Does anyone really want to live in a gun culture? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 15 NEXT | |
Fine. I typed out a long post explicitly stating why what you said was arrogant and undermining all your points at stuff, but apparently you're not actually arguing with me, but rather with the other posters on here whom you have assumed I represent. This debate is not the false dichotomy you make it out to be. That wasn't going anywhere. So, let's restart it between you and I. 1. You think that guns do not cause crime. You cite Switzerland, which has gun ownership but very low crime. 2. I say that yes, Switzerland has low crime, because other factors easily override the criminal influence of guns: wealth, income mobility, laws, culture, conscription, size, and so on. That is, I do think that guns cause crime, but not so much that simply removing guns will remove crime, because crime stems from deeper-seated socio-economic problems. As such, I do not think that Switzerland is a convincing example that guns do not cause crime, because there are other variables that uncontrolled. You'd have to get two identical countries, one with guns and one without, and show that the one with guns had the same crime rate. I also think that guns increase the number of deaths from crime. I think the stats back that up. | |
Actually a friend of mine just got back from shooting shotguns. Like me he is a rifle guy. He made the comment that shotguners do not follow many of our basic precepts. Trigger control? Bah, the few millimeters that are changing won't matter with buckshot. Solid positions for shotguners include being able to rotate while a rifle shooter would rather be in a vise. And so on. To put it simply I do not get any enjoyment out of shotguns (which is why I do not own any). However I love to take my .308 and point it at a target 1000 yards away. One of my goals is to eventually get to the level where I can shoot at a target 1 mile away. Rifle shooters have different goals than shotgun shooters.
Most people follow the basic rules. Some don't but unfortunately we live in a culture that allows us to use guns but will not provide instruction on how to use them safely from a young age. Rule 1-ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED | |
I would expand that to say that people are people and if they what to kill each other they will use whatever is available. In other words guns are irrelevant because if you want to kill someone you will use something else. There are always going to be uncontrolled variables. Mexico and the UK have similar gun laws but one has an ungodly number of gun related deaths because of the drug war and the importation of arms from South America. Here are the crime statistics for both Switzerland and Germany. The reason I chose those two because their gun laws are opposites, they are in close proximity to each other, they share a historical background, and there is a trade of people and culture. If you do not like Switzerland and Germany how about the Czech Republic and Austria? Austria has restrictive gun laws but the Czech Republic has liberal gun laws. What about Australia and New Zealand? NZ in comparison to Australia has relatively liberal gun laws. For spice here is Bolivia and Chile. Bolivia has relatively few guns laws. The most important one is registration. Chilean gun laws are not only restrictive they are out and out annoying. Those were just the pairs off the top of my head. The countries with more guns tend to have less crime overall but in some cases the differences are minor. But the murder rates are all over the place. The Czech Republic has more gun murders but few murders overall in comparison to Austria. The opposite is true for Bolivia and Chile. Australia and New Zealand are neck and neck for many crime statistics but the Australia has more overall murders and burglaries. If you want more I can think of more pairs. The problem is trying to find pairs of countries that have enough similarities as not to throw off the statistics by too much. | |
I live in the "South" in the U.S. and your depiction of gun culture is as accurate as Ray Charles pitching a baseball. You can't directly compare gun ownership and crime with all countries. There are more than just guns-kill-people in play there. It isn't like that at all. | |
I was making a general statement I don't really think everyone should use shotguns just that some weapons are entirely unnecessary for enjoyment or home defense. | |
Which kinds? I have used more firearms than I can name and the only ones that I will never use (if I actually owned them) are ones that I do not like. Sorry Glock fans but your pistols suck. Also sorry to those of y'all who like those insanely powerful magnums but my back cannot take that crap. And so on. People find enjoyment in different things. Why do you wish to rob them of their enjoyment for no reason? You stated that there is not a need for them, but you have yet to prove they should be banned. So why are you attacking some people's hobby? | |
I learned this the hard way. Out of curiosity though, what would you recommend for a concealed carry weapon? I want to go as small as possible, no less than a 10 round magazine, and I'm fine going as low as 9mm. I have a glock 26 right now, but it still manages to feel bulky even though it's a sub-compact. | |
