Will, We the People Succumb To The Assault Of Our Second Amendment Right?

reply to post by ajay59

Originally posted by ajay59
What I have a hard time understanding is, why would someone in another country be so bent on our disarmament? Maybe they are not who they claim to be or where they claim to be from? One more time for the slow learners.

As I have stated before, as long as there are those with the ability to do harm with guns, I will retain the ability to stop them with guns! Truly, if you are able to convince those in power to relinquish their weapons, you may have a chance of convincing the rest of America to lay down their weapons. Come back and let us know when this has been accomplished, (with undeniable proof), of coarse!

That is fairly well cut and dried!

Love it. You can’t counter a single point I’ve made so you try and portray me as some kind of government shill.

Like I said above I don’t really care what you guys do. Its Christmas Eve, I’m working a 12 hour shift where there’s nothing for me to do because it is Christmas Eve, and I’m bored.

The fact that you guys cling onto guns like a baby does its pacifier I find immensely amusing.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Here is where your argument falls apart. Less guns means less gun deaths but does it mean less deaths if those statistics are not substantially different then it only means killers found a different way to kill.

Do you know how many crimes are stopped by legal gun owners? I have had to use mine twice. I can say with a degree of certainty if I hadn’t that at least one person would have been killed by a person wielding a knife the other instance was when my wife was attacked in both instances I was justified in using my gun.

My other question was if your country is bordered to a third world nation. If not your countries situation is not comparable to ours.

If you are trying to convince me to give up the defense of my family you need to show better info. Your graph is extremely skewed it doesn’t even have Mexico on there.

If you could show me statistics proving that immediately after a country banned guns that murder and crime dropped by any noticeable amount then it would be worth considering however it has been my understanding that the reality is the opposite has come to be true. Furthermore there are cities here in the states that have passed laws where every home legally has a firearm and the citizens overwhelmingly carry concealed firearms and the statistics have shown those cities to be the safest in the nation and violent crime as well as theft like burglary to be near nonexistent so the logical conclusion is a well-armed populace is much safer than a disarmed one. If you have factual data that disputes that I ask you to please post it.

The graph you show there is near worthless in my opinion because it only shows what tool has been used in murders it does not indicate anything other than that.

I hope you do not lose interest in this conversation because it would nice to have an honest discussion on the matter but I will understand if you choose to not respond the statistics on this matter generally do not support the anti-gun proponents.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Something you need to realize is that your country is on that chart. This means you still have gun violence. Just suppose upon the next printing of that chart you, a family member or even a close friend are included on that chart(heaven forbid). Just how important are them numbers going to be to you, or a family member or even a friend? Think deeply about that and you might be able to understand why we are who we are.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Here is where your argument falls apart. Less guns means less gun deaths but does it mean less deaths if those statistics are not substantially different then it only means killers found a different way to kill.

I don’t fully understand what you mean here, but in answer to the second part of your statement other weapons just don’t have the killing capabilities as guns. I doubt Adam Lanza would have taken down nearly as many kids if he simply had a baseball bat or a knife

Do you know how many crimes are stopped by legal gun owners? I have had to use mine twice. I can say with a degree of certainty if I hadn’t that at least one person would have been killed by a person wielding a knife the other instance was when my wife was attacked in both instances I was justified in using my gun.

Am glad you and your wife came out okay. But you simply cannot use one off occurrences no matter how close to home they are as examples as to why nationwide action won’t work.

The source for this info I’ve already posted above but for every criminal shot in self-defence there are 4 people shot by accident. This in my mind is enough of a reason to place restrictions on gun use and ownership.

My other question was if your country bordered to a third world nation. If not your countries situation is not comparable to ours.

If you are trying to convince me to give up the defense of my family you need to show better info. Your graph is extremely skewed it doesn’t even have Mexico on there.

edit on 24-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

I always thought Mexico was a 2nd World nation but I guess it doesn’t really matter. Show me some data that states Mexico is the main source of gun related violence in the US and maybe you’ll actually have a valid point.

