Alright anti-gunners, lets have it out

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
How can you make that point about gun ownership in the US being responsible for our crime rate, without seeing the glaring contradiction?

If that question is to me...

I, for one, attempted to avoid that contradiction by using the words "majority," "civilised" and "democratic" in the formation of my response, as well as focusing specifically on what seems to be a particuarly "American" mentality that seems to be absent from the previously inferred "majority of civilised, democratic" nations in the world that are prohibitive, or significantly restrictionary, of gun possession.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Sadly it seems there aren't any anti gunners in sight.

Perhaps they actually had some sense knocked into them.

i am a liberal and legally own firearms, however i don't want certain people to have access to buy a firearm. crazy people, anyone with a police record convicted of using a firearm in a crime, and i would like to see a 3-day waiting period. why a waiting period? if your neighbor got pissed off at you and was in a rage, i wouldn't want him to be able to go down to the local wal-mart and buy a gun that day. that seems to be just logical. as with most things in a civilized society, there are rational and reasonable grey areas that need to be taken into account. everything is not black or white.

reply to post by madhatr137


My mistake - I was actually responding to the post by mlmiyjd, not your post.

Sorry for the confusion.

I've said it before, I'll keep saying it till I don't have to anymore...

"The second amendment is inalienable. There is no argument, there is no debate. There are only weinie libs that wish there were no God to give us the rights they think are theirs to give and take away."

reply to post by madhatr137

We no longer live in a society where there are functional militias defending States rights and 'freedom.'

The citizenry, being separated from the military, is the functional militia.

The majority of the civilised, democratic world do not allow, or are highly restrictive of, gun possession. Not Unironically, the rest of the civilised, democratic world has a significantly lower per-capita rate of crime. Is there a correlation? Yes. Is it a causation? Perhaps.

I would argue that there are many things that one can do in this country that are a crime, that are not considered such in other countries. Also, one should be looking at gun related crimes for this assessment. And if one were to do that, they would find that this particular breed of crimes, and (since most people feel it's related) violent crime in general increase when gun bans go into effect.

Some quotes..
www.foxnews.com...

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

rebirthoffreedom.org...

Crime had been decreasing for over twenty years, until the government interfered with the gun laws. After the ban, the crime rate exploded. Thanks a lot, Mr. Prime Minister. As Dr. Miguel Faria reports:

“Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

There's a lot more out there - don't want to waste the whole thread with quotes.

Unfortunately, and to add to the muddledness, it seems to me that the individuals who own the guns, and are more likely to gravitate toward violence to preserve their way of life, are the ones that tend to side with those that I feel would take away my freedom....so, really, its a lose-lose situation, as far as I can see.

Get to know a few more gun owners. The vast majority want what you want; Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And not at the expense of others. Really, go ahead and grab a couple gun magazines to get an idea of the culture - maybe hang out at a range sometime - hopefully a couple idiots didn't sour you on a very patriotic (in the original sense!), friendly, and helpful group of people.

-- ran out of characters. TBC --

reply to post by madhatr137


Okay, let's finish up.

They hunt(ed). My brother on the other hand, lives in Miami and owns an assault rifle and a sniper rifle, which he justifies ownership along the "home invasion" lines...this is not rational, and he should not be allowed to own such weapons...

What if your niece or nephew is saved by that AR someday when a 'gator wanders into the yard to play? Having lived in Hialeah and found them in the swimming pool, I can say that this is a very real possibility.

What if your brother's nice new stereo made a little too much noise for the Bad Guys to ignore, and they decide to come take it tomorrow night? Further, what if they decide to take his wife, too? And his kids? Guys like this don't want to leave witnesses, so he's in a box once the cable guy calls the cops to report a funny smell, and the rest of the family is... Having unspeakable things happen to them? Then dropped in the Everglades?

This is the point of gun ownership. We get our kids health insurance so that we can provide the best medical care in the world for them should the worst ever come to pass. Most of us here with kids could afford the bills if we're talking about a biannual checkup, a bottle of 'cillin here and there, and a bottomless pit of bandaids. But when my young cousin what diagnosed with Down's Syndrome, or my co-workers unborn daughter was found to have Gastroschesis, or even the time my own daughter took a header onto the kitchen tile... Who among us has $30,000 hanging around to pay the doc? The chances of most people using enough medical services to equal their insurance premiums over the course of their life is laughably low. That's how these insurance companies stay in business. But if you find out one day that you've got colon cancer? Whoo boy, you better have the Blue Cross, or you can kiss your house and cars goodbye trying to pay the bills.

