This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Obama gun ban
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Haxzor
I'm unsure which 1st world countries have gun related crime rates higher than America
Gun-related
and
first world? None. America is the 8th world-wide.
Edit: Sauce
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
Tada, undeniable proof.
Post by
Monday
America also happens to have the 3rd highest population in the world. Of course there's going to be issues.
Post by
Dragoonman
Guns are illegal in Australia (need a license to own/use them for hunting/sport) and everything works fine. No-body fears driveby shootings or anything of the matter.
I'm not sure why America clings to its outdated constitutional 'rights'
"ZOMG BUT I NEED A GUN TO PROTECT ME FROM THAT GUY WHO HAS A GUN" If guns were illegal in the first place the dangerous person with a gun wouldnt have a gun. Your laws are digging you a big hole you wont be able to get out of without a large deal of hassle.
... No.
If guns are illegal.... criminals will STILL have guns. They already have illegal means of getting the guns, so why the hell would you make them illegal for everyone else? Then you have good people with no means of protecting themselves from criminals who will have guns whether or not it is legal.
I can't remember her name... But a woman and her family was in Luby's when a man broke into the restaurant and began gunning down everyone there just because he wanted to. Only a few people escaped alive, and that woman's family was killed while she managed to escape through a window. When she was brought forth to talk about the incident, she explained that if someone in the restaurant had had a gun, the criminal would not have been able to kill so many people. This man could not be reasoned with and was obviously very mentally sick, and because no one there had a gun, he was able to kill a few dozen people.
Of course guns were legal at this time, and it was only terrible coincidence that no one had a gun to defend themselves, but imagine if this happened and guns were illegal for everyone? That criminal could have illegally obtained the gun (Like criminals already do) and used it to kill many people with virtually no way to be stopped. Criminals obtain guns easily through illegal trading, stealing from police men, and over the border carrying as well. Making guns illegal wouldn't help, it would just leave the average citizen vulnerable to attack.
And the founding fathers made baring arms a constitutional right for two main reasons:
1. So that average citizens could protect themselves from attack when no other help was available. For example, a criminal robbing you and hurting your family when no police officer is around to help you. You have no choice but to defend yourself with your own weapon.
2. So that the citizens of America could never be brought under a government takeover from either a foreign source or a domestic source. When so many households own guns, it is pretty hard to oppress the American people with an army or military.
Although, you can also use guns to hunt with and provide you and your family with food.
Guns are manufactured here and around this country, so making them illegal for citizens would be... incredibly stupid. As I said, criminals will always find a way to get guns, and if you make them illegal, that won't change much. I don't know if things are different in Australia or England where you don't manufacture guns (I don't know if your country does or doesn't), but when your a country surround by gun producers, freedom loving citizens, and criminals who are either sick or insane, you can't just make guns illegal. It would be like breaking a limb and then covering it with a band aid, it wouldn't cure it, it will just cover up what will become an even bigger problem in the future. All we can do is fight off the criminal infection the best we can with our own defense system, cutting the defense system down to only police and national guard would create higher crime rates and more dead people.
And as a final thought... objects that are made illegal always cause higher crime rates. A clear example being marijuana. This and other drugs are banned, which created a huge market of illegal drug trading to obtain money. The same thing would occur if guns were made illegal, but I think the illegal gun trading business would be even more dangerous.
Edit: I agree with Asylu.
Post by
Haxzor
If guns are illegal.... criminals will STILL have guns. They already have illegal means of getting the guns, so why the hell would you make them illegal for everyone else? Then you have good people with no means of protecting themselves from criminals who will have guns whether or not it is legal. Sounds like you have absolutely no faith in your local law enforcers or your government.
I can't remember her name... But a woman and her family was in Luby's when a man broke into the restaurant and began gunning down everyone there just because he wanted to. Only a few people escaped alive, and that woman's family was killed while she managed to escape through a window. When she was brought forth to talk about the incident, she explained that if someone in the restaurant had had a gun, the criminal would not have been able to kill so many people. This man could not be reasoned with and was obviously very mentally sick, and because no one there had a gun, he was able to kill a few dozen people.
Of course guns were legal at this time, and it was only terrible coincidence that no one had a gun to defend themselves, but imagine if this happened and guns were illegal for everyone? That criminal could have illegally obtained the gun (Like criminals already do) and used it to kill many people with virtually no way to be stopped. Criminals obtain guns easily through illegal trading, stealing from police men, and over the border carrying as well. Making guns illegal wouldn't help, it would just leave the average citizen vulnerable to attack.
You are just proving my point with this story. A mentally ill person ISNT A CRIMINAL, he would have had the gun lying around his house as most Americans do. He was mentally unstable and went on a rampage. Guns illegal = no gun for rampage.
And the founding fathers made baring arms a constitutional right for two main reasons:
1. So that average citizens could protect themselves from attack when no other help was available. For example, a criminal robbing you and hurting your family when no police officer is around to help you. You have no choice but to defend yourself with your own weapon.
2. So that the citizens of America could never be brought under a government takeover from either a foreign source or a domestic source. When so many households own guns, it is pretty hard to oppress the American people with an army or military.