The graph above is comparing violence in 1st world nations which is why Mexico isn’t included. There are other countries on that graph such as South Korea, Bulgaria, Chile, Slovakia, Israel etc which border nations just as bad as Mexico so once again your point is invalid.

If you could show me statistics proving that immediately after a country banned guns that murder and crime dropped by any noticeable amount then it would be worth considering however it has been my understanding that the reality is the opposite has come to be true.

See this post of mine here

The reference I used is here
www.aic.gov.au...

Furthermore there are cities here in the states that have passed laws where every home legally has a firearm and the citizens overwhelmingly carry concealed firearms and the statistics have shown those cities to be the safest in the nation and violent crime as well as theft like burglary to be near nonexistent so the logical conclusion is a well-armed populace is much safer than a disarmed one. If you have factual data that disputes that I ask you to please post it.

To properly address this question one would have to look at the individual circumstances of each one of these cities which cannot really be done on this forum. The fact is though that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and pretty much the highest level of gun related violence in the world. This is no coincidence.

The graph you show there is near worthless in my opinion because it only shows what tool has been used in murders it does not indicate anything other than that.

But aren’t we talking about gun related violence? What kind of data would satisfy you?

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Something you need to realize is that your country is on that chart. This means you still have gun violence. Just suppose upon the next printing of that chart you, a family member or even a close friend are included on that chart(heaven forbid). Just how important are them numbers going to be to you, or a family member or even a friend? Think deeply about that and you might be able to understand why we are who we are.

Back to to the 'one-off occurences' in order to try and counter nation-wide action. I thought we'd already been there...

Those 'numbers' show that my country and every other developed nation not only has less guns, but is also a safer place to live. Therefore your 'one-off' example above is far less likely to happen in the country where I live than in the country where you live.

I would prefer a situation where not just my family is safe, but everyones family is safe. Hopefully you can now see where I'm coming from.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


The point is I had to use my gun twice which is hard data as far as I am concerned. Most crimes that are stopped by legal gun owners go unreported. I have flashed my gun more than I care to remember in areas like Miami where the would be muggers decided I wasn’t worth it. Many others will tell you the same thing. A ban wouldn’t take guns off the streets and the only people that would turn them in are the people who already abide by the law.

My point about the graph is this. If someone is murdered does it really matter how they were murdered the end result is the same. The worst school massacre in US history was done using explosives which are not hard to make from my own experience. Where there is a will there is a way.

One of the countries that you brought up as an example is South Korea which I was stationed at for a year and a half. It isn’t bordered to a first world nation so I am not sure how that compares but there is quite a bit of violence just not as deadly. I have seen a few people killed there but gangs pretty much extort the people and they do have guns. It has a huge military presence with checkpoints all through the country and people will sometimes just disappear. It isn’t a good example to compare.

Mexico is a good reason for us to remain armed drugs, guns, gangs, and all that comes with it flow across the border daily. Those that live near the border have to defend against this element daily. If those people were not armed there would be nothing stopping that element from home invasions. It still happens on occasion but imagine if people knew they weren’t armed. Being shot at from across the border is a daily occurrence and from what my uncle has said you don’t leave the house without being armed because he has on several occasions come across smugglers on his property. Couple that with the gangs set up in the states and illegal grow operations and the fact is it just isn’t safe.

I am sure if the UK was bordered to Mexico they would be as heavily armed as we are.

Well the data that satisfy me or persuade me is if you could show that after a nation disarmed that crime fell. A murder is a murder to me I don’t care how it was done. From the numbers I have seen crime actually went up immediately following a disarmament which is unacceptable the medicine in those cases is worse than the disease. Here in my own country the cities and states that have the strictest regulations on firearms are some of the most dangerous. The places where guns are banned are murder capitols now. So all the statistics have actually pointed to the fact that a disarmed citizenry is worse off than a legally armed one.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Grimpachi

The point is I had to use my gun twice which is hard data as far as I am concerned. Most crimes that are stopped by legal gun owners go unreported. I have flashed my gun more than I care to remember in areas like Miami where the would be muggers decided I wasn’t worth it. Many others will tell you the same thing. A ban wouldn’t take guns off the streets and the only people that would turn them in are the people who already abide by the law.

