As Gun Ownership Rises, Gun Crimes Plummet

[The Whit]

Again, assuming because YOU do nothing wrong there shouldn't be laws preventing other's from doing something wrong.

Laws don't prevent anything.  But you apparently already knew that:

Yes, it has strict laws; it is also an island in a sea of guns.

So, instead of telling Chicago to stop being an island and lift it's illogical firearms ban so it's law abiding citizens can defend themselves, you'd rather dry up the ocean and prevent all citizens from legally defending themselves?  Sounds like an excellent idea.


You are asking how being like Somalia is a bad thing? Have you seen Somalia lately?

I'm asking how The United States of America's value on personal self defense makes us like a nation that has no government and is ruled by warlords.


It has been talked about how easy they are to make. It hasn't been talked about how no one actually does it.

That's because they're NOT easy to make.  Meth isn't easy to make, it's illegal, and not to mention dangerous as fuck, but plenty of people make this shit in their living room all the time.  How often do you hear of someone crafting an AR-15 from a block of steel in their basement?  Not very often, if at all.  If they do, they've got a shit ton of experience with it.

However, I think this will change with the advent of 3D printers.  Once these become cheap enough to be relatively mainstream, people will make guns with them.  I know I would.

[The Whit]

Any law that reduces the total gun count is a step in the right direction in that regard, even if it doesn't even solve the violence problem.

Really?  How so?

But we have to start working on the issue

Which is?  Is it an inanimate object or the fact that someone would choose to murder someone else?

(higher than Somalia, Syria and third-world, government less countries)

What is the purpose of this comparison?

You still have a back log of questions Shiranu.

[Solitary]

I feel so much safer here in Arizona where every Tom Dick and Harry can have a concealed weapon.  8-[  Solitary

[The Whit]

I feel so much safer here in Arizona where every Tom Dick and Harry can have a concealed weapon.  8-[  Solitary

As long as they're educated about gun safety and how to use it properly, I wouldn't mind.  Hell I spent 3 years stationed in Fallon, Nevada where it was common to see people walking around OPEN CARRY and I never heard of anyone getting shot the whole time I was there.  

Again, it's not the gun, it's the person.

[Johan]

If the first three arguments are valid, the forth must be as well.
Game set match.

Again, assuming because YOU do nothing wrong there shouldn't be laws preventing other's from doing something wrong.

And again, I'm not saying that restrictions are a bad thing. Now lets play another round or your awesome new game.

"People sometimes hurt others by drinking and driving, therefore we should pass laws that try to eliminate drinking."

"People sometimes create chaos by yelling false things is large crowds, therefore we should pass laws that try to eliminate crowds."

"People sometimes deny their workers safety equipment, therefore we should pass laws that try to eliminate workers."

"People sometimes do bad things with guns, therefore we should pass laws that try to eliminate guns."

So once again if the forth statement is true the other three much also be true.

Great game. I think it'll really catch on.

[FrankDK]

>> What are the more than three purposes of your firearms? To kill different kinds of people? Or to kill them at different ranges? What?

> Entertainment(range shooting),

I've done that myself.

> hunting,

Doesn't interest me, but I understand the need for it, in the absence of natural enemies of many types of wildlife.

> self-defense, because I can. Just bad people. Any range I may need to.

Guns don't provide self-defense; that's the point.  They provide the illusion of self-defense.  The CEOs of companies that sell guns want you to believe that they make you safer, so they can make more money.

>> Faulty argument. There is a difference between books and firearms.

> Yes, firearms are a means by which people kill each other, books--like the quran and holy bibble--persuade people to kill each other.

OK, point well-taken.  But there are many books that don't persuade people to kill each other, books that entertain, enlighten, and illuminate.  You could say you should have multiple cars or houses or anything if some people have multiple books.  Not a valid argument.

>> That's what this argument is about, for those who are really concerned about the argument. For those in power, it's about money and keeping their power.

