Agreed (although it does go down too!) Overall, there's no clear idea of how guns affect crime from a lot of research. If you want to reduce crime, there a hundred better and more obvious ways to do it that gun ownership.Cid SilverWing said:
Poll: There is no justifiable reason for civilians to own modern weapons.
- Thread starter HotFezz8
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So if Americans have just less then twice the gun related deaths of the next closest country (11.66/100,000 people), yet guns AREN'T the problem, is the problem Americans? Please.johnx61 said:
And you are saying that Columbine, Georgia Tech, etc would have happened anyway. With a baseball bat perhaps... hmmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Saying guns are responsible for violent crimes is the same as saying computers are responsible for books. When are people gonna learn that the possesion of firearms doesn't make people criminals? If we should outlaw guns because they "kill people", then we should also outlaw the following for a safe society: knives, screwdrivers, pens, hammers, fists, cars, plastic bags, toothbrushes, etc... People kill people. Period. It don't matter HOW you do it. I'm sorry to say this about my country, but the society of the U.S. causes people to be aggresive and hostile. It's a mindset that I don't know how it became so rampant. I know a friend who has about 23 different firearms, old and modern, and he hasn't robbed one bank, killed one person, etc. He's one of the most responsible gun owners ever. Just because I have a pistol in my hand does not make me wanna go out and start killing. It's an issue of not being able to control for whatever reason. Get over it people: guns are NOT THE ENEMY! People who don't know what it means to manage their feelings, emotions, and impulses, those are the ones who are dangerous.
I've always thought that the right to bear arms was a way to keep our government in check, shold they ever go the way of totalitarianism we would have the means to overthrow them.
I say we go back to swords and other melee weapons. If someone fights someone else with a sword, it comes down to who has more skill more often than not. A gun fight can be one with a lucky shot pretty frequently.
I'm not against automatic weapons. I just don't think that civillians need the type of weapons used by soldiers to attack heavily/defend fortified positions.Supreme Unleaded said:
Well you also have to remeber that soldiers use shotguns and handguns too, and only untill recently the military used civilian shotguns.Pingieking said:
But i see your point, but assult rifles in my eyes are still better.
Keep fully automatic weapons away from civilians, sure, but if you banned all 'modern' weapons, that would...honestly that would just be bullshit. I own a shotgun and a .22, that doesn't mean I'm using them to commit crime. I shoot cans and stuff with the .22, and I hunt with the shotgun. I could get rid of the .22. Whatever, I wouldn't mind that, but the shotgun is something that I just really like to have around.
Aslo the military will continue to make guns, and my step father is a gun smith, he has enough supplies to make about 25 guns if he wants.crudus said:
Um no it wouldn't, criminals don't get guns through civilian means, that's why banning guns wouldn't really cut down on gun crime in AmericaGreyfox105 said:
Of course if EVERYONE didn't have weapons it would be all goody goody, peace, harmony and bunnies would taste like chocolate and the sun would be smiling when it set and OK THATS ENOUGH.
But then some douchebag pulls out a comb..I mean.. peace breaker just because he thinks magnums are awesome.
But then some douchebag pulls out a comb..I mean.. peace breaker just because he thinks magnums are awesome.
So your saying that the ease of which you can buy weapons, high powered weapons no less, in USA had nothing to do with the SEVERAL massacres where those weapons where used.Tread184 said:
2 years ago i was in America, driving from Denver to the 4 Corners and stopped at a pharmacy (drug store) to get some lollies and stuff. The sold anti-depressents and semi-auto weapons on the same shelf. Thats wrong.
And there's no justifiable reason Tobbaco and Alchohol are legal, either. It's about personal freedom. The right to choose. Which is another reason why I think the entire War on Drugs is Bullshit.
It comes down to giving people a choice. And one person to ruin it for the rest of us. Gun Laws don't do a Gorram thing, because It's so easy to guns illegally. All they do is make people feel safer.
Gun-Control is about as effective as Drug-Control.
It comes down to giving people a choice. And one person to ruin it for the rest of us. Gun Laws don't do a Gorram thing, because It's so easy to guns illegally. All they do is make people feel safer.
