Guns should be legal in American, because guns are cool

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Jegsimmons:

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.

The point is that removing the guns from Belgium resulted in a decrease in suicides, it is irrelevant to compare the total suicide rates between countries which will be different due to multiple variables. What matters is that guns were taken away from Belgian citizens, and as a result the country's suicide rate went down, that is all that matters. Now this is only one source so again association doesn't necessarily mean causation. If Japanese civilians were given guns and suicide rates went up, then this would be a more supported thesis.

a ginger491:

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.

Gun death rate per 100,000 people has also been dropping for the last 30 years, even though gun ownership rates have been increasing faster than population

http://www.defensivehandguns.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/AmericanPopulationFirearmsDeaths2008.png

This goes straight through the repeal of the Assault weapon ban and the extending list of states that have made conceal carry permits (I.E. permits to carry a gun on your person) shall issue (I.E. if the person passes the background check, the person gets the license).

Although there was a small bump in the death rate in 2011, that might just be a statistical anomaly.

Not G. Ivingname:

Gun death rate per 100,000 people has also been dropping for the last 30 years, even though gun ownership rates have been increasing faster than population

http://www.defensivehandguns.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/AmericanPopulationFirearmsDeaths2008.png

This goes straight through the repeal of the Assault weapon ban and the extending list of states that have made conceal carry permits (I.E. permits to carry a gun on your person) shall issue (I.E. if the person passes the background check, the person gets the license).

Although there was a small bump in the death rate in 2011, that might just be a statistical anomaly.

Technically for the last 20 years, after a peak of gun violence in the 1990's Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act into law in '94 and, as you observed, the gun death rate in the United States has gone down. This was smart and fairly basic gun control legislation that worked very well.

a ginger491:

Not G. Ivingname:

Gun death rate per 100,000 people has also been dropping for the last 30 years, even though gun ownership rates have been increasing faster than population

http://www.defensivehandguns.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/AmericanPopulationFirearmsDeaths2008.png

This goes straight through the repeal of the Assault weapon ban and the extending list of states that have made conceal carry permits (I.E. permits to carry a gun on your person) shall issue (I.E. if the person passes the background check, the person gets the license).

Although there was a small bump in the death rate in 2011, that might just be a statistical anomaly.

Technically for the last 20 years, after a peak of gun violence in the 1990's Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act into law in '94 and, as you observed, the gun death rate in the United States has gone down. This was smart and fairly basic gun control legislation that worked very well.

homicides have been going down since they peaked in the 70's, so 40 years. Not to mention in the late 80's and early 90's there was a wave of illegal drugs and drug related crime in major cities. in New York City I believe it was called the Crack epidemic

a ginger491:

Not G. Ivingname:

Gun death rate per 100,000 people has also been dropping for the last 30 years, even though gun ownership rates have been increasing faster than population

http://www.defensivehandguns.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/AmericanPopulationFirearmsDeaths2008.png

This goes straight through the repeal of the Assault weapon ban and the extending list of states that have made conceal carry permits (I.E. permits to carry a gun on your person) shall issue (I.E. if the person passes the background check, the person gets the license).

Although there was a small bump in the death rate in 2011, that might just be a statistical anomaly.

Technically for the last 20 years, after a peak of gun violence in the 1990's Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act into law in '94 and, as you observed, the gun death rate in the United States has gone down. This was smart and fairly basic gun control legislation that worked very well.

So your attributing the ENTIRE drop in gun violence, even with the ever rising amount of privately owned guns, increase in amount of people who legally carry guns everywhere they go, huge sales of firearms since Obama been in office, and states adopting legislations that nullifies several federal statues within the states borders (as per the commerce clause) to a single gun control act made when the crime rate had passed it's peak and had already started to fall?

Not G. Ivingname:

a ginger491:

Not G. Ivingname:

Gun death rate per 100,000 people has also been dropping for the last 30 years, even though gun ownership rates have been increasing faster than population

http://www.defensivehandguns.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/AmericanPopulationFirearmsDeaths2008.png

This goes straight through the repeal of the Assault weapon ban and the extending list of states that have made conceal carry permits (I.E. permits to carry a gun on your person) shall issue (I.E. if the person passes the background check, the person gets the license).

Although there was a small bump in the death rate in 2011, that might just be a statistical anomaly.

Technically for the last 20 years, after a peak of gun violence in the 1990's Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act into law in '94 and, as you observed, the gun death rate in the United States has gone down. This was smart and fairly basic gun control legislation that worked very well.

So your attributing the ENTIRE drop in gun violence, even with the ever rising amount of privately owned guns, increase in amount of people who legally carry guns everywhere they go, huge sales of firearms since Obama been in office, and states adopting legislation that nullifies several federal statues within the states borders (as per the commerce clause) to a single gun control act made when the crime rate had passed it's peak and had already started to fall?

I'm not saying it was the sole reason, i'm just saying that required background checks and restricting drug addicts and felons from owning firearms helped aid in reducing gun violence that had just reached its peak. The rate didn't really drop off until 1995 and was at its lowest in 2000, since then however there has been a steady but noticeable increase in gun related deaths over the past decade, and are projected to pass automobile fatalities by 2015. This however has more to do with cars being safer than ever now, but the annual rate of gun related deaths has been slowly rising since 2000.
If you wish me to cite a source I have been referring to this graph of gun and automobile related deaths compiled by Bloomberg in 2011 from data provided by the CDC
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i3cs6F7hTHkc.jpg

Guns ARE cool, this is known, but that really is the sole argument for them to be legalised. They're dangerous and designed for danger rather than, say, a car which is designed for transport and happens to be dangerous. Logically the collosal accidental death figure alone should be sufficent argument against legalisation.

But then they are REALLY cool and REALLY loud. If I had a gun I could solve the problem of those arseholes that turn right into petrol stations during rush hour once and for all.

BUT BUT BUT then people who didn't like the fact that I don't wash my car could shoot me! Ooh, no, I wouldn't like that at all, that would be very bad. Also I live in a flat and it seems like it would a simple thing for one of my neighbours to accidentally discharge their weapon and blow me away.

No, I'm sorry. No matter how cool guns are they should only remain the property of people who can shoot themselves without hurting or inconveniencing anyone else, such as farmers.

Not G. Ivingname:
Gun death rate per 100,000 people has also been dropping for the last 30 years, even though gun ownership rates have been increasing faster than population
http://www.defensivehandguns.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/AmericanPopulationFirearmsDeaths2008.png

A gun lobby site doing statistics (haha, like they can) without citing any sources.

You should've known better....

For one thing the population in the US in 2008 is not 300 million like that graph claimed, but 281 million according to the official statistics, less if you include only the core states of the US. So they're nearly 10% off.

a ginger491:
A NATO .556 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.

A quibble, but you mean a 5.56MM round. A .556 round would be about 2 and a half times the diameter, the 5.56mm being based on the .223.

Blablahb:
A gun lobby site doing statistics (haha, like they can) without citing any sources.