> How does one keep their power in the absence of consent besides force?

You lie to the masses, get them to vote against their own best interests, instill fear in them by telling them Obama will take away their guns, get them to donate money to their political campaigns, pass laws that allow corporate CEOs to make more money by legalizing unethical practices, get them to donate to your political campaign, and then use the money in your political war chest to buy advertisements to propagate your lies.  Haven't you been watching the news for the last couple of decades?

> How would one overcome such force except by equal or more force?

It isn't force, it's stupidity.  I read today that 29% of Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for the slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/2 ... tail=email

When you can get people to believe nonsense like that, you can hold on to political power without recourse to force.

>> You're joking, right? Do you really believe your more than three firearms would allow you to stand off a paramilitary force armed with automatic weapons, or a SWAT team, or even a single armed police officer who comes up behind you and points his revolver at your head?

> I'd have a better chance than I would without guns.

No, you wouldn't.  That's the point.  If the government became what you seem to fear it will, having a gun would only make you the first target.

> I'd be more concerned as to why one would have SWAT teams or other law enforcement hunting you down with deadly force.

Because they think outspoken people with guns are dangerous.  Why do authoritarian governments in many countries hunt down their own citizens with deadly force?

>> Good luck with that. When the government decides to take away your rights, if the first few don't come easily, they will simply take away your right to life. If you really, honestly, truly believe that your personal weapons can balance the force of the government, you're an idiot.

> You act as if we'd be standing alone. You know how many gun owners there are in America, don't you?

Fewer and fewer, interestingly enough.  Fewer and fewer people own more and more guns.  But, if you step out of your house, and four Gestapo-like police grab you, do you really believe that the rest of the gun owners in the country could get there in time to help you?  There were loads of gun owners in Germany as the Nazis took over.  Not a shot was fired to keep the country free.

>> Well, at least you're not an idiot.

> I'm going to bite my tongue.

OK, maybe I was wrong about that.

>> But that's not what would happen. If you were perceived as a threat to an oppressive government, your weapons would just make you more of a target. They'd get you first. You'd get thrown into the back of a squad car, deprived of your weapons, and disappear into a small cell, never to be heard from again.

> That doesn't sound like due process.

We weren't talking about due process.  We were talking about the kind of government that would bring about a Warsaw ghetto, the kind you seem to fear we are moving towards.

>  I'd rather die on a pile of empty brass then let any tyrant send me to die in a gulag

You've watched too many John Wayne movies.  In real life, you wouldn't be allowed to get off a shot if an oppressive government wanted you out of the way.

>> That's why it's important for the majority to remain rational about freedoms. When the lunatic fringe becomes hysterical defending their right to murder children, the public should think twice about letting them.

> Who in the flying FUCK are you talking about.

You are the one who brought up the Warsaw ghetto.  You do realize that it was the Nazis who did that, right?

>> So your definition of an examined life necessarily includes firearms. Interesting take.

> An armed society is a free society.

Any evidence for that claim?

>> I want to live a life in which I don't have to worry about going to the movies because some nut may open fire. I don't want to have to worry about my children being gunned down in school. I want to be able to walk down the street without fear that some armed criminal will shoot me for the contents of my wallet.

> Then stop banning guns from those places, and carry one.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm going to bring up reality again.  Carrying a gun doesn't make you safer, no matter how many movies you've seen.

>> If that means you have to lose your "right" to be ready to murder someone at a moment's notice, too bad.

> No, not "too bad". I carry to defend my right to not BE murdered. And frankly, "FrankDK" I tired of you assuming all gun owners are murderers. Fuck YOU.

You're eloquence is dazzling.

>> Here's what I propose: We set up a rifle with a timer mechanism that pulls the trigger completely free of human intervention. They we have you stand in front of it as the trigger is pulled. Since guns don't kill people, and there are no people involved, you would be safe, right?

