Australian made
Well-known member
Thank you, your points are much better then mine!
What's your position on gun rights?
- Thread starter AM07
- Start date
Saurabh
Registered User
Nabisco.
Lets take this point further. I argue that students at VT want to carry gun more out of fright, you argue that it is because had one being carrying a weapon the catastrophy could have been avoided.
To that my first question would be - Do guns belong in school in the first place?
My second question would be - What sets a USA school apart from the rest of the world where such incidents do not happen?
Lastly my question would be - If you have a kid tomorrow(not sure you do/dont) would you be happier if he/she goes to the college where every student has a gun, or would you be happier if he/she goes to a colloge without guns?
Let me know.
Cheers.
EasyEJL
Never enough
that one is easy, the volume of guns currently out in the wild.
Number of firearms in the US: 223 Million
(Source: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime, 7/95, from ATF data)
I have 2 kids, waiting for #3 to be born, and i'd be more comfortable with option A, the college where all students who arent disqualified for mental, drug etc reasons carry a gun. No one, not even the football team will try to rape a girl on that campus.
jrkarp
Registered User
The fact that something has not happened yet does not mean that it will not or could not happen.
And the mastermind of the Pearl Harbor attack had the following to say about a proposed Japanese invasion of the US:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Those comparisons might be useful if the only difference between the US cities and the foreign ones is US gun laws. Of course, there are far more variables and the comparison is worthless.
I will point out, though, that Chicago has the second strictest gun control laws in the US, and despite this, it is a very violent city.
Australian made
Well-known member
Ok so all bickering aside what do you guys think needs to happen to reduce the gun crime in the states? If it isn't banning guns then what is it? Stricter punishments?
jrkarp
Registered User
Effective enforcement of the laws already on the books would go a long way.
Sentencing enhancements for people convicted of violent crimes with firearms would also work, as would severe punishments for repeat offenders.
Combating the root causes of crime (poverty, lack of education, racism, lack of opportunity) would be the most effective means of combating violent crime.
Saurabh
Registered User
Basically you have answered the whole dogma right there, havent you Easy?
The population of USA - 300 million, the number of firearms in USA - 223 million. Comes to about an arm per person really. Which other country in the world has this ratio? NONE. And which other country in the world is this unsafe? NONE. Okay maybe Zimbabwe, Israel, Middle East etc etc. But surely of all the 1st world country USA is the unsafest, inspite of gun laws. So obviously this hasnt worked, right?
You are going to the xtreme. If I take your analogy here you are somehow insinuating that every football player on every American college campus is raping a girl. That is hardly the case. And if there was gun that would not stop the rape anyway. Case in point, the rapes of American female soldiers inside the Armed Forces by their men counterpart. I am sure you have read many of those claims. Recently of course an American marine killed a female marine and buried her, you seriously think that American female marine was not strong enough to defend herself?? In all probability she would be carrying a gun too.
jrkarp
Registered User
Wrong. Availability of firearms is only one of many variables at work here.
She should have been carrying one. Women in particular are vulnerable to violent crime because they are generally physically weaker than men. A firearms allows a 100 pound woman to defend herself against a 300 pound man.
Saurabh
Registered User
SO basically the whole theory of - guns against tyrants - does NOT have any factual backing. It is all a fear mongering no matter how you spin it.
International policies are clearly different than domestic policy. I am sure you understand that difference. It is one thing for an American not to trust a Japanese, it is completely different for an American not to trust an American. I guess you are suggesting the latter should be the case whereby Americans dont trust their fellow countrymen. Ummmmm.
Saurabh
Registered User
It is, as you said, atleast one of the variables. It is NOT helping the situation obviously. If it had USA would be the safest country in the world, clearly it is not.
There you go, fear mongering again.
How do you even know what happened? I would like to think a female marine is "capable" enough of defending herself against 300 pound man no matter what. And like I said before there is a good chance she had a gun at bare, still it didnt help her, did it?
jrkarp
Registered User
Considering that this is a country that was created in violence against tyranny, I'd say there's a factual basis for it.
I don't quite understand the point of this statement.
jrkarp
Registered User
Yes, it is a variable, but considering how many other variables there are it's impossible to make statements like the ones you make here. I could just as easily claim that things would be worse here if people didn't have the means to defend themselves.
Well, you are incorrect, especially in cases where the attacker is also military trained.
She did not have a gun. Had she, she would be alive today.
How is it fearmongering to advocate being prepared to defend oneself?
BTW, I should point out that according to the US DOJ, privately owned firearms are used for defensive purposes against criminals over 500,000 times annually.