They could, but I prefer using statistics from the U.S. government showing steep drops in the murder and violent crime rates over the past twenty years, and point out that the last assault weapons ban (1994-2004, part of a bigger piece of legislation) provided no conclusive data to suggest it was effective.

I could also point out (again) that Columbine occurred during the above period and one of the shooters carried more than a dozen ten-round magazines for his weapon, completely debunking the myth of restricting capacity.

And I could point to modern statistics from New York City that show assault weapons had such a tiny statistical contribution to the number of shooting incidents that they are irrelevant, and that in the same city 90% of illegal firearms confiscated were handguns (3% were assault weapons).

But I'm sure we're prepared to spin, dismiss or ignore these data points, too.

Gun control is a failure in America, and everyone always ask why don't we copy the rest of the world? The answer being most of their laws, would be found unconstitutional. Even the "common sense" approach is anything but common, seeing how the people there comes with the background it's a gun that is all I need to know logic, like banning a hollow point round, because of the stopping power and it sounds scary despite the fact it was design to minimize penetration. Joe Biden and several poster here have given the funny advice of warning shots, that which by the way is illegal, you will go to jail for that, or shooting to injured, you'll also go to jail for that, because if you have the time to do that, then your life wasn't in danger from the get go. Hell I need to find a better source than the blaze, or a source that said the same thing about a leak from the DOJ saying that universal background checks will create more straw purchasers. Which is funny because the DOJ have been saying that the gun control laws won't make a dent, or even do anything for gun violence at all.

Mr.Cynic88:
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.

In 2010 12,996 people were murdered in the US. 67% of those murders involved the use of firearms. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain)

Some quick math will show that means more than 8700 people died in the US in 2010 from gun violence.

Eight thousand and seven hundred people are dead because there was a gun involved.
Guns are fairly regulated and legal now, that doesn't help, people are still being shot, a lot. So saying regulating them is "good enough" is wrong, not in my opinion, not I think, it is clearly wrong.

The very concept that you should be allowed to possess a weapon because you think it is cool is disturbing. You might think class A drugs are cool, or human trafficking is cool, that does not make it okay. At all. You know what? Guns kill more people in the US than class A drugs.

Also, the word 'cool' (in this context) means socially accepted. At one point gladiatorial fights were a really cool way to spend a evening, later on we grew up as a society and decided that people dying wasn't 'cool'. Guns are not 'cool', they are a mechanism that fire a projectile with the express design of damage being caused at the point of secondary impact.

They are not a toy, they are not a trend.

Do not defend the ownership of a lethal weapon as being 'cool'

Gashad:
32000 people were killed in the US by gunfire in 2011(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/), that is nearly 100 people per day-Hardly an anomaly. Ultimately US gun culture leads to a lot of people are getting killed for no real benefit(American crime statistics are generally considerably higher then most countries with strict gun control). If you feel that "guns are cool" is sufficient reason to accept these deaths then that is fine. However many would disagree for obvious reasons(I for one would be extreamly uncomfortable owning a gun, then again I am not an American).

See, here's the biggest problem with this ENTIRE gun debate.

Those on the anti-gun side of the argument do not, or are unwilling to understand the difference between "gun culture" and "crime culture".

You come into the argument, prejudiced. You've already made up your mind about the type of people who own guns, you lump them all into a single category and nothing we actually say will change your mind, because the media perpetuates this stereotype. Tell me this, when is the last time you saw a TV show or movie accurately portray the use of a firearm? Constantly I see semi-automatics that don't cycle the slide when fired, zero recoil on large guns, etc. And you consider these people a reliable source of gun and gun culture knowledge?

When you say gun culture, I, as a gun owner and advocate of the second amendment, think "Gun Culture = being raised to respect guns, being taught how to be proficient with them and understand the responsibility that goes along with owning them".

But what you REALLY mean when YOU say "gun culture" is "Gun Culture = a few million hicks runnin' 'round shootin' up anything in sight".

The fact of the matter is that the absolute MAJORITY of gun deaths in this country are related to the CRIME CULTURE, as in, bad guys shooting other bad guys, bad guys shooting good guys, and good guys shooting bad guys.

I cannot, cannot, CANNOT understand why the anti-gun can't pick up on the distinction between a good guy and a bad guy. Let me give you a hint - it's NOT whether he has a gun in his hand.

I saw a debate where one pro-gun fellow made an excellent point, and it's a point i'm going to bring to you, now.

If I were where ever you are right now, and I took my gun out and laid it on the table in front of you, loaded and ready to fire... would you pick it up and shoot people with it?

Would YOU, being the person you've been your whole life, suddenly take the gun and use it to murder people, simply because it was there and you had access to it? Would you?

No?

So why do you just assume that I would, simply because I own a gun?

I love life. I love my family and my friends. I love my Jeep. I love my favorite TV shows and movies and video games and I have no intention of ever leaving those things behind for any reason at all within my control - but there ARE people out there who was just as soon leave me lying in a pool of my own blood if it meant they could HAVE my Jeep or my video games or the $20 in my wallet.

And your solution to combat THOSE people is to disarm ME?

Please carefully explain to me how that makes sense.

And do not bring up the "you dno't need an ASSAULT RIFLE to defend yourself" argument, because we're not discussing that right now. Please answer my question first, THEN we can discuss that.

And, for the record, guns ARE cool, in their own way. Some of them have beautiful wood trim or expertly machined surfaces. But they are dangerous in the wrong hands, and if you want to own one simply because you think they're cool, do us all a favor and just buy the airsoft version.

MichiganMuscle77:

See, here's the biggest problem with this ENTIRE gun debate.

Those on the anti-gun side of the argument do not, or are unwilling to understand the difference between "gun culture" and "crime culture".

You come into the argument, prejudiced. You've already made up your mind about the type of people who own guns, you lump them all into a single category and nothing we actually say will change your mind, because the media perpetuates this stereotype. Tell me this, when is the last time you saw a TV show or movie accurately portray the use of a firearm? Constantly I see semi-automatics that don't cycle the slide when fired, zero recoil on large guns, etc. And you consider these people a reliable source of gun and gun culture knowledge?

When you say gun culture, I, as a gun owner and advocate of the second amendment, think "Gun Culture = being raised to respect guns, being taught how to be proficient with them and understand the responsibility that goes along with owning them".

hmm, I don't think i ever implied that all people who own guns were the same if I did so it was not my intent. Millions of people own guns and like any large enough group you will find all kinds of people in it. When I speak of gun culture I refer to the view of a gun being a sign of freedom and security as opposed to a tool designed to killing people. I am also referring to the belief that guns should be legal and relatively readily available.

As can be seen by the statistics I presented in my posts, US firearms deaths are massive compared to that of most other western nations. Moreover the argument that guns reduce crime fails due to US crime statistics being so much higher then most other western nations.

MichiganMuscle77:

The fact of the matter is that the absolute MAJORITY of gun deaths in this country are related to the CRIME CULTURE, as in, bad guys shooting other bad guys, bad guys shooting good guys, and good guys shooting bad guys.

