Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • October 16, 2018, 01:51:11 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Gun Control Debate  (Read 13474 times)

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Gun Control Debate
« on: March 10, 2009, 10:40:39 AM »

“Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product.”
       -Christopher Lasch-

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”
       -Addison Whithecomb-

Many current events have brought gun control to the forefront of my thoughts. Personally I don't believe that it works, and I am completely unable to understand they view of those who think that it does work. A debate that focuses solely on the issues would highlight many points from both sides and hopefully give more understanding to both sides. In such a heated debate it is often times hard to keep from "attacking the messenger" but as mature adults I'm sure we can handle it this once. And as a side benefit this thread can consolidate all the arguing about gun control. So I will no longer have to read through pages of debates that are off the posts topic to finish ready a post. Any arguments can just shift to this thread.

Any takers????  ;D     
Logged

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2009, 10:56:08 AM »

I've found that gun control works well when you use the sights. :D
Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2009, 07:00:52 AM »

This may be of interest in an actual adult debate on the issues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm

Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life.

Deepwater, Missouri has a motto: "A great lil' town nestled in the heartland."

Deepwater considers itself to be an exemplar of the best of American life. A place where outsiders - if they ever penetrated this far - would find home-cooked apple pie and friendly, warm, hard-working folk.

Among those folk, I have no doubt, is Ronald Long.

Last month Mr Long decided to install a satellite television system in his Deepwater home. His efforts to make a hole in the outside wall came to nothing because Mr Long did not possess a drill.

But he did have a .22 calibre gun.

He fired two shots from the inside of the bedroom.

The second killed his wife who was standing outside.

He will face no charges. The police accept it was an accident.

Gun control

To many foreigners - and to some Americans - the tolerance of guns in everyday American life is simply inexplicable.

"In Montana, we like our guns... most of us own two or three"

Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana

As a New York Times columnist put it recently:

"The nation is saturated with violence. Thousands upon thousands of murders are committed each year. There are more than 200 million guns in circulation."

Someone suggested a few days ago that the Democrats' presidential candidates might like to take up the issue of gun control.

Forget about it.

They were warned off - in colourful style - by a fellow Democrat, the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer.

"In Montana, we like our guns", he said.

"Most of us own two or three guns. 'Gun control' is hitting what you shoot at. So I'd be a little careful about blowing smoke up our skirts."

Democrats would like to win in the Mountain West this November. Enough said.

Washington weapons ban

On the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, all this will feel to some like a rather depressing, if predictable, American story. A story of an inability to get to grips with violence.
 
At the moment, there is an effort being made to overturn a ban on some types of weapon in Washington DC.

Among those dead against this plan - those who claim it would turn the nation's capital into the Wild West - is a lanky black man (he looks like a basketball player) called Anwan Glover.

Anwan peeled off articles of clothing for our cameras and revealed that he had been shot nine times.

One bullet is still lodged in an elbow.

His younger brother was shot and killed a few months ago.

Anwan was speaking to us in a back alley in north-east Washington. If you heard a gun shot in this neighbourhood you would not feel surprised.

'Gentler environment'

Why is it then that so many Americans - and foreigners who come here - feel that the place is so, well, safe?

 
"I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place"

A British man I met in Colorado recently told me he used to live in Kent but he moved to the American state of New Jersey and will not go home because it is, as he put it, "a gentler environment for bringing the kids up."

This is New Jersey. Home of the Sopranos.

Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.

I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.

"It seems so nice here," they quaver.

Well, it is!

Violent paradox

Ten or 20 years ago, it was a different story, but things have changed.

And this is Manhattan.

Wait till you get to London Texas, or Glasgow Montana, or Oxford Mississippi or Virgin Utah, for that matter, where every household is required by local ordinance to possess a gun.

Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you.

They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London.

It is a paradox. Along with the guns there is a tranquillity and civility about American life of which most British people can only dream.

Peace and serenity

What surprises the British tourists is that, in areas of the US that look and feel like suburban Britain, there is simply less crime and much less violent crime.

Doors are left unlocked, public telephones unbroken.

One reason - perhaps the overriding reason - is that there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none.

I have never seen a group of drunk young people in the entire six years I have lived here. I travel a lot and not always to the better parts of town.

It is an odd fact that a nation we associate - quite properly - with violence is also so serene, so unscarred by petty crime, so innocent of brawling.

Virginia Tech had the headlines in the last few days and reminded us of the violence for which the US is well known.

