The NRA...

[Gaidin]

How is that a superior deterrent? If a criminal sees an old lady walking down the street, obviously armed, won't he make sure he doesn't attack her? If he doesn't know for sure, wouldn't he be willing to take the chance? Also, what kind of society would we have if everyone is constrantly wondering whether the guy next to them is armed or not, and if he is, whether he's stable or not?

See...thats funny because in my state the vast majority of burglary or robbery stories you see in the papers tend to be the ones about the criminals getting shot by the person they're trying to rob.

Considering how few and far between *those* stories are, and considering how much they outnumber the successful streetside robbery stories...deterrent indeed. Funny how that works.

 

[Tom Paine]

Deterrent? Again, why does the crime stats not bear that out with far lower gun crime rates in the UK which doesn't allow civilians to bear arms?

 

[Ahlerich]

Lusted and the The Fish

It is misleading to cite total numbers since the overall US population is far larger than the European (or Canadian) comparisons.

but you still see america is out of propotion

germany has about 70-80mil ppl if im not wrong and a little less then 400 gun death a years
usa has what..about 300mil ppl? and a rate of 11000..still almost 10 times higher. so ther eis a difference..now if lusted is right and its even 30000 now well that shows something

See...thats funny because in my state the vast majority of burglary or robbery stories you see in the papers tend to be the ones about the criminals getting shot by the person they're trying to rob.

Considering how few and far between *those* stories are, and considering how much they outnumber the successful streetside robbery stories...deterrent indeed. Funny how that works.

see if a civilian has a gun there is a 50% chance that he shots the burglar and a 50% chance that he gets shot by a burglar

in germany both survive usually..no risk for the hoese owner..usually

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Yeah, they need the AR-15s and Saturday Night Specials for hunting deer, dammit!

It's called recreational shooting. Shooting at targets for fun....

What possible justification is there for allowing these to be made generally available?

I know a man who was injured while he served in the marines. He now has to use a cane to get around and is pretty defenseless if someone tried to rob him or attack him. He tells me that owning his concealed weapon "equalizes" himself with any non-crippled criminal.

like, certain types of handguns, muskets, blunderbusses, shotguns, and some types of semiautomatic and repeating rifles.

Blunderbusses? who uses a Blunderbuss?
we're not pirates here!

BUT, no concealed weapons.

You're saying that the Criminal and use a shotgun or a semi-auto rifle....yet I can't have a pistol to protect myself? Unless I start walking around the city streets with my shotgun on my back, I'm kinda out of luck when Mr Crazy starts to rob the store I'm in.

You should have to work for it, not get it almost for granted.

Obviously you have never hunted, or probably even watched a wild animal. Hunting is 30% preperation, 30% stalking, 30% strategic placement, 9% nerves, and 1% finger strength. It takes more than a gun to succesfully kill a deer or a turkey. It takes skill, vigilance, and even a little luck.

it's not the citizens job to kill the criminals, that is called vigilantism, it's wrong.

It's a citizens right to protect their well being. If the Citizen roamed the streets looking for trouble then it would be wrong.

So owning a gun actually INCREASES your chances of getting shot.

DO YOU THINK SO?
I bet owning a chainsaw increases your risk of chainsaw related injuries too.

How is that a superior deterrent? If a criminal sees an old lady walking down the street, obviously armed, won't he make sure he doesn't attack her?

Uh, that is DETERING him from attacking her, now isn't it.

Defendig yourself is all well and good, but you really don't need a gun to do that in the Uk, you leave the guns to the professionals.

In the US, Gun owners ARE proffesionals. It's the people who get them illegaly that you have to worry about.

Of course the criminals can also carry a concealed weapon and as they are expecting to act and the old lady isn't and has the additional disadvantage of being old... who is going to shoot first?

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard man! Criminals don't need it to be legal to carry a concealed weapon. They'd do it if it was illegal, THEY'RE CRIMINALS MAN!

And America still had a higher rate of gun crime.

That's because we have a higher rate of Guns. I'm sure, though, that our knife related crimes are down compared to the worlds.

I take it then that you treat everyone you see with suspicion of being a "bad guy", because no matter how much you pride yourself on your speed if the "bad guy" is prepared he will shot you before you shoot him if he's expecting it and you aren't.

