Gun control - US vs. rest of the world

[shaman_]

ROFL...really so why is it so easy to illegally obtain handguns in DC and Chicago? Clearly you support criminals gaining power over law-abiding citizens (who would be required to never have guns), banning guns never works and it never will

Why is it that Switzerland, one of the countries with the highest gun ownership also has one of the lowest gun crime rates? Why is that? Using your liberal idealogy that must mean there should be more gun crimes in Switzerland than in other countries like England with stricter gun control, right?

Oh yeah, I guess its also really difficult to obtain marijuana, why, because its illegal!!! ROFL...great comedy

It might seen easy to get if you happen to know the right people seeling illegal goods. How many people do though?

What is easier for you to buy, alcohol or ecstacy?

Sure people can still get illegal stuff, that is not the point. You are trying to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so. Do you still lock your house when you go somewhere? Why? Thieves could still break in if they were determined enough. You are trying to make it as hard for them so they give up or try somewhere else.

http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/news/features/2006/061214.php

"The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention."

"The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

 

[Baron Max]

Sure people can still get illegal stuff, that is not the point. You are trying to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.

Agreed. But do you trample on the rights of others to do so? Do you allow the criminals to determine the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Do you still lock your house when you go somewhere? Why? Thieves could still break in if they were determined enough.

Agreed. But are you going to force people to lock up their homes? And make it illegal to leave your home without locking the doors? ...all because of some criminals?

When do we stop letting criminals determine how we live our lives?

Baron Max

 

[VitalOne]

It might seen easy to get if you happen to know the right people seeling illegal goods. How many people do though?

What is easier for you to buy, alcohol or ecstacy?

Well definitely alcohol, although technically its illegal for me to drink alcohol...

Sure people can still get illegal stuff, that is not the point.

Uhm, I don't know where you've been but thats EXACTLY the point. The point is criminals can still easily illegally obtain guns, so what happens?

Here's what happens, guns are banned, gun crime goes down for a little while, then the black market comes into play, criminals illegally obtain guns, all law-abiding citizens have no guns so are jeopardized by the law, criminals know they can easily rob anyone's house, store, etc...because no one has guns, except for them, they've illegally obtained them, law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns, so criminals know they have so much power over them by simply illegally obtaining guns, then law-abiding citizens get upset and decide to illegally obtain guns anyway to defend themselves, then the black market takes over and then eventually it becomes easier to illegally obtain a gun than it would be to legally obtain one,

This isn't just a theory, this is exactly whats happened in urbanized areas where guns are banned, like DC and Chicago, gun crimes are much higher there than in other urbanized areas where guns are legal

You are trying to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so. Do you still lock your house when you go somewhere? Why? Thieves could still break in if they were determined enough. You are trying to make it as hard for them so they give up or try somewhere else.

Yeah...and by having guns you MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT. If you were a criminal would you rob a place where everyone's defenseless to you and has no guns, and it would real easy or would you rob a place where everyone has guns and they'd likely kill you in self-defense? Exactly.

I don't understand your point about thieves, it seems as if you're trying to make my own point, BY HAVING GUNS YOU MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR CRIMINALS, by banning guns YOU MAKE IT EASIER FOR CRIMINALS (who can care less about the law)

Banning guns means criminals have a MUCH easier time robbing, stealing, etc...because law-abiding citizens can't have guns

http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/news/features/2006/061214.php

"The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention."

"The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

ROFL...you know what else? Thats exactly whats supposed to happen, in the very beginning right after the gun bans gun crimes go down, then a while after the black market comes into play and then things get waaaay worse, its just what happened in DC, the first ten years or so things went down, just watch what will happen to Australia in a few years from now, when guns become illegal manufactured and everything goes to the blackmarket

BTW, Switzerland still has a lower homicide rate than Australia...

Also Australia is one of the rarest exceptions, just look at other cases...

Mandatory Gun ownership causes 89% drop in crime:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...thern_us_town_proud_of_its_mandatory_gun_law/ Unlike Australia, which has only tried that for about 10 years, this law has been in place for over 25 years and still maintains low crime rates

Or what about when other places ban guns? Does crime go down? When Illinois tried the gun ban crime went up by 15%....

Clearly banning guns never works and it never will, unless you found a way to prevent everyone from having a gun, then it would work

 

[shaman_]

Agreed. But do you trample on the rights of others to do so? Do you allow the criminals to determine the rights of law-abiding citizens?



Agreed. But are you going to force people to lock up their homes? And make it illegal to leave your home without locking the doors? ...all because of some criminals?

When do we stop letting criminals determine how we live our lives?

Baron Max

I do see your point Baron Max. It is unfortunate what we do because of criminals. But we already follow many laws that we might not like, but do so for the benefit of the community. People also have the right to feel safe.

The criminals already have an enormous impact when we look at how much of our tax dollars goes towards police, judges ect. The way I see it, we are letting criminals determine how we live our lives when we think we need a lethal weapon in the house.

The situation I am proposing is not perfect either. I think it is a better one though.

 

[shaman_]

Well definitely alcohol, although technically its illegal for me to drink alcohol...