But most American lives were as peaceful on this anniversary as they are every day.

Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2009, 10:57:10 AM »

WHAT DEBATE?  AND TO SAY LOOK AT THE "OBAMA ELECTION" FOR THE ANSWER IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE FACTS... ::)

LETS SEE WHAT THE MEDIA IS SAYING ABOUT THE SILENT MAJORITY....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/16/guns.poll/index.html

 Dec 2007-Majority in U.S. poll support gun ownership rights

    * Story Highlights
    * Men and people living in rural areas were most likely to say yes
    * 73 percent of rural, 64 percent of suburban, and half of city dwellers said yes
    * Some say 2nd Amendment means everyone has right to own a gun
    * Others say 2nd Amendment protects right to form a militia
    * Next Article in U.S. »

 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released Sunday.

In all, 65 percent said they thought the Constitution ensures that right, and 31 percent said it did not. The question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 points.

Men and people living in rural areas were most likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun.

Nearly three quarters of men (72 percent) said they believed so, versus 26 percent who did not. More than half (58 percent) of women said they believed so, versus slightly more than a third (35 percent) who did not.

That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 4.5 points.

Among rural dwellers, 73 percent said they agreed, versus 64 percent and only half (50 percent) of city dwellers who thought the same.
Don't Miss

    * Supreme Court to rule on gun ownership rights

That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 7 points.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
advertisement

Some have interpreted those words to mean that everyone has a right to own a gun; others say the amendment protects only the right of citizens to form a militia.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll of 1,002 U.S. adults was carried out December 6 - 9. E-mail to a friend
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2009, 11:54:06 AM »

Well this is a start. But to have a really good debate I think we might need to lay a little bit of a foundation. The question is "does gun control work?" Now what does that really mean? What is the purpose of gun control, and what would show that it works. Then is there any personal rights to consider, or does the government have the right to decide what personal freedom is?

Purpose: To reduce violent crime rates.
Works when: Violent crime rates are lowered.
Personal freedoms: We have a right to defend ourselves. Since guns exsist we need to be able to defend against them.

As far as I can tell these are the main points. I would assume that everyone will agree with the first two points. The debate should come in on the third and its relation to the second point.

Anyone not agree that the purpose of gun control is to lower violent crime rates and the you can tell it is working when violent crime rates drop?




And in response the the article about the silent majority..... I'm not sure you can put much stock in what the average American believes about the Constitution. Its sad to say but most People, even Americans don't really know what the Constitution says. I doubt many people could even summarize the Bill of Rights. So what is the point of polling uneducated people what they believe the Constitution mean? There is none. Just my .02 
Logged

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2009, 12:10:27 PM »

Anyone not agree that the purpose of gun control is to lower violent crime rates and the you can tell it is working when violent crime rates drop?


I don't agree.  The purpose it to disarm the people so the government can become more authoritarian.

When Marcos declared martial law his first order was to turn in your guns.  Do you really think crime reduction was on his mind?  IMO most politicians are like Marcos, it is just that they can only do what they think they can get away with.
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2009, 02:40:36 PM »

This is directly from wickepedia-Federal Assault Weapons Ban,
An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the United States Department of Justice found that assault weapons were used in 2 to 8 percent of gun crimes prior to the ban.


since the law’s enactment ... assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime


From 2-8% (Ave 5%) to 1%, wow, what a change...what about the other 95-99%?

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2009, 02:42:16 PM »

Ok, agree, disagree, opinions, great...lets look at the facts.

Go to the FBI website or US DOJ website and look at figures.
Here are some websites to pull data from...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

Overview of homicides in US the last 20+ years
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

---------------------------------------------
Here is what you find regarding violent crime homicides in 2007.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

Homicide total =  14,831
homicide by gun subtotal = 10,086


Now look at total number of deaths in 2006
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/08newsreleases/mortality2006.htm

Total deaths 2006 = 2,425,900


Compare that with number deaths 2005 from examples below:

Heart disease (2005) =        652,091     (26%)
Diabetes (2005) =             75,119        (3%) 
Car Accident deaths (2005) =  42,636    (1%)
Hypertension (2005) =         24,902       (1%)

Gun homicides (2007) =        10,086       (0.4%)

--------------------------------------------

The number of crimes interrupted or prevented by citizens using firearms
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st223?pg=6

on average per year = 2,500,000

"The most reasonable estimate of defensive gun use was made by Kleck:
approximately 2.5 million annually. ....the saving to society from the crimes
prevented is about five times greater than the cost to society of firearms violence."