I'd rather be able to opt out rather than not be able to opt in. So, yeah, if it comes down to the two extremes of it being normal and legal to walk around armed to the teeth vs laws banning that, I would pick the former. | |
Things that can be classified as assault rifles and certain additions to guns that can't be considered assault rifles. I attack their hobby because their hobby can kill several people rapidly. Some people get tattoo's and thats there hobby or addiction in some cases and we put stiff regulations on tattoo parlours because hepatitis from dirty needles was becoming a severe problem. There are many examples of limitations put on people's hobbies and those hobbies are much less dangerous then weapons. | |
Of the compact weapons I have had the chance to use, although I can't vouch for its ease of carry, my favorite would have to be the Baby Eagle. Not the smallest gun available, barrel length was about 3.5", but it does have a 12 bullet clip and less kickback than most compact 9MMs without sacrificing mid range accuracy. One thing I like about the Israeli's, they make excellent products. One person I know advocated a .22 magnum mini, a ridiculously tiny gun that admittedly has the advantage of being concealable just about anywhere. He pulled the thing out of his back jeans pocket, the bump looked like a wallet or smartphone | |
The 10 round magazine makes it tough. If it wasn't for that I would recomend maybe a Makarov or one of its clones. Take a look at CZ and H&K. I have a big frame so I can carry my full sized HK45 but I am in the market for a new pistol. The big names on my list are Makarovs, CZ (they have multiple carry guns), and Magnum Research (if I can find an older model Baby Eagle). You can also look at Sig. Unfortunately I do not have the money for a new HK so those are my choices. I will be going to the Houston Gun Show in July to get a feel for a few firearms before I make my final decision. That is what you need to do. Go out and handle a few pistols and see what you think. Everyone is different. I will give you a few general things to look for so that you can narrow down your search. DO NOT use FMJ rounds. One you might get in trouble with the law (over penetration) but what is worse is that it is a poor defensive round. Use some kind of hollow point, Expanding FMJ, or similar but be careful that the round you are using actually work with your firearm (I found out that ball ammo does not work well with my HK). Next .40 is considered to be the best defensive round (non-FMJ because with FMJs the larger round is always better) but keep in mind that 9mm is cheap so keep your budget in mind. Also don't get too hooked up on magazine size because if you need more than 7 rounds you are probably screwed anyway. You also need to keep reliability in mind because some companies (Ruger and Smith and Wesson Autos) have a bad reputation when it comes to reliability. Also make sure you practice firing a pistol (if you can) before you buy it that way you know if it works for you. Finally remember you will have to carry and perhaps one day draw this firearm. Make sure you can do both safely and easily (the grips can sometimes be a problem when drawing). That is all I can think of right now. If you have any questions feel free to ask. | |
Assault rifles are already illegal to own without a Class III FFL for the older models. So that is not a problem. A car can kill people very rapidly. Many chemicals that you can buy on the open market can kill people rapidly. Gun owners rarely use their guns in an illegal fashion so why are you attacking them? More people are killed every year with cars but there is not massive lobby calling for a decrease in the number of cars people own. Gun owners tend to be law abiding and you have yet to prove there is a significant enough danger to warrant these measures. | |
Guns serve other purposes. Murder is NOT the only use, unless you're distorting the definition of murder to include all killing. So did you seriously just refer to hunting as murder? Seriously? Seriously. And my point wasn't about the amount of people they kill, but they STILL got the guns, even in countries with incredibly strict laws on guns (England had one, Germany had one, Korea had one too, but it was so long ago that their gun laws were probably different). | |
True. Guns just make it easier to do and harder to track the killer down after.
That all seems very compelling but I'd rather look into those statistics a lot more- it's very easy to lie with them after all. Let's assume that they are true for now, though: If guns have a negligible impact on crime either way, then why should I be made to feel inferior for not having them? | |
Yes and no. A gun makes it easier to kill an aware target from range, they are less useful than even a simple kitchen knife in other cases. A gun also makes it easier to kill an opponent significantly stronger than you, a situation most criminals don't find themselves in. A knife makes no noise for others to hear, and leaves no meaningful trace when used properly. Get caught with a murder weapon? if its a knife, so long as all blood traces are cleaned off, it proves nothing. If its a gun, even if you clean up the evidence of its recent use, the police can prove it was used on the victim if they compare slugs.
