The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[thebrainiac1]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

 

[teisjm]

Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.

 

[Skeleon]

Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.

Ditto (well, except for a few other jobs and competitive shooters here).
The per-capita statistics are obvious, yet people hold on to that notion that guns keep you safe. Look at the numbers, people!

 

[Chess__x]

I think the right to bear arms is one of the worst things about America. So I definitely agree, it shouldn't take a survey for people to realise things like this... but I'm constantly surprised by the level of stupidity so many Americans display. I mean, England isn't perfect but all the stuff the Americans complain about (people saying they shouldn't have the right to bear arms, introducing an NHS, underprivileged kids getting EMA etc), are all part of what makes England a good place to live. I can never grasp why Americans can't see how much better things would be if they just made some changes. Honestly, they vote in Obama with his whole 'change' thing, and then have a bitchfit when he actually tries to put good changes in place >.< but that's another matter...

 

[Ekonk]

Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.

Seconded.

 

[Simalacrum]

my response is "well duh?" to the article. Honestly, the best way to solve gun crime is to BAN GUNS. Learn from Britain, America, not even the police wear guns here! Instead we have knife crime... lots, and lots of knifing.

 

[McNinja]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

 

[Eldarion]

Right, ban guns so that the average person is helpless during a mugging.

Oh and a criminal TOTALLY won't shoot you if you just hand over you money.

Everyone submit to criminals peacefully now.

All this "Ban guns" nonsense is stupid, doesn't stop the wrong people from getting them.

You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

Thank you.

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on.

Exactly, people need to think a little thats all.

 

[Diablini]

Someone had to do it.

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on. And I believe that having a gun gives you better chances while being mugged. The guy mugging you probably just needs quick money and doesn't have the balls to shoot you.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on.

Too right sir.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Personally, I think no civilian should be carrying a gun (guns kept at shooting ranges okay aslong as they stay there), but everyone who hasn't got an asbo should be allowed to carry a sword. It's easier to parry and harder to hit the wrong person with a sword, so it's easier to justify having them as self-defence, plus they're harder for kids to use my accident and easier to see when someone has one drawn.

 

[xnickx5757]

... Um guys? The people who were carrying most like had a reason that they were carrying, like they lived in a bad neighborhood.

if so, they were most likly going to get shot anyways.

2nd amendment ftw!

 

[Steelfists]

Right, ban guns so that the average person is helpless during a mugging.

Oh and a criminal TOTALLY won't shoot you if you just hand over you money.

Everyone submit to criminals peacefully now.

All this "Ban guns" nonsense is stupid, doesn't stop the wrong people from getting them.

You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

Thank you.

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on.

Exactly, people need to think a little thats all.

You have contradicted yourself. You say that banning guns doesn't stop bad people getting guns, and yet you support Diablini saying that guns should only be given to "trustworthy people".

And a mugger is not going to to fucking shoot you if you hand over your phone and cash, ffs.

I don't understand how people can make these abstract arguments about how you need a gun to protect you from criminals.

No. 1: Criminals are generally not out to kill someone. They want monies. All your monies. Or at least all the monies you have on you at the time. You give them to him and are out of pocket $50 or something, and he gets to get high! And no one gets shot!!

No 2: Unequivocal statistics show that less people from gunshot wounds in countries where the average citizen cannot own a gun. I don't understand how you can argue against such facts. Maybe you MIGHT get mugged, but less people would die. How can less people dying NOT be the desired outcome.
Really all you are doing is putting more value on you or your family's material goods than a stranger's life. Which might be understandable if you were a caveman. But you're not. At least, not physically.

 

[The Rockerfly]

... Um guys? The people who were carrying most like had a reason that they were carrying, like they lived in a bad neighborhood.

if so, they were most likly going to get shot anyways.

2nd amendment ftw!

Not OT but welcome to The Escapist where our water is clean and our women are pure
Enjoy your stay and please read the forum guidelines

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.116827

and a few other articles you may want to read to improve your posting quality

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/markup_help.php

and also

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.112832



OT: I haven't really got much of an opinion on guns, I live in the UK but I really want to learn to shoot. I'm sure there have been many cases where a gun on a person has stopped crime

 

[McClaud]

A study of the correlation of gun violence to previous crimes where both were carrying guns ...?

That's not a complete study, or even a good study. It's trying to correlate two things that may have other issues involved. Without all the knowledge present. Like what mindset was the criminal in that shot the victim? Or did the victim actually use their gun? Or are any of the crimes committed by the same criminal?

