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

[WhiteTiger225]

All right, I'm sorry if I came off as abrasive and unrealistic, but think of it this way:
People can't get physically addicted to guns.
That means that the illegal gun trade wouldn't be as profitable if guns were publicly disallowed. There wouldn't be as much demand for guns as there is for drugs. Sure, there'll always be stupid people who will wanna shoot people just because they can, or to protect said drugs, but most crimes are not premeditated enough to warrant procuring a gun if guns are hard to get. Nowadays, anyone with enough money can go down to Wal-Mart and get themselves a pistol. Again, fewer guns means fewer deadly spur-of-the-moment crimes.

Um, what? It isn't a matter of addiction. It is a matter of supply vs demand vs balance of power. Also crimes of passion tend to just use what is available. If a gun isn't available, it is a crime of passion, death is most likely still going to happen.

An illegal product means a black market for said product. You basically just give drug dealers another product to push. A seller creates a need and only criminals and police have guns. If you ban guns completely, only criminals have guns. Hence why it works on fantasy logic.

You don't need to explain your thinking since your thinking is at its heart, very simple, which is why it is lacking on particular points of reality. Guns exist, as does porn, alcohol, and drugs. The logistics just aren't there to eliminate them. Control them, sure. Remove them, no, not even close to a chance in hell.

Bringing up European countries whose populations, population diversity, and landmass are a small fraction of ours is comparing apples to asshairs on a realistic basis. Sure we could always dig up Switzerland and pretend it backs us up or Britain and pretend it backs you up but it really doesn't.

Both countries have a different diversity of people and much smaller borders. Cultures are also highly different as well as their governmental capacity. Sure they are more efficient, smaller creatures tend to be. They also lack our geography. Switzerland is in the damn mountains and Britain is a small island nation. Those borders aren't hard to defend compared to our own. Let alone that Switzerland has compulsory military service and thus every household has an assault rifle and a military trained person inside. Not exactly what criminals want in their risk assessment.

Meanwhile we shoot back to America, where it is a logistical nightmare to control the Mexican border when the Mexican government can't even control much of anything. South American countries are shipping shit left and right through Mexico with Mexico producing its own crime for export. Then there is simply just shipping over the Gulf of Mexico.

Our sheer landmass and accessibility means that a civilian ban only hurts civilians. Sure we lose a couple crimes of passion though a fire poker or a kitchen knife kills just as well. Anything beyond a crime of passion has just as much gun access as they did before...

What an example? Look at the war on drugs.

Since the war on drugs began, heroine has gone down from 400 dollars a unit, to 4 dollars a unit, and is more readily available then it was in the past.

The more you cut off supply, the more the demand increases, the more profits that can be made, which can then be used to fund the aquisition of more supply, which can then further feed demands, which can then further increase profit, and it continues, and continues.

Sadly life is too balanced. If you use oppresive means to stop a product, you pretty much stranglehold its flow.. but in doing so you also strip humans of most of their freedoms. If you are too free, supply floods, demand dies down, people learn on their own that shit is bad, people stop using it, but the problem is, people have to learn for themselves first.. and the human race is very stubborn in that aspect.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

This statistic may be out of date but I once read that Washington has the lowest crime rate of any city.

Except for the number of shootings, fatal and non, where it is one of the highest.

London by contrast has a high crime rate, but the rate of shootings are ridiculously low (I know knifings are through the roof but bear with me)

The difference, America allows normal people to buy guns, Britain does not.
No survey really needed. If everyone can legally own guns, everyone can have the potential to shoot each other. If people can't legally own guns, it makes it a lot harder to shoot somebody. It's common sense, not survey material.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

-snip-

Actually, Liberals are against tazers too because in rare instances they can kill even the healthiest of men via stopping the heart.

Thing is, as long as something can kill people, there will be someone against it.

And it is a stupid reason. Just because something has the capacity to kill someone doesn't mean shit. If we outlawed everything that was capable of killing someone, there wouldn't be anything here.

