Gun Control

[Range_This11]

^^ To protect yourself. If you have a legal gun and the federal government breaks down your door and takes it not only is your door broken but your helpless against criminals. If it won't decrease murders why take away people ability to defend themselves? 2 million times a year guns are used in self defense.

 

 

 

Banning guns doesn't work. Criminals don't go 'oh well guns are illegal now I guess I won't kill that guy now'. They have illegal guns anyway. The guns aren't the problem the people are. In places where they crack down on illegal guns crime goes down. In places with strict gun control laws it either goes up or stays the same.

 

 

 

And that website only has states not individual cities so I can't get Chicago.. And I wouldn't say D.C. doesn't have the same crime rates. It's more than 3 times the size of D.C. There is a reason D.C. is known as the murder capital of the country.

 

So according to your theory, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you state that since "criminals are going to get guns anyways" we should just let guns be legal and give up. Are you giving up completely on trying to control crime? I'll give you a few numbers that I have found through my research.

 

 

 

Self-protection

 

 

 

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame. For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim. Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time. In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers. During the same time period, there were 46,319 gun homicides, and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.

 

 

 

Granted that these stats are from 1990, I think they still hold relevance to the conversation. Let's do the Math, Jack.

 

 

 

64,615 self defense cases using firearms annually.

 

Take 20% of 64,615 because Police Officers are not considered to be private citizens whilst on duty.

 

That leaves us 12,913 cases where Police Officers used self defense via a gun.

 

Now we're down to 51,702 cases annually.

 

Since you like to bring up "crackhead thugs breaking into your house" all the time, we'll reduce it by another 29% because as the article says, 71% of the time, crimes are committed by a stranger.

 

29% of 51,702 people using firearms in self defense is 15,511.

 

 

 

TOTAL SELF DEFENSE CASES ANNUALLY USING A FIREARM: 36,191.

 

 

 

Now it seems to me that your "fact" that 2 million times a year, guns are used in self defense is total bull $hit. You back it up with no factual evidence. Even though these stats that I have are from 1990, I find it VERY hard to believe that gun defense has increased by 1.93 MILLION cases per year annually. Since most gun defense facts are very misconstrued, I might remind you that self-defense using a gun ONLY includes when the gun is fired, not when it is simply held as a focal point for power in a situation (which by the way in most studies that are pro-gun control, it is considered as self defense to just hold the gun; very incorrect and misleading).

 

 

 

Well, now it's time to take apart your Washington D.C. points.

 

 

 

The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of Columbia city council on June 26, 1976. On June 26, 2008, in the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the ban and trigger lock provision violate the Second Amendment. The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device", thus amounting to a prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

 

 

 

Notice how it clearly states that any firearms registered before 1976 are still considered to be legal? Well that sure sheds a different light on your argument doesn't it? Could this Act be to possibly...oh...I don't know...maybe prevent more hand-gun related incidents from happening and not an outright attack on existing gun owners? So it looks to me that this Act has done a very good job considering the fact that

 

 

 

The number of murders peaked in 1991 at 482, but the level of violence declined drastically in the 1990s. By 2006, the annual murder count in the city had declined to 169. The FBI's 2006 Uniform Crime Report ranks overall crime in Washington as the seventh-highest in the nation among cities with populations over 250,000.

 

 

 

After all that honest research I did, I think I need a glass of Kool-Aid.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Indeed. Which is why fighting back or provoking them further would be an immensely stupid thing to do.

 

 

 

Therefore, having a gun is counter-productive.

 

 

 

Explain to me how putting a half inch of hot lead into the brain of someone trying to kill you is counter productive and stupid?

 

With pleasure.

 

 

 

Who says you would be able to pull the trigger first? If, as in the case I was responding to, the person threatening you in so unable to make a rational decision, and (s)he sees you reaching for a weapon of your own, there's every chance that person will shoot you long before you even have a chance to shoot them. In reaching for a weapon, you've also removed any chance of verbal dialogue, and forced the burglar to take more threatening measures.

 

 

 

Thus, you've made the situation worse than it already was and quite possibly endangered your own life.

 

 

 

The bright thing to do, and the police in near every developed nation agree with this, is to not provoke the burglar, and phone the police at the earliest available safe opportunity. Your contents are (at least should be if you've any sense) insured. They are the ones who are trained to deal with gunmen, not you.

 

 

 

Also, if you are deemed to have used disproportionate force to 'defend' yourself, you can very well face prosecution.

 

 

 

So yes, it's a very counter-productive and stupid thing to do.