>> The fact is that a significant percentage of the murders by guns only happened because of the availability of a gun. If there had been no guns available, the murder would not have happened.

> Well who set up the timer dip shit. Here's a test. How about I load my Glock 9 with a full magazine, load the chamber, set it down on a table pointing down range. If I stood in front of it till it shot me I'd probably starve to death.

I suspect you mean, "Well, who set up the timer, dip shit?"

You could have the timer set up by a robot.

People made the gun, so it's people who kill, not the gun, right?  And I'm the "dip shit"?

Let's try it this way:  We each point at the other as if holding a gun, and move our index fingers as if pulling a trigger, except I really am holding a gun, and you aren't.  If it's people who kill people, and the gun has nothing to do with it, you shouldn't object.

The point is, guns increase the probability of gun violence, to the gun owner as well as those around him.  People who carry guns are three times more likely to become victims of gun violence than those who do not, even accounting for "confounding factors" like neighborhood, socioeconomic level, etc.  And if they draw their weapon in self defense, they become five times more likely to become victims of gun violence.

Your guns make you safer like the color-scheme terrorist threat warning system made us safer.

Frank

[Jack89]

I feel so much safer here in Arizona where every Tom Dick and Harry can have a concealed weapon.  8-[  Solitary

Have you had problems in Arizona?  I've lived in the Phoenix area for 10 years and haven't had any trouble with guns yet.  My son had a knife pulled on him once, but that's about it.

[Shiranu]

So, instead of telling Chicago to stop being an island and lift it's illogical firearms ban so it's law abiding citizens can defend themselves, you'd rather dry up the ocean and prevent all citizens from legally defending themselves? Sounds like an excellent idea.

Because I disagree with the necessity of an ocean, yes... something I share with the rest of the civilized world.

I'm asking how The United States of America's value on personal self defense makes us like a nation that has no government and is ruled by warlords.

We don't need this many guns for self-defense. The people who feel they need a gun for self defense don't need 5 different guns, and to justify that many, 9 guns for every 10 people, are crime rate would need to be where about 6 out of every 10 people will need a gun for self defense. That is just not the case.

That's because they're NOT easy to make.

I (somewhat) agree, however it was brought up by one of the pro-gun people here before that, "If guns are illegal, criminals will just make their own.". Yes, they are not AR-15 or Glock quality, but they can put a bullet through someone you want to. That said, you probably wouldn't go on a mass shooting spree with one given the low quality.

Which is? Is it an inanimate object or the fact that someone would choose to murder someone else?

Both. It's an inanimate object which was designed to make person A be able to kill person/animal B dead from yards away. While their purpose has evolved overtime into sport... gun manufactures primary market was the military and law enforcement. That is why there is a huge difference between a bolt-action hunting rifle and a 30/45 (I will be fair, this part annoys me; you can get 5 round magazines or even manually load I would assume rounds. The magazine has nothing to do with the gun.) round semi-automatic assault rifle.

I just don't see a reason civilians need modern military-style weapons converted to fit civilian regulations. A revolver and shotgun are both sufficient, if not better, than a large caliber, high velocity round that can pierce walls. The revolver and shotgun both will be far more practical anyways in a close-range firefight, which if you are defending your house is what you would be involved in anyways.

And to talk about guns again... personally, I really want an assault rifle; that new civilian IWI Tavor Carbine looks, and apparently preforms, really great. But I much rather it be illegal because it just has no practical purpose for a civilian to have.

Digressed abit; I think high capacity, large caliber rifles are simply not practical nor necessary and need the number reduced. Society also needs to be fixed. But just because you want to fix one problem doesn't mean you don't want the other to be fixed as well; which given my opposition of the policies that "broke" America... it should be obvious that I don't care for the low education, low income, high corruption society.

[The Whit]

WARNING: RIDICULOUSLY LONG POST AHEAD!

Guns don't provide self-defense; that's the point.

wat?

They provide the illusion of self-defense.

wat?

