The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?
- Thread starter thebrainiac1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Did you even read what I said?Dragonearl said:
We have a fully active Federalized branch of police that do nothing but try to stop the illegal sale of firearms. Our criminals do not just walk into a gun store and say, "Give me a gun," and the gun store owner sells it to them. Most criminal firearms are carted over a border somewhere, through an illegal arms market. Hell, a lot of guns owned by criminals in the southern part of our country are being brought in by a Mexican illegal arms market and distributed to gangs.
The ease at which guns (and just about everything else due to the large borders the US has) can be shipped into and out of our country is a contributing factor. The fact that our criminal culture prides themselves in owning guns would create a market even if there was regular legal market for guns (as we tried back in the 1930's to ban guns on the street).
We'd need an army to completely clear the guns off our streets. You're looking at policing 668 million people for guns every day across 3,537,441 square miles. You're also looking at changing a multi-racial criminal culture that carries guns and idolizes guns to one that won't and can't buy guns.
While it may appear that it's merely political whitewashing that creates the problems with US gun control, it's a small part of the real problem in the US. The entire criminal culture has ways obtaining guns that no government could control or police, and they have the extreme desire to use them. It would be easy to say, "Let's just all stop using guns," and then ban them from everyone who abides from the law from having one. But it would do absolutely NOTHING to stop the criminals who love, hoard and use guns on a daily basis from loving, hoarding and using guns.
Again, it works for Britain, Japan and some parts of Canada because the culture is largely different in the criminal population. I know Britain has an illegal arms market, but they profit from moving guns out of Britain and across the rest of Europe rather than to local criminals. Same for Japan, which has an understanding about where and how guns are used (which doesn't say much, since violent crime without guns is still rather high in Japan among gangs and the poor).
The cultures are different. You need to understand that it's not as simple as passing a law and trying to enforce it. I understand if you have a hard time, since the cultures are vastly different. But if the US criminal culture moved physically to England and Japan, I assure you the gun bans and laws they have now would do NOTHING to stop the escalation of gun violence.
(Look at US-Hong Kong history if you don't believe me. The Chinese learned to use guns and took the culture of gun power back to Hong Kong. Now, even with extremely stringent gun laws, bans, police and prevention, gun violence has spiraled out of control)
I have always been a bit of a gun nut, I say to myself that I would have no use for them other than a bit of hunting every now and again and I find the idea of shooting someone replusive, but I still want one. Recently my eyes have been on a bolt action shotgun http://www.isoldmygun.com/_auction_images/DSC02303.JPG
I'll keep my rights, even if you folks wish to not exercise yours. The second amendment guarantees my rights to life, liberty, and property ownership by giving me something to defend myself and my friends and family against people who would wish to deprive us of it, among ensuring the government can always be shown a thing or two if it needs be.
Also, http://rlv.zcache.com/gun_control_tshirt-p235034458532005991qn8v_400.jpg
Also, http://rlv.zcache.com/gun_control_tshirt-p235034458532005991qn8v_400.jpg
What would happen if someone produced a study of godlike genius and utmost scientific rigour proving conclusively one way or the other whether gun ownership is beneficial or harmful, and whether they are useful versus crime?
Basically, almost everyone on the other side would dismiss it as a flawed study and ignore it (it's amazing how the average armchair waffler on an internet forum magically knows better than experts with doctorates when they don't agree with their findings), just argue the opposite irrespective of the study, or find a different argument to defend the right to own/ban guns.
Support for gun ownership (or otherwise) is an entrenched social belief that goes way, way beyond rational arguments about whether it's useful or not in various situations.
Basically, almost everyone on the other side would dismiss it as a flawed study and ignore it (it's amazing how the average armchair waffler on an internet forum magically knows better than experts with doctorates when they don't agree with their findings), just argue the opposite irrespective of the study, or find a different argument to defend the right to own/ban guns.
Support for gun ownership (or otherwise) is an entrenched social belief that goes way, way beyond rational arguments about whether it's useful or not in various situations.