---------------------------------------------

Justifiable homicide by victims, lethal force against felon in 2002-2006.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
Ave = 240/yr


Justifiable homicide of felon by law enforcement in 2002-2006
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_13.html
Ave = 350/yr
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2009, 02:48:58 PM »

Why doesn't the media present the 2.5 million crimes prevented by armed citizens every year?  And why don't they also report the non-gun crimes?  What about the billions saved by armed citizens preventing crime?  Is it because the liberal media is owned by the conservative corporations, who are bought out by international interests that wish to undermine America?  I dunno...

But here is yet more information regarding the Facts...

More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2007
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

Gun Ownership at All-Time High, Violent Crime Near 30-Year Low

Over the last two decades, many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels. Numbers of privately-owned guns and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs. Every step of the way, "gun control" groups predicted violent crime would increase. Instead, violent crime decreased dramatically.

Less "Gun Control": The Brady Act’s handgun waiting period expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check System. Some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. Since 1987, 30 states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws; there are now 40 RTC states. All states have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 47 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.1 Studies by or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.2

More Guns: The number of new guns rises by about 4.5 million every year.3 There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.4

Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation’s total violent crime rate is down 38 percent. (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.) Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low; increased slightly in 2005 and 2006; and decreased to nearly the 2004 level in 2007. Every year since 2002, the violent crime rate has been lower than anytime since 1974. Every year since 1999, the murder rate has been lower than anytime since 1966. States with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.5


Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2009, 03:38:14 PM »

ET - This was a good idea.  But we cannot have an adult debate when some folks merely charge in again, ranting away with their mouths open and ears (eyes) closed.

Back to topic.

Please educate me here, but wasn't the 2nd Ammendment there to ensure an unjust Government couldn't overthrow the populace?  Or was it there merely for "reducing violent crime" etc.?
Logged

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2009, 02:25:17 AM »

While I can't really disagree that there are probably those in government that want to disarm the people to gain more power and control, we can only guess at this and not really prove it. At the same time I am sure that there are many people in the government and elsewhere that truly believe that more restrictive gun control will lower the violent crime rate. These people have good intentions but are acting out of ignorance and fear (in our opinion). Since I don't believe that we can prove a wide government conspiracy, and because it wouldn't address the concerns of the general gun control crowd we should probably stick to statistics that look at the success of restrictive gun laws in lowering violent crime.

There have already been many links posted concerning statistics. My personal interpretation of those statistics is that gun control doesn't work. But I will take the time to look at them more closely and then comment with more detail. Brian S, since you are the only person on this forum that I am aware of that doesn't believe gun control works I would be interested in the details of how you interpret the stats.

I must disagree with the statement concerning people charging in and ranting. From what I saw it was mostly posting of relevant statistics. That seems to me to be the opposite of ranting. Please explain so that we can keep from ranting and actually debate both sides.

I almost forgot.... I agree that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the power to overthrow an unjust Government. 

Brian S, I am looking forward to hearing your interpretations. Maybe someone else will chime in on your side but I expect it will probably be a lonely position to hold on a "hand, gun, stick and knife" forum.   
Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2009, 03:36:10 AM »

It can be!   ;D  Occasionally that is used as some kind of bizzarre case against me.  It goes along the lines of "You're outnumbered, so you must be wrong."  But, like you say, this is a pro gun forum.  Anti gun people just don't come here, just like most here don't post on Michael Moore type forums.

Actually, as I have said in the past, I have no real opinion on gun control in the USA.  I really couldn't care less, and only play Devil's Advocate when people take a pop  at my own country - as your own countrymen seemed to passionately need my country to adopt your ways.  We're back to the Californians wanting thr Eskimos to wear shorts.... Different cultures have different needs.

Funny how no one is mentioning Alabama at the moment?  Is that out of respect for the dead?  I doubt it, more like an example that won't support their case.  Low gun restrictions didn't stop this nut.  Just where were those pro gun citizens taking out the bad guy?

As for Germany?  It is looking increasingly likely that the weapons used were legally owned so, again, this is something that can't really happen in my country.

One of the reasons I say that people are beginning to blindly rant is as follows:-  I just posted an article that goes a long way to supporting your case.  It is fairly even handed, but does outline from a Brits perspective how your society feels safer than my own - but clearly no one has read it.  They're not reading my side of the argument so, when I put something down that supports theirs?  They have no idea.... because they're only reading their own and their friends posts.

