Obama; New Type of Hope, Same Type of Stupid (Gun Control)

[Hooahguy]

husar, i will quote my earlier post....

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
cant they understand that gun control only takes away guns from law-abiding people.
the criminals will get them anyhow if they want them.

[Husar]

husar, i will quote my earlier post....

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

[Meneldil]

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

Wait, wait, are you trying to be rational here? Because we all know the US are the awesome sauce, and that the lack of gun-control is the very epitome of liberty.

Now, I actually don't care about gun-control in the US. For some reason, it seems to be a big deal, unlike the patriot act or other similar things. I just think that if people feel the need to own guns to be safe, then they live in a failed state.

[Hooahguy]

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

here

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.

[Hooahguy]

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.

@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.

On the flip side, criminals would still have guns and would be at a significant advantage in their quest to deprive others of rightful property -- and the rightful owners would have little chance of the authorities stepping in to prevent such a theft in time. As you suggest, the physically stronger would also be in a position to enforce their will on others more readily, again presuming that the police can't get there in time to prevent it. I would find this a gross infringement of my rights.

Be aware, however, that many gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same. In their opinion, you should incur an ongoing cost (insurance) so that your property may be replaced when taken by another.

I view them as having abrogated their right to life by directly threatening your property rights, but then again I am a Conservativus Rex who hasn't evolved to higher* levels.

*to be read properly, this word should DRIP sarcasm.

[Lemur]

[M]any gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same.

Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

[Husar]

So basically the problem are not the guns and everybody here thinks that murder, rape and stealing are pretty normal in a free society and the only counter that should be there is telling your kids how to blow a guy's brain out?

Or does anyone have another suggestion for what should be changed?

[Strike For The South]

Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

Joe Horn did the right thing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.

Hmm. What information are you using?

Looking at the 2007 FBI Crime stats, there are only six more husbands and wives of offenders (596 total) killed by all weapons during none felony events (arguments and brawls) than they are people beaten to death (590) during the same none felony events.

Overall, murders where the victim is a relative, and the murder doesn't occur during another felony crime, account for 9.5% of total murders.

It isn't known how many of those are actual 'loved ones' killing people they would normally love. (Wives as victims make up 3.3% of those none-felony relative murders.)

People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

Playing devils advocate, he did first confront them. He did not shoot them from hiding. But I do think people are justified in confront robbers with all force necessary even if they don't invade your home.

Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

We're talking world government here - I wasn't speaking necessarily about the US Army (I would worry first about the police here) but armies and soldiers in other countries. Such a worldwide ban would greatly increase the prize for black market guns and so greatly increase the incentive. Doesn't Thailand execute all drug dealers? Yet people still try to smuggle them in, because of the immense profit.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

[Yoyoma1910]

Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

Possibly, however most of the gangs where I live developed out of a sense of street vengeance. You killed my peeps, so now I'm going after your peeps.

Drugs do exist as a way to make quick cash, without having to have either an education or a place of work, and I suppose that helps the gangs purchase a better arsenal and such, however the violence would likely still exist.

[Fisherking]

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.



Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

My infuses.


Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

You may have heard stories, but that is all they are.