The UK got rid of guns. Now people get knifed. Criminals wills till have guns and the ones that don't get them, will use another weapon. It's a cold, hard world out there. In a kill or be killed situation, you need to be armed.
Another US Gun Nut Opens Fire
- Thread starter chuck schmidt
- Start date
The UK got rid of guns. Now people get knifed. Criminals wills till have guns and the ones that don't get them, will use another weapon. It's a cold, hard world out there. In a kill or be killed situation, you need to be armed.
I was looking at comparable figures. Western Europe is not too dissimilar in culture and as a whole has the same population. US gun crime is larger by far, and is because there are too many accessible guns, IMO.
I disagree. It is about a sick culture. A friend of mine who was a prison employee says that joy-riding young males are getting the same prison sentences as career criminals. Jails are being used as community income producers.
So what? I choose to make a less extreme argument from the same facts.The thing is that a lot of what you are posting seems to argue for complete gun bans- the sources you cite are mostly for gun bans, not bans just in public.
Weak. Western cultures are largely self-policing and obedient. For those who are not, see paragraph about jail.
I will when convince store clerks stop getting killed for a buck 50, Americans stop being beheaded by Mexican rebels in American cities and brigand armies like MS-13 are neutralized.
It is a lawless situation out there, even if the media sugarcoats everything. It might not be the Wild West but it is the Wild Suburbia in many places.
You want to carry a gun because some people carry knives?
I think I won.
You might want to reread that post...
You might want to reread that post...
No need. You don't gettit. You feel so threatened you can only live armed in the "free-est country in the world". You want to carry a gun-toy just like in an "Old West" that only really existed in fiction. You think your toy rights are more important than the lives of thousands of children and adults. You quote a fear of government but fail to think it through that you are government, and government will always re-arm to defeat you if you threaten it. Your reasoning will eventually either destroy gun rights or destroy democracy. Just IMO, though.
I guess, Chuck, that you have never had the need of a weapon to protect yourself.
I have, and not in a big city but in a rural area.
I will not walk in a wilderness area without a gun, you will be bear dung if you don't carry a weapon.
I have, and not in a big city but in a rural area.
I will not walk in a wilderness area without a gun, you will be bear dung if you don't carry a weapon.
I get that the civil war in Mexico is pilling over into America. I get that being a gas station/convent store clerk is the most dangerous urban job anyone can have in the civilian sector. I get that the gov't you hold in such high regard cares not of your life if you're an inconvenience/minority. I get that dogs, even domesticated, have this nasty habit of ripping passerby limb from limb in the case of the more violent breeds. I, unlike yourself, realize that the world isn't all peaches and roses, that the wild West may be history but that lawlessness still exists. Nobody should be walking around armed with an AK-47 unless there's some invasion or civil war going nor should guns be as easy to buy as groceries but the ability to carry a concealed, safety on weapon by a law abiding and sane citizen is just, prudent and Constitutional.
But again, why don't you look at the same exact countries before and after the enactment of the law? The culture in one country is clearly more similar than that compared to another. Is it because the numbers disagree with you? Furthermore, larger than the issue of culture here is the issue of rationality. We do not live in a utopia where everyone follows the law and when making law we must realize that as it leads to more efficient policy if we do.
But you aren't looking at the numbers. If they are so self-obedient, why do you still see public gun shootings in countries that have criminalized public gun carrying? You can try to mock those of us who are against public gun bans with all of this "frontier" talk, but at the end of the day, no one here is advocating a return to the "frontier," we are simply accepting the fact that criminals do not care for the law and will shoot guns in public if they want to. Sure you can jail them afterwards, but you'll still have gun shootings, unless you plan on jailing every potential gun shooter beforehand- in which case, everyone would be jailed. We aren't saying to make it legal for people to shoot one another- they would still be punished, we are just saying it is not reasonable to make public carrying illegal because the criminals will do it any way and if they are doing it, I would feel better if some good citizens had them as well for protection or whatever it may be.
[Nobody should be walking around armed with an AK-47 unless there's some invasion or civil war going nor should guns be as easy to buy as groceries but the ability to carry a concealed, safety on weapon by a law abiding and sane citizen is just, prudent and Constitutional.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
What does it matter what a law abiding citizen owns or how eassy it is to get it?
It's not the Bill of Needs,,,it's the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
MY FN FAL has killed one less person then teddy kennedy's car
Why not?
What does it matter what a law abiding citizen owns or how eassy it is to get it?
It's not the Bill of Needs,,,it's the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
MY FN FAL has killed one less person then teddy kennedy's car
NOW you're getting it. We both agree that there is too much shooting of other people by private gun holders in America. Our big difference at this point is that you think only some private gun holders should be armed in public to shoot other people with hidden sidearms, and you also think you should be a member of the killer elite. I think nobody should. One weakness of your position is that it does nothing to reduce supply. Mine does. Another weakness of your position is that it is not supported by the discipline of law enforcement. It leaves the field mostly open to the people who are doing the illegal shooting. Naaaaawww. Your position is logically insupportable in the debate, IMO.