Well.  As for stats?  They're always manipulated.  When you have 10,000 people killed with guns.... you try to soften it by compare it to the rates of death from other causes.... or by showing it as a percentage of the population.  All flawed arguments of course, as there are still 10,000 corpses that would be alive if you had proper gun control.
Logged

arnold

  • the king of cool
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 3183
  • oh that will get you killed
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2009, 06:26:43 AM »

Every case against you is bizarre. It has to be. Think peanut butter, chunky style and vinyl.
Let me protect myself. I do not need, nor do I want to wait for the police to show up while I'm trying to protect my family and myself. Yes the police where I live are excellent. i trained a few of them about 10 years ago. They are still trying to recover.
 I called 911 for an ambulance a few years ago when my wife became ill and passed out. The local sargeant was here is about 20 seconds. Within 2 minutes 2 more officers were here. The report went in incorrectly ( big surprise) that there had been an incident at the home and the wife was hurt. When they showed up, they asked if there was anybody else hurt. Then they told me what the report was. I told them to listen to my phone call. Dumb ass dispatcher for the sheriff screwed it up. The cops thought that I had done something to an intruder and they were expecting to find a body. I was terribly sorry to disappoint them ::)
Logged
I leave you idiots alone for 5 minutes and I come back and you're all dancing around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots
you're all a bunch of slack jawed faggots around here, this stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me!

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
  • The Warlord
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2009, 06:46:56 AM »

Bri Thai,

You are not trying to debate, just to argue.  A pro-gun anti-gun stance, I can work with that.  A pro-government anti-govermment stance, I can work with that.

You don't like a posting of facts, because you feel people post bias facts that support only their point.  You don't want to try to support your opinion -- you want them to do your work and support your views.  A debate requires real world work from both sides of the debate, not simply another question to digress from a point of fact.

You like the argument, not an understanding of viewpoints.  You want a simple understanding/admission that they are wrong.

You can understand everyone's laws/culture/people, yet your culture must be lived in to understand.

You are unwilling to drive a stake in the ground and fight for your ideas.   It's easier to debate when you are unwilling to defend any philosophical understanding or basis of fact.

The above put you in the category of internet troll.    You're not worth arguing with...only worth pointing at a laughing.

Devils Advocate is a shit stirrer.  Grow a set or get back under the bridge.





Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2009, 06:57:50 AM »

All flawed arguments of course, as there are still 10,000 corpses that would be alive if you had proper gun control.

Looking at these ten - or however many stats -thousand corpses of guns, how many are suicides or crimes victims? Some are accidental shootings?  Exaclty what numbers I don't know? But a goodly percentage of those have always been and would have been killed by some other emotional-driven means, absent a gun. Lots of people are killed without guns. So now it becomes...who really knows about these corpses and guns but the most local homicide investigators?  Save 10,000 corpses minus guns? Some of these are gang members? Mafia money skimmers? Even self-defense shootings? Who are these people?  I might have missed a breakdown by not closely following the dedundant no-win arguments.

But, what does interest me is methods of debate. One of the LAST-resort political arguments people always hear is with "this or that" movement...
 
                       "If this would only save one child!" argument.

Save one tree. Save one child. Save one mother. Save one displaced refugee. Save one soul. "It would all be worth it."

Suggesting no matter the price or effort of the cause the complainer (usually some over-emotional hippy-type) who is out-argued on every level, finally throws down the equivilent of the "save one _____ , its worth it" speech.

All ridiculous costs, efforts, time etc. billions, trillions should be spent...ahhh, welll....ahhh... "if only to save one _____ whatever." But once a protester hits that emotional button in a debate, it might become hard to beat the saver's stance.

The other side then seems uncaring and unemotional when the save the "child, daisy, squirrel, fish" gauntlet is thrown.  Debaters have names for all tpes of debate arguements and methods to counter to debate. Always be on the look-out and prepare to evaluate the "save one-on-up-to-ten-thousand or more" trees, worms or corpses.

Even if those 10,000 corpses - or less than, once actually evaluated - is a sliver of a fraction of 300 million people all in a rural, suburban and urban country with over 200 million guns - being asked the utterly impossible chore of "proper gun control" is impossible. Its just impossible on both a physical and cultural level to implement. With the running fear of terrorism barking in the wind. Even more impossible.

Jeez, let us yanks die in peace.

Deep down? We love the drama anyway.

