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.
As far as anybody knows (and I'm not claiming this to be true), for every crime stopped by a law abiding, toting citizen there are ten committed that wouldn't have been committed if guns weren't so easily available.
So you're saying that people are committing crimes only because they have easy access to guns? Then countries that have completely outlawed all civilian guns (China) or heavily restricted civilian guns (Great Britain) should have no crime, right?
Or did you mean to single so-called "gun-crimes", because someone killed with a gun is obviously deader than someone stabbed with a knife or beaten with a baseball bat?
The reality is that criminals will use whatever weapon they can find. Whether it's a knife, their fists, or a gun. Most law-abiding citizens aren't martial artists or body-builders. If forcibly unarmed they have no way to defend themselves from physically stronger criminals, even if the criminals are also unarmed.
That being said, the "lead" theory mentioned earlier has real merit. Lead had proven affects on developing brains. Lead, in the form of additives in gasoline, residential paint, etc. was outlawed about one generation before the current crime reductions started.
So you're saying that people are committing crimes only because they have easy access to guns? Then countries that have completely outlawed all civilian guns (China) or heavily restricted civilian guns (Great Britain) should have no crime, right?
Or did you mean to single so-called "gun-crimes", because someone killed with a gun is obviously deader than someone stabbed with a knife or beaten with a baseball bat?
The reality is that criminals will use whatever weapon they can find. Whether it's a knife, their fists, or a gun. Most law-abiding citizens aren't martial artists or body-builders. If forcibly unarmed they have no way to defend themselves from physically stronger criminals, even if the criminals are also unarmed.
That being said, the "lead" theory mentioned earlier has real merit. Lead had proven affects on developing brains. Lead, in the form of additives in gasoline, residential paint, etc. was outlawed about one generation before the current crime reductions started.
No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that while guns don't kill people, they make it so much easier to kill people. That's why the US actually has a similar non-gun homicide rate compared to other countries. I'm not saying we should take all the guns away overnight, I think gun culture is deep seated and will take several generations to change completely, but I think doing so will save an untold number of lives. Arming citizens will simply maintain the status quo of us having a high rate of gun murder.
It takes a special kind of depravity to beat or stab somebody to death, killing someone with a gun is much more impersonal and creates somewhat of a distance from the crime in the mind of the killer. There will still be murders by other methods, just not nearly as many.
You also have to keep in mind that if a criminal is physically stronger than their victim, they can actually turn the victim's gun on them even if they didn't even come to the crime scene with a gun themselves.
So that's why I think working for disarmament rather than arming the populace is a good idea. The right to bear arms actually infringes on the right to live in a society where you don't need to fear being shot.
No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that while guns don't kill people, they make it so much easier to kill people. That's why the US actually has a similar non-gun homicide rate compared to other countries. I'm not saying we should take all the guns away overnight, I think gun culture is deep seated and will take several generations to change completely, but I think doing so will save an untold number of lives. Arming citizens will simply maintain the status quo of us having a high rate of gun murder.
It takes a special kind of depravity to beat or stab somebody to death, killing someone with a gun is much more impersonal and creates somewhat of a distance from the crime in the mind of the killer. There will still be murders by other methods, just not nearly as many.
You also have to keep in mind that if a criminal is physically stronger than their victim, they can actually turn the victim's gun on them even if they didn't even come to the crime scene with a gun themselves.
So that's why I think working for disarmament rather than arming the populace is a good idea. The right to bear arms actually infringes on the right to live in a society where you don't need to fear being shot.
A simple gas bomb or diesel fuel and Ammonium Nitrate can do a lot of damage. If someone wants to do damage and kill you don't need a gun.
I thought everybody knew that gun ownership is down as is crime.
So you need a new thesis...
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.