For whatever reason you seem to have been exposed to much more potential violence than what I gather the average US citizen has, but the point I made above still stands. You cannot factor in individual experiences when dealing with a nation-wide problem. The fact you’ve had these experience in my opinion makes you less able to to view the situation from a non-biased point of view and your first sentence above only goes to prove this.

My point about the graph is this. If someone is murdered does it really matter how they were murdered the end result is the same. The worst school massacre in US history was done using explosives which are not hard to make from my own experience. Where there is a will there is a way.

Murder and violence are far more easily committed with a gun than any other hand-held weapon. Obviously there are deeper issues as to why the US is such a violent place in comparison to other first world countries but the ease of available weapons certainly doesn’t help this situation. It is my opinion that because owning and using a gun has become so normalised in US society it actually blinds you to the harm that having a society completely saturated with guns is causing.

One of the countries that you brought up as an example is South Korea which I was stationed at for a year and a half. It isn’t bordered to a first world nation so I am not sure how that compares but there is quite a bit of violence just not as deadly. I have seen a few people killed there but gangs pretty much extort the people and they do have guns. It has a huge military presence with checkpoints all through the country and people will sometimes just disappear. It isn’t a good example to compare.

Yeah South Korea probably isn’t the best example but that still leave quite a few other countries on that list.

Mexico is a good reason for us to remain armed drugs, guns, gangs, and all that comes with it flow across the border daily. Those that live near the border have to defend against this element daily. If those people were not armed there would be nothing stopping that element from home invasions. It still happens on occasion but imagine if people knew they weren’t armed. Being shot at from across the border is a daily occurrence and from what my uncle has said you don’t leave the house without being armed because he has on several occasions come across smugglers on his property. Couple that with the gangs set up in the states and illegal grow operations and the fact is it just isn’t safe.

I am sure if the UK was bordered to Mexico they would be as heavily armed as we are.

I’m sorry but third hand information from your uncle just doesn’t cut it. I need some sort of hard data if this discussion is to progress. But even if what you say is completely true there are much better solutions against the Mexico problem than simply arming every citizen of the United States with a gun.

Well the data that satisfy me or persuade me is if you could show that after a nation disarmed that crime fell.

I have, please check my above post to you.

A murder is a murder to me I don’t care how it was done. From the numbers I have seen crime actually went up immediately following a disarmament which is unacceptable the medicine in those cases is worse than the disease.

I keep here this statement yet no one seems to be providing any data to back up these claims. And until this happens I am simply going to dismiss this clam as NRA propaganda.

Here in my own country the cities and states that have the strictest regulations on firearms are some of the most dangerous. The places where guns are banned are murder capitols now. So all the statistics have actually pointed to the fact that a disarmed citizenry is worse off than a legally armed one.

Again a little hard data would be nice, but this claim I do actually believe. The problem here is creating ‘gun free zones’ within a country saturated with guns is paramount to a bad joke. If you want to implement an effective solution it has to be done on a nationwide basis.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

For whatever reason you seem to have been exposed to much more potential violence than what I gather the average US citizen has, but the point I made above still stands. You cannot factor in individual experiences when dealing with a nation-wide problem. The fact you’ve had these experience in my opinion makes you less able to view the situation from a non-biased point of view and your first sentence above only goes to prove this.

I am not that out of the ordinary. It just proves that there is a need for them. What is an acceptable number of people being victimized in your opinion to warrant disarmament? For me I don’t believe anyone should be victimized when it is preventable.

