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

[Robert632]

this just in, the more people have hands, the more your punched in the face. we gotta start amputations now.

 

[Kubanator]

this just in, the more people have hands, the more your punched in the face. we gotta start amputations now.

Hands can be used for much more than injuring faces; a guns purpose is destruction.

 

[SliverBlade]

I think guns should only be given to smart people. And if your lucky.

 

[Optix334]

Cant get the quote thing to work.......
To Hardcore Gamer- taking someones life who is 90% likely to take yours or someone elses life is just fine. I can see where your coming from with not liking taking someones life, but if its you or them your gonna choose yourself. If you dont have a gun, it becomes just you. And if someones willing to rob you and they die in the process then yes, it is killing some retarded scumbag, and yes, keeping my .45 allows me to keep my soul and my stuff. Its a win win and i dont know how you people see it different.

 

[Optix334]

ok 1. if we were buddies I probably would let you have some fries. 2. taking fries is not a criminal act. that was just a stupid thing to say. when someone takes your wallet, which has a majority of your monetary assets in it, possibly your ssn, and your address then yes that is a problem to be solved with a bullet. you dont nessessarily have to kill them, you could shoot them in the leg. After that they probably wont rob anyone again, and if they do then they deserve to die.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I thing guns are fine

 

[Optix334]

I am going to post this link and let it speak for itself. Civilians with guns are by no means a bad thing. We have the right to defend ourselves, and this right has saved many innocent lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32426383/

If the shop keeper had not had access to a weapon, the headline would have read differently.

I'm also sick of self-righteous jackasses saying that, "Americans are stupid because they can (and enjoy) being able to have guns." Seriously... Grow up and worry about your own country. It's part of our culture - Deal with it. There's nothing wrong with guns in the hands of responsible people.

ok in the article it says "they appeared as if they were going to shoot" and NOT that they had shot people. so really that man murdered in cold blood several robbers, sure it was called justifiable but really he murdered them

the criminals were NOT shooting them, they were pointing and waving and pistol whipping but they were not shooting them. if he just handed over the money then none of this would have happened AND everyone would have lived

so i don't see why the gun was needed, insurance would have covered any losses and the police could have had a chance of catching the guys and getting that money back

ok so let everyone get hurt instead of one person. I totally see that logic. If anyone points a gun at me I will do everything in my power to either have them point it away or drop it, even if that means shooting. If they point it at some other innocent person I would shoot them. there is no excuse to point a gun at someone who is unarmed and minding their own business. There is also no reason to let people get away with it. But no its ok let everyone get hit with the gun ( which obviously you people dont know how bad getting hit with a steel handle hurts) and give them all your stuff. Hell why not call a moving truck for them so they can take your couch why your at it.

 

[JRslinger]

[
the criminals were NOT shooting them, they were pointing and waving and pistol whipping but they were not shooting them. if he just handed over the money then none of this would have happened AND everyone would have lived

so i don't see why the gun was needed, insurance would have covered any losses and the police could have had a chance of catching the guys and getting that money back

This shopkeeper had every reason to be in fear for his life. It's astonishing that you're saying that a criminal has to shoot you first before you can shoot at him!!!!!!

If a cop had stepped into the store and fired first at the robbers would you call him a murderer or a hero?

Way to demonize self defense and promote victimhood.

 

[Joethelama]

yes we do

 

[Precision Burrito]

I am going to post this link and let it speak for itself. Civilians with guns are by no means a bad thing. We have the right to defend ourselves, and this right has saved many innocent lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32426383/

If the shop keeper had not had access to a weapon, the headline would have read differently.

I'm also sick of self-righteous jackasses saying that, "Americans are stupid because they can (and enjoy) being able to have guns." Seriously... Grow up and worry about your own country. It's part of our culture - Deal with it. There's nothing wrong with guns in the hands of responsible people.

ok in the article it says "they appeared as if they were going to shoot" and NOT that they had shot people. so really that man murdered in cold blood several robbers, sure it was called justifiable but really he murdered them

the criminals were NOT shooting them, they were pointing and waving and pistol whipping but they were not shooting them. if he just handed over the money then none of this would have happened AND everyone would have lived

so i don't see why the gun was needed, insurance would have covered any losses and the police could have had a chance of catching the guys and getting that money back

I must distinguish the words "kill" and "murder" for you, as you have not bothered learning on your own.

Kill-to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay

Murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

I got these off of dictionary.com if you want to bother checking.

The man in question did not "murder" his assailants, he killed them. Which is perfectly acceptable under the conditions in which he found himself.

 

[Irishhoodlum]

Right, ban guns so that the average person is helpless during a mugging.

Oh and a criminal TOTALLY won't shoot you if you just hand over you money.

Everyone submit to criminals peacefully now.

All this "Ban guns" nonsense is stupid, doesn't stop the wrong people from getting them.

You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

Thank you.

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on.

Exactly, people need to think a little thats all.

I can tell you right now that almost any police officer would agree that the "average citizen" would be better off handing over his wallet and letting the criminal run away than pulling out a gun. Because I really doubt there's anything in your wallet that's worth your life.

You might feel "badass" carrying a gun around, but when someone pulls their own on you (for whatever reason), the stupidest possible thing you can do is pull yours out.

 

[RelexCryo]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

Well, statistically speaking, The actual amount of murders, rapes, and robberies decreases when citizens in America are allowed to own guns. Just as an example:

in 2000, when the Recession hit, Michigan allowed citizens to carry guns. The crime rate immediately dropped by 5%. It has stayed slightly smaller ever since. Yeah, that is small decrease, I admit. However, during that same time period, the crime rates or New York,
California, and Illinois sky rocketed.