The statistics show that the presence or absence of guns in and of themselves do not have a clear affect on crime either way. They also appear to show that civilian owned guns reduce crime when mostly restricted to citizens that are responsible with them(like in Switzerland). Countries that make gun ownership entirely illegal for civilians, but failed to also keep them out of the hands of criminals (such as in Mexico) have the highest rates of crime. Those last two points are not as obvious as the first, I won't blame you for skepticism, I just ask that you look for yourself. As for the comment about being made to feel inferior, that is not my intent, and that is not the intent of most gun ownership advocates. For the most part, we recognize that not everyone likes guns, all we ask is that people are allowed to have them, if they decide they want to, and they are going to be responsible with them. | |
You classify something as an assualt rifle doesn't mean that is the universal of what I consider an assualt rifle. There is a lot of contention of the definition between pro gun, anti gun, and every thing in between. I think that we could go farther and like I said i'm also including certain additions to weapons not considered assualt weapons. My biggest pet peeve of the gun industry isn't as much the weapons themselves but who can get them and what they have to go through to get them. It isn't uniform or consistent enough in practice. People will buy weapons in one place and carry them over state lines. We have several levels of licensing and practice for getting weapons in the US but I don't think they are applied correctly. Everyone should have to take a class to get a gun, background check, financial records, medical records, and maybe even a interview with the person giving the final say on the license and let them evaluate you. If they think your unsuited they turn you down and you have to appeal it not through the law of course but also go an extra step like getting a mental evaluation or home check up. Finally national gun registry. The above varies with the level of gun ownership. You own more then one guy or the type of gun etc etc. And a vehicle's primary purpose is to transport people. They are common place we see them every day and they aren't meant to kill people thats an unfortunate side effect but a gun's primary purpose is to shoot something whatever that may be its still supposed to make a hole. Even with all that vehicles are regulated more then guns in some states. So I consider that a mute point, cars are regulated heavily, comparable to how dangerous they are. | |
I have a ton of FMJ ammo I bought cheap just for target shooting, but for when I actually carry I have hydro-shocks in.
The lack of an active safety is also something I don't quite like about my glock, which is why I never carry it with a round in the chamber. I'm not sure if that is good practice anyway, though. Edit: Meaning even if the weapon has an active safety on it is it still recommend not to keep a round chambered? I would think so, but I'm not sure. | |
I'm a radical pacifist. I'm against any violence and therefore would be against guns. I would rather die from being shot then defend myself and harm the other person. To inflict harm apon another, even in self defense is wrong in my eyes. I am a radical on this issue and I recognize this | |
One, because it is our right guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't like it, change it. | |
Good, that is how you are supposed to do it. Although I would keep my eye out because there is some new defensive ammo coming out that is supposed to be fantastic.
The lack of an active safety is also something I don't quite like about my glock, which is why I never carry it with a round in the chamber. I'm not sure if that is good practice anyway, though. Edit: Meaning even if the weapon has an active safety on it is it still recommend not to keep a round chambered? I would think so, but I'm not sure.[/quote] I keep a round in the chamber with the safety off. However my pistol is DA/SA. It is ok to have a round in the chamber like that but be careful when you put the firearm into the holster because parts of the holster have been known to catch on the trigger and cause it to go off. The fact is that in a defensive situation are you going to want to draw your firearm, rack the slide, take the safety off, and finally take aim? I also suggest that you practice point shooting. Start out by buying a pellet pistol that is similar to your firearm and start practicing. That is a great way to practice without using all your money and ammo. | |
I was going by the definition set out by the Department of Defense. As far as I know there is no other accepted definition. Even with the number of made up terms (assault weapon being one of them) that is the official definition.
Actually things are not quite the way you said. As a Texan could I buy a firearm in Illinois? Yes, but I would still need an Illinois State License. If a person from Massachusetts wanted to buy a gun in Vermont they could but they would still have to register the gun with THEIR state office. Also in California if a person bough a firearm in Utah in order to bring the gun into the state the firearm still has to follow state laws. In other words the states still have the right to decide. If you think I will take a medical exam and surrender my financial information in order to practice my constitutional rights you have had better prepare for a great disappointment. Hell the requirement to allow someone to evaluate me is insulting. Also what business is it of yours what firearms I have? You have no right to know what my property is.