Murder and violence are far more easily committed with a gun than any other hand-held weapon. Obviously there are deeper issues as to why the US is such a violent place in comparison to other first world countries but the ease of available weapons certainly doesn’t help this situation. It is my opinion that because owning and using a gun has become so normalized in US society it actually blinds you to the harm that having a society completely saturated with guns is causing.

I am not so sure about that. No one has shown me statistics or studies that prove that. Owning weapons in Israel is commonplace more so than here yet crime rate is lower than the UK.

Yeah South Korea probably isn’t the best example but that still leave quite a few other countries on that list.

There are many more that are worse look at Honduras where firearms are illegal to the public but the criminals have them actually most of central and South America is like that but crime, violence, and gun death is statistically higher than the US. It is probably better to compare country’s that are actually in the same region anyway.

I’m sorry but third hand information from your uncle just doesn’t cut it. I need some sort of hard data if this discussion is to progress. But even if what you say is completely true there are much better solutions against the Mexico problem than simply arming every citizen of the United States with a gun.

It is easy enough to find I am actually surprised you didn’t know it’s on the news all the time.
First hits from google
www.dailybulletin.com...
www.nytimes.com...
Just google plenty of info there.

I have, please check my above post to you.

That is a skewed graph which only shows gun death. If each country has a hundred killings but 1 is all by gun and the other is 20 by gun and the rest by knife the problem is still the same. Different tools were used but the same murders happened. Taking away guns didn’t solve anything. It just made it to where some people couldn’t protect themselves. It makes the problem worse.

I keep here this statement yet no one seems to be providing any data to back up these claims. And until this happens I am simply going to dismiss this clam as NRA propaganda.

Almost every gun thread on here has shown the data. I am tired right now if you can’t find it by tomorrow I will post it for you.
www.humanevents.com...
what the hell you can start reading there. All the info is real easy to find if you look. thousands and thousands of hits when you google.

Again a little hard data would be nice, but this claim I do actually believe. The problem here is creating ‘gun free zones’ within a country saturated with guns is paramount to a bad joke. If you want to implement an effective solution it has to be done on a nationwide basis.

You mean gun free cities and states. Considering some states are as big as others countries I think it is a good indicator of what will happen with a ban. Also keep in mind disarming America would be impossible and spark off more violence than our civil war. Another case of cure being worse than the disease.

Like I said if you can show some honest data showing less guns significantly reduced murders and crime you may have a point but no one has provided that in any thread.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


We get it, you do not like America in it's present state. Easy fix. Stay where you are! Do not visit us, do not move here and most importantly, do not try to invade us as you are unarmed and we are not!

The 2nd Amendment would obviously have sounded sensible at the time ( 200 + years ago ) but things move on.

I don't suppose for a minute that the authors imagined a nation of 300 million plus, coast to coast, with nuclear weapons.

Fact is that the 2nd Amendment is only treated as divine law cast in stone because it accords with gun fanatics wishes.

Where is the hysteria about the 3rd Amendment ? That's right you don't have a clue what it is. It is about the forcible quatering of troops.

You gun ban People can preach, present charts and graphs and try to guilt American patriots till your blue in the face. You are wasting your time until you disarm the governments of the world! WE WILL MAINTAIN THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OURSELVES, OUR FAMILIES, FRIENDS AND OUR PROPERTY! PERIOD, THE END!!!

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by sconner755
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

The founders simply acknowledged the obvious -it is an inalienable right of all people to defend their life. As the power of weapons has increased, the need to have equally powerful weapons for self-defense is even more important, not less. A ban on weapons that level the playing field is going to lead to a powerless society.

So let me know when you're able to buy nukes and rocket launchers. Also I've always wanted one of those unmanned drones. That would be fun...

rocket launchers on the market

www.autoweapons.com...
www.autoweapons.com...

www.autoweapons.com...

www.nextag.com...

If this isn't a reason for concerne I don't know what is

Homeland Security increasingly loaning drones to local police

www.washingtonguardian.com...

