Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 





OK just dug a little deeper, it appears the US is much higher on other lists as they dont include places like Trinidad and Tobago and other tiny nations.


I love these lists that always leave out smaller countries or "non industrialized" countries. It always strikes me that they leave out countries with brown skin people. It always strikes me as a form of elitism. It is almost like saying they don't matter, or that it should be expected.

I never said America didn't have a problem with violence. You said that it was strictly an American problem. High "gun murder" rates are not strictly an American problem. Mass violence is not strictly an American problem. We do have a problem in this country with violence.

However, poor mental health services, sub-standard public education, a culture of military expansionism and adventurism, uncertain economies, a vanishing middle class (sense of hopelessness), a growing sense of entitlement, a glorification of consumerism, and other factors contribute more than guns.

We have a long way to go, but all of our violent crime rates - including murder - are at or near twenty year lows. We are better off than ever before in that regard. However, if you look at Mexico you will see the direction America could travel. The only places in America with rising crimes rates are the areas that try to continuously tighten gun regulations. NYC, New Jersey, Baltimore, Chicago, Phillie, and other such cities show a simple fact of economics. When there is a financial incentive people will find a way to do something. All of those cities tightened gun controls. The criminals realized that meant fewer people would be armed to retaliate.

The black market in guns exploded. DC's murder rate was more than ten times higher than that of Arlington Virginia. Why? For many reasons, but one was the power discrepancy in the criminals favor. The criminal stood to make more money if he invested in a gun. It makes people easier to rob, it makes it easier to kill off competition. The predator now had a weapon they prey did not. Before long violent crime, burglaries, robberies, and murder went up.

In New York City the gun murder rate eventually fell. However, the difference was 80% replaced by an increase in knife murders. The murder rate in NYC was still climbing through 2011.

Trying to over regulate or prohibit guns in America will actually lead to more death than we have now. It has been seen when localized regulation was tried. It has also become evident with countries like Mexico and Colombia before it. When guns are restricted too harshly and there is a prohibition of drugs already violent gangs get more violent. Corruption spreads through the police and military at a break neck speed and the "War on Drugs" really does turn your country in to a war zone.

If you want to look at why America's gun violence resembles Trinidad or Belize, look at the people that create most of the violence. They are usually the poorest people with the longest histories of repression, the lowest education, the least chance of advancement, and the least access to mental and physical health services. They are the ones that feel the most powerless and feel like they have the least to lose. Regardless of race, those are the ones that usually end up acting out violently.

It is sad to say, but America has a large portion of the population living under impoverished conditions. When you have kids living without consistent water, food, and shelter, you are cultivating a generation of criminals. We have a slew of societal issues that need work. All of them will do more to curb crime than restricting guns or trying to ban them.

I know that sounds weird to people that aren't from America. That is because gun ownership here has always been different from other countries.

Interesting bit about surveys. I'll try to look in to it more when I'm not at work. I've already killed my break time.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


I got a question for you. Who makes up a Militia? Regular citizens correct?

Now how do you say that Regular people should not have firearms?

I am giving you this one chance,although I suspect you will just troll me.Please do prove my expectations on that wrong.


Im flabbergasted by everyone saying Im a troll

Ive deliberately in the course of this thread not allowed myself to respond to personal attacks and insults and have even responded civily to those who have resorted to this.
Am I automatically a troll if I say something that goes against what you think?

As to your question




mi·li·tia (m-lsh) n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.


This to me implies being part of a group or organisation not simply having a gun.

Ive read on this thread that some states have banned militias, why no real fuss kicked up in that regard?
why once again is it only when it comes to guns you guys get so passionate and patriotic?

Genuine questions and I would like a genuine answer
I didnt troll you so please dont troll me



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 



You really think they would send troops after you when they have how many unmanned drones flying around?


How is a drone going to disarm people if a gun ban were to go into effect. Drones do two things, surveilance, and killing. Do you suppose they will just ban guns and send hellfire missles through the front doors of registered gun owners? This just makes no sense to me.

