PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Does gun ownership deter crime

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does private gun ownership deter crime ?†

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gun_crime_deterrence.HTM

(Edited by admin 10/8/2002 at 6:55 PM).
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 10:17 AM on May 1, 2002 | IP
holsbeke

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My Dad said about Sept. 11 "If all those pilots and flight attendants had guns it might have ended differently." I myself thought the same thing about the Jews in Nazi Germany. At least they would have had a chance.


-------
Patricia Holsbeke
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 9:08 PM on June 22, 2002 | IP
Day_Am_STR8

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ATTN: Anti-Gun members

Just to set things straight - I am good with weapons - I am also well experienced with rifles, bows, and other things. Above all - I am an American who IS WILLING to stand side by side with our military to defend our land.

Why are you so against people like me?

Don't you believe what our rights mean?

It is a given right to allow us to provide food for our table.

Besides That:

It also allows us the right to defend America in the event that some darn fool terrorist or Iraq or some other kind of military maniac attacks us.

This is wrong?

Are you also socialist?



-------
Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 01:26 AM on August 19, 2002 | IP
Jigokusabre

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am more or less a liberal, even though I support gun rights. Obviously, I have no problem with "people like you" and honestly, I think most liberals don't have anything against "people like you" either.

The basic liberal contention against gun ownership is that more people are hurt and killed by gun accidents than are hurt or killed trying to comit a crime against a gun owner or his property.

The 2nd ammendment was written in the context of 18th century America, where the state militia was made, up of brave "people like you" who were willing to defend thier state, but did not have a job as part of the U.S. Army.

Obviously, there is no need for such a group of people, our armed forces are well orginised and thuroughly equipped.

I think that aims of the liberal anti-gun people are noble, but banning guns will not result in the desired effect. I think that gun ownership should require one to learn about gun safety. Knowledge of gun safety will save far more lives than anti-gun laws.



-------
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 10:41 PM on August 19, 2002 | IP
Day_Am_STR8

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The 2nd ammendment was written in the context of 18th century America, where the state militia was made, up of brave "people like you" who were willing to defend thier state, but did not have a job as part of the U.S. Army.

Obviously, there is no need for such a group of people, our armed forces are well orginised and thuroughly equipped.

I think that aims of the liberal anti-gun people are noble, but banning guns will not result in the desired effect. I think that gun ownership should require one to learn about gun safety. Knowledge of gun safety will save far more lives than anti-gun laws.



You have a good outlook about this! † I am totally for proper training.

My gripe is with those who know NOTHING about it and STILL want it their way.

Personally speaking, I am in a situation where law enforcement might end up being the second wave of protection. Sure it may be a LONG SHOT but it is still a shot to keep in mind.

I take care of a Jewish Synagogue - if something were to happen to the facility while I was there - I would be the FIRST line of defense!


I am here to tell you - I would do what was needed to defend these folks just as quick as if it were my own family!

FYI: †- I am not Jewish!



-------
Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 5:45 PM on August 27, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I admire people like you for precisely that reason. But Jigokusabre's point needs to be recognized, that the context of gun ownership has changed, NOT as many people are as unselfish and high-minded as yourself, and some restrictions need to be made to keep guns out of idiots and felons, and in law-abiding citizens who know what they're doing. For the record, socialism has nothing to do with support for gun rights. I consider myself to be a Democratic Socialist (think Sweden), but I still support the right to bear guns as a general contention. What I reject is the extreme interpretations espoused by the NRA which reject all forms of even reasonable limitations on who can buy a gun or what they need to do to buy one.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:32 PM on August 27, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, socialism has a great deal to do with gun control.  It comes from the tendency of socialists to turn to the gov't. for answers to most problems.  WHile you may be a socialist with reasonable attitudes towards guns, most socialists would not agree with you.

Finally, the NRA has NEVER opposed instant background checks via computer.  In fact, if you check the NRA's minutes, it proposed this solution almost 15 years ago.   The NRA feels very strongly about keeping guns out of the hands of felons, psychologically unstable people and children.  They have spent millions of dollars in safety training for kids including the "Eddie Eagle" program and thousands booklets, educational sessions and sponsored events.  

