U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, it's true guns are used by people to kill. BUT, your anxiety may be based on that truth, but it is still irrational. Just because guns may be used to kill doesn't mean they will be. Your anxiety doesn't reflect the actual, statistical danger, but emotion.

If my anxiety is that one of the uses of guns is to kill people and that is true (i don't really see how its based on truth, it is true) then the anxiety is not irrationial. Like i said my anxiety (it isn't anxiety or fear but lets use the word anxiety for ease of use) is that they are effective killing tools, and that seems reflected that in the fact that armed forces arm thier solidiers with guns rather than knifes.. either that or me and the armed forces of many county's are idiots and don't realise that knifes are far more effective...

It's irrational because it is out of proportion to the threat posed. The vast majority of people in this country are far more likely to get killed by a car than a gun.


A big gain? How? The guns used by criminals aren't causing violence - they are just used for violence. The criminals are the ones committing violence. Even if you did the impossible and actual got guns out of the hands of criminals in this country, the criminals simply use some other tool to commit violence.

Great, they can use a less effective killing tool instead...

And they'll still kill.


And it would be no little loss - millions of people use a gun to legally defend themselves each and every year. Outlaw guns and you help the criminals who threaten them.

and they would be less likely to face a criminal with a gun, so both are disarmed to a point...

If both are disarmed, then the advantage is usually the criminal's. But of course the criminal won't be disarmed; he'll have some sort of weapon, even a pipe, bat or knife.


But as i said yes i do think the USA would have a harder time of it than the UK...

And that means banning guns wouldn't even leave criminals disarmed.


Because people are never attacked?

I would rather the attacked and attacke didn't have a gun...

What you'd rather have is unimportant. Criminals in the US will always have a weapon, even if it's not a gun. And what of women, who are less physically powerful then men? I'll bet they might have a different opinion.


Because governments never become oppressive?

Well i didn't realise guns stopped dictators.... Iraq was a democracy right ?

In a modern country like America or the UK privately owned guns would make no difference to stopping an oppresive goverment the army would destroy any civilian force. I did see your thing about killing goverment officials, i don't think that would be effective anyway... im sure Stalin wouldnt give a damn about losng one of his juniour goverment ministers... or he wouldn't suddenly convert to democracy to try and stop it...

It's not about what 'Saddam' or whatever other leader thinks, it's about what the junior ministers do when they realize people are gunning for them.


hmm lets see shall we... go through my views again

Guns are effective killing tool... fact as confirmed (partially) by yourself
Arming up mentality... plenty of examples you can find of an arming up mentality, from geo politics (cold war ect.) to posters in the backroom who say they need a gun because the criminal will have one... tempted to call this a fact but its a bit more difficult as its a mentality rather than 1+1=?, but there are certainly plenty of examples of arming up mentality

and of course because they are unnessecary, you didn't insult this view so i don't feel the need to rehash it...

However effective a gun is at killing people doesn't matter if that's not what the vast, vast, majority of people use them for.
'Arming up mentality'? That's simply preparation.


CR is your responce the same as EMFM

Yup.


The actual figure is probably MUCH higher.

Not really. I believe the accidental gun deaths are about 1000 per year or less. And the homicides figure for the US includes self-defense and police shootings.


Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Violent crime and homicides have been falling for years (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm). While in the UK, the opposite is true (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fcommons%2Flib%2Fresearch%2Frp99%2Frp99-111.pdf&ei=VCTuSdWEOpOctgO5psjwAQ&rct=j&q=UK+homicide+rate+trend+years&usg=AFQjCNGh6fty9LFnCOG2IOSBca_0hU9Ulw) (PDF).

And, of course, most deaths from people using guns in the US are in large cities, and many of those people are involved in criminal activity.

CR

[Che Roriniho]

Yes, they'll be less efficient at killing, and they'll kill less. That I can guarantee.

That PDF is 10 years old, so it hardly shows a recent trend. Also, you have to bear in mind that our government is a load of imbeciles whose grip on reality is tenuous at best. Apologies for my figures on accidental gun deaths, but it IS still another 1,000 people. Which is more than the statistical equivelant of ALL UK gun deaths.