Hock  

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2009, 10:06:34 AM »


Let's take  UK vs US in logistical terms only...geographically the UK is 2.5% the size of the US (roughly the size of Oregon, the 10th largest state), population is 15% of US population. The UK is a small area that is heavily populated, surrounded by water and no borders with second or third world countries (such as US is with Mexico).

Country                     Capital                       Area (sq mi)       Population (2002)
United Kingdom              London                     94,525           ~ 60,609,153
United States           Washington, D.C.       3,718,691          ~ 298,444,215 (now 330 mil)

Now that we can see the the UK is but the size of one mere state of 50 states in the US, it can be inferred that governing and policing in the UK is a much easier task.  Less area to patrol, more densely populated areas, fewer cities, more police, etc.  A hey day for nanny state government.

Logistics aside, now how about the magnitude of cultural diversity, complexity of class, race, religions, cultures.  The US is the melting pot, with over 300 distinct cultures existing side by side.  Tolerance is relatively high for foreign and immigrant presence.

Now, add in the patriotic movement.  Those who vehemently stand to protect the 2nd Amendment (2/3 of US).  It's get even more complex.

Now back to gun control.  Say guns were made illegal to own in the US.  Would it make a difference in the violent crime rates seen nationwide?  The main argument for gun control is abolish all violent crimes.  The FBI has run numbers on violent crimes committed with illegal firearms.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

    * a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
    * a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
    * family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

So, over 80% of felons purchase their weapons on the black market in the US.  80% ! 

If guns were to be illegal to own, the black market would surge, mafias would make a killing (no pun intended) further fueling their already illegal operations.  We see this occurring in Mexico on the headlines today, gvt vs narco mafia, both intertwined, the unarmed citizens being murdered at a ridiculous rate!

So, what about gun ownership, does it deter crime?  90% felons will chose to attack an unarmed victim.  We can see that defending oneself ("God given" right = all creatures defend themselves, have a right to exist) with a firearm will deter crime, based on the very polls taken from inmates in the US.

Lastly, going back to 80% illegal gun purchases, let's assume that the homicide count (10,086) was static for a moment and armed deterrance did not change the count.  After a gun ban, we would still have 8,068 dead.  Can we assume that violent crime is abolished with over 8,000 still lying in the morgues?  Would that number increase if we now factor in the abscence of armed deterrance? If 90% felons chose to attack unarmed victims, the answer is absolutely.

So what to do...well, we can look back to the 1960s when more leniency toward felons in the US court system caused a surge in violent crimes.  Could it be that simple, we are creating a revolving door for the bad guys, at the expense of US citizen lives?  If you dig in this area and do your research you will find the truth is stranger than fiction...



Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

rutleddc

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2009, 10:34:45 AM »

Let's look at this from another angle. The kind of person that rises to power in government generally really wants to have as much power as possible. He views power as a finite pile of cookies, and the more cookies he has the less others will have. More power means more cookies for him and his friends.

Now in government that means the less individual power people have, the more power and hence cookies he can have. I think that is politicians instinctively and subconsciously view every problem as having the solution of more laws more government control - and thereby less for the common people. This leads to the idea that government should have all of the weapons, otherwise commoners will want too many cookies when the leaders want to control how many cookies everyone gets.

But then again, maybe I have been watching too many reruns of Two and One Half Men...
Logged
"Ruttles"
David Rutledge

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2009, 04:23:46 AM »

You kinda lost me when you said that more densely populated areas were easier to police!   ;D

Still searching for references to Alabama though.....
Logged

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2009, 07:35:55 AM »

Quick reference on Alabama. One guy in 300 million people shot up what...ten people? Last week.

Hock

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2009, 09:00:15 AM »

Brian S, do you have any statistics that support gun control? Maybe something that Britain uses to support their laws. I'm a pretty slow learner but I'm starting to think that maybe you don't have any rational for your views. There have been plenty of statistics to reply to. I really am looking forward to seeing you address at least part of it directly. If you can't or are just unwilling just say so. The suspense is killing me. 
Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2009, 09:21:15 AM »

Awwww. You sprout one sided stats and want me to find another set of one sided stats?

Just google how many people were killed with firearms in the UK in 2007.  See if it gets to 10, let alone 10,000.

Hock - if it was a one off case?  Fair enough.  We had 2 of those, tightened up our gun control, and then we have never had one since.