The NRA has taken some extreme positions in the past.  On the surface of it, it can seem very unreasonable.  Especially if you are a sincere person and NOT one of those who masquerade behind "gun control" when their true goal is total confiscation.  The reasons for a couple of these extreme positions was the virtually unending attacks on gun rights by the leftists.  AFter a while, proposals to confiscate guns had increased to the point that the NRA fought EVERYTHING that was anti-gun rights trying retain at least some rights.  Curiously, the NRA was only mildly politically active prior to the lefttist gun control attacks.  They would have never gotten into the business of politics if not for the liberal left!

Regards,
thegolems[color=maroon]
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:41 AM on August 28, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, your point on most socialists being anti-gun is well taken, but I wouldn't call it a fundemental aspect of socialism. They just both happen to attract the same types of people. Anyway, the NRA HAS opposed gun registration and licensing, as well as closing the gun show loophole, trigger locks, waiting periods, and bans on semi-automatic/assualt rifles. So let's not all go cheering the NRA for being big on gun safety just yet. The NRA (and socialists for that matter), tend to take relatively extreme positions, making their more...reasonable supporters lose credit even when they dont deserve to.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:43 PM on August 28, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

many of you who are good with weapons say you would fight and stand by your coutnry no matter what happens... but what happens if your faimly is murdered? will u pick up the gun and kill whoever did that to your family? be reasonable our prime instincts are to survive not kill, so more than likely you would turn coward and not do anything,after all you are giving no actual proof of what you say, and the person who controls the gun, if he is good and justified, then there shall be no crime, if the person who is bad is in control of the gun decides to  harm people, then he more than likely will,
you see, it isnt the gun that commits thec rime, tis the person behind it who decides and carries the crime out...
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 8:39 PM on September 1, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but the gun sure makes a whole lot easier....
example: man with regular household appliance wants to kill someone (lets say he uses a cutting knife). This, while effective, still always for the target to "play defense." He can run away, or dodge the knife blow, or maybe even knock it out of the attackers hand.
Now imagine the same, situation, except the attacker has a semi-automatic rifle. The target has no defense at all, and the attacker doesn't even need to aim well, he can just spray shot until he hits him.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:53 PM on September 1, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The NRA's policies on anyone being able to get a gun is stupid, I agree with that.  I myself own numerous guns, they are all locked up in a safe and only I know the combo.  Guns are safe in certain peoples hands.  Its the idiots that don't deserve them.  If someone were to break into my house and threaten my family and I, I would hold them at gun point until the cops got there.  But if they tried anything I will pull the trigger.  That is survival and like Xenjel said, that is our nature.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 6:55 PM on September 2, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

regardless of what happens, usually a perosn has motives to kill, and probebly will unless the government stops him, or the defender, have you ever notived when someone knows they will die they become nervous and desperate?although i find it ironic that the government dislikes guns and yet allows their police to carry them...
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 6:59 PM on September 2, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 Well... I feel a lot better about my chances with a home invader, or my wife's for that matter.
 We both have LTC'c in a Commomwealth where they are hard to come by. We both shoot regularly. She just earned her Marksman 1st class rating, while I am working on the 9th and last level of a Sharpshooter rating before working on Expert. Noone even locks their cars in this neighborhood, even with a prison less than 1/2 mile away.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:02 AM on September 3, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

interesting case, but i cant see what this has in common with the debate...it sounds almost like ur bragging nonchlantly, i dont care for guns or the people who posess them...
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 6:03 PM on September 4, 2002 | IP
Lost

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from holsbeke at 9:08 PM on June 22, 2002 :
My Dad said about Sept. 11 "If all those pilots and flight attendants had guns it might have ended differently." I myself thought the same thing about the Jews in Nazi Germany. At least they would have had a chance.



FYI: There's a bill that's going through the Gov't right now that will (if passed) allow pilots to keep guns with them in the cockpit.

 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 9:57 PM on September 7, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i wouldn think that is kind of a bad idea... the smartest thing todo would be to disguise some police and military as passengers and keep to gaurds up at the front.... oh and have 2 replacment pilots as disguised passengers as well... tell me if u like the idea or not, and if u want to add anything u think would help in a situation like sept 11th and halt it plz tell as quickly as possible
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 10:05 PM on September 7, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

plain-clothes air marshals. Israel uses them to great effect. I'm all for it, much better idea then guns in cockpits.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:57 PM on September 7, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the air marshalls in israel are dressed in uniform holding an assault rifle in the plane, thats what a friend told me who flew on one of there planes.  It might have been a heighten time of alert though.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 03:45 AM on September 8, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They have both plain-clothed and clothed air marshals. Obviously the ones in uniform can carry heavier weaponary, but the plain clothes add stealth. Its a nice 1-2 punch.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:06 AM on September 8, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look at it this way, if you were a burglar and you went to break into a house and on the backdoor you saw an NRA sticker, would you continue to break in?


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 3:03 PM on September 24, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I sure would, because the man would be sleeping most likely, and he still would not shoot, or he'd go to jail.  I wouldnt back down if someone held a gun to my head.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 4:22 PM on September 24, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Break in my house, you'd better come with a bazooka.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 6:53 PM on September 24, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lol.  Same here, or ill gut you like a fish!


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 08:40 AM on September 25, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Private Gun ownership deters more than crime.
It deters armies too!
Case One: The Japanese had the logistical capability during World War II to invade the United States Mainland.  In several cases, their submarines did direct sea based artillery fire into California.  This is just about all they were willing to do.  Why?  I cannot remember a direct quote, but a high ranking Japanese official commented, "There's a rifle hiding behind every bush."
Case Two: Switzerland has a well regulated, meaning well trained, private militia.  Every house has a machine gun and, I believe, 400 rounds of ammo.  It was estimated by Hitler's generals that they would take a 9:1 casualty rate in invading Switzerland.  That is, For every Swiss the Germans would be able to kill, the Swiss would be able to kill 9 Germans.  

During that time period, everybody was afraid of what the Germans would do next, and a reporter asked a Swiss citizen, "Aren't you scared?  What are you going to do if they invade?"  
The Swiss answered, "I'll shoot a soldier and go home."
The population of Switzerland was double the size of Hitler's army.
Personally, for the criminal, he has a trade to ply.  Meeting armed people poses a major problem.  Rather than take the risk of pesty citizen and law enforcement interruptions, the criminal will go where he won't find much resistance.  Guns DO deter crime.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:11 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is true that every swiss house has an assault rifle and 40 rounds of ammo...but wait a minute they dont have gun problems in switzerland...also they have low crime...some of the lowest in the world. Kennesaw Georgia has a law stating that if you own property you MUST own a gun...guess what it has the least amount of crime in all of america...and take note that switzerland was never invaded by the Germans in ww2
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:07 AM on October 17, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The mandatory gun ownership law in Kennesaw is merely symbolic, drafted to "send a message".  It is not enforced, as I understand it.
Where the hell did we get a nation of lawmakers who think laws are supposed to "send messages"?  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:01 AM on October 18, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Back to the debate of gun ownership as a deterrence for crime, the six most violent cities in the United States -- Baltimore, MD; Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia, PA; New York City, NY; Detroit, MI; and Los Angeles, CA -- all have extraordinarily strict gun control laws.

The state of Vermont allows any citizen owning a gun to carry it without a license. Since this law was instituted, the highest homicide rate the state reached was 25; the lowest was 5.

The city of Baltimore suffers an average of 300 homicides a year -- more than 30 times that of the state of Vermont in an average year.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:56 AM on December 2, 2002 | IP
Maynard

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

my family has owned guns all of my life, and we have never had crime committed upon our household, so yes guns do deter crime.




-------
I love my country, but fear my government.

your friendly ultra-conservative patriot.
 


Posts: 270 | Posted: 1:45 PM on December 2, 2002 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, in some states the law states that trespassers with harmful intent can be shot...the law in wisconsin (if i'm not mistaken) states that you can use one violence level higher that the attacker in self defense. Meaning if someone breaks into my house with a gun and I believe he has intent to kill, he's "fair game." If he has a gun visible, I certianly wouldn't stop and ask him. And Exxoss, if you were threatening my family, you'd be affraid with my gun to your head, or  you'd be a really unaffraid dead guy. All you people are so sure that you wouldn't use a gun, I bet it would be a different story if someone was pointing a gun at you.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 12:11 PM on April 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am totally for gun control.  That's why I hate it when I shoot low and to the left.  

Seriously though, for those who lock up their guns, I do hope those who might need to use them when you arent there can get to them.  My wife has been attacked twice, when I was not there.  

I taught my kids, 8 and 9, to shoot, and which gun to grab if someone came in.  they are good shots, and they also know to keep their hands off the guns otherwise.  Mine are historical replicas on display.  Never had a problem except the one I dropped on my foot.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:20 PM on September 26, 2003 | IP
grete

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 12:41 AM on August 28, 2002 :

Finally, the NRA has NEVER opposed instant background checks via computer. †In fact, if you check the NRA's minutes, it proposed this solution almost 15 years ago. †


Actually, the NRA opposed a congressional Bill for instant background checks at gun shows.  NEVER? I don't know what your definition of never is...
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 8:56 PM on December 2, 2003 | IP
Arkalius

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jigokusabre at 8:41 PM on August 19, 2002 :
The basic liberal contention against gun ownership is that more people are hurt and killed by gun accidents than are hurt or killed trying to comit a crime against a gun owner or his property.


That's an interesting statistic, but if you really think about it, it's skewed to make you think gun ownership is more of a problem then a solution. Does a criminal need to be hurt or killed to be deterred?

There have been many surveys that have tried to see how many people have prevented a crime with a firearm, and all of them report wildly differing numbers from 2.5 million a year and more, to only around 700,000 a year. At any rate, even the smallest number is greater than the number of crimes committed with a firearm per year. In situations where a gun was used to prevent a crime, only in 1 out of 100 instances was the perpetrator wounded by the gun, and in only 1 out of 1000 was he/she killed. The gun by its very virtue of being there is very often enough to prevent the crime.






-------
-Arkalius<br>
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:14 PM on September 11, 2004 | IP
Harlan Peppa

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In 1994, every day 16 children ages 19 & under were killed with guns in this country [and for every child killed, four are wounded] National Center for Health and Statistics, 1996.


I'd like to know how many of those "Children," were killed in Compton...


-------
Socialism is at the point of a gun.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 9:10 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jigokusabre at 10:41 PM on August 19, 2002 :


The 2nd ammendment was written in the context of 18th century America,


Just curios, when was the rest of the Bill of Rights authored?  Can I still have my freedom of speech?  Please.  What about my freedom from unreasonable search and siezure?



 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 12:30 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, since you reamed the last guy for spelling Australia wrong, it's spelled curious.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:33 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
donr101395

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It doesn't matter if gun ownership reduces crime. It's a constitutional right and ownership doesn't increase crime. criminals increase crime. They can murder just as easily with a buick. A gun is just easier to carry, I never seen anyone outraged and want to ban General Motors after one of their cars was used in a drive by shooting.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:56 PM on May 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's intent.  GM doesn't intend for their vehicles to be used to kill people.  The entire POINT of a car is for transportation.  Guns, however, have only one intended use.  To kill something or someone.  Tobacco set the legal precedent.  If you knowingly manufacture something harmful, you share in the responsibility of it when it is used as you intended (whether or not you agree with the tobacco lawsuits, the precedent is now there).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:12 AM on May 31, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For crying out loud, people! I'm sorry to get flustered, but it's an undeniable fact that any person who comes into (or has the opportunity to come into) the possession of a firearm significantly increases their potential to injure/kill another or themselves.

Why do you think America has so many more high-school shootings or at least children bringing firearms to school (for example) than, say, in Australia? Here, it is extremely difficult to come by a firearm easily - to be honest, i would have absolutely no idea where to begin looking - so if i, or anybody else, ever got so fed up with school or university or work and decided to exact revenge, they would probably not even consider using a firearm to do so, as it would be so difficult to get one. In America, however, a child (for example) may simply be able to grab one of the probably numerous firearms within their home to do so.

Sure, most gun-owners abide by the law and don't go round shooting people, but simply being in the possession of a firearm significantly increases their (or someone elses) potential to do so.

Any intelligent person must admit that there is a problem when the amount of gun-related deaths in America is in the tens of thousands, while in countries where guns are heavily controlled, limited or prohibited, the number is in the hundreds...if that.

Come on people - admit it!
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:30 AM on June 1, 2006 | IP
DrNo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where are you getting your statistics? You claim that gun deaths in America are in the tens of thousands. Over what period of time?Besides, how many of those tens of thousands of gun crimes were committed by legal owners of registered guns? Don't be so naive. Anti-gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals by definition break the law. How would passing more laws stop them?
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 1:47 PM on June 9, 2006 | IP
DrNo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, a quick Google search offered the following statistics from 1997...there were 89 firearm deaths per day, or a total of 32,485 in a year in America. HOWEVER, 54% of all gun deaths were SUICIDE. This equals 17,541. Which means that 14,943 people were actually killed in other ways (this numer includes accidental deaths as well). How many of these deaths were drug related? Who knows? The point is, and the answer to this topic, is gun ownership does deter crime, plain and simple. Think about it...if you were a criminal, would you rather break into a house of an unarmed citizen or somebody toting a 12 gauge shotgun? This argument is really pointless anyway, as the Constitution clearly defines our right to bear arms, regardless of the time it was written. Arguing over the context in which the Constitution was written would only open the door to banning more and more of our rights.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 2:00 PM on June 9, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms (not own) in order to preserve the WELL REGULATED militia (i.e. National Guard).  If you belong to the National Guard, I am sure that they will provide firearms for your duties.  While performing those duties you will be allowed to keep and bear the arm provided to you.  The point is, any law makes any breaker of said law a criminal.  People say that if your make a certain law then only the people who break it will be breaking it.  Well, duh.  Alcohol is prohibited for those under 21.  Well gee, that just means people under 21 who DON'T break the law won't have beer.  How does the law stop them?  It doesn't.  Using that line of logic then we should just throw out all laws.  Then no one will be a criminal.  Next time someone wants to bring up the second amendment to protect their right to own weapons, please remember to include the INTENT (i.e. a WELL REGULATED MILITIA) into your argument.  Anything else is just wasting server space.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:49 PM on June 9, 2006 | IP
basic

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You do notice that the National Guard is national; itís not called the state guard for a very obvious reason.  And a militia is defined as "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=militia)".  Citizens of a state are hardly national, so claiming that the National Guard is our militia is ridiculous. You also claim the Constitution does not give us a right to own firearms, just to keep them.  Well upon further inspection, it does. Because the definition of keep is "To retain possession of (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=keep)"
And now we should throw out all laws with that line of logic you say?  You seem to have failed civics and econ my friend, for you lack a satisfactory understanding of supply and demand.  Not all laws prohibit material things; therefore all laws should not be thrown out.

In summary banning and restricting guns is just the government controlling you.  Violence is the problem, not guns.  Go to the source of the problem.  How many governments have turned sour in the last 150 years, I am not saying that ours will, but if one day it does you will be powerless to stop the governments fully automatic weapons.  I wonít step on your rights if you donít squander mine.

 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 02:29 AM on June 11, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the point of refering to the National Guard (the Arizona National Guard, for instance) is to prove the point that the "well-regulated militia" has been replaced many years ago.  The intent of the law was to provide for the militia, and the militia (as such) no longer exists.  Ergo, the law is no longer applicable.  When was the last time YOUR "state militia" met?  And the logic is fully functional.  To claim that only law breakers break laws (which is the underlying idea of the argument against weapon relations) is one of those "well duhs!" that people try to wrap in pretty paper and rally people around.  When you break down the argument to its basic point, you're left with "well, duh!".


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:43 PM on June 11, 2006 | IP
basic

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Actually, the point of referring to the National Guard (the Arizona National Guard, for instance) is to prove the point that the "well-regulated militia" has been replaced many years ago."

Actually the definition of militia disproves your view, and a militia does not have to have regular meetings to exist.  If you meet and are trained regularly, that would make you, well, professional and no longer a militia.

"To claim that only law breakers break laws (which is the underlying idea of the argument against weapon relations) is one of those "well duhs!" that people try to wrap in pretty paper and rally people around.  When you break down the argument to its basic point, you're left with "well, duh!"."

Do you reread things before you post them, because I had to reread this one a couple of times before I understood that there really was no point being made there at all.  So do you agree now that the second amendment does allow us to own guns, yes or no, please
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 6:37 PM on June 11, 2006 | IP
DrNo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again I ask: How many citizens who purchase guns legally and have them registered proceed to use them in a violent crime? Like Basic said, violence is the problem, not guns. In Maryland there has been a violent gang recently by the name of MS13 who violently hacks up people with machetes. Doug Duncan's brilliant response: ban machetes. LOL.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 7:33 PM on June 11, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again I ask: How many citizens who purchase guns legally and have them registered proceed to use them in a violent crime?

I think the proper question is, how many guns used in violent crimes were purchased legally?  Think before you answer.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:27 AM on June 12, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So do you agree now that the second amendment does allow us to own guns, yes or no, please

Militia - (noun): A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency

Since the intent of the law is no longer valid, the law is no longer enforceable.  No, it does not protect the rights of citizens to purchase guns. In fact, there are already many exceptions to this law.  Co-habitation was (and still is in some states) illegal, but has never been considered enforceable.  Laws which are not enforceable are usually considered null and void.

Look at it this way... in New York a fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.  I'm sure we can tell what the intent of this law was (and approximately how old it is ).  It is newer than the 2nd Amendment and it is never upheld.  And before you say "but that wasn't a constitutional amendment", the 18 amendment to the constitution was repealed.  Just because it is an amendment to the constitution does not mean that is "set in stone".  Laws who have outlived their intent are dead.  The 2nd amendment is dead.  Don't ask me who shot it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:37 AM on June 12, 2006 | IP
DrNo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, the definition you posted in your own response contradicts what you said before. The National Guard is a military force that is part of the Armed Forces, thus it cannot be considered a militia under the definition that you posted. Besides, look what happened after Katrina hit. Where was the National Guard to protect the citizens from looters? If you think the government is going to jump in and protect you, think again. That is why it is absolutely a right for citizens to protect themselves. I understand that there are outdated laws. In Maryland, it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Of course that is silly. However, I don't think the right to protect yourself, your family, or your property is "no longer valid." And if criminals have access to guns to commit crimes, citizens should have access to guns to protect themselves.

And in response to your question about legally purchased guns: I get your point. A gun can be purchased legally, then sold or stolen and used in a crime. But we have already determined that there will be crime regardless of laws. There are already millions of illegal guns on the street that criminals have access to. Bottom line is: Banning firearms is only hurting innocent civilians. I have every right in the world to defend my life and my property from a criminal. Do you disagree with that?
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 11:13 AM on June 12, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And yet, statistics prove that countries where guns are banned have lower homicide rates.  Again, please tell me where to locate the militia in your state.  The second amendment was designed to protect the state militia (A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency).  The reference to the National Guard (and I've said this numerous times) was the fact, that for all intents and purposes, it has replaced the militia.  We do not have militias (do not include whacko groups like the guys up in Michigan) anymore.  The Nebraska (or any other state) National Guard, for all intents and purposes fulfills this role today.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:38 PM on June 12, 2006 | IP
basic

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are VERY good at talking in circles, quite the pro.  You have said that the National Guard is the militia, and then changed to a say that it is a replacement.  Well please tell me how to replace something with another thing that is totally different.  When a tire blows on my car I donít buy a steering wheel, itís just doesnít fit.  Yes it may be round, but thatís all.  And speaking of statistics, please cite your sources, along with that definition from god knows where.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:44 PM on June 14, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.