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

[Agema]

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?

Well, statistically speaking, The actual amount of murders, rapes, and robberies decreases when citizens in America are allowed to own guns. Just as an example:

in 2000, when the Recession hit, Michigan allowed citizens to carry guns. The crime rate immediately dropped by 5%. It has stayed slightly smaller ever since. Yeah, that is small decrease, I admit. However, during that same time period, the crime rates or New York,
California, and Illinois sky rocketed.

Starting in the 1980's, well before the recession, as Canada, Australia, and Britian pursued more gun conrol, all crime, including murders, increased, (Except in Australia. Manslaughter, robbery, and so forth increased, but murder apprently decreased by 3%.)

By contrast, America's crime rate fell as we gave citizens more freedom.( although it skyrocketed agqain in the recession, laregly due to the fact that the above mentioned states passsed even tighter gun control.)

People say Britain has a low crime rate because of all it's gun control. In reality, Britain HAD a very low crime rate, banned guns, and now has more robberies per capita than America does. (Although America still has more Murders/Rapes, largely due to shitty social conditions.) http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml

Roughly 90% of all gun crime in America comes from areas where civilians aren't allowed to carry guns.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/

Actually, just google "British Crime Rates"

The story of British crime rates and guns you've supplied there is a load of utter bollocks, invented by an idiot unable to contextualise, for the purpose of constructing a false argument to support gun ownership.

Firstly, the point you are talking about for Britain is in the 90s, where gun control (which already existed) was tightened after a couple of nuts went on shooting sprees and killed a load of people.

It is true that crime went up after this tightening. However, crime had already been rising for several years prior to the new laws, and rose no faster after the new laws. Furthermore, with guns still more heavily restricted, crime started going down a few years later.

Secondly, hardly anyone in Britain (well under 5% of the population) had a gun, and of those virtually none carried one around with them, as that was already illegal. In essence, the tightening of the gun control laws made effectively no difference whatsoever to the likelihood of a criminal encountering a member of the public with a gun.

Crime rates rose at the time because of social problems - unemployment, growing wealth inequality, the police not getting their act together. It had nothing to do with gun ownership.

 

[Tron900]

Switzerland. Civilians MUST own a gun. Gun crime is lower than knife crime and most gun related crime is caused by an illegally obtained weapon.

MERRPPPP!!

WRONG

Try: when you retire from the armed forces, you can't just buy a gun in switzerland without getting training! And you can't get any better training than serving in the forces.

Cause you get into a rountine looking after your weapon, you observe firearm safety every day. Not just pick up a gun in a store, or illegally, and use it every now and then.

Gun Crime in europe is VERY very tight, even if you have a skeet shotgun, you keep it locked in a gun cabinate, in the most inaccessable room in your house. I knew someone who kept there's in the attic. You had to get the step ladder from the garden shed to just unlock the attic hatch.

 

[Bob the Average]

Guns don't kill people.
I kill people.
With guns.

Guns are fine, (I'm brainwashed from Call of Duty) but I don't think that every civilian should have rights to bear arms. Like some other guy said, "A kind word with a gun is much stronger than just a kind word."

that was Al Capone who said "A kind word with a gun is much stronger than just a kind word." I'd hardly call him an ideal person to chime in on this argument.

 

[Credge]

It's sad when people comment on things they know little about.

It's sort of like when people comment about how Americans are lazy and drive everywhere. Then they come over for a visit, spend the first day without a car, and then spend the rest of their visit with.

The reality is that European policies and practices will not work in the United States because the United States is fundamentally different. To assume that banning guns will lower crime rate is absolutely absurd. To even assume it would lower gun crime rate is absurd.

Criminals do criminal things. They don't stop and consider "This firearm I am going to buy is illegal. Maybe I shouldn't buy it to do illegal things with because of the legality of the weapon."

 

[Koeryn]

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?

Actually, gun crime goes up the more restrictions are placed on gun ownership. Look at Washington D.C., for an excellent example.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I'm not reading 12 pages, but I will say two things:

1. Correlation is not causation, so people who carry guns probably do so because they're at risk for getting shot, not the other way around.

