The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[Fallingwater]

The simple logic behind this is you usually dont start crap with a gun when you know you can get shot by someone else's gun.

Yeah, here's the trouble with simple logic: it usually doesn't work, since things are a lot more complicated than you thought. In the case of this statement, going by your logic the US should be entirely free of robberies and murders.

Granted you're a law-abiding citizen who's mentally healthy, you won't ever have to worry.

This statement makes no sense. One's mental health and respect for the law does not influence one's ability to survive during an aggression.

There are two bars, one owner clearly has a gun, the other one doesn't, everyone in the gun owner's bar is also carrying a gun. Which one do you rob?

Obvious answer, but you're making two mistakes.
Mistake 1: when every bar has guns, there are no unarmed bars to concentrate on; therefore, all that changes is the level of desperation the robbers need to have to try to rob the armed bar anyway. With higher desperation come more violence, decreased moral limits, less rationality and less fear of incarceration and/or death, and the result is usually an ugly mess.
Mistake 2: you're only considering this from the point of view of the bar owner. Let me answer this with another question:
There's a bar where everyone is armed. There's another bar, where there are no guns. A band of robbers breaks in, and threatens to start shooting if you all don't give them your money.
Which one do you think is going to be safer for you: the one where you put all your money on the counter, lie face down and wait for the robbers to go away with a small part of your monetary possessions, or the one where everyone's nervously glancing around, looking for their chance to be a hero and wondering if now's the right moment to start shooting?
In case you haven't yet come up with an answer, I have one final piece of news for you: bullets do not have friends or foes.

In what action packed movie land do you live in? The only situation this would occur would be gang related violence

You make it sound like gang-related violence is a tiny detail of no significance, when it's usually responsible for the worst crimes.

and if they dont have guns, you're not going to have a lot of time questioning the dangers of handguns when they're using machettes on you.

If they don't have guns, and you don't have guns, they have no reason to shoot you preemptively. They might well try to machete you to death, but the immediate danger posed by ranged weapons cannot be matched by blades, if nothing else because running becomes an option (unless you're dealing with unusually well-organized foes).

There is no such thing as a nation without guns. If a criminal wants one, he will get one, and if he doesn't get one, he's going to rob you with a knife or a baseball bat, or a friggen railroad tie, or a screw driver.

For the second part of this sentence, see the previous answer.
For the first part: while it's true that a criminal can get a gun in any country, it's noticeably harder, not to mention more expensive (and thus inconvenient for the average common thug) to do so in those that don't allow mass civilian possession.
Let me put this in a clearer way.
In the US, I can walk in a gun store, buy a saturday night special for $50, and rob someone with it the next minute.
Here I'd have to contact the proper people, which is in itself dangerous since said people aren't exactly paragons of shining morals. Then I'd have to pay the gun AND the favour. Then I'd have to conceal the thing, because when nobody owns guns people who see me carrying one will instantly report me. And then, while in the US saying "he threatened me with a gun" might get you a raised eyebrow, saying that here will make the police go to a considerably higher "uh-oh" level and pay a lot more attention. If I were to commit several robberies or muggings with a gun, the police would be quick to single me out from everybody else who doesn't use one, and I'd be a lot easier to find.

Oh my god its just one sentence of failure after another with you.

Thanks, insults are always the best way to show your ability to express senseful opinions.

There is NO SUCH THING as a non-lethal weapon. Get that silly notion out of your head. Any weapon meant to disable can definitly kill. Even pepper spray.

The difference being in the word "can". Shooting a tazer at someone's face can kill them, in a small percentage of cases. Shooting a gun at someone's face WILL kill them always, barring freak occurrences like low-caliber bullets glancing off skulls and such.
Even if we consider torso shots instead of headshots (you don't aim a tazer at the head anyway), the simple fact that a bullet achieves tissue penetration while a tazer probe does not is enough to snuff this particular argument.

And if you think guns are cruel and evil wait til you've watched someone have an allergic reaction to pepper spray, while they lie on the side of the road, puffed up gasping for air without an e-Pen. There's a slow gruesome death and not something I want to see twice. A gunshot to the head would have certainly been more humane.