You see this is part of my point. For me there are no entirely unambiguously "good guys" or "bad guys", as these indicate a quite simplistic morality. I believe anyone getting killed is a tragedy regardless of his background or action. Furthermore I believe that the proliferation of guns in the US leads to a great deal of otherwise non-lethal crimes(i.e robbery) escalating into situations where people get killed. Ultimately I believe that lethal force is only justified in cases where someones life is genuinely in danger not in cases where someones possessions are in danger-correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that many in the U.S. seem to view lethal force acceptable to defend ones possessions. This I find abhorrent as it completely devalues human life.

MichiganMuscle77:

So why do you just assume that I would, simply because I own a gun?

I love life. I love my family and my friends. I love my Jeep. I love my favorite TV shows and movies and video games and I have no intention of ever leaving those things behind for any reason at all within my control - but there ARE people out there who was just as soon leave me lying in a pool of my own blood if it meant they could HAVE my Jeep or my video games or the $20 in my wallet.

Is this a common occurrence in the US?(if so then see the part of guns causing situations to escalate). I know that in Sweden there are roughly ninety intentional homicides per year. I do not know how many are done in conjunction with a armed robbery but I cannot believe that it is a significant fraction. So ultimately someone killing me in an armed robbery are astronomically low, hence I generally do not worry about it nor see the need for any precautions against it.

Gashad:

MichiganMuscle77:

See, here's the biggest problem with this ENTIRE gun debate.

Those on the anti-gun side of the argument do not, or are unwilling to understand the difference between "gun culture" and "crime culture".

You come into the argument, prejudiced. You've already made up your mind about the type of people who own guns, you lump them all into a single category and nothing we actually say will change your mind, because the media perpetuates this stereotype. Tell me this, when is the last time you saw a TV show or movie accurately portray the use of a firearm? Constantly I see semi-automatics that don't cycle the slide when fired, zero recoil on large guns, etc. And you consider these people a reliable source of gun and gun culture knowledge?

When you say gun culture, I, as a gun owner and advocate of the second amendment, think "Gun Culture = being raised to respect guns, being taught how to be proficient with them and understand the responsibility that goes along with owning them".

hmm, I don't think i ever implied that all people who own guns were the same if I did so it was not my intent. Millions of people own guns and like any large enough group you will find all kinds of people in it. When I speak of gun culture I refer to the view of a gun being a sign of freedom and security as opposed to a tool designed to killing people. I am also referring to the belief that guns should be legal and relatively readily available.

As can be seen by the statistics I presented in my posts, US firearms deaths are massive compared to that of most other western nations. Moreover the argument that guns reduce crime fails due to US crime statistics being so much higher then most other western nations.

MichiganMuscle77:

The fact of the matter is that the absolute MAJORITY of gun deaths in this country are related to the CRIME CULTURE, as in, bad guys shooting other bad guys, bad guys shooting good guys, and good guys shooting bad guys.

You see this is part of my point. For me there are no entirely unambiguously "good guys" or "bad guys", as these indicate a quite simplistic morality. I believe anyone getting killed is a tragedy regardless of his background or action. Furthermore I believe that the proliferation of guns in the US leads to a great deal of otherwise non-lethal crimes(i.e robbery) escalating into situations where people get killed. Ultimately I believe that lethal force is only justified in cases where someones life is genuinely in danger not in cases where someones possessions are in danger-correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that many in the U.S. seem to view lethal force acceptable to defend ones possessions. This I find abhorrent as it completely devalues human life.

MichiganMuscle77:

So why do you just assume that I would, simply because I own a gun?

I love life. I love my family and my friends. I love my Jeep. I love my favorite TV shows and movies and video games and I have no intention of ever leaving those things behind for any reason at all within my control - but there ARE people out there who was just as soon leave me lying in a pool of my own blood if it meant they could HAVE my Jeep or my video games or the $20 in my wallet.

Is this a common occurrence in the US?(if so then see the part of guns causing situations to escalate). I know that in Sweden there are roughly ninety intentional homicides per year. I do not know how many are done in conjunction with a armed robbery but I cannot believe that it is a significant fraction. So ultimately someone killing me in an armed robbery are astronomically low, hence I generally do not worry about it nor see the need for any precautions against it.

You view lethal force as a means of defense as disgusting. Lets role play here.

You're at home watching tv late at night. Beloved wife, the woman who you consider to be angelic in every sense of the word, is rocking your baby to sleep. A man kicks in your front door and waves a gun in your face, then points it at your wife and baby. You have a gun strapped to your thigh.

You would gamble the lives of everyone in the room by choosing not to shoot this man until he was no longer a threat? Really? You would give this armed man who just kicked your door in and stuck a gun in your lovely wife's face the benefit of a doubt? Shoot him in the knee and hope he surrenders? Wave your gun in his face and hope he retreats instead of open firing on your family?

Maybe he only wanted our tv. Are you going to hesitate long enough to ask him?

That's fine. That's your choice. I, however, refuse to allow dangerous people the ability to decide my fate.

MichiganMuscle77:

You view lethal force as a means of defense as disgusting. Lets role play here.

You're at home watching tv late at night. Beloved wife, the woman who you consider to be angelic in every sense of the word, is rocking your baby to sleep. A man kicks in your front door and waves a gun in your face, then points it at your wife and baby. You have a gun strapped to your thigh.

You would gamble the lives of everyone in the room by choosing not to shoot this man until he was no longer a threat? Really? You would give this armed man who just kicked your door in and stuck a gun in your lovely wife's face the benefit of a doubt? Shoot him in the knee and hope he surrenders? Wave your gun in his face and hope he retreats instead of open firing on your family?

Maybe he only wanted our tv. Are you going to hesitate long enough to ask him?

That's fine. That's your choice. I, however, refuse to allow dangerous people the ability to decide my fate.

"sigh", you seem to be misconstruing my argument. In your scenario there would perhaps be a credible threat to someones life-justifying lethal force(unless its apparent the robber is only interested in your stuff).

I must however ask you-is robbers breaking down someones door and gunning down their family a common occurrence in the U.S? There seems to be a great deal of effort dedicated to prevent what would in any civilized country be an insanely unlikely occurrence...

Gashad:

MichiganMuscle77:

You view lethal force as a means of defense as disgusting. Lets role play here.

You're at home watching tv late at night. Beloved wife, the woman who you consider to be angelic in every sense of the word, is rocking your baby to sleep. A man kicks in your front door and waves a gun in your face, then points it at your wife and baby. You have a gun strapped to your thigh.

You would gamble the lives of everyone in the room by choosing not to shoot this man until he was no longer a threat? Really? You would give this armed man who just kicked your door in and stuck a gun in your lovely wife's face the benefit of a doubt? Shoot him in the knee and hope he surrenders? Wave your gun in his face and hope he retreats instead of open firing on your family?

Maybe he only wanted our tv. Are you going to hesitate long enough to ask him?

That's fine. That's your choice. I, however, refuse to allow dangerous people the ability to decide my fate.

"sigh", you seem to be misconstruing my argument. In your scenario there would perhaps be a credible threat to someones life-justifying lethal force(unless its apparent the robber is only interested in your stuff).