And guns killing people is an unfortunate side effect. Also I see firearms every day and so do most people (haven't you ever seen an LEO). Why are you attacking firearms? Cars are regulated ONLY when they are used on federal and state roads (I do not have to have a license to drive on my own property). In addition cars are not protected by the Constitution. | |
Again, the UK has 'pint' (600ml clear glass) glasses NOT German steins (1,000-1,800ml typically opaque ceramic). The ban would have replaced glasses with acrylic versions that look exactly the same but do not cause as much damage when smashed into your face or throat.
Unless you count improving air quality and reducing health issues associated with vehicle emissions. Not all 'safety' measures are designed to effect only those inside the vehicle.
You say people do not follow simple speed laws, yet expect us to believe that they will be trustworthy and responsible enough to follow laws on safe use and storage of firearms? You can't have it both ways....
Did your teacher also point out who pays to scrape you up off the road? It is the tax payer who pays for the emergency services, hospitals and police. Why should you be allowed to waste my taxes because you can not follow simple and reasonable precautions designed with your own safety in mind? I work on a lot of industrial and mining sites, idiots who don't follow the safety regulations are quickly removed by those of us who do obey safety regs, because they tend to get others killed.
Here, if your beer stays in the vessel long enough to aquire a taste from it, you are drinking it wrong.
Beer steins are usually thick and ceramic, English pint glasses (that the ban was on) are NOT.
It wont change their disposition towards violence, it will reduce the damage that violence causes (as everybody will not have a dangerous weapon in their hands at all times).
How does this cost taxpayers money? [acrylic glassware is actually cheaper than the glass version to maintain, as the publican does not have to keep replacing 100's of them. The government has to provide enough medical and law enforcement resources for the public. Legislating to reduce the load on these limited resources, while not spending any taxes to achive the result, appears to be reasonable course of action. Makes me laugh when an American mentions wasting taxpayers money. GWB gave nearly a trillion US$ of taxpayers money to your banks under TARP. My government gave the money back to the taxpayers (we all got Au$2,000 to spend, which stimulated the local economy). To put the TARP amount into perspective, the Japanese earthquake and tsunami will cost less than HALF the US bank bailout to repair... | |
It is the DoJ not DoD. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php
What year is that data? [looks like late 1990s if John Howard is PM of Australia, currently is Julia Gillard, previously was Kevin Rudd and then Howard] This makes the data less than useful, as it fails to account for the massive changes in Australian firearm laws in both 1997 and 2003. Until 2003 Australia had less firearm regulation than NZ, so you can reverse the outcome (ie more guns equals more crime). Since the changes to firearm laws in 1997 Australia has not had a mass murder and firearm death rates have dropped signifigantly. Where are you getting the comparison on laws from? Please post a link.
Scientific studies show the opposite; more firearms directly correlates to more violent crime. Killias showed direct correlation between firearm avaliability and violent crime (as posted earlier in this thread). Also the latest UN study;
| |
Regulations are effectively taxes. It costs money in order to fulfill these regulations. On the other side the police (or the particular agency that covers the regulation) has to enforce the law and that costs money. If it was really costing the bartenders so much money then why didn't they replace it themselves? Surely they would want to save as much money as possible. And if these new cups were going to help prevent injury (I assume that the British bartenders also have to pay for insurance) why wouldn't they do it themselves? This is the base problem with your argument if it was such a good idea then why didn't the market decide to do it without government intervention. Don't talk to me about TARP. I was against it from the start and it was the same with all the bailouts. That is why I voted my House member back into office because he was one of only 7 Republicans (plus a few Democrats) that voted against all the bailouts and TARP. I also am still protesting the wars, I am calling for massive decreases in spending and on. Do not group me together with those idiotic Republicans and Democrats who stole money from the tax payers and gave it to big business. | |
