Guns should be legal in American, because guns are cool

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

kiri2tsubasa:

Gold:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no required training course for gun ownership in the US.

Unless the laws have changed (at least in Massachusetts) then in order to get a Firearms Identification Card you have to go though a safety course in order to show that you are at least competent in regards to safety. If you fail the test then you can take it again in 6 months.

Well if that is already the case that's great.

If we can make these tests something you have to renew every few years (something akin to drivers license renewal) then that's even better.

It's a good place to start to make some more pinpointed rules that help, like many of the improved mental health options people are advocating, or ideas to improve police response times. I'd also like to see a firm, universal consensus on what self-defense laws should say about guns too. Since many people in the other thread are divided on how far you can take shooting another person who threatens your security with any risk.

Putting restrictions on gun ownership may help but there are heaps of other avenues to also consider while debating firearms. Where they fit in legally, how so many guns can "go missing" and fall into criminal hands that kind of thing. I think the gun issue is less about outright restriction, and should be more about the laws that need some tweaking/tightening.

Blablahb:

Gold:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no required training course for gun ownership in the US.

There's states where it's not mandatory by law

I think it to be 100% non negotiable. Not just something offered.

Blablahb:
We have to conclude courses on gun safety won't work. Maybe you can reduce the number of people who accidentally shoot themselves slightly, but other measures like a gun ban are far more effective.

Well, I don't think it will stop gun violence entirely or anything, just a start to maybe make things more responsible and ensure at least everyone can responsibly care for and use their gun. Maybe weeding out the people who can't be bothered going to a course.

A total gun ban would obviously be far more effective in stopping gun violence. I think that's far too unreasonable and unrealistic to put forward as an option though. Nobody would stand for it in America, it wouldn't happen.

I can at least see certain measures of gun control going through that help the problem at least a little bit, but not an immediate total ban.

Gold:

Blablahb:
That's already being done today, and people are being killed by the thousands.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no required training course for gun ownership in the US.

There technically isn't, which I don't like.

You do have to submit an application to legally carry a concealed weapon, however, and states can deny it for any reason they deem fit.

GunsmithKitten:
You do have to submit an application to legally carry a concealed weapon, however, and states can deny it for any reason they deem fit.

Kind of. They can deny it on rational grounds (with "rational" being used fairly liberally), but not arbitrary or discriminatory ones. For example, they cannot deny a permit based on race, gender, or one's position relative to the poverty line, but they could deny it if you share a residence with a person who is mentally ill.

-----

Have I posted in this thread? Apparently not.

There are reasonable justifications as to why there should be firearm ownership allowed, such as self defense. I don't subscribe to them and a fair number don't hold up to scrutiny, but I recognize the reasoning behind them.

The justification being forwarded by the OP, however, is not one of them. "x is cool, therefore we should be able to do/have x" is incredibly poor reasoning. I think the physics behind a nuclear weapon are really cool, but we don't even let some countries have them, much less civilians.

He uses the standard "guns are a tool" argument, which is true, except, unlike most knives and chainsaws, conveniently ignores how guns are explicitly designed to kill, unlike knives. Admittedly, there are knives that are explicitly for assaulting purposes, such as punch knives and the anti-shark compressed air knife, but they make up a very small part of non-cooking knives.

He points to media, particularly video games, as catering to the "guns are cool" mentality, but doesn't really explain how that justifies real-life access to guns. By that reasoning, we should also have access to copious amounts of explosives.

He cites the tired "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns" argument, which feels like the "well, they're just going to break the law, why bother having one?" and conveniently ignores how disturbingly easy it is to get a firearm in the US.

He cites the US's "founding fathers," which is a popular justification, but is an appeal to tradition rather than reason and is, by far, the stupidest line of reasoning that is regularly touted out in many arguments. Just because it was okay then does not make it okay now, nor were a handful of delegates in a backwater ex-colony omniscient in the development of your country. Shit changes, and you need to change with it.

Aris Khandr:
I love the idea that armed citizens will stand up to "a rogue government". It's hilarious how disconnected from reality that is.

Right, that's why Gaddhafi is still in charge and countless Libyans are being slaughtered for standing up against him. That's why Basher Al-Assad has defeated the Rebels and Terrorists living in his country who openly tried to end his dictatorship. That's why in the late 1960's students were massacred by the hundreds of thousands in France for trying to shut down the government. And that's why Vietnam is a Capitalistic Democracy... *Cough* *Cough*

Now, I do agree: Our army is so huge the 2nd Amendment almost means nothing in the way the Founding Fathers meant. That is one of the reasons why I'm in favor of Decreasing Military Spending and America's Military Influence on the earth (Other reasons include: America is not the world's parent, America spends too much on the Military, and the Military is wasting millions if not billions of dollars).

Jegsimmons:

1st off, only ~8000 were murders, the rest were suicides, justifiable homicide, accidents (about 200), and police intervention.
the homocide rate in america is about 12,000, but as i said, 8K are murders
IS that still high...yes it is.

But you know what else? Guns LOWER CRIME.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

plus most people killed by guns are gang members.
and explain why Chicago has 500 murder a year, and has gun control and Kennesaw Georgia has MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP and it hasnt had a homicide in 25 years?

Population density?

May be a good argument if Kennesaw Georgia Didnt have a bigger population and was 3 times denser than East St. Louis which is in the top 3 most dangerous cities in the US which also has gun control.

Oddly enough in the list of top ten most dangerous cities in the US only 2 are in red states, and those cities are fairly Blue anyway. Also all the cities have a higher percentage of Minorities, especially african americans.
Combine this knowledge with the fact most victims have a previous record of violence, and so do the shooters, this can only mean one thing.....

Gang Culture.

Yep, Gangbanger culture is my theory on why crime in the US is high, especially in urban areas.

but aside from that, when the nation is 65% GUN OWNERS and we have 88 guns for every 100 citizens and only suffer 8K murders with fire arms and that rate is dropping as the gun ownership rate is skyrocketing....

i say...Gun are not a problem, guns have never been a problem, just like video games dont inspire people to commit crime.
its individuals and fucked up upbringing.

Check mate.

I've always wondered about the term "justifiable homicide".

No, hear me out.

I understand being in a position where fear for one's life, or the lives of one's immediate family presents a need to defend oneself; trust me, I understand the notion that the self-preservation instinct is a powerful element of our psyche.

I just don`t understand the usage. I don`t see any intentional act that cause another life to end to be `justifiable`.

Finally On Topic:

I live in Canada.

I don`t own any firearms, and frankly, I`m not exactly the sort of person that I would want to have access to firearms.

We have substantially lower firearm related deaths per capita than America, although I`m not going to go hunting for the statistics to prove the case, because it`s late, and I`m lazy. I know that other people can readily demonstrate that a large number of countries with more substantial gun control laws than America suffer far fewer firearms-related deaths, per annum, and that pretty much makes my argument for me.

Regardless of whatever quibbling and obfuscation anyone would like to present me, about 32,000 people died last year in America because of accidental discharges, suicides, justifiable homicides, or police intervention. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GUNS DOESN`T REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES, SUICIDES AND INSTANCE OF POLICE INTERVENTION!

I`m done ranting. I think.

Aerodyamic:
EXPLAIN TO ME HOW REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GUNS DOESN`T REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES, SUICIDES AND INSTANCE OF POLICE INTERVENTION!

Those who ND or AD their firearms usually legally have them in the first place, trying to keep firearms out of the hands of bad guys isn't going to lower that.

If someone wants to kill themselves, the easiest way to do that is by firearm, and if they can't get one legally, their next option is to procure one illegally, or make one. And then the rest of the options fallow suit, although it is different from case to case.

And as long as police are around there will always be people shot, innocent or otherwise.

Aerodyamic:

Jegsimmons:

1st off, only ~8000 were murders, the rest were suicides, justifiable homicide, accidents (about 200), and police intervention.
the homocide rate in america is about 12,000, but as i said, 8K are murders
IS that still high...yes it is.