Also one point many are leaving out is how much money some people have invested in their firearms. If the government ever wanted a chance at getting guns without massive rebellion would be by insituting a fair buy-back program. I'm sure some would give them up for money, especially with times being as tough as they are. But the government is not that smart so that won't happen any time soon.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Well this threads done. People around the world think guns are taboo? They donnt want them? Are you that naive? Do you know nothing about arms trade? You seriously think when 3d printers are standard people won't make them.

I picked up on that "People around the world think guns are taboo" statement too and had myself a giggle.

I know that someone has posted a link to this article in this thread and in the OP's original thread that they abandoned.

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country

Just running down the list and of some NON-USA numbers.

Average total all civilian firearms
Brazil - 14 million
China - 40 million
France - 19 million
Germany - 25 million
India - 46 million
Mexico - 15 million
Pakistan - 18 million

Yes really, really taboo...........



Population of Brazil-190,000,000
Population of China-1,344,130,000
Population of France- 65,821,885
Population of Germany-81,726,000
Population of India-1,241,491,960
Population of Mexico-112,336,538
Populatoin of Pakistan-176,745,364


The only one that even comes remotely close to the US numbers is Germany, and it is still far less.

So yea, comparing 18 million guns to a population of 176 million means that they are pretty rare. And that doesn't even count those who are collectors.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Good Sir, your first point was all the further I needed to go. What is a militia made up of.....PEOPLE! "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Now which part of it did you not understand?



As addressed to the poster above you, having a gun does not make you 'militia" its a semi organised group used as a reservist army.
How many of your 100 Million gun owning compatriots are part of an actual militia and not just gun owners.
Despite what you would all like to believe the wording and more importantly punctuation make the 2nd Amendment somewhat ambiguous, this is plainly evident from the fact the supreme court had to rule on it.

regardless of what it says its dated and no longer relevant, it was a time of civil war against a foreign power and the US had no standing army.

There is no need in a civilised society for the average citizen to own a gun



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Let me start by saying yes I hate guns and No Im not American.


Why do you hate guns?


The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.


Fortunately the Supreme Court has chosen not to interpret it that way (after researching the issue.) Back in the day, the armed militia was the armed citizenry...wish it was still that way.


Now, as you pointed out,


Your Gov is neither subordinate or lacking in ambition.


So the idea that the government might turn on the people isn't so far-fetched, is it?




Once again the US has the best military in the world, what exactly is an AK or even grenade launcher let alone handgun going to do against an army of tanks, helicopters and drones except make you and your family a target?
Your military consists of American citizens, how many of your troops would be willing to fire on fellow citizens?
If it ever came to the Gov fighting the people I think they would pull out all the stops, even if you went to ground in the forests or mountains somewhere, they have satellites that can read the writing on a small coin with heat sensing capabilities. How long do you think you will last?


The same thing that peasants armed with AKs and handguns did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is amazing what a single determined person with a rifle can do, and a considerable portion of American citizens are trained in their use.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spock51
Also, I do not think offerring US .gov statistics will convince anyone. The US government has been known to fib.

This is a total copout. You can't deny stats just because you like the source. It gives a pansy way out by making a paltry excuse to deny the information.


Most people, including some relatives living in that area, say DC is a war zone out on the streets. I will take my sister's word over the .gov's word.

As someone who has relatives who work and live in DC, and who is in DC frequently myself, I will call bunk. ANd I will call your sister a drama queen.


Don't know a bloody thing about UK stats. However, most .gov stats are suspect every where in the world.
Call me paranoid, but I have been lied to by government entirely too many times to trust them unconditionally.

Have any truth about those lies, or are we supposed to take your word for it?


As stated previously, subjectivity must be guarded against, or at least recognized in a debate. You are highly intelligent and motivated, but you must realize that the American way and your way are vastly different. And the reasons for said difference IS an essential element in deciding such a volatile and divisive issue.


I am pretty sure that if the poster came out with a pro gun thread, you people would be jumping all over his support.

Just because you live in another country doesn't mean you can't understand the situation.