That's the beauty of a concealed weapon....IT'S CONCEALED and they can't see it. They won't know you have it until they see it. And even knowing that someone could have a gun is a detterent. Alot of Criminals are pussy's at heart who can't pull off the shot when it comes to it...

Or when someone has the drop on you; they, unlike you, think everyone is the "bad guy" (relative term there) and as such they expect anyone to pull a gun. You don't. So you get shot before you can shoot.

Okay, you say it like the Criminal is going to just come thru his vents or something and hang from the ceiling spraying the room with bullets. To get inside the house, he's got to make some noise. Unless the criminal is Hoodini, then you'll know he's coming.

 

[Tom Paine]

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard man! Criminals don't need it to be legal to carry a concealed weapon. They'd do it if it was illegal, THEY'RE CRIMINALS MAN!

And you fail to get the point that if they shoot her before she can shoot them the fact she's carrying doesn't matter!

That's the beauty of a concealed weapon....IT'S CONCEALED and they can't see it. They won't know you have it until they see it. And even knowing that someone could have a gun is a detterent. Alot of Criminals are pussy's at heart who can't pull off the shot when it comes to it...

So why precisely is gun crime so much higher in the US if everyone is deterred?

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

And you fail to get the point that if they shoot her before she can shoot them the fact she's carrying doesn't matter!

If they're planning on shooting you, carrying a gun doesn't realy give you a bullet proof shield, but it at least gives you the chance to make it out alive. You put too many "what if's" in there. What if there is a nuclear blast and it blows the old woman away?

How about this one. What if the old lady manages to squeeze off the shot first and saves her own life? would you like to take that chance away from her?

So why precisely is gun crime so much higher in the US if everyone is deterred?

Concealed weapon carrying is very strict. You have to have a certain license to do so legally and anti-gun activists aren't making it any easier. Thus few people actualy do carry concealed weapons, thus there is less of a deterrent. Oh, and the fact that there are 270,000,000 people in the country, that may be a factor too.

 

[Tom Paine]

If they're planning on shooting you, carrying a gun doesn't realy give you a bullet proof shield, but it at least gives you the chance to make it out alive. You put too many "what if's" in there. What if there is a nuclear blast and it blows the old woman away?

How about this one. What if the old lady manages to squeeze off the shot first and saves her own life? would you like to take that chance away from her?

Okay. So she does not expect to be attacked, whereas the attacker is unsurprised. She is slowed by her age; in all likelihood the thief is not. Who will we put money on in this scenario?

Concealed weapon carrying is very strict. You have to have a certain license to do so legally and anti-gun activists aren't making it any easier. Thus few people actualy do carry concealed weapons, thus there is less of a deterrent. Oh, and the fact that there are 270,000,000 people in the country, that may be a factor too.

The number doesn't change the rate of gun crimes, Hicks. And in fact the fact that there is any deterrent at all would logically lower it somewhat but guess what, it doesn't seem to have done so, if anything it has raised it!

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Okay. So she does not expect to be attacked, whereas the attacker is unsurprised. She is slowed by her age; in all likelihood the thief is not. Who will we put money on in this scenario?

Generaly speaking, Criminals don't just walk around looking for old ladies to murder now do they?
The "theif" if that's what we're calling him, will not just shoot the old lady. He's a theif, not a murderer. No one is going to just try and wing out a gun when someone is aiming at your face, so the old lady will get robbed, but the theif will have to turn around eventualy and when it happens BAM a would to the leg or shoulder. All Criminals are not as blood thirsty as you think, they just want money.

.

And in fact the fact that there is any deterrent at all would logically lower it somewhat but guess what, it doesn't seem to have done so, if anything it has raised it!

that's because there is not yet a detterent! I just said that few people are allowed to carry concealed weapons and that's WITH permits. These people are usualy Govt officials or police anyway. If there were laws stating that any citizen may carry a concealed weapon, then there would be a deterent, but there isn't as of yet.