But you know what else? Guns LOWER CRIME.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

plus most people killed by guns are gang members.
and explain why Chicago has 500 murder a year, and has gun control and Kennesaw Georgia has MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP and it hasnt had a homicide in 25 years?

Population density?

May be a good argument if Kennesaw Georgia Didnt have a bigger population and was 3 times denser than East St. Louis which is in the top 3 most dangerous cities in the US which also has gun control.

Oddly enough in the list of top ten most dangerous cities in the US only 2 are in red states, and those cities are fairly Blue anyway. Also all the cities have a higher percentage of Minorities, especially african americans.
Combine this knowledge with the fact most victims have a previous record of violence, and so do the shooters, this can only mean one thing.....

Gang Culture.

Yep, Gangbanger culture is my theory on why crime in the US is high, especially in urban areas.

but aside from that, when the nation is 65% GUN OWNERS and we have 88 guns for every 100 citizens and only suffer 8K murders with fire arms and that rate is dropping as the gun ownership rate is skyrocketing....

i say...Gun are not a problem, guns have never been a problem, just like video games dont inspire people to commit crime.
its individuals and fucked up upbringing.

Check mate.

I've always wondered about the term "justifiable homicide".

No, hear me out.

I understand being in a position where fear for one's life, or the lives of one's immediate family presents a need to defend oneself; trust me, I understand the notion that the self-preservation instinct is a powerful element of our psyche.

I just don`t understand the usage. I don`t see any intentional act that cause another life to end to be `justifiable`.

Finally On Topic:

I live in Canada.

I don`t own any firearms, and frankly, I`m not exactly the sort of person that I would want to have access to firearms.

We have substantially lower firearm related deaths per capita than America, although I`m not going to go hunting for the statistics to prove the case, because it`s late, and I`m lazy. I know that other people can readily demonstrate that a large number of countries with more substantial gun control laws than America suffer far fewer firearms-related deaths, per annum, and that pretty much makes my argument for me.

Regardless of whatever quibbling and obfuscation anyone would like to present me, about 32,000 people died last year in America because of accidental discharges, suicides, justifiable homicides, or police intervention. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GUNS DOESN`T REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES, SUICIDES AND INSTANCE OF POLICE INTERVENTION!

I`m done ranting. I think.

ok that 'I just don`t understand the usage. I don`t see any intentional act that cause another life to end to be `justifiable`' bit is what im about to tackle.

lets put it this way...we live in a world where this shit happens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy
and this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48482538/ns/us_news/t/vacant-detroit-becomes-dumping-ground-dead/#.URMusaVWyuI
and these people roam every city:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw5pZpGh5Hg

yeah, i think putting a few holes in these bastards is a bit justifiable.
im not going to shit on anyone's personal belief, but people who that violence isnt at time necessary are foolish.

also, canada has homogeneous population of 30 million over the entire country. and suffered a higher crime wave when they passed firearm acts. just like the UK and other nations.

also, stop lumping all 32,000 together.

only 12K are homicides, suicides dont matter, i say this because Japan has NO GUNS and they have a higher suicide rate than use.
plus of that 12K, 8K are murder and most ARE GANG RELATED.
they will not follow laws regardless, they bring guns over the border, steal them from cops, ect.
they are criminals!

the rest are police interventions, justifiable homicides, and accidents.

police and justifiable are not a bad thing and are legal. accidents only count for about 250 deaths each year, which is so minuscule its not even a problem in a nation with 80 million registered gun owners (note, you dont have to be registered so its close to 70% of the voting population.

and we have already established no matter what you do, in the US banning guns INCREASES CRIME. this is fact, its not even arguable. Chicago proves this. in fact 8 of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US proves this.
giving citizens the right to own guns has proven to work. this is also fact.

banning 'assault weapons' or high capacity magazines wont work either because with all criminals, they're will be a black market for them and they wont give them up.

and even if we take the 12 thousand TOTAL (im still not counting suicides because they dont matter because they can still fine knives, cliffs, and rope easy) its still such a small number compared to the 2.5 million cases of self defense (with another 2 million estimated to go unreported) that the positive ABSOLUTELY outweighs the negative. no fucking question.

and stats have proven that increaseing firearm ownership lower crime and the murder rates (like it has been doing for the past 15+ years) and by extension gun deaths, so that prove my point.

gun control in america is a terrible idea...a pure, batshit terrible idea.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

plus, americans like their guns. the 100 million + who own firearms don't cause any problems and should not be subject to any kind of regulation because one mad man kills a bunch of kids.

yes i'm sorry the kids died. But they are not worth making new restrictive and ineffective regulation for at all.
if they want to solve the problem, up school security. that's 100 times more effective and reasonable than trying to eliminate guns when thats a proven bullshit effort.

proof of it working:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

simply put, no argument anti-gunners bring, can hold up factually in todays world. they can appeal to emotion and 'think of the children' arguments....but its 100% futile.

gun control and restrictions dont stop crime, they dont stop shootings, and they dont make people safer...ever.

Jegsimmons:
also, canada has homogeneous population of 30 million over the entire country. and suffered a higher crime wave when they passed firearm acts. just like the UK and other nations.

Murder rate US: 4,8
Murder rate Canada: 1,6
Murder rate United Kingdom: 1,2

Seems like the gun lobby's been busted again...

Jegsimmons:
they will not follow laws regardless, they bring guns over the border, steal them from cops, ect.
they are criminals!

Prove that. Prove how the usual non-educated 12-25 year old street criminal will travel across the globe and smuggle in weapons. Prove how they would do that, where they'd get the weapons, how they'd bring them in, and how they'd be just as cheap as they are now.

Jegsimmons:
and we have already established no matter what you do, in the US banning guns INCREASES CRIME. this is fact, its not even arguable. Chicago proves this. in fact 8 of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US proves this.

New York is celebrating it's lowest murder rate in over 50 years because of gun control measures...

And learn to do statistics. You can't compare a deeply impoverished city within the same country, to a rural area where there's nobody around for tens of kilometres.

Jegsimmons:
giving citizens the right to own guns has proven to work. this is also fact.

I guess that explains why the US has no crime at all and certainly no spree shootings eh?

Jegsimmons:
banning 'assault weapons' or high capacity magazines wont work either because with all criminals, they're will be a black market for them and they wont give them up.

The black market only exists because there is a legal market. No legal market, no black market.

Where are you going to get illegal guns if there are no guns? Prove that bullshit lie that 'criminals will always have guns' or drop it already.

Jegsimmons:
and even if we take the 12 thousand TOTAL (im still not counting suicides because they dont matter because they can still fine knives, cliffs, and rope easy) its still such a small number compared to the 2.5 million cases of self defense (with another 2 million estimated to go unreported) that the positive ABSOLUTELY outweighs the negative. no fucking question.

That is not true. The less deadly suicide methods are the fewer suicides there are. Belgium cut their suicide rate in half over the 2006-2012 period by introducing further gun restrictions for example. At the same time the female suicide rate remained the same. Proof that guns were the cause of the deaths, because women don't use guns to kill themselves.

Jegsimmons:
and stats have proven that increaseing firearm ownership lower crime and the murder rates (like it has been doing for the past 15+ years) and by extension gun deaths, so that prove my point.

That's completely untrue. Even within the US that is proveably untrue. The problem of street gangs and gun violence for instance escalated when guns became cheaper during the 70's, and gangs began arming themselves.

You could never have the problems with gangs that the US has now if nobody had guns, and any random citizen has as much power as the toughest gang member.

Jegsimmons:
yes i'm sorry the kids died. But they are not worth making new restrictive and ineffective regulation for at all.
if they want to solve the problem, up school security. that's 100 times more effective and reasonable than trying to eliminate guns when thats a proven bullshit effort.

Countries with gun bans have no or hardly any school shootings at all. Plus the 2nd Virginia Tech shooting proved that security doesn't work. The shooter simply walked up to the armed guard and second amended him on the spot, after which he could've gone on another shooting spree.

