Pro-gun vs. Anti-gun

[cityStatic]

The supreme court just ruled that it is unconstitutional to restrict gun ownership in the US to a degree which infringes on someone's 2nd amendment rights. This will not affect reasonable laws, such as banning criminals from acquiring weapons, but will affect more broad restrictions.

Also, crime rates tend to double when you take away guns. Look at the statistics. Look at the UK and Ohio.

I said I wasn't coming back, but I suscribed to this thread and this was just ridiculous.

UK - 93,574 people in prison - .15% of population in prison
Ohio - 44,806 in prison - .39% of population in prison
US - 2,304,115 in prison - .75% of population in prison

You're telling me that the UK and Ohio have larger prison populations (thus crime rates) than the US?

Let's look at Canada, whose guns are restricted and/or regulated:

I couldn't find an exact number, but there are roughly 34,000 people in Canadian jails. That makes up .1% of their population. You're telling me that gun control RAISES crime rates? Laughable.

 

[Cosmic]

You are looking at the wrong stats. I am asking you to look at history.

Here are some statistics related to how guns kill less people than fires annually and are more often used defensively anyway:

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#6

Excerpt:

A 1998 study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40 percent more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100 percent higher than in the United States. And, counter-intuitively, rates of crimes using handguns is on the rise. In 1999-2000, crimes using handguns were at a seven year high. Apparently, criminals were easily able to access guns, but law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens were not allowed.

Except 2:

John Lott, Jr., a researcher at Yale University, found that on average, violent crime dropped by 4 percent for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership. Also, firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times every year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives saved for every one taken by a gun.

You can get in jail without using a gun. Your statistics are irrelevant and misleading.

 

[cityStatic]

That's still outdated. I'm using facts that are 1, 2 at the most, year(s) old. You're using a website that is 12 years old. It also doesn't help that you're linking to a site that endorses FOX News.

You can get in jail without using a gun. Your statistics are irrelevant and misleading.

According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention.

 

[Cosmic]

The person who made that site graduated form highschool, unlike you (substitute that with "college" if you actually have). Also, it's hard to take you seriously when you laugh at them as being inaccurate because they are conservative.

Sorry, your argument is invalid because your a liberal. end of story. :lol:

Again, the article I cited says that people use guns in self defense more.

 

[cityStatic]

I'm not laughing at someone because they're conservative, I'm saying they're not a good source because they have a conservative bias.

 

[Cosmic]

You have a liberal bias. the fact that you're yelling at them for mentioning fox news shows that you are a hardcore liberal.

 

[cityStatic]

The fact that you're yelling at me for complaining about a conservative bias shows that you are a typical American and conservative because you can't accept the fact that we need to move on.

 

[MissTake]

Try to stay on track guys 😉

I'm anti-gun law, it's not the gun that kills people it's the person pulling the trigger, I'm happy to live in a country with such strict laws, being shot as I walk down the street or in my own home is one less issue I need to worry about.

 

[cityStatic]

Try to stay on track guys 😉

I'm anti-gun law, it's not the gun that kills people it's the person pulling the trigger, I'm happy to live in a country with such strict laws, being shot as I walk down the street or in my own home is one less issue I need to worry about.

And you don't have to worry about this:
http://wisdom4u.files.wordpress.com/200 ... murder.jpg
as much.

Here's my opinion: People raised in the US will often want to have pro-gun laws because they're used to it, and people raised nearly anywhere else will be anti-gun because they're used to it. It's like speaking a language and picking another one up when you're 30.

 

[Cosmic]

When there are no legal guns, criminals just acquire them illegally. Remember prohibition? Remember how outlawing alcohol made a whole underground of crime? Mexican drug lords do not walk up to the gun fairy to get their guns, they smuggle them in. In the end, banning guns gives all of the guns to criminals and removes the guns from those who want to defend themselves.

I just want to live my life peacefully, kk? If someone disrupts this violently, then I can give them a one-way ticket to the afterlife perfectly within the law. I don't give a damn if they use a gun, a knife, or a screwdriver. If they try and murder someone, then they should expect the ultimate consequence.

 

[MissTake]

We touched on this subject here...
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=49384

Changing the laws in countries now would not be so easy.

 

[cityStatic]

Which is why I want to move to Canada.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/murder.html
A bit outdated, but is written with facts by a group of sources, not one person using Wikipedia.

 

[Cosmic]

My reference has sources listed too, actually.

And moving to Canada isn't a bad idea, as when the nukes are launches they will probably be the only untouched western country. 😛

 

[cityStatic]

So you're saying that Mexico, Central America, South America, and parts of Europe will be nuked but Canada won't? Oh, wait. None of them invaded a third world country for oil.

 

[Deleted member 7467]

Pro-gun.

Maybe it is just that Americans are angry people? Austria and Czech Republic have more liberal (er conservative) gun laws that the US and have a much lower prison population.

If somebody broke into your house, would you want a gun to defend yourself?

No, I would beat them with a carrot.


I'm pro guns. I live in West Virginia and we love to hunt here. Shooting guns is a passion of ours.

 

[Ghost]

Okay my Dad made some mistakes and got out of jail and he had posession and got stopped by the cops in his car. He fled and ran into a house. The owner took out a gun and shot him to death.

Now maybe he was in the wrong and the house owner has that right, but is the death of someone justified just by the fact that he trespassed?
He should have just been put in jail, but now he is dead.

So you know what, I don't care what information you put out there supporting guns in the US, I will never be with you as my Dad is dead now due to that a hole.

 

[Cosmic]

Canada is one of the few western countries not directly involved in the cold war, which is why it would make a nice bomb-shelter. Otherwise, I would not care to touch it with a 10-foot poll.

I ask for, sshare, is the death of someone justified just because someone trespassed on their property? I have 0 tolerance for the slime of society who impose their power on others in such a manner. People should have the right to defend themselves against those people.

Unfortunately, things happen. It is inevitable. Government cannot prevent things from happening, in fact, it typically causes more "things". Mines will collapse, oil rigs will explode, and people get shot and die. Sometimes we have to dig in our heels regardless, because even though a few people die because of guns, they, in the end, cause more good than bad. The constitution of the United States says that people have the right to own arms so that they may form militia to defend against enemies and defend themselves. It was the arm-bearers at Lexington and concord who rose up against the British forces and fought for this new nation. If, someday, there is an invasion of the United States, then the american people will be able to band together for their own defense.

Furthermore, Government exists not to micromanage our everyday lives, but rather to protect us form our enemies. The role of government is laid down by the Constitution. Regulating weapons is by no means part of their role.

 

[Nathan54AB]

I agree with Cosmic on everything he says. GooseDennis, well you just need to look at the bigger picture son. To fix the problems of society by trying to eliminate things like crime by banning guns is naive. Society CAN be well-rounded without having restrictions on their guns, so banning them is just a "play-it-safe" solution that does nothing but inhibit the progression of society. It does not encourage any change and it does not push aspire to something better in the minds of society.

Again, guns are not the root of crime here. It just boggles my mind that some people still do not get it that guns do NOT kill people; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Realizing this, if you want to reduce crime you have to look at the REAL problem (hint, it's not guns). The real problem, I think, is the psychological conditioning of humanity which breeds in crime. In many ways, nobody is innocent because we're all part of the same society that raises criminals, but that's a whole other topic so I'm not going to get into it here. Again, Society CAN be well-rounded without having restrictions on their guns.

I think the gun rights we have here in the US are fine the way they are, although I do think it needs to be a little more organized. People need to know how to use a gun before they can have one. So, in a country like the US where there are almost no restrictions on guns, then it needs to be made sure that most everyone is educated well on the subject of their usage. I think it should be in the curriculum of every highschool.

 

[katy perry is hot]

I agree with Cosmic on everything he says. GooseDennis, well you just need to look at the bigger picture son. To fix the problems of society by trying to eliminate things like crime by banning guns is naive. Society CAN be well-rounded without having restrictions on their guns, so banning them is just a "play-it-safe" solution that does nothing but inhibit the progression of society. It does not encourage any change and it does not push aspire to something better in the minds of society.