2. I was born in the US and lived there 26 years, and the only two people I know who have had guns pointed at them are English and Brazilian, and in both cases it happened in their home countries. Both nations have much harsher gun control than the United States.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes.

No.

The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You see, there are two characters in that story. There is the Militia, and then there are the People. The founding fathers were worried that the Militia would get out of pocket. If they started to act up, who would Regulate them? Answer: The People, who have them outnumbered and outgunned.

The alternative is to say that you really thought the very intelligent men who founded the United States of America really thought they needed to write an amendment to their constitution that stated that the army could have guns. Like they were afraid that otherwise Congress might accidentally pass a law saying they couldn't. Honestly, isn't that a little bit silly?

 

[Repulsionary]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes.

No.

The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You see, there are two characters in that story. There is the Militia, and then there are the People. The founding fathers were worried that the Militia would get out of pocket. If they started to act up, who would Regulate them? Answer: The People, who have them outnumbered and outgunned.

The alternative is to say that you really thought the very intelligent men who founded the United States of America really thought they needed to write an amendment to their constitution that stated that the army could have guns. Like they were afraid that otherwise Congress might accidentally pass a law saying they couldn't. Honestly, isn't that a little bit silly?

That's still not what I'm reading. Or what I'm saying.
There was no real military back then. There was only the state militias, except for the Continental army, which was basically militias who banded together to help protect their states as a whole. When the Armed Forces were officially created, this amendment should have been superfluous.

Not that my opinion matters any, seeing as how the Supreme Court already decided in your favor. But hey. Whatever makes people happy. I guess I'm just mad about the stupidity that inevitably comes with civilians and firearms.

 

[DP155ToneZone]

Personally, I just don't understand the human/human killer instinct. I mean, lots of people here are mentioning self defence, but think about it seriously for a minute. Is it really ok to respond to physical threat with lethal force? Why do a large ammount of forumites here think 'One threat to my physical being. I must kill for safety.". Taking a human life is unacceptable in any situation, self freaking defence or not. The arguement of 'I have to kill them, before they can kill me' is flawed; if death is the most undesireable consequence, why is your response to kill?

Don't respond with 'Oh, I always shoot in the leg' or 'Less than lethal options are inferior for defense'. That's not my arguement, that's a different topic all together. I think there is an issue with the attitudes of guns globally. You can sell toy guns to children, replicas of bonafide killing machines. That sucks man, that really does.

You know what I love, the same people who would steal a loaf of bread to feed their families usually say would also shoot robbers.

 

[teisjm]

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

Agreed; I can't understand how so many americans feel safe carrying a gun in a place full of guns. By a simple question of statistics, if you're attacked you're likely to face more than a single aggressor; at that point you can have the biggest gun in the world, but you'll still be outgunned. In a nation with no guns you always have the option of fighting, intimidating, or simply running like hell.

Still, I would definitely like my country to enable me to carry a non-lethal weapon. For example, I'd very much like an air taser (or two, akimbo-style ). As it is, we're left with our muscles alone to defend ourselves with, which is a problem for those of us who don't really have any brawn to speak of. Actually we are allowed to carry pepper sprays, but I'm unconvinced about their effectiveness; I've seen too many videos of dumb people who intentionally spray themselves with it, and don't really seem to suffer any seriously debilitating pains.

Personally, I'm thinking a high-power (say, 2-300mW) green laser pointer with an unfocused lens (so it hits a wider area) could make for a decent aggressor stopper. You can't really pound anyone into submission when you've just been temporarily blinded by a blast of photons in your face.

I would vote yes, if there was a vote on whether or not to allow tasers here in DK where I live... Anything less dangerous than a knife is of no help to the criminals, but can help peopel defend themselves.

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?
...

True, but they're not allowed to have them when they're not training or in war. They cannot keep their guns at home.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes.

No.

The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You see, there are two characters in that story. There is the Militia, and then there are the People. The founding fathers were worried that the Militia would get out of pocket. If they started to act up, who would Regulate them? Answer: The People, who have them outnumbered and outgunned.

