Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guns save lives. Violent Crime & Murder rates are higher in countries that ban guns. Murder is murder regardless of what tool is used to commit murder. Only a stupid tool would claim lower gun murder is good when actual murder skyrockets when guns are banned.
Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police. Police shoot innocent people over 550% more often than armed civilians do even though armed citizens shoot 250% more criminals than police. Civilians are there when the crime or altercation began & know who the bad guy is. Police have no clue when they finally arrive on scene & end up shooting the wrong person. Police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the police are not required to protect you. You have to protect yourself.
Governments Democide have disarmed & murdered 285 million citizens in the last century. That was as large as the population of the entire USA over this time.
Everyone seems to have numbers to defend their position on this issue. Are any of them accurate?
My guess is that over time guns in a modern society will be less appropriate. It took a LOT of years to defend a woman's right to an abortion, and it took a LOT of years to eliminate smoking from popular vocabulary. Both of these were done in spite of lobbying groups which did everything they could to postpone the inevitable. People still argue about them, but most importantly, the deaths associated with each is declining.
I see no reason that guns will not take the same route. The issue is at least on the stage and people are starting to awaken to the dangers. For the moment we can eliminate quickly the 'stupid' guns (automatics and semi automatics; clips more than a half dozen shots, etc.) and require registration for all guns manufactured/sold/transferred/gifted. That won't change the course materially in the short term, but it is a beginning.
We Americans are not used to the idea that huge societal changes might take generations to achieve. It seems insurmountable, but one gun at a time sensible people will prevail in this battle too.
. For the moment we can eliminate quickly the 'stupid' guns (automatics and semi automatics; clips more than a half dozen shots, etc.) and require registration for all guns manufactured/sold/transferred/gifted.
Umm... Nothing is getting eliminated. With 55 million+ gun owners, and who knows how many that really dont care, you just don't have the political clout to pull it off...
Not only do you NOT have the clout, you don't have the power.
Do you not realize that as anti gum folks have screamed louder over the years the states have relaxed gun laws? Of course, that excludes Cali, DC, Illinois and New York.
Umm... Nothing is getting eliminated. With 55 million+ gun owners, and who knows how many that really dont care, you just don't have the political clout to pull it off...
Not only do you NOT have the clout, you don't have the power.
Do you not realize that as anti gum folks have screamed louder over the years the states have relaxed gun laws? Of course, that excludes Cali, DC, Illinois and New York.
Funny how they have the most gun crime.
Lol. You people just don't get it.
We have 80 million gun owners in the USA. That is one hell of a lobby. We keep crime down & this country safe. Nutty gun haters cant save themselves or anyone else.
The general population are 8 times more likely to commit murder than lawful gun owners. It would be a great thing that more people become lawful gun owners.
Clearly, the 2nd amendment was intended for the conditions of the 18th century, not the new millenium, where firepower is accurate, deadly, freely available, and very very quick.
Therefore, the 2nd amendment clearly fits the definition of OBSOLETE.
Let me direct you to the words of George Washington and refute your empty claim.
Quote:
George Washington (1732–99)
QUOTATION: It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency,…
Now keep in mind that the gun-control groups keep talking about "military style assault rifles" referring to the AR15, the civilian version of the military's M16. So under the suggestion of George Washington (one of the founders and signers of the US Constitution), our Government should be supplying every able bodied man with a M16 battle rifle which is the "uniform Arms" of the day. And while we may not have access to full auto M16 battle rifles we do have access to the semi-auto civilian version with which we my "accustom" ourselves to so that we may be trained and prepared in the event there is a "very interesting emergency".
And with that I end with a quote from Roosevelt
Quote:
Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919)
QUOTATION: No man who is not willing to bear arms and to fight for his rights can give a good reason why he should be entitled to the privilege of living in a free community.
So if you are too weak to take up arms or defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms and fight for the rights (natural and constitutionally protected), of all US citizens then you certainly do not deserve freedom. Because when the 2nd amendment means to protect our rights is no longer available then the rest will soon follow and you will no longer be free at all. And anyone that ignores or fails to learn from history is an ignorant moron.
Is your premise that "guns save lives" referring to the fact that some guns save lives irrespective of the fact that guns as a whole also end lives? If that's the case, where exactly is the debate?
If you want to propose that guns (privately owned by citizens in the US) in general save lives I think you are stuck with bringing into it the fact that they also end lives and comparisons of how many lives they end to how many they save (among other discussions) would be perfectly reasonable.
Do you have any stats on lives saved or just a number of one-off examples?
To answer your question:
FACT:2.5 million armed citizens defended their livesand/or property while 12,500 lives were lost in gun related crimes. That is 200 times more lives and/or property saved by the use of guns than were lost.
And you do NOT have to take my word for it, you can find the data if you chose to look for the truth of the matter.
To compare how to ways may be different requires two equal sets if data.
We have no legitimate data concerning what would happen if guns were removed.
Utilizing Australia as an example is logically incorrect because Australia's history and culture is essentially alien to ours.
A more apt comparison is a state with extremely lax gun laws like say mine, VA, or Alaska vs one with severe gun laws like say DC or New York or Illinois.
The data proves that reduced gun laws accompany reduced gun murder rates. Period. No argument otherwise exists.
Note I use murder only as utilizing accidents or self defense is stupid. You can't ban accidents and self defense is an irrevocable right.
:
Hang on. I'm with you but this statement shows no cause and effect. If you go with that logic then you also have to accept that the reason Australia has few murders is that it also has few guns . Same kind of thought process.
I believe the only stats that matter are: what was the murder and crime rates before and after gun legislation was either enacted or removed? I'm not familiar with these stats for our states, but I am for Australia, Canada , and Great Britain. Generally speaking when gun control is put in place, murder rates stay about the same or go down slightly, but here is the fly in the ointment: violent crime goes up. This is at least true in Australia (significant and steady rise) and Great Britain (dramatic rise). Canada's violent crime rate increased and now is coming down; their rate of violent crime is still very high- over twice that of the US. Their gun crime went down in general but handgun crime (which is the centerpiece of their regulations) went up! Their murder rate also went up recently. Great Britain's rate of violent crime is now about the same as ours (about 350 per 100,000) and nearly double what it was before the gun ban. So it seems to come down to trading one or fewer lives per 100,000 against many more incidents of violent crime. (Please note that the graph published at the top of this page is 13 years old).
Here are the Australia stats. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/c...w%20paper.html
The general population are 8 times more likely to commit murder than lawful gun owners. It would be a great thing that more people become lawful gun owners.
I think you mean conceal carry holders, legal gun owners may or may not be less likely to commit murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
To answer your question:
FACT:2.5 million armed citizens defended their livesand/or property while 12,500 lives were lost in gun related crimes. That is 200 times more lives and/or property saved by the use of guns than were lost.
And you do NOT have to take my word for it, you can find the data if you chose to look for the truth of the matter.
There is some debate as to whether the 2.5 million number is actually accurate and if it isn't we lose credibility in the gun debate. Some estimates peg the number closer to 1 million and some closer to 2.5 million, we should probably just split the baby and use a fraction of the smaller number. It's high enough anyway, but we might as well give the benefit of the doubt to the critics.
The actual number of firearm related deaths in the USA is 8,583, a bit lower than the 12,500.
I am so happy to live in germany which has so strict weapon rules. I would not want to live in a country where i know that all my neighbours have weapons at home. Noooo thanks. I feel so safe here, you can count the shootings happening here "on the hand" ( not really but almost). I dont understand why everybody in the US needs a gun at home, even the poor people which dont have a fortune at home or are hollywood stars. For me, this is just mentally ill. If i think i live in a unsafe area - i move to another!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a few clarifications here.
