These discussions NEVER go well. Usually because the second the "Gun Control" people realize they're losing, insults start flying and posts start getting reported.
This forum is above that sort of thing, right? I'll need confirmation on that BEFORE I debunk the pro-gun control arguments.
These discussions NEVER go well. Usually because the second the "Gun Control" people realize they're losing, insults start flying and posts start getting reported.
This forum is above that sort of thing, right? I'll need confirmation on that BEFORE I debunk the pro-gun control arguments.
I have no idea how many gun control threads we had, but there were a lot and all of them dissolved eventually and got vatted. This one has existed for quite a while and only occasionally goes downhill, but so far it's ok.
You seem to be very sure of the power of your arguments, and not actually interested in any actual discussion of them. Please keep it civil, even though you KNOW you're right. Because the other side also KNOWS they're right.
I have no idea how many gun control threads we had, but there were a lot and all of them dissolved eventually and got vatted. This one has existed for quite a while and only occasionally goes downhill, but so far it's ok.
You seem to be very sure of the power of your arguments, and not actually interested in any actual discussion of them. Please keep it civil, even though you KNOW you're right. Because the other side also KNOWS they're right.
First things first, everyone: I think I'm right, you think you're right, but the facts agree with me and logic backs me up. I know that sounds closed-minded, but the "We must compromise with the gun-haters" mentality is harmful to the debate. If we give up on debate after four posts of argument and decide to "Agree to disagree", no progress was made and nobody learned anything and the whole thing was a waste of time. A compromise between the truth and the lie is still a lie, the universe doesn't care about you or me or either of our feelings and there is no magical god of neutrality named Neutralke putting every truth halfway between two extremes or one extreme and one extreme's opposition. I need to think I'm right when I go into this, just as you need to think you're right when we go into this. Then when it's over, one side will have changed its mind. Or at least, its more open-minded members will, and that will be the victory not just for me, but for rationality and debate itself.
To begin, it's kinda dishonest to call it "Gun Control" when it can't control guns or gun crime, only attack honest gun-owners and their ability to defend themselves from criminals with illegal weapons. It would really be fairer to call it "Anti-Human Rights" or "Anti-Constitution", since the right to defend yourselves and the right to bear arms are in there, along with all kinds of other things "Gun Control" fans love ignoring or hating on. But hey, I'm trying to be nice about this (I don't do that often, sorry if I'm a little rusty) so we can give this discussion on how necessary this human right is the nice-sounding "Gun Control" label if it really means that much.
If you think the public's ability to defend itself from murderers, rapists, thieves, and even the government if need be should be removed because there's a chance murderers, rapists, thieves, and even the government might use guns on the public... Well, you're not evil, you've just been duped. I know you probably think you're morally right to hate and fear guns, and you probably also think I'm insane and morally wrong to not fear dragons- I mean guns, but...
Instead of being a dick, I'll say to think about it. You saw what the Islamic Truck of Peace(TM) did over in Nice, France. Evil people exist, and they don't need guns to kill you. They can use knives and rocks and trucks and cars and bombs and car bombs and illegally-obtained guns. "Gun Control" doesn't control the number of guns in the world, it reduces the number of guns honest people own or can own. It erodes away at the constitution and at human rights to reduce the level of power guns owned by members of the public can have.
Remember all that "Assault Weapons" stuff? I'm probably pushing the whole "Keep it civil or else!" thing by mentioning this, but "Assault Weapons" aren't real, they're a scary-sounding buzzword politicians and their talk shows made up to apply a negative label to guns they don't like. Labelling is all they really know how to do. First, it was a ban on automatic weapons. Then, on semi-automatic weapons. Then, on guns with a certain number of bullets. Some sort of unnecessary pin was involved at some point, right? It either forced a pause between each shot or made reloading take longer. The "Gun Control" wants the general populace disarmed and reliant on the government. Which is odd, since Gun Control is a liberal cause and the liberals currently hate the government because they're losing their control over it, but we'll never get anywhere if we bring THAT stuff into this. Let's just focus on the guns themselves for now.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people using guns. Evil people can use illegal guns or knives or acid or bombs or whatever else they want to kill good people.
Somebody's probably going to bring up the recent one where a blood-crazed liberal attacked a crowd of country music fans in Las Vegas. For some reason, the same security system able to tell when someone is cheating, when someone is signalling someone else, how much money is in your pocket and how much money you're willing to spend is not able or not willing to reveal the exact details of this insane liberal's movements and arsenal size. There, I raised questions, and reminded everyone that the case in question has more questions than answers and the politicians had another attempted attack on guns ready and waiting for the event. Now Liberals will prefer we forget all about it and quietly move on from it.
When the "Gun Control" people want to look good and make their opposition look bad, they'll call for "Compromise". A neverending compromise between one sane position(Human rights are good) and one increasingly-insane goalpost that moves a little more left every week(People that don't think like me are racist sexist bigots that don't deserve human rights and should be doxed and silenced and punched in the streets).
Comic relief break: (I couldn't find the specific gun control pic with all the dates and names of each "Compromise" between gun owners and gun haters I wanted to post here, so I'm posting the best ones I could find)
Remember that Pulse club shooting, where a muslim went into a gay bar and shot everyone he could, then the FBI tried to scrub all mentions of Islam and ISIS from the reports and phone records? If one gay person in that bar had a gun and could shoot back at the Muslim, far fewer people would have died. And the same could be said for every single shooting in the past ten, twenty years, that the "Gun Control" people love to claim is evidence that they're totally 110% right, factually and morally. The number of mass shootings is going down, which is why the media fights so hard to make every single one such a big deal. Every time, it's the same story: An evil man used a gun to massacre unarmed and defenceless civilians. And the "Gun Control" movement members, their best solution to the problem is "We should make more civilians unarmed and defenceless, because the government I hate and the cops I protest deserve to have absolute power over me".