The CEOs of companies that sell guns want you to believe that they make you safer, so they can make more money.

Really?  What then what the fuck is this?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzyTXqxV ... EC041CE348


OK, point well-taken.  But there are many books that don't persuade people to kill each other, books that entertain, enlighten, and illuminate.  You could say you should have multiple cars or houses or anything if some people have multiple books.

There are plenty of guns out there that don't kill people, like mine for instance.  Not a valid argument.


You lie to the masses, get them to vote against their own best interests, instill fear in them by telling them Obama will take away their guns, get them to donate money to their political campaigns, pass laws that allow corporate CEOs to make more money by legalizing unethical practices, get them to donate to your political campaign, and then use the money in your political war chest to buy advertisements to propagate your lies.  Haven't you been watching the news for the last couple of decades?

That's deceit, but it's still consent.


It isn't force, it's stupidity.  I read today that 29% of Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for the slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/2 ... tail=email

When you can get people to believe nonsense like that, you can hold on to political power without recourse to force.

That's not even relevant to the topic.  What I'm talking about is what if someone with a gun kicks down your door while you're watching your favorite soap opera?  You have a gun and a cell phone.  Which do you use?  If you chose the cell phone, who are you going to call?  The cops?  What are they going to bring?  Guns?  What's the difference between the cop's gun and your gun?  You don't have to wait 5 minutes for your gun to show up.


No, you wouldn't.  That's the point.  If the government became what you seem to fear it will, having a gun would only make you the first target.

You sound like someone threatening me with hellfire right now, just so you know.

Because they think outspoken people with guns are dangerous.

They're going to hunt me down because of my opinion?  Doesn't sound like my country.

Why do authoritarian governments in many countries hunt down their own citizens with deadly force?

Because keeping them in fear is the best way to control people, jackass.  The best way to keep people in fear is to use force.  In order to do this without risking being shot every time they kick down a door, they dis-arm their people.

Fewer and fewer, interestingly enough.  Fewer and fewer people own more and more guns.  But, if you step out of your house, and four Gestapo-like police grab you, do you really believe that the rest of the gun owners in the country could get there in time to help you?

I don't fear any gestapo trying to grab me.  I have a gun.  The gestapo should fear trying to grab me.

There were loads of gun owners in Germany as the Nazis took over.  Not a shot was fired to keep the country free.

....Because they fucking voted for Hitler?  They thought he was nearly a demi-god?  I mean, really, if someone thinks Obama is the savior of the country how likely is it that they'd try to kill him?

We weren't talking about due process.  We were talking about the kind of government that would bring about a Warsaw ghetto, the kind you seem to fear we are moving towards.

Sounds like the government we fought in Germany doesn't it?  Sounds...like a government I'd want to fight.



You've watched too many John Wayne movies.  In real life, you wouldn't be allowed to get off a shot if an oppressive government wanted you out of the way.

I don't even like John Wayne films.  This is more my style:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR6AF1ctDs8



>> That's why it's important for the majority to remain rational about freedoms. When the lunatic fringe becomes hysterical defending their right to murder children, the public should think twice about letting them.

Again, who in the flying FUCK are you talking about?

Any evidence for that claim?

The existence of my country is proof.


I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm going to bring up reality again.  Carrying a gun doesn't make you safer, no matter how many movies you've seen.

A wild Liberal appears!  Liberal uses "factless assertion".  It's not very effective!

I suspect you mean, "Well, who set up the timer, dip shit?"

Correcting grammar and not refuting my points.  I win, then?

You could have the timer set up by a robot.

Who built the robot?  Who programmed it?  Who turned it on?  Still human intervention.  If I loaded my gun and set it at a table pointing at me, and NOBODY touched it, I'd starve to death before I died of a gunshot wound.


People made the gun, so it's people who kill, not the gun, right?  And I'm the "dip shit"?

HEY!  There IS hope!