I must however ask you-is robbers breaking down someones door and gunning down their family a common occurrence in the U.S? There seems to be a great deal of effort dedicated to prevent what would in any civilized country be an insanely unlikely occurrence...

Doesn't matter how "likely" it is, it still happens. Someone recently gunned down a classroom full of children, and you question the validity of wanting to be prepared to defend oneself? I don't wear my seat belt because I'm a bad driver, you know. I wear it because you never know what some jack hole in the Prius in front of you is going to do.

So again you mention lethal force as unacceptable if the intruder only wants your stuff. That's a case of hindsight. Someone walks past the cars in my driveway, bypasses my locked doors and makes their way into my home, I will not ask questions. You know how fast a bullet travels? A lot faster than the time it takes to ask "what are you doing in my home?". And since that's the case, I'd rather the intruder be the one who takes the bullet than myself or a family member.

MichiganMuscle77:

Doesn't matter how "likely" it is, it still happens. Someone recently gunned down a classroom full of children, and you question the validity of wanting to be prepared to defend oneself?

And a meteor strike recently struck a Russian town-but that doesn't mean I refuse to leave the house without a helmet. Ultimately there are likely risks and the unlikely one. As I previously specified the risk of anyone breaking into your house and gunning down your family is absurdly unlikely in any civilized country. The high price the U.S. pays for its gun policy with thousands of deaths cannot be justified by it somehow preventing such a remote probability.

Especially as drawing a gun in your hypothetical situation may very well just lead to escalating the situation and getting you and others killed making it debatable whether it is the correct choice.

Gashad:
And a meteor strike recently struck a Russian town-but that doesn't mean I refuse to leave the house without a helmet. Ultimately there are likely risks and the unlikely one. As I previously specified the risk of anyone breaking into your house and gunning down your family is absurdly unlikely in any civilized country. The high price the U.S. pays for its gun policy with thousands of deaths cannot be justified by it somehow preventing such a remote probability.

So you're saying that it's OK for a few innocent people to be murdered by crazed lunatics as long as we make guns illegal? Guns have been a part of this country for hundreds of years and yet, only in the last 30 years since States have individually begun to allow private citizens to carry a hand gun on their person, have we seen gun CRIME reduced, and it continues to decline every year as concealed carry registration increases.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend, as statistics are in favor of the pro-gun. I'm absolutely sorry that you believe in this mythical fairy tale land where a simple law written on a piece of paper somewhere magically turns all firearms into flowers and candy, but here in the real world, guns exist, have existed for hundreds of years, and there are far too many to account for now, therefore attempting to ban them will ONLY have a negative affect on those who choose to FOLLOW the law. You show me a perfect solution for removing guns from the hands of bad people. Once THAT happens, then remove them from Government agents. And only after THAT happens will I surrender mine. The innocent man should be the very last person forced to give up their firearms - yet it is your belief that we should be the first. And that belief is disgusting.

Gashad:
Especially as drawing a gun in your hypothetical situation may very well just lead to escalating the situation and getting you and others killed making it debatable whether it is the correct choice.

My girlfriend is the most important person in the world to me. She's a veterinarian. She loves animals and every day sends me pictures on my cell phone of her holding a puppy that she just brought back to health. And you know, vets don't make much money. They go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to go through school, in which they learn about MANY species (as opposed to human doctors, who learn only one), work terrible hours, don't get paid well and often have to live with the guilt of euthanasing someone's precious fluffy because there was no alternative. But they do what they do because they LOVE animals. I'm saying all this to point out that my girlfriend is an incredible person - she loves life. Animals, flowers, people, everything about life she just adores and she is one of the best people on this green Earth. You would suggest to me that if someone threatened her life, that I should hear that person out before neutralizing the threat? You are absolutely insane if you believe that.

What world do you live in? Maybe you watch too many movies or something, but killing a guy before he blows off your wife's head is ABSOLUTELY the correct choice. Are you absolutely kidding me? You would seriously opt to NOT draw a gun, just hoping that he doesn't intend to kill your wife, your child, then you? I have respected your argument thus far but if you continue to say things like this, I'm afraid I won't be able to continue debating with you - that's such a flawed way of thinking that there is likely no hope of undoing whatever brainwashing had to occur to make you believe that an armed intruder's life is more valuable than your wife or child's. I've heard some ridiculous things come from the anti-gun people, but this is just downright disturbing.

Let me ask you some questions, and I would like them specifically answered before we continue, if you'd be so kind.

1. Do you love anyone?

2. In video games with a moral choice feature, are you able to be evil and slaughter innocent human beings and actually enjoy it, or do you feel too guilty to take that particular play-through seriously, as your "cannon" for the game?

3. If I laid my gun out in front of you (I would never, but IF I did), loaded and ready to go, would you pick it up and murder everyone in the room?

4. Should the President, Prime Minister or whomever else have armed guards?

MichiganMuscle77:

What world do you live in? Maybe you watch too many movies or something, but killing a guy before he blows off your wife's head is ABSOLUTELY the correct choice. Are you absolutely kidding me? You would seriously opt to NOT draw a gun, just hoping that he doesn't intend to kill your wife, your child, then you? I have respected your argument thus far but if you continue to say things like this, I'm afraid I won't be able to continue debating with you - that's such a flawed way of thinking that there is likely no hope of undoing whatever brainwashing had to occur to make you believe that an armed intruder's life is more valuable than your wife or child's. I've heard some ridiculous things come from the anti-gun people, but this is just downright disturbing.

Ok let me spell this out to you mathematically as you seem completely unable to grasp my argument whatsoever.

We have the situation:

probability p-robber intends to take your stuff, not your life:

probability 1-p, robber intends to take both your life and your stuff.

You have to choices

1 try to shoot the robber
2 do as the robber says.

If you do 2 the probability of you getting killed is

1-p.

If you try to shoot him there are two outcomes:

1 the robber will shoot and kill you, probability p2
2 you will shoot the robber, probability 1-p2.

Now if the probability of robber wanting to kill you (1-p)< the probability that if you try to shoot the robber that the robber will win the gun fight(p2), then the correct choice for remaining alive is to not try to shoot the robber would you not agree?

my main argument is that as it is quite unlikely that the robber wishes you dead(no economic incentive, far harsher punishment if caught and far more intensive police investigation). Hence the probability that he will kill you if you co-operate(1-p) is very low(as I previously specified the odds of someone going into your house and shooting you for no reason is astronomically low in any civilized country). Where as the probability that you will die p2, is dependent on your respective skill, bearing in mind that he already has his gun drawn and hence is quite high. So ultimately not drawing your gun is the best choice even if you are armed in your scenario.

If your family is present it adds a new dynamic-risk of them getting caught in the cross fire needs to be considered along with you trying to shoot the robber may escalate matters and lead to him killing them even if it was not his original intent. The basic arithmetic is however the same and I would argue the same conclusion, that by drawing your gun you are putting both yourself and your family at greater risk then if you had not drawn it.