That being said, I do have a few hundred bucks around now to invest in personal protection for my family, again, should the worst come to pass. When Bubba decides he wants my flatscreen, and he might just go ahead and take a peek in the pink door at the end of the hallway, I sleep better knowing that he winds up in a box, instead of me and mine.

This is not an aggressive stance. I have no WANT for martial law and fighting in the streets, nor for the experience of ever having to take a life. However, my home is my castle, and my family are my life. I won't be caught defending them against an intruder with a MAC-10 with my trusty steak knife. They mean more to me than to take that risk.

Originally posted by Gatordone
I've said it before, I'll keep saying it till I don't have to anymore...

"The second amendment is inalienable. There is no argument, there is no debate. There are only weinie libs that wish there were no God to give us the rights they think are theirs to give and take away."

huh? i'm a liberal, and i have my own gun safe. why would you make such generalities?...wienie?...and wish there was no god?. i have never met one of these people. and by the way... do you honestly think that the constitution and the bill of rights were written by right-wing moralists? they were some of the MOST liberal and radical thinkers of that time.

The right to "keep and bear arms" that term defines the difference between a citizen and a subject. A citizen has the right to protect his family,home and property without governmental overbarence.A subject has no rights.they have privledges allowed by their monarch and can have them stripped at will.

Gun ownership over the years in this country has shown to be a great deterrent to home invasion crimes.In the rural south where gun ownership is the norm for most homes the incident of home invasion is nearly nonexistant.

Go ahead and ban guns. People like me will get them in anyway and make a FORTUNE selling them. I am a good guy right now. I obey the laws, and do what I am suppose to. If they ban guns all that will end. If you ban guns in the US then we will get them through Mexico......Like everything else.

reply to post by jimmyx


I don't agree with some of what you said, but your post does give me hope. You gotta be the first lib I kinda had some respect for. No waiting in TX, and I have a feeling there never will be. If you want to get a gun, it is as hard as finding a pickup truck. Smash glass and remove from glove box down here

reply to post by slackerwire


You don't use the gun's as they where intended by the constitution. You therefore do not need them and you are also irresponsible with them, just look at the high crime rates.

You where not given the rights to use them for crime, but to defend your freedoms. You have not defended your freedoms and therefore do not deserve those rights. You abused those for crime.

Simple enough. Even my pet rock can see through your fake patriotism crap.


en.wikiquote.org...


"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."





[edit on 25-6-2008 by mOOmOO]

Originally posted by Gatordone
There are only weinie libs that wish there were no God to give us the rights they think are theirs to give and take away."

Is killing a right? After all, the sole purpose of a gun is to launch a small projectile somewhere above the speed of sound in order for it to penetrate the human (or other living creature's) body and make a mess of it. How do you reconcile "Thou Shall Not Kill" with a weapon whose sole purpose is to do that? Would Jesus own a gun?

Now a know a great deal of you want your guns to rise up and overthrow the government one day. However, using guns is soooo 200 years ago. I don't think a handful of you with your .30 caliber Winchester is going to make too much of a dent versus a black hawk helicopter. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan - militia armies with guns don't fair too well against the American military machine. Even IEDs aren't very convincing for getting someone to change their mind - the coalition has lost a lot of troops, but with each dead soldier, a deeper resolve comes to finish it - To make that person's sacrific not it vain, and so on it goes.

What has worked for overthrowing governments is non-violence and civil disobedience. India and Ghandi may have been a lifetime ago, but a more recent example is the Orange revolution in Ukraine. No one fired a shot, and yet the government changed. Imagine that.

You want to stop gun crimes? Get rid of all the guns. Make them illegal, so when one is found, it is destroyed. If the criminals and the people don't have guns, then we are all on the same playing field.

Those of you who use guns for self defense - have you ever used them? Do you keep it loaded by your bed so your kids can play with them? Or do keep them in secure storage where you won't have a hope of hell of getting to them in a time of emergency? Unless you wear it 24/7, the gun is probably more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense, which puts it in the hands of a criminal. That should make society safer.

Truthfully, guns have no place in our society. It is time to turn them into plowshares.

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
Go ahead and ban guns. People like me will get them in anyway and make a FORTUNE selling them. I am a good guy right now. I obey the laws, and do what I am suppose to. If they ban guns all that will end. If you ban guns in the US then we will get them through Mexico......Like everything else.