Dadof2
Active member
I just think that it is important to remember this one fact:
People who are currently using guns to commit crimes are in fact criminals. If guns were illegal they would still use guns to commit crimes. Prohibition of anything is impossible. All prohibition accomplishes is to prevent law abiding citizens to partake in that activity which is prohibited by law.
The reasons that the US has so many gun crimes have little to do with the fact that guns are legal. The vast majority of guns that are used in crimes by criminals are guns that were obtained via illegal means. Our problems are rooted in social, moral, and economic causes. Our problem also lies in an increasingly innefective law enforcement system, specifically our prison system.
jrkarp
Registered User
Exactly. However, it is far easier and cheaper to demonize an inanimate object like a firearm than it is to address the real problem.
Remember that evil exists only in the hearts of men. An inanimate object like a gun can be neither good nor evil.
EasyEJL
Never enough
and adding new anti gun laws wont make those 223 million guns suddenly disappear either. So adding new laws that make people who currently comply with laws have a harder time getting a gun still doesn't affect the ability of a criminal getting a gun, so is pointless. you have proved my point here that gun laws will not help at this point. Its a genie that is already out of the bottle.
In countries that don't already have this volume of guns available would I suggest they loosen their gun laws? no. but taking the guns out of the hands of responsible citizens doesn't take them out of the hands of criminals.
apparently she wasn't strong enough to defend herself as evidenced by her death. And unless she was an officer she wouldn't have been carrying a pistol with her on her day to day rounds, only officers are issued and allowed to carry handguns.
Xodus
Well-known member
That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
- George Orwell
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1776
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;
as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.
- Noah Webster, 1787
The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people
of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
- Samuel Adams, 1788
What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
- George Mason, 1788
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
- George Mason, 1788
The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.
The great object is that every man be armed.
- Patrick Henry
And my personal fave:
If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
– James Madison
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
- George Orwell
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1776
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;
as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.
- Noah Webster, 1787
The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people
of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
- Samuel Adams, 1788
What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
- George Mason, 1788
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
- George Mason, 1788
The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.
The great object is that every man be armed.
- Patrick Henry
And my personal fave:
If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
– James Madison
Australian made
Well-known member
This i agree with. Every read Freakonomics? Make a valid point about legalising abortions and the crime rates falling dramatically over the next 15-20 years due to kids not being born into unwanted families etc. Sightly off topic but you get what i mean.
AE14
Board Sponsor
all I am saying is read what I wrote in the first paragraph. I do not doubt how the modern world views it, however, in looking at it myself, the wording is a bit inconclusive
jrkarp
Registered User
I did read it and I am familiar with the argument that you make.
Regardless of how the modern world views it, plenty of evidence as to how it was viewed at the time it was written exists and it overwhelmingly points to an individual right.
AE14
Board Sponsor
it truly is a battle of semantics IMO
Xodus
Well-known member
and short of declaring guns illegal entirely and attempting to round up and collect them all, it wouldn't work out regardless.
And attempting to round them up wouldnt work either
It worked for Hitler.
Xodus
Well-known member
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971
to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens
turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their
guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins
and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and
expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or
hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the
law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During World War II the Japanese decided not to invade
America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971
to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens
turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their
guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins
and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and
expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or
hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the
law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During World War II the Japanese decided not to invade
America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
MuscleBound1337
Active member
How can you tell me gun control works. The country you're from is a prime example. Australia has not shown a decrease in gun related crimes since they have banned guns, rather violent crime is up significantly. The stats don't lie. Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Xodus
Well-known member
"Governments will ask you to 'trust them' to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms."
It may not happen today or tomorrow, but over time without vigilance, it certainly will.
Saurabh
Registered User
And that argument wont hold water since Gun laws have been around for close to 2 centuries and USA remains one of the most unsafest countries in the world(amongst the Developed Nations of course).
All speculation. You can say this, I can say that, but in the ultimate end what is true is that a trained Marine who had license to carry firearms was killed. Now you can spin it any which way you like.
Because you are creating a situation where you are distrustful of everyone and anyone. You are scared of "what might happen" and advocate possessing guns to curtail that. Again I repeat, no other country has this issue, what is so bad about Americans that we need to carry weapons in our own Homeland??
Saurabh
Registered User
Fair point that.
While I definitely see your point of view I am disappointed that you think nothing can be done. It sounds kinda very pessimistic. Almost like nothing can be done in this case. If that is true(I beleive it is not) then why are we even having a discussion on this?
You dont have any argument to make that suggestion in the first place!
Lets compare USA to England. In certain areas of UK even the cops dont carry weapons, simple baton works for them. And guess what crime is quite low. So why would they like to carry the weapon in the first place?