Yet your crime rate is higher than say Australia or England, and when in modern times has a first world country been under threat of a militia government?
Although, you can also use guns to hunt with and provide you and your family with food.
Guns are manufactured here and around this country, so making them illegal for citizens would be... incredibly stupid. As I said, criminals will always find a way to get guns, and if you make them illegal, that won't change much. I don't know if things are different in Australia or England where you don't manufacture guns (I don't know if your country does or doesn't), but when your a country surround by gun producers, freedom loving citizens, and criminals who are either sick or insane, you can't just make guns illegal. It would be like breaking a limb and then covering it with a band aid, it wouldn't cure it, it will just cover up what will become an even bigger problem in the future. All we can do is fight off the criminal infection the best we can with our own defense system, cutting the defense system down to only police and national guard would create higher crime rates and more dead people. Making guns illegal means stopping most if not all production.
And as a final thought... objects that are made illegal always cause higher crime rates. A clear example being marijuana. This and other drugs are banned, which created a huge market of illegal drug trading to obtain money. The same thing would occur if guns were made illegal, but I think the illegal gun trading business would be even more dangerous.
Because guns are mind altering substances which physically and mentally cause addiction. amirite?
Post by
Orranis
According to
this
list, there aren't any, but given the dates listed in the table, I'm not certain as to the accuracy of the list. Unless South Africa is considered 1st world. Not trying to be bigoted, just stating that I do not know or care about the economic state of South Africa (or any of the other countries above the US on the list).
South Africa is a weird one, having come from there myself. There's plenty of wealthy people there, and it's hardly backwater... It's just not very well spread out. Jeez, you think 8% unemployment is economic downturn? 30% is a normal rate there. It's either nice multi-story buildings, or 'townships' (the collection of cobbled together houses you saw on District Nine.) So yes, I wouldn't call it First World, at least not in this context.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
soccergenius
...I am not saying that guns act as a deterrent for crime, but they are a right granted to us to preserve our liberty in the face of any form of governmental tyrrany.
Am I the only one who finds this statement paradoxical? Of all the arguments for gun ownership and/or interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, I have never ever heard this before, well, not outside of fringe paramilitary militias who think the government is out to get them and fear of the new world order.
Actually, I've heard it many times and as I understand this is largely the reason that the 2nd Amendment was included into the U.S. Constitution in the first place.
I don't think it sounds like a fringe idea at all, when given context. The first 10 Amendments were written just after the U.S. had liberated themselves from (perceived) tyranny. When you understand the 2nd Amendment in context, it makes sense.
The US also didn't have a suitable standing army at the time and the federal government had to rely on the state governors to loan them their state militias, which they didn't always do. This 13 separate states vs 1 country mentality was one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation.
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that the 1st Amendment was put in to give people a means to address their government, besides of course being able to elect officials, rather than give them the right to own guns to they can turn them on their government if they need to.
Post by
Orranis
Also, as we all seem to be falling into anecdotes, about a year or two ago a women brought her handgun to her child's sports game. The other parents were upset by it, and in the end it was brought to Court, and the gun carrier won.
Three weeks later she was shot dead with the same gun by her Husband in an argument.
Post by
Monday
... and how exactly is that relevant? If she had to take a gun to her
child's sports game
I think that is indicative of deeper problems. She could easily have been killed int he argument by something else. The handgun would just get it done quicker (I've known two families where the husband tried to strangle the wife.)
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Haxzor
The handgun would just get it done quicker (I've known two families where the husband tried to strangle the wife.)
But they didnt and are now in jail? Thats 2 lives saved by not using guns
Post by
Monday
'tis true, but one was only saved because she scared the husband away with their handgun.
Post by
executorvgk
I would have to disagree with you on not usage of guns.
But they didn't and are now in jail? Thats 2 lives saved by not using guns
No, if there wasn't a gun why wouldn't he just use a knife? If no gun is available and he isn't using any other tool I doubt they would've gotten a gun. Theres many other tools he could've used to kill if he didn't use any he had available why would he use a gun, another tool?
Guns are illegal in Australia (need a license to own/use them for hunting/sport) and everything works fine. No-body fears driveby shootings or anything of the matter.
I'm not sure why America clings to its outdated constitutional 'rights'
"ZOMG BUT I NEED A GUN TO PROTECT ME FROM THAT GUY WHO HAS A GUN" If guns were illegal in the first place the dangerous person with a gun wouldnt have a gun. Your laws are digging you a big hole you wont be able to get out of without a large deal of hassle.
ya because there is no underground market for guns. Remember
prohibition
if a criminal is capable of doing a driveby shooting he is capable of buying a gun via a form of black market. All prohibition did in the U.S is create an underground market for Liquor and increased the amount of crime, why would this be any different?
And from person experience I would also say
majority
of the U.S doesn't worry about No-body fears driveby shootings or anything of the matter.
Gun aren't the problem the problem is crazies and activities which bring in criminal activity (drug trafficking etc.) get rid of those not the guns. The criminals can illegally get a gun or use another weapon to kill specific people.
And if they wanted to do mass killings they could manufacture simple bombs.
Here is
a nice example
of why gun control is ineffective
Post by
Random0076
ya because there is no underground market for guns. Remember
prohibition
if a criminal is capable of doing a driveby shooting he is capable of buying a gun via a form of black market. All prohibition did in the U.S is create an underground market for Liquor and increased the amount of crime, why would this be any different?
Um. Guns are illegal in Australia and theres no black market, you said it yourself.
Gun aren't the problem the problem is crazies and activities which bring in criminal activity (drug trafficking etc.) get rid of those not the guns. The criminals can illegally get a gun or use another weapon to kill specific people.
The point is they can't get them if they're illegal. Like Hax said, crazy people != criminals.
Also, comedians are a nice, reliable source.
Also Gun aren't the problem
if there wasn't a gun why wouldn't he just use a knife?
So people are going to perform drive by stabbings?
Post by
HiVolt
...I am not saying that guns act as a deterrent for crime, but they are a right granted to us to preserve our liberty in the face of any form of governmental tyrrany.
Am I the only one who finds this statement paradoxical? Of all the arguments for gun ownership and/or interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, I have never ever heard this before, well, not outside of fringe paramilitary militias who think the government is out to get them and fear of the new world order.
Actually, I've heard it many times and as I understand this is largely the reason that the 2nd Amendment was included into the U.S. Constitution in the first place.
I don't think it sounds like a fringe idea at all, when given context. The first 10 Amendments were written just after the U.S. had liberated themselves from (perceived) tyranny. When you understand the 2nd Amendment in context, it makes sense.
The US also didn't have a suitable standing army at the time and the federal government had to rely on the state governors to loan them their state militias, which they didn't always do. This 13 separate states vs 1 country mentality was one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation.
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that the 1st Amendment was put in to give people a means to address their government, besides of course being able to elect officials, rather than give them the right to own guns to they can turn them on their government if they need to.
If you could re-word this, it would be great, because I'm not following what you're saying.
Also, in case you were replying as a rebuttal to my post, I wasn't trying to make a counterpoint. I was merely giving context as to why the people that you perceive as fringe nutjobs say what they say.
Post by
Dragoonman
And the founding fathers made baring arms a constitutional right for two main reasons:
1. So that average citizens could protect themselves from attack when no other help was available. For example, a criminal robbing you and hurting your family when no police officer is around to help you. You have no choice but to defend yourself with your own weapon.
2. So that the citizens of America could never be brought under a government takeover from either a foreign source or a domestic source. When so many households own guns, it is pretty hard to oppress the American people with an army or military.
Yet your crime rate is higher than say Australia or England, and when in modern times has a first world country been under threat of a militia government?
Oh man, you are going to LOVE these!
Look at this link right
here
. Or maybe you prefer
this link?
What about
this one?
Maybe
this link?
Perhaps
here?
And maybe
this website?
Lastly
this one.
The U.S.A. may have more total crimes that any other country, but most of these crimes are mostly theft, robbery, and assault. However, our total crime victims pales in comparison to Australia and the United Kingdom.
Here is the link for that!
I won't argue that the US is first in many crimes, but I do think banning guns would increase this crime rate.
Australia and the United Kingdom are already proving that even with no guns, their crime rates are increasing.
And it also seems that the US believes in police efficiency more than any other country.
See?
And not to mention that we have more citizens than Australia and the UK combined, so of course we will have more criminals total. When the UK has almost
half as many burglaries
as us, even though we have several times more citizens than them, something is seriously wrong.
I have no belief whatsoever that a ban on guns will help us AT ALL.
Post by
Haxzor
herp derp derrrrrrrrr
seriously, you use comedians as an example?
Post by
executorvgk
Also, comedians are a nice, reliable source.
While they as comedians aren't experts on the fields their bull-%^&* show tends to bring up some good and interesting points such as the one I linked in the video.
Um. Guns are illegal in Australia and theres no black market, you said it yourself.
I don't know a lot about Australia or it's laws I'll say that right now, but then what do the murderers use for homicide, you can't tell me there's no homicide in Australia
Post by
Haxzor
Oh man, you are going to LOVE these!
Look at this link right
here
. Or maybe you prefer
this link?
What about
this one?
Maybe
this link?
Perhaps
here?
And maybe
this website?
Lastly
this one.
The U.S.A. may have more total crimes that any other country, but most of these crimes are mostly theft, robbery, and assault. However, our total crime victims pales in comparison to Australia and the United Kingdom.
Here is the link for that!
I won't argue that the US is first in many crimes, but I do think banning guns would increase this crime rate.
Australia and the United Kingdom are already proving that even with no guns, their crime rates are increasing.
And it also seems that the US believes in police efficiency more than any other country.
See?
And not to mention that we have more citizens than Australia and the UK combined, so of course we will have more criminals total. When the UK has almost
half as many burglaries
as us, even though we have several times more citizens than them, something is seriously wrong.
I have no belief whatsoever that a ban on guns will help us AT ALL.
HEY LETS GO TO GOOGLE AND USE THE FIRST 7 ARTICLES NO MATTER WHO THE AUTHOR OR WHAT THE DATE.
Statistic from 10+ years ago are not relevant.
Using pro gun sources is biased.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