It doesn't make much sense, but I don't need to fully understand a weird mess of often-contradictory lies and blind-faith beliefs to know what's wrong with it.
...And now comes the part where a rational counterargument is made against my points and I respond in kind, or I get mocked and banned because people that couldn't stay rational and make counterarguments to save their lives got mad.
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." says Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the National Rifle Association.
That's become the kernel of the NRA's response to recent mass shooting tragedies -- if only more people carried guns for protection, the thinking goes, then they would be less likely to be victimized by gun-wielding criminals.
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said.
The challenge to that argument is that, data show, guns are rarely used in self-defense -- especially relative to the rate at which they're used in criminal homicides or suicides. A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, put those numbers in some perspective, and I dug up the raw numbers from the FBI's homicide data. Take a look:
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.
Or, look at it this way. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings.
There are, of course, plenty of solid arguments for robust 2nd Amendment protections. Millions of people use guns for sport and recreation every day. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, not criminals.
But, though some people certainly use guns for self-defense, the data suggest that overall, guns are used far more often for killing than self-defense. As a result, it may be worth thinking twice about arguments for more guns in schools, churches and other public places.
And apparently, as you've said, they're not but a bandaid in a bleeding wound,
Yes, because you *TOTALLY* will be able to "defend" yourself from your own government with a gun, and *absolutely* not just make your prison sentence longer. That you think that the government is giving you something they can be "stopped" with makes me not but cackle. The way to defend your stand "against" your goverment is maybe, MAYBE inside your (last time I checked) democratic government, by tilting your representants towards your interests the more you can, n'stuff.
Literally the only thing that effectively can be disuaded with average tenance of weapons would be home invasion, which are easily the most demanded thing by private security companies (forgot about that, eh?), and even then it's vastly at chance that it's not going to just take you by surprise, asleep or when taking a shit, or simply *ghasp* absent, which again the most of the time is to nick grandma's jewel case and your dad's watch along maybe the widescreen TV, which is indeed punishable by death! And not just covered by insurance!
The rest, the shootings? I can only wonder why do you make such a huge point about "Well it could stop terror attacks!", when technically nothing stopped anyone of packin' heat. I'd jolly love to see one stopped by civillians. Except not really, because understandably those people aren't proffesionals and are just getting themselves in danger.
It's not like like century XVI Europe street life where people went arounf with dressing swords, that even then mostly would just be mark of social status and make you all the more juicy to get stabbed and robbed
For some reason, the same security system able to tell when someone is cheating, when someone is signalling someone else, how much money is in your pocket and how much money you're willing to spend is not able or not willing to reveal the exact details of this insane liberal's movements and arsenal size.
Yes, at the gates of the city, just like if it was New vegas' Strip, you know that it was from a hotel like any other, right?
I must say, I find pretty ironic that the human right you seem to root for so much is violate the human right that is, y'know, not be murdered with impunity.
Honestly, I'd go on but the more and more I read over your post the more my head hurts by how simple it is really. "Guns are good, shut up libruls". That you require to "call out" and dehumanize the counter argument instead of showing a solid argument that's *totally* not seen spread in at least once per page of this whole thread, that you feel so jumpy that you fear getting banned or something, and that, most of all, are less self-aware than frogspawn, doesn't show a very good light on your credibility. Nevermind that only because something snapped and you decided to rant, by about what amounts to ranting for about an hour letting your fingers puke on the keyboard for you.
I'm definitively keeping "For some reason, the same security system able to tell when someone is cheating [...] not able to tell of a literal arsenal", though
To begin, it's kinda dishonest to call it "Gun Control" when it can't control guns or gun crime, only attack honest gun-owners and their ability to defend themselves from criminals with illegal weapons
Gun Control isn't about banning use of guns fully. Even countries with incredibly harsh restrictions from guns allow civilians to buy them under certain circumstances.
If you need a gun for self defence or for shooting ranges, you should still be able to obtain one. That being said, it should be nowhere near as easy, and perhaps not automatic weapons, as that's quite obviously overkill.
Please point out where on the International Bill of Human Right's, it states that gun ownership is a human right?
That's right, it doesn't, because nobody in the right mind thinks it is a human right.
Don't pass your countries insane obsession with everyone being able to get a gun as universalisable. Your constitution defends it, sure, but not every country has the same need for guns or the same insane culture, so to call something like that a human right is insane.
It is not, and should never be treated as a human right.
The Nice Paris attack was an exception, not the rule. Those incidents are so few and far between that we can't expect them
I suggest you look at the actual homicide statistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
This is all homicides in a country. This includes Guns, Knives, Trucks, whatever
(Note, the chart on this page isn't in order of rates for some weird reason. Click on "Rate" if you want it organised by homicide rate)
Almost all of the countries below 1 homicide per 100,000 have strict gun control laws. Seriously, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation, the vast, vast majority of countries with 1 homicide per 100,000 have fairly strict gun laws.
Countries that have to follow the European Union's regulations on guns, never go above 2 per 100,000.