The only thing that keeps people from shooting, is making sure they don't have guns. This is blindingly obvious of course, but apparently some Americans need to be constantly reminded that shooting people with your bare hands is impossible.

Jegsimmons:
gun control and restrictions dont stop crime, they dont stop shootings, and they dont make people safer...ever.

All evidence shows the opposite of that is true. Weapon laws that restrict gun ownership do reduce crime and prevent shootings.

Even the gun violence lobby's poster boy country Switserland has an enormously high rate of family drama shootings because of firearms ownership.

Blablahb:

Jegsimmons:
also, canada has homogeneous population of 30 million over the entire country. and suffered a higher crime wave when they passed firearm acts. just like the UK and other nations.

Murder rate US: 4,8
Murder rate Canada: 1,6
Murder rate United Kingdom: 1,2

Seems like the gun lobby's been busted again...

no the rate is actually 3.2 per 100,000...and guess what...when 60% of all murders are gang on gang who will own guns and kill regardless that brings our murder rate (with firearms) to ~1.92
also,3.2 or 4.8 is not enough for me to loose sleep.

Jegsimmons:
they will not follow laws regardless, they bring guns over the border, steal them from cops, ect.
they are criminals!

Prove that. Prove how the usual non-educated 12-25 year old street criminal will travel across the globe and smuggle in weapons. Prove how they would do that, where they'd get the weapons, how they'd bring them in, and how they'd be just as cheap as they are now.

Do you not realize that we have 3000 miles of border with a drug nation? You know how they get guns all over the country? the same way they get cocaine and drugs all over the country. Gangs and organized crime.
they get a bunch of drugs and guns, smuggle them across the border, sale them to gangs and mobsters who in turn sell them to others, this can extend as far north as Canada.
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20120127-battling-smugglers-along-canadian-border

Jegsimmons:
and we have already established no matter what you do, in the US banning guns INCREASES CRIME. this is fact, its not even arguable. Chicago proves this. in fact 8 of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US proves this.

New York is celebrating it's lowest murder rate in over 50 years because of gun control measures...

And learn to do statistics. You can't compare a deeply impoverished city within the same country, to a rural area where there's nobody around for tens of kilometres.

impoverish my asshole. my 480 dollar a month apartment cost 6000 bucks in new york city.
and their lowest in 50 years? it isnt because of gun control, its because new york is one of the least free cities in the US
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/new-york-mercatus-center-least-free-state_n_876616.html
and they still have a murder rate of 6.4 which is TWICE the national average. If any mayor in my state tried pulling the shit they do in New York with their corrupt mayor, they'd be assassinated within days. Which would be a good thing because Bloomberg is out of his fucking mind!
He actually suggested that cops stop working until people gave up their guns which is the most retarded thing ive heard.
aslo this tid bit: http://www.jammiewf.com/2011/bloomberg-sounding-like-dictator/
plus the guy tried banning soda.....and that's inexcusable.
New york is an over price shithole.
the reason why its crime lowers is because people are fricking LEAVING.
plus that doesnt excuse Chicago which has THE TOUGHEST GUN LAWS IN THE US and has 500 murders a year. its the most crime ridden shit hole in the US.

Jegsimmons:
giving citizens the right to own guns has proven to work. this is also fact.

I guess that explains why the US has no crime at all and certainly no spree shootings eh?

Jegsimmons:
banning 'assault weapons' or high capacity magazines wont work either because with all criminals, they're will be a black market for them and they wont give them up.

The black market only exists because there is a legal market. No legal market, no black market.

Where are you going to get illegal guns if there are no guns? Prove that bullshit lie that 'criminals will always have guns' or drop it already.

oh besides the fact MEXICO HAS A FLAT OUT GUN BAND AND HAS 50,000 CIVILIANS KILLED FROM THEIR DRUG WAR!!!!

or how CHICAGO HAS A GUN BAN!!!

holy shit man...think! I've already answered this.
they steal them, smuggle them, or even MAKE THEM if they wanted to.

Jegsimmons:
and even if we take the 12 thousand TOTAL (im still not counting suicides because they dont matter because they can still fine knives, cliffs, and rope easy) its still such a small number compared to the 2.5 million cases of self defense (with another 2 million estimated to go unreported) that the positive ABSOLUTELY outweighs the negative. no fucking question.

That is not true. The less deadly suicide methods are the fewer suicides there are. Belgium cut their suicide rate in half over the 2006-2012 period by introducing further gun restrictions for example. At the same time the female suicide rate remained the same. Proof that guns were the cause of the deaths, because women don't use guns to kill themselves.

And they still have a higher suicide rate than we do.
in fact...alot of countries with gun bans have higher suicide rates than we do...
and most of these nations, not only have guns bans but assisted suicides....that's fucked up.
so that point doesnt have much weight.
I noticed Switzerland has a low suicide rate despite having 50% gun ownership rate.

Jegsimmons:
and stats have proven that increaseing firearm ownership lower crime and the murder rates (like it has been doing for the past 15+ years) and by extension gun deaths, so that prove my point.

That's completely untrue. Even within the US that is proveably untrue. The problem of street gangs and gun violence for instance escalated when guns became cheaper during the 70's, and gangs began arming themselves.

You could never have the problems with gangs that the US has now if nobody had guns, and any random citizen has as much power as the toughest gang member.

oh my god.....that is the single most ignorant and stupidest thing ive heard in quite some time.
You honestly think...an old woman, the handicapped, or any poor shlub is on equal ground of gangmembers?
and you think gangs wouldnt use something like the smuggled guns, bats, knives, or numbers?
i cant believe what im hearing...its baffleing, its so out of touch of reality my brain hurts.
DO YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE!?

Forgetting the fact you are wrong: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
and forgetting the fact that alot of criminals are repeat offenders and go to jail where all you do is work out and learn more crime.
Do you honestly believe what you just said?
"You could never have the problems with gangs that the US has now if nobody had guns, and any random citizen has as much power as the toughest gang member."

is this why the UK has the highest amount of violent crime than any first world nation including south africa?

im actually fucking SHOCKED i just read the words "and any random citizen has as much power as the toughest gang member."
ive been on the internet too long...

Jegsimmons:
yes i'm sorry the kids died. But they are not worth making new restrictive and ineffective regulation for at all.
if they want to solve the problem, up school security. that's 100 times more effective and reasonable than trying to eliminate guns when thats a proven bullshit effort.

Countries with gun bans have no or hardly any school shootings at all. Plus the 2nd Virginia Tech shooting proved that security doesn't work. The shooter simply walked up to the armed guard and second amended him on the spot, after which he could've gone on another shooting spree.

The only thing that keeps people from shooting, is making sure they don't have guns. This is blindingly obvious of course, but apparently some Americans need to be constantly reminded that shooting people with your bare hands is impossible.

Need i say that almost every mass shooting with more than 5 killed happened in gun freezones?
Because thats obvious.

also...europe has more massacres than we do.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/blog/?p=1871

Jegsimmons:
gun control and restrictions dont stop crime, they dont stop shootings, and they dont make people safer...ever.

All evidence shows the opposite of that is true. Weapon laws that restrict gun ownership do reduce crime and prevent shootings.

Even the gun violence lobby's poster boy country Switzerland has an enormously high rate of family drama shootings because of firearms ownership.

the Swiss average only .53 gun murders per 100K each year. which is still less than most of europe.
also:
READ THIS ARTICLE THAT YOU ARE IGNOREING:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry

its shows statistical evidence that gun ownership and conceal carry reduce crime.

hell this one is a Harvard study that demolishes your claim:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
and another:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/27/wsj-op-ed-gun-banning-efforts-uk-australia-havent-made-people-safer-fact
this is also a good read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell
and this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#axzz2KC1e7Kso

Jegsimmons:
no the rate is actually 3.2 per 100,000...and guess what...when 60% of all murders are gang on gang who will own guns and kill regardless that brings our murder rate (with firearms) to ~1.92
also,3.2 or 4.8 is not enough for me to loose sleep.

