Guns

[thejetstolehome]

here's one i haven't seen on AP. what are your thoughts on guns in general and gun control and what not?

[Ambulance Y]

here's one i haven't seen on AP. what are your thoughts on guns in general and gun control and what not?

Gun control is...as Penn and Teller would say...BULLSHIT!

[unwritten]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Ted_Nugent_in_concert.jpg/180px-Ted_Nugent_in_concert.jpg

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

i think that we should enforce the laws that are in place better instead of just making a bunch of new ones to make ourselves feel better. It makes no sense to me when politicians run campaigns talking about these new gun control laws they are going to push for. If I have a gun, and I plan on harming someone with it, it makes no difference to me whether I'm breaking 3 laws or 4 laws. Enforce the laws we have.

[sayyes]

I own a gun and therefore have no problem with them inside the home. This alone can make a criminal think twice before entering a victim's home. I think concealed weapons have a lot more downside than they do upside though.

[richter915]

i think that we should enforce the laws that are in place better instead of just making a bunch of new ones to make ourselves feel better. It makes no sense to me when politicians run campaigns talking about these new gun control laws they are going to push for. If I have a gun, and I plan on harming someone with it, it makes no difference to me whether I'm breaking 3 laws or 4 laws. Enforce the laws we have.
nah politicians who support laws that will make it tougher to get easy access to guns are doing a good thing. That's the problem, guns are fine until they get into the wrong hands. I hear the argument that it's gonna happen either way but like u said, laws should make it harder to get guns and those laws should be enforced.

[Shatter590]

I own a gun and therefore have no problem with them inside the home. This alone can make a criminal think twice before entering a victim's home. I think concealed weapons have a lot more downside than they do upside though.

however, its also been seen that owning a gun could backfire and the owner would get shot with his own gun.

that said, i dont believe in banning ownership of guns. i think assault weapons should be banned, i mean who needs a AK-47 in their home, but I own rifles and a small arsenal of swords, and I dont want people telling me I can't.

[Love As Arson]

The British format of gun control is the best one that I've found:

All firearms in the United Kingdom with the exception of low-powered airguns must be licensed on either a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate.

Shotguns are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24", no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine, or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges. This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a less rigorous certification and registration process.

A firearms certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm individually, and these firearms are listed, by type, calibre, and serial number, individually on the certificate; whereas a shotgun licence permits the ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition (except, optionally, where ammunition is both bought, and used immediately, on a range).

To obtain a firearms certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace"; generally speaking, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work related reasons for owning a gun.[citation needed] Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun.

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from attaining a gun licence.[1]

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions, such as conditions on the storage of firearms in a secure place; storage arrangements are checked by the police before the granting of permission to store weapons, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean the forfeiture of the gun licence, which would mean that any firearms held must be handed in to the police.

[thatwasamoment]

We're too deep in the hole when it comes to gun control. They're out there, and too many bad people have them.

[youcomebeforeyo]

There is something wrong with US Society.

The amount of gun crime in the US is a visible sign of that.

It's easy to get a gun here in NZ yet our gun crime rates are something along the lines of 5/6 shootings a year in the whole country.

That said I don't understand how any citizen of the US requires more than a rifle..

[cfear]

I own a gun and therefore have no problem with them inside the home. This alone can make a criminal think twice before entering a victim's home. I think concealed weapons have a lot more downside than they do upside though.

A criminal is going to know there is a gun in the home before he/she breaks in? News to me. Guns aren't a deterrent to crime. If a criminal is serious about his/her job they will bring a gun to counter the possibility of robbing a home with one, and we all know that would lead to a dangerous situation.

Guns are, for all intents and purposes, meant to kill something. What purpose do they serve in a society where killing is wrong (at times)? The people that support ownership of guns are the people who use guns to kill things. Hunters and farmers keep guns to kill animals/predators, but what is the point of having guns when hunters don't hunt for anything other than personal enjoyment at being superior to something. Sure, they may eat the deer they kill, but that wasn't their reason to kill the deer. Outside of hunting there isn't a real need for firearms.

Defense? Guns are the reason people feel the need to defend themselves with guns. If you severely limit the ability for guns to be obtained then gun-related deaths will, most likely, decrease. A drawback of this would be the rise of a black market for firearms. That could easily be countered though: Place limits on the amount of guns a company can manufacture. If Company A can only make X amount of guns they will sell as much as possible to legal buyers. If there are laws in place that make it harder for people to obtain guns, or impossible to obtain guns, the ability of one of those guns to make it to the black market is decreased. Of course...this isn't capitalist friendly, so it wouldn't ever happen.

I understand the reasoning behind the Second Amendment, unfortunately the people who feel we should have a right to firearms don't feel that way because they feel they need the guns to fight off an oppressive government. They, generally, hide behind the Second Amendment because they simply are financially linked to the gun industry. The NRA isn't the group I think would go against an oppressive government. I think they just like the share of the wealth they get.

I could go on, but it's pizza time. If anyone is ever in Denton, Texas head up to The Tomato. Great pizza.

[Shatter590]

i always thought the word in of the second amendment was to maintain militias, which at the time was in place of a standing army.

[aminorthreat55]

I own a gun and therefore have no problem with them inside the home. This alone can make a criminal think twice before entering a victim's home. I think concealed weapons have a lot more downside than they do upside though.
Unless you hang it in the window, how would the criminal know? Besides, this is often in fact how guns get into the hands of the disadvantaged in the inner cities. They break into homes and find guns that are not locked up, bring them into the city and sell them.

On another note, if anyone cites the second amendment in this thread they should be shot with the gun they think the amendment affords them.

[Jason Tate]

For me, as in most issues, it boils down to education.

[preppyak]

On another note, if anyone cites the second amendment in this thread they should be shot with the gun they think the amendment affords them.
Yeah...that is my favorite complaint "but, our forefathers put it into the Constitution for a reason"...well, by that token, they also didn't create suffrage for woman or people of color, so that was for a reason too I guess...

Times change, laws become irrelevant...the 2nd amendment is probably the epitome of that.

For me, as in most issues, it boils down to education.
Yeah...and I think the permitting of GB covers that fairly well...

We force hunter safety courses to hunt...do we have those for handgun ownership as well? If you force education as a prerequisite to ownership, you start out much better off.

[aminorthreat55]

Yeah...that is my favorite complaint "but, our forefathers put it into the Constitution for a reason"...well, by that token, they also didn't create suffrage for woman or people of color, so that was for a reason too I guess...

Times change, laws become irrelevant...the 2nd amendment is probably the epitome of that.
Irrelevant? No way man! I don't know about you but I still belong to the local militia.

[sayyes]

I understand that a criminal doesn't know who owns a gun and who doesn't, but (and it probably applies to my region of the country more than most) the chance that I do might make them think twice. I live in a suburban realitively low crime area, so I can't pretend to understand much about gun crime. Apologies if my original statement seemed ignorant.

[tambam]

Guns should be banned. Nobody should have any need for them whatsoever, even when hunting. If you want meat, go to the grocery store. If you want to protect your family from harm, then guns should be strictly banned so that nobody would have a gun to harm you with in the first place.

[Ambulance Y]

Guns should be banned. Nobody should have any need for them whatsoever, even when hunting. If you want meat, go to the grocery store. If you want to protect your family from harm, then guns should be strictly banned so that nobody would have a gun to harm you with in the first place.

Yeahhhhh... You should be thrown in jail for treason for shitting on the Constitution.

[Jason Tate]

Yeahhhhh... You should be thrown in jail for treason for shitting on the Constitution.
I must ask: Has the Constitution proven to be unalterable in the past?

[rikfrommf]

I must ask: Has the Constitution proven to be unalterable in the past?

treason is by far the most over used and least understood word these days. It WOULD be treason I guess except for that Little part written above the second amendment, you know the one about speech or something. And yeah the part about congress amending the constitution. Freaking A kids.

[dai the flu]

there's no reason to own a handgun. rifles yeah maybe if you're a hunter. handguns should be banned.

[Ambulance Y]

I must ask: Has the Constitution proven to be unalterable in the past?

Absolutely not. However, this one is a very clear. And until she starts her campaign to draft an amendment to the constitution, she's scum in my book.

[cfear]

Absolutely not. However, this one is a very clear. And until she starts her campaign to draft an amendment to the constitution, she's scum in my book.

So opposition to a document the Fore Fathers knew was flawed is something you find unacceptable.

[Ambulance Y]

So opposition to a document the Fore Fathers knew was flawed is something you find unacceptable.

To a degree. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if she was the chair of a committee to draft an amendment to change it, because then she's actively trying to get it changed. But to just sit back on your lazy ass and spit in the face of the constitution is deplorable. And OoOOoOoOo the founding fathers knew it was "flawed"...big shit. Flawed or not, it's the most sacred document in this country.

And for the record, any amendment trying to take away the public's right to bear arms would be voted down so fast, that bitch's head would spin.

[cfear]

To a degree. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if she was the chair of a committee to draft an amendment to change it, because then she's actively trying to get it changed. But to just sit back on your lazy ass and spit in the face of the constitution is deplorable. And OoOOoOoOo the founding fathers knew it was "flawed"...big shit. Flawed or not, it's the most sacred document in this country.

And for the record, any amendment trying to take away the public's right to bear arms would be voted down so fast, that bitch's head would spin.

Are you ignorant, or just plain fucking dumb?

[Lueda Alia]

there's no reason to own a handgun. rifles yeah maybe if you're a hunter. handguns should be banned.
That's how I feel.

People love arguing about how they feel protected with a gun; however, if no one has guns in the first place, there's nothing to protect yourself from. It's such a cycle.

[chronomic]

That's how I feel.

People love arguing about how they feel protected with a gun; however, if no one has guns in the first place, there's nothing to protect yourself from. It's such a cycle.

thats a noble thought but something like that would prolly never happen. as long as someone has a gun, wheather its legal or not, people are going to want to be ''protected'' from them. esp in the US

[Love As Arson]

To a degree. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if she was the chair of a committee to draft an amendment to change it, because then she's actively trying to get it changed. But to just sit back on your lazy ass and spit in the face of the constitution is deplorable. And OoOOoOoOo the founding fathers knew it was "flawed"...big shit. Flawed or not, it's the most sacred document in this country.