Anyone want to challenge RA on JFK? But he doesn't know anything since he isn't American, right?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by madenusa
 


Sorry but times have changed and quotes from 200+ years ago are not relevant to todays society where guns are concerned.

As for George Orwell




That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”


It has been used out of context.
Hes not advocating an armed populace he was trying to get people to join the home guard not arm every citizen.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


I could not help but notice you,either, over looked or neglected to address my favorite reason for having a gun.

Simply; I want one!

I was raised with guns and learned to respect them at an early age. I view them as any other tool which helps me do any of several jobs which need to be done. I do not need one to feel safe; I do not need one to feel all warm and cuddly inside.
It is just like you want, or need, a car to go to work or on some desired trip.
As I said, it is a tool and I want one. Actually I have several, but there are still some I would like to have.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Nice thread, man. I started a similar thread last night in the rant section but this ones getting more attention...and rightly so, you put more effort in though, good job.

Guns serve no real purpose, unlike knives, etc...you can fold a piece of paper up into a point and stab someone with it...that's not the point, is it? Knives have a function, guns don't - they're designed to destroy and kill, pure and simple.

To me it's just people being selfish...what's good for them, what they want - we're all so entitled to what we want nowadays.

All these people do - for me - is show me that we're not ready to be free, that we need laws to control us, we need to be ruled...because on the whole we can't be trusted, simple as. I find it hilarious that some ATS patrons will claim to be awake, to care about where humanity is heading, to make statements to the effect that we're controlled by tptb and yet they think it's normal to carry an instrument that's designed purely for destruction...stupid is what it is.

We will never be free, we don't deserve to be free...for as long as people have guns I won't rest and feel safe and that's it in a nutshell, you ain't helping humanity to progress with such an attitude, more like holding us back...barbaric is what we are and this is proof of it. A school of kids, killed, people in cinema...killed, yet still - people are too stubborn...oooh, the constitution says we can...so? So if the government wants to film us with CCTV it's baaaaaad, terrible...we shouldn't listen to them, fluoride in water? Baaaad...we don't want that, we can own guns? Gimmie one! Gov't said it's a good idea. Wake up, please.

I'm sick of hearing oooh there are so many responsible gun owners....and? There are irresponsible ones, too. It's like saying, yeah...nukes are bad, but he's a responsible nuke owner...and since he's a responsible nuke owner, it's only fair to let north korea have nukes, also...one rule for one, a different rule for another - pathetic. If I have a choice...hey, you can own a gun, problem is so can everyone else...no thanks, I can't vouch for anyone else and the risks are too great.

We ain't ready to be free because there are too many idiots and sick individuals out there. Nice thread, flagged and starred.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   


As a proponent of gun control can you point to a single instance in America whereby gun control actually worked? Chicago, New York, D.C., California perhaps?
reply to post by grownshow
 


In the 10 years after guns were banned in DC death by gun went down as compared to the 10 years before and despite what gun advocates seem to think it didnt rise by knife, bat or anything else.
The only statistical variance was that gun deaths were lower.
Isnt violent crime and gun crime getting lower in New York?




Geographically, America has a significant area of borders and frankly from a logistical view, its far easier to stop contra band at most european borders than it is in america. Does anyone have any proof that illegal items can't easily flood across our southern borders? Even if every gun was insta banned, their isn't any reason not to assume that cheaper weapons wouldn't flood into the country from central and south america to fill a newly created black market. Like the drug culture, it may turn out that illegal importation will always surpass government confiscation.


No ones saying a ban will stop criminals from getting guns, but as mentioned criminals usually use guns on other criminals. Only 27% of victims of gun crime are law abiding citizens.
Criminals will always find a way to get guns and I dont see anything being able to be done about that. But what about highschool kids?
They dont have the contacts or resources that crims do, I think disasters like columbine and the most recent school shooting could have been avoided if guns werent readily available. Didnt the most recent shooter get the gun from his mum?