The alternative is to say that you really thought the very intelligent men who founded the United States of America really thought they needed to write an amendment to their constitution that stated that the army could have guns. Like they were afraid that otherwise Congress might accidentally pass a law saying they couldn't. Honestly, isn't that a little bit silly?

That's still not what I'm reading. Or what I'm saying.
There was no real military back then. There was only the state militias, except for the Continental army, which was basically militias who banded together to help protect their states as a whole. When the Armed Forces were officially created, this amendment should have been superfluous.

Not that my opinion matters any, seeing as how the Supreme Court already decided in your favor. But hey. Whatever makes people happy. I guess I'm just mad about the stupidity that inevitably comes with civilians and firearms.

That stupidity comes with CRIMINALS and firearms usually dude. I for instance have 12 guns (well, I'm 8,000 miles away from them atm, but you get the point) and I've never handled one unsafely or harmed any living thing with one. The same can be said for the vast majority of my American friends, except the hunters I guess.

When the moral panic of motorcycle gangs was sweeping the nation, the American Motorcycle Association put out a lot of information about the "99%" of motorcycle riders who were safe, responsible, law-abiding citizens. That, by the way is why you'll often see a patch saying "1%" on motorcycle gang members' clothing. In regards to guns and motorcycles, I'm a ninety-nine percenter. Nice to meet you, Repulsionary.

You're missing the part where the amendment was ALWAYS superfluous according to your reading. Especially considering that the legal formation of the Continental Army predates the Bill of Rights by about 15 years. There is simply no reason for a government to waste time on a law that says what you think it says. It certainly didn't become superfluous later as you say. The Bill of Rights isn't the List of Emergency Stopgap Measures. None of it was supposed to be temporary.

 

[teisjm]

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

Too late for us to become gun fearing panzies, i hate anti-american people, i may not support everything we do but shut up. We have had guns for more than 200 years as a right in the USA, there are wayy too many now to stop them, it's like if you outlawed smoking, there would still be people smoking they would just become criminals, sure it's almost ridiculus, people know smoking kills you, people know that sudden exopsure to hot lead will kill you, we still smoke and shoot guns, and through in some booze related things in there, its the way it is deal with it, if your mighty God wanted people to stop that bad then he would have smited them or flooded the earth by now. I know this arguement is full of huger holes and i probably don't like half of it but i'm rambling about this while there is food waiting and i don't want to leave this unfinished.

So don't read this

So cause i'm happy to live where guns are illegal i'm an anti american panzie who needs to shut up? If this wasn't what u meant then never mind this, but if it was, your logic is pretty screwed.
You don't support everything the US do, so you write. Does this make you an anti-american panzie who needs to shut up? I'm not against democracy, I wish my country were closer to yours when it comes to punishment ffor crimes, but i guess since i disagree with you on this one point i'm against everything... guess i'm a child-molesting facist satanist anti american panzoe etc.
And since I live in a democratic country as well, you're pretty much the same cause you disagree with me.
I never even said anythign about America beeing stupid, I can prolly agre with you on teh fact that it's too late for the US to outlaw guns, cause theres so many already. But i guess not envying your ocuntry for their guns makes me Anti American... so what do i do now? buy flags and burn them? write lame songs?
Please enlighten me oh wise one.

 

[Repulsionary]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes.

No.

The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You see, there are two characters in that story. There is the Militia, and then there are the People. The founding fathers were worried that the Militia would get out of pocket. If they started to act up, who would Regulate them? Answer: The People, who have them outnumbered and outgunned.

The alternative is to say that you really thought the very intelligent men who founded the United States of America really thought they needed to write an amendment to their constitution that stated that the army could have guns. Like they were afraid that otherwise Congress might accidentally pass a law saying they couldn't. Honestly, isn't that a little bit silly?

That's still not what I'm reading. Or what I'm saying.
There was no real military back then. There was only the state militias, except for the Continental army, which was basically militias who banded together to help protect their states as a whole. When the Armed Forces were officially created, this amendment should have been superfluous.