I'm going to make a lot of assumptions in this post. The first assumption I'm making is that you are against private firearm ownership. The second assumption I'm making is that you've been told by gun advocates that a culture where EVERYBODY is armed is ideal. Firstly, who told you that pro-gun people want to arm EVERYONE? I certainly don't. Maybe some do, but not all of us. Now here's what I call the theory of "Duh": Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people. No, banning guns would not take guns away from criminals. Yes, there are plenty of ways to get guns illegally. And if you're against private gun ownership, your plan for what to do during a home invasion is basically "lay down and die". Because if the invader has a gun and you don't, you're screwed. Let's talk about this hypothetical world where EVERYBODY is armed. Think about it. Nobody's gonna start anything. Why would a church need a metal detector? It wouldn't. Who's going to shoot anybody when he's surrounded by people who are set to shoot him back? We'd even be able to bring guns on a plane again, because if somebody tried to jack the plane, the stewardess herself could splatter his brains. All of that being said, I don't support a culture like this. I believe owning a gun should remain a right. Nothing less, but nothing more either. Something you can choose to do, but are not required to do. I also don't think everybody should have a gun, because then intimidation would be commonplace, and become part of regular conversation. As for gun ownership as a whole, just look at the UK. Their gun ownership is really low, and so is their gun crime. HOWEVER. Knife crimes are bloody (no pun intended) high over there! Do you know why? Because guns are less common. If a person wants to kill, threaten, harm, or intimidate another person, he will find a way to do it. If guns are banned, knives will replace them. If knives are banned, kitchen knives. Or shivs. Shanks. Or homemade guns. Sticks and stones even. Or hammers. Killing won't go down by banning the weapons used for it. If a country has tighter gun laws, and also has less crime than America, it's purely coincidental. Nobody ever says to themselves "Aw gee, I wanna rob this guy, but I can't legally own a gun so I guess it's a no-go." Heck, if a criminal intends to get away with his crime, the best kind of gun to use is an illegal one. So he's likely going to actively seek out an unregistered firearm. Nobody uses their own legally-owned guns unless they just don't care anymore or have no concept of "ballistics". Therefore, private gun ownership is important because a law-abiding citizen has a right to protect himself from somebody who intends to kill him. And the best form of protection against murder is a gun. If your assailant has a gun, you're an even match. The odds are in your favor if he doesn't present his gun immediately, or if he's invading your house. If your assailant has anything else that's not a gun, you have the advantage. Period. Gun beats knife. Gun beats hammer. Gun beats bare hands. Gun beats shank. Gun beats machete. Gun beats sword. A gun can also save you during a hostage situation. So to summarize, banning guns means living in a society where only police and criminals have guns. Sure the "police" part sounds good. But police don't teleport to your house when you call them. They drive. Sometimes they take a while. And sometimes your assailant is between you and the nearest phone. What then? Therefore, civilian firearm ownership should be a right. A society where EVERYBODY is armed is not ideal, but a society where people have the right to bear arms is ideal. | |
That is the term Assault Weapon not Assault Rifle. There is a difference. Assault Rifle is a military term while Assault Weapon is a Political term. Capitalized parts are where the differences are. The term assault rifle comes from the German word Sturmgewehr which in literal translation means storm rifle or rifle used by storm troopers. Later the term was changed to assault rifle or rifle used by assault troops. The term assault weapon is a political term whose meaning changes with every bill that is passed.
If you look at the sources you will see it came mostly from the early 2000s. Unfortunately this is the only source I have that allows easy comparisons. There are others but they are not as easy to read. Mostly it comes from general knowledge but here is a source you can use. www.gunpolicy.org
[/quote] Honestly I debated with myself for a while before putting that paragraph in. The biggest problem in relating crime statistics is what is considered a crime. Each country has its own way of measuring everything (one reason why I do not trust UN statistics because they use what they are given and dig no deeper) including crime. What classifies as a violent crime? Hell that changes depending on the state here in the US. Some states equate certain instances of domestic disturbance (a misdemeanor crime) with domestic violence (a violent crime). Here in Texas it is not like that but in other states it is. So what is a violent crime? One must always be wary of statistics because they can easily be manipulated to serve a purpose. My favorite one is when people said there were 500 children killed last year by guns. The statement is true but what is a child? Apparently it is anyone under the age of 25. Changes the story quite a bit, once you get the details. This was just an example I am not trying to start another separate debate. | |
