Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?

reply to post by Daedalus


What is the point of the legal system and it's support for police, if it isn't to protect the interests of those who the laws were made for? Are the laws not there to protect the people? And are police not supposed to act if they see someone breaking the law, or attempting to? Is someone shooting innocent people not defended against by police? If the police do not choose to defend people's rights and indirectly the legal system's underpinnings, what is their purpose?

I find nothing wrong with defending oneself.... Everyone should be free to decide what threatens them and be allowed to own a weapon if they feel the fear is warranted.

I don't own a weapon, not because I don't support the right to own one, but because I feel that the fear is currently unwarranted.

I am not against the ownership of weapons. I am against people who think that owning a weapon is the only way to defend the 2nd amendment and support those who would sell us weapons and the troubles that cause the fears that drive its sales (though they may only do this clandestinely).

Running late, gotta go... nice chatting with you... perhaps we will continue later... or others will chime in.

reply to post by sensibleSenseless


If each of us had a "security detail" then your point would be valid. However, there are typically thousands (if not tens of thousands) of civilians per enforcement official. Why do you think a cell phone and hope will save you from a life threatening situation.

Your rationale goes back to my boating analogy.

Boats are not made to sink
People are supposed to stay in the boat
People should know how to swim

Why then a need for a life vest? It goes against the rational ideas of boating.

People are supposed to be civil
Criminals should not have guns
People should be safe in their homes

Why then a need for a gun? Because the world does not follow the guidelines we set. A gun (in the right hands) is a tool that protects life. No different than a seatbelt in a car or a life vest on a boat.

It is when the human mind gives life to the gun that the horror begins. Guns kills people, guns are evil, guns cause violence.

Replace "guns" with "man" and you would be far closer to the truth.

But nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on this matter. I think we can all agree on that at least. Deny ignorance and deny history if that gets you through the day. Our peoples time on the planet in inundated with mans brutality to man. Some want to reason when the chips are on the table and some want to reason and have the ability to defend themselves when all else fails. That is the only major difference between the two schools of thought.

sensibleSenseless
reply to post by Daedalus

 

What is the point of the legal system and it's support for police, if it isn't to protect the interests of those who the laws were made for? Are the laws not there to protect the people? And are police not supposed to act if they see someone breaking the law, or attempting to? Is someone shooting innocent people not defended against by police? If the police do not choose to defend people's rights and indirectly the legal system's underpinnings, what is their purpose?

I find nothing wrong with defending oneself.... Everyone should be free to decide what threatens them and be allowed to own a weapon if they feel the fear is warranted.

I don't own a weapon, not because I don't support the right to own one, but because I feel that the fear is currently unwarranted.

I am not against the ownership of weapons. I am against people who think that owning a weapon is the only way to defend the 2nd amendment and support those who would sell us weapons and the troubles that cause the fears that drive its sales (though they may only do this clandestinely).

Running late, gotta go... nice chatting with you... perhaps we will continue later... or others will chime in.

the point of the police is to enforce the law, and the "justice system" is to uphold the law.....the problem lies in the fact that their enforcement and upholding of the law is done after the crime has already been committed....it is meant to be a deterrent, but it is not...if it were, nobody would commit crimes.

more often than not, if you're with an organization, and you go to prison, or jail, you can live better in there, than most of us do out here....if you're part of an organization, they take care of you on the inside....hardship is supposed to be a fundamental component of the prison experience...nowadays, a lot of the time, it isn't..

so prison is no longer a deterrent..it's more like a paid vacation.

of course, if a police officer sees a crime in progress, they are duty bound to respond to it...but the problem with this, is that they can't be everywhere all the time. that is where the ruling by the SCOTUS comes in....people were suing police departments, for not getting to their house, before the criminals got away, or for not being able to keep them from being shot, or stabbed, or beaten, or having the part in their hair disturbed.....

so it was ruled...and i'll paraphrase it, to make it easier to understand (not that you're stupid, but sometimes, it's just best to spell these things out in the plainest of terms)...they basically said that the police department is not everyone's personal bodyguards....they're not required to be everwhere, see everything, and be able to stop all crimes everywhere, wherever, or whenever they might happen

ownership of a weapon does not defend the second amendment by virtue of itself....it is an exercising of the right, guaranteed by that part of the document...granted, the gun you own, COULD be used to defend the right to own it, in addition to all the other rights in the document, if certain circumstances existed..but that's another conversation, i think...