The whole idea of carrying gun is to act as a deterrent to crime.
EasyEJL
Never enough
if there aren't any problems then what is the harm in carrying the gun? they don't go off by themselves. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Find the statistics that show the number of legally purchased firearms that have been used to cause a death. Far more deaths a year from alchohol, tobacco, cars, etc. Even far more deaths a year from doctor malpractice.
Further gun laws will not stop the guns that are obtained illegally.
jrkarp
Registered User
Actually, if you check the statistics, you will find that gun crime has been on the rise in England, despite its draconian gun control laws.
jrkarp
Registered User
I know it doesn't hold water, and you either missed or ignored my point: comparisons between the US and other countries using crime statistics alone are useless due to the massive number of variables. This is true no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself.
Did she have a license to carry a firearm? I am not aware of that. In any case, she was killed in a private residence so no license would have been required.
Because there are bad people out there who do bad things. And even though you like to blame the guns for this, the guns have nothing to do with it. Bad people have always and will always exist.
Self defense is an inalienable right of all human beings, even though many governments infringe upon this right. Here in America, our government was designed to protect our rights, self defense included. One of the means by which this right is protected is the Second Amendment.
Freedom is a dangerous thing. Many of the "safer" countries are "safer" because their government imposed far more restrictions on their freedoms. I'm sure that without the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, the US would be "safer." But you will not find many Americans who will trade liberty for safety in that manner.
Xodus
Well-known member
Unfortunately it is becoming more and more prevalent, esp. in these 'post 9/11'/Patriot Act days.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
– James Madison
There are plenty of sheeple that are all for it. I am not one.
Dadof2
Active member
There are too many sheeple if you ask me, and they are quite dangerous to our freedoms. I suggest that we ammend the Constitution to make it illegal to be a sheeple in these United States. :rofl:
Xodus
Well-known member
Ok, any one that voted for Bush Sr., Baby W, or Clinton or is going to vote for McCain, Obama or Clinton leave the country immediately.
Xodus
Well-known member
I'm voting for myself.
jrkarp
Registered User
Ron Paul's foreign policy would be a disaster for the US.
Supreme Court appointments (there will be at least 1, probably 2 made by the next president) justifies holding your nose and voting for McCain.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
AE14
Board Sponsor
I agree completelyand short of declaring guns illegal entirely and attempting to round up and collect them all, it wouldn't work out regardless.
And attempting to round them up wouldnt work either
Nabisco
Well-known member
I don't see how the Gun Control Law advocates can continue their path or logic after the post further above by Xodus. There are so many cases of lives being saved and criminals being thwarted by law abiding citizens carrying firearms that I can't even begin to see the other side of the argument.
For example, and I'll summarize since I don't have the articles on hand.
FL - Two men walked into a Subway, and one pulled out a gun demanding all the money behind the counter. They also herded all the customers into a corner and demanded all their money and jewelry. One man, age 68, remained seated at his table eating his sub and refused to give them him money. He was forcibly dragged from his table and a gun was placed to his head. The criminals once again demanded his money, and he once again refused. The first criminal then proceeded to scream at him and drag him towards the bathroom in the back, while telling the 68 year old man the details of how he was going to be killed. Once the criminal got him to the hallway in the back and shoved him ahead to the bathroom, the 68 year old man (a former marine), pulled his concealed handgun and placed one shot into the criminal's forehead, killing him instantly. He then marched back into the main area of the store and rattled off three more rounds at the second criminal as the criminal attempted to make a getaway. Two of those three rounds struck home and the responding police were able to track the criminal by his blood trail.
Without that concealed firearm, that man's life would have ended because of some punk who decided to rob a subway. Instead he stopped a crime in process, and successfully defended his own life. Who are we to take that inalienable right away from another person? The basic, simplistic right to defend one's life is not ours to take away. If you choose not to carry or own a firearm, so be it, no one is forcing you to have one. But what gives you the authority to remove that right from other people?
With gun control laws, I would not be legally allowed to obtain a firearm for protection. Some advocates claim that I could defend my life and property with a knife or a baseball bat instead. Well look how well that worked for Redskin's safety Shaun Taylor. He had a machete, and was gunned down by some punk kid in his bedroom, in front of his wife and newborn child (kid was less than 2 years old). Now we should accept that as a fact of life? That criminals have the ability to gun us down in our homes, but we as a people cannot defend ourselves with those same tools? Thank you, but no, I'll retain my right to defend myself and my family from those that break the law.
For example, and I'll summarize since I don't have the articles on hand.
