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
     who else to blame for V Tech

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
itreeye

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

These thoughts from an article i just read blew me away. I wonder what can possibly be a reasoned response from a gun control advocate to these stats and thoughts???

"
You've heard the argument, "It's the amoral mind of people that causes death via guns, knives, cars, clubs – or whatever else can be used in a lethal way. It's not the inanimate weapon."
The idea is that removing guns from law-abiding citizens is not the answer. It only leaves them defenseless before the criminals that in any case will manage to obtain guns. History repeatedly has proven this point in a large scale.

Listen to this statement and ask yourself who made it: "This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. The street will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." That was spoken by Adolf Hitler, on April 15, 1935.

History offers other examples of what can happen when citizens are stripped of the means to defend themselves.

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.


The US 'Founding Fathers' had good reason to include in the Constitution "the right for each citizen to bear arms." They came to this country with vivid memories of what an all-powerful government could do to its defenseless citizens.

Practical evidence of the argument today:

In America, the following evidence clearly demonstrates the impact upon criminals that armed citizens have. Vermont has a genuine right-to-carry law. That means no permit is required. Yet Vermont boasts the lowest crime rate in the nation. Nationwide in the USA, concealed-carry laws have resulted in a drop in crime rates.
A comprehensive national study in 1996 determined that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed that states, which passed concealed-carry laws, reduced their murder rate by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent. By extrapolation, if the states that do not have concealed-carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 04:24 AM on April 21, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A few gun control advocates really seem to believe that banning guns will decrease crime.  But anyone with a little intelligence and who pokes around the facts quickly realizes this premise is not true.  So why are there so many gun control advocates?  And why do so many of these gun control advocates turn a blind eye to things kill a lot more people, yet get so emotional about guns?

I think it almost always boils down to dogmas of the following sorts:

1.  You don’t have the right to defend yourself; it is the job of the state.  They believe that people should think, and act, collectively, not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection, not you.

2.  Then you have the “Violence against a bad guy just breeds more violence”.  Essentially, it is better for you to take one for the collective team then for you to fight back.  Then the argument starts revolving around dogma #1.

3.  Some people know guns are powerful tools, but don’t know how to control the tool (lack of experience.)  So they fear it.  Like a car in the middle of primitive society, to the local populace the car takes on a life of its own.  But here where cars are part of the everyday norm for everyone, a car is just a car.  We don’t blame cars for causing road rage.  But to the *primitive* they attribute guns to causing *gun rage*.

4.  Similar to dogma #3, people become aware that if they themselves possessed a gun, they would have new options to cause harm.  These people have a fear of their own dark hearts, and fear that their own dark heart + a gun = mass murder.  Then they project this fear on others, suspecting everyone else with a gun to be looking for reasons to act out violence with the smallest provocation.

Having any of these dogmas is fine.  When it gets out of control is when these folks start deciding everyone else has to live like them.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 3:13 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
malignantpoodle

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, it mostly boils down to fear.  My father was a police officer, and when I was a kid my best friend wasn't allowed to come over once his mother found out about it.  When asked why he said, "she's terrified that there might be a gun somewhere in the house".

In any case, comparing Mexico and Canada blows the gun control advocate's argument completely out of the water.

Also, the idea is that gun crime will be eliminated when gun control legislation has disarmed everyone.  I'll admit that it's possible in theory, but the problem is that gun control does not prevent people from obtaining guns.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 4:11 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree fully with all these assessments!! Although I don't believe the "theory" behind disarming everyone causing gun crime to go down. You only need to look at Great Britain to see this isn't the case. Unlike Washington D.C., Great Britain is an island nation so the borders are not quite so "porous" when it comes to smuggling illegal guns into the country. Yet, gun crime is spiraling out of control there in the 10 years since handguns were completely banned.

True, there is not as much gun crime there as in the US - there never was - but it's very interesting to see that England gave the US the concept of the 2nd amendment from its 1689 Bill of Rights. It also gave the concept of "Hue and Cry" (Google it if you've never heard of it). Back in the late 1800's, Britons could, and very often did, carry firearms for self-defense. The crime rate was at its lowest level ever. Then, gradually, over the years, the state took more and more control and implemented gun controls under false pretences. The crime rate kept getting higher. Of course, nobody can say for sure that the rising crime rate was solely due to the gun controls and prohibitions. So, each time the government had an excuse to do so (Dunblane, Hungerford), it implemented new gun controls.

Additionally, the whole concept of self-help and/or self-defense has been thoroughly "bred" out of the British people in just two short generations. Even without guns, Britons fear the concept of helping themselves or anyone else with even a rolled up newspaper because they'll be the ones facing life in jail.

The gun crime epidemic in Britain has gotten so bad now that a government think tank is considering "kitchen knife control".

The fact that Britain never had as many gun owners and never had the violent crime problems of the US only solidifies the fact that further limiting the law-abiding US citizens right to defend themselves against criminals would be a complete disaster. The fact is there are already way too many guns and gun owners in the US. It's too late to try and combat the problems by implementing further gun controls. Other methods need to be looked at first. For example, trying to "educate" youngsters or trying to prevent kids from joining gangs, etc.

Of course, there will be some gun control advocates that will point to Japan.  Another island nation with very strict gun control but also very very little crime. However, there are vast cultural differences between Americans and Japanese. The japs are way too respectful of others and their property. They also respect their elders and any kind of authority. Japan is also virtually a police state with the police visiting households once or twice a year and keep dosiers on law-abiding citizens.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 4:43 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.