[Bacardi4206]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Hmm, statistically speaking you are apparently right. Though having everybody walking with a gun that equals out to it being somehow safer sounds idiotic to me and still does. I honestly do not see how having wreckless, idiotic human beings carrying a weapon that can kill somebody is the safest thing.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that as far as gun deaths are concerned, those that don't have guns bans have a higher gun death rates. Pretty sure that is correct, that is correct actually but not entirely sure for recent statistics on that. If that be the case, what is the true best safety net here? Having lower crime rates, or having less gun deaths. In my opinion, I'd rather get robbed then shot.

Most times when they speak of "gun deaths" they include suicide. Sometimes like Australia: According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1985-2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides. Yet increase of the suicide rate in the 3 years after the introduction of the strict gun legislation.

So, many times when countries enact tough gun control, and point to the number of Gun deaths have dropped, they dont tell the whole story. They will not tell you that suicide rates stayed the same (poeple found other ways to kill themslef). Just that gundeaths are down. Criminals will still get their guns.

Jees the cops will sell them the guns if cops are the only ones with guns left.

Yeah, theres nothing really much you can do about that however I bet that other percent of the people who wern't suicided did drop, even a little. So even if you couldn't do anything about those suicides, atleast the other people's percentage decreased.

[kal]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Really? So I suppose all those people who rob people with guns, and kill people with guns every single day don't count right? I gotcha

Not really. His argument was that if guns were legal, few would carry them, and just because law abiding citizens carry guns doesn't mean they'll use them.

You still seem to have this mindset that carrying a gun will make someone have criminal tendencies, and legalising them will make everyone carry them, and hence everyone will turn into a homicidal criminal. That is such a flawed leap of logic it's actually quite sad.

[Bacardi4206]

kal kal:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Really? So I suppose all those people who rob people with guns, and kill people with guns every single day don't count right? I gotcha

Not really. His argument was that if guns were legal, few would carry them, and just because law abiding citizens carry guns doesn't mean they'll use them.

You still seem to have this mindset that carrying a gun will make someone have criminal tendencies, and legalising them will make everyone carry them, and hence everyone will turn into a homicidal criminal. That is such a flawed leap of logic it's actually quite sad.

That's assuming that is actually what I said however, since I never stated every single person with a gun would shoot somebody. That is just a accusation.

However, my point is quite different. If you have people roaming with guns, chances are you are going to get a bunch of them that will act stupid with it. Is having a gun really worth that? My logic is not flawed unti'll it is proven flawed to begin with. You continously saying it's flawed does not make it so.

I also find it quite funny regarding the quote of mine, I really find it difficult to see how that directly means I was refering to everybody would shoot somebody with a gun and engage in criminal a activities? In my opinion, I couldn't see how anybody would see that in that quote. In that quote I was refering to all the people who did shoot people currently, and engage in criminal activities with a weapon. Hence the words, "So I suppose all those people who rob people with guns, and kill people with guns every single day don't count". Where's the connection between my words, All the people who kill people with guns connect to everybody with a gun kills people? I fail to make that connection.

[kal]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

kal kal:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Really? So I suppose all those people who rob people with guns, and kill people with guns every single day don't count right? I gotcha

Not really. His argument was that if guns were legal, few would carry them, and just because law abiding citizens carry guns doesn't mean they'll use them.

You still seem to have this mindset that carrying a gun will make someone have criminal tendencies, and legalising them will make everyone carry them, and hence everyone will turn into a homicidal criminal. That is such a flawed leap of logic it's actually quite sad.

That's assuming that is actually what I said however, since I never stated every single person with a gun would shoot somebody. That is just a accusation.

However, my point is quite different. If you have people roaming with guns, chances are you are going to get a bunch of them that will act stupid with it. Is having a gun really worth that? My logic is not flawed unti'll it is proven flawed to begin with. You continously saying it's flawed does not make it so.

I also find it quite funny regarding the quote of mine, I really find it difficult to see how that directly means I was refering to everybody would shoot somebody with a gun and engage in criminal a activities? In my opinion, I couldn't see how anybody would see that in that quote. In that quote I was refering to all the people who did shoot people currently, and engage in criminal activities with a weapon. Hence the words, "So I suppose all those people who rob people with guns, and kill people with guns every single day don't count". Where's the connection between my words, All the people who kill people with guns connect to everybody with a gun kills people? I fail to make that connection.

Ok, I'm not trying to be a douche or anything, I'm honestly having difficulty understanding your position here. The way I interpreted it was in my above post, derived from your numerous statements that basically conclude a) less guns = less gun crime because nobody will have them (flawed; criminals will still have, and be more likely to use), and b) legal guns = everyone will want one, which will make everyone want to use them and thus lead to more gun crime.

Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

[uwish]

the silence is deafening. This is the REAL heart of the issue, complete and utter MISUNDERSTANDINGS about CCW and firearms in general

[sasquatch2]

Tricks

$1:

Bacardi4206 wrote:
Thousands of people die by guns deaths a year in the US alone, add the rest of the worlds total as well. Though one student killed a terrorist in the ENTIRE world and they are using that as avertisement to say guns can protect people? Yes, a student shooting a terrorist because he had a gun makes up for all the thousands, and probally millions of gun deaths in the world per year . They make me sick.

$1:

That massive number of gun deaths would be smaller if there were more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

And that is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

[ManifestDestiny]

Remember the first freedom they always take away is guns. After that its all like taking candy from a child. the rest of your freedoms will perish.

[uwish]

ok

time for the big guns...


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.1

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy confirms that reducing gun ownership by law-abiding citizens does nothing to reduce violence worldwide. The study notes that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted2. For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in

Western Europe (1.9%) ... Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian." In Australia, the government banned firearms in 1996, after a publicized shooting. Immediately after the ban, armed robberies rose by 73%, unarmed robberies by 28%, kidnappings by 38%, assaults by 17%, and manslaughter by 29%. This was reported on the web site of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January, 2000.4 After England initiated a ban on handguns a 1998 study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40% more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100% higher than in the United States. And, counter-intuitively, rates of crimes using handguns is on the rise. In 1999-2000, crimes using handguns were at a seven-year high. Apparently, criminals were easily able to access guns, but law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens were not allowed.5

Between 1973 and 2003 firearms ownership doubled in the United States. During those same years murder rates dropped by one third. Statistics show that with every 1% increase in legal firearm ownership correlates with a 4.1% decrease in violent crime3.

Thirty-one states have chosen to loosen gun control laws and allow lawful citizens the right to carry a concealed gun with “shall issue” permits. The anti-gun crowd predicted minor fender-benders exploding into “wild west shoot outs.” Not only has that not happened, but the opposite has happened. On average these “shall issue” states have 19% lower murder rate, 39% lower robbery rates and 24% lower violent crime rates that states that forbid their citizens to carry concealed.6

We shouldn’t let our irrational fears blind us to the data. Yes, firearms are powerful. But they can be life saving, especially in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

1. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8212 April 28, 2007. “They Never Learn” by Robert A. Levy. American Spectator April 25th 2007.

2. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...-Ownership.htm “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence”

3. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8212 April 28, 2007. “They Never Learn” by Robert A. Levy. American Spectator April 25th 2007.

4. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq Question #10 “What is gun control like in other countries?”

5. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq Question #10 “What is gun control like in other countries?”

6. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 May 13, 2000. “Gun Control: Myths and Reality” by David Lampo.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...-laws.html#225

[BartSimpson]

uwish uwish:

ok

time for the big guns...


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.1

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy confirms that reducing gun ownership by law-abiding citizens does nothing to reduce violence worldwide. The study notes that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted2. For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in

Western Europe (1.9%) ... Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian." In Australia, the government banned firearms in 1996, after a publicized shooting. Immediately after the ban, armed robberies rose by 73%, unarmed robberies by 28%, kidnappings by 38%, assaults by 17%, and manslaughter by 29%. This was reported on the web site of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January, 2000.4 After England initiated a ban on handguns a 1998 study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40% more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100% higher than in the United States. And, counter-intuitively, rates of crimes using handguns is on the rise. In 1999-2000, crimes using handguns were at a seven-year high. Apparently, criminals were easily able to access guns, but law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens were not allowed.5

Between 1973 and 2003 firearms ownership doubled in the United States. During those same years murder rates dropped by one third. Statistics show that with every 1% increase in legal firearm ownership correlates with a 4.1% decrease in violent crime3.

Thirty-one states have chosen to loosen gun control laws and allow lawful citizens the right to carry a concealed gun with “shall issue” permits. The anti-gun crowd predicted minor fender-benders exploding into “wild west shoot outs.” Not only has that not happened, but the opposite has happened. On average these “shall issue” states have 19% lower murder rate, 39% lower robbery rates and 24% lower violent crime rates that states that forbid their citizens to carry concealed.6

We shouldn’t let our irrational fears blind us to the data. Yes, firearms are powerful. But they can be life saving, especially in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

1. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8212 April 28, 2007. “They Never Learn” by Robert A. Levy. American Spectator April 25th 2007.

2. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...-Ownership.htm “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence”

3. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8212 April 28, 2007. “They Never Learn” by Robert A. Levy. American Spectator April 25th 2007.

4. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq Question #10 “What is gun control like in other countries?”

5. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq Question #10 “What is gun control like in other countries?”

6. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 May 13, 2000. “Gun Control: Myths and Reality” by David Lampo.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...-laws.html#225

Excellent post!