Not that my opinion matters any, seeing as how the Supreme Court already decided in your favor. But hey. Whatever makes people happy. I guess I'm just mad about the stupidity that inevitably comes with civilians and firearms.

That stupidity comes with CRIMINALS and firearms usually dude. I for instance have 12 guns (well, I'm 8,000 miles away from them atm, but you get the point) and I've never handled one unsafely or harmed any living thing with one. The same can be said for the vast majority of my American friends, except the hunters I guess.

When the moral panic of motorcycle gangs was sweeping the nation, the American Motorcycle Association put out a lot of information about the "99%" of motorcycle riders who were safe, responsible, law-abiding citizens. That, by the way is why you'll often see a patch saying "1%" on motorcycle gang members' clothing. In regards to guns and motorcycles, I'm a ninety-nine percenter. Nice to meet you, Repulsionary.

You're missing the part where the amendment was ALWAYS superfluous according to your reading. Especially considering that the legal formation of the Continental Army predates the Bill of Rights by about 15 years. There is simply no reason for a government to waste time on a law that says what you think it says. It certainly didn't become superfluous later as you say. The Bill of Rights isn't the List of Emergency Stopgap Measures. None of it was supposed to be temporary.

I don't really want to sound like a douche here, and seeing as how I haven't had enough sleep to form any sort of coherent argument, I'll cut this off here. You've obviously upstaged me.

 

[TikiShades]

Here's a thought. Even if you are more likely to be jumped by someone/a group with weapons, people would be more likely to help you out, as they have something to defend themselves with. Other people might call the police or run, but if everyone's got a weapon, that group may have the upper hand at first, but when it goes from 6-to-1 to 6-to-15, the group will reconsider their actions.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Personally, I just don't understand the human/human killer instinct. I mean, lots of people here are mentioning self defence, but think about it seriously for a minute. Is it really ok to respond to physical threat with lethal force? Why do a large ammount of forumites here think 'One threat to my physical being. I must kill for safety.". Taking a human life is unacceptable in any situation, self freaking defence or not. The arguement of 'I have to kill them, before they can kill me' is flawed; if death is the most undesireable consequence, why is your response to kill?

Don't respond with 'Oh, I always shoot in the leg' or 'Less than lethal options are inferior for defense'. That's not my arguement, that's a different topic all together. I think there is an issue with the attitudes of guns globally. You can sell toy guns to children, replicas of bonafide killing machines. That sucks man, that really does.

You know what I love, the same people who would steal a loaf of bread to feed their families usually say would also shoot robbers.

That's you personally though dude. You can't impose the notion that other people are worth more than yourself to everybody else. You're in the minority with that opinion. Besides, your premise is flawed. MY death is the most undesirable consequence I can imagine. YOURS is far lower in the hierarchy of undesirable things. This is true for most people. It's especially true when the willful actions of the person we're talking about killing have brought us to this situation.

If it makes you feel better I equally don't understand your position. The idea of valuing the well-being of a stranger who wishes me harm above my own is too alien for me to even consider.

 

[Nmil-ek]

People get shot in the UK. We dont have legal gun laws, Except for Farm shotguns.

I think with the state of play in the USA banning guns will solve nothing.

Bollocks there was apporiximatley 42 related gun deaths in the uk from 2008 42, in America that number is in the tens of thousands in some states alone. Gun control does work, the statistics show it.

 

[McClaud]

If your in a country where all the police men have guns, what do you need? a gun!
Criminals have guns because they need them in places like America, and yes, the really wrong people are gunna get them anyway, they do here in Britain, but the average mugger doesn't have a gun, because you can't get them easily at all. just plain normal Criminals don't feel the need for a gun because the police don't have one and to be honest, guns complicate things, you might get mugged randomly in the street, are you going to be carrying your gun to protect yourself? and even if you are doesn't that give the robber even more reason for him to carry his?

It's easier for Britain to control the movement of firearms because they are relatively small country with a rather controlled environment (cameras on street corners and such). Britain: population 60,943,912 and 90,504 square miles, bordered by water. The US is 3 times the size of Britain with no cameras or direct controls. US: population 304,059,724 and 3,537,441 square miles, bordered by Mexico and Canada.