MichiganMuscle77:

Let me ask you some questions, and I would like them specifically answered before we continue, if you'd be so kind.

1. Do you love anyone?

2. In video games with a moral choice feature, are you able to be evil and slaughter innocent human beings and actually enjoy it, or do you feel too guilty to take that particular play-through seriously, as your "cannon" for the game?

3. If I laid my gun out in front of you (I would never, but IF I did), loaded and ready to go, would you pick it up and murder everyone in the room?

4. Should the President, Prime Minister or whomever else have armed guards?

Ok, I will humour you.

1. obviously

2. I generally feel a bit bad taking the "bad" moral choice provided the game presented it well.

3. I would call the police and have you arrested for illegal possession of a fire arm as you need a license to posses a gun from where I am from.

4. If necessary.

MichiganMuscle77:

I'm absolutely sorry that you believe in this mythical fairy tale land where a simple law written on a piece of paper somewhere magically turns all firearms into flowers and candy, but here in the real world, guns exist, have existed for hundreds of years, and there are far too many to account for now, therefore attempting to ban them will ONLY have a negative affect on those who choose to FOLLOW the law.

I have never stated that the U.S. problems will magically disappear if they implement strict gun control. I have mearly stated that the proliferation of guns in the U.S. along with its gun culture, leads to a massive amount of firearm related deaths compared to most other western countries, without it in anyway lowering the crime rate(indeed the U.S. rate is generally higher). I do not pretend to know the solution to the problem, merely emphasized that it exists.

Can you in the future please read my posts more carefully so that I feel that you are responding to my arguments, not that of some hypothetical strawman.

Mr.Cynic88:
Strawman snip

From how I see it, the American Conservatives are getting angry about the fact that their civil rights, which thousands of people died to get, are being taken away. The main argument against guns is because they kill people and it hurts my feelings when people die. They think that banning "assault style weapons and large ammo clips and magazines" will stop the problem. What they fail to realise is that most gun related deaths is between rival gangsters, and even if they were to be banned, there are enough in circulation, and still many being made, and with 3d printing becoming more and more effective, criminals will always be able to have access to guns. Another factor is that a professional with a pistol can reload within a couple of seconds, ready to shoot again, this proves that banning peoples guns will not solve the issue. People actually thinking that they can actually stop the supply of guns is silly, did it happen with the prohibition of the 1920's? And also people saying that if a revolution would occur, the gun grabbers would lose, so there is no point in having the assault weapons is another stupid idea. Exhibit A: Dorner. One man caused major issues for the LAPD, now imagine if there were thousands of him, and all of the military/police who defect. Exhibit B: Al Qa'ida brand terrorist groups. Taking away peoples rights is almost never the answer to a problem.

Gashad:

Ok let me spell this out to you mathematically as you seem completely unable to grasp my argument whatsoever.

We have the situation:

probability p-robber intends to take your stuff, not your life:

probability 1-p, robber intends to take both your life and your stuff.

You have to choices

1 try to shoot the robber
2 do as the robber says.

If you do 2 the probability of you getting killed is

1-p.

If you try to shoot him there are two outcomes:

1 the robber will shoot and kill you, probability p2
2 you will shoot the robber, probability 1-p2.

Now if the probability of robber wanting to kill you (1-p)< the probability that if you try to shoot the robber that the robber will win the gun fight(p2), then the correct choice for remaining alive is to not try to shoot the robber would you not agree?

No, i do not agree. You can't figure in mathematics to a situation like this. You still don't seem to understand that you have but fractions of a second to react to a perceived threat. If the guy WANTS to take your lives, he'll do it before you've had time to properly assess his intentions. That's why if he's in your house with a weapon, you DO NOT HESITATE. If YOU want to bend over for bad guys, be my guest, but don't you ever suggest to me that the good citizens of the world should be bound by law to succumb to the will of bad people. That is absolutely disgusting.

my main argument is that as it is quite unlikely that the robber wishes you dead(no economic incentive, far harsher punishment if caught and far more intensive police investigation). Hence the probability that he will kill you if you co-operate(1-p) is very low(as I previously specified the odds of someone going into your house and shooting you for no reason is astronomically low in any civilized country). Where as the probability that you will die p2, is dependent on your respective skill, bearing in mind that he already has his gun drawn and hence is quite high. So ultimately not drawing your gun is the best choice even if you are armed in your scenario.

If your family is present it adds a new dynamic-risk of them getting caught in the cross fire needs to be considered along with you trying to shoot the robber may escalate matters and lead to him killing them even if it was not his original intent. The basic arithmetic is however the same and I would argue the same conclusion, that by drawing your gun you are putting both yourself and your family at greater risk then if you had not drawn it.

That's interesting and all, but here are some stories that prove you're completely wrong:

Woman hides in attic with two children while a man seeks them out, shoots him 5 times before he not only flees, but DRIVES away (how's that for the magazine capacity regulations?)
http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2013-01-09/georgia-woman-shoots-intruder-5-times

Her drawing her weapon didn't put her children in any more danger than they were already in.

18 year old widowed Sarah McKinley shoots intruder armed with a hunting knife after moving her infant to safety and dialing 911:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

Her baby was unharmed.

Men break down the door on families home, knock down the father and go after the mother when the 21 year old son shoots and kills one of them.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/23/houston-man-21-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion/

His parents are alive and well.

Your logic is ridiculous. RIDICULOUS. I'm not intending to insult you, so I apologize for that, but I really can't stress enough just how flawed your logic is.

The only advice I can give to you is that you really need to study up on these home invasion cases and learn about just what tends to happen when someone breaks into another's home with bad intentions.

And before you try to say something about "the guy had a knife you have plenty of time to warn them" or something like that, try reading up on it first. Here's a clip to get you started. It's just a training exercise, so don't worry, nothing graphic.

Those are TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS who aren't able to draw their weapon before they are attacked. How do you think YOU would react to someone running at you with a knife? Answer: You're not, you're going to get cut up and probably die. That's why you never give someone the chance to put you in that situation. If someone breaks down your locked door, they've earned whatever happens to them.

Ok, I will humour you.

1. obviously

2. I generally feel a bit bad taking the "bad" moral choice provided the game presented it well.

3. I would call the police and have you arrested for illegal possession of a fire arm as you need a license to posses a gun from where I am from.

4. If necessary.

1. Good. How would you feel if someone was actively threatening their life?

2. So when given immense power, you tend to prefer NOT to abuse it? Is this a fair assessment?

3. That's not the question I asked, please try again. I'll rephrase if it helps you stay focused - I invite you over to my home in the USA where it is perfectly legal for my to possess a firearm. I lay one on the table in front of you. Do you go on a shooting rampage or not?

4. What, in your opinion, necessitates an armed guard?

I have never stated that the U.S. problems will magically disappear if they implement strict gun control. I have mearly stated that the proliferation of guns in the U.S. along with its gun culture, leads to a massive amount of firearm related deaths compared to most other western countries, without it in anyway lowering the crime rate(indeed the U.S. rate is generally higher). I do not pretend to know the solution to the problem, merely emphasized that it exists.

