Gun Control Anyone?

insanebill1;74665 wrote:our phsical violence rate is much lower than several other countrys as said a chart i saw in english class today...srry cant show it as evidence, cant remember the site it was on. the survey was taken in 2005 though so its somewhat recent. while we have less gun crimes, other countrys have physical violence. and not to mention there are more ppl in the united states than many other countrys. therefore, more ppl to comit gun related crimes

First off its "per 100,000" so its a percent and it doesn't matter how many people are in a country, it shows the RATE.

And physical crimes are not related to the issue of gun control, that is another debate in itself on what causes physical crimes.

regardless, this is a chart that shows homicides without guns per capita (again a rate) even though it is under the gun section:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100_po...

Now obviously our rate is not as high as expected countries that are rife with problems, but it is significantly higher than in developed countries. This is off topic, but whatever, Here is another chart that shows assaults (closest thing I think to physical crimes) and its per capita again, so its a rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

US is still pretty high up there? anyway the point stands that we should have harsher gun control.

I think it's quite simple really. Let the people have their "right to bear arms" under the Constitution for the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land". Most people and politicians tend to forget that and pretend it's not there. What most of you are suggesting is that this document is quite outdated, seeing as how they supposedly thought people wouldn't use guns for bad deeds. Well, still I don't consider it outdated, and we still heed to it for the majority, so don't say that our founding fathers never thought that guns would improve and that the people in our society would use it for bad just as they used it for good. I'm pretty sure they knew that. Also, if we issued out stricter gun control laws, then our "good" citizens would be endangered, and the crime rates would NOT go down. Want to know why? Because all the criminals that used guns before will now revert to knives or any other weapon they can use against citizens. So, the killings and crimes will still be there, it'll just be through another method. People will always be killing other people; that's just how life is. With more lenient gun control, our citizens can at least defend themselves. There's ALWAYS a good and bad side to everything (i.e. this issue). We cannot control it and make it just for the good stuff. It's impossible and useless to try. So, let the people have the "right to bear arms". That's how the "supreme law of the land" wanted it, and we should follow it.

I have said this many times now, but when the constitution was written, guns were one shot only, it WAS neccessary to have a gun: It was neccessary to hunt for food, it was neccessary to defend oneself on the frontier, it was neccessary in order to each out an existence in the new world.

Today, there is no reason for anyone but law enforcement officers to have guns, and the Constitution is a living document.

Now, if there were stricter gun laws, how would our good citizens be endangered? I assume your talking about deliberate murder, so I will explain this to you:

your logic is that if guns are not available to people, they will kill in other ways. Yes, there will always be murders in any country, however without guns the number is much less. This is because guns are an incentive for murder, due to their ease of use as killing implements (it is easy for the murderer because they just have to sneak up on someone and shoot them). See, criminals will not rob a bank with a knife, there is not enough of a guarantee they will be able to outdo the cops. Honestly, would you go into a bank with a knife knowing that there are security guards and cops with firearms? no, the huge majority would not.

With more lenient gun control, more people will have them and more people will use them. The thing is, citizens do not need guns for protection. They will never be in a shootout, if someone with a gun were to attack them they would do it when they are sleeping or with their back turned. The citizen would never even have an opportunity to use a gun.

I want to see a correlation between stricter gun laws and an increase in on-firearm murders to believe your argument. It is not impossible to decrease gun violence, i have cited again and again the example of the UK.

hey drummer, you keep saying that when the constitution was written it was necessary to have guns. what about before guns? did they not survive? guns were as "necessary" then as they are now. they are still used for hunting but most importantly for self protection, just as you have writtten that they were used for back in the day, when they were single shot muzzleloaders. the problem that i see in your logic is that you say that people would be less likely to perform a crime if they knew that the police or security officers had guns,but this is already a fact, cops and security guards do have guns, yet people still do criminal acts. i say imagine what the crime rate would do if a majority of citizens had guns? it would solve more problems than implementing gun control. would anyone try to steal or harm someone if there was a great probability that a person nearby had a gun nearby?

you also continue to use the UK as an example of decreased gun violence, but what if someone did somehow get a gun, which is quite possible (and easy according to this BBC News story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7083629.stm), and then tried to mug you as you were walking down the street? you would have absolutely no way to protect yourself. how would you feel if your child (if you had one) got mugged?