Tell that to the families killed by the gun nut whose news stories started this thread? Besides, carrying a gun is not necessarily constitutional. America has lots of gun control. What you can buy and possess depends on where you are. Any government that wants can pass a law against public carrying of loaded handguns.
Gimme a break. We live in a western democracy governed by the rule of law. IMO your opinion is just panic mongering.
Like any destructive public phenomenon the solution is not to multiply the things causing the problem and hope it will eliminate itself, but to eliminate the things causing the problem. IMO, of course.
I am not panic mongering, as I feel allowing concealed public carrying will lead to the same numbers as not allowing it. As for destructive public phenomenons, the point is that it is not like the innocent people are going to be randomly firing at civilians on the street. In fact, they don't as places where this is allowed show. The people that do fire are the criminals, but they will do it either way. You have not shared any way in which we would be able to prevent the criminals from shooting people even with a ban and in the end it is just the criminals who shoot people in public like that, not your ordinary joe. You are focusing too much on individual cases and sure it is tragic when one losses a family member, but the policy of banning public gun carrying would not have stopped such shooting anyway. For example, most campuses do not allow public carrying regardless of what their state allows, yet we still see school shootings (and not only in the United States either.) And that is even with college campuses often having more security than most city streets and certainly more than rural ones.
The problems with all of your arguements is:
1 - you don't distinguish between law abiding people and criminals. We don't ban cars to solve the drunk driving problem (which is far worse than the gun problem), we punish the people causing the problem.
2 - you don't recognize any reason for a person to carry a firearm in public. Wait until you are a victim, then lets see what you think.
3 - you think anyone that wants to carry a concealed weapon is a killer and a nut.
4 - you think the police can protect everyone at all times.
The bottom line is, despite your claim to own firearms, you're just an irrational gun control freak that won't or can't understand a different point of view.
Well then lets have a look at some numbers. These figures are from 1997 and I have included the url. They measure numbers of deaths involving firearms in different countries per 100,000 of population, excluding accidents and suicides. In other words these figures DO NOT MEASURE pure numbers so that people can say, "Yeah but we have more people here." These figures are per unit of 100,000 people.
When you click and go to the source you will see that some other countries are measured. Some, such as in South America or South Africa, have higher numbers than the US. Most have far less.
Of the western democracies none except the US has over 1.00, the highest being Finland at .87 and second highest being Canada at .60. America has 6.24. America's is greater than all others combined. The average of all other western democracies is 37.8. America's number is 16.9 times the number of the average for all other western democracies listed. It is 48 times the rate in Britain.
http://www.allcountries.org/gun_deaths_by_country.html
Australia
.56
.53
0
.60
.87
.21
.55
.47
.22
.27
.19
.31
.13
4.91
United States
6.24
It seems to me it is impossible to argue that the US strategy of gun ownership is working, unless of course you are willing to argue that the US is more fairly comparable to South America and South Africa instead of (say) Canada and England?
Why don't you do a similar comparison of non-gun homicide.
Paints a different picture. Maybe getting rid of firearms won't change that much after all. Look it up.
67% of people killed in firearm caused homicide are criminals shooting criminals (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)
Here's another good one, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall, 1995).
The smart thing to do is pass a law requiring everyone to carry a handgun. That would make us a safe society.
Here's another good one, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall, 1995).
The smart thing to do is pass a law requiring everyone to carry a handgun. That would make us a safe society.
Why not?
What does it matter what a law abiding citizen owns or how eassy it is to get it?
It's not the Bill of Needs,,,it's the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
MY FN FAL has killed one less person then teddy kennedy's car[/QUOTE]
It also says regulated.
Granted I stop at banning guns at sane people with no criminal history, but the checks have to be done, otherwise you get V Tech.
Chuck Schmidt, the numbers do not make an argument for what you are advocating. Not only are the countries very different in circumstance, but more importantly, some of those companies have complete gun bans. Murder and crime rates show that gun bans have not helped, but again that isn't even what you are arguing for. From what you have said, you are ok with legalizing guns, but just oppose public carrying. The numbers we would have to see is within a country before and after public carrying was legal/illegal. I am not sure if some of the European nations went through a period of legal public carrying, but if they did I will try to find those numbers and post them.
It also says regulated.
Granted I stop at banning guns at sane people with no criminal history, but the checks have to be done, otherwise you get V Tech.[/QUOTE]No, "well regulated" does not mean regulated by the government. In the 1700's and 1800's, a well regulated militia meant a well trained and prepared body of men capable of fighting an opposing army, as in the Revolutionary War. Militia was also meant to include all able bodied men capable of serving. The purpose of the "well regulated militia" was to be able to oppose a standing army, particularly as a check upon a national government standing army.
No amount of government checks will prevent all crimes such as Virginia Tech. How many times does the government screw up? A person committed to a suicide mission can accomplish it with or without a firearm.