Again, guns are not the root of crime here. It just boggles my mind that some people still do not get it that guns do NOT kill people; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Realizing this, if you want to reduce crime you have to look at the REAL problem (hint, it's not guns). The real problem, I think, is the psychological conditioning of humanity which breeds in crime. In many ways, nobody is innocent because we're all part of the same society that raises criminals, but that's a whole other topic so I'm not going to get into it here. Again, Society CAN be well-rounded without having restrictions on their guns.

I think the gun rights we have here in the US are fine the way they are, although I do think it needs to be a little more organized. People need to know how to use a gun before they can have one. So, in a country like the US where there are almost no restrictions on guns, then it needs to be made sure that most everyone is educated well on the subject of their usage. I think it should be in the curriculum of every highschool.

I agree totally with the part of your post I bolded and highlighted. I can't agree with that guns are fine in the US the way they are now though. There NEEDS to be a lot more restrictions on getting guns and the type of guns you can own (no military grade weaponry) or else we're going to have a problem here. That's the way I see it. Also, I disagree with the high school thing. The business of high school students isn't to learn about operating weapons. If you want to get a weapon, then you can take classes, be instructed on how to use it, and when to use it.

Also, to icebox, unfortunetly, your father was running from authorities and ran into a home. That's very illegal in every way, and I know you miss your father, but to be quite honest with you, that homeowner had every right to do what he did under the castle doctrines here in the US. Although they differ between states, something like that is pretty much universal permission to protect your home at all cost.
Think about it, if it were you. If you were in your house sleeping with your family and you hear sirens and some guy busted into your home, and if you had a gun, would you to defend your family or take the risk that it's a harmless person (as I'm sure your father was).

I hate to be the one that has to say it, but it's true.

 

[Cosmic]

I agree with Cosmic on everything he says. GooseDennis, well you just need to look at the bigger picture son. To fix the problems of society by trying to eliminate things like crime by banning guns is naive. Society CAN be well-rounded without having restrictions on their guns, so banning them is just a "play-it-safe" solution that does nothing but inhibit the progression of society. It does not encourage any change and it does not push aspire to something better in the minds of society.

Again, guns are not the root of crime here. It just boggles my mind that some people still do not get it that guns do NOT kill people; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Realizing this, if you want to reduce crime you have to look at the REAL problem (hint, it's not guns). The real problem, I think, is the psychological conditioning of humanity which breeds in crime. In many ways, nobody is innocent because we're all part of the same society that raises criminals, but that's a whole other topic so I'm not going to get into it here. Again, Society CAN be well-rounded without having restrictions on their guns.

I think the gun rights we have here in the US are fine the way they are, although I do think it needs to be a little more organized. People need to know how to use a gun before they can have one. So, in a country like the US where there are almost no restrictions on guns, then it needs to be made sure that most everyone is educated well on the subject of their usage. I think it should be in the curriculum of every highschool.

I agree totally with the part of your post I bolded and highlighted. I can't agree with that guns are fine in the US the way they are now though. There NEEDS to be a lot more restrictions on getting guns and the type of guns you can own (no military grade weaponry) or else we're going to have a problem here. That's the way I see it. Also, I disagree with the high school thing. The business of high school students isn't to learn about operating weapons. If you want to get a weapon, then you can take classes, be instructed on how to use it, and when to use it.

Also, to icebox, unfortunetly, your father was running from authorities and ran into a home. That's very illegal in every way, and I know you miss your father, but to be quite honest with you, that homeowner had every right to do what he did under the castle doctrines here in the US. Although they differ between states, something like that is pretty much universal permission to protect your home at all cost.
Think about it, if it were you. If you were in your house sleeping with your family and you hear sirens and some guy busted into your home, and if you had a gun, would you to defend your family or take the risk that it's a harmless person (as I'm sure your father was).

I hate to be the one that has to say it, but it's true.

To add to that, if he was really "harmless", then he should have turned himself in. If you run from cops, beleive it or not, you might get tazed. The same applies to running into someone's home. He may have a gun and if he does he has the right to use it.