Tragedy

[Jason Harris 31]

Proven fact- The one reason that Mainland America has never had to face occupation by a foreign entity is because of an armed populace.

I would imagine most analysts would claim our armed military has had a greater impact in preventing us from being occupied by a foreign entity.

I have a question that is purely for debate. Could there ever be a point where the unfortunate incidents occur so frequently that you'd say, "Wow, this is getting crazy! We need to figure a way of preventing guns from being so easy to obtain for these unstable idiots!"?

If so, what would be the breaking point? One copycat incident a month? One incident a week? One incident a day? Five incidents a day? Never?

[mack 44]

I went to the mall just a bit ago and didn't get shot. It was a stressful hour, but I'm glad to be okay.

[mrusse01 0]

Proven fact- The one reason that Mainland America has never had to face occupation by a foreign entity is because of an armed populace.

It is? So having by far the most powerful military on earth never had anything to do with it? Wow, that's an amazing fact. I also would have kinda thought maybe having a massive ocean on either side of you might have played into the equation as well, but no..just all the armed citizens eh? Neat.

Here is another 'proven fact' (and when I say fact, I mean something that is actually cited and referenced by a legitimate source, not just an outlandish claim probably ripped straight from a gun lobby website with zero supporting evidence):

I already 'proved' that the United Nations concluded that out of all the westernized countries on earth, Americans have the most guns, the most hand guns, the most murders, and the most overall crime. You also have remarkably loose gun controls. Hmmmmm.

So to recap: most guns = the most crime. That's a fact. Now, I'm not 100% certain that is a casual relationship, but I highly suspect it is. It is a very complex situation to determine if more guns causes more crime, but certainly we have proof that the country with the most guns already has the most crime, so at first blush it would sort of make sense.

I don't pretend to have the answers, I just hope some people will think about it for a minute rather than saying 'OMFG HE'S INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS!!'. It's perfectly acceptable to infringe on rights. Bush got roasted for saying 'there ought to be limits to freedom', but guess what? For once he was actually right, well kind of...there already IS limits to freedom. It's really not a tough concept, but I get the feeling it's not going to be worth my time to explain to you.

[Monty22 829]

Proven fact- The one reason that Mainland America has never had to face occupation by a foreign entity is because of an armed populace.

It is? So having by far the most powerful military on earth never had anything to do with it? Wow, that's an amazing fact. I also would have kinda thought maybe having a massive ocean on either side of you might have played into the equation as well, but no..just all the armed citizens eh? Neat.

Here is another 'proven fact' (and when I say fact, I mean something that is actually cited and referenced by a legitimate source, not just an outlandish claim probably ripped straight from a gun lobby website with zero supporting evidence):

I already 'proved' that the United Nations concluded that out of all the westernized countries on earth, Americans have the most guns, the most hand guns, the most murders, and the most overall crime. You also have remarkably loose gun controls. Hmmmmm.

So to recap: most guns = the most crime. That's a fact. Now, I'm not 100% certain that is a casual relationship, but I highly suspect it is. It is a very complex situation to determine if more guns causes more crime, but certainly we have proof that the country with the most guns already has the most crime, so at first blush it would sort of make sense.

I don't pretend to have the answers, I just hope some people will think about it for a minute rather than saying 'OMFG HE'S INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS!!'. It's perfectly acceptable to infringe on rights. Bush got roasted for saying 'there ought to be limits to freedom', but guess what? For once he was actually right, well kind of...there already IS limits to freedom. It's really not a tough concept, but I get the feeling it's not going to be worth my time to explain to you.

During World War 2 where was the "most powerful military" on earth? Oh, that's right, in the Pacific and Europe...

The UN is a joke. I wouldn't leave them in charge of detailing my car.

An armed populace are citizens, when they are striped of that right, they are subjects. Please stay in Canada if our country is so frightening to you.

[Jason Harris 31]

An armed populace are citizens, when they are striped of that right, they are subjects.

I don't own a gun, although I don't have a problem that you do. However, I don't feel any less of a citizen for not having a gun in my house. Indeed, I vote in each election, so the odds are I'm more of a citizen that some of our gun-toting brethren.

[JR97 2]

The UN is a joke. I wouldn't leave them in charge of detailing my car.

An armed populace are citizens, when they are striped of that right, they are subjects.