I don't know how you managed to make it to your age, whatever it is, without coming at some point in contact with the concepts of "ambulance", "emergency room", "hospital" and "doctor", but rest assured: they are not fairytales and they do, in fact, exist.

Akimbo? Losing credibility fast man. One well aimed shot is better than 2 frantically aimed shots. Akimbo? You're foolish.

For Pete's sake, did you really take me seriously? There's a nice little smilie in that sentence; it universally means "JUST KIDDING".

and they're no less lethal than any 9mm

Are you seriously suggesting that taking aim and pulling a trigger to hit someone several metres away has the same level of potential lethality as attempting to use a small blade to cut through your target's skin and hit vital organs at arm's length, while said target is actively and violently trying to prevent you from accomplishing this?

The great thing about a semi over a taser is that most people wont fuck with you when they know you have a gun.

Your entire position seems to be based on the argument that having a gun makes you scary enough that other people won't want to mess with you. As explained before, this argument is only sound if you're the only one who owns a gun; in any other situation, it's inherently flawed.
Hell, I shouldn't even be explaining this to you; assuming you're capable of rational thought, merely looking at the news should cause you to instantly invalidate your position.

In America, where we have strict gun control we have the highest rates of gun violence. Our D.C area actually saw a drop in gun violence when they made owning handguns legal. Do we really need a survey to tell us THAT little gem?

These arguments are worthless on either side if hard data is not provided. Anyone can say "this has happened for this reason", but if you cite statistics you need to provide links to the studies that came up with said statistics, and they need to be independent (a gun-related study financed by the NRA has the same relevance of an operating system-related study financed by Microsoft).

I'll tell you what a laser pointer, pepper spray and brawn absolutely wont stop. A crazed lunatic on PCP. Right about then you're going to wish you had a 45. Pepper spray, blindness, and body language doesn't stop everyone.

Please, do explain to me how a crazed lunatic on PCP is going to hit a target he cannot see.

 

[JRslinger]

Icelanders don't walk around with a guns because they don't need them to feel safe, while great many Americans refuse to so much as leave there house without a gun in the fear of being attacked, so witch nation has the greater number of cowards?

Carrying a gun is not about cowardice, it's about preparedness. It's about taking some responsibility for your own safety.

The OP's link had another interesting link.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17402-treat-killing-like-a-disease-to-slash-shootings.html

As I've said in other gun threads, it's not about gun availability, it's about culture. Most of the shootings happen in ghettos infested with criminal subcultures where violence is the most glorified.

Pioneers of the programme, called CeaseFire, say it relies on simultaneously changing attitudes and behaviour and will work anywhere.

The key is to change social norms so that violence is seen as "uncool" both by potential perpetrators and their communities, instead of being the automatic way to settle a dispute.

 

[Whitefeather]

A problem I see is that lot's of people have many, many guns (some members of my family have upwards of 300 guns) and to outlaw all of them would definately cause problems. The way they would see it is that the government is stealing from them, and thier feelings would have some merit. I do, however, respect the argument that no guns=less danger. Seeing as guns are more lethal than say, a machete or a baseball bat, but that still leaves you with about the same possibility of violence. If a criminal has a weapon of any sort he will use it if he senses you will try something with or without a gun. And to adress the argument that running is an option when melee weapons are used by the criminals, remember that a robber will almost always pick out the target that looks the least able to defend themselves or run way.

 

[riskroWe]

It's not about fuckin' self defence, owning a gun is about being ABLE to rebel against the government should we need to.
Everybody should own one, nobody should be carrying one.

 

[Optix334]

If it leads to me shooting him, then that's another mugger dead. No real loss, though surely an unpleasant experience.

What I'm trying to say is, yes, it may be stupid to try and defend yourself. But it's still an invioable right, and I'll kill anyone who says otherwise!

This kind of attitude is utterly disgusting, if not insane. In Iceland where i live, life's are always considered more important then dead objects, and if you were to shot someone trying to rob your house you would go to jail for murder and rightfully so.

