Guns: will a ban reduce crime?

[biggy08755]

The most effective constitution in the history of earth??? Oh please, drop the American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude and look around you.

 

First I said it was arguably the best. I can back up my statement. I would like for you to give me a list of better Constitutions as well and they can't have been based off the US Constitution.

 

 

 

Facts about the US Constitution.

 

Since its creation some two hundred years ago, over one hundred countries around the world have used it as a model for their own.

 

It is the oldest written constitution of its type in effect in the world.

 

 

 

The US Constitution broke the mold of Old Europe. It was the foundational text that influenced most of the free societies of the world today. It is one of the most groundbreaking documents ever penned. I would put it up there with the Magna Carta. I mean come on... you are going to sit there and call it American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude when over 100 countries have copied it in some form? Are you sure you aren't just being anti American? Have you even studied the American Constitution and it's impact on history?

 

 

 

Actually we took most of our constitution from the British one...

[Avitar16]

Simple, If we cant get guns to protect ourselves with, then it wont be as safe, cause all the "bad guys" get there guns illigally anyway b\c if they commited one crime they cant get guns leagally

[hohto]

This is a perfect example of why you need an armed population so guys like this cannot take over a perfectly good prosperous country and run it into the ground.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04 ... topstories

 

If all those people he stole lands from, had beaten, hurt or killed had been armed and the whole population had guns do you think he could get away with all of this for so long? He wouldn't last very long in the US... I can assure you of that. He couldn't just go into neighborhoods or towns and drag people away. People would band together and get their guns and fight back.

 

 

 

You can say right now that the US wouldn't have a dictator and that the thought is just silly but the reason the 2nd amendment is there is can you guarantee that the US will have the same government in 300 years? Can you guarantee that there won't be some kind of horrible event where the citizens will need to defend themselves? Eventually the US government will fall and that is when guns will be needed by the citizens. Would you prefer to just be dominated by a dictator instead of fighting for your freedom?

 

 

 

 

An African country and USA can't be compared like that. One has a bad economic situation, one is ready to do anything to boost their economy. One still has rocks and javelins, other got nuclear weapons.

[ktmcf121]

The most effective constitution in the history of earth??? Oh please, drop the American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude and look around you.

 

First I said it was arguably the best. I can back up my statement. I would like for you to give me a list of better Constitutions as well and they can't have been based off the US Constitution.

 

 

 

Facts about the US Constitution.

 

Since its creation some two hundred years ago, over one hundred countries around the world have used it as a model for their own.

 

It is the oldest written constitution of its type in effect in the world.

 

 

 

The US Constitution broke the mold of Old Europe. It was the foundational text that influenced most of the free societies of the world today. It is one of the most groundbreaking documents ever penned. I would put it up there with the Magna Carta. I mean come on... you are going to sit there and call it American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude when over 100 countries have copied it in some form? Are you sure you aren't just being anti American? Have you even studied the American Constitution and it's impact on history?

 

 

 

obviously another anti-american, they seem to be plentiful on this forum, yet none of them seem to be able to give any reason why they hate ALL americans, other than our attitude. yeah, because EVERY american has the same attitude, and you're not being hypocritical at all for bringing OUR attitude up, when you can't seem to lose your own. :roll:

 

 

 

anyway, the only good point she makes is that his mental records SHOULD have shown up on his background check, and i'm sure the store that sold him the gun will have hell to pay for that.

[flyboymike22]

My reply is pretty much a general reply to some of the comments that I have read so far. I am not singling out anyone.

 

1. If you put a gun in the hand of someone not trained how to use it it will be to easy for them to figure out how to do it wrongly. Guns are very different than anything else, it takes absolutely no intelligence or skill to use one, it's like your mouse "point and click". It takes training and knowledge to understand when is the best time to use that tool.

 

2. I live in a state in the US that just passed what is called a "Castle Law". This law is designed to allow a business or homeowner the right to produce and use a weapon such as a knife, handgun or long gun if he or she feels that they are threatened in thier business or home, without having to retreat before using it. The law has only been on the books for almost a year and violent crime such as armed robberies, break-ins and such are down almost half.