 

[Erik]

Generaly speaking, Criminals don't just walk around looking for old ladies to murder now do they?
The "theif" if that's what we're calling him, will not just shoot the old lady. He's a theif, not a murderer. No one is going to just try and wing out a gun when someone is aiming at your face, so the old lady will get robbed, but the theif will have to turn around eventualy and when it happens BAM a would to the leg or shoulder. All Criminals are not as blood thirsty as you think, they just want money.

But when a criminal gets discovered and he expect the home owner to be carrying a gun (as he would in America), then he might get scared and pull his 9 to cap tha cracka. (or whatever they call it).

And thats' the point: if everybody carries a gun most controntation wil end in a firefight but i fnobody carries a gun most confrontation wil end in the criminal simply running away.

I've experienced one break in.
I was watching a midnight movie at my mothers home when I heared somebody enter the garage.
So I went to take a look and discovered the door was forced open but the criminals were already gone.
Had we both carried a gun it might have ended in his, or my, death, so I' happy we were both unarmed.

 

[Removed_user_012521]

Guns are our constitutional right, I don't care if someone shoots me when they Rob my hous I'm still going to cary a gun, theres nothing thats going to stop me.


Its not the governments decision whether a gun is a thing that makes you safer or puts you in danger. Its our own, and we will make the decision not crazed left-wing super pacifist.

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

But when a criminal gets discovered and he expect the home owner to be carrying a gun (as he would in America), then he might get scared and pull his 9 to cap tha cracka. (or whatever they call it).

Criminals try to avoid gun battles just as much as you and I would, If they expect you to have a gun, they will be less likely to target you.

And thats' the point: if everybody carries a gun most controntation wil end in a firefight but i fnobody carries a gun most confrontation wil end in the criminal simply running away.

And thats' the point: If everybody carries a gun there will be less confrontation as the criminal will be less likely to target people who are possibly armed.

I've experienced one break in.
I was watching a midnight movie at my mothers home when I heared somebody enter the garage.
So I went to take a look and discovered the door was forced open but the criminals were already gone.
Had we both carried a gun it might have ended in his, or my, death, so I' happy we were both unarmed.

Now just imagine if you'd walked in ten seconds sooner and he had a baseball bat, or a club, or a knife and he didn't want to go to jail. What do you do to defend yourself? try to take him with your bare hands when he lunges after you?

 

[Erik]

Guns are our constitutional right, I don't care if someone shoots me when they Rob my hous I'm still going to cary a gun, theres nothing thats going to stop me.


Its not the governments decision whether a gun is a thing that makes you safer or puts you in danger. Its our own, and we will make the decision not crazed left-wing super pacifist.

And your absolutely right.

I realy don't understand why so many pro-gun people keep comming up with arguments why guns are somehow good for society.
Fact is: you just want to keep your guns 'cos you like them, just like some people don't want to wear seatbelts, or want to watch porn.
You don't even need to justify your preferences, all you need is >50% of voters to agree with you or a (wrongly interpreted) constitutional right.

Now just imagine if you'd walked in ten seconds sooner and he had a baseball bat, or a club, or a knife and he didn't want to go to jail. What do you do to defend yourself? try to take him with your bare hands when he lunges after you?

Why would he attack me?
His best chance of escaping justice is to run away.
Only if I carried a gun so I could shoot him while he was running did he have to take me out before making his escape.

fact is: burglaries hardly ever end in violent confrontations in my country.
The worst thing that can happen here is them taking your TV so your insurance company has to buy you a new one, no biggy realy.
Only in countries where many people own guns do burglaries sometimes end in violence.

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Well, then you're talking about the small time, non armed theif, the one who's just out to get your golf clubs out of your garage or something. Hey, if they're not armed in the Netherlands, they're not armed in America. The advantage to having a gun on you when you see them in your garage is you can pull it out and say "Hey punk, freeze!" and you've got him. He's unarmed so he can't attack you, if he tries you can set him down with a shot to the leg. You can call the police and he get's what's coming to him, a trip to prison for a year or two.
If your unarmed, he just runs away to steal things from other people.

 

[Erik]

Well, then you're talking about the small time, non armed theif, the one who's just out to get your golf clubs out of your garage or something.

That's the only kind of thiefs we have over here.
We don't have armed thiefs thanks to our anti-run laws.

