America needs more guns to prevent shootings. Lets learn from Switzerland.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Please use the actual quotation tool when quoting me. As far as for what ever else you said in the below quote I find it confusing to follow.

You said:

First of all, your first statement is not even true ("only outlaws will have guns"). Can you not imagine a world where...umm, only a designated group of people, say, the police, have guns, and therefore maintain law and order?

I actually said:

If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns

a reply to: animalfarm

I would write TIME and tell them their article is bogus then.

Hmmm... Let me get this straight. All of my old friends who were in gangs should have had more guns because it would've prevented shootings?

All of the members of the neo-Nazi groups we had altercations with should've had more guns to prevent shootings?

Every single domestic abuser, child abuser, thief, pedophile, rapist, or violent alcoholic in the country should have more guns because it would prevent shootings? And every one of their victims should have more guns because that would prevent shootings, even if they're justified?

And street beggars and people going to bars & nightclubs should have more guns because that would prevent shootings?

And American mental health patients should have more guns because it would prevent shootings?

And every convicted felon, drug dealer, gang member, pimp, and cartel member should have more guns because that would prevent shootings?

Right...

By this logic, should I also suggest all activists & protest movements only march & protest with more guns because it would prevent shootings? And should I also suggest every one of my fellow Muslim Americans and African Americans get more guns because that would prevent shootings, especially when dealing with law enforcement? Should I start a new #BlackLivesWithGunsMatter slogan?

a reply to: frostie

And no where in what you quoted does it say they did so without getting the proper paper work. I have read that article, and it mentions that clearly.

So maybe you should make you should you read everything.

a reply to: enlightenedservant
That is a serious vortex you just made.

I think the point is for the right ones to have protection at the right time because guns and knives are low tech and easy to make so there is no stop in it in the u.s.

Unless you have a plan of keeping guns away from most of who you mentioned we will need protection.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: enlightenedservant
That is a serious vortex you just made.

I think the point is for the right ones to have protection at the right time because guns and knives are low tech and easy to make so there is no stop in it in the u.s.

Unless you have a plan of keeping guns away from most of who you mentioned we will need protection.

But that's the point. How does adding even more guns into the mix make the situation better?

Hypotheticals & new ideas are nice. But the hard part comes with implementing those new ideas. So how would we actually add more guns into the country to prevent shootings?

All of the categories I mentioned are actual Americans, too. So they would be getting more guns too. And if we're only adding more guns to certain Americans, how do we decide which Americans? Child abusers, rapists, women beaters, thieves, felons and the other groups I mentioned come from all walks of life. And many are already gun owners. So how would giving them more guns prevent shootings?

If we're selecting certain types of Americans & either denying them guns or taking guns away from them, that destroys the whole premise of "adding guns" to prevent shootings. And if we're not going to take guns away from the groups of Americans I mentioned, it destroys the part about "preventing shootings".

EDIT: Also, who is the "we" that needs protection? Men from all demographics can be criminals or kill their wives, girlfriends, exes and kids. Women from all demographics can be criminals and/or kill their family members. Every single community has criminals and people who break laws without getting caught. How do we identify who the potential threats and targets are when anyone can fit the profile?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those people you mentioned already have guns my friends and will get more whenever they want.

We need more guns in the hands of the general population to keep those pesky criminals in check.

a reply to: frostie

Where do you think they get their guns...

How does flooding more guns into the situation do anything to prevent criminals from getting them?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Um thanks? I guess.

Not sure what you've said has any meaning.

The swiss get their guns with paperwork.

Criminals get them without.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Criminals will always get guns and as many as they want.

We needs the general pop to defend themselves.

a reply to: frostie
And the more guns we put out there the easier it is for them, and cheaper. Simple supply and demand.

We shouldn't have laws at all, not just guns but laws period since we want to say criminals won't follow tgem anyway.

originally posted by: frostie
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those people you mentioned already have guns my friends and will get more whenever they want.