And that there is a big argument FOR guns. The argument goes

"If someone wants to kill someone.. they are going to do it. And if they are bigger and faster then you, then they are going to succeede."

I mean, look back in the dark ages. No guns there.. but LOTS of people died from crimes (As well as diseases).

 

[Rensenhito]

Check the mortality rates. It's much harder to kill someone without an automatic "make-you-dead" lever, i.e. gun.

The main argument was that guns cause crime.
I was proving that it does not.

Your point doesn't even make any sense.

Criminals won't have guns because they obey the law

Lol, convicted criminals can't get guns in the US in the first place.
Your argument is so lulzy I can't bear trying to hide my laughter. Do you honestly think that criminals have no other ways to get guns? What do you think the black market is? How do you think the Taliban, IRA, and Neo-Nazis get guns? Yeah, illegally. Hear that guys? BIG SHOCKER - CRIMINALS BREAK THE LAW.

Expecting criminals to follow that rule is like putting a candy inf ront of a child and expecting that they wont eat it. Criminals will still have guns. Drugs are banned in the United States, but you can literally find a pot dealer every 4 blocks in most cities. But pot is illegal. See what I'm getting at?

a criminal will have a gun is if they got it illegally

Hurrr

The world is perfect, we can magically crack down on the black market cuz we can

No, it's not.
Again, Taliban, IRA, neo nazis, etc.
Why hasn't anybody been able to crack down on sales of weapons to the Taliban? Seems easy right? The world we live in isn't perfect, like you think it is. We can't just "halt the black market". As said before in this thread, we already have an entire section of the FBI dedicated to cracking down on illegal weapons and you still can't get them. Even the UK, with some of THE strictest gun laws, can't seem to stop domestic terrorists from getting guns. Same with the Neo Nazis in Russia and Ukraine.

US doesn't take care of it's citizens, switzerland duz, hurp dur

You just ignored my argument and defeated yourself, bravo.
If you truly believe that guns aren't a problem if the citizens are more happy, then guns aren't a problem, it's the happyness of the citizens, therefore you don't need to ban guns.
So stop trying to change gun laws and practice summore social justice.

There is absolutely no way that someone trying to rid the country of a dangerous and readily available weapon is more of a threat than said dangerous and readily available weapon.

It rids them of self defense against these weapons.

Judging by the fact that you're using the same infantile argument technique of "make fun of other guy until he runs off crying," this is the point where I should cease arguing and just let you be, because nothing I say can possibly convince you to give a single inch.
That said...
1) My point DOES make sense, because when you make it harder to get guns, there will be fewer people with guns.
2) I didn't say CONVICTED criminals. I know convicts aren't allowed guns, that's just common sense. If you'd pay attention to the finer points of my debate, you'd notice the comment "everyone is potentially a criminal." No matter how sane and law-abiding you believe yourself to be, everyone has a breaking point. Banning guns would rob you of access to the means to commit murder when you finally DO break. How is that bad?
Refer to my previous post: most violent crimes are spur-of-the-moment. When you catch your girlfriend / wife cheating on you, you're probably not gonna take the time to get in touch with black market firearms dealers and pay an inordinate amount of money for a gun.
Pot is illegal for no logical reason, though, and people use it a lot more than they use (read: actually USE) guns.
3) You kinda misread my point, as you did with all my other points. Only convicts use the black market to buy guns. The rest of us go to effing WAL-MART to buy an item whose sole purpose is to kill. Hell, you know what? If you don't wanna ban gun sales, at LEAST make people undergo an in-depth psychological exam before you let them buy a gun.
4) Again, please try reading and seeing things from my point of view before you type. How easy do you think it'd be to make the American public happy and unified enough that they won't want to point guns at each other? It'd be a hell of a lot harder than banning firearms sales.
By the way, another point: Switzerland doesn't have an army. Besides that, they're a tiny country in the middle of Europe, the stage for both world wars. If anyone deserves to have guns, it's them. Not the enormous, overpowered, nuke toting, trash-talk spewing pile of hypocrisy an ocean away from everyone else.
5) That logic is circular. If the only reason we have guns is to defend ourselves against people who have guns, then we're defending ourselves from ourselves. The only way to stop the violence is to break the cycle. Besides, a guy with a gun is much more likely to shoot you if you have a gun, too.
I'm not saying it'll make things perfect, but it'll definitely help.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

This statistic may be out of date but I once read that Washington has the lowest crime rate of any city.