[drone]

You had 12, 000 homicides from firearms. If the UK statistics from the same year are times by the relaytive population size (about 5), we havre the grand total of about 1,000. The statistics don't lie. I haven't put any spin on them, as there is none to put on.

Put simply, ban firearms or risk another TWELVE THOUSAND deaths a year from them. Perhaps more.

Also, am I the only one here who is completely sickened as regard to the number of firearm homicides in the US? Twelve thousand people are now dead who could have lived. That's 6 times the number killed in 9/11. And you don't even seem to care.

6 times the number killed in 9/11, which shows what amateurs AQ really are. Americans are way better at offing ourselves than a bunch of religious nuts from the Middle East. And yet we still gave away our civil liberties due to that little statistical blip back in 2001. ~:rolleyes:

Considering how the UK government has been treating it's subjects over the past 20 years, I think we'll be more than happy to keep the implied threat of citizenry revolt going. Even if it's empty.

We care, we have just decided that it is an acceptable price of keeping our government officials on their toes. They are the ones failing in their duty anyway, if the existing guns laws were enforced properly the death toll would be significantly reduced.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Che, I just love reposting this (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706) because nobody ever seems to read it. Enjoy. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tighter gun control laws will do little to change the levels of violence and gun deaths in the USA. The only thing that might do so would be a confiscation of all firearms. Of course, that would have its own problems.....

[LittleGrizzly]

It's irrational because it is out of proportion to the threat posed.

Right ok, thats more like it, I disagree because i don't think its out of proportion...

And they'll still kill.

Not nessecarily, they may have a kinfe and thier chosen victim can overcome them where they would have had less of a chance to fightback...

If were talking about someone stronger and better prepared who is determined to kill someone much weaker who doesn't now the attack is coming then they obviously will still kill...

What you'd rather have is unimportant.

If your talking about gun ownership then the US your right, if your arguing gun ownership in general then it is important what i would rather because that is (at least partially) what my views are based on...

If both are disarmed, then the advantage is usually the criminal's. But of course the criminal won't be disarmed; he'll have some sort of weapon, even a pipe, bat or knife.

In an example like the sniper killings it will make it alot more difficult for the criminal...

Or just generally I now i would stand much more chance against an attacker with no gun.. but rather a knife, bat, pipe....

And what of women, who are less physically powerful then men? I'll bet they might have a different opinion.

Hell theres probably people who can physically overpower me... doesn't make me want guns..

Though out if interest are there any studies to show differene between men and women in wanting guns legal ?

I would guess women may be more against than men... but thats just a guess...

And that means banning guns wouldn't even leave criminals disarmed.

Actually it means they are less like to be armed... as with the UK you stop some... the fact i said it would be harder probably means you would stop less...

It's not about what 'Saddam' or whatever other leader thinks, it's about what the junior ministers do when they realize people are gunning for them.

Well it didn't stop the British goverment fighting the IRA for example...

The plan just doesn't sound that workable in general for me... I would simply protect important people in my goverment, hell if i got an army theres a private protection force right there...

However effective a gun is at killing people doesn't matter if that's not what the vast, vast, majority of people use them for.

It does because criminals use them because they're effective at killing people...

'Arming up mentality'? That's simply preparation.

Ok then. One of my problems with guns is they cause a preperation in people ~;)

[Che Roriniho]

Che, I just love reposting this (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706) because nobody ever seems to read it. Enjoy. :bow:

And of course that has no bias at all. You're still ignoring the fact that the UK has so much less of a gun death problem. It's simple, the less guns there are, the less deaths from guns there are. It's not hard.

[drone]

And of course that has no bias at all. You're still ignoring the fact that the UK has so much less of a gun death problem. It's simple, the less guns there are, the less deaths from guns there are. It's not hard.

You obviously didn't read #6. It's not guns, it's us. :yes:

[||Lz3||]

Source. http://www.iansa.org/



[...]Mr Obama accepted shared US responsibility for gun violence in Mexico, which has killed more than 6000 people over the last year, but has not yet made clear moves towards reinstating the Assault Weapon Ban (http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/awb/). Assault weapons and firearms over .30 calibre cannot be purchased in Mexico, but traffickers regularly purchase such weapons by the truckload from gun stores in Texas and Arizona to smuggle to the drug cartels. 90% of guns recovered from cartels were found to originate from US sellers. (http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/exporting-gun-violence.pdf) It is estimated that around 2000 weapons per day are flowing from the US to Mexico.

[...]In North America, the danger to the US of weak gun laws has been illustrated in recent weeks by a spate of domestic mass shootings. On 3 April, a gunman attacked a roomful of immigrants taking a citizenship exam in Binghampton, New York, killing 13 people before committing suicide. On 29 March, 8 people were killed by a gunman at a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. And on 10 March, 10 people were murdered by a gunman wielding two assault rifles and a handgun.



These shootings came days before the second anniversary of the worst mass shooting by a single gunman in US history, when 32 people were killed at Virginia Tech (http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/VirginiaTech.htm) in Blacksburg, Virginia on 16 April, 2007; and the 10th anniversary of the mass shooting at Columbine High School (http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/columbine_memorial.htm) in Colorado,on 20 April 1999 in which 13 people were murdered.







Some examples of the drug cartels arsernal: Barret 50 cals, MP5s, AR-15, AK-74, RPG-7, Ak-47, M9, USP45, Desert eagle .50, SPAZ-12 shotguns, UZIs, thousands of grenades and thousands of ammunition of all calibers.

You're going to reply that in fact most of the weapons that the drug cartels have come from the military, right?... Our military doesn't even have some of those weapons...

Even if the fact that 90% of the the guns decomisated to the drug cartels come from the US is, biased or altered or something, you can't deny that some of them end up here, killing cops... and those weapons were once sold to someone who passed the "background search".

Your gun control laws have flaws.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And of course that has no bias at all.

And you don't? Seems reliable enough to me, it checks out all along the line.


You're still ignoring the fact that the UK has so much less of a gun death problem. It's simple, the less guns there are, the less deaths from guns there are. It's not hard.

:laugh4:

Try sorting countries by gun deaths in proportion to gun control. While you may well have the USA near the top of the list for the West, after that it gets quite a bit more muddled.

Though, even if there was a correlation, the amount of state interference in the UK is not exactly a great tradeoff for a few less gun deaths.

[Che Roriniho]

And you don't? Seems reliable enough to me, it checks out all along the line.



:laugh4:

Try sorting countries by gun deaths in proportion to gun control. While you may well have the USA near the top of the list for the West, after that it gets quite a bit more muddled.

Though, even if there was a correlation, the amount of state interference in the UK is not exactly a great tradeoff for a few less gun deaths.

I didn't say wrong, I said biased. It's perfectly possible to be both biased and correct statistically. You have heard of twisting the figures, right? But anyway, I would rather have 'state interference', whatever the hell that means in this context, than be shot at, which is what it fundementall comes down to. If you disagree, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. (Anyone who has read Catch-22 should be laughing histerically now)

Also, I'm quite in agreement with Lz3 up there. How can that point be refuted?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I didn't say wrong, I said biased. It's perfectly possible to be both biased and correct statistically. You have heard of twisting the figures, right?

Twisting the figures isn't technically statistically correct. That said, those statistics check out along the line.


But anyway, I would rather have 'state interference', whatever the hell that means in this context, than be shot at, which is what it fundementall comes down to. If you disagree, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

So nobody who is willing to fight for liberty should be allowed to own a gun? Finally, I'm seeing into the inner workings of the statist mind, and it is interesting.



Also, I'm quite in agreement with Lz3 up there. How can that point be refuted?

Your points have both been refuted at least once already in this debate, if you want to read back through the thread. His certainly has, and I think yours has been as well.

[LittleGrizzly]

Though, even if there was a correlation, the amount of state interference in the UK is not exactly a great tradeoff for a few less gun deaths.

Are you implying that in a state without guns the goverment is more likely to interfere ?

Becuase our great leaders are doing that to 'protect us' from terrorism fraud immigrants crime ect. you wouldn't have seen armed people stopping them, i didn't notice gun ownership stopping the patriot act...

[Che Roriniho]

So nobody who is willing to fight for liberty should be allowed to own a gun? Finally, I'm seeing into the inner workings of the statist mind, and it is interesting.

The fact that you seem to want to shoot at the state seems, erm... interesting...



Your points have both been refuted at least once already in this debate, if you want to read back through the thread. His certainly has, and I think yours has been as well.

Errr... nope. How could it be? There is nothing in that statement that could be contested. Where else could they have got it from? A salad Bar? Cartels just nip across the border, buy guns, then nip back. Simples.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Your gun control laws have flaws.

You ain't whistlin' Dixie. :laugh4:


The fact that you seem to want to shoot at the state seems, erm... interesting...
Shame on you, George Washington.

[Che Roriniho]

Shame on you, George Washington.

Dude, that was 250 years ago. Look, if you want to form the United states of New Jersey, then grow a pair and do so *wearing sarcasm hat* Also, the next war won't be fought with guns, it'll be fought with transistors, diodes, and ideas. When the government could just FAB your entire town (fuel air bomb), there's no point in having weapons to fight it that way. It just doesn't work.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So what you're saying is computers and ideas should be banned because they may be used against the state.

[Che Roriniho]

So what you're saying is computers and ideas should be banned because they may be used against the state.

Not at all. I'm saying that if you want to give a damn about where your country is going, shooting at them is neither going to win any supporters or any wars.

[Don Corleone]

Not at all. I'm saying that if you want to give a damn about where your country is going, shooting at them is neither going to win any supporters or any wars.

First, calm down. You seem to be getting rather irate discussing an issue that has absolutely no bearing on your life.

Second, as Drone & others have told you, it's not the guns, it's us. Other countries have higher gun ownership rates than us and less gun violence, so your "we have fewer guns so we have less gun crime" linear relationship seems to break down at some point.

Third, banning guns in the US will not do one thing for gun related homicides. There will be fewer accidental shootings and fewer self-defense shootings. There will be fewer gun-related suicides and more people drinking poison or jumping off buildings or slitting their wrists. Home invasions, rape and armed robberies will elevate. Evidence for my statements is born out by crime figures for cities like D.C. and Detroit or states like Massachusetts and Maryland that have tried to ban gun ownership.

Finally, if the main concern is reducing fatalities, why does it matter if they get shot or get in a car wreck. 43,000 Americans died in car accidents last year, so aren't we fighting the wrong fight? Shouldn't we go for the real killer and outlaw automobiles first? They don't even get mentioned in that pesky Constitution.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

First, calm down. You seem to be getting rather irate discussing an issue that has absolutely no bearing on your life.

Second, as Drone & others have told you, it's not the guns, it's us. Other countries have higher gun ownership rates than us and less gun violence, so your "we have fewer guns so we have less gun crime" linear relationship seems to break down at some point.

Third, banning guns in the US will not do one thing for gun related homicides. There will be fewer accidental shootings and fewer self-defense shootings. There will be fewer gun-related suicides and more people drinking poison or jumping off buildings or slitting their wrists. Home invasions, rape and armed robberies will elevate. Evidence for my statements is born out by crime figures for cities like D.C. and Detroit or states like Massachusetts and Maryland that have tried to ban gun ownership.

Finally, if the main concern is reducing fatalities, why does it matter if they get shot or get in a car wreck. 43,000 Americans died in car accidents last year, so aren't we fighting the wrong fight? Shouldn't we go for the real killer and outlaw automobiles first? They don't even get mentioned in that pesky Constitution.

Seconded.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why are people arguing in the first place that they have the right to tell people what they can and cannot own?