not going to be had, and it never will be had, and even in the greatest halls of American power it is not had because there is far more to it than the issue of whether citizens should be armed or not. All that pride you place in a two-hundred years out of date document, all the crazed rednecks who'd storm Washington if guns were controlled even a little better than they are now, all the politicians who will say the opposite of one side just to be contrary instead of any rational reason for disagreement.

Well...dah. It would be like prohibition. Except with people willing to kill the federal agents that come to take their guns away. At least not too many people died handing over booze. (Not to say they didn't, because they did, but not that many.

Gun control is something you never bring up if you want to be elected. Neither is raising taxes. Or proposing reform to the social security program.

 

[MoNKeyYy]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Got any proof to back that one up? Becasue it sounds an awful lot lot theory to me. Communism works. In theory. Armed citizens work. In theory. Nonetheless, the Soviet Union collapsed at the start of the 1990s and the United States has a higher violent crime rate than damn near any other western liberal democrac, especially if you compare it to countries with gun control.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Im pro guns. Why? Because the police are still human. If someone attacks me, I want the legal ability to level the playing field. Gun control laws don't do shit, because CRIMINALS will still break the law and use them.

If you shoot a cop, you're pretty much going to rot in jail for the rest of your life, regardless of the reason behind it.

May as well take the bullet and hope you live, rather than return fire.

Edit: If you weren't talking about shooting cops, then I refer back to this.

Edit: If you still want to 'level the playing field', take self defense classes where they teach you how to fight someone with a knife while you yourself are unarmed. They exist.

 

[deckai]

Someone needs to replace their sarcasm detector.

...probably (got a 60 hours week behind me, so my sarcasm detector isn't on running with full power).... but my point is still valid, there are enough people who think those two things don't correlate ...

 

[Nemesis729]

The reason police aren't obligated to protect people is for their own protection, If they were obligated by law they would have to be literally be jumping in front of bullets, with no regard to their own safety, or they could get sued

 

[Chaos Marine]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Bullshit. That just makes a bigger blood bath.