Ruger Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 If ordinary citizens carried a gun, I think it would serve as a deterrent to violent crime against ordinary citizens in communities. It has never worked that way - anywhere! Such freedom to bear arms inevitably leads to an escalation of violence. All of the countries where firearms are easily obtained have much higher homicide rates than those which exercise control. Not that I'd want to see nutters gaining easy access to guns BUT, choose your own crime stats on this one... Intentional homicide per 100,000 Switzerland 0.7 United Kingdom 1.2 Australia 1.0 Guns per 100 residents Switzerland 45.7 England and Wales 6.2 Australia 15 Saying guns make people act more violently is completely untrue, they are just lumps of wood or plastic, and steel which have no mind control properties at all. The counties MDO lists also don't have all the ghetto type war zones that the US has, as the loon AJ correctly pointed out like 3/4's of those gun murders are in those areas, (gang bangers shooting each other). The murder rates are double the national average in those areas. Those figures also include all the home invaders shot by homeowners, shootings by police officers etc. Again, not that I'd want to see average joe getting hold of this stuff easily or anything, but to many people buy into the propaganda and scare tactics on this subject. As an example, I guess most people think the AR-15 is the biggest murder weapon thanks to the media, rifles account for 3.5% of all murders and the ar-15 is just a subset of that group. Its not the proliferation of guns as such, they don't magically make a sane person insane and evil like that ring from the film!. The problem is with the type of people that could be getting near them who are already dodgy in the head, although a lot of these types can already get them(Dale Cregan), I wouldn't really want to help them. And America seems to have far higher rates of dodgy people than anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 If gun control was administered properly and thorough background checks and registrations were enabled then I don't see why a rise in gun crime is inevitable. Criminals will always get their hands on guns in any society, whether they are freely available (US) or on the black market (UK). The leveller would be the fact that ordinary, law-abiding people would now have a deterrent against the rising level of lawlessness that is creeping into our society. We're lucky living in a closeted island where violent crime is almost non-existent, if you lived in certain parts of the UK you might not sleep too soundly in your bed at night with only a rolling pin as defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 JFK: How do you only give guns to 'ordinary citizens' and not potential killers? Saying guns make people act more violently is completely untrue, they are just lumps of wood or plastic, and steel which have no mind control properties at all. Your figures are quite misleading. Switzerland is really a special case when it comes to gun law because of the way it's militia works. The gun owners undergo military training and the process is a part of the culture of he country. It's nothing like walking into a gun shop and buying a firearm to protect yourself. Switzerland is a lot higher than the UK on the gun reated death rate chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ah yes the good ol' "Switzerland" defence as used by gun nuts everywhere. Ignoring the fact that Switzerland has no standing army and instead has a trained civillian milita, the firearms are not owned by the individual, and are vigorously inspected by the state to ensure they are secured properly and not just stored under the bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Oh well, if you're worried about US gun ownership you could always move to Kennesaw. In 1982 they introduced some by-laws I guess we would call them: "(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony." Strangely their crime rate then plummeted and remains among the lowest in the US of A. I wonder why that is..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 JFK: How do you only give guns to 'ordinary citizens' and not potential killers? Saying guns make people act more violently is completely untrue, they are just lumps of wood or plastic, and steel which have no mind control properties at all. Your figures are quite misleading. Switzerland is really a special case when it comes to gun law because of the way it's militia works. The gun owners undergo military training and the process is a part of the culture of he country. It's nothing like walking into a gun shop and buying a firearm to protect yourself. Switzerland is a lot higher than the UK on the gun reated death rate chart: http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate Thank you. So finally we acknowledge that there is more to this subject than what we see on the surface. Now we are talking about the key differences nation to nation. The point is that any person with a bias will cherry pick the stats they present without looking any deeper into. I've always said I don't agree with comparing nations, as you say it is "misleading" because of these factors, I mean there are an infinite number of other factors to account for. But for those who still think it is that straight forward... Intentional homicide per 100,000 Mexico 22.7 Serbia 1.2 Guns per 100 residents Mexico 15 Serbia 58.2 But its worthless without looking any deeper. I don't see the objection to comparing states WITHIN the USA if we want to try and simplify the matter, as their laws vary greatly. MDO can make all the ad hominems he wants, but he won't stop me bringing something different to the table simply in the interests of a fair (and otherwise interesting) debate. Gundeaths of coarse will be higher, but "gun deaths" are a half-story and is not specifically about gun homicides or all homicides. Its perfectly logical when we look at the reasons, for example you will see more suicide "gun deaths" by firearms for a given number of suicides in Switzerland than in the UK, but you won't necessarily see suicide levels higher because of this. Or as we can already see, homicide levels won't necessarily be higher because of this. I'm not on the NRA side or Diana Feinsteins side, I just look at the arguments of both sides and make my own decisions without influence from the sensationalist lame-stream media propaganda machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Oh well, if you're worried about US gun ownership you could always move to Kennesaw. In 1982 they introduced some by-laws I guess we would call them: "(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony." Strangely their crime rate then plummeted and remains among the lowest in the US of A. I wonder why that is..... They took all the guns out of the hands of crazy people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 As far as I know they still have postal workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Oh well, if you're worried about US gun ownership you could always move to Kennesaw. In 1982 they introduced some by-laws I guess we would call them: "(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony." Strangely their crime rate then plummeted and remains among the lowest in the US of A. I wonder why that is..... Vermont are much the same, some of the lowest if not the lowest crime rates. They want to tax non-gun owners for the privilege. http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/vermont-to-require-non-gun-owners-to-pay-a-fine/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 And you mention Switzerland alot. The controls on the issued firearms and ammunition are very stringent. Also people can't just wander around carrying guns, they have to be licensed and these license are only issued for specific purposes (i.e. security personnel). Hardly when half the population privately own them. I bring it up a lot to contra your claims about assault weapons. The evidence is there that shows carrying is not the USA's problem its not carrying them that causes these tragedies. Why do you think they all happen in GFZ's. They need abolishing ASAP. Why do Americans need firearms? Ruger, still waiting for a response to this question I (and others) asked you all the way back on page 3.... Why do American citizens need access to firearms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 And you mention Switzerland alot. The controls on the issued firearms and ammunition are very stringent. Also people can't just wander around carrying guns, they have to be licensed and these license are only issued for specific purposes (i.e. security personnel). Hardly when half the population privately own them. I bring it up a lot to contra your claims about assault weapons. The evidence is there that shows carrying is not the USA's problem its not carrying them that causes these tragedies. Why do you think they all happen in GFZ's. They need abolishing ASAP. Why do Americans need firearms? Ruger, still waiting for a response to this question I (and others) asked you all the way back on page 3.... Why do American citizens need access to firearms? I did answer. Its not about need its about a guaranteed natural right. Do you honestly want to get into a "need" debate?. Why do you need anything more than allows you to sustain life?. That's a pretty big issue. If I was an American resident, I might be able to answer. As I'm not, I don't know how to really. I might explain to you why I felt that I needed it, and I might say that I don't need, just the same I don't need a fire extinguisher or a smoke alarm in my house, I also don't need a telephone that I can call outwards from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 And you mention Switzerland alot. The controls on the issued firearms and ammunition are very stringent. Also people can't just wander around carrying guns, they have to be licensed and these license are only issued for specific purposes (i.e. security personnel). Hardly when half the population privately own them. I bring it up a lot to contra your claims about assault weapons. The evidence is there that shows carrying is not the USA's problem its not carrying them that causes these tragedies. Why do you think they all happen in GFZ's. They need abolishing ASAP. Why do Americans need firearms? Ruger, still waiting for a response to this question I (and others) asked you all the way back on page 3.... Why do American citizens need access to firearms? I did answer. Its not about need its about a guaranteed natural right. Do you honestly want to get into a "need" debate?. Why do you need anything more than allows you to sustain life?. That's a pretty big issue. If I was an American resident, I might be able to answer. As I'm not, I don't know how to really. I might explain to you why I felt that I needed it, and I might say that I don't need, just the same I don't need a fire extinguisher or a smoke alarm in my house, I also don't need a telephone that I can call outwards from. So you're not going to answer the question, instead your going to go on about "natural rights"... You didn't just channel Alex Jones did you? Next you'll bve going on about suicide pills and monkeys dancing on pin heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Like Scandawegia the US has a very strong hunting culture. So I can understand the need for hunting rifles. As for assault weapons and so forth there are also a lot of hobbyists. The point is that unless you live somewhere like Kennesaw you don't need access to firearms. However their constitution gives them the right to have them. If I lived in the US I would purchase an L42 or similar and have a great deal of fun with it at the local shooting club. And why not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Like Scandawegia the US has a very strong hunting culture. So I can understand the need for hunting rifles. As for assault weapons and so forth there are also a lot of hobbyists. The point is that unless you live somewhere like Kennesaw you don't need access to firearms. However their constitution gives them the right to have them. If I lived in the US I would purchase an L42 or similar and have a great deal of fun with it at the local shooting club. And why not.... Only one gun? You're not doing it right. 50 is a more appropriate number according to Alex Jones. And only at a shooting club? That's not very American...you should carry it with at all times in case Ze Nazies make a third try for the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Vermont are much the same, some of the lowest if not the lowest crime rates VT is hardly the average US state. Should be part of Canada really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.