Can you in the future please read my posts more carefully so that I feel that you are responding to my arguments, not that of some hypothetical strawman.

I'm reading your posts carefully, it's just that your arguments are not structured upon logic, and there are actual facts and statistics that prove the opposite of what you are trying to say.

Here's a balanced view at how crime statistics are hand picked by BOTH sides of the argument to represent their side:

Here's another, carefully explained look at our own FBI Crime Statistics. Take what you will from that.

You ignore the hundreds of thousands of cases per year where guns were used in self defense.

You're right, in part, that the availability of guns in the US makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on them. But here's the OTHER part of that... it also makes it easier for people to defend themselves against those criminals.

When you start banning or confiscating guns, it'll be harder for criminals to get them, but if they really want them, you know, there's already billions of guns IN this country as it is for them to choose from. The law-abiding citizen, however, WILL follow the law, WILL turn in their guns, and WILL be left totally helpless when the criminals decide to prey on them.

How, in your mind, is that a solution? How is that right? It's not. Taking away guns doesn't make us safer at this point. It's too late for that.

Even if we lived in a peaceful utopia, then you have to argument about the entire reason our Second Amendment was created - to allow US citizens to keep our Government in check. Now, some people have no problem being told what they can and can't do, how late they're allowed out on the street at night, what car they can own, etc... but there are some of us who believe that life is a gift given to us be it by a deity or simple CHANCE, and that no MAN has ANY right or authority to regulate our freedoms in any way.

The mayor of New York City has banned large soda. Citizens of New York City cannot drink large soda. You cannot order a pitcher of soda while at a restaurant with your friends in New York City.

Do you agree with that?

In any case, let me make it clear to you that I appreciate you and your argument and I have nothing but well wishes for you so I truly hope you don't take my opposition to your stance personal. We're from two different worlds, as it were.

MichiganMuscle77:

No, i do not agree. You can't figure in mathematics to a situation like this. You still don't seem to understand that you have but fractions of a second to react to a perceived threat. If the guy WANTS to take your lives, he'll do it before you've had time to properly assess his intentions.

I never said one would act according to mathematics-merely that one should. Ultimately in such a scenario no one can in my opinion be certain how they would act. However the morally correct choice in this scenario must be the options that poses the least risk to you and your family's life. As I specified that most likely you would be at far lower risk if you co-operate then if you try to shoot the burglar in your hypothetical situation. By my reasoning that makes it the preferable choice by far.

MichiganMuscle77:

That's interesting and all, but here are some stories that prove you're completely wrong:

Woman hides in attic with two children while a man seeks them out, shoots him 5 times before he not only flees, but DRIVES away (how's that for the magazine capacity regulations?)
http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2013-01-09/georgia-woman-shoots-intruder-5-times

Her drawing her weapon didn't put her children in any more danger than they were already in.

18 year old widowed Sarah McKinley shoots intruder armed with a hunting knife after moving her infant to safety and dialing 911:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

Her baby was unharmed.

Men break down the door on families home, knock down the father and go after the mother when the 21 year old son shoots and kills one of them.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/23/houston-man-21-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion/

His parents are alive and well.

You do know what "unlikely" means right? As in that the chance is low not nonexistent. A few counter examples will do nothing to prove my statement wrong(indeed nothing can be proven or even concluded from purely anecdotal evidence. So lets study the statistics, I will use the source your youtube video provided-the FBI seems impartial enough,

There was 354,000 robberies in the US 2011 and 14,612 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter. So that even if one assumes that every single murder was committed in conjunction with a robbery(an absurd assumption) the probability that a robber will kill you is only around 4%. If we assume that maybe 25% of all murders are done in conjunction to robberies-still probably too high, we get a chance of 1%. Hence the probability that a robber will try to kill you(1-p in my mathematical example) is extremely low.

MichiganMuscle77:

Those are TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS who aren't able to draw their weapon before they are attacked. How do you think YOU would react to someone running at you with a knife? Answer: You're not, you're going to get cut up and probably die. That's why you never give someone the chance to put you in that situation. If someone breaks down your locked door, they've earned whatever happens to them.

If someone ran at me with a knife I would run like hell in the other direction-seems like the only reasonable action-not that I perceive that to be a likely occurrence.

MichiganMuscle77:

1. Good. How would you feel if someone was actively threatening their life?

2. So when given immense power, you tend to prefer NOT to abuse it? Is this a fair assessment?

3. That's not the question I asked, please try again. I'll rephrase if it helps you stay focused - I invite you over to my home in the USA where it is perfectly legal for my to possess a firearm. I lay one on the table in front of you. Do you go on a shooting rampage or not?

4. What, in your opinion, necessitates an armed guard?

1. I would be scared obviously

2. Yes, generally I would prefer not to have immense power at all

3. The question you asked was insanely leading and I believe I gave it an answer of the seriousness it deserved, yet if you insist I will answer it. I would not go on a shooting rampage and generally feel quite uncomfortable with the whole situation.

4. Considerable danger to that persons life or well being.

MichiganMuscle77:

When you start banning or confiscating guns, it'll be harder for criminals to get them, but if they really want them, you know, there's already billions of guns IN this country as it is for them to choose from. The law-abiding citizen, however, WILL follow the law, WILL turn in their guns, and WILL be left totally helpless when the criminals decide to prey on them.

How, in your mind, is that a solution? How is that right? It's not. Taking away guns doesn't make us safer at this point. It's too late for that.

True, as i specified previously I do not know the solution to the problem-I was merely stressing that it is a problem that the U.S. has compared to the rest of the western world.

MichiganMuscle77:

Even if we lived in a peaceful utopia, then you have to argument about the entire reason our Second Amendment was created - to allow US citizens to keep our Government in check. Now, some people have no problem being told what they can and can't do, how late they're allowed out on the street at night, what car they can own, etc... but there are some of us who believe that life is a gift given to us be it by a deity or simple CHANCE, and that no MAN has ANY right or authority to regulate our freedoms in any way.

If you believe that there is a chance that the army will support a government takeover, I would say the solution would be a military reform not arming the populace.

Gashad:
I never said one would act according to mathematics-merely that one should. Ultimately in such a scenario no one can in my opinion be certain how they would act. However the morally correct choice in this scenario must be the options that poses the least risk to you and your family's life. As I specified that most likely you would be at far lower risk if you co-operate then if you try to shoot the burglar in your hypothetical situation. By my reasoning that makes it the preferable choice by far.

The morally correct choice in this scenario is doing whatever it takes to eliminate the possible threat before your wife and kid end up dead. You're just plain wrong on this one.

You do know what "unlikely" means right? As in that the chance is low not nonexistent. A few counter examples will do nothing to prove my statement wrong(indeed nothing can be proven or even concluded from purely anecdotal evidence. So lets study the statistics, I will use the source your youtube video provided-the FBI seems impartial enough,

There was 354,000 robberies in the US 2011 and 14,612 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter. So that even if one assumes that every single murder was committed in conjunction with a robbery(an absurd assumption) the probability that a robber will kill you is only around 4%. If we assume that maybe 25% of all murders are done in conjunction to robberies-still probably too high, we get a chance of 1%. Hence the probability that a robber will try to kill you(1-p in my mathematical example) is extremely low.