Actually reading the study, it's not really all that good, except comparing statistics of seemingly two related issues. Even the researcher says, "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous. This study is a beginning."

It is not indicative at all to whether or not victims carrying the guns got shot because they had guns. Anyone commenting on this article as proof against gun rights should probably READ the article and study in question before REPLYING, "OMG STUPID AMERICANS/PEOPLE, TOLD YOU SO!!!1!"

(I'm not actively pro- or anti-gun. I'm anti-bad-to-questionable sociological/anthropological studies and people facetiously using statements like, "Unequivocal statistics prove..." without actually having the statistics like a unintelligent Brady Bill activist. As the OP asked, do we really need this survey? No, because it's really a questionable study that didn't prove anything worthwhile for either side)

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Because only officers of the state and hardened criminals deserve weapons. Cough?

Look, it's simple. No government has the right to disarm their populace unless they disarm their police force. Put simply, if PC Bob McBobbity is wandering around with a 9mm pistol then I demand the same right to wander around with one, presuming I am a law-abiding citizen of sound mind, over 21 and otherwise competent in it's use. Why? Because clearly PC McBobbity needs that firearm, and if one exists in a situation where the police need to carry firearms, then denying the right for law-abiding citizens to carry them is not only immoral, it's insane and inhumane as well.

If, however, PC McBobbity only carries a truncheon, then I should not be permited to carry a firearm. Clearly, since PC McBobbity has no need for a firearm, there is no reason for me to have one.


And to forestall any arguments made by the inexorably stupid, I am not saying that the police being armed as, say, a Armed Response Unit, is a bad thing. The fact that some criminals will get a hold of guns means that the police must have some form of armed backup. But if it gets to the state where a beat police officer (i.e. a foot or car patrol officer) has to possess a firearm to protect himself in the course of his duties, then it is wrong to argue that a citizen of the state should not possess that same right to self-protection.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

right and how often can a gun stop a mugging? sorry you'll get shot and/or killed before you can pull you gun

how about a rape? no i don't think a gun can stop that either

homocide? hmmmm hard to shoot back when you're dead

armed robbery? well they have a gun pointed at you right now, you can NOT draw before they can shoot

so how is that gun really going to protect you? it's not and as they said more than likely to get you shot. there is the illusion that a gun will protect you but the times that it actually does is few and far between. if you really don't believe me, go ask a cop about how well guns will protect you

also rapes, murders and other crimes still happen even if you can carry a gun.

also if you don't believe me look at the murder rates of Japan, the UK and Canada, heck in Japan i can count the amount of gun murders on both hands.

 

[Dragonearl]

You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

What are you, the local one man army?. If the people can't have faith in the police force then why have it in the first place?. Why not abolish the police force and arm everyone with guns?. That way you can deal with every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America by yourselves working as a lynchmob collective. There is the plus side in which abolishing the Police force will also free up the tax payers money for ammunition and shit.

The police exist for a reason. Sure they are not omnipresent but if you think that you know better or you are more capable than a highly trained and armed police officer, then by all means, attempt to nab a homicidal manic by yourself.

... Um guys? The people who were carrying most like had a reason that they were carrying, like they lived in a bad neighborhood.

if so, they were most likly going to get shot anyways.

2nd amendment ftw!

Really?. How bad is "a bad neighborhood" going to be if guns were taken off the streets?. It would in the very least be a "bad neighborhood" without guns, is that at least not a better place to start?.

 

[xnickx5757]

So based on this article, Cops shouldnt have guns because then they wont get shot?

also, to the above poster, criminals dont exactly always get their guns legally.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Personally i think this is the stupidest thing america does, and continues to do. Lets set asside the stupid arguements against healthcare and look at this. I cant believe the conclusion they draw is "Adding more guns means we are safer from crime.... yes..." I mean WTF?! Also the term "defence" in america means "being able to defend your turf, and turn your enemies into glass and ash". Who needs a ficken shotgun for self defence. If everyone else didnt have a shotgun then there would be no need for you to have one. The thinking here is circular. Imagine Jim and Bob. They live next to eachother and are mutually fearfull of a violent attack from eachother. Jim carries a shotgun because Bob does, and Bob carries a shotgun because Jim does. Doesnt it occur to them to remove both the shotguns and fix it? Aparently not because they are among the Americans who see this as logical.