The reason people do criminal acts is not because police have guns, but because the criminals themselves have guns. If the majority of citizens had guns... the crime rate would increase (a group of robbers could easily walk into a bank and if they get their arms out first they can pin the rest of the people in the bank down). Now let's say that it is harder for everyone to obtain guns, and since not everyone who commits a crime has definite access to arms, the amount of people who would contribute to gun violence would go down.

Take a look at this chart: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

The percent of households with guns (as that increases) is driectly linked ot the amount of gun violence.

Also from that site:

For example, a review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and both homicide with a gun and overall homicide rates (Killias excluded Northern Ireland from the analysis because of the level of civil unrest). In an analysis of 14 countries, the correlation between gun ownership and gun suicide was also significant, as was the correlation of gun ownership with overall suicide rates.

Also, the article you gave is about the Czech Republic and how easy it is to obtain arms there. Because of EU trade, these CAN be sent into the UK, but that doesn't mean domestic gun laws are not affective.

Finally from www.guninformation.com:

Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.

drummer~when you said: "Today, there is no reason for anyone but law enforcement officers to have guns," i enjoy hunting. what about those of us like me? and yes i have hunted w/ a revolver. a standard 6-shot hand held weapon. most of my family hunts and im sure my kids will learn. not everyone buys guns to comit crime. Most ppl buy weapons for protection or for leisure. its just in the spur of the moment some ppl feel they must use it for the wrong reason. you cant sit there and tell me you've never been mad at anyone to the extent you wished they werent there any more? i kno i have. but some ppl like me and you can use self control and make the right decisions. its not that guns are bad and who buy them are bad. its the spur of the moment and situation they are in. back to said bank robber sinerio. noone wakes up one morning and says im gonna rob a bank today unless your like a master criminal or something...ppl get into a bad situation financially and feel that the gun they bought for protection can be used as leverage.

Well I'm not really here to set up a system, just say I approve of gun control, but if there was stricter gun control it would still be possible to own firearms, just much harder.

I hate to use the UK as an example but its the first thing that comes to mind. Basically if you are allowed to carry a gun than you can, but to get one it should require many hurdles. What is big in the UK as far as hunting? Game birds, although what is hunted is irrelevant.

kudos for the use of facts drummer, it seems that you are very passionate about your position on the issue and your opinion most likely won't be affected by anything that i, or anyone else says, but you do seem to generalize that everyone who owns a gun is either a criminal or will become one.

i found this article and it makes a lot of sense to me, here's a little excerpt:

"The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more."

i got it from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html

hey drummer i decided to check out your source, and it seems i complimented you a bit too soon. the source is nice, but its outdated, most of it is over a decade old. it is also very biased. thirdly not all of it supports your side, it makes it clear in figure 1 that the yukoon/northwest territories have the greatest percentage of guns in the home and gunshot death rates, in fact more than the US, but then it goes on to say that

"... Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million."

that means that with canada's only 1 million handguns they have a greater death rate percentage than with the united state's 76 million registered guns, which doesn't say much for the gun control cause, because it's obviously not working to well there.

Which source is outdated? The Virginia tech massacre is actually a great example of why there should be stricter gun control laws.

http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/19/158671.aspx

Cho Seung-Hui did not get his gun from Virginia Tech, he got it outside, where guns are readily available. Now imagine if he couldn't have gotten a gun because the law would not allow it. Also, your source from "Ron Paul" is going to criticize and kind of government act. It is true how he said he was the only true conservative candidate: he wants a very, very small government and does not support very many laws at all currently.

Now, about the Canada thing: I apologize it is rather old, however that actually does not mean a lot in this argument because it is still a valid statistic from the time (one where more guns in homes correlates with more violence). This particular piece is actually from 2001 on the site:

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.

"As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate."

Now, ALL of Canada does not have a greater percentage, the majority has a much lower percent because of harsher gun laws. However, obviously it is easier to get a gun (and there are more of them) in the Yukon territory per person than even here in the US.

Now, the Yukon has about 31,000 people ( http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071219/d071219b.htm ), so most of the one million guns are in other parts of Canada where the rate is lower than the US (so less guns = safer). What this means is that where there is gun control (most of Canada), there is less gun violence, but when there is less gun control (Yukon territory), violence is more common than even here in the US.