Why do you support gun ownership?

[MobBoss]

People think that guns actually deter crime?

Yes, I do. I for one, was raised in a small rural community in Arkansas where you could sleep at night wth your door open if you wanted. The main reason this could be accomplished is that a handfull of criminals who tried to rob peoples home had been shot in the attempt. Almost the entire community was armed to the teeth. It was just common knowledge that if you tried to rob someone you were just going to get shot...end of story. As a result, we had quite the low incidence of that type of crime.

 

[.Shane.]

Yes, I do. I for one, was raised in a small rural community in Arkansas where you could sleep at night wth your door open if you wanted. The main reason this could be accomplished is that a handfull of criminals who tried to rob peoples home had been shot in the attempt. Almost the entire community was armed to the teeth. It was just common knowledge that if you tried to rob someone you were just going to get shot...end of story. As a result, we had quite the low incidence of that type of crime.

And I live in a small community, actually a large town. Its a college town full of evil liberals, very lightly armed. Yet, I leave my car unlocked and often go to sleep w/ the doors unlocked.

So what?

 

[bhsup]

@MobBoss: Mise might actually have a point in the semantics area. Is what is considered a felony or misdeameaner the same or different, and so forth.

@Mise: Does it really matter, if you're the victim of a violent crime, whether it was a gunpoint or knifepoint?

@El_Mac: There are HUGE arguments as to whether liberal gun laws (particularly conceal carry ones) lower crime rates or not. Rates have gone down in many places that enacted conceal carry laws, but it's hard to tell whether it is a general trend or specific to the new conceal laws.

What IS clear is that crimes rates have not shot up, nor has Main Street USA turned into the old wild west, as some conceal carry opponents were screaming would happen.

EDIT: @.shane.: Could you PM me your address and type of car?

 

[MobBoss]

The only thing that's through the roof is that I'm 30 times more likely to get shot in the US than the UK.

So I guess the real question is this: Are you more likely to be shot in the USA or a victim of violent crime in the UK. I am willing to bet that you are more likely to be a victim in the UK....

And I take it you can't account for said differences in reporting of "violent" crimes, prefering to roll your eyes instead.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. To try to paint the picture that voilent crime is somehow different in the UK than in the USA is rather ridiculous in my humble opinion. I think thats just silly....unless of course, in Britian its a violent crime to jaywalk.

VRWCAgent: I hardly think the definition of "assault" is that different from Britian to the USA.

 

[Mise]

@Mise: Does it really matter, if you're the victim of a violent crime, whether it was a gunpoint or knifepoint?

It matters if you end up dead, yes. I take your point though. No pun intended.

 

[Mise]

VRWCAgent: I hardly think the definition of "assault" is that different from Britian to the USA.

I hardly think you are an authority on the matter.

 

[MobBoss]

It matters if you end up dead, yes.

Once more...if death is the final issue...then I once more say we should ban vehicles...they by far kill more than guns or knives....

 

[MobBoss]

I hardly think you are an authority on the matter.

Really? You honestly think one has to be an authority to compare the definitions? Please.

 

[.Shane.]

Once more...if death is the final issue...then I once more say we should ban vehicles...they by far kill more than guns or knives....

You're a riot. "Well, cars kill more people than anything else, so we should quit researching a cancer cure". Good logic.

Fact is, as I've said in my posts, we could do a lot to curtail gun deaths/injuries (as we've done w/ cars to use your silly metaphor) and still keep a right to bare arms. However the NRA brownshirts won't let any reasonable discussion take place.

 

[bhsup]

Well, I wasn't really referring to just assault. I mean, could it be that one nation may consider breaking and entering with no actual confrontation with a property owner to be a violent crime, where another country doesn't...for statistical purposes and so forth?

EDIT: That was just an example. I really, honestly have no idea of the figures are arrived at differently or not, but I could see something like the above example happening, which makes country by country comparisons more difficult.

 

[warpus]

^^ You miss the point Mobboss - the point is that statistics for 'violent crime' in the US and in the UK are collected w/ different criteria in mind - making any sort of comparison between the two meaningless.

 

[MobBoss]

You're a riot. "Well, cars kill more people than anything else, so we should quit researching a cancer cure". Good logic.

Cough. Did I say that? Nope. Kindly try not to put your words into my mouth kthx.

Fact is, as I've said in my posts, we could do a lot to curtail gun deaths/injuries (as we've done w/ cars to use your silly metaphor) and still keep a right to bare arms. However the NRA brownshirts won't let any reasonable discussion take place.

Reasonable discussion? Do you view ridicule and misquoting as reasonable discussion?

 

[MobBoss]

^^ You miss the point Mobboss - the point is that statistics for 'violent crime' in the US and in the UK are collected w/ different criteria in mind - making any sort of comparison between the two meaningless.