FL - Two men walked into a Subway, and one pulled out a gun demanding all the money behind the counter. They also herded all the customers into a corner and demanded all their money and jewelry. One man, age 68, remained seated at his table eating his sub and refused to give them him money. He was forcibly dragged from his table and a gun was placed to his head. The criminals once again demanded his money, and he once again refused. The first criminal then proceeded to scream at him and drag him towards the bathroom in the back, while telling the 68 year old man the details of how he was going to be killed. Once the criminal got him to the hallway in the back and shoved him ahead to the bathroom, the 68 year old man (a former marine), pulled his concealed handgun and placed one shot into the criminal's forehead, killing him instantly. He then marched back into the main area of the store and rattled off three more rounds at the second criminal as the criminal attempted to make a getaway. Two of those three rounds struck home and the responding police were able to track the criminal by his blood trail.
Without that concealed firearm, that man's life would have ended because of some punk who decided to rob a subway. Instead he stopped a crime in process, and successfully defended his own life. Who are we to take that inalienable right away from another person? The basic, simplistic right to defend one's life is not ours to take away. If you choose not to carry or own a firearm, so be it, no one is forcing you to have one. But what gives you the authority to remove that right from other people?
With gun control laws, I would not be legally allowed to obtain a firearm for protection. Some advocates claim that I could defend my life and property with a knife or a baseball bat instead. Well look how well that worked for Redskin's safety Shaun Taylor. He had a machete, and was gunned down by some punk kid in his bedroom, in front of his wife and newborn child (kid was less than 2 years old). Now we should accept that as a fact of life? That criminals have the ability to gun us down in our homes, but we as a people cannot defend ourselves with those same tools? Thank you, but no, I'll retain my right to defend myself and my family from those that break the law.
Australian made
Well-known member
What the fck was the old man doing with a gun in a subway anyway? Its gotten to the point in the USA where you need to take a gun to your local takeaway store? your country has serious issues.
As for Australia banning guns, do any of you actually no why the guns were banned in the first place. IT certainly has nothing to do with trying to reduce gun crime.
As for Australia banning guns, do any of you actually no why the guns were banned in the first place. IT certainly has nothing to do with trying to reduce gun crime.
jrkarp
Registered User
Millions of Americans have concealed carry permits and carry firearms out of choice.
Yes. It was knee-jerk panicked reactions to a couple of homicidal shooting sprees.
Incidentally, guns are NOT banned in Australia; they are very heavily regulated.
Fortunately I live in a country where constitutional protections at both the state and federal level prevent the government from infringing upon my rights due to a public outcry.
Australian made
Well-known member
The old man did a dumb thing trying to be a hero. When you have a gun at your head and someone asks for your wallet you give it to him. He's a stupid but very lucky guy.
If guns were made readily available in Australia tomorrow knowone would buy one except maybe a few farmers.
If guns were made readily available in Australia tomorrow knowone would buy one except maybe a few farmers.
jrkarp
Registered User
What guarantee did he have that the guy wasn't going to shoot him anyway?
If you are willing to trust a criminal with your life, go right ahead. I am not.
Australian made
Well-known member
Did you see the link i put on the first page? Switzerland was 2nd behind USA in gun crime. Yeah no similarities.
Nabisco
Well-known member
He made a choice, not to let someone else take his life. That's not stupid. He didn't try to be a hero either, he just refused to bow to their demands. It wasn't until they threatened his life that he used deadly force. How is that stupid? He chose to protect his life, nothing stupid about it.
I've lived in Australia hoss. Crimes still happen. Criminals still have guns. The Port Aurther Massacre was one of the reasons for the knee jerk gun control if I remember correctly.
In response to him having a gun in a subway. Some states allow law-abiding citizens to apply for and receive permits to carry concealed firearms. He was legally able to carry protection with him, although it has to be concealed at all times. Some states in the US do not allow concealed carry permits. It's a matter of state regulation and the permits are heavily regulated.
I've lived in Australia hoss. Crimes still happen. Criminals still have guns. The Port Aurther Massacre was one of the reasons for the knee jerk gun control if I remember correctly.
In response to him having a gun in a subway. Some states allow law-abiding citizens to apply for and receive permits to carry concealed firearms. He was legally able to carry protection with him, although it has to be concealed at all times. Some states in the US do not allow concealed carry permits. It's a matter of state regulation and the permits are heavily regulated.
jrkarp
Registered User
Actually, the chart is for gun deaths, not crime, and Switzerland is third, not second, which includes a high suicide rate. If a gun is unavailable for suicide, a determined person will find another means. Suicide statistics are a very weak argument for gun control.