Before you can claim this, you need to prove first that criminals will always have weapons, by providing us with a detailed plan of how they would do that, where they would buy the weapons, how they'd smuggle them in, and how they'd afford to do that.

Second time I'm asking this.

Jegsimmons:
Do you not realize that we have 3000 miles of border with a drug nation? You know how they get guns all over the country? the same way they get cocaine and drugs all over the country. Gangs and organized crime.

So basically you're admitting that if there was a weapon ban, the direction of gun smuggling would need to be reversed, and only organised crime groups that are well connected, would be able to haul illegal weapons across borders and thousands of kilometres, making those weapons prohibitively expensive.

All resulting in that most criminals will be disarmed, and the few wealthy enough to keep illegal firearms will think twice before ever using them against the public.

Jegsimmons:
and they still have a murder rate of 6.4 which is TWICE the national average. If any mayor in my state tried pulling the shit they do in New York with their corrupt mayor, they'd be assassinated within days. Which would be a good thing because Bloomberg is out of his fucking mind!

Well, how typically of a gun owner are you.. I present you with a place that has management to achieve great reductions in crime because of tough gun control laws, and you just ignore it, call it repression, and say the politician who came up with it should be murdered.

Jegsimmons:
oh besides the fact MEXICO HAS A FLAT OUT GUN BAND AND HAS 50,000 CIVILIANS KILLED FROM THEIR DRUG WAR!!!!

How surprising considering the US gets the cartels all the guns they could ever need, and all the funds they could ever need... Their gun market only exists because of weapon sales and easy weapon smuggling from the US. Mexico is suffering a drug war because of lax gun laws in the US and because the interests of merchants of death who sell guns are considered more important than the lives of other people.

Not just that, but you're wrong yet again. Mexico has extremely loose gun laws. There's a right to keep weapons at home, article 10 of their constitution. Five seconds on google could've spared you the embarassment of mentioning things flat out wrong like this.

Jegsimmons:
and most of these nations, not only have guns bans but assisted suicides....that's fucked up.
so that point doesnt have much weight.

Because they have things that violate your ideas about how your religion should be imposed on others, the documented fact that Belgium's tightening of their gun laws cut their suicide rate in half isn't true?

That's some very strange logic. I guess we'll have to assume you didn't respond to my point and admit that a gun ban drastically reduces the number of suicides.

Jegsimmons:
oh my god.....that is the single most ignorant and stupidest thing ive heard in quite some time.
You honestly think...an old woman, the handicapped, or any poor shlub is on equal ground of gangmembers?
and you think gangs wouldnt use something like the smuggled guns, bats, knives, or numbers?
i cant believe what im hearing...its baffleing, its so out of touch of reality my brain hurts.
DO YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE!?

The gun lobby is being classy yet again I see...

And quit grasping at straws. Street gangs generally don't busy themselves stealing the purses of elderly ladies. They engage in various types of crime, most of which touches the public being robbery. Guess what? After a gun ban, if someone tries to rob you, you're on equal footing. For one thing you avoid a lot of violence because robbers no longer have to be ready to kill you in a split second because anyone can be armed and kill them.

A gun ban will make the problem of street gangs practically vanish, much like those barely exist in most countries with a gun ban. Yeah, losers band together to commit petty crime alright. But because they have no guns, they have no power over the public.

You know the amount of fatalities caused by the Dutch chapters of the Crips in the past 10 years? Zero. Not to mention law enforcement has no trouble keeping them under control, because officers don't need to fear firearms use and thus always have the final word when it comes to violence. As a result, gang members don't use violence, because they know there's nothing to win.

Jegsimmons:
is this why the UK has the highest amount of violent crime than any first world nation including south africa?

This has been adressed and thoroughly refuted before. That claim is bullshit, and rests on a concious misinterpretation of crime statistics.

Jegsimmons:
Need i say that almost every mass shooting with more than 5 killed happened in gun freezones?
Because thats obvious.

There are no gun free zones in the US. Unfortunately their national legislation makes that impossible right now.

Also, why are you going on a tangent? This responds to my observation of the blunt fact that there are no shootings without guns.

Jegsimmons:
also...europe has more massacres than we do.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/blog/?p=1871

I've warned before about the national review. Those arch-conservatives never write fact. Ignoring that, Expatica has compiled all of Europe. And you know what's funny? The Zug Massacre took place in Switserland, that hardly has any gun restrictions and huge amounts of violent firearms considering their limited population density and wealth. Finland too, very loose gun laws. So gun-loving countries in Europe already account for most of those massacres. Germany is hardly the showcase of tight gun laws either.

The Netherlands tightened their gun laws following the 2011 shooting by Tristan Van der Vlis. Psychiatric re-evaluation became mandatory, and any form of psychological aid is now required to report to the police if they're treating someone who owns a firearms permit. The shooter would never have been allowed to purchase a firearm under Dutch law, but because the re-evaluations were being largely ignored his permit was never taken away from him. So this will not happen again. That's how you respond to such things.

So, basically, you've taken an area with a higher population than the US, across more than a decade, and came up with fewer spree shootings than the US has in one year. This is clear proof that gun control works.

Jegsimmons:
hell this one is a Harvard study that demolishes your claim:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
and another:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/27/wsj-op-ed-gun-banning-efforts-uk-australia-havent-made-people-safer-fact
this is also a good read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell
and this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#axzz2KC1e7Kso

So, to compile that list. That Harvard pamhplet (because it's not an official study, as you should've seen) is deeply, deeply, deeply flawed. To name an example, they conclude there's no correlation between gun ownership and killing, citing a study about which they write that said source found "a very strong correlations between the presence of guns in the home and suicide committed with a gun" (note 21) and looking that up showed that said publication indeed concluded that there is a very strong correlation between firearms ownership and crime, and that gun ownership acts as an enabling factor: Once someone has decided to commit a violent crime, owning a firearm enables them to do that, without, they couldn't have.
That's when I disregarded that. Purposely misquoting your sources by citing them to back conclusions opposite to their actual conclusions, is academic fraud and not worthy of reading. Come back when you can prove it has merit.

The Daily Heil of course gets disregarded. The Guardian article is an opinion piece, disregarded. Newsbusters is an ultra-right US blog, disregarded obviously.

And with that, all your sources are busted and you're left with empty hands. Guns bans reduce crime, reduce violent crime, reduce suicides, and reduce the murder rate, and prevent spree shootings completely or nearly completely.

Blablahb:

And with that, all your sources are busted and you're left with empty hands. Guns bans reduce crime, reduce violent crime, reduce suicides, and reduce the murder rate, and prevent spree shootings completely or nearly completely.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=23971590&nid=148&title=man-attempts-to-rob-gas-station-owner-brandishes-pistol&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-15&fb_source=message

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Homeowner-shoots-alleged-intruder-4251776.php

http://www.douglascountysentinel.com/view/full_story/21611314/article-Armed-homeowner-fires-at-suspects-during-burglary?instance=west_ga_news

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot-near-martin-luther-king-jr-high-school-in-detroit

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130201/NEWS/130209971/-1/LIVING

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130203/ARTICLES/130209892/1139?Title=Man-shot-to-death-after-forcing-his-way-into-home-deputies-say

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Homeowner-Holds-Alleged-Burglar-at-Gunpoint-189207941.html

http://www.news-star.com/article/20130131/NEWS/130139969

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130123/news/301239999/man-keeps-intruder-at-bay-with-shotgun-until-police-arrive

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives. This is a tiny sample, Blahlahb, and the real world is calling you a liar.
You can cite badly-gathered statistics and cherry-pick bullshit numbers all you want, but the truth is pretty obvious.

You are in good company, though:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8759

Blablahb:

Jegsimmons:
no the rate is actually 3.2 per 100,000...and guess what...when 60% of all murders are gang on gang who will own guns and kill regardless that brings our murder rate (with firearms) to ~1.92
also,3.2 or 4.8 is not enough for me to loose sleep.

Before you can claim this, you need to prove first that criminals will always have weapons, by providing us with a detailed plan of how they would do that, where they would buy the weapons, how they'd smuggle them in, and how they'd afford to do that.

Second time I'm asking this.

You dont think what so ever do you?
Ok how about this, we have approximately 500 million legal guns in this nation in commercial circulation or in the hands of law abiding citizens.
We have between 40-60 million circulating on the black market. these are either stolen, smuggled in, ect.

now ignoring the fact that a gun ban with confiscation would take law enforcement 50 years to implement, and still fail at getting the black market guns (which are cheaper than legally bought guns) the fact that these people own an illegal fire arm is a felony charge, plus its unregistered so law enforcement cant ever pick up on it until after they comit a crime.
and no, you cannot go door to door checking everyone because that violates our 4th amendment.
which is why so many felons and gangbangers have guns in chicago.
DUH.
not to mention the ATF has a knack for having fully automatic weapons stolen.

Jegsimmons:
Do you not realize that we have 3000 miles of border with a drug nation? You know how they get guns all over the country? the same way they get cocaine and drugs all over the country. Gangs and organized crime.

So basically you're admitting that if there was a weapon ban, the direction of gun smuggling would need to be reversed, and only organised crime groups that are well connected, would be able to haul illegal weapons across borders and thousands of kilometres, making those weapons prohibitively expensive.

All resulting in that most criminals will be disarmed, and the few wealthy enough to keep illegal firearms will think twice before ever using them against the public.

what you said makes little to know sense.

as i stated, you cant disarm criminals because they're criminals, its impossible. too many guns circulate the black market, too many crime bosses run the police or bribe guards and what not.
Its not hard for any of them to get some weapons.
Plus even if they DONT have them, they still know Civilians dont have them either, and you will see an increase in muggings, break ins ect.
i have proven this in the links ive provided you obviously dont read or comprehend.

Jegsimmons:
and they still have a murder rate of 6.4 which is TWICE the national average. If any mayor in my state tried pulling the shit they do in New York with their corrupt mayor, they'd be assassinated within days. Which would be a good thing because Bloomberg is out of his fucking mind!

Well, how typically of a gun owner are you.. I present you with a place that has management to achieve great reductions in crime because of tough gun control laws, and you just ignore it, call it repression, and say the politician who came up with it should be murdered.

im going to tell you this.....new yorks effort to reduce crime is not at all worth it. the ends do no justify the means.
"those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve niether".-Ben Franklin.

Kennesaw georgia already proved you can have mandatory gun ownership and still have no murders for 25 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

explain it. and pull population size, because East St. Louis has a lower population and is three times less dense, has gun control, and is one of the most dangerous cities in america.

Not to mention i pointed out that NYC is the least free city and Bloomberg is one of the most corrupt politicians the city has had. He even gave himself an extra term by 'declaring a state of emergency'. he was even elected and he rules over 8.2 million people. He forced himself to rule over an area with a bigger population than Switzerland.
Maby you're fine living under a police state, but im not. i dont bend over backwards for some corrupt asshat who wasnt even elected.

Jegsimmons:
oh besides the fact MEXICO HAS A FLAT OUT GUN BAND AND HAS 50,000 CIVILIANS KILLED FROM THEIR DRUG WAR!!!!

How surprising considering the US gets the cartels all the guns they could ever need, and all the funds they could ever need... Their gun market only exists because of weapon sales and easy weapon smuggling from the US. Mexico is suffering a drug war because of lax gun laws in the US and because the interests of merchants of death who sell guns are considered more important than the lives of other people.

Not just that, but you're wrong yet again. Mexico has extremely loose gun laws. There's a right to keep weapons at home, article 10 of their constitution. Five seconds on google could've spared you the embarassment of mentioning things flat out wrong like this.

ok, first off, you need to start citing your claims, because you have been speaking bullshit that ive repeatedly demolished for the past 3 responds.

and no, the US does not supply Mexican cartels its weapons (the ATF does, but thats another story)

Infact, the US supplying Mexico its guns is pretty much myth.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

Plus, i dont know how we gave them automatic Chinese, cambodian, russia, ukranian, Czech, ect rifle, when the US doesnt have Automatic rifles for sale unless you own a class ll license and get a tax stamp which makes it so expensives that you probably arent a criminal anyway if you can buy them.
also while im at it, legally owned automatics have only killed 4 people since 1934, and one of the killers was a cop.

and mexico has loose gun laws?
Fucking Lie if i ever heard one:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/mexico-as-an-example-that-tighter-gun-co

this article basically explains that cartels have gotten so much power, the normal citizens have been forced to use illegal arms themselves just to defend themselves.

Go ahead, tell them they cant have guns while their women are stolen, raped, and sold in the slave trade, while the kids are slaughtered in the streets, and people are set on fire in barrels until they are a liquid.
GO ahead. tell them they are wrong from wanting to protect themselves when their own government cant.

Jegsimmons:
and most of these nations, not only have guns bans but assisted suicides....that's fucked up.
so that point doesnt have much weight.

Because they have things that violate your ideas about how your religion should be imposed on others, the documented fact that Belgium's tightening of their gun laws cut their suicide rate in half isn't true?

That's some very strange logic. I guess we'll have to assume you didn't respond to my point and admit that a gun ban drastically reduces the number of suicides.

banning of guns in belgium didnt solve the problem, it didnt lower the womens suicide rate, and they still have a higher suicide rate than us BY A FUCKING LOT. which destorys your point entirely because we're loaded with guns and have some of the lowest suicide rates in the western world. And my point of Japan and China have the two highest and having NO GUNS what so ever still proves my point that people kill themselves regardless of fire arms availability.
Also, my views on assisted suicide have nothing to do with my religion (so dont go there buster, i keep my religion and politics separate) its just a fucked up practice. And supporting assisted suicide but banning guns to lower suicide is kind of hypocritical since a bullet to the brain is probably the best method of painless suicide outside of sleeping in a car with your garage door down and windows up.

Jegsimmons:
oh my god.....that is the single most ignorant and stupidest thing ive heard in quite some time.
You honestly think...an old woman, the handicapped, or any poor shlub is on equal ground of gangmembers?
and you think gangs wouldnt use something like the smuggled guns, bats, knives, or numbers?
i cant believe what im hearing...its baffleing, its so out of touch of reality my brain hurts.
DO YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE!?

The gun lobby is being classy yet again I see...

And quit grasping at straws. Street gangs generally don't busy themselves stealing the purses of elderly ladies. They engage in various types of crime, most of which touches the public being robbery. Guess what? After a gun ban, if someone tries to rob you, you're on equal footing. For one thing you avoid a lot of violence because robbers no longer have to be ready to kill you in a split second because anyone can be armed and kill them.

NO YOUR NOT!!! YOU ARE ON LESS THAN EQUAL FOOTING!!! CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE UP GUNS AND MOST PEOPLE CANT FIGHT OFF MORE THAN ONE PERSON IF THAT!!!
Why do you think cities with more gun control suffer more break ins and muggings!?
Criminals wont give up there guns! how the fuck do you now understand this? do you live in a hole?

A gun ban will make the problem of street gangs practically vanish, much like those barely exist in most countries with a gun ban. Yeah, losers band together to commit petty crime alright. But because they have no guns, they have no power over the public.

UK has a gun ban and suffers more street crime than we do. Chicago has a gun ban and sufffers more murder than any other city.
You are deluded my friend, you have no understanding of how crime and criminals work.
It is baffling, you must literally have no idea how the earth works outside of your bubble.
Knives, clubs, ect all still exist for criminals to use, and on top of that THEY CAN STILL GET GUNS BECAUSE GUN BANS WONT MAKE THEM GIVE THEM UP!!!

in most major cities, most violent crime is done by repeat offenders, in chicago 60% of all criminals killed in shooting are felons and the same goes for the shooters, most of which are felons too.
Felons can not own guns. but they do anyway, they will not give them up because it will be another gun charge followed by prison time. they are not registered so no one except them knows they have guns.
Banning guns does not fucking work!!!!

You know the amount of fatalities caused by the Dutch chapters of the Crips in the past 10 years? Zero. Not to mention law enforcement has no trouble keeping them under control, because officers don't need to fear firearms use and thus always have the final word when it comes to violence. As a result, gang members don't use violence, because they know there's nothing to win.

the Netherlands are in the middle of europe...n o shit they dont have guns...but they are still committing crime aren't they? In fact i did some reasearch and it seems like they are still committing crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penose
especially in human trafficking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Netherlands

Jegsimmons:
is this why the UK has the highest amount of violent crime than any first world nation including south africa?

This has been adressed and thoroughly refuted before. That claim is bullshit, and rests on a concious misinterpretation of crime statistics.

Actually no, it isnt. Yes they count silly shit like prank calls and and what not as violent crimes, how ever...

The UK still has more assaults per capita
More Rapes
More Break ins
More muggings

hell this report is british and even get secific about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html#axzz2KC1e7Kso

So dont tell me about about the inflation based of definition because ive taken time out of my day to reasearch individual specific crimes.

Jegsimmons:
Need i say that almost every mass shooting with more than 5 killed happened in gun freezones?
Because thats obvious.

There are no gun free zones in the US. Unfortunately their national legislation makes that impossible right now.[/quote]
wrong...schools, colleges, government buildings, federal parks, private businesses that wish to be gun free, ect.

Also, why are you going on a tangent? This responds to my observation of the blunt fact that there are no shootings without guns.

because thats a bogus point. of course shootings dont happen without firearms...thats like saying there are no car accidents without cars. or no stabbings without sharp objects.
Your point make no sense and have nothing to back them up.
If you used these on a college research paper you'd fail for not citeing sources and by extension plagiarism.

Jegsimmons:
also...europe has more massacres than we do.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/blog/?p=1871

I've warned before about the national review. Those arch-conservatives never write fact. Ignoring that, Expatica has compiled all of Europe. And you know what's funny? The Zug Massacre took place in Switserland, that hardly has any gun restrictions and huge amounts of violent firearms considering their limited population density and wealth. Finland too, very loose gun laws. So gun-loving countries in Europe already account for most of those massacres. Germany is hardly the showcase of tight gun laws either.

The Netherlands tightened their gun laws following the 2011 shooting by Tristan Van der Vlis. Psychiatric re-evaluation became mandatory, and any form of psychological aid is now required to report to the police if they're treating someone who owns a firearms permit. The shooter would never have been allowed to purchase a firearm under Dutch law, but because the re-evaluations were being largely ignored his permit was never taken away from him. So this will not happen again. That's how you respond to such things.

So, basically, you've taken an area with a higher population than the US, across more than a decade, and came up with fewer spree shootings than the US has in one year. This is clear proof that gun control works.

no its clear that gun control doesnt work because you dont even know how these countries laws work.
and you might want to re check how many mass shooting we have. massacres are defined as having 4 or more victims and Europe has had more than we had.
Plus all of those countries have CONSIDERABLY less guns owners and more gun restrictions even before the shootings took place.
So when all is said and done, adjust for population, gun ownership, ect....they still have more massacres than we do.

Also attacking a sources credibility and not refuting its point (which you didnt do because you provided no evidence to back up your claim) is a logical fallacy, and i do not recognize logical fallacies.

Jegsimmons:
hell this one is a Harvard study that demolishes your claim:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
and another:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/27/wsj-op-ed-gun-banning-efforts-uk-australia-havent-made-people-safer-fact
this is also a good read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell
and this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#axzz2KC1e7Kso

So, to compile that list. That Harvard pamhplet (because it's not an official study, as you should've seen) is deeply, deeply, deeply flawed. To name an example, they conclude there's no correlation between gun ownership and killing, citing a study about which they write that said source found "a very strong correlations between the presence of guns in the home and suicide committed with a gun" (note 21) and looking that up showed that said publication indeed concluded that there is a very strong correlation between firearms ownership and crime, and that gun ownership acts as an enabling factor: Once someone has decided to commit a violent crime, owning a firearm enables them to do that, without, they couldn't have.
That's when I disregarded that. Purposely misquoting your sources by citing them to back conclusions opposite to their actual conclusions, is academic fraud and not worthy of reading. Come back when you can prove it has merit.

The Daily Heil of course gets disregarded. The Guardian article is an opinion piece, disregarded. Newsbusters is an ultra-right US blog, disregarded obviously.

And with that, all your sources are busted and you're left with empty hands. Guns bans reduce crime, reduce violent crime, reduce suicides, and reduce the murder rate, and prevent spree shootings completely or nearly completely.[/quote]

You pulled another fallacy instead of actually refuting the point and provided no links, citations, ect.
also:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

and stop saying crap like this: "Once someone has decided to commit a violent crime, owning a firearm enables them to do that, without, they couldn't have."

it makes it sound like you're saying guns are the only way to commit violent crimes when most US violent crimes dont even involve guns.

SO, through this whole discussion, you have failed to back up any of your sources, you resorted to INSANE remarks, attacked a sources credibility (with nothing to back it up) as opposed to attacking the main point, proven you have no idea how the world works, and have ignored vital points of my argument that contradict NEW points you bring up to the point you can't even say anything new outside of anecdotal evidence that im still able to crush.

So before you continue this, I will ask you to actually do research, cite sources, provide links, stop attacking the sources and actually refute the main argument, and to PLEASE stop saying outlandish claims that have no logic to them, such as the gangs are only dangerous with guns, and without guns on both sides the average citizens has a level playing ground when i provided sources saying with guns that citizens have the HIGHER ground.

Until you can actually make a decent argument, i am done here, im done arguing with ignorance and poorly made points that are more black and white than a news paper.

I don't get the OP at all, guns are legal in America already.

Magenera:
I don't get the OP at all, guns are legal in America already.

and America is cool, and why guns should stay legal. they reduce crime and save lives and doesn't afraid of anything.

Jegsimmons:

and America is cool, and why guns should stay legal. they reduce crime and save lives and doesn't afraid of anything.

They reduce crime? Well that's the first time i've heard of that. All they do is make people act recklessly due to inflated balls and this often results in unnecessary loss of lives.

generals3:

Jegsimmons:

and America is cool, and why guns should stay legal. they reduce crime and save lives and doesn't afraid of anything.

They reduce crime? Well that's the first time i've heard of that. All they do is make people act recklessly due to inflated balls and this often results in unnecessary loss of lives.

really? cause thats bullshit.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

if you actually read every other post ive made on here ive provided many facts and stats that proove that in the US, gun control usually results in an increase in crime while an increase in gun wonership reduces crime.

Which is why Kennesaw Georgia hasnt has a murder in 25 years (and has mandatory gun ownership)
while East ST Louis of a slightly lower population and three times LESS dense has one of the highest murder rates in the nation short of Chicago (bot of which have control, and Chicago guns are pretty much banned)

Fact dont lie my good friend. Gun dont give you an ego boost or compensate for a small penis, they make you think "Holy shit, i live in a country where they trust me to own one of these. i should take it to the range and learn how to use it! Murrica."

more or less.

Guns are awesome...And bruce willis agrees: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bruce_willis_against_amendment_control_tDW6xNOgzKj3cvmnLrT9cN

Jegsimmons:

UK has a gun ban and suffers more street crime than we do.

The UK still has more assaults per capita
More Rapes
More Break ins
More muggings

hell this report is british and even get secific about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html#axzz2KC1e7Kso

So dont tell me about about the inflation based of definition because ive taken time out of my day to reasearch individual specific crimes.

And this research is where exactly?