Proof please. Once more, OF COURSE, authorities in England and Wales would object to such a study. They dont want to be viewed as tops in voilent crime anymore than anyone else does. However, I do not see any "proof" that there is indeed "different criteria" for violence, say, from the UK and USA viewpoints.

 

[MrCynical]

So I guess the real question is this: Are you more likely to be shot in the USA or a victim of violent crime in the UK. I am willing to bet that you are more likely to be a victim in the UK....

MobBoss, you seem to be implying that gun control encourages violent crime, at least indirectly, and are claiming the article you posted supports this. However, in the same article it mentions that Japan has a far lower violent crime rate (0.1%) than the US (1.2%), yet Japan has one of the strictest gun control systems in the world. Do you have an explanation for this?

Personally I don't give any of the numbers in the article much credence given their data collection method seems dodgy, and the numbers bear little resemblence to police statistics.

Once more...if death is the final issue...then I once more say we should ban vehicles...they by far kill more than guns or knives....

The usual argument, which neglects the issue that in most places a gun has no purpose but to kill.

 

[IglooDame]

You're a riot. "Well, cars kill more people than anything else, so we should quit researching a cancer cure". Good logic.

Fact is, as I've said in my posts, we could do a lot to curtail gun deaths/injuries (as we've done w/ cars to use your silly metaphor) and still keep a right to bare arms. However the NRA brownshirts won't let any reasonable discussion take place.

Okay, I'm listening - what would you suggest?

 

[.Shane.]

Cough. Did I say that? Nope. Kindly try not to put your words into my mouth kthx.

Those exact words, no. Its an extension of your logic. Your argument is that since cars kill more people, we should quit bothering w/ guns. So, logically, you'd also be against researching a cure for, say, colon cancer, becuase, hey, its doesn't kill as many people as cars!

Brilliant!

Okay, I'm listening - what would you suggest?

I'll go back a couple pages and quote myself. Hold on.

 

[.Shane.]

Okay, I'm listening - what would you suggest?

lol, about 4 pages back. my this thread moves fast!

When brings me to one of my favorite points. In the US the NRA has so brain-washed people that you can barely discuss realistic ways of preventing firearm deaths/injuries w/out being label a "Gun-hater" or "Anti-American" or some other stupidly inaccurate label.

Its like saying that being pro-safety belts or pro-airbag makes you "anti-car" or a "hater of freedom".

As another poster pointed out, the gun culture in the US is too entrenched and there way too many guns in circulation to truly "ban" guns.

However, the things I'm for are simple and would do no harm to anyone who truly is a hunter or interested in home defense.

I would:
*outlaw all non-standard ammo. No one needs armor-piercing rounds or hollow-tips, etc...
*ban body armor sales unless you have a license for a specific job type.
*ban all types of guns besides pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns.
*require trigger locks or some other similar safety measure for all guns.
*require locking gun cabinets for anyone who owns guns
*private and flea-market sales of guns should have the same legal requirements re: background checks as regular gun stores.
*gun safety classes for all owners of guns.

To varying degrees, some of these things may have already be done. Laws vary widely from state to state.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-safety and pro-family.

These ideas are designed to protect me and my family and friends from all gun-toting idiots w/ their "cold dead hands" bumper stickers, gun racks, and Soldier of Fortune subscriptions who can't properly handle their guns or train themselves or them family on them, as well as from a wide range of weapon types and ammo types that have no real, practical purpose other than to kill people.

 

[IglooDame]

The usual argument, which neglects the issue that in most places a gun has no purpose but to kill.

Nevertheless, a gun gets used somewhere just south of a million times a year for defense in the US, and the overwhelming majority of uses don't result in someone dying; indeed they might result in someone not dying that otherwise might have. So much for the purpose.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, you seem to be implying that gun control encourages violent crime, at least indirectly, and are claiming the article you posted supports this. However, in the same article it mentions that Japan has a far lower violent crime rate (0.1%) than the US (1.2%), yet Japan has one of the strictest gun control systems in the world. Do you have an explanation for this?

Sure. Culture. Japanese have had a form of weapon control for several centuries where Samurai were allowed swords and peasants were not. Its far more ingrained into their society and has been for a very long time. Also, the concept of family honor is much more ingrained in their society as well. Turning to a life of crime is not only a black mark upon you, but upon the whole family.

However, there just simply isnt that much of a culture difference between the USA and Britain.

Personally I don't give any of the numbers in the article much credence given their data collection method seems dodgy, and the numbers bear little resemblence to police statistics.

Its a UN study. Take that for what its worth.

 

[.Shane.]

Nevertheless, a gun gets used somewhere just south of a million times a year for defense in the US, and the overwhelming majority of uses don't result in someone dying; indeed they might result in someone not dying that otherwise might have. So much for the purpose.

Interesting read, tx for the linkage!