BF2S Forums Right to Bear Arms = Right to Shooting Spree - Plz read OP b4 votes

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

lowing wrote:

really? please show some facts that back your statement. Please show where violent crime has gone up amoung citizens with no violent criminal records previously, due to gun ownership.

But that's not what the issue is about. It isn't about completely rational sane people going on shooting sprees. It's about the saturation of gun ownership (among the aforementioned completely sane people) contributing to the level of gun crime.

                  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

OK so these figures aren't to do with crime rates, but they show that the level of gun violence in America is disproportionately larger than that in the rest of the world compared to other first world nations. The point I was making isn't about normal citizens going wacko, but  rather societal factors combined with the large amount of gun ownership forcing people over the edge.

Now here's the point that I've been trying to make that people seem to find very hard to understand. Of course the vast majority of law abiding citizens who buy guns won't snap and go postal. Just owning a gun or seventeen doesn't make you wacko. But the fact that there is such a saturation of firearms undoubtedly makes it easier for your local nutjob/drug dealer to get his/her hands on one. Thats the entire point I've been trying to make. The average law abiding citizen won't go and kill people just because they own guns, but the large volume of legal gun ownership contributes to the ease in which a wacko can get their hands on an 'illegal' (stolen/fell off the back of a truck/whatever) gun.



"Today in Nebraska a disgruntled student walked onto campus and blugeoned 17 students to death, and then turned the bat on himself" ?

...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks

OK see you're not understanding. The PROLIFERATION (that means 'high amount') of gun ownership leads to the ease in ACQUIRING (that means 'getting') an ILLEGAL GUN, or being able to ACQUIRE (there's that word again) a gun if you don't have a license. This is because of the SATURATION (this ALSO means high amount) of guns meaning that it's easier to come by one illegally (usually through stealing, but there are other means such as conversion etc etc). So if you SCALE BACK ('reduce')/Increase the restrictions on legal gun ownership, then the illegal trade would begin to dry up too.

Comprende` ?

Oh I see now, so lets follow the example of what making drugs illegal has done for us. Now, NOBODY can smoke dope or crack, or snork cocaine, or shoot heroine. Got it.

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

"Today in Nebraska a disgruntled student walked onto campus and blugeoned 17 students to death, and then turned the bat on himself" ?

...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks

It will keep the vast majority of criminals from owning them. The vast majority of criminals obey the vast majority of laws, plus their main supplier of guns will be gone.

sergeriver wrote:

I will say what I said in the other post.

sergeriver wrote:

Ok, after reading what you guys wrote here I came to several conclusions:

1-Most people in the US are not prepared to live without guns.

2-They praise their Right to Bear Arms as much as their Freedom of Speech or their Right to Vote.  Is this wrong?  No.  It's the way it is.  Period.

3-When they explained why they needed guns some of the them said they prefer their government being afraid of them, rather than them being afraid of their government.  A vast majority said they needed guns for self-protection or self-defence.  While I find the first part, the government part,  a bit naive and ridiculous, after reading your cases I totally understood the second part, the self-protection, or self-defence.  It seems that many people live in places where the police takes too long to respond and your only choice is to defend yourselves from a burglar or a thief entering your house.

4-I think the most appropriate thing to do in the case of the US is what the Congress did.  You can't ban guns in the US, at least right now.  But you can improve the controls.  What does this mean?  You need to be sure that the guy who is buying a firearm hasn't a mental disorder, or check his police record.  That's all.  I know this is supposed to be happening for a long time, but something must be wrong with the controls if the Congress had to pass this new law.  And then of course, the police needs to ensure that laws are respected, like not letting an asshole to carry a gun into a University.

5-So, when I asked about the 2nd Amendment I wasn't trying to take your rights away, I was trying to understand them, big difference.  Now, that you have explained your needs and motivations, I must concede that in some cases there's a need for a gun in the US.  This is a cultural issue and that's how your society evolved, and you can't change 240 years in one day.  And for the record I love guns.  I just don't own one.

lowing wrote:

Of the people that are dieing in gun related crimes in GB, who is doing all of the dieing, the victims or the criminals? In the US I will bet the criminals are doing MOST of the dieing.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-21 14:39:03)

lowing wrote:

konfusion wrote:

lowing wrote:

...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks

But controlling these things would certainly help. Right now any lunatic can get a gun and shoot himself and others...

-konfusion

and when guns are outlawed, any lunatic can get a gun and shoot himself and others...do not make criminals out of law abiding citizens, enforce existing laws as they are.

SharkyMcshark wrote:

stricter limits on how many guns you can own

konfusion wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

and when guns are outlawed, any lunatic can get a gun and shoot himself and others...do not make criminals out of law abiding citizens, enforce existing laws as they are.

Lowing is right.  There are plenty of gun control laws already on the books, and those are the ones that need to be enforced before any news ones are passed.  There is no reason to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns.

That, my friend, is my whole point! By controlling I mean actually doing it. Right now, it ain't being controlled at ALL. They say they are, but I call bullshit on that.

-konfusion

Last edited by krazed (2007-12-21 16:25:24)

Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2007-12-21 17:52:13)

I can honestly say that pro-gun people are some of the friendliest people you will ever meet. Also gun shows, shooting ranges, gun clubs and stores that sell firearms see much less violence than just about anywhere else in the country. I know there are many anti-gun people on this forum, its sad that you have not been properly introduced to the great firearms sports and the good people that these sports have to offer. Just because someone owns, carries and enjoys shooting firearms does not make them evil or more likely to commit crimes.