 

 

 

FACT: You are more likely to be a victim of crime if you carry a weapon on you. It is not rocket science to realise it only places you in more danger, not less.

 

 

 

I live in a country which outlaws the use of guns completely, and I'm pretty damn happy about knowing when I go outside there won't be some guy with a gun wrapped round his belt. Yes, I might get mugged, and a gun might help defend me. However, I also might catch pneumonia. I might get run over by a bus.

 

 

 

If we took safeguards against every single risk we are exposed to, civilisation would grind to a halt.

 

 

 

In my view at least, there is a trace amount of justification for needing a gun.

[Roberthree]

I'm quite confident that I can defend myself using a cane. http://ad1542.tripod.com/cunningham.pdf (EDIT: Apparently the cane-self-defense guide is censored....)

 

 

 

OH SNAPS Guns aren't needed for self defense? What now?

 

 

 

IMO guns are a simple thoughtless weapon, which is why they're so popular.

[das1330]

Indeed. Which is why fighting back or provoking them further would be an immensely stupid thing to do.

 

 

 

Therefore, having a gun is counter-productive.

 

 

 

Explain to me how putting a half inch of hot lead into the brain of someone trying to kill you is counter productive and stupid?

 

With pleasure.

 

 

 

Who says you would be able to pull the trigger first? If, as in the case I was responding to, the person threatening you in so unable to make a rational decision, and (s)he sees you reaching for a weapon of your own, there's every chance that person will shoot you long before you even have a chance to shoot them.

 

 

 

 

Again, you assume that the person breaking into your house is only there to take things from you. There is many criminals that intend on harming you. A weapon keeps them from doing that.

 

 

 

 

In reaching for a weapon, you've also removed any chance of verbal dialogue, and forced the burglar to take more threatening measures.

 

 

 

On the contrary, a burglar is much more likely to listen to you if you have a gun pointed at him. Its quite hard to harm someone when they could kill you in under a second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bright thing to do, and the police in near every developed nation agree with this, is to not provoke the burglar, and phone the police at the earliest available safe opportunity. Your contents are (at least should be if you've any sense) insured. They are the ones who are trained to deal with gunmen, not you.

 

 

 

There seems to be a disconnect here - you are referring to protecting yourself from burglars. I am referring to a rapist/murderer intent on killing you. If someone breaks into your house with the intention of killing you, the best thing possible is to remove the threat. Calling the police is one possible way, but if they are already in your house your best hope for survival lays with defending yourself. While the police are good, people must take responsibility for their own safety.

 

 

 

 

Also, if you are deemed to have used disproportionate force to 'defend' yourself, you can very well face prosecution.

 

 

 

So yes, it's a very counter-productive and stupid thing to do.

 

I live in a country which outlaws the use of guns completely, and I'm pretty damn happy about knowing when I go outside there won't be some guy with a gun wrapped round his belt.

 

 

 

 

I live in a country that has laws that has laws specifically giving people the right to defend themselves from someone intending to hurt them. If where you live defending yourself is illegal, I truly feel sorry for you. Besides, it is better to be judged by 11 then buried by 6.

 

 

 

 

FACT: You are more likely to be a victim of crime if you carry a weapon on you. It is not rocket science to realise it only places you in more danger, not less.

 

 

 

SOURCE?

 

 

 

 

OH SNAPS Guns aren't needed for self defense? What now?

 

 

 

An attacker pulls out a gun illegally acquired from the local drug dealer and kills you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO guns are a simple thoughtless weapon, which is why they're so popular.

 

 

 

guns are popular because they are an effective deterrent. As a tool of self defense, they are good because, beside the fact that they can kill people, s gun scares the crap out of just about anyone its pointed at and stops what they are doing immediately. A gun can be a tool to hurt people, a knife can be a tool to hurt people, hell a rock can be a tool to hurt people. All can also be an effective means of self defense. In the absence of a perfect society where no criminals exist whatsoever, getting the best tool to do the job of defending yourself is just as rational as getting the best coat to protect you from the cold.

 

 

 

 

If we took safeguards against every single risk we are exposed to, civilisation would grind to a halt.

 

 

 

We have airbags and seat belts to protect us from car crashes, antibiotics to protect us from infections and hard hats to protect us from falling objects. None of these objects, like a gun, is infallible in protecting us from danger. However, like guns, they are statistically proven to work in reducing the risk for which they are designed. Between futility attempting to remove all the weapons in a society with the hope that that will reduce crime and getting a tool to protect myself from that risk, I choose getting the tool to protect myself. It may be different for you, but I prefer to take responsibility for my own protection against crime rather then hoping that the police get there fast enough.