Let's try it this way:  We each point at the other as if holding a gun, and move our index fingers as if pulling a trigger, except I really am holding a gun, and you aren't.

Avoiding this very situation is exactly why I carry one.

If it's people who kill people, and the gun has nothing to do with it, you shouldn't object.

You're holding the gun.  You're pulling the trigger.  Tell me how this is the gun's fault?

The point is, guns increase the probability of gun violence,

No shit.

to the gun owner as well as those around him.

Only if you're stupid with it.

People who carry guns are three times more likely to become victims of gun violence than those who do not, even accounting for "confounding factors" like neighborhood, socioeconomic level, etc.  And if they draw their weapon in self defense, they become five times more likely to become victims of gun violence.

Sources?

Your guns make you safer like the color-scheme terrorist threat warning system made us safer.

Color-scheme terrorist threat levels were just meant to keep everyone in a frenzy after 9/11 until we invaded Iraq.  If the soldier in Britain had a gun he'd not have been hacked to death like a piece of meat in the streets by terrorists.  I'll tell you right now if that would have happened in front of me I'd have dropped both of them.  It's what the cops did when they showed up...too little too late I might add.

OK, one down.

Because I disagree with the necessity of an ocean, yes... something I share with the rest of the civilized world.

I don't care about their opinions, I care about facts.


We don't need this many guns for self-defense. The people who feel they need a gun for self defense don't need 5 different guns, and to justify that many, 9 guns for every 10 people, are crime rate would need to be where about 6 out of every 10 people will need a gun for self defense. That is just not the case.


You're entitled to your opinions, not to dictating how many guns I can own.


I (somewhat) agree, however it was brought up by one of the pro-gun people here before that, "If guns are illegal, criminals will just make their own.". Yes, they are not AR-15 or Glock quality, but they can put a bullet through someone you want to. That said, you probably wouldn't go on a mass shooting spree with one given the low quality.

Most criminals don't go on mass shooting sprees.  They're actually kind of rare.  But wait, talking about shooting sprees, did you see this one:  http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Someone with a handgun stopped a guy in a mall with an AR-15 without firing a shot.  I'll keep my gun, thanks.



Both. It's an inanimate object which was designed to make person A be able to kill person/animal B dead from yards away. While their purpose has evolved overtime into sport... gun manufactures primary market was the military and law enforcement. That is why there is a huge difference between a bolt-action hunting rifle and a 30/45 (I will be fair, this part annoys me; you can get 5 round magazines or even manually load I would assume rounds. The magazine has nothing to do with the gun.) round semi-automatic assault rifle.

Your point?

I just don't see a reason civilians need modern military-style weapons converted to fit civilian regulations.  

I don't see a reason why civilians need to own cars that go 200 mph, but you don't see me protesting Ferrari.

A revolver and shotgun are both sufficient, if not better, than a large caliber, high velocity round that can pierce walls.  

Yeah, my SKS is not for in-the-house self defense.  I have a handgun and a shotgun for that.

The revolver and shotgun both will be far more practical anyways in a close-range firefight, which if you are defending your house is what you would be involved in anyways.

Yes...keep going...

And to talk about guns again... personally, I really want an assault rifle; that new civilian IWI Tavor Carbine looks, and apparently preforms, really great. But I much rather it be illegal because it just has no practical purpose for a civilian to have.

If you find drilling paper targets at 500 yards fun, isn't that a practical reason?  There are plenty of things for which there is no practical use owning.  There's no practical reason to own a Bugatti Veyron, but people do.  There's no practical use of putting 40" rims on an 94 Ford Taurus but I've seen that shit.  That is not a valid argument

Digressed abit; I think high capacity, large caliber rifles are simply not practical nor necessary and need the number reduced.

And that opinion is based on what?