Starting in the 1980's, well before the recession, as Canada, Australia, and Britian pursued more gun conrol, all crime, including murders, increased, (Except in Australia. Manslaughter, robbery, and so forth increased, but murder apprently decreased by 3%.)

By contrast, America's crime rate fell as we gave citizens more freedom.( although it skyrocketed agqain in the recession, laregly due to the fact that the above mentioned states passsed even tighter gun control.)

People say Britain has a low crime rate because of all it's gun control. In reality, Britain HAD a very low crime rate, banned guns, and now has more robberies per capita than America does. (Although America still has more Murders/Rapes, largely due to shitty social conditions.) http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml

Roughly 90% of all gun crime in America comes from areas where civilians aren't allowed to carry guns.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/

Actually, just google "British Crime Rates"

The story of British crime rates and guns you've supplied there is a load of utter bollocks, invented by an idiot unable to contextualise, for the purpose of constructing a false argument to support gun ownership.

Firstly, the point you are talking about for Britain is in the 90s, where gun control (which already existed) was tightened after a couple of nuts went on shooting sprees and killed a load of people.

It is true that crime went up after this tightening. However, crime had already been rising for several years prior to the new laws, and rose no faster after the new laws. Furthermore, with guns still more heavily restricted, crime started going down a few years later.

Secondly, hardly anyone in Britain (well under 5% of the population) had a gun, and of those virtually none carried one around with them, as that was already illegal. In essence, the tightening of the gun control laws made effectively no difference whatsoever to the likelihood of a criminal encountering a member of the public with a gun.

Crime rates rose at the time because of social problems - unemployment, growing wealth inequality, the police not getting their act together. It had nothing to do with gun ownership.

Um...get an attention span dude. I said that Japan banned guns, and had a very low crime rate. I expressly said that guns aren't necessary for low crime, and that social conditions were what really mattered. Please get an attention span.

EDIT: I did, however state that if a country has bad social conditions, based on the math I have seen, letting law abiding, sane individuals own and carry guns, results in less crime.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Personally, I think only hunting weapons should be legal for civies.
Even then, within reason.

 

[Low Key]

Most of my friends own guns. None of them have been shot. New Science must not have gotten to them with their survey.

 

[Downfall89]

Guns don't kill people.
I kill people.
With guns.

Guns are fine, (I'm brainwashed from Call of Duty) but I don't think that every civilian should have rights to bear arms. Like some other guy said, "A kind word with a gun is much stronger than just a kind word."

that was Al Capone who said "A kind word with a gun is much stronger than just a kind word." I'd hardly call him an ideal person to chime in on this argument.

True, however I didn't know that it was him that said it. I jut thought that that quote does sort of tie in with this debate.

 

[Kair]

All right, the Marxist opinion on the right to bear arms:

Marxists believe people should be educated towards trust and reliability, not towards mistrust and deceit. Having a personal firearm completely disregards all faith in your peers and only leads to more mistrust and apathy. People aren't people any more, they're 'individuals' and only see other 'individuals' as competition and hazards. They think everyone else is an unwelcome troublemaker and so they become one themselves. They get guns because they think everyone else has guns, and everyone else is of course a psychopath out to get them.

What is the difference between 'people' and a group of 'individuals'? (Just so you know, I consider myself a radical individualist, so there may be a cultural divide or language barrier at work here). Is there anyone who is a person, but not an individual, or vise verse?

If a Marxist trusts everyone around him, on what grounds does he object to them owning weapons? I pretty much agree with the sentiment that people should trust their neighbors and encourage conditions that lead to that trust. But if I trust my neighbors absolutely, or even the entire world, why on earth would I want to deny them a firearm? It seems to me I would prefer that everyone have a firearm. At the very least, I would encourage armament as opposed to disarmament. I trust my neighbors, and that's precisely why I say 'no' to gun control. What possible basis could I have for denying the right to bear arms? 'Trust' is exactly why I want everyone to bear arms.

I guess this as much a criticism as a question, but I am genuinely interested in understanding what Marxists and communists think. I have increasingly found that communists, Marxists and anarchists talk past each other, which creates unnecessary divides. I hope you don't take it too harshly.

Before I say anything else, a Communist is essentially a Marxist, despite the many State-Capitalist dictators who call themselves Communists.

Why would you need a gun if you could trust everyone? That is like saying we should all walk around knives, just because we can. It is completely impractical and only leads to accidents.

I think you have been too much influenced with this 'freedom' concept. I can't blame you, it's been used as a political catchphrase in the United States since the Founding Fathers. You are saying that you should be able to carry a gun because you can carry a gun, ignoring all the negative effects that would involve, just to have the 'freedom' to bear arms.

And before this trust is established, why would be let people own guns? It is impossible to establish such trust under those circumstances. And after that, there would be no need for them at all.

 

[Agema]

You can present studies that indicate gun control increases crime. You can present studies indicating gun control decreases crime. You can present studies that find it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. So, what's true?

Show me a survey that shows an increase in gun related crime when gun control laws are in place and I will eat my metaphorical hat and literal cake.

I said "crime" as in general crime, not gun-related crime. However...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Okay, the study the article talks about is from a biased source and almost certainly not of academic quality, but there you go.

What increased gun control certainly does is reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by guns.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on.

Too right sir.

Why can't they just restrict who gets guns and make sure they are sensible about the storage of the guns and you can't have them out in public and if you're ever in an incident you can never have a gun again? No problem, right? I know it would take heaps of policing to police it but if there are large enough penalties it should work, right?