Again, it doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is - the fact is that it does happen. Regardless, if it's so unlikely, then all you've got is an object that never gets used for its intended purpose. Big deal.

A woman was kidnapped in a grocery store parking lot in broad daylight, the same grocery store my mom shops at every week, then raped and murdered. She was 28. The guy was caught eventually... big guy, strong guy, overpowered her quite easily and she had no chance to defend herself. And now she's dead. Maybe if she'd had a gun and the training that goes along with carrying it she's had been able to protect herself.

I suppose you agree with the Colorado Democrat who suggested that women can defend themselves from rape by vomiting or urinating on their attackers? That they should NOT EVER have guns because guns are evil? Get real.

If someone ran at me with a knife I would run like hell in the other direction-seems like the only reasonable action-not that I perceive that to be a likely occurrence.

Article for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/29/uk-sees-sharp-rise-in-fat_n_154011.html

"An average of five people are knifed to death in England and Wales every week, as latest figures show that fatal stabbings are at a record level."

But since you gamble with the odds, you're probably just fine. Right?

2. Yes, generally I would prefer not to have immense power at all

So, am I correct in insinuating that you could be trusted with power?

3. The question you asked was insanely leading and I believe I gave it an answer of the seriousness it deserved, yet if you insist I will answer it. I would not go on a shooting rampage and generally feel quite uncomfortable with the whole situation.

The question is not leading. It's a simple yes or no question. You answered no. You would not shoot people up. I would not place my gun in front of you, but if I did, you wouldn't take it and shoot people. So does that sort of clear up the confusion you seem to have concerning the real issue? That a good person with a gun is of absolutely no concern of yours? You still believe that you should disarm those good people and leave them helpless against those who want to hurt/kill them?

4. Considerable danger to that persons life or well being.

As a human being, do I not have the same right to defense myself against considerable danger to my life or well being? Or do you just have to be a politician, movie star, or musician to be worth protecting?

True, as i specified previously I do not know the solution to the problem-I was merely stressing that it is a problem that the U.S. has compared to the rest of the western world.

I'm trying to lead you back to my original point, that the problem isn't gun culture - it's crime culture. The US has a severe problem with "criminal sympathy" where we give dangerous, violent criminals numerous "second chances" to re-assimilate. We are taught in this country that being suspicious of someone's behavior is rude.

All of the fellow students of the piece of shit that shot up the elementary school KNEW he was crazy. His MOM knew he was crazy, but because of the way our laws protect mentally unstable people, he went unchecked. His mom made the biggest mistake by owning guns, knowing her son was unstable.

Same thing with the Aurora theater shooter - his fellow classmates and people who knew him knew he was crazy.

Same thing with the guy who shot Giffords.

The vast majority of murders are committed by repeat offenders. "Crimes of passion" are irrelevant - people have killed each other with their bare hands when invoked by "passion". The availability of a gun in those cases makes no difference. And before you say "A gun makes it easier to kill", remember that a 100lb woman likely stands zero chance against a 250lb man in a bare handed fight... but if she had a gun, that's the great equalizer. Suddenly, it doesn't matter how big and tough he is. She might be able to protect herself in that case.

If you believe that there is a chance that the army will support a government takeover, I would say the solution would be a military reform not arming the populace.

I don't believe that, and I don't believe our government would be stupid enough to try anyway. What I do believe is that civil unrest is growing in this country. Our economy is in a nose dive and people are becoming desperate. The government is shutting down prisons and releasing prisoners, even violent ones, and cutting police forces all to save money - while they continually give themselves raises every year.

I will defend my right to life.

MichiganMuscle77:

Article for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/29/uk-sees-sharp-rise-in-fat_n_154011.html

"An average of five people are knifed to death in England and Wales every week, as latest figures show that fatal stabbings are at a record level."

But since you gamble with the odds, you're probably just fine. Right?

In the same year 9 people on average were shot to death in New York.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2008

Which odds would you prefer?

Semes:
[quote="MichiganMuscle77" post="528.399723.16609649"]In the same year 9 people on average were shot to death in New York.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2008

Which odds would you prefer?

That's impossible, guns are banned in New York.

Your link doesn't appear to work for some reason, but I want to know if that statistic decipher between gun MURDERS or just gun deaths. There's a difference.

MichiganMuscle77:

That's impossible, guns are banned in New York.

Your link doesn't appear to work for some reason, but I want to know if that statistic decipher between gun MURDERS or just gun deaths. There's a difference.

Seems like a lot of the fbi links have gone down for some reason. Here a link for 2010 murders by states and murder weapons.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

517 people were shot and killing in New York that year. Thats nearly 10 a week on average.

Its murders rather than deaths.

I'm an American and a proud gun owner, and believe me the last thing I want is people to tell me I can't own my fire arms or that I have no right to conceal carry for personal safety. I am a member of the NRA and Gun Owners of America, so obviously I am a bit biased toward gun rights.

However contrary to popular belief, most gun owners such as myself do in fact believe in SOME gun control. The NRA likes to be against it, but the reality is the average gun owner disagrees with their stances on a lot of issues. Personally I want to see a better mental health care system implemented in this country, also I am in full favor of having armed guards on school campuses. This may shock some of you, but keep in mind that the ONLY place these tragedies happen is at places where people are not allowed to bring guns (schools, movie theaters etc...).

I do not think guns should be legal because I think they are "cool" (though they are a hobby of mine), guns should be legal because it's our God-given second amendment right to bear arms. I believe the average citizen, who is of healthy mind and is responsible, should have the right to own guns and to use them for protection if need be.

I don't see why someone would be against that.

EDIT:Also just to point something out, criminals will ALWAYS have guns because they obtain them illegally, in fact the vast majority of gun related crimes are done with illegally obtained firearms, not legal firearms themselves.

Criminals obtain these guns through the black market, so all you're doing when you ban guns is stripping the protection from the average citizen away, criminals LOVE gun control because it doesn't effect them, it just effects you. They would love seeing the population at large disarmed because then we would be defenseless to their actions.

Just something to bear in mind.

Semes:

MichiganMuscle77:

That's impossible, guns are banned in New York.

Your link doesn't appear to work for some reason, but I want to know if that statistic decipher between gun MURDERS or just gun deaths. There's a difference.

Seems like a lot of the fbi links have gone down for some reason. Here a link for 2010 murders by states and murder weapons.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

517 people were shot and killing in New York that year. Thats nearly 10 a week on average.

Its murders rather than deaths.

Yep, but New York also has quite a problem with crime in general:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cscity.pdf

State by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Worth noting that Illinois has the highest percentage of murders committed by guns than any other state, yet it is the ONLY state left in this country (as of 2012) that does not allow its citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

What does that prove? Well, it doesn't PROVE anything, but it certainly suggests something - it suggests that in the rest of America, where citizens ARE allowed to carry guns, thus likely ensuring that there are more hand guns in public at any given time, you don't have this chaotic world of people shooting each other because they didn't use their turn signal or because they cut in line.

That's what the anti-gun fear, that is not what is happening.

The same bad people that will always do bad things skew the statistics. Of all of the avid hunters and gun carriers i've known my entire life, not a one of them has been a violent person. Nearly everybody I work with carries a hand gun, every single day, and they're all good, loving, caring people.

The argument is that more guns equals more gun crime. My argument is that more crime equals more gun crime, because guns are just an extremely convenient tool with which to carry out said crime.

But you know what makes a gun especially effective in a crime? If the person holding it is not met with any opposition.

Someone takes my guns away, you can come into my house with a gun and do whatever you want to me and my family and I can't stop you.

I have a gun, and you break into my house with a gun, I might have a chance to stop you. I might not, you might get me first, but one thing is for sure, you are 100% in control when I don't have a gun, and only 50% in control when I do.

People argue that a citizen with a gun would have made the situation in Aurora worse. They say that the cross fire would have probably killed more people.

That's not necessarily true. For one thing, I'd rather be in a cross fire than a fish in a barrel. At least in the cross fire, the shooter is focusing his attention on the good guy trying to save us all, as opposed to unleashing bullets on everyone where they sit.

Let's play hypothetical.

Two shootings occur simultaneously in movie theaters right next to each other. Each criminal shooter is armed with the same gun, the same "armor", has the same amount of bullets.

Let's say that in Theater A, none of the victims carry a gun, and 20 of them are killed.

Let's say that in Theater B, one of the victims does have a gun, uses it to stop the shooter, but 2 people are killed in the cross fire, on top of the 5 people that the shooter had already killed.

which do you prefer, 20 people dead with absolutely no chance of defense at all, or 7 people dead, even if two of them were by the concealed carry holders gun?

I don't prefer ANYONE dies, but I think scenario two is obviously a better outcome.

If I were accidentally shot and killed by a good person who managed to save countless other lives in the process, it would suck, but I'd consider it worth it. I'd trade my life for 20 lives any day. That's why I carry a gun, after all.

TheLycanKing144:
I'm an American and a proud gun owner, and believe me the last thing I want is people to tell me I can't own my fire arms or that I have no right to conceal carry for personal safety. I am a member of the NRA and Gun Owners of America, so obviously I am a bit biased toward gun rights.

However contrary to popular belief, most gun owners such as myself do in fact believe in SOME gun control. The NRA likes to be against it, but the reality is the average gun owner disagrees with their stances on a lot of issues. Personally I want to see a better mental health care system implemented in this country, also I am in full favor of having armed guards on school campuses. This may shock some of you, but keep in mind that the ONLY place these tragedies happen is at places where people are not allowed to bring guns (schools, movie theaters etc...).

I do not think guns should be legal because I think they are "cool" (though they are a hobby of mine), guns should be legal because it's our God-given second amendment right to bear arms. I believe the average citizen, who is of healthy mind and is responsible, should have the right to own guns and to use them for protection if need be.

I don't see why someone would be against that.

EDIT:Also just to point something out, criminals will ALWAYS have guns because they obtain them illegally, in fact the vast majority of gun related crimes are done with illegally obtained firearms, not legal firearms themselves.

Criminals obtain these guns through the black market, so all you're doing when you ban guns is stripping the protection from the average citizen away, criminals LOVE gun control because it doesn't effect them, it just effects you. They would love seeing the population at large disarmed because then we would be defenseless to their actions.

Just something to bear in mind.

Though most of those points commonly come up in such threads, saying that the 2nd Amendment is a god given right is new. I'd not seen gun ownership as a religious issue before.

MichiganMuscle77:
snip

You stated

"An average of five people are knifed to death in England and Wales every week, as latest figures show that fatal stabbings are at a record level."

But since you gamble with the odds, you're probably just fine. Right?

I was merely showing you how that looks in comparison. Do you feel that 5 people knifed to death on average is excessively high when viewed in context?

Jegsimmons:
1st off, only ~8000 were murders, the rest were suicides, justifiable homocide, 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.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

The numbers for 2011 according to the CDC are 15,953 homicides; 11,101 of which are firearms
(201 were self defense by private citizens, 390 law enforcement)
Suicide: 19,766 out of 38,285
Accidental firearm related deaths: 851
Legal intervention (police): 258
Undetermined intent with a firearm: 222
Injuries due to the discharge of firearms: 32,163

Just to update your numbers as I can't stand when people put the wrong numbers online and/or do not source what they post. It's a peeve of mine, especially when on social or political matters.

MichiganMuscle77:

State by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Well, everyone says that because guns cause more crime, I guess my state of Kansas should be some sort of hell-hole.........hey, wait a minute. 2.2 per 100,000. But, the national average is somewhere around 4.5. Well, maybe we have tough laws. I mean, that is the only way we could be so crime/murder-free. *looks up laws* Lets see:

Permits? Nope
Registration? Nope
Assualt Weapons Ban? Nope
Owner Licenses? Nope
Conceal carry? Yes for Handguns
Open Carry? Yes for all guns
Castle Doctorine? Yes
Stand-Your-Ground? Yes
Peaceful Journey law? suprisingly, no
NFA restrictions? Nope (meaning, you can own machine guns, rocket launchers, explosives, tanks, etc.)

............
...........
...........
So........does this means that gun control or lack there of really DOESNT have an effect on crime?

BOOM headshot65:

MichiganMuscle77:

State by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Well, everyone says that because guns cause more crime, I guess my state of Kansas should be some sort of hell-hole.........hey, wait a minute. 2.2 per 100,000. But, the national average is somewhere around 4.5. Well, maybe we have tough laws. I mean, that is the only way we could be so crime/murder-free. *looks up laws* Lets see:

Permits? Nope
Registration? Nope
Assualt Weapons Ban? Nope
Owner Licenses? Nope
Conceal carry? Yes for Handguns
Open Carry? Yes for all guns
Castle Doctorine? Yes
Stand-Your-Ground? Yes
Peaceful Journey law? suprisingly, no
NFA restrictions? Nope (meaning, you can own machine guns, rocket launchers, explosives, tanks, etc.)

............
...........
...........
So........does this means that gun control or lack there of really DOESNT have an effect on crime?

Exactly and that's the point I'm chewing at. Crime culture. You can have two cities, equal population, equal gun laws, equal number of guns, and one may have vastly more gun related crime than the other.

We need to figure out why that is. Poverty? Gang activity? What are the demographics of these areas and what needs to be done to fix the problem?

Hypothetical:

Would you rather be trapped in a room full of guns with the Pope, or be trapped in an empty room with Charles Manson?

MichiganMuscle77:

Hypothetical:

Would you rather be trapped in a room full of guns with the Pope, or be trapped in an empty room with Charles Manson?

Do you even have to ask? I think that is the most one brain-dead hypotetical I have ever heard of. The Pope, if it wasnt obvious. I think the bigger worry would be that they would have to make sure that I dont take the gun and shot that sum'bitch Manson.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked