L
- Status
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
Actually, the planes ventilation system could easily accomidate for a few or many bullet holes. Considering what we all know can be done with a hijacked plane. I say fire away. I’ll take my chances.
ATB
C
CPA2
Guest
“Next came gun registration… People were getting injured by guns. **Hitler said **that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.”
S
steveandersen
Guest
what would be the point?
are you saying that disputes would be solved with deadly force?
or just that the possibility that they might be would discourage them?
if no one is armed then those who are best with their fists or have the most friends would win disagreements. wouldn’t arming everyone merely replace the biggest boxer in the room with the guy with the most firepower?
under either situation it is just a variation on “might makes right” and that is not a good thing for a society
what if the guy with the most firepower is wrong?
wouldn’t having a non-violent option better encourage discussion?
if we want people to be polite wouldn’t it be best to teach them to be polite? I’m not sure how being armed would change that.
polite people carry guns… but so do rude people
C
CPA2
Guest
You have not been around a group of people who wear guns, have you? Everyone is very, very polite! Of course, Hollywood paints a different picture. Who do you believe?
W
wabrams
Guest
Do you realize that during the “Wild West” when a rather large chunk of the population was armed out west that the murder rate per capita was lower than it is now? Do you know why? It is in ones best interest to talk things out than it is to shoot it out, esp. since so many were armed.
L
Lycorth
Guest
Teaching politeness is essential to a civilized society, but personal protection is also essential - and politeness is worthless as a self-defense tool.
That is all guns are - self-defense tools. In the hands of criminals they are dangerous weapons. In the hands of civilized human beings, they are tools that serve a justified and narrow, though essential, function.
A greater proliferation of firearms amongst civilized people tends to create a polite society; polite people interact politely just as they would without being armed, and most jerks know that rudeness and threatening behavior may be met with a drawn weapon, discouraging criminal activity. It is not for no reason that communities with strict gun control also boast of higher rates of violent crime whereas communities with high rates of firearms ownership amongst civilized people are also relatively safe and crime-free.
The key lies in giving the civilized sector of society the full means and legal protection to use the most effective means of self-defense at their disposal. This means firearms, as phasers a-la Star Trek do not exist.
M
moto5150
Guest
Allow me to present you all with one question. I have not read through all 11 pages of this thread, BTW…
When was the last time someone carrying an exposed loaded firearm got robbed?
Now, making it ‘required’ is absurd, as someone else pointed out. However, criminals would think twice before commiting crimes against persons if there was a likelyhood that those persons were carrying. I carry a gun 40 + hours a week, as my job requires me to. I can say this: Usually, criminals prey on the helpless, as they make for easy targets. An 80 year old grandmother carrying a .40 Cal, would not be considered helpless in most cases. In fact, the bad guys would more likely attack an able bodied 30 year old man without a gun, than dare even approach a pistol wielding gramma. In this illustration, the gun WOULD deter crime.
I will also say that many laws would have to go out the window. For example, brandishing. Also to be considered are the many folks who would point the gun at their assailant, or aggressor, or whoever they please for that matter. This, by definition is known as ‘AWDW - Assault With Deadly Weapon’ (a FELONY!!). Are we really going to tie up the legal system with tons and tons of cases of over-zealous citizens who chose to point their gun at someone? In theory, it is a great idea… In practice, it is a terrible terrible idea.
When was the last time someone carrying an exposed loaded firearm got robbed?
Now, making it ‘required’ is absurd, as someone else pointed out. However, criminals would think twice before commiting crimes against persons if there was a likelyhood that those persons were carrying. I carry a gun 40 + hours a week, as my job requires me to. I can say this: Usually, criminals prey on the helpless, as they make for easy targets. An 80 year old grandmother carrying a .40 Cal, would not be considered helpless in most cases. In fact, the bad guys would more likely attack an able bodied 30 year old man without a gun, than dare even approach a pistol wielding gramma. In this illustration, the gun WOULD deter crime.
I will also say that many laws would have to go out the window. For example, brandishing. Also to be considered are the many folks who would point the gun at their assailant, or aggressor, or whoever they please for that matter. This, by definition is known as ‘AWDW - Assault With Deadly Weapon’ (a FELONY!!). Are we really going to tie up the legal system with tons and tons of cases of over-zealous citizens who chose to point their gun at someone? In theory, it is a great idea… In practice, it is a terrible terrible idea.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Except for Canada right? Low murder rate, low gun death rate, low crime rate…
Yet, Canada has over 10 million firearms for a population of 35 million.