Related:

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by UnmitigatedDisaster


I posted black and white facts.

If you're too retarded to realise what 14600% more likely to get shot at means, then I have no more time for you and will go back to what I stared with.

You just want your guns, you don't care who gets hurt and you're too stupid to care about facts or dead kids as long as you can keep on shooting.

Your selfishness sickens me.

reply to post by Beavers


You must be a paid government troll. All countries should ban motor vehicles, they cause more deaths than any other weapon combined! It's fun to note that many of the most violent US cities also have the strictest gun control. Oh wait, they also tend to be very large and diverse cities too! Maybe we need to restrict city living, it creates a cesspool for violent behaviour. I like that idea.

Daedalus

PhoenixOD

Daedalus
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

i'd love to see you site examples...hell, start a thread EVERY day, to showcase the latest mass killing with guns, that you claim happens on a daily basis in this country....

Its a bit more than a claim. Help yourself, all 272 mass killings for 2013 are listed here

2013 272 mass shootings

edit on 24-9-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

jesus christ...

firstly, your source is frigging REDDIT....

secondly, if you lower standards enough, you can make anything sound worse than it is...

4 people doesn't constitute a mass shooting....aurora was a mass casualty event...columbine, virginia tech, sandy hook....4 total casualties, not all fatal is not a mass casualty event...yes, it's still tragic, but it is not the epidemic you're trying to make it out to be....

so yes, it is just a claim...

edit on 24-9-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

First of all every single case reported on that site has anything from 2 - 10 sited links to the reported shootings from external web sites and news sources. So no you are most definitively wrong , its not just a claim is a reported fact from multiple sited sources.

Second a 'shooting' does not have to be fatal , a mass shooting is 4 or more people who got shot. Some of those have 5, 6 or more people being shot. It is an epidemic of violence happening on a daily basis.

It obvious you are looking for a way to deny the facts but try pulling your head out the sand and face reality.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


no, its not an epidemic of violence...its called life. holy s**t, criminals doing crime....go figure..

and if it wasn't guns, it would be knives, or wtfever else they could get their hands on...

again, these are not mass casualty events...these are very minor.....you're making it out like its sandy frigging hook every day, and that's just not true...

I'm not ignoring anything...I'm simply calling as it is, and not sensationalising minor events, in an attempt to drum up support for an idiotic agenda...

reply to post by TinkerHaus




ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

It boggles my mind that this "no brainer" is even an issue.

Guns only in the hands of criminals--PARTICULARLY the institutionalized global oligarchy/cabal criminals at the top--results in massively MORE CRIME.

I've begun to believe that those who are MOST STRIDENTLY in favor of gun control

MUST be

1. in the employ voluntarily or under intimidation of the globalist cabal determined to strip citizens of any capacity to defend themselves and family members against the satanic globalist oligarchy

and/or

2. functioning on this topic with major sections of their logic circuits turned off.

I don't know how to explain it any other way.

reply to post by Daedalus


Im discussing facts here while you seems to be trying any and every way to win an argument, its clear you are the one with an agenda.

Guns a facilitate the easy killing of many people at a distance. Sure there would still be violence as your country is known for that, but its much harder to injurer 5-6 people with a drive by stabbing. Or maybe stab half a school full of children or stab up an entire theater.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Yeah he is attacking the messenger instead of the message.

That is what we call Ad Hominem.

Ad Hominem

This is one of the standard tools in the Internet Troll or Govt Shill tool box.

He reached for it quick, because its been used thru history over and over.

And the shills are all cut from the same cloth.

Daedalus

i had mentioned in another post that the police are not legally responsible for protecting us....that is a very significant point.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person wanting to accept the responsibility for defending themselves...whether it's against a wild bear, or an unstable human being...people have a right to defend themselves, using whatever tool they deem appropriate at the time.

the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

And this is precisely where the american school of thought comes in. Its not good enough to trust the police to save you, therefore its a good idea for people to take the law into their own hands.

I mean there is some hypocrisy here. Why do we have multiple layers of police(township, country sheriff, state, fbi) if they are not even legally responsible for protecting the population? Why do we pay them with our tax money?

In most countries its taken for granted that police take care of security, and people own guns as a hobby such as hunting and target practice. They can also use their gun for home defense if need be.

I support the second amendment and see a deeper reason for it. To protect against tyranny, just like the tyranny of nazis, commies, muslim brotherhood, space aliens, american government consisting of LYING DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, etc. Sooner or later something bad tends to happen and owning a gun helps you.

Okay try this:

www.theguardian.com...

'Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.'

'Their findngs, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.'

'I've begun to believe that those who are MOST STRIDENTLY in favor of gun control

MUST be

1. in the employ voluntarily or under intimidation of the globalist cabal determined to strip citizens of any capacity to defend themselves and family members against the satanic globalist oligarchy

and/or

2. functioning on this topic with major sections of their logic circuits turned off.

I don't know how to explain it any other way.'


[SNIP]

Since we all like to throw around whatever we can find: www.telegraph.co.uk...

You can basically find anything to support it either way, but the bottom line is still that criminals will always be criminals. They will always have guns whether the rest of the population does or not. On that account, would it not be safer to own one? It's definitely a deterrent. Furthermore, cultural make up and differences along with condense populations are big factors. There are places in the US where gun ownership is mandatory, and others where it is restricted. You could take Kennesaw, GA and compare it to Los Angeles, and conclude that Los Angeles is more violent per capital whereas it's virtual non-existant in Kennesaw in comparison. Except you'd be failing to realize that it's a far larger city, and large cities always have more violence.

Of course, you extremist anti-gun individuals could just look back at history, where in many cases the weapons of the civilian populations were removed, and then they were consequently slaughtered. Enjoy history, it always repeats itself sooner or later. That's human nature.

reply to post by greencmp


yes for some reason I contiunally see the product of accidental death by firearm.

Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms.

Although mass shootings get more attention, children are far more likely to be killed at home.

Through homicide, suicide and accidents, guns cause twice as many deaths in young people as cancer, five times as many as heart disease and 15 times as many as infections, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

reply to post by takaris7






Many parents dont care to invest in gun safes, and they leave their guns and ammunition within easy reach of children and other incompetant people. It is the parents fault. Not the governments fault, not the gun manufacters fault.

I have seen people here on ATS proudly admitting to letting five year olds handle firearms because they want them to get practice at an early age. I think this is negligence on their part. But at the very least they should secure everything after each shooting session. I think people under 10 should get zero practice.

And all this *for the children* smells desperation on behalf of the people who want disarm law abidding citizens. It is sensationalism.

Beavers
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Gun's sole purpose is to make it easier to kill things.

Have a google of how many kids were killed by guns in the UK and Australia in the last 10 years, then compare that to the US. Sad eh?

Sure in those countries, people get drunk and fight too, it's still a crime and it goes on those stats, but there are no funerals after.

You'll probably never understand what those UK and Australians are trying to make you see tho, because deep down you'd rather scour the net for questionable statistics that make you sound right than not have your own way. You like guns more than you care about dead kids and you've not only conditioned yourself into thinking this doesn't make you ever so slightly evil, but you're even trying to persuade others into thinking like you!

I don't care how safe guns make your home, how much of a man carrying one makes you feel or what you think your rights are, dead kids are never going to be cool and for every responsible gun user, there's 100 normal people who lose their temper and use them in anger.

Nothing personal, I just don't dig on making it easier for stupid people to kill others and think anyone who doesn't realise this is too stupid to be given a gun

So let me get something straight.

While you scorn this person for his post, you basically commit the same mistake.

You seem to feel that he is looking for statistics to justify his cause, which he did nothing wrong by the way. It is people like yourselves who keep ignoring the statistics, which are hard facts, while spreading your own opinion of more guns = more dead kids.

Also, throwing around the "kid" card isn't going to work anymore.

So we should all give up our rights to defend ourselves because we are afraid some nut job may one day kill some kid?

So we should all throw away our cars because, oh.. you know.. how many children were killed when an elderly stepped on the gas pedal instead of the break? How many irresponsible parents left their kids in cars during a hot summer day, killing them in the process?

See, people are easily controlled. You put fear in, let it work it's magic. So there's one thing that I got from your message, if I ever want to control the sheeple, I'd just start with their kids... It's quite simple, because freedom, liberty and democracy can be easily traded for the value of 1 kid.