And for the record, any amendment trying to take away the public's right to bear arms would be voted down so fast, that bitch's head would spin.
There are some aspects of the Constitution which deserve harsh criticism e.g. enshrining slavery.

And Eda, the argument is that if guns are banned, criminals will still have access to them on the black market, so you may not be protected from gun violence.

[chronomic]

there's no reason to own a handgun. rifles yeah maybe if you're a hunter. handguns should be banned.

handguns were made to shoot people.




i however love guns of all kinds and watch future weapons all the time. i do not own any and will prolly never, unless i take up hunting sometime in my life. but my love for guns doesnt outweigh the safety of the street and our country. living in chicago i see/hear about gang shootings and stuff all the time, its just weird walking down the street and seeing a "thug" and knowing theres a chance he has a gat on him.

[Thexhorde]

Look i completely support owning guns. i my self own several rifles and will be purchasing a hand gun when i turn 21. To every one who says guns should be outlawed Ben Franklin once said that If Guns are outlawed then only criminals will have guns. To those that say having guns will not deterr criminals take the city of Kennesaw Georgia as an example. They require every citzen, except for religous exemptions to have a gun and ammunition in their house. They have on of the lowest burglary rates in the country

[Jason Tate]

Look i completely support owning guns. i my self own several rifles and will be purchasing a hand gun when i turn 21. To every one who says guns should be outlawed Ben Franklin once said that If Guns are outlawed then only criminals will have guns. To those that say having guns will not deterr criminals take the city of Kennesaw Georgia as an example. They require every citzen, except for religous exemptions to have a gun and ammunition in their house. They have on of the lowest burglary rates in the country
That statistic doesn't prove causation.

And for the love of God what does a 21 year old need a handgun for?

[justinevans]

That statistic doesn't prove causation.

And for the love of God what does a 21 year old need a handgun for?

when I was 20, someone came into my apartment at night and put a gun to my roomates head. It was not an illegal weapon.

So for protection?

[justinevans]

That's how I feel.

People love arguing about how they feel protected with a gun; however, if no one has guns in the first place, there's nothing to protect yourself from. It's such a cycle.

Drugs are illegal, it doesn't stop them from flooding the country.

[aminorthreat55]

Why on earth does a man living 230 years ago know more about the relevance of guns than people living in the modern age. They lived a completely different world, where there was a threat of tyranny.
It's kind of sad that people in another country understand our history and government better than someone who lives here.

[Jason Tate]

when I was 20, someone came into my apartment at night and put a gun to my roomates head. It was not an illegal weapon.

So for protection?

This becomes circular reasoning.

In your story if the gun was legal, than that would be root of the problem.

Furthermore, if it was "for protection" - in your story, was your roommate killed? Don't you think the likelihood of him (or someone) being killed would rise with the number of guns introduced into the situation? He pulls a gun, then someone's getting shot. Maybe his lack of "protection" is what saved his life.

Again, I'm speaking hypothetically -- as I don't know that situation. And I still don't see why one situation will make me believe handguns are needed for protection - sounds like a better lock would suffice.

[justinevans]

Why on earth does a man living 230 years ago know more about the relevance of guns than people living in the modern age. They lived a completely different world, where there was a threat of tyranny.

A lot of people resort to theories of those from the past.

[Jason Tate]

Drugs are illegal, it doesn't stop them from flooding the country.
Flooding is quite an exaggeration.

[justinevans]

This becomes circular reasoning.

In your story if the gun was legal, than that would be root of the problem.

Furthermore, if it was "for protection" - in your story, was your roommate killed? Don't you think the likelihood of him (or someone) being killed would rise with the number of guns introduced into the situation? He pulls a gun, then someone's getting shot. Maybe his lack of "protection" is what saved his life.

Again, I'm speaking hypothetically -- as I don't know that situation. And I still don't see why one situation will make me believe handguns are needed for protection - sounds like a better lock would suffice.

someone called the cops and the dude fled. The thing is however, criminals would still have weapons. If it is not a gun, it'd be something else.

We should try to stop crime, not the weapons they use because there are plenty of gun owners who do nothing illegal.

edit: coming from someone who never fired or owned a gun.

[justinevans]

Flooding is quite an exaggeration.

how is it? Our country is filled with drugs.

[Jason Tate]

how is it? Our country is filled with drugs.
Really? Just flowing down the streets? Available on every corner? Come on man -- it's bad, but it's not "flooding."

[justinevans]

Really? Just flowing down the streets? Available on every corner? Come on man -- it's bad, but it's not "flooding."

depends on where you live I guess.

If you walk in Miami, NYC, you can find drugs like you can find a pack of cigarettes.

It is not hard at all to get drugs of any extreme. The only drug I've ever heard of difficulty is Shrooms.

[Jason Tate]

someone called the cops and the dude fled. The thing is however, criminals would still have weapons. If it is not a gun, it'd be something else.

I'd take my chances with something else. But then I have a giant fucking machete under my bed and I think I can take just about anyone without a gun that breaks in.

We should try to stop crime, not the weapons they use because there are plenty of gun owners who do nothing illegal.

We should try and stop crime. Not arguing there. However the number of deaths attributed to guns each year speaks for itself -- and while guns may not be as dangerous as a swimming pool, looking at Canada or other countries with more stringent gun laws and how it impacts crime and mortality rates -- the correlation appears valid.

edit: coming from someone who never fired or owned a gun.

Coming from someone who has fired multiple guns.

[Jason Tate]

depends on where you live I guess.

If you walk in Miami, NYC, you can find drugs like you can find a pack of cigarettes.

It is not hard at all to get drugs of any extreme. The only drug I've ever heard of difficulty is Shrooms.
Why don't you call the police then? Seems reasonable.

[justinevans]

I'd take my chances with something else. But then I have a giant fucking machete under my bed and I think I can take just about anyone without a gun that breaks in.

where I live now, I have a 6'6" dad.



We should try and stop crime. Not arguing there. However the number of deaths attributed to guns each year speaks for itself -- and while guns may not be as dangerous as a swimming pool, looking at Canada or other countries with more stringent gun laws and how it impacts crime and mortality rates -- the correlation appears valid.

I was going to say something, but I think it'd be wrong. I think we should look at where most gun murders occur and the demographics.


Why don't you call the police then? Seems reasonable.

you think the police don't already know?

[tambam]

To a degree. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if she was the chair of a committee to draft an amendment to change it, because then she's actively trying to get it changed. But to just sit back on your lazy ass and spit in the face of the constitution is deplorable. And OoOOoOoOo the founding fathers knew it was "flawed"...big shit. Flawed or not, it's the most sacred document in this country.

And for the record, any amendment trying to take away the public's right to bear arms would be voted down so fast, that bitch's head would spin.

What's wrong with you? This is an opinion board so I gave my opinion. What else do you expect me to do? I don't think guns should not be allowed, plain and simple. They do nothing but harm society's best interest. If you actually expect me to create some sort of a committee just because I posted something on a board on the internet that you don't agree with, then you're an idiot. And just because it's written in the consitution doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it should be there forever. So just because something has been in writing for such a long time means it should never be changed? If that's the way the world worked, people would still be slaves.

And wow, there's really no need to be disrespectful. I state my opinion and you start calling me a bitch? Get some respect and quit acting like a fourteen year-old.

[justinevans]

What's wrong with you? This is an opinion board so I gave my opinion. What else do you expect me to do? I don't think guns should not be allowed, plain and simple. They do nothing but harm society's best interest. If you actually expect me to create some sort of a committee just because I posted something on a board on the internet that you don't agree with, then you're an idiot. And just because it's written in the consitution doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it should be there forever. So just because something has been in writing for such a long time means it should remain there forever?

And wow, there's really no need to be disrespectful. I state my opinion and you start calling me a bitch? Get some respect and quit acting like a fourteen year-old.

whoa whoa, then why do people use the constitution with regards to the national security acts and they use Ben Franklin quotes.

sorry he called you a bitch though.

[Jason Tate]

whoa whoa, then why do people use the constitution with regards to the national security acts and they use Ben Franklin quotes.

sorry he called you a bitch though.
And if the proposal (in regard to national security) was to amend the constitution instead of just ignore it - then you'd have a valid argument.

The proposal is to change the constitution in the gun situation; however, for national security arguments it's the fact that nothing has been changed in the constitution - the administration is just going in direct violation of it. There's a difference.

[tambam]

And if the proposal (in regard to national security) was to amend the constitution instead of just ignore it - then you'd have a valid argument.

The proposal is to change the constitution in the gun situation, for national security arguments it's the fact that nothing has been changed in the constitution - the administration is just going in direct violation of it. There's a difference.

That's what I meant.

[justinevans]

And if the proposal (in regard to national security) was to amend the constitution instead of just ignore it - then you'd have a valid argument.

The proposal is to change the constitution in the gun situation, for national security arguments it's the fact that nothing has been changed in the constitution - the administration is just going in direct violation of it. There's a difference.

Yeah true, but even if they did amend the Constitution, people would bring up freedom over security again.

[Jason Tate]

Yeah true, but even if they did amend the Constitution, people would bring up freedom over security again.
And then you'd have a valid argument; however, that's not the current case and therefore not comprable. It's not really rational to compare a reality to a hypothetical.

[justinevans]

And then you'd have a valid argument; however, that's not the current case and therefore not comprable. It's not really rational to compare a reality to a hypothetical.

I understand that, but you know it would be true.

[Jason Tate]

I understand that, but you know it would be true.
More than likely yes.

[justinevans]

The point is and I believe you touched on this earlier is the lack of education. The lack of responsible parenting. The constant use of excuses for people who commit certain crimes - for example, they are a product of their environment. Not everyone from those regions turn out the same way. They're just lazy.

[awfulwaffle]

depends on where you live I guess.

If you walk in Miami, NYC, you can find drugs like you can find a pack of cigarettes.

It is not hard at all to get drugs of any extreme. The only drug I've ever heard of difficulty is Shrooms.

Actually, drug related crimes have gone down in NYC by huge amounts due to Rudy Guliani. NYC has been one of the safest big cities for awhile now with decreasing crime rates ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm )and one of the biggest police forces (37,838) in the USA.

[cfear]

Actually, drug related crimes have gone down in NYC by huge amounts due to Rudy Guliani. NYC has been one of the safest big cities for awhile now with decreasing crime rates and one of the biggest police forces (37,838) in the USA.

"[B]y LARGE amounts...." Why is it that people use horrible grammar. It is also "largest." Biggest, in that context, is the wrong word to use. Seek help with adjectives.

Edit: Capitalized the "b." Dammit, it won't fucking capitalize, so I guess I didn't capitalize it....

[awfulwaffle]

"[b]y LARGE amounts...." Why is it that people use horrible grammar. It is also "largest." Biggest, in that context, is the wrong word to use. Seek help with adjectives.

Thanks English professor! I didn't know my grammar would be scrutinized by posting. Also, "big city" should've been in quotes but I was typing fast so whatever haha.

[justinevans]

Actually, drug related crimes have gone down in NYC by huge amounts due to Rudy Guliani. NYC has been one of the safest big cities for awhile now with decreasing crime rates ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm )and one of the biggest police forces (37,838) in the USA.

it is not hard to get drugs in our country.

[awfulwaffle]

it is not hard to get drugs in our country.

Completely understand that but the crime rate has been going down.

[justinevans]

Completely understand that but the crime rate has been going down.

yeah it has - in some areas.

[Ambulance Y]

http://images.thatimagesite.com/core/2223/2223_image.jpg

[fromwithin]

gun control is not the answer, it starts with the people.

[Lueda Alia]

thats a noble thought but something like that would prolly never happen. as long as someone has a gun, wheather its legal or not, people are going to want to be ''protected'' from them. esp in the US
I suppose that's another difference between Canadians and Americans. We don't feel scared that someone is going to come into our houses and shoot us because guns aren't allowed in the first place.

[thejetstolehome]

bump.

zomg 25k.

[thatwasamoment]

now would be a good time to discuss gun control.

[atticus1492]

now would be a good time to discuss gun control.

But I guess no one wants to.

[Jason Tate]

Throw um all in the fire. We clearly are not evolved enough to handle the technology.

[x togepi x]

now would be a good time to discuss gun control.

awesome!

gun control is merely an ineffective band-aid meant to cover up the real social, economic, cultural and political problems that cause crime.

[youcomebeforeyo]

awesome!

gun control is merely an ineffective band-aid meant to cover up the real social, economic, cultural and political problems that cause crime.

Pretty much I agree but I am yet to understand why one human being requires an automatic or semi-automatic weapon out of military purposes.

[tambam]

What happened at Virginia Tech. also supports a gun ban. I mean, the gunman aquired all of his guns legally and was completely entitled to them as he followed all of the procedures required, yet he took full advantage of this and ended up murdering people with them.

[Bobcat46308]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18149774/

i'm extremely conservative, but i've never understood our country's dependence on guns. the world looks down on us because of our "gun control"

the 18th century is long gone. maybe the same rules shouldn't apply anymore

[TxRepresent]

What happened at Virginia Tech. also supports a gun ban. I mean, the gunman aquired all of his guns legally and was completely entitled to them as he followed all of the procedures required, yet he took full advantage of this and ended up murdering people with them.

If someone decides to murder 30 people they're going to do it by any means necessary. Whether they buy their guns legally or illegally. If their was a gun ban and someone REALLY wanted to kill 30 people I'm sure they could find a way to do it. It is not politically feasible to have a ban on hand guns, do you really think the government is going to round up all of the handguns that are out in the United States right now? Don't think so. Like someone said earlier, we're in too deep now. I actually agree with Tate on this one, it comes down to education.

[[Mike]]

If someone decides to murder 30 people they're going to do it by any means necessary. Whether they buy their guns legally or illegally. If their was a gun ban and someone REALLY wanted to kill 30 people I'm sure they could find a way to do it. It is not politically feasible to have a ban on hand guns, do you really think the government is going to round up all of the handguns that are out in the United States right now? Don't think so.
Exactly, it's too simple to buy a gun illegally nowadays any sort of gun control laws would be meaningless at this point, if someone wants to buy a gun they can get it.

[PriceOfProgress]

mmmbump

[tambam]

If someone decides to murder 30 people they're going to do it by any means necessary. Whether they buy their guns legally or illegally. If their was a gun ban and someone REALLY wanted to kill 30 people I'm sure they could find a way to do it. It is not politically feasible to have a ban on hand guns, do you really think the government is going to round up all of the handguns that are out in the United States right now? Don't think so. Like someone said earlier, we're in too deep now. I actually agree with Tate on this one, it comes down to education.

Yes, people that are really determined to obtain a gun will do so. But the harder it'll be to get, the more deaths will be prevented because some people aren't willing to go through the measures that it'll take to get them. Since anybody is able to go and get a license to obtain guns, psychotic people like the gunman at VT will be able to get them that much easier. Why make it easier for these people to kill? And education isn't going to do anything to stop mentally insane people from shooting up 5, 10, 20, or more people.

[TxRepresent]

Yes, people that are really determined to obtain a gun will do so. But the harder it'll be to get, the more deaths will be prevented because some people aren't willing to go through the measures that it'll take to get them. Since anybody is able to go and get a license to obtain guns, psychotic people like the gunman at VT will be able to get them that much easier. Why make it easier for these people to kill? And education isn't going to do anything to stop mentally insane people from shooting up 5, 10, 20, or more people.

Yeah some deaths will go down, but how are you going to get guns out of the hands of people that already have them? This is what is so politically infeasible putting this sort of legislation through. In a perfect world it would be possible, but you must think rationally here.

[tambam]

Yeah some deaths will go down, but how are you going to get guns out of the hands of people that already have them? This is what is so politically infeasible putting this sort of legislation through. In a perfect world it would be possible, but you must think rationally here.

I just don't think the argument of, "People that are determined to kill will do it anyways, so why not make it possible for everyone to obtain guns?" Because some murderers aren't always that determined. Some people are just going to kill because they can, because it's convenient to obtain the gun. I think that's why the States have such a high crime rate, because shooting people is so easy to do as guns are very easy to obtain.

[TxRepresent]

I just don't think the argument of, "People that are determined to kill will do it anyways, so why not make it possible for everyone to obtain guns?" Because some murderers aren't always that determined. Some people are just going to kill because they can, because it's convenient to obtain the gun. I think that's why the States have such a high crime rate, because shooting people is so easy to do as guns are very easy to obtain.

You don't think guns will still be easily obtained? Look at things the U.S. has outlawed and hasn't worked. Prohibition just caused an uprise in mobs and moon shining. The U.S. also has a pretty large drug problem, which drugs last time i checked are still illegal. I think outlawing guns will just cause a dramatic rise in the black market for them, and we'll just have a prohibition type situation all over again.

[tambam]

You don't think guns will still be easily obtained? Look at things the U.S. has outlawed and hasn't worked. Prohibition just caused an uprise in mobs and moon shining. The U.S. also has a pretty large drug problem, which drugs last time i checked are still illegal. I think outlawing guns will just cause a dramatic rise in the black market for them, and we'll just have a prohibition type situation all over again.

I still believe that less people will be killed in the future if guns are banned. And like I said, some people that do kill only do it because guns are easy and legal to obtain. Just because some idiots are going to get them anyways, doesn't mean that we should make it legal for everyone to have one. You don't solve gun problems with guns.

[TxRepresent]

I still believe that less people will be killed in the future if guns are banned. And like I said, some people that do kill only do it because guns are easy and legal to obtain. Just because some idiots are going to get them anyways, doesn't mean that we should make it legal for everyone to have one. You don't solve gun problems with guns.

You don't solve gun problems with taking them away either.

[thejetstolehome]

people who want to kill will find a way to do it. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a homemade bomb, his or her bear hands, that person will find a way to kill.

[TxRepresent]

people who want to kill will find a way to do it. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a homemade bomb, his or her bear hands, that person will find a way to kill.

Thank you, I agree.

[Jason Tate]

people who want to kill will find a way to do it. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a homemade bomb, his or her bear hands, that person will find a way to kill.
These assholes need to just start offing themselves. Stop taking innocent people with them.

[tambam]

people who want to kill will find a way to do it. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a homemade bomb, his or her bear hands, that person will find a way to kill.

yeah, but I still don't think that justifies legalizing them.

[TxRepresent]

These assholes need to just start offing themselves. Stop taking innocent people with them.

Well isn't that the point of going on a killing spree? Killing others? (Not trying to be a smart ass by the way)

[TxRepresent]

yeah, but I still don't think that justifies legalizing them.

They're already legalized, and A LOT of people own guns. They're ALWAYS going to be apart of our society. Unless hell freezes over of course.

[Jason Tate]

Well isn't that the point of going on a killing spree? Killing others? (Not trying to be a smart ass by the way)
Yeah? But that has nothing about what I was getting at.

[Jason Tate]

They're already legalized, and A LOT of people own guns. They're ALWAYS going to be apart of our society. Unless hell freezes over of course.
Never say always. That same argument was used with slavery, women's rights, and so forth down the line. Our society can change - it just takes drastic measures to force it.

But ... apparently we still haven't evolved beyond killing each other like animals.

[TxRepresent]

Yeah? But that has nothing about what I was getting at.

Well being realistic why would someone just kill themselves to make themselves feel better about people picking on them all of their lives? Just doesn't seem logical to me.

[TxRepresent]

Never say always. That same argument was used with slavery, women's rights, and so forth down the line. Our society can change - it just takes drastic measures to force it.

But ... apparently we still haven't evolved beyond killing each other like animals.

I should have used a different word, but I just honestly don't see it happening any time soon.

[Jason Tate]

Well being realistic why would someone just kill themselves to make themselves feel better about people picking on them all of their lives? Just doesn't seem logical to me.
You're right - mass murder is much more logical. :rolleyes:

Go re-read what I wrote originally ... you've missed the entire point.

[TxRepresent]

You're right - mass murder is much more logical. :rolleyes:

Go re-read what I wrote originally ... you've missed the entire point.

Of course it's not logical to kill a bunch of innocent people, or yourself. But put yourself in this kids shoes, he was obviously mentally ill, and pissed off. What are you going to do(keep in mind you're mentally ill) off yourself or go take out the people that have pissed you off?

This is of course in the worst case situation I'm not saying he shouldn't have sought after help else where.

[Jason Tate]

Of course it's not logical to kill a bunch of innocent people, or yourself. But put yourself in this kids shoes, he was obviously mentally ill, and pissed off. What are you going to do(keep in mind you're mentally ill) off yourself or go take out the people that have pissed you off?

This is of course in the worst case situation I'm not saying he shouldn't have sought after help else where.
I'm just going to type what I originally wrote one more time -- apparently you're too busy to go back and re-read it:

These assholes need to just start offing themselves. Stop taking innocent people with them.

Now, stop turning an illogical fuckwad's actions into something you think is debatable. I could give a rat's ass what the dipshit thinks ... he needs to just start pulling the trigger with the gun in his mouth instead.

[TxRepresent]

I'm just going to type what I originally wrote one more time -- apparently you're too busy to go back and re-read it:

These assholes need to just start offing themselves. Stop taking innocent people with them.

Now, stop turning an illogical fuckwad's actions into something you think is debatable. I could give a rat's ass what the dipshit thinks ... he needs to just start pulling the trigger with the gun in his mouth instead.

Oh I read what you said several times, but apparently you just didn't like what I had to say. Which I mean is ok because it is your opinion. The real solution to this is for these depressed kids to seek real help and not turn the gun on themselves or others.

[FarPastGone]

I could give a rat's ass what the dipshit thinks ... he needs to just start pulling the trigger with the gun in his mouth instead.
That stance will surely save lives.

[Jason Tate]

That stance will surely save lives.
Whose lives are you referring to?

[Jason Tate]

Oh I read what you said several times, but apparently you just didn't like what I had to say. Which I mean is ok because it is your opinion. The real solution to this is for these depressed kids to seek real help and not turn the gun on themselves or others.
"Real" help? Yeah, talking to someone for 4 weeks and pumping them full of more drugs sure seems to work out real well.

You missed the intention of my post.

[TxRepresent]

"Real" help? Yeah, talking to someone for 4 weeks and pumping them full of more drugs sure seems to work out real well.

You missed the intention of my post.

Ok lets fucking get the God damn intention of your post correct for me so i can stop "misunderstanding" it. Your intention was for these "psychos" to just kill themselves and not other people correct!?

[FarPastGone]

A multitude of lives; the assailants, the innocents, the protectors, etc... That is the kind of sentiment in the first place that probably drives some of these kids away from help, and to radical, illogical decisions that harm not only themselves but the lives of countless others.

[TxRepresent]

401 w00t.

[Jason Tate]

A multitude of lives; the assailants, the innocents, the protectors, etc... That is the kind of sentiment in the first place that probably drives some of these kids away from help, and to radical, illogical decisions that harm not only themselves but the lives of countless others.
It saves everyone's lives except the assailants. I'm completely fine with that outcome.

[aminorthreat55]

Well being realistic why would someone just kill themselves to make themselves feel better about people picking on them all of their lives? Just doesn't seem logical to me.
Psychologically speaking, they are consistent behavior, as they are both self-centered actions meant to attract attention. This is often why many homicides involve a suicide as well.

[Lueda Alia]

people who want to kill will find a way to do it. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a homemade bomb, his or her bear hands, that person will find a way to kill.
That doesn't mean we should just make it easier for them.

I find it amazing how people will complain so much about guns being taken away because it goes against the constitution, but they don't seem to care when the government craps all over it (the constitution) constantly. Disgusting.

[thejetstolehome]

That doesn't mean we should just make it easier for them.

I find it amazing how people will complain so much about guns being taken away because it goes against the constitution, but they don't seem to care when the government craps all over it (the constitution) constantly. Disgusting.

oh don't get me wrong, if a gun ban were to go into effect tomorrow, i'd be totally cool with it. i'm just saying, i don't know how much it would help.

[TxRepresent]

Psychologically speaking, they are consistent behavior, as they are both self-centered actions meant to attract attention. This is often why many homicides involve a suicide as well.

I agree.

[unwritten]

These assholes need to just start offing themselves. Stop taking innocent people with them.

Amen.

[unwritten]

oh don't get me wrong, if a gun ban were to go into effect tomorrow, i'd be totally cool with it. i'm just saying, i don't know how much it would help.

Even a little help would still be considered help though. Not allowing the legal sale of guns would be okay in my book. On the other hand, there is probably no real way of suspending black market sales.

[[Mike]]

A so-called "War on Guns" (or gun control) is the same as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terror", they are all unwinnable, it's too widespread to ever put any end to it. Yeah, if gun control went into effect, it might keep a small amount of guns out of the wrong people's hands, but in the big picture, won't do much at all.

[aminorthreat55]

;6300212']A so-called "War on Guns" (or gun control) is the same as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terror", they are all unwinnable, it's too widespread to ever put any end to it. Yeah, if gun control went into effect, it might keep a small amount of guns out of the wrong people's hands, but in the big picture, won't do much at all.
They may be unwinnable in completely eliminating them, but that does not means we should sit idly by should there be an efficient and effective means of reducing the problems all of those things cause. Just because we can't win the proverbial war doesn't mean we should give up in all the battles as well.

[Love As Arson]

In a society that alienates those that live within it on a daily basis and designates violence as a valid means through which one may interact with others, gun control is useless.

[Jason Tate]

In a society that alienates those that live within it on a daily basis and designates violence as a valid means through which one may interact with others, gun control is useless.
Could not agree more. Well said, as usual.

[Love As Arson]

I would say that is the differance between the UK and America.

We do not practice either of those things, particularly the latter.
As I understand it, gun crime has increased in Britain. Perhaps you could provide some insight as to why that is.

[tambam]

;6300212']A so-called "War on Guns" (or gun control) is the same as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terror", they are all unwinnable, it's too widespread to ever put any end to it. Yeah, if gun control went into effect, it might keep a small amount of guns out of the wrong people's hands, but in the big picture, won't do much at all.

Even if a small number of people's lives are saved because of it, it should still be done.

[thejetstolehome]

here's another aspect--say there's a gun ban tomorrow. what do you do with all the people who are put out of a job?

[tambam]

here's another aspect--say there's a gun ban tomorrow. what do you do with all the people who are put out of a job?

This stuff happens all of the time, though. Car factories close all of the time, putting thousands of people out of work. I don't think that's a reason not to have a gun ban. These people can always get another job, but the percentage of people that could have lived but didn't because a gun ban wasn't put in place can't have their lives back.

[TxRepresent]

This stuff happens all of the time, though. Car factories close all of the time, putting thousands of people out of work. I don't think that's a reason not to have a gun ban. These people can always get another job, but the percentage of people that could have lived but didn't because a gun ban wasn't put in place can't have their lives back.

I really do not think you understand how politically infeasible your ideas are. I mean they are great ideas and would work if we weren't so deep already, it's just not going to happen. There are too many gun toting Americans out there that are willing to vote against it. Yes it would save lives, and this is so sad to say but unfortunately money is worth more to this country than a few hundred lives a year. I would just like to add I myself do not agree with this philosophy BUT that's just how our country is unfortunately.

[thejetstolehome]

This stuff happens all of the time, though. Car factories close all of the time, putting thousands of people out of work. I don't think that's a reason not to have a gun ban. These people can always get another job, but the percentage of people that could have lived but didn't because a gun ban wasn't put in place can't have their lives back.

a car company going out of business usually isn't brought forth by legislation from Washington. that doesn't make it right and i hate that when it happens--i remember beging incredibly upset the last time Ford did one of their massive layoffs, but what i'm saying is that politicians of both parties always talk huge on creating jobs, unemployment rates, etc., and if they signed legislation to essentially shut down an entire industry, they'd be shot. granted, some people would still be employed to make guns for the military, law enforcement, etc., but a lare amount of people would be put out of work and they, in turn, wouldn't vote for the people who put them out of a job. like i've said, all politicians care about at the end of the day is keep their jobs. a gun ban would probably not be condusive to that.

again, i wouldn't fight it if a gun ban went into effect tomorrow, i'm just trying to look at it from all sides.

[tambam]

I really do not think you understand how politically infeasible your ideas are. I mean they are great ideas and would work if we weren't so deep already, it's just not going to happen. There are too many gun toting Americans out there that are willing to vote against it. Yes it would save lives, and this is so sad to say but unfortunately money is worth more to this country than a few hundred lives a year. I would just like to add I myself do not agree with this philosophy BUT that's just how our country is unfortunately.

I don't think you can know for sure until there's a national vote for or against gun control. My only point is that a gun ban will save lives, like you just acknowledged. I never said anything about whether or not it would be voted in if it ever happened. Until there are some solid numbers, I don't think we can assume whether or not it is possible. As much as there are many people that love their guns, there are people who want them gone too.

[tambam]

a car company going out of business usually isn't brought forth by legislation from Washington. that doesn't make it right and i hate that when it happens--i remember beging incredibly upset the last time Ford did one of their massive layoffs, but what i'm saying is that politicians of both parties always talk huge on creating jobs, unemployment rates, etc., and if they signed legislation to essentially shut down an entire industry, they'd be shot. granted, some people would still be employed to make guns for the military, law enforcement, etc., but a lare amount of people would be put out of work and they, in turn, wouldn't vote for the people who put them out of a job. like i've said, all politicians care about at the end of the day is keep their jobs. a gun ban would probably not be condusive to that.

again, i wouldn't fight it if a gun ban went into effect tomorrow, i'm just trying to look at it from all sides.

Yeah, but as much as there are people who are employed in the gun industry and so on, there are more people who aren't. There are also people who fear for their lives, their children's lives, etc. I think after the VT shootings and other shootings, a lot of people will look back at the issue of gun control and re-examine it. I think having a pessimistic attitude about this issue isn't the way to go. There should be some sort of a national poll to see whether a gun ban is even possible before we decide that it's no use. I mean, the job of the government is to protect their people, and making it possible for innocent people to be killed that wouldn't have been killed otherwise is not doing their job. I mean, isn't there a section in the Constitution that states everyone is entitled to feel secure or something along those lines? Making it that much easier for any lunatic to own a gun completely contradicts that.

[TxRepresent]

I don't think you can know for sure until there's a national vote for or against gun control. My only point is that a gun ban will save lives, like you just acknowledged. I never said anything about whether or not it would be voted in if it ever happened. Until there are some solid numbers, I don't think we can assume whether or not it is possible. As much as there are many people that love their guns, there are people who want them gone too.

I think if you were to take a policy class, you might have a slightly different opinion on how feasible it really is.

[tambam]

I think if you were to take a policy class, you might have a slightly different opinion on how feasible it really is.

Nevertheless, there's no point in deciding that it's impossible when we don't know for sure.

[thejetstolehome]

Yeah, but as much as there are people who are employed in the gun industry and so on, there are more people who aren't. There are also people who fear for their lives, their children's lives, etc. I think after the VT shootings and other shootings, a lot of people will look back at the issue of gun control and re-examine it. I think having a pessimistic attitude about this issue isn't the way to go. There should be some sort of a national poll to see whether a gun ban is even possible before we decide that it's no use. I mean, the job of the government is to protect their people, and making it possible for innocent people to be killed that wouldn't have been killed otherwise is not doing their job. I mean, isn't there a section in the Constitution that states everyone is entitled to feel secure or something along those lines? Making it that much easier for any lunatic to own a gun completely contradicts that.

there's also the Second Amendment which allows citizens to own guns.

if a poll were to be taken, it'd probably be split along regional lines with the Northeast voting yes and the South and the West voting no to a gun ban, and like just about everything here, it'd probably be about 50/50.

[tambam]

there's also the Second Amendment which allows citizens to own guns.

if a poll were to be taken, it'd probably be split along regional lines with the Northeast voting yes and the South and the West voting no to a gun ban, and like just about everything here, it'd probably be about 50/50.

Well, those two pieces of legislation completely contradict each other. Maybe that's another thing that needs to be changed.

Around 50/50, yes, but we won't know for sure until it actually happens.

[aminorthreat55]

I don't think you can know for sure until there's a national vote for or against gun control. My only point is that a gun ban will save lives, like you just acknowledged. I never said anything about whether or not it would be voted in if it ever happened. Until there are some solid numbers, I don't think we can assume whether or not it is possible. As much as there are many people that love their guns, there are people who want them gone too.
The major problem with the popular support of a gun ban is that any vote on the issue mobilizes the pro-gun lobby way more than the anti-gun lobby, so regardless of actual public opinion, you'll get biased results.

[aminorthreat55]

there's also the Second Amendment which allows citizens to own guns.
Historically that was created out of immediate necessity as there was no standing military and not because the founders thought that it was a fundamental right the people should have.

[TxRepresent]

The major problem with the popular support of a gun ban is that any vote on the issue mobilizes the pro-gun lobby way more than the anti-gun lobby, so regardless of actual public opinion, you'll get biased results.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[thejetstolehome]

Historically that was created out of immediate necessity as there was no standing military and not because the founders thought that it was a fundamental right the people should have.

which is very true but a lot of people today will still think it a fundamental right.

[aminorthreat55]

which is very true but a lot of people today will still think it a fundamental right.
Well they're wrong then.

[x togepi x]

Historically that was created out of immediate necessity as there was no standing military and not because the founders thought that it was a fundamental right the people should have.

The founders also thought that only white men deserved rights. My point? Rights are merely a social construction defined by society. In a democratic society, if the majority of people want something to be a right, it becomes one. So it's not really the historical reason that a right exists that matters so much as what current society believes said right to be (or if it should even exist).

i guess what i'm trying to say is, we really shouldn't care about why we have the right to bear arms so much as we should care at what the public's perception of said right is.

[gilatron5000]

British gun control is great. In my whole life I have never ever seen a gun in the hands of a civilian. Although we dont have the weird obsession with firearms that a lot of america has.
funny, I too have never seen a gun in a civilians hands. And I live in the town with the highest crime rate in the state. In the country with the "weird obsession", as you so eloquently put it.

But I have to ask everyone, a ban on alcohol didn't work, smoking marijuana isn't even a taboo subject anymore, so what makes anyone think a gun ban will magically save lives?

Realistically, banning a gun would be like banning abortion. It'll still happen in this country no matter what the laws state, but it won't be regulated.

[TxRepresent]

It is strange how uptight about the constitution America is. It is actually a good constitution its just a shame people choose to ignore huge parts of it.

Heh, yeah. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said "democracy is the worst form of government except for all other governments"? I know this doesn't really relate I just think it's a kick ass quote.

[thejetstolehome]

He was a racist, conservative bastard but he was damn good at two things. Winning the war and saying very quotable stamements.

"If I were your wife, I'd put poison in your tea."
"And if I were your husband, madam, I would drink it."

[Jason Tate]

Time to bump this thread.

Someone convince me you need a gun, let alone be able to carry a concealed gun around.

[xapplexpiex]

Time to bump this thread.

Someone convince me you need a gun, let alone be able to carry a concealed gun around.
Uh, no thanks. I was at the mall with my 12 yr. old brother last weekend and we saw this guy with his daughter. He walked around with a gun visible in a holster. It scared the shit out of my brother.

[RushAndAPush]

Time to bump this thread.

Someone convince me you need a gun, let alone be able to carry a concealed gun around.I do not agree with it at all. I don't see any need for it unless you live in a hostile environment. I live in a very safe neighborhood , yet my father insists on carrying one around (at times). He also stores it in his car.

[Regards]

Someone convince me you need to be redirected to Bing to keep AP running. GO!

But seriously I'm not much of a gun advocated.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Time to bump this thread.

Someone convince me you need a gun, let alone be able to carry a concealed gun around.

People who carry guns (in their homes, as concealed weapons in public) through legal and illegal means believe that there is a 24/7 probability that someone is going to assault them or their family. Simply possessing a gun or make known that you own guns will deter potential muggers, home invaders. The more guns a person has, the more paranoid yet more empowered they feel.

http://www.hobotraveler.com/b-photos01/211-605-beware-of-owner.jpg

Also, is there a correlation in the fact that Chicago and D.C. have strict/prohibition of legal gun ownership and yet violent crime runs rampant in those two cities.?

[Simulcast]

Also, is there a correlation in the fact that Chicago and D.C. have strict/prohibition of legal gun ownership and yet violent crime runs rampant in those two cities.?


I am curious about this fact.

[Regards]

Went to a Buffalo Wild Wings in Chicago and it had a big sign in the front that said "All Guns Are Banned On These Premises." It made think of how awesome wings and a shoot out would go great together.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

In Kennesaw, Georgia, every resident is required to possess a firearm and ammunition (http://library.municode.com/HTML/12813/level3/PII_C34_AII.html).

Sec. 34-21 (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.



I'm still trying to find evidence of the amount of crime reported before it was enacted and the time since.

[Machu505]

Most probably don't need a gun. I, for example, wouldn't since I live in a perfectly safe neighborhood. But gun bans deny those who need protection in crime-riddled places (DC, for example) their rights.

[Jason Tate]

In Kennesaw, Georgia, every resident is required to possess a firearm and ammunition (http://library.municode.com/HTML/12813/level3/PII_C34_AII.html).



I'm still trying to find evidence of the amount of crime reported before it was enacted and the time since.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

[Simulcast]

Most probably don't need a gun. I, for example, wouldn't since I live in a perfectly safe neighborhood. But gun bans deny those who need protection in crime-riddled places (DC, for example) their rights.

Agreed. I don't think anyone can claim that everyone needs a gun, but those who could use one should be able to get it.

[Jason Tate]

Most probably don't need a gun. I, for example, wouldn't since I live in a perfectly safe neighborhood. But gun bans deny those who need protection in crime-riddled places (DC, for example) their rights.
Why is gun ownership a right? And guns are not the only form of available protection.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Thanks for that Jason

[Jason Tate]

Agreed. I don't think anyone can claim that everyone needs a gun, but those who could use one should be able to get it.
Why? Because they live in a "bad part of town"? How is arming more people helping that?

[Machu505]

Why is gun ownership a right? And guns are not the only form of available protection.
It's certainly the most effective. Home invasions or even an oppressive government aren't going to be stopped by pepper spray

[Simulcast]

Why? Because they live in a "bad part of town"? How is arming more people helping that?

Arming responsible citizens allows them to stand up to criminals. You are probably less likely to enter a house if you feel the owner is armed.

[Jason Tate]

It's certainly the most effective. Home invasions or even an oppressive government aren't going to be stopped by pepper spray
By that logic the most effective would be land mines in the front lawn. Why would a home invasion not be stopped by non-lethal weapons? And this oppressive government thing is ridiculous. No matter how many guns you have, you're not going to be able to do shit against the government.

Arming responsible citizens allows them to stand up to criminals. You are probably less likely to enter a house if you feel the owner is armed.
It has often been argued that civilian firearm ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. Much of the support for this claim is based on incidents that have called attention to the prevalence of privately owned guns. We examined several such incidents and failed to find any persuasive evidence of a deterrent effect (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01079.x/abstract).

[jawstheme]

I feel like a ban on guns would mean that most of the people who own guns would be criminals, which would put the rest of the population at a serious disadvantage. I keep hearing people say that most criminals use unregistered guns anyway, as an argument against banning guns, but I've never looked up the actual numbers.

[caveBEAR]

I'd like to work more on ending the situations and scenarios that lead to high crime, as opposed to just arming everyone.

[Simulcast]

It has often been argued that civilian firearm ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. Much of the support for this claim is based on incidents that have called attention to the prevalence of privately owned guns. We examined several such incidents and failed to find any persuasive evidence of a deterrent effect (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01079.x/abstract).

How then does one explain the figures you posted above? What led to a drop in crime in one city and a rise in the other?

[Jason Tate]

I feel like a ban on guns would mean that most of the people who own guns would be criminals, which would put the rest of the population at a serious disadvantage. I keep hearing people say that most criminals use unregistered guns anyway, as an argument against banning guns, but I've never looked up the actual numbers.
One can look at countries with far stricter gun control laws than America.

[Jason Tate]

How then does one explain the figures you posted above? What led to a drop in crime in one city and a rise in the other?
The crime rates in the cities are virtually the same: 2,027 per 100,000 versus 2,268 per 100,000.

Edit: Actually looking at 2009 numbers ... Morton Grove surpasses Kennesaw in being "safer."

[Simulcast]

The crime rates in the cities are virtually the same: 2,027 per 100,000 versus 2,268 per 100,000.

Edit: Actually looking at 2009 numbers ... Morton Grove far and away wins (http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographics/IL/Morton_Grove/Crime_Statistics?compare=Kennesaw%2 C+GA).

Oh man, I totally read that wrong. My mistake.

[Sean Rizzo]

The crime rates in the cities are virtually the same: 2,027 per 100,000 versus 2,268 per 100,000.
That doesn't matter because the 15% increase in crime took place after the ban.

Perhaps the other city where guns are required have good reason for the law--there was more crime to begin with; and the local government believed all citizens should have the means to protect themselves in the event a crime took place.

[Jason Tate]

2009 comparison with bar chart. Gotta find 2007.

[Mitch]

I understand the desire to have one gun in your home if you live in a crime-ridden area even though I don't think I'll ever own one no matter where I live. What I don't understand is gun culture and the want for a needless amount of automatic weapons and the like. My dad has a hefty collection of guns and to me it's just...stupid. And it seems to me that--and this horrifies me--a lot of gun owners just seem itching to get a chance to shoot someone even if they wouldn't do it unprovoked. Probably unreasonable for me to think, but the way some people talk about their guns is a bit scary.

I'm for the strictest amount of regulation possible without completely banning guns (I would be fine with the latter but it's less realistic especially in light of recent rulings).

I have a fairly cynical view of human behavior and I think my views on gun ownership are an effect of that.

[Jason Tate]

That doesn't matter because the 15% increase in crime took place after the ban.

Perhaps the other city where guns are required have good reason for the law--there was more crime to begin with; and the local government believed all citizens should have the means to protect themselves in the event a crime took place.
It matters because the entire picture, not a small snap-shot, is what's important.

I see no such thing as "good reason" for such a law.

[caveBEAR]

It matters because the entire picture, not a small snap-shot, is what's important.

I see no such thing as "good reason" for such a law.

Wait, I'm confused.

The city in Chicago with the gun ban had a 15% hike in crime after the ban, but still has better crime rates than the city in Georgia? Or is Prince of Light just saying things that don't match up to the graphs at all?

[Jason Tate]

I understand the desire to have one gun in your home if you live in a crime-ridden area even though I don't think I'll ever own one no matter where I live. What I don't understand is gun culture and the want for a needless amount of automatic weapons and the like. My dad has a hefty collection of guns and to me it's just...stupid. And it seems to me that--and this horrifies me--a lot of gun owners just seem itching to get a chance to shoot someone even if they wouldn't do it unprovoked. Probably unreasonable for me to think, but the way some people talk about their guns is a bit scary.

I'm for the strictest amount of regulation possible without completely banning guns (I would be fine with the latter but it's less realistic especially in light of recent rulings).

I have a fairly cynical view of human behavior and I think my views on gun ownership are an effect of that.
The numbers, especially compared to the rest of the civilized world, seem to back up your view.


http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/03/ap_world_gun_deaths.gif

Go us.

[Jason Tate]

Wait, I'm confused.

The city in Chicago with the gun ban had a 15% hike in crime after the ban, but still has better crime rates than the city in Georgia? Or is Prince of Light just saying things that don't match up to the graphs at all?
The 15% hike number was not for an entire year, but (from what I can tell from the article - which is on a very pro-gun website) a two week period. Gun ban -> people thinking they could get away with shit in the short term -> finding out the law still works -> crime rate staying relatively the same for the year -> actually down in 2007-8 comparatively (ban was lifted on July 28, 2008).

[caveBEAR]

The numbers, especially compared to the rest of the civilized world, seem to back up your view.

Go us.

When we say, 'U.S.A. is #1!', boy, do we fucking mean it.
:rolleyes:

[Sean Rizzo]

The numbers, especially compared to the rest of the civilized world, seem to back up your view.


http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/03/ap_world_gun_deaths.gif

Go us.
How many of those 9.42 are suicides? Those wouldn't matter because a gun is just one instrument of death. With murder, however, guns are advantageous.

[Sean Rizzo]

Wait, I'm confused.

The city in Chicago with the gun ban had a 15% hike in crime after the ban, but still has better crime rates than the city in Georgia? Or is Prince of Light just saying things that don't match up to the graphs at all?
Both. I don't see how his graph applies to crimes committed with firearms at all.

Looking at those numbers, it looks like gun requirement laws don't decrease crime, while gun bans increase it.

[Jason Tate]

In an opinion piece in the New York Times Glenn Reynolds claims (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html?ex=1326603600&en=3b3fc7a5c7e7f516&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss): Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. ...
And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.
Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw's crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove's did not.
This is precisely backwards. Burglaries in Kennesaw did not change significantly, while Morton Grove's burglary rate fell by 4.5 burglaries per month. (See McDowall et al Criminology v29 p541-560 (1991) (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01079.x). Look at the graphs:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/01/kennesaw.png
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/01/mortongrove.png

So what made Reynolds think that crime had declined in Kennesaw? McDowall et al dryly observe: There is a curious discrepancy between the number of burglaries reported by Kennesaw's mayor in interviews cited by Kleck (1988) and Schmidt (1987a) and the number of burglaries reported by Kennesaw's police department to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's police department to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. The mayor claimed to Schmidt, for example, that there were 55 residential burglaries in 1981, before he law was passed. This is greater than the total number of all burglaries -- residential and otherwise -- reported by the police department to the UCR. Given the mayor's spirited advocacy of the ordinance and the apparent differences in the figures he provided in separate interviews cited by Schmidt and by Kleck, we believe the UCR counts are the more accurate of the two.
Reynolds has no excuse for spreading this falsehood, since we've been around on this before (http://timlambert.org/2003/11/kennesaw/).

Reynolds also claims Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather break into a house where they aren't at risk of being shot. As David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present. We see this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United States having a lower proportion of "hot" burglaries -- break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied -- than countries with restrictive gun laws.
But in The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.html) Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig found that areas in the US with higher gun ownership tended to have more burglaries, and more burglaries where the residents were home. Internationally, it's a wash with England having a greater hot burglary rate than the US and Canada and Australia having similar rates to the US.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php

[secretsociety92]

Strict gun controls don't always prevent gun crime. The UK has some of the strictest in the world but that didn't stop a guy killing a dozen or so people with a shotgun in a matter of hours.

[caveBEAR]

The 15% hike number was not for an entire year, but (from what I can tell from the article - which is on a very pro-gun website) a two week period. Gun ban -> people thinking they could get away with shit in the short term -> finding out the law still works -> crime rate staying relatively the same for the year -> actually down in 2007-8 comparatively (ban was lifted on July 28, 2008).

Aaah, that makes sense.

Thank you.

[Jason Tate]

Both. I don't see how his graph applies to crimes committed with firearms at all.

Looking at those numbers, it looks like gun requirement laws don't decrease crime, while gun bans increase it.
What numbers are you looking at? :eyebrow:

[Sean Rizzo]

What numbers are you looking at? :eyebrow:
The italicized text you posted about 15 replies ago, and the graph itself.

Edit: this - http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=76112242#post76112 242

[caveBEAR]

I don't see how his graph applies to crimes committed with firearms at all.

That's because it doesn't. It applies to 'crime'. Isn't that what most gun owners say they're deterring, 'crime'? Not just 'gun violence', but 'crime'.

[Jason Tate]

The italicized text you posted about 15 replies ago, and the graph itself.

Edit: this - http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=76112242#post76112 242
And you are following that "immediately" has no significance on "as a whole" ... right? That "immediately" line is from a pro-gun website skewing the numbers for a very small period, compared to all the data.

[Jason Tate]

That's because it doesn't. It applies to 'crime'. Isn't that what most gun owners say they're deterring, 'crime'? Not just 'gun violence', but 'crime'.
Correct. The idea should be that if everyone has guns - less crime ... right? That's the claim being made. The "deterrent." And we have factual evidence that shows this to not be true.

[Jason Tate]

Man, pro-gun people are good at SEO.

[Jason Tate]

The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like. A more systematic exploration requires data on local rates of gun ownership and of residential burglary, and such data have only recently become available. In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns. The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.html

[caveBEAR]

Man, pro-gun people are good at SEO.

SEO?

[Jason Tate]

SEO?
Search Engine Optimization

[Jason Tate]

I don't even care about reducing or not reducing crime ... I just don't understand why someone would want a gun let alone need a gun.

[Jason Tate]

The highly publicized work of Lott and Mustard (1997) claimed enormous
reductions in violent crime due to concealed weapons laws. The theory behind this
claim is straightforward: armed victims raise the costs faced by a potential offender.
The empirical work in support of this hypothesis, however, has proven to be
fragile along a number of dimensions (Black and Nagin, 1998; Ludwig, 1998;
Duggan, 2001; Ayres and Donohue, 2003). First, allowing concealed weapons
should have the greatest impact on crimes that involve face-to-face contact and
occur outside the home where the law might affect gun carrying. Robbery is the
crime category that most clearly fits this description, yet Ayres and Donohue (2003)
demonstrate that empirically the passage of these laws is, if anything, positively
related to the robbery rate. More generally, Duggan (2001) finds that for crimes
that appear to decline with the law change, the declines in crime actually predate
the passage of the laws, arguing against a causal impact of the law. Finally, when the
original Lott and Mustard (1997) data set is extended forward in time to encompass
a large number of additional law enactments, the results disappear (Ayres and
Donohue, 2003). Ultimately, there appears to be little basis for believing that
concealed weapons laws have had an appreciable impact on crime.

[caveBEAR]

Search Engine Optimization

Aaaaah, got it.

I don't even care about reducing or not reducing crime ... I just don't understand why someone would want a gun let alone need a gun.

Me neither. I think every gun nut should just take up paintball. All the fun of guns and war without the carnage and death.

[Simulcast]

I don't even care about reducing or not reducing crime ... I just don't understand why someone would want a gun let alone need a gun.

What if it brings the person peace of mind?

[<*)))><]

In some colleges you can keep a gun in the dorm but not a nerf gun.

[Simulcast]

In some colleges you can keep a gun in the dorm but not a nerf gun.

What.

[Jason Tate]

Aaaaah, got it.



Me neither. I think every gun nut should just take up paintball. All the fun of guns and war without the carnage and death.
They post the same blog posts on like 400 different websites, so when you search for certain key words - it's all that pops up. Had to move to google scholar to get scientific results.

After some research ... I don't really care about the crime rates and the impact. I just don't think we live in the wild west any more and don't need to have weapons with us at all times. I'll get behind keeping one in your house to defend it. I really want to tax you for bullets. But carrying them anywhere else ... I don't get. At all.

[Jason Tate]

What if it brings the person peace of mind?
Then they should seek counseling.

[<*)))><]

What.
In my old school you could keep a gun in the dormrooms if it was registered with the campus PD but not a nerf gun.

[Jason Tate]

In some colleges you can keep a gun in the dorm but not a nerf gun.
And I'll just say it: college is one place guns should absolutely not be.

[Simulcast]

Then they should seek counseling.

Why should a person who feels safe owning a gun in a rough neighborhood seek counseling?

[Simulcast]

In my old school you could keep a gun in the dormrooms if it was registered with the campus PD but not a nerf gun.

Wow.

[Jason Tate]

Why should a person who feels safe owning a gun in a rough neighborhood seek counseling?
Because if you need a weapon to feel safe, you need counseling.

[Simulcast]

Because if you need a weapon to feel safe, you need counseling.

What? So a person who keeps a baseball bat in their room for protection needs help? I take it you grew up in a pretty nice area.

[Jason Tate]

What? So a person who keeps a baseball bat in their room for protection needs help? I take it you grew up in a pretty nice area.
I don't understand how you could say someone in that kind of area would not need, and benefit from, counseling.

[caveBEAR]

What? So a person who keeps a baseball bat in their room for protection needs help? I take it you grew up in a pretty nice area.

Baseball bat =/= gun.

At all.

[Simulcast]

I don't understand how you could say someone in that kind of area would not need, and benefit from, counseling.

I can't understand how you could assume they would need it. People in bad areas automatically need counseling by virtue of their location?

[Simulcast]

Baseball bat =/= gun.

At all.

Yes, but he said weapon. Doesn't matter what it is in this context.

[jawstheme]

I don't even care about reducing or not reducing crime ... I just don't understand why someone would want a gun let alone need a gun.

Hunting? Do you just mean handguns?

[Machu505]

I don't approach supporting gun rights from a crime-reduction angle, and I don't claim it has any effect. I'm just not in the belief that a person should be restricted from using the best means available for protecting his or her family (and no, I'm generally anti-rocket-launcher/land mine). Those in the anti-gun-rights crowd take a more than privileged position on this issue.

[Jason Tate]

I can't understand how you could assume they would need it. People in bad areas automatically need counseling by virtue of their location?
If they need a weapon to feel safe. Stop cutting out half of what I said to make it different. Yes. If they live in a bad area, and need to feel safe by having a gun, they would be greatly benefited by counseling. I find this to be obvious.

Hunting? Do you just mean handguns?
I don't understand hunting at all.

[Jason Tate]

I don't approach supporting gun rights from a crime-reduction angle, and I don't claim it has any effect. I'm just not in the belief that a person should be restricted from using the best means available for protecting his or her family (and no, I'm generally anti-rocket-launcher/land mine). Those in the anti-gun-rights crowd take a more than privileged position on this issue.
Why shouldn't they be restricted? We have to draw a line somewhere. Why is it at gun?

[Mitch]

If they need a weapon to feel safe. Stop cutting out half of what I said to make it different. Yes. If they live in a bad area, and need to feel safe by having a gun, they would be greatly benefited by counseling. I find this to be obvious.


I don't understand hunting at all.

Hunting in this day and age is killing just to kill. Can't say I understand it at all either.

[Simulcast]

If they need a weapon to feel safe. Stop cutting out half of what I said to make it different. Yes. If they live in a bad area, and need to feel safe by having a gun, they would be greatly benefited by counseling.



If you are surrounded by violent crime and owning a gun helps you sleep at night, I don't see anything wrong with that. How can that possibly be a bad thing?

What exactly is the aim of this counseling?

[Jason Tate]

If you are surrounded by violent crime and owning a gun helps you sleep at night, I don't see anything wrong with that. How can that possibly be a bad thing?

What exactly is the aim of this counseling?
If you are surrounded by violent crime and you don't move away from it, I see plenty wrong with that - to begin with. If you need a gun to feel safe ... you've obviously got something going on that needs to be worked out. Why would a well-adjusted person ever need a gun to feel safe? I can understand having a gun for protection, but if that's what makes you feel safe: you're fucked up in the head a little, or you don't have an understanding of reality.

To not be dependent on a gun for a (false) feeling of safety.

[caveBEAR]

I don't approach supporting gun rights from a crime-reduction angle, and I don't claim it has any effect. I'm just not in the belief that a person should be restricted from using the best means available for protecting his or her family (and no, I'm generally anti-rocket-launcher/land mine). Those in the anti-gun-rights crowd take a more than privileged position on this issue.

Why doesn't the average American view guns in the same vein as rocket-launchers & landmines? They really aren't that far off from each other, especially when you get more into the 'assault' class of guns, or anything automatic.

[Scrandon]

Why doesn't the average American view guns in the same vein as rocket-launchers & landmines? They really aren't that far off from each other, especially when you get more into the 'assault' class of guns, or anything automatic.

Explosions are just icky.

[jawstheme]

If they need a weapon to feel safe. Stop cutting out half of what I said to make it different. Yes. If they live in a bad area, and need to feel safe by having a gun, they would be greatly benefited by counseling. I find this to be obvious.


I don't understand hunting at all.

Some people love it. I don't hunt, but I don't think it's realistic to think we'll ever be able to stop people from hunting. I come from a small town and people would go crazy if you told them they couldn't. Even the college here is closed on opening day deer season.

[caveBEAR]

Explosions are just icky.

So the capacity for anyone to put a bullet-sized hole where your heart/brain/other vital organs were just a moment before.

[caveBEAR]

I'd be against hunting if I was a vegetarian or vegan, but it's hypocritical for me to tell someone they can't go out and kill a deer while I chow down on cows and chickens.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

xIpLd0WQKCY

[Jason Tate]

Some people love it. I don't hunt, but I don't think it's realistic to think we'll ever be able to stop people from hunting. I come from a small town and people would go crazy if you told them they couldn't. Even the college here is closed on opening day deer season.
Some people love touching underage boys. I don't see that as a valid reason for it being allowed. People didn't like when we stopped slavery either -- sometimes we gotta piss off a few people.

[Jason Tate]

I'd be against hunting if I was a vegetarian or vegan, but it's hypocritical for me to tell someone they can't go out and kill a deer while I chow down on cows and chickens.
Oh, I'm fine with meat ... I just don't see why in this day and age people need to go kill their own. We have an overabundance of it (much that goes unpurchased) as it is.

[Simulcast]

If you are surrounded by violent crime and you don't move away from it, I see plenty wrong with that - ]to begin with.

If only everyone had the option to move away.

If you need a gun to feel safe ... you've obviously got something going on that needs to be worked out. Why would a well-adjusted person ever need a gun to feel safe? I can understand having a gun for protection, but if that's what makes you feel safe: you're fucked up in the head a little, or you don't have an understanding of reality.

Having a gun for protection means that the gun makes you feel safe. Otherwise why have it for protection?

What reality are you referring to? Growing up in suburbia? Just because people don't subscribe to your reality, that doesn't mean they are fucked up in the head.

To not be dependent on a gun for a (false) feeling of safety.

What should they depend on when someone invades their home?

[Jason Tate]

If only everyone had the option to move away.



Having a gun for protection means that the gun makes you feel safe. Otherwise why have it for protection?

What reality are you referring to? Growing up in suburbia? Just because people don't subscribe to your reality, that doesn't mean they are fucked up in the head.



What should they depend on when someone invades their home?
Everyone does have the option to move away.

For protection. They are not the same thing.

In this case it does.

Given the extremely unlikelihood it will happen, a variety of non-lethal alternatives spring to mind.

[Scrandon]

Obviously as gun ownership increases so does overall death rate related to guns. However, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate.
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8761/screenshot20100928at343.png
Gun ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership)
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7682/screenshot20100928at344.png
Death rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)

Switzerland: 1/2 as many guns per capita as U.S. - 1/12 homicide rate
France: 1/3 as many guns per capita as U.S. - 1/17 homicide rate
Finland: 1/3 as many guns per capita as U.S. - 1/9 homicide rate
Greece: 1/3 as many guns per capita as U.S. - 1/13 homicide rate
Canada: 1/3 as many guns per capita as U.S. - 1/10 homicide rate
You can keep going down the list, the pattern continues.

No other industrialized nations have anywhere near the homicide rate as the U.S., even controlling for the massive number of guns we have. Gun ownership is certainly not the problem here. We seriously need to address the true cause, whatever it may be.

[Machu505]

Why shouldn't they be restricted? We have to draw a line somewhere. Why is it at gun? Guns are established in the minds of the populace as the reasonable limit to firearms. Rocket launchers and land-mines aren't effective in self-protection, and their aim is to kill. The purpose of a handgun is to injure (though like any object in your house, it can be deadly).

Why doesn't the average American view guns in the same vein as rocket-launchers & landmines? They really aren't that far off from each other, especially when you get more into the 'assault' class of guns, or anything automatic. Ha.

Some people love touching underage boys. I don't see that as a valid reason for it being allowed. People didn't like when we stopped slavery either -- sometimes we gotta piss off a few people. Generally speaking, animals aren't underage boys, and thus do not have the same rights as underage boys. And comparing something like hunting to both slavery and pedophilia in one post is impressive.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Oh, I'm fine with meat ... I just don't see why in this day and age people need to go kill their own. We have an overabundance of it (much that goes unpurchased) as it is.

I think they view hunting as more of a recreational sport (since there is a certain skill in firing a weapon at an intended target) and that once they shoot and kill an animal, they take it home, skin, and cook it, as a symbol of accomplishment (rather than say for survival through most of history). I generally regard this the same as fishing (you're not using a gun but you're still capturing fish, ending its life, and then cooking it). I have no problem with hunting, as long as there are safety precautions (unlike a former VP shooting his friend in the face).

[Jason Tate]

—A total of 198 cases were identified during the study interval. Half (99 cases) involved forced entry into the home. The victim and offender were acquainted in one third of cases. A firearm was carried by one or more offenders in 32 cases (17%). Seven offenders (3.5%) carried knives. In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance. Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot. No one died. Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property. Conclusion.
—A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose.


More evidence that if you keep a gun to "feel safe" - you are not living in statistical reality (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/22/1759).

[caveBEAR]

Oh, I'm fine with meat ... I just don't see why in this day and age people need to go kill their own. We have an overabundance of it (much that goes unpurchased) as it is.

I guess I don't feel right telling someone they can't go out and kill animals just because Tyson does it for me.
:shrug:

[Jason Tate]

Guns are established in the minds of the populace as the reasonable limit to firearms.
So let's change it.

Rocket launchers and land-mines aren't effective in self-protection, and their aim is to kill. The purpose of a handgun is to injure (though like any object in your house, it can be deadly).
What? Come on. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Don't be silly.

Generally speaking, animals aren't underage boys, and thus do not have the same rights as underage boys. And comparing something like hunting to both slavery and pedophilia in one post is impressive.
And the point is - we don't make laws based on what some people love.

I think they view hunting as more of a recreational sport (since there is a certain skill in firing a weapon at an intended target) and that once they shoot and kill an animal, they take it home, skin, and cook it, as a symbol of accomplishment (rather than say for survival through most of history). I generally regard this the same as fishing (you're not using a gun but you're still capturing fish, ending its life, and then cooking it). I have no problem with hunting, as long as there are safety precautions (unlike a former VP shooting his friend in the face).
I still fail to see the point in it. Great. You killed an animal with technology. Sweet. Giant yawn.

[Jason Tate]

I guess I don't feel right telling someone they can't go out and kill animals just because Tyson does it for me.
:shrug:
I don't think Tyson is shooting them. If it makes you feel any better.

[caveBEAR]

Ha.

What?

Guns are established in the minds of the populace as the reasonable limit to firearms. Rocket launchers and land-mines aren't effective in self-protection, and their aim is to kill. The purpose of a handgun is to injure (though like any object in your house, it can be deadly).

Gonna have to call bullshit on this one.

[caveBEAR]

I don't think Tyson is shooting them. If it makes you feel any better.

Ha ha ha ha, you know what I mean.

[Jason Tate]

Ha ha ha ha, you know what I mean.
I'd be more impressed if hunters were wrestling deer with their bare hands and shit. Pussies and their guns.

[Machu505]

So let's change it.Address the root of crime and I'd love to.

And the point is - we don't make laws based on what some people love. We also don't arbitrarily ban things that we don't understand.

[<*)))><]

Has anyone who is against guns in this thread ever shot one?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I still fail to see the point in it. Great. You killed an animal with technology. Sweet. Giant yawn.

:shrug:

I guess your way of thinking differs from how hunters think. I personally have never gone hunting and only went on two fishing excursions. I, like yourself, have no desire to go hunting. I suppose to the average male hunter, the moment they shoot and kill an animal, a little bit of blood flows towards the tip of their penis.

[Jason Tate]

Address the root of crime and I'd love to.

We also don't arbitrarily ban things that we don't understand.
We understand just fine. What do you purport is being misunderstood?

[Jason Tate]

Has anyone who is against guns in this thread ever shot one?
Yes.

[jawstheme]

Some hunters count on having a lot of deer meat for the entire year. They save a lot of much needed money by buying a license and then harvesting their own meat.

[caveBEAR]

I'd be more impressed if hunters were wrestling deer with their bare hands and shit. Pussies and their guns.

I've always felt like this. I understand hunting, but I'd much rather see it done with weapons the hunters have to make thenselves. You shouldn't have the ability to fire a deadly projectile, with no effort at all on your part, if you can't figure out how to do it on your own.

[Simulcast]

I've always felt like this. I understand hunting, but I'd much rather see it done with weapons the hunters have to make thenselves. You shouldn't have the ability to fire a deadly projectile, with no effort at all on your part, if you can't figure out how to do it on your own.


Hunting is not easy. Neither is firing a weapon and hitting a target.

[caveBEAR]

Has anyone who is against guns in this thread ever shot one?

Yup.

[Scrandon]

We understand just fine. What do you purport is being misunderstood?


No other industrialized nations have anywhere near the homicide rate as the U.S., even controlling for the massive number of guns we have. Gun ownership is certainly not the problem here. We seriously need to address the true cause, whatever it may be.

??

[caveBEAR]

Hunting is not easy. Neither is firing a weapon at a target.

Crafting a gun is even harder.

[Machu505]

We understand just fine. What do you purport is being misunderstood? From my understanding, you seek to prevent hunting because you dislike it.

[caveBEAR]

??

Guns are not the root of crime, but they aren't harmless pieces of metal that we shouldn't worry about.

Both sides need to make concessions.

[Machu505]

For the record, any license requirement for a firearm in the United States is blatantly unconstitutional. Not that that makes it wrong.

[Simulcast]

Crafting a gun is even harder.


I'd like to see you carve your next steak off the carcass of a cow, after you've properly skinned and cleaned it of course.

[Jason Tate]

Some hunters count on having a lot of deer meat for the entire year. They save a lot of much needed money by buying a license and then harvesting their own meat.
I doubt it saves them "a lot" of money. There are a lot of hidden costs there.

[caveBEAR]

From my understanding, you seek to prevent hunting because you dislike it.

Hunting is probably the only aspect of guns I don't have a problem with.

[Love As Arson]

awesome!

gun control is merely an ineffective band-aid meant to cover up the real social, economic, cultural and political problems that cause crime.

Word. There needs to be a cultural shift in order to address the problem. A lot of the people that commit school shootings experience a great deal of alienation, for example.

[Jason Tate]

From my understanding, you seek to prevent hunting because you dislike it.
I want to know the purpose of Joe Citizen shooting things for sport. Has nothing to do with dislike or like.

[Scrandon]

Guns are not the root of crime, but they aren't harmless pieces of metal that we shouldn't worry about.

Both sides need to make concessions.

According to that data, if guns ownership were decreased, it would have little or possibly even no effect on the homicide rate.

[Jason Tate]

??
Where do you get your premise?

[Jason Tate]

I'd like to see you carve your next steak off the carcass of a cow, after you've properly skinned and cleaned it of course.
Why? Economies of scale let someone do that for me ... far cheaper in real wages and opportunity cost.

[caveBEAR]

I'd like to see you carve your next steak off the carcass of a cow, after you've properly skinned and cleaned it of course.

I never said I could, and this is so off-topic it's ridiculous. I made the point (that I feel) hunters should have to kill animals with weapons they crafted on their own, not guns they can buy at Wal-Mart. You then told me hunting is hard (so is foot racing, doesn't give me the right to ride in a car while everyone else runs), and bet I couldn't carve a steak.

Did you completely miss my point, or are you trying to steer the conversation away?

[Jason Tate]

According to that data, if guns ownership were decreased, it would have little or possibly even no effect on the homicide rate.
How are you drawing that conclusion?

[caveBEAR]

According to that data, if guns ownership were decreased, it would have little or possibly even no effect on the homicide rate.

If we had no guns, the homicide rate would drop for sure.

EDIT: As well, the data posted before showed that having less guns did lead to less violence. We went over this already a few pages back...

[Jason Tate]

Word. There needs to be a cultural shift in order to address the problem. A lot of the people that commit school shootings experience a great deal of alienation, for example.
I'd say education was paramount to this ... but then laughed at the idea that we can barely teach safe sex in school, so the idea of educating our society into a new cultural direction -- seems like a pipe dream.

[Machu505]

I want to know the purpose of Joe Citizen shooting things for sport. Has nothing to do with dislike or like. Joe Citizen's ancestors probably hunted for survival, and the tradition was passed through generations of his family. It's become a sport because hunting is no longer necessary to feed one's family. And, you know, he finds shooting things fun. Just look at the most popular video games, for example. Find the common element.

[Jason Tate]

If we had no guns, the homicide rate would drop for sure.

EDIT: As well, the data posted before showed that having less guns did lead to less violence. We went over this already a few pages back...
Seems most studies agree with you:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1598883

Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3052950