Drugs are alot easier and more profitable to distrubute and sell than guns but I dont really see how its relkevant to the argument

Im Australian not European but I get your point.
I understand its in your culture but that doesnt make it right or desireable

refer to point 4 on my OP
edit on 18/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I have yet to hear a reply. Why would you uneven the playing field between criminals and civilians when buying a gun is a mouse click away anywhere in the world for anyone with the money. Illegal is not inaccessible.

And about the gun free zones:


Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media. The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning. Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany." "Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools."
"Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police." Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”


www.nationalreview.com...#



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
No matter what you say regarding Americans' right to bear arms is going to change the fact that you are wrong. Your interpretation, along with many others, of our constitution is just plain wrong as well. It clearly states that peoples' right to bear arms should not be infringed upon. This is not referring to the militia, but the citizenry. If you had read the commentary and works of America's Founding Fathers, you would have realized this.

The one thing people who want to take guns away do not realize is that they serve a purpose. The purpose of being allowed to have guns is so that the people can protect themselves against a tyrannical government. If people have guns, then there is less likelihood that the government will attempt to take away our rights. These are rights that were not intended to be revoked, thus we have guns so that we have power behind our voices. Dissention will only get you so far if a government is hell-bent on taking your rights away. It has happened in countless countries where the citizens were not allowed to have weapons, and it could happen in America as well.

In fact, it HAS happened rather recently. After WWI there was a plot to recruit ex-soldiers from the war to take up their arms and march on Washington. This coup was designed by the richest men in America, and their plan was to take away democracy and put in place a more tyrannical system. Luckily the ex-soldiers were not stupid. And what happened when a general who would not be recruited reported this to the higher ups of the government? Absolutely nothing. It could very well happen again.

And I will take it a step further and make the argument that the citizenry should be allowed to have every type of weapon the military has. This is the only way to ensure that we can adequately defend ourselves against the military, and I think this is what the constitution meant. At the time firearms were not very advanced, and I doubt they thought ahead so far as to what firearms would look like in the future...This is why they used the more ambiguous statement "bear arms."

Anyone who does not understand this is just naive, plainly and simply. Anyone who would say our government would or could never do this is naive as well. It could very well happen any day now. That is not to say it will or it must, but if it does, we have the means to protect ourselves. And I am convinced that there have been false flag attacks by lone gunmen orchestrated by our government, simply to garner public support for the banning of firearms. It is so obvious that the dull people do not see it.

Anyone who thinks that the government would never actually go to those lengths, and start to covertly kill people, is so naive it is not even funny. All you have to do is look at the history of the government from post WWII until now, and you will find many instances of the government not only abusing their power in various militaristic ways, but also killing American citizens to push their agenda. There are declassified documents that PROVE this as FACT, thus I am correct in saying that the people need protection from their government. Anyone who says any differently is obviously not a student of history, and is naively considering only the short-term, and is completely neglecting the long-term. As I said, these things have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. And I do not mean a long time ago...I mean they are happening now as well, and I do not need more declassified documents to tell me that.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


You still don't understand, it would be very easy to hide from those things and blend in, and that's IF they were deployed and IF there were military to use them. If there was a rebellion btw, where does the country get the money to wage war on itself? I'm done arguing with someone that is incapable of understanding or refuses to concede because their agenda prevents it.


If you respond further can you please quote what part of what I said your refering to, Its very time consuming to go back through all my posts to find what your talking about.

So your saying its easy to hide from a drone with infrared cameras
you and your buddies polar bears or something? Even if you manage to hide out as soon as you do your first geurilla raid within minutes (if that) the satellites have you and your not getting very far before air support gets there.
Once again maybe I should get a gun if it makes you feel as invincible as all of you seem to feel.
Fight the gov with weapons your screwed, fight with ideas and people power you cant lose.

Im not sure what you mean by get the money to wage war on itself, I assume it could just print more money kinda like its doing now.

Im perfectly capable of understanding and I have no agenda just expressing my views and trying to clear up some misconceptions.
It seems your incapable of discussing this without getting upset, trust me Im just as frustrated that you guys dont see my point of view but Ive refrained from being petty, questioing peoples intelligence (most of the time) or dishing veiled insults.
If you respond please try and show the same courtesy



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Pro-gun ownership types will never back down...there's no bigger picture, only the world they and theirs permeate, you can argue this point until you're black and blue but they won't ever back down - it's a waste of time.

