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

[Novan Leon]

The right to bear arms is just a narrow-minded solution to a problem that is caused by itself.

Says the guy with the communist avatar, representative of an ideology so abusive and destructive it caused deaths of over 100 million people in the first five years of being implemented in China alone.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I know, let's make guns illegal! Because no criminal would be so unethical to illegally obtain a gun!

 

[Simalacrum]

my response is "well duh?" to the article. Honestly, the best way to solve gun crime is to BAN GUNS. Learn from Britain, America, not even the police wear guns here! Instead we have knife crime... lots, and lots of knifing.

I think the police do have guns but only the higher ranked officers. Not sure though

Nope, standard cops over here don't carry guns, ever... unless their guarding something like Parliament... in which case they carry sub-machine guns

 

[Mr.Pandah]

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.

I've read that as well, the whole Police thing. Crazy, right?

And man, there really are alot of people on here that I'm starting to enjoy the company of!

 

[clicketycrack]

This is going to be a hueg post, so please bear with me.

Protectionists (that's what most people in this thread are) seem to believe that banning guns would stop crime. But really, if you look at the statistics, many countries that have stricter gun laws also have more violent crime than the United States does. Britain is one of those countries. By disarming the people, their right to self defense is infringed, and you will just end up with a lot more dead innocent people than criminals.

Putting a gun in your hand doesn't automatically make you a violent elitist egotistical killer either. It makes you a responsible citizen. Taking guns off store shelves wont stop crime, it'll ensure crime, because then criminals will have guns, and law-abiding citizens will not. Before you hold your head up high, declaring you're on the side of the people, notice how you're making it easier for criminals to kill you.

And police. Oh how I love that argument. Police have an average response time, from when you call them, of about 5 minutes. If a criminal is in your house, I don't think it's very likely you will be able to dodge bullets for those 5 minutes until the police get there. Same with rape. If you're getting raped, it takes the guy around 2 minutes to finish up and run out of there while you're still bleeding from where the sun doesn't shine. Police aren't the magical end-all solution to everything, you guys.

People also neglect to look at the crime rates of countries with less strict gun laws. I'm thinking you've all heard of Switzerland, the country with beautiful mountains, collectable swiss army knives, great chocolate... and mandatory gun ownership. So you say "Oh no! It must suck to live in Switzerland!". The crime rate in Switzerland is even less than the US, and EVERYBODY HAS A GUN.
I'd like to see that be argued.

The military has guns. What about them?
Should they not have guns?

If you say "They should, because they protect us", then that's a stupid argument. If they need guns to protect us, why shouldn't we have guns to protect ourselves?

If you say "They're trained", then make training mandatory for citizens owning guns. That's not a gun issue.

Gun control is stupid. I ask everyone anti-gun here this:
If a man was coming towards you with the intent to kill you, and you knew he was determined and you were backed up against a wall, no way to escape, wouldn't you want a gun then?
What about rape victims? DO you think they would've wanted a gun while they were being sexually exploited?

People who want a gun ban are (and I'm serious about this) more of a danger to society than guns themselves.

I like this . . . I like this alot. You brought up about every single argument that could be brought up for gun ownership. You're fine by me friend.

 

[Redliph]

Humans like to solve problems with problems.

Fixed that for you.

Too add to my original point and stay on topic, I feel that banning guns is like applying a bandage to a rattlesnakebite and covering the puncture wounds. The same venom that caused the violence to begin with will still be beneath the surface and I certainly don't need a gun to harm someone. I used to make pipebombs and set them off with my friends in the canals of Arizona - if I can do it anyone can. There are serious socioeconomic issues that need to be adressed before we get to the root of the huge murder rate in the USA.

That said, I am for stringent backround checks for potential gunowners. I am not stupid and don't want my neighbors running around with AK 47s and M 16s or Stinger Missile Launchers. I support gun restrictions, just not outright banning them is all.

 

[ToxinArrow]

I've read that as well, the whole Police thing. Crazy, right?

And man, there really are alot of people on here that I'm starting to enjoy the company of!

More like absolute insanity.

And thank you. There are few people whose posts I can actually read and not bust out laughing at their ignorance on this site. Count yourself as one friend.

 

[Skeleon]

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.

I don't give a damn about deterred crime when the per capita number still far outranks every other 1st world country.

And, JESUS CHRIST, don't give me the authoritarian bullshit. Why do people ONLY see black and white?!

 

[Rigs83]

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?

I'll raise you a PopSci article. [http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/science-confirms-obvious]

Also we need the second amendment in the US because everyone who has tried to kill us had failed so we have to do it ourselves.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

I've read that as well, the whole Police thing. Crazy, right?

And man, there really are alot of people on here that I'm starting to enjoy the company of!

More like absolute insanity.

And thank you. There are few people whose posts I can actually read and not bust out laughing at their ignorance on this site. Count yourself as one friend.

Thanks to you too. You did the talking for me as well as most of the other escapists. I'll be keeping tabs on a few more people's posts around here thanks to this article.

 

[Velocirapture07]

You people can feel however you want. Just know that as soon as I get a job in a state that allows for concealed carry I'll be carrying a firearm.

There have also been numerous studies about the immense number of crimes that are averted by simply having a firearm on one's person.