The only type of criminals who arm themselves in my country are part of the organized crime scene.
But they don't attack innocent people, they only kill eachother.

If your unarmed, he just runs away to steal things from other people.

But he can't tell that I'm unarmed because I could be hiding a gun under my clothes.
If he turns around and runs he's risking getting shot if I were hiding a gun, so he might shoot me "just in case".

 

[The Fish]

A study by Kellerman, et al (1998) showed that, for every time a gun was used in defense or a legally justified shooting, there were seven homicides or criminal shootings, 11 attempted or completed suicides, and four accidental shootings. When someone is four times more likely to shoot someone accidentally than to actually shoot someone who poses a danger, how can we, as a society, justify 30,000 gun deaths a year? Giving everyone a gun won't stop crime, we'll just end up with more dead people.

Another statistic:
People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771).

So owning a gun actually INCREASES your chances of getting shot.

AK-47s for everybody? I sure hope not.

Let me just put those numbers up again. Anyone who thinks owning a gun reduces their chances of getting shot is sadly mistaken.

 

[sephodwyrm]

Any answer on why legal foreign visitors to the US can't own guns? So many of the US citizens are xenophobic and own guns. I want to be on the safe side.

 

[Rhinosaur]

Who would want armed foreigners in their country, regardless of whether they were admitted legally or not?

 

[Farnan]

Who would want armed foreigners in their country, regardless of whether they were admitted legally or not?

The United States Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard

 

[Erik]

Who would want armed foreigners in their country, regardless of whether they were admitted legally or not?

Don't forreiners have the same "God given right" to defend themselves?

And besides: more people with guns=more sefety, right?
Legal forreigners are very unlikely to be criminals, they clearly have enough money to come there, so they won't be robbing people and they have a clean criminal record or else they would be denies access.

 

[Rhinosaur]

He's referring to visitors, not permanent residents, of which I'm already aware can serve in the military. One of my best friends was born in Cambodia and serves right now in the US Army. There's a reason why foriegners do not have the full rights of citizens in any country, and it's because they have not proven any sort of loyalty to said country. Surely you realize that?

 

[Erik]

There's a reason why foriegners do not have the full rights of citizens in any country

They have in my country.

 

[Hub'ite]

They have in my country.

Not all countrys are alike.

 

[sephodwyrm]

Yeah. Not all country is alike. The same reason why Europeans can say how the US different and screwed up because its unlike Europe.

Still, I was robbed once, and I would love to have a gun afterwards. But I think gun ownership extends to illegal residents more easily because they have nothing else to lose. I do - my legality. But I would also like to have a backup on my own bodily health to cap any of the xenophobic majority out to get me.

 

[Hansa]

Criminals try to avoid gun battles just as much as you and I would, If they expect you to have a gun, they will be less likely to target you. And thats' the point: If everybody carries a gun there will be less confrontation as the criminal will be less likely to target people who are possibly armed.

In Western Europe, serious thugs are generally (well) armed, Assault rifles, submachineguns, pistols, even the odd heavy machine gun, You name it, they have it. Ordinary people whether that be Jaques in France or Ingrid in Sweden, do not genreally have weapons. Unlike Americans however they don't get shot by thugs, who do not consider them a threat, neither do their children playing Marines or cowboys with daddys gun, or Jaques or Ingrid while doing weapon maitenance with a loaded gun.

Criminals do not shoot unarmed citizens, they rob them and split, no point in risking a murder charge if they are caught if they can just risk armed robbery or a simple break in. If a citizen point a gun at a thug, chances are that he will panic and pull his own weapon.

By the way, I was under the impression that the reason given for people owning weapons by the NRA, was for civilians to be able to fight their government if it becomes opressive. I consider this reason to be completely reasonable in the past. Today the US democracy has proven stable for a considerable time. Today the US state also possess weapons that render an armed civilian uprising failed. The armed civs of USA whould be no match with their pistols, shot guns and even assault rifles, in a time when the army posesses armed professional soldiers, Tanks, bombers, Attack helicopters etc. Ever tried taking out an M1 Abrahams with a Glock 17? Neither have I, but I guarantee you that it does not work. Besides, the US army would probably not obey orders if they where told to fight the American people.