People are selfish, they want what they want and what they want is all that matters...there is no greater good because for humanity to progress for the better requires sacrifice and compromise...and people are just too damn selfish to go there...so were doomed if you ask me.

Have fun killing one another...me? I won't ever visit the states, the abundance of guns being one reason, the extremist religious right ebing another, I could go on. Don't whine when half the world can't be bothered with you, sick hearing this crap. A destructive nation, anyone who can't see that is blind or part of it.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
It amazes me that a nation still regards a constitution that is how old exactly? As gospel in the modern day...is the right to bear arms as important now as it was then? Why, exactly?I'll tell you why, because people live in fear of the other guy who's got a gun...stupid, stupid...stuuuu-uuupid.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyLIBERTARIAN
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Pretty sad you have to remind others that you are intelligent in your header. Ego much?


Saw your response, had a laugh and had to respond out of order.

Its obviously a joke, was going to put in best looking but it didnt fit


Its funny how you ignore my OP and pick on that, your obviously a gun advocate and just hating on me coz I dont like your widdle gunny wunny.

If you wanna address the OP great but please try to avoid personal stabs in this thread. Feel free to U2U any you may have though, it wont get you the stars your after but Ill take it seriously



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 






mi·li·tia (m-lsh) n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.


This to me implies being part of a group or organisation not simply having a gun.

Ive read on this thread that some states have banned militias, why no real fuss kicked up in that regard?
why once again is it only when it comes to guns you guys get so passionate and patriotic?


I think you conveniently skip the last little part there

3. the WHOLE body of physically fit CIVILIANS eligible by law for military service
now I read this to mean any CIVILIANS not members of the national guard or military already, but those who COULD serve if the need were to arise, I've also noticed that your quick to interpret any "pro" gun quotes as out of date and no longer relevant, which in your opinion maybe but if you feel strongly about something you should do more then pick apart quotes someone else posted.

and another thing we as Americans get passionate and patriotic about a lot of other things then the fact that someone may or may not one day come to get our guys, all this shows is your lack of understanding about Americans as people.

one more point, the "banned militias" I believe you are referring to are mostly fringe groups that states banned because the were more on the level of "homegrown terror" (notice i quoted that because I don't necessarily agree with this definition) who govt powers viewed as a threat. And before you go off about how these were "gun toting crazies" actually all the stories I've seen involving these groups including one here in Georgia, were them planning actual "terror" attacks, with chemicals and bombs and such.
edit on 18-12-2012 by RN311 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Nice selective dissembling, obfuscating and... well, spinning. I have repeatedly debunked your claims and then you selectively respond with dissembling tripe about battle tactics? Seriously???

Dude, stop trolling. This is getting just... painful! Very, VERY painful!

Sorry but youve debunked nothing.

So are you saying you and your posse of gun toting patriots are a good chance of defeating drones and helicopters if it ever came to that?

As stated I studied Ancient history and have a keen interest in battle tactics, not modern mind you so I could be wrong but how exactly do you see a war against the military industrial complex of your country playing out?
Do you really think you would stand any sort of chance


This has been brought up by several of your side and thoroughly DEBUNKED, you would die in a futile gesture, a noble one perhaps but futile in that you dont have a chance.

Its getting painful very..VERY painful having to repeat this over and over and not getting a response to the actual question
edit on 18/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


You skipped replying to me. Why is that? It is not a very hard thing to answer is it?

I patiently await a response.




What is it with you guys


You seriously sound like a bunch of whiny little children screaming for attention, and as for the idiots who star these impatient posts... well it just shows that gun nuts will star anything if it goes against someone anti gun.

Im responding to replies in the order they came, within an hour of this thread being up I had 100 replies to get through so sorry I didnt respond in a timely enough fashion for you


If anyone else feels the need to hurry me along please either U2U me or at least quote your psot so I dont have to go back through the thread and waste my time





top topics
 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join