I'm often amazed by suggestions of the anti gun crowd. Some say they don't want to outlaw guns but "just" make a few "Common Sence Laws". The effect being to make them so restrictive that only the filthy rich can get them. Or sometimes they say they just want reasonable restriction for gun control (and of coarse their reasonableness is the only one that counts) and suggest manditory safety classes, multifocused background checks, financial checks (for what reason I haven't figured out yet) and medical/Psych evaluations. Now this may sound fine to those that have no concept of innocent until proven guilty, the law and civil rights, but to those of us that do, it sounds like some insane police state. The law says the background check is to check for felony convictions. Thats it, nothing more. Manditory safety classes based on what? Trained by who? Paid for by Whom? Offered how often? And who qualifies the teachers? Hope it isn't that cop that shot himself in the leg in that classroom demonstrating "how to handle a gun"! LOL. Google youtube "cop shoots himself in leg" The idea of having to get a Psych evaluations before you can buy a gun is an insane idea. First off Psych, in any of its forms, is a non-exact science to start with. Second, what makes you think psych doctors are qualified to make such a determinations? You do realize that most Psych doctors require psych evaultions and treatments themselves don't you? So who's checking on the psych status of the psych doctors? Lets say for argument sake, a "head shrinker" says Citizen "A" should not be allowed to own a gun for his self protection (Cuz they're paranoid), then citizen "A" is the suject of an attack by a criminal, guess what? Doctor Mcquack is now on the hook for denying citizen "A" the ability to protect himself. Now Dr McQuack cannot ask for immunity from prosection because "he made the wrong call", not a recommendation, not an opinion, he made the call and it was wrong. Then think about that same situation in the reverse. Yeh, that whole idea sounds a bit crazy to me. But nice try. | |
Ignoring the fact that I am quoting the conclusions of scientific studies, not raw statistics. Why is it that when you post statistics the use of statistics to prove your point is valid, but when I do it use of statistics is not valid?
Approx 3,400 Americans under 25 are murdered by firearms each year (680% your number). This is part of my point; you do not actually know the data on firearms but continue to quote random numbers without verifing their accuracy. How can you have an informed, defendable opinion if you have not taken the time to research the issue? According to the FBI in 2009; 8 babies (under 1 yr) were murdered with firearms. 3,407 total. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html | |
Like banning modern machineguns from civilian ownership? ('modern'; made less than 25 years ago)
67% of mass murders are commited by a legal firearm where the owner passed a background check.
Do you need a licence to drive a car?
The Gifford shooter was sane enough to legally buy a semiauto firearm with LCM, but not sane enough to stand trial after he used it. You advocate all the pleasures of firearm ownership, yet refuse to accept any of the responsibility that ownership entails. | |
And if none of those murderers had a gun handy, each and every one of 'em would've just used a knife. If guns were banned, those statistics would stay similar or the same. If people want to kill other people but a gun isn't available, they DO improvise. But often, a gun is available even if they're illegal. As they would be even with a ban in place. A ban would only disarm law-abiding, innocent civilians. It would not stop criminals or potential criminals from obtaining guns or finding some other way to kill. Y'see, statistics don't work on me because I don't believe they'd be any different with or without guns. Any changes or variations are either purely coincidental or caused by something else yet to be determined.
I gotta stop ya there. Now I agree with most of the things in your post, but this part here is just a little off. Remember that in America, firearm ownership is a right, not a privilege. Vehicle operation is a privilege, not a right. It's ok if you want to support mandatory safety tests, but support free ones paid for by the government. I think he raises a valid concern when he asks "Paid for by whom?" You can't charge me for access to my own rights. I didn't have to pay money to speak my mind. Now sure you could argue that firearms cost money, and therefore you're paying to use your 2nd Amendment rights. But the 2nd Amendment isn't the right to buy a firearm, it's the right to bear one. Buying is just the most normal way people go about doing that. The rights in and of themselves are free, and should remain such. | |
Do you think those PhD qualified scientists, who came to the conclusion that firearms correlate to levels of violent crime, ignored an effect as obvious as 'weapon substitution'? I don't.
Australia banned guns in 1997 (semiautos) and again in 2003 (handguns). Since then Australia has not had one mass killing and firearm homicide rates have dropped. 6 scientific studies since 2000 agree that the ban had the intended effect; to reduce mass murder. They agree that the homicide rate has dropped but disagree on the influence of the ban. Most studies found no weapon substitution in crime, most studies found some substitution in suicides.