Gun-Control is about as effective as Drug-Control.
Of course it would have happened anyway. It wasn't like "oh, I hate everyone. If only I had a gun... ah well. I guess I'll get over it." The gun was the thing that caused the problem, it was the tool used to solve it.RYNO said:
They might would have done it with a gun anyway. It just would have been "more illegal". Or they could do it with a knife. They could also try something involving fire? Maybe with something explosive?
The student not having access to guns wouldn't have solved the problem. They would have been more creative. Which, of course, might have been much more dangerous.
Yeah, and drug control is working great!CrysisMcGee said:
I don't think Civilians should have access to Sub-Machine guns, and Assault Rifles, but Regular Rifles, Bolt-action ones are fine (Hunting purposes). I also think any responsible homeowner should have a hand-gun (or shotgun if they prefer) for home defense purposes. It's a dangerous world, when someone comes into your home with a gun, make em leave with yours.
The reason is the difference between a gun nut and gun collector. A gun collector...collects. They collect them like stamps. They will keep all of them in cases or storage to protect them, and will usually keep about 5 guns close by for easy access. Hunting, clay pigeons, maybe 1 for robbers.Supreme Unleaded said:
A gun nut Has guns all over the house, waiting for whoever to try and take over. Or Zombie Breakout. They keep one at their side at all times.
All weapons are lethal - to presuppose that a bullet from a modern assault weapon is somehow more capable of killing someone than a bullet from a more antiquated firearm is just plain silly. Mishandling ANY weapon is dangerous. While the truly antique firearms a lot of preparation before one can accidentally shoot themselves there is always going to be a danger.
The OP makes an interesting assumption, which is that firearms in the hands of the civillian population has no real purpose in the modern era. While there is certainly an argument to be made here (we have no need to hunt for survival and even with a modern arsenel, civillians are still sorely outgunned in the event of invasion or extreme cases of government corruption), it still stands that the second amendment was put into place largely because people were worried about their own safety in general. The problems that lead to such worries still exist today, and as such, even though firearm technology has moved forward in the intervening years, the justification for such weapons can still be said to exist.
But, more to the point, it would seem that the OP misses an interesting point in the whole ordeal: the child managed to shoot himself because he was able to gain access to the weapon and the ammunition. While it is a bullet (or several) that proved fatal, the scenario was allowed because of a combination of insufficient supervision and inadequate gun storage measures.
The OP makes an interesting assumption, which is that firearms in the hands of the civillian population has no real purpose in the modern era. While there is certainly an argument to be made here (we have no need to hunt for survival and even with a modern arsenel, civillians are still sorely outgunned in the event of invasion or extreme cases of government corruption), it still stands that the second amendment was put into place largely because people were worried about their own safety in general. The problems that lead to such worries still exist today, and as such, even though firearm technology has moved forward in the intervening years, the justification for such weapons can still be said to exist.
But, more to the point, it would seem that the OP misses an interesting point in the whole ordeal: the child managed to shoot himself because he was able to gain access to the weapon and the ammunition. While it is a bullet (or several) that proved fatal, the scenario was allowed because of a combination of insufficient supervision and inadequate gun storage measures.
On the whole, I'm certainly not against people owning guns as long as they are only available to very responsible individuals who have a good reason to own a gun.
Good reasons are stuff like sport, hunting, as an antique or some sort of personal memento (but may as well disable it somehow like remove the firing pin), or for people who need to kill animals (e.g. farmers against foxes, places where there may be dangerous predators).
In terms of crime, I think it can vary from country to country. I can understand that defending oneself against gun-armed criminals is a strong feeling in the USA. However, in the UK, where hardly any criminals have guns, I don't think it's a good reason.
Good reasons are stuff like sport, hunting, as an antique or some sort of personal memento (but may as well disable it somehow like remove the firing pin), or for people who need to kill animals (e.g. farmers against foxes, places where there may be dangerous predators).
In terms of crime, I think it can vary from country to country. I can understand that defending oneself against gun-armed criminals is a strong feeling in the USA. However, in the UK, where hardly any criminals have guns, I don't think it's a good reason.