I went to the gun store today and when at the checkout I asked if they have any ARs the clerk told me they were sold out and currently had people on a waiting list backlogged 1500 orders. Anytime there is talk about gun bans people always stock up. Hell all the 30+ round magazines were the same way.


Good luck dissarming Americans. It just isn't going to happen.

http://(link tracking not allowed)/TbTGVG

reason.com...

At Reason.com and interesting article; Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets
J.D. Tuccille | December 22, 2012

There are downsides to owning guns illegally. The big one, from my perspective, was that I couldn’t go shooting at a range. The folks at the Westside Rifle and Pistol Range probably had as dim a view of permits and registration as I do, but they weren’t about to risk their own freedom just to let me put a few holes in paper targets. So I applied for a permit to purchase a .45-caliber Model 1911 and keep it at home. The sales clerk at the gun shop was helpful—he should have been. I paid a premium to have my paperwork submitted to the proper city paper-pushers by experts retained by the store. Although the term was never used, I assumed that meant the store made use of New York City’s peculiar breed of middlemen known as “expediters” to get the permit processed. Eternally controversial, expediters are known for their detailed knowledge of the city’s byzantine regulatory procedures, their working relationships with bureaucrats, and their willingness to grease palms to make sure clients are given favorable consideration.

Even so, I waited. And I waited. And I finally blew my stack.

As the saying goes, I knew a guy who knew a guy. It took an email, a phone call, and a friendly meeting, and for less than 300 bucks, I was the proud owner of a semi-automatic variant of an AK-47—the famed assault rifle of the old Soviet bloc and of guerrilla fighters everywhere. It was legal in much of the United States, but strictly verboten in New York City.

Most people I know are good law abiding citizens and if a law is made they try to abide by the laws of the land. There are also those that pay attention to laws when someone is watching or until a law becomes inconvenient then get what they want by any means possible. Does not make it right but that seems to be the nature of some.

Such connections can be found elsewhere in the world, too. Flush with money made satisfying Americans’ appetite for intoxicants out of favor with U.S. government officials, Mexico’s drug gangs have eagerly armed themselves, the better to squabble with one another—and to battle the police and even the army. While popular mythology blames the flow of guns to Mexico on purchases in America’s legal weapons markets (Mexico has tight restrictions on private firearms ownership, including outright bans on guns in calibers used by the military), the gangs have increasingly fielded grenades, rockets and machine guns—firepower unavailable in the average Texas gun shop.

So, by imposing restrictions on one type of product, governments have driven people to the black market where all forbidden products and services are available, and likely increased the wealth and power of active sellers in that market. If you were trying to enrich and empower the folks who thrive beyond the reaches of polite society, you couldn’t come up with a better plan. Hmmm … but those guns come from somewhere, right? Before black marketeers turn them into illicit commodities to be sold alongside coc aine and tax-free cigarettes, they have to be manufactured. So, what about putting tighter controls on the companies that make these killing machines and cutting off the supply?

I had a friend who did allot of business once upon a time in Russia. He is/was a very rich American who purchased legal things in Russia for his museum in the states.

We were talking about how hard (dangerous) it was to do business in momma Russia and I asked him about the mafia and how bad I had heard it could be...He laughed and said the Mafia was much easier to deal with than the government. A hand shake and some money they delivered the item to a port of your choice...

The government delivery system (if it worked at all) consisted of money, paperwork, more money, paper work more money etc and even when the item arrived on the dock you could not get it released for shipping until more money and paperwork....Many times more expensive than father Mafia....

This all transpired a short time after the Soviet Union collapsed.....and obviously Not every place is like Russia. Other countries of the world have their own version of cutting through the laws of the land...

Drugs are illegal in the US yet since the inception of the declared war on them (80s) according to the law enforcement people I know and the statistics I have read they are more available today than ever; in-spite of spending $500 a second every minute of every day. Google drug war clock

Just something to consider among other considerations.

reply to post by Alfie1

the 2nd is just as sensible today as it was then, even moreso.