Anyone who considers dead objects or a couple of hundred dollars in his wallet to be worth killing for is a sociopath.

Really? so Im a sociopath for wanting to keep the stuff that I work hard for. Im a sociopath for wanting to keep my life and possibly making someone elses better for getting rid of 1 retarded scumbag who is too lazy to earn his own things. All of you anti gun people make me sick. In my opinion you should all be shot. hopefully its by the mugger you give all your stuff to. As for me, ill be keeping my .45 and my $50 thank you. If you dont like guns, then move to england so you can get knifed or arrested for trying to keep yourself from getting knifed.

 

[Osloq]

Because only officers of the state and hardened criminals deserve weapons. Cough?

Look, it's simple. No government has the right to disarm their populace unless they disarm their police force. Put simply, if PC Bob McBobbity is wandering around with a 9mm pistol then I demand the same right to wander around with one, presuming I am a law-abiding citizen of sound mind, over 21 and otherwise competent in it's use. Why? Because clearly PC McBobbity needs that firearm, and if one exists in a situation where the police need to carry firearms, then denying the right for law-abiding citizens to carry them is not only immoral, it's insane and inhumane as well.

If, however, PC McBobbity only carries a truncheon, then I should not be permited to carry a firearm. Clearly, since PC McBobbity has no need for a firearm, there is no reason for me to have one.


And to forestall any arguments made by the inexorably stupid, I am not saying that the police being armed as, say, a Armed Response Unit, is a bad thing. The fact that some criminals will get a hold of guns means that the police must have some form of armed backup. But if it gets to the state where a beat police officer (i.e. a foot or car patrol officer) has to possess a firearm to protect himself in the course of his duties, then it is wrong to argue that a citizen of the state should not possess that same right to self-protection.

I have to respectfully disagree. I understand your point but the point of the police is to deter crime with superior fire-power than what is available to the general populace. They've had to undergo rigorous training and evaluation to be accepted into their position and they therefore should be given the privilege of carrying a weapon that can cause as much harm as a gun can. That's the theory anyway and while in practise it's not always successful, considering the number of police corruption charges in the past several decades, it's better than having every citizen armed with a tool that can end a life with every single bullet in a clip (usually it'll take several bullets but the potential is there).

Don't get me wrong, if you're in a neighbourhood where gun crime is extremely high and the police will not do anything about it then your only recourse is a weapon. But that leads to criminals getting bigger guns and the problem gets exponentially worse. I think the best compromise is in Chris Rock's bit about bullet control (from the start of Bowling for Columbine if you've seen it). People would be able to keep their weapons and have it loaded in case of attack but it would be too expensive for muggers to use a gun with heavily taxed ammunition.

The annual murder statistics of the U.S. prove that the current situation is far from ideal and it's only get worse as the criminal culture is glorified in shows, movies and music. I also acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment existed for a reason but it was written in a time where there was a real danger of being killed as a casualty of war or by a wild animal so you needed the extra protection that the guns of that time offered. In the present time guns have evolved into being much more dangerous in a time that is a lot more peaceful (in general, ghettos are probably equally dangerous as those times).

 

[GreyWolf257]

Yes, I am absolutely safe all of the time. Cops surround my house at every waking moment of the day and night. I just know that all of you have the same exact situation.

Anyone who thinks that people wouldn't try to kill you just because you aren't armed need a reality check, sensleless murders occur every day, and no matter how hard you or the police try, you will never change that.

People say "Ban guns and there will be no gun violence!" Well how do you think most illegal drugs get to America. Let's just say that not all of them are rammed up some guy's bum.

You say "There is hardly any gun violence in Europe!" That is because people get knifed to death! You take out guns, people use knives. You take out knives, people use rocks. I'll keep my guns, thank you.

 

[Durxom]

If it leads to me shooting him, then that's another mugger dead. No real loss, though surely an unpleasant experience.

What I'm trying to say is, yes, it may be stupid to try and defend yourself. But it's still an invioable right, and I'll kill anyone who says otherwise!

This kind of attitude is utterly disgusting, if not insane. In Iceland where i live, life's are always considered more important then dead objects, and if you were to shot someone trying to rob your house you would go to jail for murder and rightfully so.