The US on the other hand, with it's incredibly lenient gun laws sits at 4.88 per 100,000(Only 2 places behind Somalia)
Sure, you could argue that murder can be commited with knives and trucks, but maybe, just maybe having tighter gun control laws is the way to go if you actually care about preserving life, because maybe, just maybe homicide is easier when guns are involved.
So instead of making it harder for psychopaths to obtain gun, you expect people to carry guns everywhere they go in case they are in a mass shooting?
Wouldn't it be better if we put better regulations in place for guns, to stop it from being easy for a mass murderer to obtain them to begin with, rather than expecting each citizen to carry a gun everywhere they go like a paranoid nutjob?
I have no idea how many gun control threads we had, but there were a lot and all of them dissolved eventually and got vatted. This one has existed for quite a while and only occasionally goes downhill, but so far it's ok.
Again, Crni, you seem like a nice enough guy, but page after page of your posts have been pretty much nothing but stereotyping and blanket assumptions about a country you don't seem to like very much, and yet talk about quite a bit.
I like the "defend against the gvt" argument. This is basically about civil war. Unless they talk about casually opening fire on police, which only has two possible outcomes: Surrender, followed by harshest penalties thinkable - or death-by-cop.
Otherwise, it's about a military confrontation, a tyrannical government gone homicidal, turning the might of the military on the people. This has a name: Civil war, and it happens all over the world.
To overthrow a tyrannical government (and this happens now and then), you need a big portion of the countrys armed forces to join your side. It has *nothing* to do with private, civilian revolver collections. Well maintained handguns have practically zero bearing in the outcome of a *civil war*, you're gonna need heavy artillery, armored machinery, air superiority, you're gonna - once again - need entire military factions to join your side in the matter.
I say again and again, I'm not against guns. Gun control isn't "ban guns", and Jogre said it, and I've said it before, countries with strict gun control often allow civilian ownership of guns. They just have to fill out some paperwork first. That's all, sort of like buying a car.
Don't talk about self defense, don't talk about tyrannical governments, be honest: Guns are nice, and often a collector can be deeply attached to their weapons, and sometimes weapons are even inherited in a family, old rifles going from father to son, or someone's first handgun, kept and maintained for a lifetime. Be honest.
If that's you, if you have guns that you care for, and don't want taken from you, then nobody's gonna take them from you.
Gun control is about *putting certain restraints in place*, similar to buying a car. You gotta go through some paperwork. You gotta be able to show look, I haven't been in prison for battery or armed robbery or anything such, see? That's the requirement for gun ownership in Norway: Don't have a criminal record. That's gun control.
When even Cracked tells you the cops aren't forced to protect you even if they watch you getting your ass stabbed...
(true story btw, you can look it up)
Maybe you need better cops though? Finnish cops would have been on that guy like flies on shit. And a better legal system overall? Ever think that maybe your cops (well not your, from what I know Belgian cops are pretty high level, what I mean are US cops) actually kind of suck in comparison with cops from actual civilized nations?
When even Cracked tells you the cops aren't forced to protect you even if they watch you getting your ass stabbed...
(true story btw, you can look it up)
So let us say we are in a place where you are allowed to have a hidden gun with you. And let us also say, we are in the subway and I want to get your wallet. I come up behind you with a knive that I keep hidden in my hand, I stab you in the kidney. While you're bleeding to death I search for your wallet.
Yaaay for guns! I guess?
I am sure that guns can increase your protection because well they are good at intimidation and killing dangerous people, that's why every military in the world prefers them to let us say swords or knifes. Saying that it can never protect you, would be silly of course.
And I will be also honest here, If I would be living in the United States I would get a fucking gun too. Why? It's fucking dangerous in quite a lot of places and a gun would definetly make me feel safer. But if we're really honest to each other, then we all have to agree that the best way to be secure, is to have a stable society and lots of well educated and experienced cops. It should bea no brainer, less criminals means less crime. It's as simple as that. How to get there? That's a totally different story.
We can all talk about the reasons for crime and everyone will have a different opinion on the cause, but the effect is undisputable at this point because there is a fuck ton of data around. If the gap between rich and poor is significantly large, the crime rate simply sky rockets. You can of course get a gun with the intention to protect your self, and yes it will probably help you in some situations but I simply don't believe that it gives you that much protection as how some gun-lovers will tell us. And one way to look at it, is the way how gang wars happen. You have both sides or even more, armed to the teeth and they still usually live very risky lives. And the reason is rather simple. Only very few people with the intention to kill you, walk up directly to you with the gun drawn so that everyone and their mother can see it.
Sometimes, including you Sua, I feel like gun-lovers talk about the usefullness of guns like as you had a sniper rifle on a tower, while someone is charging at you with a knive from a mile away ... but that is hardly how things in real live happen. So I believe the value of a gun to protect you, is rather limited unless you can actually intimated people somehow so they won't even think about attacking you. Even if we take very crazy scenarios, it is very rare that people actually try to stop a mass shooter, bank robers or what ever. As others already said, most civilians are not qualified to the jobs of police officers and even they can be sometims seriously outmatched. Stoping a guy that is on a suicidal rampage with a weapon, is no easy thing.
One question, do you think all drugs should be legalized? If not, why?
Drugs and weapons have a lot in comon when it comes to personal rights.
Anyway, when it comes to weapons I actually would love to own some, hell owning a machinegun would be pretty awesome. I love weapons, the way how they look, they sound and the mechanics behind it, they are simply cool stuff.