Diablini said:
Someone had to do it.
Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on. And I believe that having a gun gives you better chances while being mugged. The guy mugging you probably just needs quick money and doesn't have the balls to shoot you.
Behold
Absolutely right - gun bans are the solution. I'm so glad criminals diligently follow all laws.
Oh, wait.
Guns are a tool like any other, and in a self-defence context they're a tool that gives everyone a fighting chance to defend themselves. A mugger won't attack someone who can obviously beat them up; they'll attack someone smaller than them. The mugger chooses the battleground, the enemy,everything about the occasion, and that stacks the whole deck in their favour. In essence, you won't ever be attacked by someone smaller and weaker than you, because they pick their targets. Sure, they might just take your wallet and run. But they might not. And another thing: it's easy to say "just hand over your wallet" - but what about rape?
Criminals do not have the right to attack people at will. Law-abiding people have the right to not be attacked. Law-abiding people should have the right to defend themselves effectively, without having to be large, strong or scary.
There is a tendency in the UK to say "leave it to the police". The problem with that approach is that the police are by their very nature a reactive force; with only one police officer for every 353 people in the UK, to take an example, the police simply don't have the manpower to stop every attack. The police can't defend everyone. Should we not, then, have the right to protect ourselves regardless of personal strength or martial prowess?
If I legally could, I would carry a pistol on my hip. I've served in the military, I'm confident in my ability to carry it safely and use it if the need ever occurred. I hope it never would, but I want the ability to defend myself.
Oh, and the numbers? Vermont has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the US. Vermont has largely unrestricted concealed and open carry. Washington DC (and I'm working from slightly outdated figures here) had a complete ban on civilian carry, but had one of the highest rates of violent country. Just a thought.
Oh, wait.
Guns are a tool like any other, and in a self-defence context they're a tool that gives everyone a fighting chance to defend themselves. A mugger won't attack someone who can obviously beat them up; they'll attack someone smaller than them. The mugger chooses the battleground, the enemy,everything about the occasion, and that stacks the whole deck in their favour. In essence, you won't ever be attacked by someone smaller and weaker than you, because they pick their targets. Sure, they might just take your wallet and run. But they might not. And another thing: it's easy to say "just hand over your wallet" - but what about rape?
Criminals do not have the right to attack people at will. Law-abiding people have the right to not be attacked. Law-abiding people should have the right to defend themselves effectively, without having to be large, strong or scary.
There is a tendency in the UK to say "leave it to the police". The problem with that approach is that the police are by their very nature a reactive force; with only one police officer for every 353 people in the UK, to take an example, the police simply don't have the manpower to stop every attack. The police can't defend everyone. Should we not, then, have the right to protect ourselves regardless of personal strength or martial prowess?
If I legally could, I would carry a pistol on my hip. I've served in the military, I'm confident in my ability to carry it safely and use it if the need ever occurred. I hope it never would, but I want the ability to defend myself.
Oh, and the numbers? Vermont has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the US. Vermont has largely unrestricted concealed and open carry. Washington DC (and I'm working from slightly outdated figures here) had a complete ban on civilian carry, but had one of the highest rates of violent country. Just a thought.
The argument is perfectly valid. It is too late. How would you propose taking all the guns back from a populace that has owned them for about 500 years or so? The logistics behind that undertaking would be truly mind boggling and not many Americans agree with you that it is neccesary. It is ingrained in our original Bill of Rights and not something that we will part with - not without a show of force and a civil war level of violence between the people and the goverment, I would bet.Skeleon said:
As I understand it, the original allowane to carry guns was to protect the people from a tyrannical goverment if it oversteps its bounds. There are many people, some of whom I live next to, who would kill any goverment official attempting to disarm them with force as they would see it as their right to preserve the sovereignty of the people. They would see it as the Federal Goverment declaring war on our freedom. Like it or not, guns are here to stay. We aren't Europe or the UK and we will never be Europe or the UK, for better or worse.
Don't like it then move to a smaller town where gun crime isn't as bad. Easy fix.
Guys, ignore the Brits here. They're just angry cause they lost their empire to a bunch of gun-crazy bible thumping fear mongerers.
That being said...unfortunately, in the US, it's absolutely impossible to stop guns. We share giant borders with both Canada and Mexico, from where they could be smuggled. We also have a giant shore line...it'd be physically impossible to cover all of that. In Britain's case, it's really a tiny island, and much of your shore line is rather inaccessible...
That being said, from one study I've seen, percentage wise muggings and such are actually HIGHER in Britain than in the US. The homicide rate may or may not be lower...you should google for the difference between Britain's definition of homicide and the FBI's definition of homicide.
That being said...unfortunately, in the US, it's absolutely impossible to stop guns. We share giant borders with both Canada and Mexico, from where they could be smuggled. We also have a giant shore line...it'd be physically impossible to cover all of that. In Britain's case, it's really a tiny island, and much of your shore line is rather inaccessible...
That being said, from one study I've seen, percentage wise muggings and such are actually HIGHER in Britain than in the US. The homicide rate may or may not be lower...you should google for the difference between Britain's definition of homicide and the FBI's definition of homicide.
Nah we don't, the only armed British Police are Armed Response Units and if it isn't obvious from Response, these are not beat officers, you will not see them carrying firearms in the street.poncho14 said:I think the police do have guns but only the higher ranked officers. Not sure thoughSimalacrum said:
The other exception are those tasked with guarding certain locations, although it may well have changed recently in 2006 I saw a handful of Police carrying MP5's at the Downing Street gates.
In either case, both are trained for specific circumstances and beat officers will never be carrying guns.
Only special squads who train for about a year and have spent a coupla years in the police already get to have guns.poncho14 said:I think the police do have guns but only the higher ranked officers. Not sure thoughSimalacrum said:
And we still don't trust their training if they DO shoot someone (see Charles De Menezes).
I don't think they should have the "right to bear arms". As pointed out, it just increases the level of gun crime, and poses a threat to innocents.
You know what's really funny? People who always say 'Just call the police, that's what they're for!"
As a CJ student, there are some things you need to know about your police system.
1. AVERAGE police response time is 10 minutes (variable depending on your area). This means that the police can and will take longer than 10 minutes to get there. And for people who say, "10 minutes isn't that long," here's an experiment for you:
Sit in a completely quiet room for 10 minutes. Say and do nothing. See how long 10 minutes REALLY is. Now, repeat the exercise, but with someone screaming and pounding on walls and punching you occasionally. 10 minutes is an eternity that said criminal can fully exploit and be long gone by the time they arrive.
2. And this one is the biggie folks, POLICE ARE UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO EVER COME AND ASSIST YOU! Don't believe me?
http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html
Think about that next time you hear a strange noise outside your room, and you decided to only call the police.
As a CJ student, there are some things you need to know about your police system.
1. AVERAGE police response time is 10 minutes (variable depending on your area). This means that the police can and will take longer than 10 minutes to get there. And for people who say, "10 minutes isn't that long," here's an experiment for you:
Sit in a completely quiet room for 10 minutes. Say and do nothing. See how long 10 minutes REALLY is. Now, repeat the exercise, but with someone screaming and pounding on walls and punching you occasionally. 10 minutes is an eternity that said criminal can fully exploit and be long gone by the time they arrive.
2. And this one is the biggie folks, POLICE ARE UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO EVER COME AND ASSIST YOU! Don't believe me?
http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html
Think about that next time you hear a strange noise outside your room, and you decided to only call the police.
The statistics don't account for the amount of people who have deterred crime without pulling the trigger. Seeing a gun tends to deter people from doing a crime.Skeleon said:
And yes, how I dream of a country where the police would have the ultimate power and we'd have no defense over them if any decided to become corrupt. A girl can dream, eh?