[Roberthree]

 

An attacker pulls out a gun illegally acquired from the local drug dealer and kills you.

 

 

 

 

To bad his wrists are broken from getting SMACKED WITH A CANE.

 

 

 

It doesn't natter though, guns wouldn't be that easy to get assuming they're illegal.

[jackattack]

^^ To protect yourself. If you have a legal gun and the federal government breaks down your door and takes it not only is your door broken but your helpless against criminals. If it won't decrease murders why take away people ability to defend themselves? 2 million times a year guns are used in self defense.

 

 

 

Banning guns doesn't work. Criminals don't go 'oh well guns are illegal now I guess I won't kill that guy now'. They have illegal guns anyway. The guns aren't the problem the people are. In places where they crack down on illegal guns crime goes down. In places with strict gun control laws it either goes up or stays the same.

 

 

 

And that website only has states not individual cities so I can't get Chicago.. And I wouldn't say D.C. doesn't have the same crime rates. It's more than 3 times the size of D.C. There is a reason D.C. is known as the murder capital of the country.

 

So according to your theory, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you state that since "criminals are going to get guns anyways" we should just let guns be legal and give up. Are you giving up completely on trying to control crime? I'll give you a few numbers that I have found through my research. It's not giving up one controlling crime. They should crack down on illegal guns more. Criminals don't really use legal guns.

 

 

 

Self-protection

 

 

 

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame. For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim. Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time. In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers. During the same time period, there were 46,319 gun homicides, and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.

 

 

 

Granted that these stats are from 1990, I think they still hold relevance to the conversation. Let's do the Math, Jack.

 

 

 

64,615 self defense cases using firearms annually.

 

Take 20% of 64,615 because Police Officers are not considered to be private citizens whilst on duty.

 

That leaves us 12,913 cases where Police Officers used self defense via a gun.

 

Now we're down to 51,702 cases annually.

 

Since you like to bring up "crackhead thugs breaking into your house" all the time, we'll reduce it by another 29% because as the article says, 71% of the time, crimes are committed by a stranger.

 

29% of 51,702 people using firearms in self defense is 15,511.

 

 

 

TOTAL SELF DEFENSE CASES ANNUALLY USING A FIREARM: 36,191.

 

 

 

Now it seems to me that your "fact" that 2 million times a year, guns are used in self defense is total bull $hit. You back it up with no factual evidence. Even though these stats that I have are from 1990, I find it VERY hard to believe that gun defense has increased by 1.93 MILLION cases per year annually. Since most gun defense facts are very misconstrued, I might remind you that self-defense using a gun ONLY includes when the gun is fired, not when it is simply held as a focal point for power in a situation (which by the way in most studies that are pro-gun control, it is considered as self defense to just hold the gun; very incorrect and misleading).It is self defense to hold a gun. You don't need to shoot someone to discourage them from committing a crime. The 2 million figure is from a criminologist at Florida state not some random guy named dave. And that guy is definitely a crackpot because his number is not even close to anyone else's. Other studies range from 800,000 to 2.5 million times. The DOJ did one and got 1.5 million but they used a smaller sample size.

 

 

 

Well, now it's time to take apart your Washington D.C. points.

 

 

 

The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of Columbia city council on June 26, 1976. On June 26, 2008, in the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the ban and trigger lock provision violate the Second Amendment. The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device", thus amounting to a prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

 

 

 

Notice how it clearly states that any firearms registered before 1976 are still considered to be legal? Well that sure sheds a different light on your argument doesn't it? Could this Act be to possibly...oh...I don't know...maybe prevent more hand-gun related incidents from happening and not an outright attack on existing gun owners? So it looks to me that this Act has done a very good job considering the fact that

 

 

 

The number of murders peaked in 1991 at 482, but the level of violence declined drastically in the 1990s. By 2006, the annual murder count in the city had declined to 169. The FBI's 2006 Uniform Crime Report ranks overall crime in Washington as the seventh-highest in the nation among cities with populations over 250,000.

The murder rate in D.C. is still higher than it was before the ban. And the drop in crime occurred across the country and was not just in D.C.

 

 

 

After all that honest research I did, I think I need a glass of Kool-Aid.

[x1992x]

i think it's funny how the goverment is so pro on keeping guns but, so con on the free speech

[jackattack]

How are they con on free speech?

[Lenticular_J]

It doesn't natter though, guns wouldn't be that easy to get assuming they're illegal.

 

Cocaine's illegal. Marijuana's illegal. Heroin's illegal.

[Kriegsmier]

Wait a minute...are you guys talking about taking guns outside? Taking them where ever you go? Because if thats the case, its quite foolish to do so. You're only looking for trouble. Keeping a gun in your house or under your shops' counter is the thing I'm talking about. Most likely that place of wealth is going to be assaulted than yourself outside.

 

This is my point exactly. Thank you. :thumbsup:

 

 

 

How is that foolish? The only reason i can see it being foolish is you can get into more trouble with a CCW permit and carrying a gun where they are illegal to do so then just carrying a gun without a permit. I just don't see how its totally foolish though. I keep one in the glove box of my car usually. And if i go out, one on my person. You just gotta know where you can carry it and where you can't. They call it concealed for a reason, its not like you are in the wild west with a holster hanging off of your hip so everyone can see it. Hardly anyone knows its there.

 

 

 

Sniper ftw. Good post.

 

 

 

I live in a country which outlaws the use of guns completely, and I'm pretty damn happy about knowing when I go outside there won't be some guy with a gun wrapped round his belt. Yes, I might get mugged, and a gun might help defend me. However, I also might catch pneumonia. I might get run over by a bus.

 

 

 

Invalid point. You make as if it were totally impossible to ever get a gun, illegal or not.

 

 

 

Besides, it is better to be judged by 11 then buried by 6.

 

 

 

HELL YEAH. One of my favorite quotes/sayings.

[x1992x]

How are they con on free speech?

 

 

 

have you seen the cencorship in us :? you cant say anything on national tv, even on raido you cant swear -_- and there are trying to make a law that can completely remove swearing on caple tv :o

[Lenticular_J]

...Was that a joke?

[Shiny]

Hopefully not. Swear words are vile, icky things.

[Kriegsmier]

[bleep] no, they show emotion. :)

[Range_This11]

[bleep] no, they show emotion. :)

 

Swearing has it's place, but in general speaking, you sound a lot more intelligent if you form an argument without using swear words. Don't get me wrong, I love swearing. I play hockey, swearing is encoded in my DNA.

[Kriegsmier]

[bleep] no, they show emotion. :)

 

Swearing has it's place, but in general speaking, you sound a lot more intelligent if you form an argument without using swear words. Don't get me wrong, I love swearing. I play hockey, swearing is encoded in my DNA.

 

 

 

I think that is society's way of regulating the right to free speech. I don't judge anyone's intelligence by how many swear words are in a sentence. We are all brainwashed into thinking there is only a right and wrong way of doing things. Break the cycle.

[Range_This11]

 

I think that is society's way of regulating the right to free speech. I don't judge anyone's intelligence by how many swear words are in a sentence. We are all brainwashed into thinking there is only a right and wrong way of doing things. Break the cycle.

 

I don't think so, that was just my personal opinion. I'm big on society brainwashing theories (no sarcasm), but that's stretching it. I'd think a little more highly of a person who forms a well stated argument with a high end vocabulary than someone who is dropping the F-Bomb every other world and can't get through the sentence without saying "um" or "like".

[x1992x]

 

I think that is society's way of regulating the right to free speech. I don't judge anyone's intelligence by how many swear words are in a sentence. We are all brainwashed into thinking there is only a right and wrong way of doing things. Break the cycle.

 

I don't think so, that was just my personal opinion. I'm big on society brainwashing theories (no sarcasm), but that's stretching it. I'd think a little more highly of a person who forms a well stated argument with a high end vocabulary than someone who is dropping the F-Bomb every other world and can't get through the sentence without saying "um" or "like".

 

 

 

i also think a person who can make a sentece without swearing is cool, but that is not how i am. i swear because people thinks i'm dumb when i do so. so i let them think i'm dump and then kick there behinds with valid points and semi good grammar :D like on this other tread i called some a [developmentally delayed] talking like an 8(z0mg j4g3x i5 in asia n0t usa) so i called him a [developmentally delayed]ed 8 year old who compared to a monkey on typewrite still seems to be more dumb. he then talked about how clever he was and how stupid i was. but i kicked his little behind with my valid points and grammar.

 

 

 

back on topic. guns should not be lagel:

 

11500 murdes avery yeah in U.S and A

 

65 murders a year in the U.K

 

 

 

those numbers is the amount of murders by a gun. and even if you multiply the amount with the people in the U.K to the number of people in U.S.A, its still only around 200-300 a year compared to the U.S.A

[Kriegsmier]

i also think a person who can make a sentece without swearing is cool, but that is not how i am. i swear because people thinks i'm dumb when i do so. so i let them think i'm dump and then kick there behinds with valid points and semi good grammar :D like on this other tread i called some a [developmentally delayed] talking like an 8(z0mg j4g3x i5 in asia n0t usa) so i called him a [developmentally delayed] 8 year old who compared to a monkey on typewrite still seems to be more dumb. he then talked about how clever he was and how stupid i was. but i kicked his little behind with my valid points and grammar.

 

 

 

PLEASE, tell me that was a joke? That was probably the worst "grammatically correct" paragraph in the world.

 

 

 

Again i will say this, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is not what makes these numbers so high. Its the amount of crazy people living in this country.

 

 

 

The US has about 4 times the population the UK does. So given that, murder numbers are going to be higher. Makes sense. If you take guns away, it will be just like prohibition. People will want guns even more, and find ways to get guns. So another what if scenario....what if a guy in the UK gets a hold of a gun, are the everyday local municipal police going to run up and beat them with their little sticks? I feel much safer with guns legalized personally. Knowing that i can protect myself at any given time, and that the police can protect me where ever i am.

 

 

 

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[Lenticular_J]

Yeah, Prohibition was an example I meant to bring up. Crime soared, as did alcoholism, all because it was banned. People like to do stuff that's illegal.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I find it strangely hypocritical you ask me for a source, and then fail to provide any to back up your own 'stats', snipersas.

 

antibiotics to protect us from infections

 

Small point, but wrong. Immunisation protects from infections, antibiotics cure them.

 

 

 

However, like guns, they are statistically proven to work in reducing the risk for which they are designed.

 

Except for a few hypothetical scenarios, where is the evidence for this?

 

 

 

On the contrary, homicide rates are higher in countries with least gun control. Switzerland has Europe's least restrictive firearms laws, and has one of the highest corresponding gun murder rates. The homicide rate for the United States currently stands at 5.70, where private ownership of guns is allowed, and yet in England and Wales where private ownership of guns is outlawed, the homicide rate is 1.62.

 

 

 

Now obviously, there are more factors than simply gun control. Capital punishment and cultural differences are also partially to blame. However, it is evident that when a country has lower gun control, its citizens feel more free to settle their differences, or achieve their goals using such weapons.

 

 

 

It is quite simply not good enough to blame the individual for their actions, and then continue to allow these criminals free access to such dangerous weapons.

[jackattack]

^^The UK already had a much lower murder rate when the ban was started so. In the U.S. murders homicide rates are lower in states with the least gun control. Except Louisiana maybe. South Dakota and Utah have pretty lax gun laws. Why is it that Chicago and D.C. even with total bans have such higher murder rates?

 

 

 

Yeah, Prohibition was an example I meant to bring up. Crime soared, as did alcoholism, all because it was banned. People like to do stuff that's illegal

 

Ya but of course that is irrelevant. I love this liberal logic. 'Weed, alcohol, and thizz, should be legal. Just because a few people are irresponsible with them doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't be able to enjoy them.' Drunk driving kills more kids than guns each year should we ban alcohol? At least guns serve a purpose.Not saying that we should make alcohol illegal

[jackattack]

How are they con on free speech?

 

 

 

have you seen the cencorship in us :? you cant say anything on national tv, even on raido you cant swear -_- and there are trying to make a law that can completely remove swearing on caple tv :o

 

 

 

 

 

Thats not the Bush administration. It's the liberals who want to squash free speech. Nancy Pelosi, [bleep] Durbin, and John Kerry have all proposed bringing back the fairness doctrine.

 

 

 

EDIT: I guess it's Richard Durbin then.

[Ginger_Warrior]

^^The UK already had a much lower murder rate when the ban was started so.

 

OK, let me more more explicit. In 2005/06, the homicide rate in the UK was 1.4, with only 6.6% of these homicides committed by a firearm.

 

 

 

In contrast, in 2000 the homicide rate was 5.5 in New York (which while having tighter gun control laws, it is still not illegal to privately own a gun there), with some 70% of these homicides involving a firearm.

 

 

 

It isn't so much that owning a gun is illegal in this country, it is that it is culturally unacceptable to own a gun in this country. As you say, legislation has had little impact on our gun crime statistics - but even before the outright ban in 1997, only 0.1% of the UK's population owned a firearm. There is not the same "What if?" paranoia in this country as there is in America.

 

 

 

If you say to a criminal "You can own a gun, and because of our constitution, we have no right to take it away from you", you will have higher homicide rates involving guns. It is plain common sense. The way to reduce crime is to make it socially and culturally unacceptable to use a weapon in any other circumstance than self-defence. Amending the constitution will have to be a part of that.

[Kriegsmier]

And not to sound bad, but might it be pointed out that a certain race of people contribute most to these crimes? At least in the US...