To end, I agree with those who claim that it is not the number of weapons alone that explain the massive gun violence in the US, I just think that when you shoot each other as often as you do, you should not be allowed to own weapons. This is of course an internal US matter that should be solved by the US and no other country. But think, if we hated you, we would want the NRA to succeed, we do not want you to kill each other.

I think Al Qaida like the NRA. Terror attack in the US, just go to a gun show, by an asssault rifle, lots of ammo, and go to a crowded mall. Cost, some hundred bucks, casualties, probably from 10 to 50, which is more than your average Iraqi car bomb. Aftermath, widespread fear, US economy going down as people become afraid to shop. Shops that cant afford a lot of armed safety guards go under. Loads of accidental shooting of peaceful shopping arabs and sikhs by trigger happy guards etc.

Feel free to attack me, I will probably not be able to defend my views, as I do not have thee Internet right now, not writing from my comp.

 

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Gun ownership in America is a peculiar thing, in my opinion, and yet I myself am a part of it (since I own several, granted they are all antique models).

It is hard to compare America to Europe in terms of both gun ownership and gun crime. America, unlike many countries in Europe (if not all) was truly "won" by the usage of firearms. And I'm not talking about military firearms, I'm talking about average Joe making his way west, his gun being one of the most important tools he had, both to fight off Indians and kill his own game to feed himself and his family. You don't see such a gun-dominated tradition in Europe, hence gun ownership is not so molded into the psyche of European people. In America, guns are firmly molded into the national psyche, hence one reason why people argue so viciously to keep them.

And yet, our possession and love of guns leads to massively higher deaths as a result of gun violence, and in an age when guns are no longer necessary to expand westward and make our own fortunes, who can justify the necessity of keeping them (and keeping such high-powered dangerous ones to boot). It's pretty clear to me that, probably just due to our collective pasts and our society, Americans are a more violent people than most in the Western world, so I believe that taking guns away from American citizens is foolish. It will stop gun violence, but it won't stop violence itself. As we all know, there are more ways to kill someone aside from shooting them. That said, I do think that having every privately owned firearm registered to some form of law enforcement agency for reference if used in a crime is a system that is long overdue. If your gun is used to commit a crime, the authorities should be able to know it. And yet, the NRA and gun nuts would fight this to the death, because somehow common sense like this impinges on their "God-given right" to own guns...(can someone explain that to me...I'm a little shaky on my Biblical knowledge, but I don't recall any references to guns in there).

 

[Hub'ite]

Its the hidden 11th Commandment. Thou shalt bear arms.
I could never give up my shotgun. I do live in a safe neighbourhood but Memphis isn't that far away. I feel safer knowing I can blow a thug away if he comes in my apartment.

 

[HMMcKamikaze]

And then they also use the 2nd amendment as proof of their right to use guns. I agree with you on the fact that removing guns wont solve the violence, but i think we need to remove the more powerful and unneccesary ones, ones that have no place in hunting.

 

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Its the hidden 11th Commandment. Thou shalt bear arms.
I could never give up my shotgun. I do live in a safe neighbourhood but Memphis isn't that far away. I feel safer knowing I can blow a thug away if he comes in my apartment.

I understand the gun-ownership mindset, as I said, I own a few myself, but this I don't get. It does make people feel safer, and it does make people feel powerful, and it is a rush to shoot a gun. But at the same time, I think gun ownership also fosters an idea of paranoia. People want to have them to defend their homes in case of burglary, but how often do burglaries happen in your neighborhood? How often do private homes come under attack? In most American neighborhoods, the answer is not often. It seems to inspire a sense of paranoia and of exceptionalism, thinking that leads to thoughts such as "yes, a criminal will most definitely come after MY home/apartment as opposed to the other 15,000 homes in my area, many of which are of higher value than mine." See the problem?

Even in situations where guns do actually defend people when their homes are invaded, they often lead to conflict and killing when none of that might have happened without both sides being armed. Guns lead to conflict. It's very simple. If you are unarmed and robbed, you'll probably end up losing some stuff and being scared while its happening, but you will survive. Robbers don't enter homes to kill, they enter to steal. If you are unarmed, 9 time out of 10, you'll live. But if you decide to play John Wayne and pull a gun, someone ends up dead. So in a way, owning a gun does lead to more death than less, that really cannot be argued.