Amen, brutha.

[zanman187 0]

I have no problem with citizens owning firearms, what I do have a problem with are states which have virtually no gun control. Many states do not have laws which limit the amount of firearms you are allowed to purchase at a single time. States which have laws like this usually refer to them as the "one gun a month" rule. The lack of laws such as "one gun a month" allow criminals to purchase firearms legally, before then selling them to other criminals on the street. I belive that people have the right to own fireartms and defend themselves/family with deadly force if required, but what is needed is a system which toughens the requierments for who is eligable for owning a firearm.

[hockeysew 0]

Many states do not have laws which limit the amount of firearms you are allowed to purchase at a single time.

If more than 5 hand guns are purchased at one time Federal law requires that the transaction be logged on a seperate form and submitted to the FBI.

The UN is a joke. I wouldn't leave them in charge of detailing my car.

An armed populace are citizens, when they are striped of that right, they are subjects.

Amen, brutha.

I will second that opinion. The UN would be happy if ALL countries were totally dis-armed. 'New World Order" comes to mind here.

most guns = the most crime.

I call Bullsh!t on this one. An armed population is one of the most effective deterrents to crime.

Proven, statistical fact- In States and Cities with lucerative Carry/Ownership laws violent crimes against persons are down almost exponentially.

The lack of laws such as "one gun a month" allow criminals to purchase firearms legally, before then selling them to other criminals on the street.

I call Bullsh!t on this one too.

Fact- Very, very few crimes are commited with LEGALLY purchased weapons.

Fact- The overwhelming majority of weapons related crimes are committed with STOLEN weapons.

Stolen from LEGAL owners.

I belive that people have the right to own fireartms and defend themselves/family with deadly force if required, but what is needed is a system which toughens the requierments for who is eligable for owning a firearm.

I could not agree more- I work Gun Shows with a buddy of mine and trust me, some people have no place owning a weapon :o

To those of you that think my earlier post is from a "Gun Rights" group you are dead wrong. My material exclusivly.

I understand how non-gun people feel after tragic incidents have occured.

They feel by putting further restrictions on weapons the end of the tragedy's is near.

It's a knee-jerk reaction.

But if you honestly feel that this will make a difference you may as well put your Rose colored glasses back on and stick your head back in the sand.

Society as a whole needs to change.

Give the parents and educators the right to discipline the children. To teach them honor, integrity and the value of life.

Enforce the laws that we currently have.

Give our corrections system the unpleasant task of holding individuals accountable for their crimes.

The ACLU is one of the worst enemies that our society has.

Who cares if some lowlife rapist's rights are violated?

What about the victims rights at the time the crime was committed?

How about closing our borders and INS growing some balls and removing the illegals from this country?

That would cause a larger reduction in crime than ANY measure put into place to restrict weapon ownership.

Earlier in this thread there was a reference to our Government stripping our Rights already.

Absolutely true-They are almost on a daily basis.

The sickening thing is "We The People" are allowing it to happen.

If you are dis-illusioned and you think your local PD is going to protect you in a direct, life threatening situation I really do have empathy for you.

I will put flowers on your grave....................

I dont have all the answers either- There is no easy answer to this. But certainley taking weapons out of the hands of LAW ABIDING owners is not the solution.

Not to sound Passe' but- "If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns"

Guess I'll just have to be an outlaw ;)

[mrusse01 0]

most guns = the most crime.

I call Bullsh!t on this one. An armed population is one of the most effective deterrents to crime.

Proven, statistical fact- In States and Cities with lucerative Carry/Ownership laws violent crimes against persons are down almost exponentially.

You call BS on that? On what basis? Refer back to post 69, I proved this to be the case using actual studies done by the UN World Crime Survey. I hate to tell you this, but you can't just say 'proven fact' and then whatever follows out of your mouth automatically becomes proven fact.

I don't even know how this is in question; nobody here has even attempted to refute any of what I've said regarding that UN World Crime Survey except to make vague statements that the UN sucks, again with nothing to follow that up. Look at the crime survey, examine how it was tabulated, there are arguments to be made against it, but nobody here has brought them up so I'm guessing you don't consider them valid.

Anyways, here is a real 'proven fact': In regards to crime, overall America is the WORST among ALL westernized democracies.

Another fact: You have the highest rate of gun (and handgun..and probably all other kinds I dont' even know about) ownership among ALL westernized democracies.

So here is what I want to know, and I will make it as short and as simple as possible; I'm not trying to be a dick, I'd actually love to hear some responses to this:

You have the most guns. You have the most crime. You argue that an armed populace is a major deterrent to crime. Therefore, you are saying that if gun control advocates got their way, that overall crime in America would be even WORSE than it already is?

Ok, fair enough (I guess), you can argue that. However, can anyone explain to me how the societal differences in the United States are THAT significant compared to similar nations (Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc) to account for your last place showing overall in crime rates? You are arguing that an armed populace is a huge deterrent to crime, but you already have an armed populace and you still have the worst crime rates of any western country....I mean how does that make sense if an armed population is so great at deterring crime, and you have the largest and most heavily armed population of all? (here's a hint: IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE)

[sdcopp 1]

I've refuted the "facts" you tout about "Westernized countries" here's the link again, showing a basis that higher gun ownership has shown lower crime rates:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...n-Ownership.htm

I was pretty well done with this thread, but the fact you continue on rolling stats and facts, blithely ignoring those to the contrary because they don't suit your case is almost appalling when you say you'd love to see objective data. I guess because it's an American University, despite it's stature and standing, they can't possibly be right.

[Sid 3]

If you knew for a fact that giving up your right to bear arms would save one human life would you?

[mrusse01 0]

I've refuted the "facts" you tout about "Westernized countries" here's the link again, showing a basis that higher gun ownership has shown lower crime rates:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...n-Ownership.htm

I was pretty well done with this thread, but the fact you continue on rolling stats and facts, blithely ignoring those to the contrary because they don't suit your case is almost appalling when you say you'd love to see objective data. I guess because it's an American University, despite it's stature and standing, they can't possibly be right.

You haven't refuted those facts at all.

I've read that link, it is quite insightful. Still, there is nothing in there that refutes the UN Crime Survey which concluded that overall America has the worst overall crime rate among western countries and that you have very very high levels of gun ownership. Do you deny either of those statements? I don't see how you can.

Sure, you can argue that gun controls leads to an increase in crime...you might even be right, that Harvard study sounds pretty solid. So then you are telling me that if stricter gun control was implemented in America you'd have worse crime than you already do (you are already in last place)? If gun control leads to so much crime, and you have so little gun control....why do you have so much crime? Are you the only country in the world with drug/gang/illegal immigrant problems?

If you knew for a fact that giving up your right to bear arms would save one human life would you?

Are you asking me that? I don't understand what you mean.

[Monty22 829]

I have no problem with citizens owning firearms, what I do have a problem with are states which have virtually no gun control. Many states do not have laws which limit the amount of firearms you are allowed to purchase at a single time. States which have laws like this usually refer to them as the "one gun a month" rule. The lack of laws such as "one gun a month" allow criminals to purchase firearms legally, before then selling them to other criminals on the street. I belive that people have the right to own fireartms and defend themselves/family with deadly force if required, but what is needed is a system which toughens the requierments for who is eligable for owning a firearm.

You mean states like Vermont? Yeah, it's like the wild west up there....

[D aka speck 0]

Personally, I can't imagine that "crime rates" in the U.S. are at all relevant in this topic unless they are in fact "gun related crimes". Shoplifting and money laundering are crimes as well. I got it! No more stores = no more shoplifting. I think it's pretty clear where I'm going with this.

An old saying that's been on bumper stickers for a while now "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Ask the UK, they've seen a 6-7 % increase in gun related crimes.

Do guns make the world a safer place? It would be ridiculous for me to say yes while watching war footage on CNN! The fact is, guns exist. If criminals know that they are the only people that have them, I would hate to imagine what this country would be like. I do not believe that the crime rates would drop at all if guns were outlawed. People are still going to lye, cheat and steal. They'll just be the only ones that are armed.

EDIT:wording

[sdcopp 1]

I've refuted the "facts" you tout about "Westernized countries" here's the link again, showing a basis that higher gun ownership has shown lower crime rates:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...n-Ownership.htm

I was pretty well done with this thread, but the fact you continue on rolling stats and facts, blithely ignoring those to the contrary because they don't suit your case is almost appalling when you say you'd love to see objective data. I guess because it's an American University, despite it's stature and standing, they can't possibly be right.

You haven't refuted those facts at all.

I've read that link, it is quite insightful. Still, there is nothing in there that refutes the UN Crime Survey which concluded that overall America has the worst overall crime rate among western countries and that you have very very high levels of gun ownership. Do you deny either of those statements? I don't see how you can.

Sure, you can argue that gun controls leads to an increase in crime...you might even be right, that Harvard study sounds pretty solid. So then you are telling me that if stricter gun control was implemented in America you'd have worse crime than you already do (you are already in last place)? If gun control leads to so much crime, and you have so little gun control....why do you have so much crime? Are you the only country in the world with drug/gang/illegal immigrant problems?

I'm refuting the blanket statement you are making about higher gun ownership = higher crime.

Let's put this in perspective, shall we. Two countries in the world have higher populations than the US. China and India. India has similar crimes rates per capita, with three times the population. Chinese law is very strict, their people aren't exactly free, they suck on almost every human rights front and have the highest rate of executions. They also have a low crime rate.

An interesting tidbit:

"The truth is, violent crime continues to plummet in states which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons; and contrary to leftist claims that most murders are committed by average folks who just happen to have a gun, 90% of adult murderers already have criminal records when they kill."

"Liberals claim that more guns mean more crime. But this is the exact opposite of the truth. Indeed, the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime, their rates soaring after enactment of their laws. The same thing happened in Britain and Australia following their national gun bans, while countries like Switzerland -- where everyone owns a machine gun -- have virtually no crime at all."

http://editorials.arrivenet.com/politics/a...e.php/8578.html

I think the fact all of us keep skirting around is population density. The more people you get packed into a metropolitan area, the higher the crime rates. Moscow, NYC, London, all three are in the top 20 worldwide for population and all three have "significant" crime (not to mention all three fit your "westernized" countries motif). All of Canada would almost fit in just those three cities. Tell me you wouldn't have high crime rates packed in a city with 8-10 million people, including criminal population. And yet the US does fair against the world for crime rates, not just the 10 countries you want to keep referencing. Seems like the US is actually lower in crime than significantly smaller countries.

Sure there are places with lower crime rates across the world. They're also smaller countries. And apparently Canada is really not all that different:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...4e-9e37d5313d8a

Shootings are up,people are afraid, and you have a gun ban in place. More and more people think their streets are unsafe in Toronto.

Chief Blair agreed stiffer penalties would cut down on gun violence.

"The people that we do apprehend that are involved in this violence, quite frankly, they need to go to jail," he said, adding: "Unfortunately, we have seen many cases where the sentences do not reflect the seriousness of the crime."

Organizations like the ACLU are what keep criminals with these minimal sentences. I personally don't care what color,race,creed,religion,etc. you are. If you commit a crime, you should face punishment. The same anti-gun extreme liberals are the ones who push things like these sentences not reflecting the seriousness of the crime. Criminals get out, and commit more crime. As far as wondering if it really is gangs with illegal guns, you should see now that Canada is getting the same issue we've had here. But you can't punish them for their crimes like normal citizens because they're a minority, with a disadvantaged background, and an alcoholic parent, etc. etc. etc.

I'd love to pick up this debate in 5-10 yrs to see where it stands then.

[Jason Harris 31]

I would imagine the violence will be worse because, as I stated earlier, I believe there is a small segment of our society who can't handle the violent images that are bombarding them. Given the access of the internet, and its impact on mainstream media trying to compete, I expect the bombardment to increase.

[Monty22 829]

An armed populace are citizens, when they are striped of that right, they are subjects.

I don't own a gun, although I don't have a problem that you do. However, I don't feel any less of a citizen for not having a gun in my house. Indeed, I vote in each election, so the odds are I'm more of a citizen that some of our gun-toting brethren.

Uh, we vote too. Notice how most ofthe cadidates are pandering to the NRA this time around? Here is a little gem from Slick Willie talking about the 2000 election.

"In at least five states I can think of, the NRA had a decisive influence," President Clinton told Dan Rather on CBS's 60 Minutes. "They've probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact that we didn't win the House this time. And they hurt Al Gore."

[Chadd 916]

The same people have been making the same points for a couple pages now, this thing is beyond done.