Not something the US can boast.  And, of course, just where these great benefits you all talk of?  Where was the "They won't dare attack if they think you might be armed?"  Where was the "An armed citizenry will take him out before he can do any damage....?"

Logged

VicMackey

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 363
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2009, 03:38:51 PM »

Leave the American law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun alone! What we need is  enforcement of our current gun control laws, not more gun control legislation. For those sad cases where those guns are misused, I agree they need to be held accountable. Just because of those incidents doesn't mean all law-abiding gun owners are accidents waiting to happen. And if you wanna go there, Brian S, let me tell you that the UK has an increase in the crime rate and gun violence despite the ban on firearms. Gun control does not work.
Logged
"Fail to prepare, prepare to fail."
"A citizen is armed and free while a subject is disarmed and under control."
"An armed society is a polite society."
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"-Sun Tzu
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth"-Mike Tyson

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2009, 11:05:23 PM »

UK Gun control versus USA gun control...

An interesting stat.
(Of which I am too busy, distracted and sightly disinterested to do.

a) A sliver of people in the UK are still shot despite major ban on firearms, compared to its overall population

b) A sliver of people in the USA are shot, compared it its overall population.

Wouldn't it be interesting of it turned out that it was about the same percentage/sliver of the population shot in both USA and UK? 

Now, talk amongst yourselves...and find out!

Hock

gematriot

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • Systema training adapted to YOUR contemporary needs and goals
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2009, 02:44:52 AM »

Some stats...

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
 Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
                            Homicide   Suicide   Other (inc Accident)
            
USA (2001)            3.98       5.92       0.36
Italy (1997)        0.81       1.1       0.07
Switzerland (1998)   0.50       5.8       0.10
Canada (2002)      0.4      2.0       0.04
Finland (2003)      0.35      4.45      0.10
Australia (2001)    0.24       1.34       0.10
France (2001)      0.21      3.4       0.49
England/Wales (2002)   0.15      0.2       0.03
Scotland (2002)    0.06       0.2      0.02
Japan (2002)       0.02      0.04      0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International.  Westport.







I tried to format the table above but the forum truncates it, check the link
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 03:00:59 AM by gematriot »
Logged
"Any experiment of interest in life will be carried out at your own expense. Mark it well. "

gematriot

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • Systema training adapted to YOUR contemporary needs and goals
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2009, 03:21:10 AM »

Logged
"Any experiment of interest in life will be carried out at your own expense. Mark it well. "

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2009, 08:43:32 AM »

As the diagram clearly shows, the countries with least gun control ahve the highest death rates.  Thanks for that.

Logged

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2009, 10:35:47 AM »

And thats homicides.
I wonder how many shootings/agg asaults there were?

Hock

 

metz57

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2009, 01:17:14 PM »

I wonder………. If guns had never been invented would that graph look the same, but with some other weapon being used? Do people murder because they have a gun or would they just use some thing else if they didn’t? If the only weapon on earth was a sharpened stick would Colombia be as safe as Japan?

Metz
Logged

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2009, 10:32:19 PM »

Some interesting things from Time Magazine...


"Even Switzerland, whose militia defense system permits people to keep automatic weapons in their homes (there are an estimated 1.5 million nationwide), is planning a referendum on rescinding that right. People in favor of a ban say prolific gun ownership has fueled a recent spate of suicides and murders, including the killing of a family of four near Geneva this month in a suspected domestic incident.

Though it may pale in comparison to America's 88.8 registered weapons per hundred people, the rate of gun ownership in Europe is higher than one might imagine. In Switzerland there are 45.7 guns per hundred people; in Finland, 45.3; France's 31.2 is a little higher than Germany's 30.3. The U.K., which banned most gun ownership after two massacres, has a rate of 6.2 registered guns per 100 people.

"Statistically, France is lucky," says Aaron Karp, professor of political science at Virginia's Old Dominion University and a senior consultant with the Small Arms Survey in Switzerland. "As for why Germany and Finland have suffered more mass gun violence, I don't think anyone knows."


EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2009, 01:08:42 AM »

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge and I'm afraid I will have to show mine here. Please educate me. What is the relevance of gun homicide rates in a gun control debate? The purpose of gun control is to lower violent crime and specifically homicides. If 10 people die in my country every year total, and all from gun shots, then all of the guns are taken away but the next year 10 people die total, but all from blunt force trauma to the head, was gun control then a success?  Sorry but I don't see the relevancy of gun homicide rate statistics when talking about gun control. Please educate me!! 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
 

Download