But sadly, we can't make every nation into Switzerland. That would be even more awesome. And as long as that doesn't happen I think the homicide rates including guns, the school and mass shootings in the US speak very clearly why strict gun laws have simply to be in place - even if I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE TO OWN A MACHINEGUN! But I understand why that would be shitty for society.
If you want so, you could see this like a social experiment, comparing the US with any European country or even Europe as a whole, which has in most cases very strict gun laws and in general the homicide rates, are much lower. But to be fair Europe has also a very different stance when it comes to their prison systems and the well fare state, social stability is kinda something that most European nations take rather seriously and not only because of some love for everything left, but due to the experiences some nations made with extremism, poor comunities are simply a hotbed for extremism, I know that I am simplifyging a lot here right now. Subisidicing the poor might not sound very nice to a libertarian/conservative and I understand that sentient, but it's simply a necessary thing, if you don't want the crime rate to sky rocket, which in turn also costs money as the richer people now have to find more ways to defend them self - outside of buying weapons, of course like geting private security companies, fences, high walls etc. And it also brings a ton of other problems, like drug abuse and all the other social issues.
Of course this only counts as long we're talking about western democracies, if we're talking about Somalia and the closest thing Detroit, then maybe no gun laws should be in place.
On the anti-tyranny thing, the issue is that tyranny just so happens to be up to perspective most of the time. Sticking to what I know, I sure as shit wouldn't have liked some armed freedom fighters in basis to the Catalan referendum events, neither in the other side actually. And well, nevermind how it's kind of not plausible to overthrow a government without international support.
It's a bit moot anyway, since a tyranical government would have the approval or at the very least the indiference of a large part of the population, which also includes gun owners. A fascist regime usually doesn't go for the majority of their population but the minorities, like gays, foreigners etc. as long as the rest of the population can live their normal lives, they wouldn't take up arms to hidde in the woods fighting their own government. Occupation by a foreign force is an entirely different story, and yes here I do agree an armed population is much harder to occupy or even beat - probably impossible. But a lot of stuff has to happen before it comes that far in the United States, they do have the best insurance, their military.
Cops are still human. With the same fears and the same weaknesses as all other civilians.
I'm sure a lot of american cops would be on top of the guy in a split second. And I honestly can't guarantee that euro cops would have led to a better outcome. In general, euro cops are far less combative than their american counterparts.
No legal system can guarantee the safety of their citizens.
What happens once a judge says that police is forced to protect all citizens? Crime isn't stopped and suddenly everyone sues the government for failing to stop crime and voilà, your nation is now bankrupt from the lawsuits.
I think it should be blatantly obvious that policing is mostly curative, not preventive. Some crime can be prevented with a variety of actions (social security, education, antidrug programs, rehabilitation programs, etc), but we will never be able to completely prevent crime as long as we remain human.
I like the "defend against the gvt" argument. This is basically about civil war. Unless they talk about casually opening fire on police, which only has two possible outcomes: Surrender, followed by harshest penalties thinkable - or death-by-cop.
Otherwise, it's about a military confrontation, a tyrannical government gone homicidal, turning the might of the military on the people. This has a name: Civil war, and it happens all over the world.
To overthrow a tyrannical government (and this happens now and then), you need a big portion of the country's armed forces to join your side. It has *nothing* to do with private, civilian revolver collections. Well maintained handguns have practically zero bearing in the outcome of a *civil war*, you're gonna need heavy artillery, armored machinery, air superiority, you're gonna - once again - need entire military factions to join your side in the matter.
I say again and again, I'm not against guns. Gun control isn't "ban guns", and Jogre said it, and I've said it before, countries with strict gun control often allow civilian ownership of guns. They just have to fill out some paperwork first. That's all, sort of like buying a car.
In the american mind, protection from a tyrannical government still plays into their state of mind. And they're not wrong.
You say that you can't use a revolver to fight the government? Sure, you can. The police and army will think twice about invading houses for whatever nefarious means if they don't know for sure there's not an armed civilian there. It suddenly becomes a lot more dangerous to go grab all the jews and put them in concentration camps if one in four is armed.
At the same time, you belittle the power of a handgun. Well, remember that in WW2 we mass produced single shot liberator handguns with the sole purpose of shooting a nazi in the head and taking his gun. Voilà, now you have a better gun. Sure, it's a desperation weapon, but the threat is still there.
Registration and "reasonable gun control" ruins much of this argument, because it requires registration. Suddenly the potentially tyranical government has a list of what guns there are and who has them. Think twice what will happen to these people if the government does become tyrannical. It has happened plenty of times before historically.
Don't talk about self defense, don't talk about tyrannical governments, be honest: Guns are nice, and often a collector can be deeply attached to their weapons, and sometimes weapons are even inherited in a family, old rifles going from father to son, or someone's first handgun, kept and maintained for a lifetime. Be honest.
If that's you, if you have guns that you care for, and don't want taken from you, then nobody's gonna take them from you.
Why does it need to be one or the other? Why can't it be "all of the above"? There's many reasons to stand behind gun ownership. Self-defense tends to be the most debated because it speaks of defense of personal integrity, but it's far from the only reason.
Gun control is about *putting certain restraints in place*, similar to buying a car. You gotta go through some paperwork. You gotta be able to show look, I haven't been in prison for battery or armed robbery or anything such, see? That's the requirement for gun ownership in Norway: Don't have a criminal record. That's gun control.