Just a point of clarification... we (the U.S) actually provide more illegal arms to Mexico than the other way around.

But the Mexicans, as well as America's Democrats, have grumbles. Eduardo Medina Mora, Mexico's attorney-general, has repeatedly asked the Americans to do more to stop the flow of illegal weapons from north to south. In response, the United States' Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has started sharing information with Mexican counterparts, says Thomas Shannon, the State Department's top official for Latin America.

From this Economist article.

Carry on! This is an interesting conversation so far, since it has not turned rabid yet.

Obs out

Question: Why ban guns ???

Perhaps because the US has one of the highest murder rates (per 100.000 citizens) of all civilized western nations ?

Almost 3 times as high as UK, 3 times as high as Canada, 4 times as high as Australia, 6 times as high as Germany, 6 times as high as Netherlands, 7 times as high as Norway, 7 times as high as Denmark and 11 times as high as Japan...

And for the argument that you need a gun to defend yourself: when nobody has a gun, you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

Of course a lot of violence does not happen when you can't grab a gun so easily. Say that you get fired. A lot of people get angry then. But when you don't have a gun at home you can't immediately shot down your boss. You first need to get a gun (from criminals) and before you get a gun must people have calm down already. On the other when you have a gun at home it is quite easy to commit a murder before your emotions are back to normal.

Sources:
en.wikipedia.org...
I have seen also other sources them wikipedia, but could not find them so quickly right now.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by lightyears]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by lightyears]

reply to post by 5thElement


50$ a bullet? why stop there? why do we need vehicles that go faster than the posted speed limit? if i'm that upset i have to kill someone and i cant afford a bullet, i think i'll use a bat. look out baseball fans. dont forget about hunters. there goes the billions, yes billions of dollars that hunters pay each year to hunt, that each state collects on to support their conservation programs. not to mention the companies that employ countless people that make firearm accessaries and such. WAKE UP ANI-GUNNERS! look at the big picture not the easy out.

reply to post by WyrdeOne


THANK YOU WyrdOne!
I was hoping someone would beat me to that point and you did so in a concise and informative way. That's exactly how I feel, and not many people look at the statistics a whole, instead only citing examples of countries where gun-related crimes are higher where they're legal, and lower where they're not.

You want to stop gun crimes? Get rid of all the guns. Make them illegal, so when one is found, it is destroyed. If the criminals and the people don't have guns, then we are all on the same playing field.

Do you know how simple a gun is to make? Did you know that people have been resorting to building their own guns and also selling these guns to criminals? Did you know that gun crime has been on the rise since all the bans in the UK?

Also, would the government have guns in order to take guns..?

Of course a lot of violence does not happen when you can't grab a gun so easily. Say that you get fired. A lot of people get angry then. But when you don't have a gun at home you can't immediately shot down your boss.

There's a solution, more suited to spur of the moment releases of anger.

It's called a knife.





[edit on 25-6-2008 by Spreadthetruth]

Originally posted by mlmijyd
Guns are for killing and I'm not a great believer in any tool that has been designed for that reason. I think your (US) statistics show eloquently the impact of allowing ANYONE to own and use these killing tools. And, no I’m not in favour of Armies/Police either as their record of death is wholly evident on a global scale, fact!

Actually guns are made with one specific purpose: To fire a projectile.

Where said projectile goes is up to the human holding the gun.

reply to post by lightyears


Prescription drugs kill more people than guns do. Should we ban them?

Afterall, if no one had prescription drugs, no one would die from them right?

That is the narrow minded, dimwitted approach to a problem.

You're really not going to find a lot of rabid anti-gun sentiment floating around a forum where an overwhelming number of topics deal with liberty and resistance to tyranny.

Guns are necessary. When HB-89 was signed into law in my state giving more freedom for concealed carry permit holders I was ecstatic.

To be honest I, personally, would love to see all guns banned but we as a people (not just America I mean every living and breathing soul) are not mature enough to cope with one another. Until we can get along on a global scale and we no longer are such a violent breed than the smart thing to do is protect yourself. It won't be for probably 5000+ years before we can get past all the BS we've created for ourselves so guns are not only necessary to repel absolutism but in everyday situations such as a carjacking, home invasion etc.

I would also be in favor of a mandatory safety class for every person who purchases their first gun. There is no reason not to learn how to properly and safely handle and maintain a firearm. They are dangerous in the hands of someone who buys one and has never fired a gun before. Safety should be priority number 1 and the more people that learn to respect firearms the safer we all are.