Maybe everyone isn’t being killed by being shot, because we’re not ordinarily allowed to carry them around? Nah, that can’t be it…just lucky.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
When’s the last time someone carrying an exposed loaded firearm negligentally killed an innocent person? ( probably yesterday)
Heres another;
When’s the last time someone who normally carries an exposed loaded firearm, had a child find their improperly stored firearm and then killed themselves or someone else? ( probably yesterday)
Z
Zatzat
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
America gun death rate = 11.66 per 100,000 pop.
America murder rate = 5.4 per 100,000 pop.
Canada gun death rate = 4.78 per 100,000 pop
Canada murder rate - 1.83 per 100,000 pop.
Strange, armed citizenry advocates would have have us believe that unarmed societies are dangerous and uncivilized.
Canada has lots of guns, strict gun control and less gun deaths than America. As well, we have a much lower murder rate.
Yet, Canadians murder each other less and we have nearly 60% per capita less gun deaths.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
In 2007, 31.7 guns per 100,000 population in Canada.
In 2007, 90 guns per 100,000 in America.
What’s the correlation? An armed society is a dangerous society…at least America is.
All those armed Americans haven’t lowered the murder rate with their deterrence of grocery shopping with a Gloc.
That’s just sad.
L
Lycorth
Guest
Nonsense, all of it - and a heck of a distortion of facts.
In America, the places with the most violence are inner cities in metropolitan areas. These places usually have strict gun control laws, some places even forbidding possession altogether. However, gun crime is high in these places, precisely because of the criminal element.
Criminals do not buy guns in gun stores, where background checks are mandatory. They get them via the black market, which does not abide by the law. As a result, the citizenry is unarmed and crooks are the only ones who have guns. Hence, gun crime.
Also, a high degree of illegal immigration, inner-city gangs, and general crime in such areas where such people populate is the biggest reason behind gun violence in America. Where such people do not live, gun crime is low or even nonexistent. Where I grew up and lived for almost 30 years (New Jersey), gun violence was high and gun control was strict. News reports were consistent about criminals, not law-abiding citizens all of a sudden running amok, as the source of the crime. With strict gun laws, guns can only be found illegally. This is not rocket science.
A gun is an inanimate object. It is not a magic talisman that makes someone want to go out and shoot other people. I own four rifles and never once used any of them against innocent human beings. Where I live now (rural Northeastern Wisconsin), guns are everywhere - but gun crime is almost unheard of. Everyone has a dozen or more hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns at home, but no shooting sprees. The reason is twofold: the proliferation of guns means that all but the dumbest crooks know that the chance of getting shot while perpetrating a crime are sky-high, and the lack of illegal aliens and inner-city gangbangers. Good people plus armed people equal a safe society doubly so.
A society of good people without guns will be safe. A society where criminal cultures exist but good people have guns will also be safe. The ideal is a combination of the two, as a double-safe measure against true violence, which does not and never did originate in law-abiding citizens who happen to own firearms (and also know how to safely use and store them).
I see you’re using Wikipedia; go back to it and examine the gun laws in places like Switzerland, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, and Finland for examples of how highly armed societies populated with decent people equal a lack of gun violence. The Swiss are ideal examples, and even though one may legally acquire fully automatic firearms in the Czech Republic, there is still a low level of gun violence in those places. A proliferation of gun in all those countries hasn’t come anywhere near to rivalling the gun violence of America.
America needs to crack down on its culture and its people. It needs to crack down on the mafia, on inner-city gangs, on illegal aliens and on the drug trade. They are the sources of the bulk of American crime; banning inanimate objects from law-abiding civilians does nothing to touch the true sources of crime, much less to make a real impact on them.
In America, we care more about the (non-existent) civil rights of criminals than we do about the very real and clearly defined rights of civilized people to own firearms under the law. That is why America is so violent. Civilized gun owners are never at fault and have never been.
G
gamewell45
Guest
Think about this scenario for a moment; suppose the perpetrator didn’t have a gun? Then the good Doctor wouldn’t have needed to run out to the car and look for hers and her parents would still be alive. Stricter gun control laws on hand guns could prevent an occurance like this down the road.
R
Rence
Guest
Z
Zatzat
Guest
An unfounded claim. No such thing has happened in Canada. We enjoy a lower murder rate, lower gun death rate and lower crime rate.
T
tjm190
Guest
You aren’t going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Ever.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Look at the gun control laws in the city of Chicago. They have been (name removed by moderator)lace for a long time. The gun control laws don’t work in that city. In fact they have placed the people who follow the law at a disadvantage.
G
gamewell45
Guest
To properly work, it has to be done on a national level; not just a city level. Prohibit the manufacture of handguns with the exception of law enforcement purposes and eventually you’ll see handguns slowlly but surely disapear.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Yes. That is becasue Canada has much stricter gun control laws than the USA. If the USA would enact these stricter gun control laws, we would see the crime rate go down right away.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Not ever? Not even if they are behind bars?
- Status