Gun Control Anyone?

31250DruMMer;76119 wrote:What can be shown is the correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of violence, which has been presented again and again.

Switzerland has a higher percentage of firearms and yet less violence, so perhaps in some countries there is a correlation, but evidently the number of guns is not the ONLY variable that effects the amount of violence.

31250DruMMer;76119 wrote:Ordinary citizens commit crimes too, and there is not a need for them to have firearms.

-Protection from wild animals.

Perhaps if you live in the city, these are not things you would know much about... not all Americans live in cities. Have you ever shared woods with a grizzly bear? A pond with an alligator? A field with a panther? Would you like to do so completely unarmed?

-Procuring food.

I think this is fairly self-explanatory.

31250DruMMer;76119 wrote:About the totalitarian regimes: It is not really possible for the US to become a dictatorship considering the checks that are imposed on the president, or anyone else in the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

I'm not trying to say I think the United States is about to be ruled by any sort of totalitarian regime, but in both of the above cases, the dictators were given that status after being legitimately placed in office. The governments they took charge of were both Republics...

Quick note - the check and balances system was put in place mainly to prevent the rise of one ruler having seen the work of a line of monarchs in England. It would only be possible for a totalitarian government to suceed in the U.S. if the president got 2/3 of the house AND senate elected by the people who would amend the constitution plus have control of the majority of the supreme court which are primarily picked by their predecessors to approve such a drastic change.

Highly unlikely and much easier for your examples to do so than a U.S. president with our strict laws in place.

*leaves debate*

Chipmunk;76191 wrote:Switzerland has a higher percentage of firearms and yet less violence, so perhaps in some countries there is a correlation, but evidently the number of guns is not the ONLY variable that effects the amount of violence.

Switzerland has a high percentage of firearms and a high rate of violence. The reason it may seem lower is because the soldiers are required to keep their own firearms, and this situation, although not ideal, is better than having untrained people with firearms. However, just as this article states, suicide rates are very high in Switzerland as is domestic violence involving firearms. (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1433,2709342,00.html)

Chipmunk;76191 wrote:
-Protection from wild animals.

Have you ever shared woods with a grizzly bear? A pond with an alligator? A field with a panther? Would you like to do so completely unarmed?

-Procuring food.

well... bears are actually more afraid of people than we are of them. In fact, no one has ever been killed by a black bear in California (a state of 30 million people) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/01/MNGN8810F91.DTL.

Alligators: like bears, it is most likely not a significant number. Now I'm not going to say whether it is right or wrong to shoot an animal just because you see it, but I am going to say that a gun would not be much use against an alligator because of the way they attack anything. Ambush. If you did get attacked, it would lunge out of the water much faster than you could pull out a gun, and pull you under where your primary concern would be to stay afloat, much less pull out a weapon that wouldn't be much use.

Panthers: Same thing about fear with bears, they are more scared of you. Plus panthers are ambush predators, if they wanted to get you, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself.

For all of these animals, more are killed by humans than humans are killed by them. And the amount of people who are not killed by guns would definitely outweigh the insignificant number of people who get to use their weapons in self defense. Honestly, I think this is an incredibly weak point.

How many people hunt for their daily nutrition? This was necessary in the early days of this country and past centuries in the world, and it still goes on in some places but realistically, no one in the US does this.

Chipmunk;76191 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

I'm not trying to say I think the United States is about to be ruled by any sort of totalitarian regime, but in both of the above cases, the dictators were given that status after being legitimately placed in office. The governments they took charge of were both Republics...

Hitler rose to power because he was an amazing orator and seemed to be the only person who could pull Germany out of its downward slide after the depression hit. Hitler's extremist party was elected in desperation. Now Hitler did take power through a majority in the Reichstag (parliament) but in the US the people do have the power to change the government, and Hitler's use of gun control and all totalitarian states should be seen as an exception rather than the rule.
you can read about it here: http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/hitlergainspower.htm

I'm not entirely sure why you chose Gaius Julius Caesar, because he was not really a bad person. He was actually a great king or dictator (the word dictator actually came from a strong leader, someone who could dictate the laws and keep order).