 

3. I saw alot of US bashing also in this. We think differently here than in Europe, Europeans think differently than Africans, and we both are having to stop a genocide or something like that at least once a year. No need to say that Americans influence the world in a negative way, and there is no need for us Americans to ask for a Thank-You from anyone for WWII.

 

 

 

 

 

**Edit=about checking for mental stability when they check for a gun, under the HIPAA laws that is illegal.

[Bufoman]

I think some of you should read this: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

 

 

Its about how a pro gun law dramaticaly reduced crime over a 25 year period.

 

 

 

many of us belive that had the right people been cleard to carry guns on the campus the shooter would not of been able to kill so many. it is felt that people such as those who are police officers for example and takeing classes should most certianly be cleard to carry weapons on campus.

 

 

 

also other right people to carry guns on campus : teachers. not any teachers but those who wish to have them should. a carry and conceal permit for some school teachers in addition to proper training could help to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

 

 

 

but im not heer to talk about the tragidy of the recent shooting, I am heer to answer the question that was asked in the topic.

 

 

 

I feel this articall will help you to some extent.

 

also in country's where anti gun laws are passed crime rates go up. a importent thing for you all to remember is that gun crimes are not the only crimes. home invasions are a crime that seem to rise whenever their is a anti gun law passed.

 

 

 

crinimals can alway's aquire weapons. it is the law biding citizens who suffer needlessly when their ability to defend themselves from the unjust is taken away from them. if the people in the sudan who are being whiped out had been given guns and training to use them by the UN in addition to whatever aid they are getting it is thought the killing would stop.

 

 

 

If one does research they will find that guns in the right hands, the just, decent, and sound of mind citizens do much to reduce crime and prevent great autrocity's.

 

 

 

about chow and gun controll: he lied about being mentaly ill when he bought at least one of them or so I have heard.

[Striker6]

My reply is pretty much a general reply to some of the comments that I have read so far. I am not singling out anyone.

 

1. If you put a gun in the hand of someone not trained how to use it it will be to easy for them to figure out how to do it wrongly. Guns are very different than anything else, it takes absolutely no intelligence or skill to use one, it's like your mouse "point and click". It takes training and knowledge to understand when is the best time to use that tool.

 

2. I live in a state in the US that just passed what is called a "Castle Law". This law is designed to allow a business or homeowner the right to produce and use a weapon such as a knife, handgun or long gun if he or she feels that they are threatened in thier business or home, without having to retreat before using it. The law has only been on the books for almost a year and violent crime such as armed robberies, break-ins and such are down almost half.

 

3. I saw alot of US bashing also in this. We think differently here than in Europe, Europeans think differently than Africans, and we both are having to stop a genocide or something like that at least once a year. No need to say that Americans influence the world in a negative way, and there is no need for us Americans to ask for a Thank-You from anyone for WWII.

 

 

 

What an intelligent reply, good job man.

[Ambassadar]

An African country and USA can't be compared like that. One has a bad economic situation, one is ready to do anything to boost their economy. One still has rocks and javelins, other got nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

Your perception of the situation is by a bit and you didn't read the article. If you read the article you will see that Tanzania was what was once called Rhodesia. It is where a large number of the Boer(Dutch) settlers lived and had their farms. When the British Empire granted its independence it was a prosperous nation with a bright future that was known as the breadbasket of Africa. It was not some place with "rocks and javelins and a bad economic situation."

 

 

 

Just read the article. It is merely one example of how a prosperous thriving country can turn into a poor oppressive dictatorship when the people don't stand up for themselves. That is why the US has the 2nd amendment.

[flyboymike22]

My reply is pretty much a general reply to some of the comments that I have read so far. I am not singling out anyone.

 

1. If you put a gun in the hand of someone not trained how to use it it will be to easy for them to figure out how to do it wrongly. Guns are very different than anything else, it takes absolutely no intelligence or skill to use one, it's like your mouse "point and click". It takes training and knowledge to understand when is the best time to use that tool.