In Australia if you commit a crime while armed with a firearm you can add 3-5 years to the original sentance. In Australia an illegal handgun costs close to US$10,000 and are so are rare. Recently someone in the WA outback was charged with a crime because they left their .22 bolts action rifle in an unlocked ute at the pub and it was stolen.
Wierd place the US, guns are a right but health care is not? | |
Did I ever say I was against health care as a right? No I did not. I am actually for national health care. And it should indeed be a right. Most of my political beliefs center around looking out for the average working class civilian. As for the rest of that stuff: Australia is an isolated island. The US is not. The US is bordered by Canada and Mexico, and is already full of guns, illegal and legal. If guns were banned, not a damn thing would change because firearms are much more commonplace here. Try banning eggs from a desert. No problem. Try banning eggs from a chicken coop. Problem. Not only that, but think of all the people who've already paid for guns. You can't just steal a man's property. Ban or not. Not to mention all of the people who have taken an oath of "From my cold, dead hands!" which basically translates too, "Ban my gun, and I'll frickin' shoot you." A gun ban could very well result in a second Civil War. | |
***** Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell me or any other American what our responsibilities are? We have no kings or queens in my country for a reason. Americans are no one's subject. The issue about firearms has little to do with pleasure. It has everything to do with the right to defend yourself and your family and to protect our freedom and liberty. You see those without the means to defend themselves are SUBJECTS, because subjects would have no other choice but to "accept any of the responsibility the crown mandated" as you say, because they have no other means to resist. I was born in Vermont. if you know anything about this state you'd know that we have a right to concealed carry a gun WITHOUT a liciense as long as your not a convicted felon. Take a look at gun crime rates in states that have lax gun laws (as you say it) or large numbers citizens that own guns legally and you'll see that in these states they have very little gun crime. However when you look at states and cities that are very restrictive with guns, the crime is out of control. Now why is that????????? | |
Anytime statistics are used I am wary. I apologize if I gave you the impression that the statistics I used were conclusive but I certainly did not mean it that way. You wanted statistics so I gave them. Scientific studies can be manipulated as well. One of my professors here at UT cited another scientific study that "showed" that the presence of guns increases the chances of a person being shot. Problem: the study itself was bias (their hypothesis matched up completely with their conclusion and with the way the research was done is makes it seem bias), second they admitted in the study itself that they did not use a large sample size and it was not conclusive (did not stop their conclusion). Here is where that professor (a scientist herself) came in. She implied that the murders were workplace shootings. What the study actually look at was anytime a person was murdered in a business that allowed guns. In other words (since most businesses allow it by default) if a junky came in and shot the guy at the register it counts. Once again this professor gave a very different impression when she talked about it.
First of all I was quoting a statistic I did not trust to begin with. Second of all (once again why you need to be wary of statistics) I messed up because the numbers are for gun related accidents (deaths), not just plain murders. I know I did not make that clear in my previous post. That changes the whole dynamic of the debate but once again those numbers are over inflated by what I said before. Plus also keep in mind that that statistic is several years old. I remember Rosie O'Donnell using that statistic when she talked with Tom Selleck but it is still cited to this day. | |
1: I'm not against gun ownership. I think someone owning hand guns or shotguns or semi automatic rifles is completely fine. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own home. I am against weapons in public. Any type of concealed carry or open carry is wrong in my opinion. 2: Scaring everyone into behaving out of fear of being shot by another person in public is not how a civilized society should work. It's extremely lazy to keep people in line with force and fear rather than to actually solve the problems that would cause potential conflicts in the first place. Instead of allowing concealed carry for everyone who's afraid they're going to get killed by someone robbing a gas station, how about we work on solving poverty and education woes. Stop the crime before it's even conceived by not putting people in situations where they feel they need to commit it. Look at Iceland. They're extremely safe. The safest countries in the world. There is very little violent crime, and guess what? Almost no guns. Pretty much all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pistols are banned. Hell, their police don't even carry weapons. So the whole "If people carried guns, we'd all be safer!" idea is just a flat out myth. It may stop a few crimes, but actually making us safer? No. Fun fact. Murder and crime reports in a lot of counties don't even report on whether or not the person was a concealed or open carry holder. Most statistics you see come from news reports and personal statements. They wouldn't want those numbers getting out in case they show something they wouldn't like... | |
Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 15 NEXT |