Except for the number of shootings, fatal and non, where it is one of the highest.

London by contrast has a high crime rate, but the rate of shootings are ridiculously low (I know knifings are through the roof but bear with me)

The difference, America allows normal people to buy guns, Britain does not.
No survey really needed. If everyone can legally own guns, everyone can have the potential to shoot each other. If people can't legally own guns, it makes it a lot harder to shoot somebody. It's common sense, not survey material.

No. thats retarded.

Legal people in the US buy guns LEGALLY (They go through a mandatory waiting period where their mental health record, criminal record, job record, etc are checked, and if they are deemed mentally fit to have a gun and responsible, they recieve it)

Criminals buy their guns via the black market (Unregistered guns)

You make guns illegal, you stop the first option, but criminals are still going to buy guns.

Britian banned guns, explain how 2 police officers got shot, please.

In a perfect world, rules would always be followed, but you forget this isn't some childrens show.. this is real life.

 

[Skeleon]

Apologies for my earlier comment.

Same to you.

While it was happening? Yes, I wished I was dead. It is excruciating, but that could also be because of my low tolerance for pain. Afterwards you get up and laugh about it as the next guy goes and gets his, but it is like pain no other and it lingers for a long time.

Sounds bad, yet I think it's still the better alternative.

The prison system is an entirely different line of debate.

Yeah, but we sort of ended up there because of the whole "kill the guy or taze and lock him up"-point.

But frankly, ignorance/peer pressure is a poor excuse for doing something illegal.

Of course. I'm just saying that motivation and circumstances must be taken into account when it comes to the sentence (and, thereby, also to future of the felon).

But taking tax money that could be used for other better things like roads, and improving the education system, are instead used to pay for prison/ers. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

I just don't get why we lock so many people up and let them rot and waste their time doing nothing when they could work for the society they harmed. It'd be productive and pay some of the costs and, as stated earlier, it'd actually prepare them for life outside the prison somewhat and allow them to educate themselves on something that'll help them.
There's no reason why the taxpayer should pay for all of this stuff.
I doubt it could be set up in a way that the prisons practically pay for themselves but at least we could reduce costs.

 

[ToxinArrow]

-snip-

Actually, Liberals are against tazers too because in rare instances they can kill even the healthiest of men via stopping the heart.

Thing is, as long as something can kill people, there will be someone against it.

And it is a stupid reason. Just because something has the capacity to kill someone doesn't mean shit. If we outlawed everything that was capable of killing someone, there wouldn't be anything here.

And that there is a big argument FOR guns. The argument goes

"If someone wants to kill someone.. they are going to do it. And if they are bigger and faster then you, then they are going to succeede."

I mean, look back in the dark ages. No guns there.. but LOTS of people died from crimes (As well as diseases).

Which is exactly it. I would rather have a gun to equalize the situation than not have it and have somebody attack me with one. You don't even need to look in the Dark Ages, look at DC now. Heavy gun restriction, one of the highest crime rates in the country.

 

[Rensenhito]

All right, I'm sorry if I came off as abrasive and unrealistic, but think of it this way:
People can't get physically addicted to guns.
That means that the illegal gun trade wouldn't be as profitable if guns were publicly disallowed. There wouldn't be as much demand for guns as there is for drugs. Sure, there'll always be stupid people who will wanna shoot people just because they can, or to protect said drugs, but most crimes are not premeditated enough to warrant procuring a gun if guns are hard to get. Nowadays, anyone with enough money can go down to Wal-Mart and get themselves a pistol. Again, fewer guns means fewer deadly spur-of-the-moment crimes.