I don't suppose for a minute that the authors imagined a nation of 300 million plus, coast to coast, with nuclear weapons.

then you have a very limited imagination.

the 2nd is merely protecting a birthright, to protect/defend self
without limitation or impingement of ANY kind.

fyi, the 3rd prohibits 'forcible quartering of troops'.
you might want to read it again

www.news10.net...

Sacramento police investigate fatal home invasion robbery where 3 others were injured

When officers arrived, they found one robbery suspect fatally wounded; the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. The homeowner was also shot and was transported a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

There were a total of 4 armed bad guys who were trying to commit the robbery. They might have just come inside and taken what they wanted wishing the homeowner a Merry Christmas at gun point.... Don't have to worry about one of them for he be dead; helping to save the worlds ecology one bad guy at a time.

Misspent childhood, drugs, abuse, mental disorder, 4 bullies? and a myriad of other excuses for their behavior? I do not care...I am glad the home owner is alive because he chose to fight back and not be a victim.....

I used to know where there was a web sight that listed all of the reported good guys defending themselves, might be the publication called The Armed Citizen but I am to lazy to look it up and it would not matter to those who oppose taking responsibility for their own well being.

usliberals.about.com...

This article lists individual gun owners as a percentage of each state's population, as of 2007.
This data is relevant to national and state elections, particularly the 2012 presidential election, as it clearly explains why candidates President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney refuse to meaningfully address gun control and ownership issues, at least before the November 2012 election day: thirteen of fourteen 2012 battleground states have gun ownership rates of 30% or more.

States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%)
•1. Wyoming - 59.7%
•2. Alaska - 57.8%
•3. Montana - 57.7%
•4. South Dakota - 56.6%
•5. West Virginia - 55.4%
•6. Mississippi - 55.3%
As the article says the stats were from the year 2007....these last few years have seen some of the largest numbers posted for people buying guns in the states.

They list every state www.about.com...


P.S. CT #46 obviously low gun ownership helped prevent the death of innocent children....

Originally posted by Alfie1

The 2nd Amendment would obviously have sounded sensible at the time ( 200 + years ago ) but things move on.

I don't suppose for a minute that the authors imagined a nation of 300 million plus, coast to coast, with nuclear weapons.

.

Your post only shows your downright ignorance, or plain wilful ignorance of human behaviour.

You are simply comparing and judging the founding fathers by your today's standard.

Are you aware that back in the 17th Century, a gun alone was considered the MOST advanced and powerful WMD of its time, in an era where swords and bows were still commonplace by a large worldwide population?

Nope. You were not aware and ignorant. Yet you dared to mouth your ignorances. Allow me to illuminate the dark empty recesses in your mind you called the hold for a brain.

So why did the founding fathers authorised the 'WMD' then into the hands of the population?

Simply because they were intelligent people who studied history, and knew how a tyrant with just a few troops with that 'WMD' can enslave an entire nation, and in the case of England that ruled the 'world', enslaved humanity.

Thus, they felt the need to ensure that NO tyrant will ever rule USA again, and legislated it into stone, paid in blood by the thousands of americans - from the generals to the just wedded footsoldier, for america's freedom and sacred Constitution today.

Times change and people do change. Changes are the only constant in time. However, freedom never changes, for mankind is meant to be free no matter the circumstances or progess and evolution will die, just as tyranny will be reincarnated in many different forms, butis still tyranny to enslave our world, just as the small population tiny kingdom brits are enslaved by the austerity, uncaring leaders and their priviledged bootlickers in UK today..

I humbly apologise to my fellow human brothers and sisters in UK today, if they take offence in my words used as I am not an elegant shakespearian writer but only a simple man, and hope that the majority may understand americans better, even if the minority has no wish to do so.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I am not that out of the ordinary. It just proves that there is a need for them. What is an acceptable number of people being victimized in your opinion to warrant disarmament? For me I don’t believe anyone should be victimized when it is preventable.

I’m sorry, but I’ve met dozens of Americans in my short life and no one has had quite the experiences you’ve had. I know this is in no way makes it a hard fact but the stories you’ve told me sound like something I’d expect out of a third world nation, not a first world nation like the United States.

So let me ask you something. Why does the United States have one of the highest (if not the highest) rates of gun related violence in the entire world?

To me the main reason is simply the amount of guns within the general population. There will be of course other reasons such as the appalling education levels, low job prospects etc which will and do increase the amount of crime. But why so much gun related crime if not for the amount of guns available to the general populace?

As for you question as to what is the acceptable number of people victimised to warrant disarmament well my answer is 0. I do not see any reason why anyone should own a tool whose sole purpose is to end the life of another. You may bring up farmers protecting livestock or people who live out near wilderness and the question of protection from wild animals and my answer to that is if you choose to make a living or indeed live in such areas then you have invaded their territory and therefore it is a risk you are simply going to have to accept.

Murder and violence are far more easily committed with a gun than any other hand-held weapon. Obviously there are deeper issues as to why the US is such a violent place in comparison to other first world countries but the ease of available weapons certainly doesn’t help this situation. It is my opinion that because owning and using a gun has become so normalized in US society it actually blinds you to the harm that having a society completely saturated with guns is causing.

I am not so sure about that. No one has shown me statistics or studies that prove that. Owning weapons in Israel is commonplace more so than here yet crime rate is lower than the UK.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see the United States is (of course) tops of the list in terms of 1st World countries when it comes to homicide by gun at 3.7/100,000 head of population, more than four times higher than the second 1st world county of that list being Canada with a rate of 0.76 homicides per 100,000. So there’s the stats.

As for Israel, it actually has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world with only 7.3 guns per 100 citizens compared with 88 guns per hundred citizens as seen in the United States. No wonder the crime rate is far less.

en.wikipedia.org...

This invalidates BOTH your arguments.

There are many more that are worse look at Honduras where firearms are illegal to the public but the criminals have them actually most of central and South America is like that but crime, violence, and gun death is statistically higher than the US. It is probably better to compare country’s that are actually in the same region anyway.

Don’t even try and compare Honduras to the United States. We are talking about first world developed countries here, although reading your stories and seeing the news I’m beginning to get the feeling maybe the US doesn’t deserve that status anymore…

I’m sorry but third hand information from your uncle just doesn’t cut it. I need some sort of hard data if this discussion is to progress. But even if what you say is completely true there are much better solutions against the Mexico problem than simply arming every citizen of the United States with a gun.

It is easy enough to find I am actually surprised you didn’t know it’s on the news all the time.
First hits from google

www.dailybulletin.com...

www.nytimes.com...

Just google plenty of info there.

These are once again one off news stories and prove nothing more than your stories from your uncle. As for ‘googling it’, you cannot expect me to the research to support your argument.

I have, please check my above post to you.

That is a skewed graph which only shows gun death. If each country has a hundred killings but 1 is all by gun and the other is 20 by gun and the rest by knife the problem is still the same. Different tools were used but the same murders happened. Taking away guns didn’t solve anything. It just made it to where some people couldn’t protect themselves. It makes the problem worse.

The graph is not skewed, it paints a very clear picture. HOWEVER, this is not what I’ve been referring you to the past two times you’ve asked me this question. You may want to click the link and see. Here, let me make it easy for you.

What I wrote was this

Just because something is hard to do, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Besides, you guys are both looking at it from the wrong angle. In Australia after our last massacre in 1996 the government outlawed sporting firearms, including all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. They instituted a ‘buy back’ scheme and people voluntarily surrendered their guns. They got about 600, 000 of them. In 2003 they started and handgun buy back scheme for target arms of greater than 9mm calibre and got around 50,000.

Now no one believes they even got 1/3 of all the newly outlawed weapons, but the ones left behind are now closely guarded and hidden and as the owners know they will not ever be able to buy them ever again. So they too have been effectively removed from circulation. Nor can you source bullets for them anymore.