Also you really shouldn't use a british tabloid for anything other than to point and laugh at. The Mail (Heil) the best example by far of shoddy reporting.

53,700 sexual assaults in England and Wales in 2011/2012.
16,000 of these were rapes, perpetrated against both men and women.

There were 83,425 forcible rapes in the US in 2011. This number only represents rape against women.

"Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded."

A table showing the differences in rape definetion in various countries

Sources
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/sexual-offending-statistics
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape

Semes:

Jegsimmons:

UK has a gun ban and suffers more street crime than we do.

The UK still has more assaults per capita
More Rapes
More Break ins
More muggings

hell this report is british and even get secific about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html#axzz2KC1e7Kso

So dont tell me about about the inflation based of definition because ive taken time out of my day to reasearch individual specific crimes.

And this research is where exactly?

Also you really shouldn't use a british tabloid for anything other than to point and laugh at. The Mail (Heil) the best example by far of shoddy reporting.

53,700 sexual assaults in England and Wales in 2011/2012.
16,000 of these were rapes, perpetrated against both men and women.

There were 83,425 forcible rapes in the US in 2011. This number only represents rape against women.

"Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded."

A table showing the differences in rape definetion in various countries

Sources
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/sexual-offending-statistics
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape

My apologies, didnt realize it was a tabloid.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

here's where i get more specific facts and are able to adjust for population.

also please keep in mind that crime in america has lowed by 50% since ~1992 and is continuing that trend despite gun ownership increasing.

Jegsimmons:

My apologies, didnt realize it was a tabloid.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

here's where i get more specific facts and are able to adjust for population.

also please keep in mind that crime in america has lowed by 50% since ~1992 and is continuing that trend despite gun ownership increasing.

From your source 183,419 drug offences in the uk per 100,000 population!
Hahahaha!

It has no sources for its information i think its making them up.

Jegsimmons:

really? cause thats bullshit.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

if you actually read every other post ive made on here ive provided many facts and stats that proove that in the US, gun control usually results in an increase in crime while an increase in gun wonership reduces crime.

Which is why Kennesaw Georgia hasnt has a murder in 25 years (and has mandatory gun ownership)
while East ST Louis of a slightly lower population and three times LESS dense has one of the highest murder rates in the nation short of Chicago (bot of which have control, and Chicago guns are pretty much banned)

Fact dont lie my good friend. Gun dont give you an ego boost or compensate for a small penis, they make you think "Holy shit, i live in a country where they trust me to own one of these. i should take it to the range and learn how to use it! Murrica."

more or less.

Actually if i look at the graphs it seems that whenever gun policies were enacted the current crime trends merely continued. You can hardly claim the crimes went up due to gun control when they were in an upward trend already before the policy and vice versa.

And kennesaw is a small suburb, which have usually much lower crime rates than urban areas to begin with. I mean, i live in a small town (sure not in the US but still) and we haven't had murders for God knows how much time either. It is statistically no big feat for small towns to remain murder free for quite some time.

Semes:

Jegsimmons:

My apologies, didnt realize it was a tabloid.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

here's where i get more specific facts and are able to adjust for population.

also please keep in mind that crime in america has lowed by 50% since ~1992 and is continuing that trend despite gun ownership increasing.

From your source 183,419 drug offences in the uk per 100,000 population!
Hahahaha!

It has no sources for its information i think its making them up.

that means repeat offenses and it does cite the sources if you hover over them.

generals3:

Jegsimmons:

really? cause thats bullshit.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

if you actually read every other post ive made on here ive provided many facts and stats that proove that in the US, gun control usually results in an increase in crime while an increase in gun wonership reduces crime.

Which is why Kennesaw Georgia hasnt has a murder in 25 years (and has mandatory gun ownership)
while East ST Louis of a slightly lower population and three times LESS dense has one of the highest murder rates in the nation short of Chicago (bot of which have control, and Chicago guns are pretty much banned)

Fact dont lie my good friend. Gun dont give you an ego boost or compensate for a small penis, they make you think "Holy shit, i live in a country where they trust me to own one of these. i should take it to the range and learn how to use it! Murrica."

more or less.

Actually if i look at the graphs it seems that whenever gun policies were enacted the current crime trends merely continued. You can hardly claim the crimes went up due to gun control when they were in an upward trend already before the policy and vice versa.

And kennesaw is a small suburb, which have usually much lower crime rates than urban areas to begin with. I mean, i live in a small town (sure not in the US but still) and we haven't had murders for God knows how much time either. It is statistically no big feat for small towns to remain murder free for quite some time.

no, Kennesaw is larger and 3 times more denser than east St. Louis. so that argument is out.

plus, even if trends just continued, it still prove gun legislation doesnt work, and the over all crime rate in the US has dropped by 50% and continues to do so.
Here is a good site that explains how gun control in the US is counter productive and provides charts and graphs based on FBI crime statistics.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true

Jegsimmons:

that means repeat offenses and it does cite the sources if you hover over them.

It doesnt mean repeat offenses its not using the correct numbers

Here is the source its claiming to use.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sc.pdf

Jegsimmons:
y apologies, didnt realize it was a tabloid.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
here's where i get more specific facts and are able to adjust for population.
also please keep in mind that crime in america has lowed by 50% since ~1992 and is continuing that trend despite gun ownership increasing.

Murder with a firearm:
UK Ranked 29th. US Ranked 1st. 668 times more than United Kingdom

Suicide rates in ages 25-34
ÜK 10.6 per 100,000 people Ranked 15th. US 15.3 per 100,000 people Ranked 10th. 44% more than United Kingdom

Total crime:
UK Ranked 2nd. US Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom

(Assault statistics can't be compared because the UK uses a way different definition from the US, drug statistics can't be controlled and can't possibly be true because you can't have more drug offenders than population.)

So how's that lower murder rate, lower suicide rate and lower crime due to firearms being everywhere, working out for you yanks?

Blablahb:

Jegsimmons:
y apologies, didnt realize it was a tabloid.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
here's where i get more specific facts and are able to adjust for population.
also please keep in mind that crime in america has lowed by 50% since ~1992 and is continuing that trend despite gun ownership increasing.

Murder with a firearm:
UK Ranked 29th. US Ranked 1st. 668 times more than United Kingdom

Suicide rates in ages 25-34
ÜK 10.6 per 100,000 people Ranked 15th. US 15.3 per 100,000 people Ranked 10th. 44% more than United Kingdom

Total crime:
UK Ranked 2nd. US Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom

(Assault statistics can't be compared because the UK uses a way different definition from the US, drug statistics can't be controlled and can't possibly be true because you can't have more drug offenders than population.)

So how's that lower murder rate, lower suicide rate and lower crime due to firearms being everywhere, working out for you yanks?

first off, stop adding suicide, they seriously do not matter. if someone wanted to kill them selves they'd find a way to do it.

secondly the murder with firearms proves nothing because ive explained this to you before, we have 310 million people, a drug war is going one just south of us, gangs have guns regardless, 60% of our murdered (and the shooters) are gang related and have a prior felony charges and they're not allowed to own guns at all.
Even in Chicago where guns are restricted more than the UK felons are able to get guns in by illegal means and commit the majority or the murders.
Which just futhers my point that criminals will get guns if they want them and citizens being armed has been shown to reduce crime and discourage mugging, shooting, robberies, you name it.

for all the murders we have we have 4.5 million acts of self defense with firearms each year. the good eclipses the bad.

Banning guns is literally impossible, so dont even suggest it. it is literally impossible unless you go full authoritarian police state in the US, which sort of justifies the use of the second amendment anyway.

and on top of that, crime has shrunk by 50% in the past 20 years while the rate of gun owners has increased.

Semes:

Jegsimmons:

that means repeat offenses and it does cite the sources if you hover over them.

It doesnt mean repeat offenses its not using the correct numbers

Here is the source its claiming to use.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sc.pdf

you're probably right, and thanks for being civil about it and reasonable, and if i can find some sources that accurately compare the two with correct stats i'll post them.