Next time that thug on the street threatens you with a gun he's not supposed to have (newsflash, criminals don't obey gun laws!!!) and you can't do anything about it, you'll have only yourselves to blame.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

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.

I don't give a damn about deterred crime when the per capita number still far outranks every other 1st world country.

And, JESUS CHRIST, don't give me the authoritarian bullshit. Why do people ONLY see black and white?!

If you don't give a damn about deterred crime, then why should we bother explaining ourselves to you? You seem to be the one only seeing in black and white.

 

[Sparkimus Prime]

I think everyone looks at the right to bear arms the wrong way. None of the statistics matter. Let's look at it from a different point of view.

Does the simple act of owning or carrying a gun/ammo hurt anyone? No.
Therefore, gun/ammo ownership/carrying are not real crimes and should not be punished.
The real crime we are concerned with is shooting other people or property.

By punishing people simply for gun/ammo ownership, you are, in essence, prosecuting people for a crime they COULD commit in the future. This should violate your concept of fair lawmaking. If you want to accept the idea that you can punish someone for a crime they might possibly commit, let's see where that can lead us:

* Car ownership should be illegal because you can kill someone in a crash.
* Bathtub ownership should be illegal because you can drown someone in one.
* Being born with a penis should be illegal because you could rape someone with one.

Instead, we list assault, murder, and rape as crimes and don't restrict owning a car or bathtub or being male. Life isn't ideal; bad things will happen. However, punishing people for things they didn't do isn't fair at all.

 

[Skeleon]

If you don't give a damn about deterred crime, then why should we bother explaining ourselves to you? You seem to be the one only seeing in black and white.

Because I care about the actual number of deaths, not some hypothetical stuff gun-supporters make up when the statistics are clear on the issue and no European country has descended into an authoritarian state in the last 70 years.

 

[DuplicateValue]

Hey Guys.
*snip*
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.
*snip*

Eh so if I were to carry a gun, I'm four times likelier to get shot, even if nobody knows I have it?

So criminals have some sort of 'gun-sensors' nowadays, do they?

 

[Cliff_m85]

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.

I don't give a damn about deterred crime when the per capita number still far outranks every other 1st world country.

And, JESUS CHRIST, don't give me the authoritarian bullshit. Why do people ONLY see black and white?!

You may not care about deterred crime, but the person who avoided getting raped would certainly care about it.

 

[Le_Lisra]

Wow, all the bad logic on both sides. But this particular ludicrous response made me laugh more than the others:

Really?. How bad is "a bad neighborhood" going to be if guns were taken off the streets?. It would in the very least be a "bad neighborhood" without guns, is that at least not a better place to start?.

How do you propose to take the guns off the streets? We tried gun bans, we have the DEA preventing as many gun sales - especially over state lines - as possible and we also use various methods of detecting people carrying guns into sensitive areas. Yet, criminals still get and use guns in the United States on an increasing basis, regardless of whether or not states allow citizens to carry guns. It has nothing to do with citizens carrying legal, licensed guns. Criminals intending to use guns can get guns easily.

The culture is different here in the US. Most of our criminals don't hesitate to carry or use guns because they are seen as symbols of power or wealth. Most violent shooting deaths in the US are not exactly done for profit or possessions, but for gang-related or pride related reasons. Gun violence will always exist at a fairly moderate level because there are other issues at play (underfunded police units, a large market for illegal weapons, elevated drug trade, etc.)

If you look at the culture in Britain, Japan and Canada, the cultural differences work in favor of gun control, and thus, it is a viable option. As long as the criminal culture in those countries don't make a step to increase the illegal gun trade and see guns as a power icon. People from other countries need to observe the culture in other countries to understand why gun control works or doesn't work before criticizing it.

Finally someone with the finger on it.
There is a cultural misunderstanding here. For people in european countries it is easy to see the point of giving power to the state (read locke, mill and for a contrast, hobbes!) and for Americans it is not.

Still the relations between gun availability and gun-deaths are there but thats hardly gonna persuade anyone. Pity really.

Also I support that normal policemen shouldn't carry guns. They don't in Norway, my home country, but they do in Germany, for no better reason than having always done so. What they do in Netherland I have no idea cos the police here has never really shown itself to me - and by contrast, when I visited Germany some weeks ago the first thing was that policemen with submachineguns searched people on the train. huh.

You people can feel however you want. Just know that as soon as I get a job in a state that allows for concealed carry I'll be carrying a firearm.

There have also been numerous studies about the immense number of crimes that are averted by simply having a firearm on one's person.

Next time that thug on the street threatens you with a gun he's not supposed to have (newsflash, criminals don't obey gun laws!!!) and you can't do anything about it, you'll have only yourselves to blame.

Why do people still bring this argument?
Thats like the urban legend where a criminal with a knife tried to rob a foreign businessman who simply shot him. Stuff like that doesn't exactly happen.

I come from a big city, you know how a robbery works? You get surrounded by thugs. Not just one, several. Sometimes 10. They have knives, sometimes guns, sometimes even pitbulls. A gun on yourself might make you kill one if you are lucky, but mostly itll result in you dead cos the other armed guys aren't exactly pleased when victims get stroppy.

 

[Skeleon]

You may not care about deterred crime, but the person who avoided getting raped would certainly care about it.

Take a pepper spray, a tazer or a tranquilizer gun next time. You don't have to kill people for self-defense.