Wikipedia under dictator: The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency (see Roman dictator and and justitium). Like the term tyrant, originally a respectable Ancient Greek title, and to a lesser degree autocrat, it came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.

He was chosen to be a dictator, he didn't even call himself dictator or king in his career. He also issued much needed social reforms after a long period of decline in the Roman Republic (which wasn't that democratic because most of the power was in a small wealthy group).

This information comes from either Wiki or my AP World History textbook.

Just about the bears (which shouldn't be in this discussion but are):

A large Grizzly could keep going after a shot from a handgun, and probably would become angry at you. The best way to fend of bears is to use their sense of smell against them. Bears have an amazing sense of smell, and certain sprays can be sued to irritate them so much they will just leave. There is some stuff on it here:
http://www.greatbear.org/

Drummer,
I come from a rather redneck area and i have a whole room of my house devoted to guns and the animals that have died by my hand. But you can't sit back and say that there are people in America who do not hunt for their food daily. I know of many who eat roadkill for dinner they are so poor. They dont have running water, so they go to the lav in 5 gallon buckets. This is central Pennsylvania, we have people here who live in shacks and hunt rabbits for their only meal of the day. Of course there are those fools who use guns completely wrong and attack others with them with no real cause. But i know a few things about life and where i live. Personally, i keep a shotgun in my room and a box of 50 shells and my 5 year old brother has himself a .22 cal. They pass some kind of pussy law that takes that from me, i'll just go bury them in the woods and get them later. As for people i know who own automatic weapons, a friend of mines mom is a two star admiral at the Pentagon and when his dad died i help him dig up over 50 automatic weapons along the Appalacian Trail. People have access to them and they are fun to shoot. Its my right to own as many as i wish, so im just gonna keep on buying more.

kinda random but it takes out the argument of gun control and Switzerland.

Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.

Fact: Switzerland also has strict gun control laws.

Summary

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.

Argument

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics:

Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05

By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have virtually banned handguns and assault weapons to the general public.

MoreGuns;76268 wrote:My 5 year old brother has himself a .22 cal

Now I don't care what anyone says, but a 5 year old child should NOT have that kind of firepower. There is absolutely no reason for them to, and it is dangerous (mostly to them).

Anyway, your argument is on the morals associated with the issue. I personally hate debating morals because they can't be proven right or wrong.

My main point is that there should not be loose weapons floating around that can be used in a dangerous manner.

They are all lock in a safe for your view pleasure, but i have a key, my mom has a key and my dad has one. We all know who goes in and out of the gun case. And do you really know what a .22 is? "That kind of firepower..." Good paintball guns fire over 400 feet per second, and excellent airsoft guns well over 500 and then pellet guns can top out at over 1000, this .22 does about 600fps. He knows how to shoot and someone is always with him. Say i was giving him a .357 or a .35, then you can complain. Again buddy, you got no idea what its like here. You can call me one of the few who are slightly civilized, but dont get me wrong, i like a good lung shot.

I'm still going to stand beside everything I said, but I never called you less civilized. Like I said, this debate has become an argument of which culture is better. The correct answer is: neither.

However, from the point of security, I stand by what I said.

Hello, I'm joining the debate and I would like to tell you my position as completely against the control of firearms and use of legal firearms to citizens and residents in America.

I've heard dozens of times that people should regulate "assault weapons" because you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer. These people are extremely ignorant because they don't even know about hunting laws that restrict the ammunition capacity of a firearm for hunting, and they also don't know about sporterized Kalashnikov rifles designed for hunting.

You know what? I'll stop ranting here and propose a plan for all of you that support gun control.

Place a sticker on your front door that says you support gun control. Also have a bumper sticker that says you support gun control. In fact, get a lot of people to do so and start a whole organization that supports gun control. Encourage everyone in your community to do so.

why did you drag this up again i thought this was finally put to rest. also if you go to a tournament at Harvard next year i might see you