Jegsimmons:
first off, stop adding suicide, they seriously do not matter. if someone wanted to kill them selves they'd find a way to do it.

If someone is really committed to killing themselves, yes. Any number of people survive suicide attempts and go on to recover from mental illness. Firearms are very convenient for someone who is strugglign with taking their own life.

thaluikhain:

Jegsimmons:
first off, stop adding suicide, they seriously do not matter. if someone wanted to kill them selves they'd find a way to do it.

If someone is really committed to killing themselves, yes. Any number of people survive suicide attempts and go on to recover from mental illness. Firearms are very convenient for someone who is strugglign with taking their own life.

so is a knife, a bottle of pills, rope, a cliff, crashing into a tree, jumping in a pool with a plastic bag ect.

and the fact that so many countries with NO GUNS have a completely higher rate of suicide than the US makes your point kind of worthless.

Jegsimmons:

thaluikhain:

Jegsimmons:
first off, stop adding suicide, they seriously do not matter. if someone wanted to kill them selves they'd find a way to do it.

If someone is really committed to killing themselves, yes. Any number of people survive suicide attempts and go on to recover from mental illness. Firearms are very convenient for someone who is strugglign with taking their own life.

so is a knife, a bottle of pills, rope, a cliff, crashing into a tree, jumping in a pool with a plastic bag ect.

and the fact that so many countries with NO GUNS have a completely higher rate of suicide than the US makes your point kind of worthless.

Belgium disagrees. Since the tightening of our gun regulation suicide rates among men did drop.
So no, they don't just find as efficient ways to commit suicide.

Jegsimmons:
so is a knife, a bottle of pills, rope, a cliff, crashing into a tree, jumping in a pool with a plastic bag ect.

Seriously, no. Using a gun is much easier. Lots of people survive taking car craches or overdoses or cutting their wrists, very few survive shooting themselves in the head.

Jegsimmons:
and the fact that so many countries with NO GUNS have a completely higher rate of suicide than the US makes your point kind of worthless.

Right, cause I said the availability of firearms was the only issue?

thaluikhain:

Jegsimmons:
so is a knife, a bottle of pills, rope, a cliff, crashing into a tree, jumping in a pool with a plastic bag ect.

Seriously, no. Using a gun is much easier. Lots of people survive taking car craches or overdoses or cutting their wrists, very few survive shooting themselves in the head.

Jegsimmons:
and the fact that so many countries with NO GUNS have a completely higher rate of suicide than the US makes your point kind of worthless.

Right, cause I said the availability of firearms was the only issue?

how ever, whats easier for someone to get?
a 10 dollar bottle of pills?
or a 200-1000$ gun?

and if availability of firearms is not the only issue...does that mean your original point still holds no ground?

generals3:

Jegsimmons:

thaluikhain:

If someone is really committed to killing themselves, yes. Any number of people survive suicide attempts and go on to recover from mental illness. Firearms are very convenient for someone who is strugglign with taking their own life.

so is a knife, a bottle of pills, rope, a cliff, crashing into a tree, jumping in a pool with a plastic bag ect.

and the fact that so many countries with NO GUNS have a completely higher rate of suicide than the US makes your point kind of worthless.

Belgium disagrees. Since the tightening of our gun regulation suicide rates among men did drop.
So no, they don't just find as efficient ways to commit suicide.

besides the fact that Belgium is in the middle of gun control Europe, they STILL have a higher rate of suicide than the US does.
and so does japan who has NO GUNS.

so even with the availability of guns in the US we STILL have a lower suicide rate than many countries with gun control.

Jegsimmons:
how ever, whats easier for someone to get?
a 10 dollar bottle of pills?
or a 200-1000$ gun?

So?

Jegsimmons:
and if availability of firearms is not the only issue...does that mean your original point still holds no ground?

No, as my original point was not that availability of firearms is the only issue.

Mr.Cynic88:

Guns are tools that shoot a metal projectile at high velocity. Like any tool, they can be dangerous in the hands of a novice or a criminal. A chainsaw is also a cool tool that could be used for nefarious means, but the vast majority of both tools are legally handled by responsible owners.

In the context of hunting rifles and shotguns, yes, guns are tools. In the context of nearly every pistol and all civilian modified assault rifles, guns are weapons. A NATO 5.56 round is made to tumble upon impact, shred flesh, and break bones; which is not a result you want in your fresh deer carcass but is a result you want in enemy combatant.

Mr.Cynic88:
Americans find guns sexy, and citing a few horrible, horrible gun tragedies doesn't make firearms any more inherently evil that the car behind a drunk driving fatality.

But one has to remember that the United States has helped to significantly deaths relating to drunk driving by giving harsher sentences to offenders, requiring higher safety regulations in automobiles, by holding bars, taverns, and restaurants who over serve their customers partly accountable, and by making the legal drinking age 21 to reduce youth involvement in drunk driving accidents. Lo in behold that annual drunk driving related deaths have gone from 21,000 to 10,000 in the last 30 years. why people are unwilling to institute even the most basic restrictions on firearms, which are far more explicitly dangerous than a car, is beyond me.

Mr.Cynic88:
The news reports stories that are abnormal. Gun violence gets highlighted by the press because of the uncommon nature of such tragedies, as well as to satiate the public's desire to hear about guns. Stories about inner city violence involve illegal firearms that are used by criminals. Gun violence is already against the law, and there are already a myriad of restrictions in place screening out potential violent offenders.

Gun violence is more common than you think. the most recent stat I could find was that in 2010 68% of all homicides were carried out with a firearm, while mass shootings aren't as common, gun violence is a very real and very prevelant thing

Mr.Cynic88:
America's Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, but they also wrote that black slaves were 3/5ths of a person, so the gun control argument should not be about the past, but rather, the future. In this future, should properly vetted individuals have the right to carry and collect potentially dangerous firearms? Should they be allowed to purchase knives, fireworks, or poisonous chemicals? What do American freedoms actually entail?

The reason the second amendment is looked upon as archaic is because an 18th century musket fired one woefully inaccurate lead ball and took the better part of a minute to reload. Now with the advent of rifling, the conical bullet, clips and magazines, and semi and fully automatic fire settings, guns have become much more effective at killing than their 200 year old predecessors. Many larger fireworks are restricted for use in cities and are not primarily weapons, a knife is more of a multitool than a gun is (you can cut line, prepare food, make tinder, and even signal for help with a knife; with a gun all one can do is kill.) I don't event know where you're going with the poisonous chemicals. Sure you could poison someone with bleach or Drano, but those are primarily cleaning detergents. As far as I am concerned it is illegal to own chemical agents like chlorine gas or anthrax if that is what you are getting at. Also, a gun is never a "potential" danger. If you have ever learned to fire a gun, one of the first things you learn is to always assume that it is loaded. This is partly a safety precaution and partly to acknowledge that a gun is always a dangerous and powerful weapon that when mishandled can have terrible consequences.

Mr.Cynic88:
These are tough questions, and they have multiple answers, but those who hold personal freedom as a sacrosanct American virtue should consider what the country's infatuation with firearms reflects. American gun advocates would like fairly regulated, legal ways to pursue their interests. It shouldn't matter if they intend the gun for hunting, target shooting, or simply to add to a personal collection. Americans want the freedom to own firearms because guns are cool, and that should be enough.

The majority of gun advocates want no regulation, and that is the problem currently. The only real federal restriction on firearms in the United States is that they cannot have a fully automatic setting. And you can still get a license for that. Your argument that "guns are cool" is frankly childish and disregards the power and responsibility that one wields when given a firearm. I am not for banning guns, but it needs to be much harder to obtain one. Owning any gun that has the capability to kill tens of people in a few seconds should be a privilege rather than a right. Ownership of a pump shotgun, a lever or bolt action rifle or a single action pistol should not be infringed upon. But the ownership of modern weapons primarily manufactured to kill humans should have some restrictions to it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked