The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?
- Thread starter thebrainiac1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The question isn't whether civilians should have the right to bear arms or not. The question is whether or not the government should have the right to restrict people's ability to defend themselves.
Reliance on government will be the downfall of any freedom loving people. I'm amazed at how easily people forget the unprecedented successes of limited government and fall into the trap of relying on government as a caretaker of the people.
Reliance on government will be the downfall of any freedom loving people. I'm amazed at how easily people forget the unprecedented successes of limited government and fall into the trap of relying on government as a caretaker of the people.
I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that. (cookie for the reference)Supreme Unleaded said:
Would you rather give power to corrupt politicians or give it to the idiotic masses?
There is no perfect answer as there are no perfect humans.
There is no perfect answer as there are no perfect humans.
I'm not meant to be thinking "How could this be made to work?" am I.Dragonearl said:
I think they need to do the study in other states. That would interest me.
Please don't think I'm being antagonistic here but I would like to know how many of those shot were victims as well.
The right to bear arms is one of the things I admire about America, it really does make people so much more equal. In the UK, it's the biggest and meanest who rule the place and you can't do anything about it, if they want your money, they have it, they want your phone, they have it, they want to beat you to death, they do it.
I'd love the right to be able to protect myself, you yanks should count yourselves lucky.
Also, allow me to go fish some interesting stats for all you anti-gun folks...
I'd love the right to be able to protect myself, you yanks should count yourselves lucky.
Also, allow me to go fish some interesting stats for all you anti-gun folks...
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.
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.
Yes this article is a bit shifty in places, however the point that it (roughly) makes is that in the cases they studied, someone carrying a gun at the time was 4x more likely to be shot than someone who was not.McClaud said:
Feel free to shoot me down, but this was the impression I got from my reading of it.
Now I know wikipedia can't always be trusted but.....Gezab said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country
OOPS, there goes your argument.
If your going to look at numbers and and the UK firearms ban its a little known fact that gun crime in the UK is actually at double the rate it was when the handgun was implemented nearly 12 years ago.
Not to mention that as a country, even pre-ban less than one percent of the population owned a firearm anyway.
Then you can take Sweden as a great example, with a similar level of guns per household and less firearms murder per year than in the UK.
Firearms don't kill people. Stupidity and poverty kill people.
Let me know when you've eliminated those before you start taking away other peoples rights.
Not to mention that as a country, even pre-ban less than one percent of the population owned a firearm anyway.
Then you can take Sweden as a great example, with a similar level of guns per household and less firearms murder per year than in the UK.
Firearms don't kill people. Stupidity and poverty kill people.
Let me know when you've eliminated those before you start taking away other peoples rights.
Like other gun studies I've seen this one also fails to distinguish between criminals and the law abiding. In a place like Philadelphia many of the people who carry guns and get shot are gang members. What this study really says is that gang members are more likely to get shot than average people who don't carry guns.from the study said:
The article in your link makes no mention of licenses to carry so you're jumping to conclusions. I'll bet that in most if not all of the 677 shootings, the victim did not have a carry license.thebrainiac1 said:
There are economic consequences here, as well.
By banning guns, you feed the coffers of arms dealers. When the supply(Legal) is restricted heavily, the demand(Illegal) for firearms rise. some criminals will go to lengths to avoid dealing with these people if they can simply steal a licensed gun.
When this option becomes scarce, it alows dealers to adjust prices whichever way they please. Depending on the way they go, they win either way. By allowing the prices to drop, they glean more customers out of fear of personal safety(those who would rather register their firearms). If they raise the prices, then they make more profit not only in a base manner but in the fact that they now have a new demographic of criminals to sell to.
These criminals will need to abtain the money for these arms somehow and will resort to increased violent crime for the money.
Thats how I view it anyway.
By banning guns, you feed the coffers of arms dealers. When the supply(Legal) is restricted heavily, the demand(Illegal) for firearms rise. some criminals will go to lengths to avoid dealing with these people if they can simply steal a licensed gun.
When this option becomes scarce, it alows dealers to adjust prices whichever way they please. Depending on the way they go, they win either way. By allowing the prices to drop, they glean more customers out of fear of personal safety(those who would rather register their firearms). If they raise the prices, then they make more profit not only in a base manner but in the fact that they now have a new demographic of criminals to sell to.
These criminals will need to abtain the money for these arms somehow and will resort to increased violent crime for the money.
Thats how I view it anyway.
it's still pointless to have a law to ban guns. You will just get people who will illegally own them who are normally the criminals. This just makes it so people who use them for defense and hunting can't.
Back from my post history, there was a thread like this awhile back...
I'm not gunna have a back/forth with anyone in this thread by the way, haven't got time unfortuantly, so just look at them stats and draw your own conclusions.
Course those stats are from 2003, can't find any more recent ones to compare, sure they haven't changed a great deal though. The only violent crimes that are more prevelant in the US than the UK are murder and homicide, but overall UK is far, far worse for violent crime, according to these statistics atleast.-Orgasmatron- said:
I'm not gunna have a back/forth with anyone in this thread by the way, haven't got time unfortuantly, so just look at them stats and draw your own conclusions.
The point I made there is a reference to my own personal opinion, not the article I linked to.JRslinger said:
Lets take this for instance...
Say, in a world where everyone had guns, or every responsible person had guns, (EG a teacher)
then when some nutjob (who will get guns illegally anyway) decides to go postal, the nutjob won't kill 40 people in a school, because one or more responsible people are able to protect themselves. I'm not saying that students should be able to carry guns, or even that they should be in the building loaded. I think that ubiquitous less lethal means would accomplish the same thing.
Say, in a world where everyone had guns, or every responsible person had guns, (EG a teacher)
then when some nutjob (who will get guns illegally anyway) decides to go postal, the nutjob won't kill 40 people in a school, because one or more responsible people are able to protect themselves. I'm not saying that students should be able to carry guns, or even that they should be in the building loaded. I think that ubiquitous less lethal means would accomplish the same thing.
so take away guns? ya right. tell that to the guy who ran into his house when he heard his daughter screaming becuz she was being raped. he runs in gun drawn n blasts the guy dead. hmmm i wonder what he'd say. sorry criminals are criminals for a reason just becuz one guy only wants ur money doesnt mean they all do. oh and of course if the country ppl live has a gun ban theres going to be less gunshot wounds but lets find out what they have higher of. britian= no gun but a heeeeeeeeeell of a lot of knifing. violence is violence and accidents happen. ill keep my gun thank you so i may have a better chance of protecting my family... not the assets.