How the fuck have you missed that in this thread multiple times before, it has been showed that buying a gun at a gunshop in the USA requires an universal background check, which checks criminal history and (albeit limited) mental health?
So let us say we are in a place where you are allowed to have a hidden gun with you. And let us also say, we are in the subway and I want to get your wallet. I come up behind you with a knive that I keep hidden in my hand, I stab you in the kidney. While you're bleeding to death I search for your wallet.
No gun will save you from a fucking knife to the back.
But luckily most hold ups don't start with someone knifing you. They start with someone asking you to hand over your money.
And I will be also honest here, If I would be living in the United States I would get a fucking gun too. Why? It's fucking dangerous in quite a lot of places and a gun would definetly make me feel safer. But if we're really honest to each other, then we all have to agree that the best way to be secure, is to have a stable society and lots of well educated and experienced cops. It should bea no brainer, less criminals means less crime. It's as simple as that. How to get there? That's a totally different story.
We currently do not have any tool which gives a skinny 1m60 chick a better chance against a 150kg 2m tall attacker. I find it morally repugnant to take this tool away from people, regardless of the fact that that same tool could very well be used for evil. I do not believe in restricting the rights and liberties of the lawful just because of a criminal minority.
Disarming people is unlikely to create a more stable society in itself.
What we can argue about is what "common sense gun control" actually means. And ironically, I would argue that that would mean two very different things in europe than it does in the united states. At best, in Europe we see gun ownership as a tool for self-defense (see Czech Republic), but as a whole, we tend top see it as a tool for recreation and sport. This means our laws are written from a different starting point.
In the USA, guns are first and foremost a defensive tool. Protecting you from both criminals and a tyrannical government, your laws have to be written entirely differently if you hope to keep those reasons valid.
"The Nazis did it, it must be bad!" Jews were a tiny minority and not very organized. The idea that armed Jews could've prevented the Holocaust is laughable.
It's also rather dangerous to wage a war against most of the world, btw. Didn't keep Germany from doing it twice.
Maybe you need better cops though? Finnish cops would have been on that guy like flies on shit. And a better legal system overall? Ever think that maybe your cops (well not your, from what I know Belgian cops are pretty high level, what I mean are US cops) actually kind of suck in comparison with cops from actual civilized nations?
I think most problems in America that make it necessary for them to own guns could be solved by making the US a less shitty country for a large amount of people to be in. But that would kinda rob it of its soul and purpose, so that's not really the way, either. The US is all about personal freedom, and that makes it awesome and terrible at the same time. It's awesome for an decreasing group of people, but it's getting worse for everyone else. Increasing tensions, poverty, and violence are easier solved (or rather, alleviated) by allowing everyone to be armed instead of trying to fix the underlying problems of said violence, and it doesn't intrude in the established way of life.
I like guns, and I wouldn't mind them being more accessible. But at least here in Europe I don't really feel the need to own one for self defense, and just for shooting at targets and looking at them it's a bit of a waste of time and money. If I want target shooting I'd rather use a bow and have a larger physical aspect to it.
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." says Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the National Rifle Association.
That's become the kernel of the NRA's response to recent mass shooting tragedies -- if only more people carried guns for protection, the thinking goes, then they would be less likely to be victimized by gun-wielding criminals.
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said.
The challenge to that argument is that, data show, guns are rarely used in self-defense -- especially relative to the rate at which they're used in criminal homicides or suicides. A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, put those numbers in some perspective, and I dug up the raw numbers from the FBI's homicide data. Take a look:
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.
Or, look at it this way. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings.
There are, of course, plenty of solid arguments for robust 2nd Amendment protections. Millions of people use guns for sport and recreation every day. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, not criminals.
But, though some people certainly use guns for self-defense, the data suggest that overall, guns are used far more often for killing than self-defense. As a result, it may be worth thinking twice about arguments for more guns in schools, churches and other public places.
And apparently, as you've said, they're not but a bandaid in a bleeding wound,
Yes, because you *TOTALLY* will be able to "defend" yourself from your own government with a gun, and *absolutely* not just make your prison sentence longer. That you think that the government is giving you something they can be "stopped" with makes me not but cackle. The way to defend your stand "against" your goverment is maybe, MAYBE inside your (last time I checked) democratic government, by tilting your representants towards your interests the more you can, n'stuff.
Literally the only thing that effectively can be disuaded with average tenance of weapons would be home invasion, which are easily the most demanded thing by private security companies (forgot about that, eh?), and even then it's vastly at chance that it's not going to just take you by surprise, asleep or when taking a shit, or simply *ghasp* absent, which again the most of the time is to nick grandma's jewel case and your dad's watch along maybe the widescreen TV, which is indeed punishable by death! And not just covered by insurance!
The rest, the shootings? I can only wonder why do you make such a huge point about "Well it could stop terror attacks!", when technically nothing stopped anyone of packin' heat. I'd jolly love to see one stopped by civillians. Except not really, because understandably those people aren't proffesionals and are just getting themselves in danger.
It's not like like century XVI Europe street life where people went arounf with dressing swords, that even then mostly would just be mark of social status and make you all the more juicy to get stabbed and robbed
Yes, at the gates of the city, just like if it was New vegas' Strip, you know that it was from a hotel like any other, right?
I must say, I find pretty ironic that the human right you seem to root for so much is violate the human right that is, y'know, not be murdered with impunity.
Honestly, I'd go on but the more and more I read over your post the more my head hurts by how simple it is really. "Guns are good, shut up libruls". That you require to "call out" and dehumanize the counter argument instead of showing a solid argument that's *totally* not seen spread in at least once per page of this whole thread, that you feel so jumpy that you fear getting banned or something, and that, most of all, are less self-aware than frogspawn, doesn't show a very good light on your credibility. Nevermind that only because something snapped and you decided to rant, by about what amounts to ranting for about an hour letting your fingers puke on the keyboard for you.
I'm definitively keeping "For some reason, the same security system able to tell when someone is cheating [...] not able to tell of a literal arsenal", though
You don't "Debunk" my arguments by pointing at everything I say in a row and yelling "NUH-UH!!!" at each thing in a row.
>Honestly, I'd go on but the more and more I read over your post the more my head hurts by how simple it is really. "Guns are good, shut up libruls". That you require to "call out" and dehumanize the counter argument instead of showing a solid argument that's *totally* not seen spread in at least once per page of this whole thread, that you feel so jumpy that you fear getting banned or something, and that, most of all, are less self-aware than frogspawn, doesn't show a very good light on your credibility. Nevermind that only because something snapped and you decided to rant, by about what amounts to ranting for about an hour letting your fingers puke on the keyboard for you.
This tells me what you're worth. This tells me how intelligent you are. Instead of telling me why you hate and fear guns, you tell me you think I'm wrong. You tell me I make your head hurt, you tell me you think I'm "Dehumanizing" a group of wrong people by debunking their lies, you tell me people have made my points in this thread before(And you've learned nothing from them each time? That isn't really something to brag about), you tell me you think I'm overly jumpy about getting banned, and you insult me by calling me less self-aware than... frogspawn, of all things. Is that supposed to be a Kek reference? You then tell me you don't think I'm credible, and then you call my post a rant and claim my post is like my fingers puking on the keyboard.
You are not civil. You are childish, angry, and dishonest, and this probably isn't the kind of thread you should be posting in. Not if just one post was enough to make you so angry, you felt the need to project your anger onto me.
I don't have to respond to anything else in your post besides that, but in the interest of giving more mature people on your side (If any exist) something to respond to, I will.
>One person with a gun can't protect himself from the government!
He doesn't have to. In a world without lying liberals slandering the very act of owning a gun, multiple people in a town will have guns, and they will be able to defend themselves from theoretical corrupt government attacks well enough that a far smaller percentage of soldiers would be willing to get mowed down by US Citizens they swore to protect on the US soil they swore to protect on the orders of corrupt government officials. I trust you know your history well enough to know what historically happens after governments disarm their populace.
>You're literally the NRA
1. I'm not.
2. We're allowed to copypaste things from other articles? Neato.
Crime and Guns
Basic to the debates on gun control is the fact that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. Dealing with recidivism is key to solving violence.
71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
63% of victims had criminal histories and 73% of that group knew their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories). 3
74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns. 4
Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.
Myth: Criminals buy guns at gun stores and gun shows Fact: One study 5of adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby determined that criminals obtain most of their guns through their social network and personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or even theft. This agrees with other, broader studies of incarcerated felons.
Fact: Another city-wide study, 6 this one in Pittsburgh, showed that 80% of people illegally carrying guns were prohibited from possessing guns, and that a minimum of 30% of the guns were stolen.
Fact: Other common arrangements include sharing guns and holding guns for others. 7
Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. 8 Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Fact: Property crime rates are dropping (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) relative to the property crime rate. 9
Fact: Every year 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 10
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. 11
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” 12 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%. 13
Fact: Washington DC has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 14 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, DC rate. 15
Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control. 16
Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. 17
Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following: 18
74% of felons agreed that, “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”
57% of felons polled agreed, “Criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”
Myth: Private guns are used to commit violent crimes Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. 19
Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. 20
Fact: Fewer than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. 21
Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 22
Fact: Cincinnati’s review of their gang problem revealed that 74% of homicides were committed by less than 1% of the population. 23
Fact: 92% of gang murders are committed with guns. 24 Gangs are responsible for between 48% and 90% of all violent crimes. 25
Fact: Most gun crimes are gang related, and as such are big-city issues. In fact, if mayors in larger cities were more diligent about controlling gang warfare, state and nationwide gun violence rates would fall dramatically.
Myth: 40% of Americans have been or personally know a gun violence victim Fact: This data was from an unpublished survey conducted by a political research organization. Their own footnote reads “Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the New Venture Fund (Aug. 2011). Note, this is not publicly available data.” 26
Myth: Interstate transportation of guns defeats local gun control Fact: The BATF reports that the average age of a traced gun is 11 years 27, meaning that most guns moving from state to state were transported when legal owners moved.
Fact: Fewer than 5% of traced guns in California, many of which were not crime guns, came from neighboring Nevada and Arizona. 28
Myth: High-capacity, semi-automatics are preferred by criminals Fact: The use of semi-automatic handguns in crimes is slightly lower than the ratio of semi-automatic handguns owned by private citizens. Any increase in style and capacity simply reflects the overall supply of the various types of firearms. 29
Myth: Banning “Saturday Night Specials” reduces crime Fact: This was the conclusion of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research – and it is wrong. They studied firearm homicide rates from Maryland after passage of a “Saturday Night Special” ban in 1998. It seems the firearm homicide rate has not subsided and remained between 68-94% higher than the national average through 2008. 30
Fact: Even banning guns does not slow down criminals. In the U.K., where private ownership of firearms is practically forbidden, criminals have and use guns regularly, and even build their own. One enterprising fellow converted 170 starter pistols to functioning firearms and sold them to gangs. Hundreds of such underground gun factories have been established, contributing to a 35% jump in gun violence. 31
Myth: Criminals prefer “Saturday Night Specials” 32 Fact: “Saturday Night Specials” were used in fewer than 3% of crimes involving guns. 33
Fact: Fewer than 2% of all “Saturday Night Specials” made are used in crimes.
Fact: “What was available was the overriding factor in weapon choice [by criminals].” 34
Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers. 35
Fact: Fewer than 1% of “crime guns” were obtained at gun shows. 36 This is a reduction from a 1997 study that found 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows. 37
Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill police. “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study were obtained from gun shows.” 38
Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe gun shows are a problem. 39
Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show. 40
Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows). 41
Fact: At most, 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were purchased at gun shows. 42 But this includes all firearms that the police traced, whether or not they were used in crimes, which overstates the acquisition rate.
Fact: Gun dealers are federally licensed. They are bound to stringent rules for sales that apply equally whether they are selling firearms from a storefront or a gun show. 43
Fact: Most crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources (39.2%) or through straw-man purchases by family members or friends (39.6%). 44
Myth: All four guns used at Columbine were bought at gun shows Fact: Each of the guns was either bought through an intermediary or someone who knew they were going to underage buyers. In all cases there was a purposeful criminal activity occurring and the actors knew they were breaking the law.
Myth: 25-50% of the vendors at most gun shows are “unlicensed dealers” Fact: There is no such thing as an “unlicensed dealer,” except for people who buy and sell antique — curio — firearms as a hobby (not a business).
Fact: This 25-50% figure can only be achieved if you include those dealers not selling guns at these shows. These non-gun dealers include knife makers, ammunition dealers, accessories dealers, military artifact traders, clothing vendors, bumper-sticker sellers, and hobbyists. In short, 50% of the vendors at shows are not selling firearms at all!
Myth: Regulation of gun shows would reduce “straw sales” Fact: The main study that makes this claim had no scientific means for determining what sales at the show were “straw sales.” Behaviors that Dr. Wintemute cited as “clear evidence” of a straw purchase were observational only and were more likely instances of more experienced acquaintances helping in a purchase decision. No attempts were made to verify that the sales in question were straw sales. 45
Myth: Prison isn’t the answer to crime control Fact: Why does crime rise when criminals are released from prison early? Because they are likely to commit more crimes. 67.5% were re-arrested for new felonies or serious misdemeanors within three years. Extrapolating, those released felons killed another 2,282 people. 46
Fact: 45% of state prisoners were, at the time they committed their offense, under conditional supervision in the community – either on probation or on parole. 47 Keeping violent convicts in prison would reduce violent crimes.
Fact: Homicide convicts serve a little more than half of their original sentences. 48 Given that men tend to be less prone to violent behavior as they age, 49 holding them for their full sentences would probably reduce violence significantly.
Fact: Los Angeles County saw repeat offender and re-arrest rates soar after authorities closed jails and released prisoners early. In less than three years, early release of prisoners in LA resulted in: 50
Fact: In 1991, 13,200 homicides were committed by felons on parole or probation. For comparison sake, this is about half of the 1999 annual gun death totals (keep in mind that gun deaths fell from 1991 to 1999).
Myth: Waiting periods prevent rash crimes and reduce violent crime rates Fact: The “time-to-crime” of a firearm is about 11 years, making it rare that a newly purchased firearm is used in a crime. 52
Fact: The national five-day waiting period under the Brady Bill had no impact on murder or robbery. In fact, there was a slight increase in rape and aggravated assault, indicating no effective suppression of certain violent crimes. Thus, for two crime categories, a possible effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women. 53
Fact: Comparing homicide rates in 18 states that had waiting periods and background checks before the Brady Bill with rates in the 32 states that had no comparable laws, the difference in change of homicide rates was “insignificant”. 54
Myth: 86% of Americans, 82% of gun owners favor universal background checks Fact: Those statistics came from a pair of surveys reported by gun control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, who has been caught stacking survey responses by polling left-of-center mailing lists.
Myth: Gun makers are selling plastic guns that slip through metal detectors Fact: There is no such thing as a ‘plastic gun’. This myth started in 1980 55 when Glock began marketing a handgun with a polymer frame, not the entire firearm. Most of a Glock is metal (83% by weight) and detectable in common metal and x-ray detectors. “[D]espite a relatively common impression to the contrary, there is no current non-metal firearm not reasonably detectable by present technology and methods in use at our airports today, nor to my knowledge, is anyone on the threshold of developing such a firearm.” 56
Incidentally, Glocks are one of the favorite handguns of police departments because it is lightweight, thanks to the polymer frame.
Myth: Machine guns 57 are favored by criminals Fact: In the drug-ridden Miami of 1980, fewer than 1% of all gun homicides were with machine guns. 58
Fact: None of over 2,220 firearms recovered from crime scenes by the Minneapolis police in 1987-89 were machine guns. 59
Fact: 0.7% of seized guns in Detroit in 1991-92 were machine guns. 60
Myth: Corrupt dealers sell almost 60 percent of crime guns Fact: Only 0.5% of the reported traces were for an original purchase of three years or less before the trace was conducted. 61 Thus, 99.5% of retailer sales had left their control long before the gun was traced (and many traces are not for crime guns).