We need more guns in the hands of the general population to keep those pesky criminals in check.

Oh really? Where are your stats to back that up? You really think every American rapist, women beater, violent alcoholic, thief, convicted felon, child abuser, etc already has guns? Because those are just some of the groups of Americans I mentioned. Sounds more like a talking point than a fact. And giving those Americans access to more guns would only increase the likelihood of a shooting, not prevent them.

Besides, the general population is full of "those pesky criminals" that need to be "kept in check". Every American from every demographic has the potential to kill or rob someone. For example, at least one third of all American female murder victims are murdered by their male partners. Here's a report on it.

How would we profile which men are potentially going to kill their significant others? And how would adding more guns into an abusive relationship prevent shootings, either from his fury or from her self defense? More guns would only increase the chance of a shooting, not decrease it.

The difference between everyone in Switzerland having a gun, and everyone in America having a gun, is vast. Switzerland requires military service, meaning everyone LEARNS how to own and respect a firearm. Switzerland isn't overrun by dogmatic nutjobs. Switzerland has much better social services than the US, meaning poverty and crime are much less of a problem.

The situations are in no way comparable.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Was thinking the same thing..America is no Switzerland..Switzerland is everything many Americans claim are evil, a left wing hell hole where everybody has good health care and a good quality of life.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Its not a matter of how cheap and easier it is for criminals to get guns,

if all the people criminals try to rob, rape, and assault had guns then they wouldnt attempt to commit crime.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Heres an Interview with John Lotte, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

www.press.uchicago.edu...

Theres also a question on the domestic issues youve mentioned.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

This way a reply I had earlier in the thread to another misguided fellow.

Countries can learn from each other. Like the OP suggests.

Countries political systems, socioeconomics, legislative, and judicial practices are learned from other countries.

a reply to: frostie

If it rained lemon drops and malt balls oh what a rain that would be.
IT IS a matter of how cheap a gun is, that is the difference of your two bit purse snatcher or wanna be gang banger having a gun and using it.
If it cost more, less people can afford it.

The swiss don't have their entire populace armed, as much as you want to stick your head in the sand on that. What deters crime is strong social nets and jobs and health care for all.

And Lotte is just taking advantage of the steady decline of violence and crime over all in our nation.
There isn't a direct link to the gun ownership, just a correlation.

a reply to: frostie

No offense, but that interview didn't answer my questions. All he kept saying is more guns decrease the chances of crime & deter criminals. But without a method to unarm potential criminals (which decreases guns, not increases them), we're still left with criminals & potential criminals getting more guns too. And here's what he said about women.

Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

That doesn't answer my very simple question. How is adding more guns into an abusive relationship going to prevent shootings? If the abuser is the one gaining more guns, how would that prevent a shooting? One third of all murdered American women are killed by a spouse or former spouse. How would giving the abusers more guns decrease the chances of them shooting their significant others?

And if we give the victims of domestic abuse more guns, how would that decrease the chance of a shooting? It would increase the chances of a shooting because she would be more likely to shoot him to stop him. And he'd be more likely to react even more aggressively if he knew she had a weapon. Don't you take a target more seriously if you know they're trained or armed?

Then there are people who may have legitimate mental health issues, people who are alcoholics or drug abusers, and people with violent tempers. How would we prevent shootings by giving these people more guns? How? Every time I mention these common sense questions, people keep ignoring them or deflecting from them. But how is giving more guns to alcoholics, mental health patients, drug abusers, women beaters, and people with violent tempers going to prevent shootings?

originally posted by: frostie
a reply to: Sremmos80

Its not a matter of how cheap and easier it is for criminals to get guns,

if all the people criminals try to rob, rape, and assault had guns then they wouldnt attempt to commit crime.

It's completely illogical to assume so. Sure, there may be a "higher penalty" to committing these crimes...but that doens't mean they won't attempt them...it only means there will be more fatal endings.

Criminals will be criminals no matter the cost.

A2D