 

2. I live in a state in the US that just passed what is called a "Castle Law". This law is designed to allow a business or homeowner the right to produce and use a weapon such as a knife, handgun or long gun if he or she feels that they are threatened in thier business or home, without having to retreat before using it. The law has only been on the books for almost a year and violent crime such as armed robberies, break-ins and such are down almost half.

 

3. I saw alot of US bashing also in this. We think differently here than in Europe, Europeans think differently than Africans, and we both are having to stop a genocide or something like that at least once a year. No need to say that Americans influence the world in a negative way, and there is no need for us Americans to ask for a Thank-You from anyone for WWII.

 

 

 

What an intelligent reply, good job man.

 

 

 

Thanks. Ive been around this issue for a while and understand quite alot about it. I collect guns, there is only one that I shoot, and acually keep loaded in my whole collection, but they are a passion of mine. I would never think about loading one and taking it somewhere to kill people; and dont appreciate gun owners being lumped into one category.

[Ambassadar]

Security and Liberty

 

 

 

 

 

April 23, 2007

 

 

 

The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

 

 

 

Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

 

 

 

The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

 

 

 

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

 

 

 

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

 

 

 

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizensÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

 

 

 

~Ron Paul

[venomai]

Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

 

Sounds like he's saying that Americans need to take law into their own hands; become vigilantes. :-k

 

The idea of armed citizens scares me. :shock:

 

 

 

2. I live in a state in the US that just passed what is called a "Castle Law". This law is designed to allow a business or homeowner the right to produce and use a weapon such as a knife, handgun or long gun if he or she feels that they are threatened in thier business or home, without having to retreat before using it. The law has only been on the books for almost a year and violent crime such as armed robberies, break-ins and such are down almost half.

 

This seems to further promote the idea of vigilantism in America. :-#

 

 

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p02s01-usju.html

[Ambassadar]

There is a difference between vigilantism and defending yourself.

 

 

 

A vigilante is not a member of law enforcement yet he actively seeks out criminals to capture or punish them. The article is not advocating this position.

 

 

 

Defending yourself is when a criminal actively seeks you out to cause you harm and you protect yourself.

[ktmcf121]

 

The idea of armed citizens scares me. :shock:

 

 

 

 

 

 

i'd rather have a thousand armed citizens that never have to use thier weapons than a single armed criminal who has no respect for the law or property of others.

[hohto]

Your perception of the situation is by a bit and you didn't read the article. If you read the article you will see that Tanzania was what was once called Rhodesia. It is where a large number of the Boer(Dutch) settlers lived and had their farms. When the British Empire granted its independence it was a prosperous nation with a bright future that was known as the breadbasket of Africa. It was not some place with "rocks and javelins and a bad economic situation."

 

 

 

Just read the article. It is merely one example of how a prosperous thriving country can turn into a poor oppressive dictatorship when the people don't stand up for themselves. That is why the US has the 2nd amendment.

 

 

 

Read your history again and try to understand it... First of all Rhodesia is now known as Zimbabwe, not Tanzania. Google for maps or use wikipedia if you are unsure. Second, most African countries are even still economically far from intedepentend. They got far too less things to offer for international trade and are too hooked on the current price. It doesn't really matter how good the future views were; this kind of economical things can destroy anything.

 

 

 

Zimbabwe was ruled for a long time by small white minority which treatened them in away which is too cruel for even dogs, they had a civil war for 14 years and they are too hooked on few tradeable things. It's not a big surprise they are now what they are. Bright words can be said how one nation will have a great future, but it doesn't change the fact that words themselves are nothing.

 

 

 

From those starting points it doesn't really matter how liberal gun laws they have or don't have. Comparing a country like that to USA is like comparing George Bush (jr. and sr.) to Hume, Shakespare or Platon.

[hohto]

Bufoman, first of all there you are comparing a city with less than 30,000 people living in it. The acts in big cities around the Europe has shown totally different thing. With that number of people living in a town, "ghost numbers" like that are more than possible. For same reason some certain immigrant minorities here have really high crime rates: it just needs few "gangs" to totally screw it up. If we did a research with every western europe town at it, these small towns would be at the top and at the bottom.