Um, what? It isn't a matter of addiction. It is a matter of supply vs demand vs balance of power. Also crimes of passion tend to just use what is available. If a gun isn't available, it is a crime of passion, death is most likely still going to happen.

An illegal product means a black market for said product. You basically just give drug dealers another product to push. A seller creates a need and only criminals and police have guns. If you ban guns completely, only criminals have guns. Hence why it works on fantasy logic.

You don't need to explain your thinking since your thinking is at its heart, very simple, which is why it is lacking on particular points of reality. Guns exist, as does porn, alcohol, and drugs. The logistics just aren't there to eliminate them. Control them, sure. Remove them, no, not even close to a chance in hell.

Bringing up European countries whose populations, population diversity, and landmass are a small fraction of ours is comparing apples to asshairs on a realistic basis. Sure we could always dig up Switzerland and pretend it backs us up or Britain and pretend it backs you up but it really doesn't.

Both countries have a different diversity of people and much smaller borders. Cultures are also highly different as well as their governmental capacity. Sure they are more efficient, smaller creatures tend to be. They also lack our geography. Switzerland is in the damn mountains and Britain is a small island nation. Those borders aren't hard to defend compared to our own. Let alone that Switzerland has compulsory military service and thus every household has an assault rifle and a military trained person inside. Not exactly what criminals want in their risk assessment.

Meanwhile we shoot back to America, where it is a logistical nightmare to control the Mexican border when the Mexican government can't even control much of anything. South American countries are shipping shit left and right through Mexico with Mexico producing its own crime for export. Then there is simply just shipping over the Gulf of Mexico.

Our sheer landmass and accessibility means that a civilian ban only hurts civilians. Sure we lose a couple crimes of passion though a fire poker or a kitchen knife kills just as well. Anything beyond a crime of passion has just as much gun access as they did before...

Crimes of passion with melee weapons: run.
Crimes of passion with guns: run, get shot, die.
I admit that America is definitely different from Europe. I'm not saying we wouldn't have to make other changes first. I'm not saying "ALL GUNS MUST BE DEAD NAO!!1!"
Look, all I'm doing is discussing theory. That's all anyone here is doing.
I, for one, look forward to the day when we won't NEED guns anymore.

 

[Rensenhito]

what about hunters? how would they kill game for meat?

They don't anymore. Most hunting in the U.S.A. is for sport, not out of necessity.
If they REALLY need to kill an animal for food, then they can buy a hunting bow or use traps. You can't conceal a bow, and when was the last time you heard of someone being held at arrowpoint?

Bows are much more expensive, much harder to use, and much less effective. Traps even more so. And, wouldn't you know, there are still huge areas of the United States covered in wilderness. People need guns there.

All right, so I may have spoken a little too quickly. I apologize. How about we make it so that people have to be psychologically examined and determined to be quite unlikely to go off the handle and blast someone's face off before they are allowed to buy a gun?

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Crimes of passion with melee weapons: run.
Crimes of passion with guns: run, get shot, die.
I admit that America is definitely different from Europe. I'm not saying we wouldn't have to make other changes first. I'm not saying "ALL GUNS MUST BE DEAD NAO!!1!"
Look, all I'm doing is discussing theory. That's all anyone here is doing.
I, for one, look forward to the day when we won't NEED guns anymore.

Um, I don't know about you but every crime of passion I've heard about happened when running was an option. If person A catches their lover B in bed with person C, running isn't really an option if they just stab you both. Crimes of passion don't tend to happen in ideal situations for the victim.

Hell, I'd love to not live in a world that needs my paranoia but I don't think it will change in my lifetime due to it only getting worse.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

what about hunters? how would they kill game for meat?

They don't anymore. Most hunting in the U.S.A. is for sport, not out of necessity.
If they REALLY need to kill an animal for food, then they can buy a hunting bow or use traps. You can't conceal a bow, and when was the last time you heard of someone being held at arrowpoint?

Bows are much more expensive, much harder to use, and much less effective. Traps even more so. And, wouldn't you know, there are still huge areas of the United States covered in wilderness. People need guns there.