Well I was trying to draw an analogy that demonstrates that it is easier to get legal goods than illegal ones. I forgot how young you are VitalOne.

If you wanted to buy a gun illegally would you be able to? I have absolutely no idea where I would get one from.

Uhm, I don't know where you've been but thats EXACTLY the point. The point is criminals can still easily illegally obtain guns, so what happens?

- Which is exactly why I am suggesting that you reduce the number of guns in the community. It then gets harder for criminals or people going postal to obtain illegal ones. I understand what you are saying but surely there is a point where the number of guns has been reduced enough that it does get harder for the criminals to get hold of them.

Here's what happens, guns are banned, gun crime goes down for a little while, then the black market comes into play, criminals illegally obtain guns, all law-abiding citizens have no guns so are jeopardized by the law, criminals know they can easily rob anyone's house, store, etc...because no one has guns, except for them, they've illegally obtained them, law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns, so criminals know they have so much power over them by simply illegally obtaining guns, then law-abiding citizens get upset and decide to illegally obtain guns anyway to defend themselves, then the black market takes over and then eventually it becomes easier to illegally obtain a gun than it would be to legally obtain one,

This isn't just a theory, this is exactly whats happened in urbanized areas where guns are banned, like DC and Chicago, gun crimes are much higher there than in other urbanized areas where guns are legal

This has not happened in Australia.

Yeah...and by having guns you MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT. If you were a criminal would you rob a place where everyone's defenseless to you and has no guns, and it would real easy or would you rob a place where everyone has guns and they'd likely kill you in self-defense? Exactly.

I don't understand your point about thieves, it seems as if you're trying to make my own point, BY HAVING GUNS YOU MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR CRIMINALS, by banning guns YOU MAKE IT EASIER FOR CRIMINALS (who can care less about the law)

Perhaps, but there is also the problem where criminals just need a bigger gun when they rob someone. Instead of breaking into a house empty handed to steal from someone they will always carry a gun – a semi so theirs is better than the house owners. If everyone has hand guns the thieves will not give up their life of crime out of fear. Keep in mind how much crime is drug related. They will continue crime but with automatic weapons instead. Can you see a problem here? Where does the mini-suburban-arms-race stop?

Can you get bullet proof vests in the US?

In your scenario, when someone snaps, instead of having no guns (or very few) nearby there is a multitude of high powered weaponry within easy reach. People in that frame of mind do not care about their own welfare. They are not deterred by the idea of someone shooting them; they just want to take down as many as possible. I would prefer that they grab a baseball bat than an automatic weapon.

ROFL...you know what else? Thats exactly whats supposed to happen, in the very beginning right after the gun bans gun crimes go down, then a while after the black market comes into play and then things get waaaay worse, its just what happened in DC, the first ten years or so things went down, just watch what will happen to Australia in a few years from now, when guns become illegal manufactured and everything goes to the blackmarket

BTW, Switzerland still has a lower homicide rate than Australia...

Also Australia is one of the rarest exceptions, just look at other cases...

Mandatory Gun ownership causes 89% drop in crime:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...thern_us_town_proud_of_its_mandatory_gun_law/ Unlike Australia, which has only tried that for about 10 years, this law has been in place for over 25 years and still maintains low crime rates

Or what about when other places ban guns? Does crime go down? When Illinois tried the gun ban crime went up by 15%....

Clearly banning guns never works and it never will, unless you found a way to prevent everyone from having a gun, then it would work

You may be right VitalOne, or maybe not. It is probably the best post I have seen you produce apart from the rofls and such. (the others were on religion). I have noticed that the gun debates turn into statistics games. There are enough countries and states that each side can find examples to support their opinion – and discard the ones that don’t as rare exceptions. I am no authority on gun control; I only know what I have seen here in Australia.

 

[madanthonywayne]

What is easier for you to buy, alcohol or ecstacy?

When I was in high school, I could buy pot (illegal in the US) very easily from dozens of guys right in the school. Alcohol (legal in the US, although not for those under 21) was a real pain in the ass to get.

 

[Baron Max]

People also have the right to feel safe.

And if owning a gun makes them feel safe, why are people so insistent that they not be permitted to feel safe? People buy insurance, right? And they hope never to have to use it. Isn't that about the same thing? ..about feeling safe?

The way I see it, we are letting criminals determine how we live our lives when we think we need a lethal weapon in the house.

Home break-ins are now a major problem in the Dallas area. If someone breaks into your home, what are you going to do to protect yourself and your family? Ask him to leave? Tell him to wait while you call the cops?

Yes, in many cases, we are letting the criminals determine how we live. But isn't that true of any and all facets of life? And we adopt things that or attitudes in order to accomodate those changes.

But what gun control advocates are wanting to do is prevent everyone from owning a gun to protect themselves and their families. It's not much different to telling us that we can't have insurance on our cars!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

And if owning a gun makes them feel safe, why are people so insistent that they not be permitted to feel safe? People buy insurance, right? And they hope never to have to use it. Isn't that about the same thing? ..about feeling safe?

Does this also apply to countries who want to buy nuclear weapons to feel safe?

*of course not! thats completely different!*

 

[Atom]

We mustn't decry on of the great achievements of Science.