Not to mention the criminal culture. I hate to repeat myself for the 18 millionth time, but - the criminal culture in the US (and the western hemisphere in general) is very different from the criminal culture in Britain. Most British criminals don't see guns the way gangs and criminals in the US see guns - as a symbol of power and money. The use of guns by the criminal element in the US (and South America, and China, and Russia, and Africa) is more related to a show of force and control, and not so much necessity.

It would be peachy if we could just ban guns and the guns become harder to get. But right now, there's a giant black market for guns that any criminal can easily tap and get a gun. These are guns that are basically smuggled into the country of high caliber (such as the wonderful AK-47 or MAC-10). But since the criminal culture out here isn't willing to go back to using knives and unarmed thugs to get what they want, it's unfair and not practical to ban guns for responsible, sensible civilians who only want to protect themselves.

Difference in cultures. That's what you need to understand. And the US liberals who think that we can just strip guns from people and institute a ban, and all gun crimes will go down are not paying attention to the two dozen variables that actually fuel gun crimes in the US. Or in Mexico. Or in South America. Or in Africa. Etc.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

People get shot in the UK. We dont have legal gun laws, Except for Farm shotguns.

I think with the state of play in the USA banning guns will solve nothing.

Bollocks there was apporiximatley 42 related gun deaths in the uk from 2008 42, in America that number is in the tens of thousands in some states alone. Gun control does work, the statistics show it.

tens of thousands in some states alone? With only 16,000ish gun homicides nationwide I think you'd be hard-pressed to find two states with over 10,000 of them, given the math and all.

If you're counting gun suicides, which outnumber gun homicides 3 to 1, I think that's bogus. If somebody has made up his mind to kill himself and a gun isn't available, other means will be found.

 

[El Dingo]

Put yourself in the criminal's shoes. Pretend for just a moment that you're hard pressed for cash for your next fix, and you need that extra $50 to buy it. You're walking down the street looking for a mark, and you see two people that look good. For the sake of argument, let's say they're twins. Exactly the same in every sense of the word, save one thing. As you approach the guy on the right side of the road, you see he has a .45 in an underarm holster, while at the same time, the guy on left side of the road has nothing. Who are you going to mug for their money?

I'm a firm supporter of the right to bear arms, but do I think EVERYONE should carry guns? First, I'd like to think that everyone was smart enough and had the presence of mind to know when and when not to use one, and HOW to use one, but, realistically, some people just aren't that bright. It does need to be regulated, much like it's being done now. The only thing I'd ask for, to help appease the anti-gun folk out there, is better training on weapon handling.

I've got an edge on most folk who carry, given my military background, but I've also seen plenty of citizens who've been hunters and shooters their entire life, and they have some VERY sloppy weapon control. I have very close friends who I refuse to go to the range anymore because when they're around, I'm going to be swept with the barrel of their weapon at least once or twice. Should these people not be allowed to have weapons? No. They still have the right, but they DEFINITELY need more training.

I've seen some of those gun safety courses, and half the people slept through the class and just did a quick Q&A session at the end. Tests don't show knowledge absorption, only knowledge comprehension. You've gotta be able to use the skills repeatedly in the RIGHT way, otherwise, you're just reinforcing bad practices. And this goes for matters other then just at the range or out hunting.

There are plenty of folk who take the gun safety courses for their CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon, for those who don't know) license, but don't actually have a good grasp of when lethal force is acceptable or not (I'm talking in a court of law, not by what morals some of you folk have concerning ALL killing is wrong. That's your opinion, stick with it. I just go by what's acceptable by the law.). Once again, more training is necessary, but it's very hard to provide that training without hands on learning, or the strong desire to learn it. And there ARE gun owners who like to think they're related to Rambo and can't wait for a chance to prove it.

But to ban ALL guns from the people? I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." As our forefathers saw it, gun ownership was one of those essential liberties, thus why it was put in the Constitution to begin with. If you don't want to carry a weapon, that's fine. You don't have to. But, please, don't try and force your ideals and beliefs on me and try and take MY gun away.