All right, so I may have spoken a little too quickly. I apologize. How about we make it so that people have to be psychologically examined and determined to be quite unlikely to go off the handle and blast someone's face off before they are allowed to buy a gun?

Um... That is being done with any gun you obtain legally. What did you think was happening?

 

[Rensenhito]

Crimes of passion with melee weapons: run.
Crimes of passion with guns: run, get shot, die.
I admit that America is definitely different from Europe. I'm not saying we wouldn't have to make other changes first. I'm not saying "ALL GUNS MUST BE DEAD NAO!!1!"
Look, all I'm doing is discussing theory. That's all anyone here is doing.
I, for one, look forward to the day when we won't NEED guns anymore.

Um, I don't know about you but every crime of passion I've heard about happened when running was an option. If person A catches their lover B in bed with person C, running isn't really an option if they just stab you both. Crimes of passion don't tend to happen in ideal situations for the victim.

Hell, I'd love to not live in a world that needs my paranoia but I don't think it will change in my lifetime due to it only getting worse.

Then those in power need to do something to MAKE it better. I'm not comfortable living in this country when almost 1/3 of the population owns a magic "human-to-swiss-cheese" gizmo, and many (not all, not even really a majority, but enough to make me nervous) of those people are very, very paranoid.

 

[Rensenhito]

what about hunters? how would they kill game for meat?

They don't anymore. Most hunting in the U.S.A. is for sport, not out of necessity.
If they REALLY need to kill an animal for food, then they can buy a hunting bow or use traps. You can't conceal a bow, and when was the last time you heard of someone being held at arrowpoint?

Bows are much more expensive, much harder to use, and much less effective. Traps even more so. And, wouldn't you know, there are still huge areas of the United States covered in wilderness. People need guns there.

All right, so I may have spoken a little too quickly. I apologize. How about we make it so that people have to be psychologically examined and determined to be quite unlikely to go off the handle and blast someone's face off before they are allowed to buy a gun?

Um... That is being done with any gun you obtain legally. What did you think was happening?

I mean make it more extensive. I don't like the fact that a lot of people seem to be very paranoid, and many of those people have guns. I know I might sound paranoid, too, but at least I'm an unarmed paranoid freak.

 

[AssButt]

This statistic may be out of date but I once read that Washington has the lowest crime rate of any city.

Except for the number of shootings, fatal and non, where it is one of the highest.

London by contrast has a high crime rate, but the rate of shootings are ridiculously low (I know knifings are through the roof but bear with me)

The difference, America allows normal people to buy guns, Britain does not.
No survey really needed. If everyone can legally own guns, everyone can have the potential to shoot each other. If people can't legally own guns, it makes it a lot harder to shoot somebody. It's common sense, not survey material.

Actually, England's rate of crimes committed with a gun went up after their handgun ban.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif

 

[Daveman]

british police don't need to carry guns because it is so unlikely that the person they try to arrest will have one. this is the main reason I HATE the second ammendment and the constitution in general. why would anybody need a gun in the first place except if they wanted to kill somebody, I mean except for some hunting guns, who needs them? handguns are especially useless except for killing people.

america needs to sort themselves out and get rid of the guns!!! it's the easiest way to reduce crime. I can tell you armed robbery in the uk is INCREDIBLY rare because nobody has guns. I have heard of 1(!) case in my area in my entire life (and the guns turned out to be fakes)... just to give you an impresssion of how tame life is here.

the thing is also, if you carry a gun you might try to defend yourself which means the guy mugging you or whatever is more likely to panic and shoot you anyway. but i guess that's all kind of obvious anyway.

 

[Sewblon]

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

So your soldiers don't have guns?

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html The distract of Columbia has the highest violent crime rate by far, in spite of its handgun ban courtesy of the Bush administration.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Russia holds the fifth highest rate in the world in spite of its strict gun laws.

See statistics that back up the pro-second amendment argument exist too. You haven't proved anything.