It's a deterrent to all future Warfare. Apparently.

 

[BenTheMan]

I read somewhere (something that a liberal collumnist wrote) that ``If liberals argued as fervently for the Second Ammendment as they did for the other ammendments, then not only would they be ok with gun ownership, it would be mandatory.''

Just something to think about.

 

[Kadark]

Does this also apply to countries who want to buy nuclear weapons to feel safe?

*of course not! thats completely different!*

Great point, Sam.

BTW, I am not American and I would agree to those measures.

 

[BenTheMan]

Does this also apply to countries who want to buy nuclear weapons to feel safe?

*of course not! thats completely different!*

Most states have some prerequisites for concealed handgun permits. Not being an absolute lunatic is one of them. If, for example, you say that ``All Jews should be wiped from the planet'' publicly, and there is a percieved danger that you will actually go out with your handgun and begin exterminating Jews, then you probably won't qualify for a CHP. So if we used the same rationale fro nuclear weapons...

 

[Kadark]

Most states have some prerequisites for concealed handgun permits. Not being an absolute lunatic is one of them. If, for example, you say that ``All Jews should be wiped from the planet'' publicly, and there is a percieved danger that you will actually go out with your handgun and begin exterminating Jews, then you probably won't qualify for a CHP. So if we used the same rationale fro nuclear weapons...

It is crystal clear that your quotation refers to the dialogue supposedly said by Mr. Ahmadinejad. You are mistaken terribly if you believe those were his words, because that is deceptively inaccurate on two different accounts. First, the quote actually says: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - not Jews as religious followers and practitioners in general. This is a crucial point, because one refers to dissatisfaction with a regime, and the other a blatant inference of genocide. The words "wipe off", "Israel", and "map" were never uttered. Secondly, Mahmoud was actually quoting Ayatollah Khomenei, so these weren't even his own words.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

(First link has great translations).

 

[Baron Max]

Does this also apply to countries who want to buy nuclear weapons to feel safe?

*of course not! thats completely different!*

No, Sam, it's actually quite similar. The issue is, of course, who should be permitted to have nukes, and who shouldn't. .....and who should decide.

A nation is naturally going to want to protect itself in asmuch as possible. But by the same ideals of gun ownership, they should have to pass some particular rules and guidelines in order to buy or build a nuke. But it's also natural for some nations to decide that other nations shouldn't have nukes because of percieved or real or implied threats to the safety of other nations.

Baron Max

 

[shaman_]

And if owning a gun makes them feel safe, why are people so insistent that they not be permitted to feel safe? People buy insurance, right? And they hope never to have to use it. Isn't that about the same thing? ..about feeling safe?

I would certainly not feel safe in a world where every adult has a gun. I feel pretty safe in Melbourne where there aren't many guns at all.

Comparing Australia and the US is probably apples and oranges though as we don't have the same crime rates here.

Home break-ins are now a major problem in the Dallas area. If someone breaks into your home, what are you going to do to protect yourself and your family? Ask him to leave? Tell him to wait while you call the cops?

Guns are not the only tool we have that can stop someone.

Yes, in many cases, we are letting the criminals determine how we live. But isn't that true of any and all facets of life? And we adopt things that or attitudes in order to accomodate those changes.

But what gun control advocates are wanting to do is prevent everyone from owning a gun to protect themselves and their families. It's not much different to telling us that we can't have insurance on our cars!

Baron Max

But everyone having a gun for protection causes other very serious problems - Problems are not caused by having insurance, so I don’t think the analogy is valid.

 

[Mr. G]

Mr. G:

You are as predictable as clockwork.

And you're not?

Yes, I know you have your precious second amendment. Yes, I know Americans will make their own laws.

Yes, I know you tend to state the obvious as revelation.

And I know that, despite your grandiose claims that you speak for all Americans, you actually only speak for yourself.

I quote the Constitution. Thus does it speak both for myself and for all Americans.

I'm wondering by what pretense you presume to speak for America, and all Americans, except for a particular one.

And you do care what I think on this matter, or you wouldn't have bothered addressing me.

Don't touch me there.

 

[James R]

Mr. G:

You are as predictable as clockwork.

And you're not?

I'm a zany, wacky individual. You can never tell what I'll say next!

I quote the Constitution. Thus does it speak both for myself and for all Americans.

If my poll in this thread is indicative, the 2nd amendment speaks for around 83% of Americans, which is not all Americans.

I'm wondering by what pretense you presume to speak for America, and all Americans, except for a particular one.

I do not presume to speak for America or Americans. You are clearly confused.

 

[mikenostic]

What would any of you bleeding heart, pro gun-control liberals do in this situation if you didn't have a gun?
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5289996/detail.html

 

[nietzschefan]

James you are like that whiney-assed kid in school:

"Teacher Teacher! Little Johnny just said shit."

The problem, for you James, is you cannot take away people's rights with a fuckin poll and there is NO GLOBAL authority to bitch and whine to.

 

[James R]

nietzschefan:

I never attempted to take away anybody's rights with a fuckin' poll, as you put it.

My poll merely displays a truth - one that obviously makes you uncomfortable. (Why?)