 

[Hub'ite]

Well it also depends on the gun owner. If your trained with your weapon you should be able to take out the robber no problem. Alot of gun owners don't have alot of training with their gun. In order to obtain a gun you should have to go through gun control classes.

 

[Hansa]

Gun ownership in America is a peculiar thing, in my opinion, and yet I myself am a part of it (since I own several, granted they are all antique models).

It is hard to compare America to Europe in terms of both gun ownership and gun crime. America, unlike many countries in Europe (if not all) was truly "won" by the usage of firearms. And I'm not talking about military firearms, I'm talking about average Joe making his way west, his gun being one of the most important tools he had, both to fight off Indians and kill his own game to feed himself and his family. You don't see such a gun-dominated tradition in Europe, hence gun ownership is not so molded into the psyche of European people. In America, guns are firmly molded into the national psyche, hence one reason why people argue so viciously to keep them.

And yet, our possession and love of guns leads to massively higher deaths as a result of gun violence, and in an age when guns are no longer necessary to expand westward and make our own fortunes, who can justify the necessity of keeping them (and keeping such high-powered dangerous ones to boot). It's pretty clear to me that, probably just due to our collective pasts and our society, Americans are a more violent people than most in the Western world, so I believe that taking guns away from American citizens is foolish. It will stop gun violence, but it won't stop violence itself. As we all know, there are more ways to kill someone aside from shooting them. That said, I do think that having every privately owned firearm registered to some form of law enforcement agency for reference if used in a crime is a system that is long overdue. If your gun is used to commit a crime, the authorities should be able to know it. And yet, the NRA and gun nuts would fight this to the death, because somehow common sense like this impinges on their "God-given right" to own guns...(can someone explain that to me...I'm a little shaky on my Biblical knowledge, but I don't recall any references to guns in there).

Very interesting point, but what about Canada? I know that the French approach to the indigenous polpulation was less violent than the British, but I still believe that the Canadians gained their land with a lot of violence. The same can probably be said for Australia. Other than that, you're views probably has a lot going for them, I whould like to point out however, one of mine. The inequality in the US and its very limited velfare state. As far as I know, all statistics on the subject has shovn that a society with great ineqality between rich and poor generates violence. In this case the US has very high income inequaity, for example, an expression such as ''The Working Poor'' does not exisist in the ritchest European countries. To have a job and still be really poor is impossible in the ritchest European countries, combine this with the US liberal system velfare state that offers very little in terms of security for the poor, I consider this at least a contributer to the violence in the US. This velfare structure, it must be said, is chosen by the americans through your democracy, so you have chosen more violence in stead of tax increases. Just saying, and I know I offend many Americans now, but look to Canada, lots of guns, little violence, are you really that different from the Canadians (you already wear their flags when abroad), what does Canada do that the US don't, maybe you should ask yourself that type of question.

Edit

Well it also depends on the gun owner. If your trained with your weapon you should be able to take out the robber no problem. Alot of gun owners don't have alot of training with their gun. In order to obtain a gun you should have to go through gun control classes.

I agree with you there, all firearms owners should be trained, but being a Navy Seal does not guarantee safety from thiefs and robbers, If you are surprised by a robber and grabs for your gun while he is pointing one at you, you are still probably dead. And a lot of guns malfunction. And if someonne really poor enters your house in order to get food or money to pay of a mafia dude threatening to kill them or similar, should they be shot by some homeowner. Is it the right of any citizen to fire at anyone who surprises him in his home. What if you live in an area where all the houses look the same, and your nice but drunken neigbour gets home completely out of it and believes he is sneaking into his own house, trying not to awake his wife. I consider firearms to be something that Police and Military should use at people (at worst). Civilians should limit their gun use to hunting and sports, in neither case a Mac 10, or Uzi is preferable. Well I guess that I am just glad I do not need a gun in order to feel safe. If I would, I whould consider that the law and order of the state had completely manfunctioned and that my society didn't work.