Anyone who considers dead objects or a couple of hundred dollars in his wallet to be worth killing for is a sociopath.

Really? so Im a sociopath for wanting to keep the stuff that I work hard for. Im a sociopath for wanting to keep my life and possibly making someone elses better for getting rid of 1 retarded scumbag who is too lazy to earn his own things. All of you anti gun people make me sick. In my opinion you should all be shot. hopefully its by the mugger you give all your stuff to. As for me, ill be keeping my .45 and my $50 thank you. If you dont like guns, then move to england so you can get knifed or arrested for trying to keep yourself from getting knifed.

So basically you're saying that if we were buddies, and I went out for lunch, and you took some fries from me, I could shoot you because you're a lazy scumbag who can't go out and get his own fries...

Note, not all criminals are EVIL, most have either had troubling lives or childhoods, or just run into a bad crowd, they have the gun there because they are scared, just like you...not every person deserves a bullet to the head for doing one bad thing. They have rehab for a reason.

I'm not going to say the US should get rid of guns, because it think its already too tightly meshed into their society, I'm just saying not every problem should be solved with a bullet.

 

[Horticulture]

Most of this is your opinion, and thus, true to you. And you're certainly entitled to that opinion. What I mean by an unstable individual should be kind of obvious. If they're hard-drug addicts or gang affiliated. Or heck, psychologically unsound. I wouldn't give a Schizophranic a gun. If motor memory and reality warping happen in the worst situation it could lead to a terrible accident.

Even psychologically unsound is a broad category. It could be applied widely, to a range of common mental illnesses (generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, dysthymia etc.) or specifically to certain issues (like, as you mentioned, Schizophrenia). It does strike me as a classification that has the potential to become a 'slippery-slope'. If it's too dangerous for those suffering from schizophrenia to buy guns, why not those with depression?

A gun doesn't bother me, a gun pointed at me bothers me. Well trained individuals know how to use a gun, and if you're uncomfortable around any sort of weapon you should have trouble sitting in the school cafeteria. Fork to the neck my friend? Not cool. Being picky and choosey about who you're nervous around sounds a little paranoid to me but I wont go out to make that claim, I dont know you.

The point to concealed carry is you cannot choose when you'll need your weapon. That includes on a campus or in a government building, or in your own home.

Do you carry your license every time you drive? Of course you do. Do you need it every time you drive? Of course not. So why do you carry it? For that one moment you will NEED it.

I don't think I'm alone in feeling that allowing firearms on campuses presents either a unique or irrational fear, and it's certainly not indicative of an all-encompassing terror of firearms or other weapons. I remain convinced that allowing firearms on campus presents a needless public danger, without curtailing legitimate gun ownership rights in any significant way.

I don't know about you, but I've been pulled over several more times than I've been assaulted.

 

[stabnex]

The instant Americans lose the right to bear arms is the day it's conquered by China. 2nd Amendment FOR LIFE!

 

[Sexy Street]

I think i have a theory for the reason of the right to bear arms. I think that if the government becomes sooooo out of control, (Bush anyone?) that people have a right to go in and...kill the leader? Yah...thats it.

 

[Valiance]

(In all seriousness, shit like Columbine and V-tech couldn't happen if one of the places had guards with guns or if other responsible kids showed up with guns...)

Because in an ideal world, everyone on campus would be armed.

Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere!

 

[HappyPillz]

"Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun".

From an article on gun violence in the U.S. It sums up my opinion pretty nicely. Guns aren't necessary. If an attacker has a gun, they are much more likely to use it if you bring out your own gun, because they would react in panic/self defense.

Handguns in particular should be banned, because they have no other purpose than to kill people. You can't hunt with them, or fight wars with them, or anything. "In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified"

Link to article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

 

[Spawny0908]

Personally, I think no civilian should be carrying a gun (guns kept at shooting ranges okay aslong as they stay there), but everyone who hasn't got an asbo should be allowed to carry a sword. It's easier to parry and harder to hit the wrong person with a sword, so it's easier to justify having them as self-defence, plus they're harder for kids to use my accident and easier to see when someone has one drawn.

I totally agree! The sword is such an elegant weapon. And i think is much safer.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Honestly, any American who has bought a gun will tell you this is a bit off. Most criminals steal guns, and when they have a stolen gun they don't need to fear using it.
Also, I love how people only want cops to legally own a gun. So, say a criminal with a stolen firearm breaks in, good thing a cop is close enough to stop him before he robs and/or kills you, and any family members.
I don't know about were you live, but cops are pretty unreliable.
So yeah, I'm saving up for a rather large handgun. That way, just in case the cops don't show up in time to save me, I can deal with a problem on my own.
What a strange thought huh?

 

[Osloq]

(In all seriousness, shit like Columbine and V-tech couldn't happen if one of the places had guards with guns or if other responsible kids showed up with guns...)

Or, follow me here, if they didn't have guns to shoot other kids with. This is the exact same reasoning behind the Cold War. They've got 20 missiles so we'll build 30 missiles. Oh, they built 40 more missiles so we'll build 60 more. Until you've got this huge stockpile of military hardware that only leads to disaster.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

If guns cause crime, and if that is a bad thing- we cannot let our governments have guns.

I don't know about you, but I've been pulled over several more times than I've been assaulted.

This is true of me also, but the latter didn't hurt any less for it.

 

[nyoe]

In Winnipeg it's all about the knives and bottles haha.

 

[internetzealot1]

Banning guns won't keep them out of the hands of criminals. And I don't care what the statistics show, the government does't have a right to ban guns.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

OK, I'm sorry. I saw this forum thread and I had to go make an account so I could make this one post to set a few things strait, because I knew there would be people regurgitating the same arguments from both sides that we've all heard and have never been convinced with. Here it goes (I will post the sources at the end of each point)

1. Gun control
It does not work.

2003- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a study investigating gun control. They examined multiple gun laws including bans on certain kinds of guns and ammunition, licensing and registration codes, waiting periods, laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids, and harsh punishment schemes for law violations. Conclusion: nothing worked very well.
-Robert A. Hahn et al. for the Task Force on Community Preventative Services, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003), http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

2004- The National Academy of Sciences does a comprehensive review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun control systems. Total # of laws or schemes found to reduce violent crime, suicide, or accidents: 0.
-National Research Council Committee on law and Justice, Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie eds., "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004)

really? the whole stat is 0. geez i should look at Japan's murder rate by guns, it's actually going DOWN, Canada's is going DOWN.

sorry but they like to discount a lot of factors, in the past 10 or so years the amounts of gun violence in Canada, specifically murder, has decreased, right now there is more murders by edged weapons than guns

2.Gun Control in other countries works
No. Just No.

1997- English Parliament bans guns
(I really shouldn't have to back this up with all the brits in this forum. If you don't believe me, look it up)

1998-2005- The number of hand gun related injuries and deaths in England rises 340%. Let me explain that statistic for you. In a matter of 7 years after guns are banned from law abiding citizens, the rate per year of INJURIES AND DEATHS TRIPLED. Conclusion: Banning guns in England increased crime involving guns.
- David Leppard, "Ministers 'Covered Up' Gun Crime," London Times, August 26, 2007, www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece


I could go on to explain how in the U.S. that the police are under no legal obligation to preform with excellence when it comes to protecting live citizens but they are obligated to dead ones, and that historically the police have a dismal response time in most major cities. But I'm to tired to organize and cite sources, so you can disregard this part as factual if it makes it easier for you to sleep at night.

this is WRONG again, look at Japan, Canada and many other countries with strict gun control laws

as i said Canada's rate of murder by gun has DECREASED as the gun control has become stronger. which really flies in the face of your "facts" proving that it doesn't occur ever

also look at the Japanese murder rate, you can count it on your fingers. the rate is .5 in Japan, same with Iceland and Ireland and guess what? Iceland has strict gun laws. same goes for Denmark

your "proof" is VERY flimsy and VERY bad and can be easily torn apart pretty quickly with 5 minutes on google