 

 

 

For the crime thing: if you ask me, I'd rather give away my wallet than be afraid of being shot or having a risk to be involved in shooting. Second I'd like to get some statics how more popular "normal" crimes are in places like Helsinki, Stockholm or Oslo than in New York for example. Give me some numbers to prove the point that these pro gun laws work. I already posted some numbers and links earlier, now it's your turn to work.

 

 

 

edit: I'd also like to ask from all these pro gun people. How experienced are you from guns? I personally got 9 month experience from our (mandatory) army: many thousands, probably tens of thousands bullets with assault rifle, somewhere around 1000 with a handgun, few hard bazookas, some shots with a shotgun and a bit playing with a machine gun. I know exactly what kind of damage a weapon can do and I would never want to see an unexperienced gun handler playing with his toy in a stress situation.

[No_OnE]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

 

 

 

This article that was on the ABC news page today explains my views almost perfectly.

[Phyrexial]

A Ban on guns will make the amount of gun dealing in the streets rise ALOT

[No_OnE]

A Ban on guns will make the amount of gun dealing in the streets rise ALOT

 

Yeah, and dealing guns is a lot worse than dealing drugs. Drug dealers aren't usually armed with firearms whereas the gun dealer always will.

[venomai]

i'd rather have a thousand armed citizens that never have to use thier weapons than a single armed criminal who has no respect for the law or property of others.

 

What's the point of a thousand armed citizens if they never have to use their weapon? :? And who says they won't use their weapon maliciously?

 

 

 

@Bufoman's article: Guns can work well on a small scale. Communism can work well on a small scale, too. All I'm saying is that when you introduce these things on a much larger scale, complications start to arise.

[jackal_55]

"guns, iff we dont have them, can we use them too kill people?" :-w

 

 

 

*walks away from this thread for ever an after*

[hohto]

Yeah, and dealing guns is a lot worse than dealing drugs. Drug dealers aren't usually armed with firearms whereas the gun dealer always will.

 

 

 

With this logic the goverment should also start selling drugs. Second, your link proves nothing. Please get some real statistic how the gun ban would increase homicides, murders and so on. I already gave statistic of countries with a lot stricter gun laws, now it's your turn.

[No_OnE]

Yeah, and dealing guns is a lot worse than dealing drugs. Drug dealers aren't usually armed with firearms whereas the gun dealer always will.

 

 

 

With this logic the goverment should also start selling drugs. Second, your link proves nothing. Please get some real statistic how the gun ban would increase homicides, murders and so on. I already gave statistic of countries with a lot stricter gun laws, now it's your turn.

 

Hmm. Did I ever say my link proved a point. All I said was that the link expressed my views accurately. Also, why should the government sell drugs? All I was saying is that dealers who deal drugs are less lethal than dealers who deal guns. I'd rather do a drug bust than a gun bust.

[hohto]

All I was saying is that dealers who deal drugs are less lethal than dealers who deal guns. I'd rather do a drug bust than a gun bust.

 

 

 

First of all, show me a dealer who sells stuff without a gun. An idiot like that wouldn't carry a gun, no matter where they legal or not. The odds to hit a properly equipped (a gun with a bullet in it) drug dealer are pretty close to the odds finding a properly equipped gun dealer.

 

 

 

I seriously don't get the fear of this fear of criminals having guns and normal people don't. This thread itself has tens of posts pointing out that the situation in countries with a lot stricter gun laws isn't even clsoe to the situation which many of these gun freaks imagine.

 

 

 

That post about UK just points out few things: there still are illegal weapons and the punishments for having them and commiting crimes with them aren't in a good shape. Second, they should also work a bit on their immigrant laws, work a bit more on the youth (there has been far too many even non-armed attacks from them) and start real anti-gun campaigns. Or are the britts more violent in general than the others? :o

[Satenza]

Or are the britts more violent in general than the others? :o

 

 

 

We are gentlemen!

[ktmcf121]

What's the point of a thousand armed citizens if they never have to use their weapon? :? And who says they won't use their weapon maliciously?

 

 

 

 

i would explain this but i'd just be repeating myself.

 

 

 

i don't think there's anything new that can be brought to this topic. it's been beaten to death, and nobody's going to change anyone's opinion.