Fact: The average “time to crime”, the time between the retail sale of a firearm and its use in a crime is eleven years. A firearm can change hands and travel far in six years.
Notes
Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission, July 13, 2009 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2011 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Sources of guns to dangerous people: What we learn by asking them, Cook, Parker, Pollack, Preventive Medicine, Volume 79, October 2015 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Gaps continue in firearm Surveillance: Evidence from a large U.S. city Bureau of Police, Fabio, Duell, Creppage, O’Donnell and Laporte, Social Medicine, Vol 1, 2016 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Sources of guns to dangerous people: What we learn by asking them, Cook, Parker, Pollack, Preventive Medicine, Volume 79, October 2015 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
A “hot burglary” is when the burglar enters a home while the residents are there -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999) -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
The Supreme Court invalidated the D.C. handgun ban in the Heller case (2008), but the city has made obtaining a handgun very difficult via local legislation -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Crime Against Small Business, U.S. Small Business Administration, Senate Document No. 91-14, 1969 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February 1988 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985, Department of Justice -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
National Crime Victimization Survey, 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Implementation of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV), University of Cincinnati Policing Institute, 2008 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Homicide trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2011 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, FBI, September 2011 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
BATF report #133664, California Tracing Reports for 2012 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
BATF report #133664, California Tracing Reports for 2012 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Injury Mortality Reports 1999-2008, Center for Disease Control, online database -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Gun crime spreads ‘like a cancer’ across Britain, The Guardian, Oct 5, 2003 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
“Saturday Night Special” is a term, with racist origin, describing an inexpensive firearm. Part of the origin of the term came from “suicide special”, describing an inexpensive handgun purchased specifically for committing suicide. The racist origins are too detestable to repeat here. -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers, U.S. Department of Justice, August 2006 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 2002 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers, U.S. Department of Justice, August 2006 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, National Institute of Justice, December 1997 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers, U.S. Department of Justice, August 2006 -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
On the Front Line: Making Gun Interdiction Work, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, February 1998, survey of 37 police departments in large cities -https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.3/svg/21a9.svg[/-]
Patterns in Gun Acquisition and Use by Youthful Offenders in Michigan, Timothy S. Bynum, Todd G. Beitzel, Tracy A. O’Connell & Sean P. Varano, 1999
BATF, 1999 [IM
BATF, June 2000, covers only July 1996 through December 1998 [I
BATF, 2000 [IM
Firearm use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 [
Gun shows across a multistate American gun market, Dr. GJ Wintemute, British Medical Journal, 2007 -https://s.w.org
Reentry Trends in the U.S., Recidivism, Department of Justice, 1999 [I
US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991 [IM
Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2001 [-
Homicide rates peak in the 18-24-year-old group, Bureau of Justice Statistics, online database [IM
Releasing Inmates Early Has a Costly Human Toll, Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2006 [
Keep in mind these are just charges. Each arrested convict may have committed multiple crimes. [IM
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as reported by Time Magazine, July 12, 2002
Dr. John Lott Jr., University of Chicago School of Law, 1997
Dr. Jens Ludwig, Dr. Philip J. Cook, Journal of the American Medical Association, August 2000 [
Heckler and Koch made a polymer framed firearm earlier, in 1968, but the myth seems to have erupted after Glock began promoting theirs to police departments.
Billie Vincent, FAA Director of Civil Aviation Security, House Subcommittee on Crime, May 15, 1986
In this myth, “machine gun” represents “fully automatic” firearms, ones that fire bullets as long as the trigger is pulled
Miami Herald, August 23, 1984, based on figures from Dr. Joseph Davis, Dade County medical examiner
1994, Minnesota Medical Association Firearm Injury Prevention Task Force
J. Gayle Mericle, 1989, Unpublished report of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad, Will and Grundy Counties
Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Law Against Firearms Traffickers, BATF, 2000
No doubts about that cops are humans too, but when shit hits the fan I would still rather want a well trained cop around me than a civilian with rather questionale experience.
The idea that an armed civilian could replace a cop, is kinda laughable in my opinion. This is not an if or else case by the way. Any well maintained society will have one way or another law enforments. If there would be no police around then I would agree with you.
But as Has already said, the US is kinda doomed in that department as when it comes to most issues, their gun lobby is simply way to big. If your only tool is a gun, then every one looks like a criminal for you ... no wait isn't it, if your only tool is an hammer than every problem looks like a nail. Joking aside, the US is an extremly paranoid society at this point and it shows.
But luckily most hold ups don't start with someone knifing you. They start with someone asking you to hand over your money.
Defending your self is still not an easy thing to do, gun or not. Again, most people don't come with warning signs at you, even if a robber is doing you the favour of asking, he will be probaly close enough that he can do some serious damage before you have a chence to draw your gun, from your holster or something. Even armed cops, are very often suprised by sudden attacks which is one of the most common injuries if I remember correctly. People arent sending you emails before an attack.
We currently do not have any tool which gives a skinny 1m60 chick a better chance against a 150kg 2m tall attacker. I find it morally repugnant to take this tool away from people, regardless of the fact that that same tool could very well be used for evil. I do not believe in restricting the rights and liberties of the lawful just because of a criminal minority.
Disarming people is unlikely to create a more stable society in itself.
Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. 8 Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. 19Fact