Society also needs to be fixed. But just because you want to fix one problem doesn't mean you don't want the other to be fixed as well

What problem?  Because you're obviously not claiming that guns have no place, just certain guns.  I'm assuming it's "assault rifles" from this and your previous posts (correct me if I'm wrong).

which given my opposition of the policies that "broke" America... it should be obvious that I don't care for the low education, low income, high corruption society.

Neither do I.  I'd submit that if you cleaned up the education, economy, and corruption the crime rate would decline across the board.

And for the record, that IWI Tavor Carbine does look pretty badass.

[LikelyToBreak]

Shiranu wrote in part:

Society also needs to be fixed. But just because you want to fix one problem doesn't mean you don't want the other to be fixed as well; which given my opposition of the policies that "broke" America... it should be obvious that I don't care for the low education, low income, high corruption society.

I want these things fixed too.  But, I don't think we start with disarming the people.  Not while corruption is so prevalent in society and the government in particular.  While I don't have any delusions of completely getting rid of the corruption in the private sector, I think we may have a chance at diluting the corruption in government.  Until the government can be trusted more, than every other "fix" is irrelevant.  Most of all the disarming of the people so that they can not harm each other as easily.  

We just got done with learning about fast and furious, where the government was arming drug cartels, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.  How can anyone think of giving up their firearms, knowing we have a government more entrenched and just as unconcerned with the peasants, as Stalin's, Mao's, and Hitler's regimes ever were?  And yes, everyone on this forum is a peasant in their minds.  I know we as a people have little chance against the 101st Airborne, but we do have a chance against M13, the Crips, and other gangs.  

Yet, there are those living in their ivory towers demanding we disarm.  Screw them!  I might start listening to them when they come out of those towers without their armed guards and walk the streets like the rest of us.  Until then, I'm staying armed and encouraging every able bodied person who can, to get armed and learn how to use those arms.  But, I don't see any reason idealistic liberals need arm themselves.  They go too much by their "feelings" to trust themselves with a gun.   And I respect their judgement on this matter.

[Colanth]

"I drink and drive all the time and never had a wreck, so I don't see what the problem is."

"I yell "BOMB! TERRORIST!" in airports all the time and nothing happened, so I don't see what the problem is."

"I deny my worker's safety gear all the time and no one has got hurt, so I don't see what the problem is."

The fact that you personally have never hurt anyone is not a compelling argument, unless those are as well.

Either post an intelligent comment or leave the discussion alone.  Your flippant assertions do nothing for the conversation.



BTW, how much experience do you have with firearms?

As someone with quite a bit of training in firearms, I agree with Shir's "flippant" comments.  "It never happened to me" is NOT an argument.

[Colanth]

>> But that's not what would happen. If you were perceived as a threat to an oppressive government, your weapons would just make you more of a target. They'd get you first. You'd get thrown into the back of a squad car, deprived of your weapons, and disappear into a small cell, never to be heard from again.

> That doesn't sound like due process.

We weren't talking about due process.  We were talking about the kind of government that would bring about a Warsaw ghetto, the kind you seem to fear we are moving towards.

The kind that would have a process to allow the government to detain, indefinitely, anyone it decided to detain, without even a charge against them.  (Not that a Constitutional nation like the US would ever resort to anything like that.  Or that a representative democracy like the Weimar Republic could pass laws that violated its constitution.)

[The Whit]

As someone with quite a bit of training in firearms, I agree with Shir's "flippant" comments.  "It never happened to me" is NOT an argument.

His flippant comments did nothing to further the discussion.  If, "it hasn't happened to me" is NOT an argument, then just because you've never been robbed doesn't mean you don't have a reason to carry a weapon.

If I went to the a race track with, say, Valentino Rossi and we both jumped on identical 1,000cc race bikes who do you think would be both faster and safer?

If I gave you a Glock 17 and then I gave an exactly identical model to someone who has very little training, who do you think is going to be safer?

The difference isn't in the object, therefore the object cannot be the cause of the difference in outcome.  The only variable is the person.

Let me say that again:

The only variable is the person.