As these remaining weapons are hidden they are now no longer stored within the home which has significantly reduced accidental gunshot injuries especially amongst children. Suicide by firearm rates are also down significantly as they are not easily accessible by anxty teens with a grudge against the world. I can see this having some impact on school massacres in the States for the same reason.

So yes it works, just not quite in the way you guys think it should. No one’s sending in the troops to collect all the weapons, it’s all completely voluntary. But when you can’t buy bullets or take them down to the range to practice or display them in your homes they slowly become kinda useless.

After these schemes were implemented the crime rate in Australia for gun related violence (namely robbery and homicide) began dropping and despite yearly fluctuations the trend overall has continued to drop.

Here is the supporting data


In this graph notice the distinct plunge the trend line takes after the gun buy back scheme was implemented in 1996



www.aic.gov.au...

Now please show me some hard data which describes a country where gun violence has increased after severe restrictions upon firearms were imposed, otherwise I will consider this simply NRA propaganda.

I keep here this statement yet no one seems to be providing any data to back up these claims. And until this happens I am simply going to dismiss this clam as NRA propaganda.

Almost every gun thread on here has shown the data. I am tired right now if you can’t find it by tomorrow I will post it for you.
www.humanevents.com...
what the hell you can start reading there. All the info is real easy to find if you look. thousands and thousands of hits when you google.

See this is the sort of facts I’m wanting out of you. Good stuff. What I will say to this however is that yes states which would allow one to carry a concealed firearm probably do have (30% I think I read) surficially lower crime rate but this rate is still far higher than it should be when compared to the rest of the developed world. Also I do consider the article biased as it comes from a pro-gun Republican source.

Again a little hard data would be nice, but this claim I do actually believe. The problem here is creating ‘gun free zones’ within a country saturated with guns is paramount to a bad joke. If you want to implement an effective solution it has to be done on a nationwide basis.

You mean gun free cities and states. Considering some states are as big as others countries I think it is a good indicator of what will happen with a ban. Also keep in mind disarming America would be impossible and spark off more violence than our civil war. Another case of cure being worse than the disease.

Like I said if you can show some honest data showing less guns significantly reduced murders and crime you may have a point but no one has provided that in any thread.

Done – above.

Also when I mean disarmament I mean voluntary. Read how it has played out in Australia in my above post. No one is going to send in the army to retrieve every single gun. No one is going to kid themselves that every single gun will be surrendered. But those which are left behind rarely if ever will see the light of day again and are effectively removed from circulation.

reply to post by ajay59

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Originally posted by ajay59
You gun ban People can preach, present charts and graphs and try to guilt American patriots till your blue in the face. You are wasting your time until you disarm the governments of the world! WE WILL MAINTAIN THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OURSELVES, OUR FAMILIES, FRIENDS AND OUR PROPERTY! PERIOD, THE END!!!

We get it, you do not like America in it's present state. Easy fix. Stay where you are! Do not visit us, do not move here and most importantly, do not try to invade us as you are unarmed and we are not!

Yeah yeah and I get it. You ran out of anything worthwhile to say after your second post and after grasping at straws failed now you’re firmly sticking your head back in the sand and refusing to engage me or anyone else with an opinion other than your own in any meaningful way.

Besides as can be seen by this thread they don’t need your guns, they’ve already got you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know you’ve seen it and I’ve also noted you had nothing worthwhile to say here either.

TPTB don’t give a crap whether you and your hillbilly militia have guns or not. They’re still controlling you, more so than just about any other westernised country in the world. Name another western country that has FEMA camps and can lock up its citizens indefinitely without charge? You can’t can you. America is falling and your guns are just speeding up the process because they are furthering the instability within the general demographic. They will take away every single one of your rights EXCEPT your right to bear arms because it gives you all a false sense of security while at the same time completely screwing everything up.