 

[ToxinArrow]

Apologies for my earlier comment.

Same to you.

While it was happening? Yes, I wished I was dead. It is excruciating, but that could also be because of my low tolerance for pain. Afterwards you get up and laugh about it as the next guy goes and gets his, but it is like pain no other and it lingers for a long time.

Sounds bad, yet I think it's still the better alternative.

The prison system is an entirely different line of debate.

Yeah, but we sort of ended up there because of the whole "kill the guy or taze and lock him up"-point.

But frankly, ignorance/peer pressure is a poor excuse for doing something illegal.

Of course. I'm just saying that motivation and circumstances must be taken into account when it comes to the sentence (and, thereby, also to future of the felon).

But taking tax money that could be used for other better things like roads, and improving the education system, are instead used to pay for prison/ers. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

I just don't get why we lock so many people up and let them rot and waste their time doing nothing when they could work for the society they harmed. It'd be productive and pay some of the costs and, as stated earlier, it'd actually prepare them for life outside the prison somewhat and allow them to educate themselves on something that'll help them.
There's no reason why the taxpayer should pay for all of this stuff.
I doubt it could be set up in a way that the prisons practically pay for themselves but at least we could reduce costs.

True. I guess I was caught up in a spur of the moment/general hate for the current prison and tax system. I will avoid killing. If simply brandishing the gun will make them stop and get on their knees to await being arrested, I will do it everytime. If however they make the choice to continue walking towards me or holding out their weapon, I have no choice but to neutralize the situation. I won't however shoot to wound or taze to stop. I will either give them the option to lay down and surrender, or fire. Intentionally causing pain is disgusting IMO, which is why I find rape to be a worse crime than murder.

Granted, and it generally is. Stealing for necessity is a defense (but only if it's something like breaking into a pharmacy to get insulin for your diabetic child).

For non-violent offenders, I whole heartedly agree. They should have a future. But rapists and murderers should get that chance to be reassimilated. They should still work stamping license plates and stuff, but they don't need to waste time teaching them some kind of valuable skill. Nor do we the taxpayer need to pay for luxuries for their sentences.(I know we've been over this, but unfortunately that's how it happens. They still get TV and hot meals among other things.)

 

[0p3rati0n]

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.

That's f*cking stupid! Everyone can have a criminal mind they just don't use it. OH so now we have to be god to own a damn gun!? I just hope I can still get a gun in 5 years so I can join a World War 2 Re-enactment.... >_>

 

[ToxinArrow]

ugh, I doubt you've ever been trained with a knife. if you're in close and he has a gun he's at a disadvantage. knick him here, knick him there, knick in the arm, kick to the chest, etc. if you're close and you both have knives then you're doing something wrong, but you should be about matched if both of you have taken combat training. if you're at range and he has a gun throw the damn knife. Yeah you can throw a knife with insane accuracy with training you can prep and throw it with accuracy in about a second. he has a gun and can pull the trigger faster then that so you're at a slight disadvantage. if he's trying to rob you where this scenario is the most likely stab him in the back. in other crimes, like rape beatings etc they'll be close. if you both have knives and he's far away throw knives at him. you've never been trained in knife fighting that's why you think that all you can effectively do with a knife is lunge at someone.

Have you ever had an adrenaline rush. That is the most lucid you will be in your life. yah after the incident you can legally be proclaimed insane till it wears off, but in the middle of a situation you'll be insanely focused, and you will be able to see these things if you were actually taught them.

w/e

Granted I haven't been knife trained, but I still don't see how having a concealed .45 with soem JHPs isn't much safer. If you're close, that means he'll also be more accurate, despite being 'knicked.' And you yourself admitted pulling a trigger is faster than throwing a knife with accuracy so...

Wait. Hold the phones. You're actually suggesting stabbing him in the back? Not only is that highly dangerous, that's also highly illegal. If he has only taken your money, and is walking away, stabbing him in the back is murder, and you can be held accountable for it.

Every situation you've listed is either equal or superior if you have a gun instead of a knife.