Gun Control reducing crime is a myth.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

The truth about RIGHT TO CARRY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXTQ8&feature=related

20/20 Investigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Compiled videos on the value of individual carry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3EdeH5PBjU&feature=related

History of Gun Control facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_1r6aUJofM&feature=related

NRA on the untold story of gun confiscation after Katrina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8&feature=related

NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&feature=related

NRA: The great gun debate at the UN. (4 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZfM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1YmYuRtI8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ1w&feature=related

The Clinton GUN BAN story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxBJaAioXE0&feature=related


The facts are in, the lies exposed, the agendas revealed.

All of the above links are links to videos on the topic of "gun control being a myth in the purpose of reducing crime."

I would love to see some intelligent, reasoned debate on this topic if anyone cares to argue in favor, or against the right to carry.

I felt it only fair and in the best intrest of debate to provide links to the videos above so we can all start off on common grounds of understanding regarding the issues at hand.

I am not interested in opinion without backing, faith without reason, or arguments without sources and factual reference.

I look forward to debating any who wish to address the issue, and I look forward to those who decide to take part in the debate, honoring to the best of their ability the request to stick to the FACTS regarding the issue, not emotional appeals, illogical faith or fallacy arguments, or non-reasoned or non-supported arguments.

If you provide DATA, provide SOURCES.
If you provide STATISTICS, provide SOURCES.
If you provide ARGUMENT, EXPECT DEBATE.

The valued currency in this debate is logic and reason.

Fire away! :fight:

[4Reaganomics]

John Lott wrote a book about Guns called

"More Guns, Less Crime"

It remains the most comprehensive study on Guns and how laws affect the crime rate with them in our history.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am familliar with the text, and thanks for bringing that up Reganomics.

[Wndrtch]

All I know is, that if I have a gun on my person, and a thug tries to harm me or my family, that would be last time that thug would bother anybody.

No future crimes from that A-hole, therefore, crime has been reduced. I don't give a crap what any chicken-sh1t, left-wing idiot with a video camera has to say about it. Dead men commit no crimes

[Elrathin]

Here is the thing I have to ask. Are there serisouly people that think there should be NO GUNTROL LAWS whatsoever?

I mean, do you think a child predator who is on the sex offender list should be able to get a gun? Do you beleive someone who is mentally retarded and not able to take care of themselves should be able to own a gun?

So for those arguing against GUN CONTROL Laws, I'm curious what your thoughts are on what I said.

[firefox]

If sick and twisted criminals are looking for guns, they will get them. They get them in prison sometimes, for crying out loud! Just like with the drugs. The benefit of firearms legalization is that the weak can defend themselves against the physically strong, and it is a disincentive against would-be criminals from robbing or assaulting people- they aren't as dumb as they look; criminals go for the easiest targets whenever they can. That and they're often spineless cowards ;)

[Elrathin]

If sick and twisted criminals are looking for guns, they will get them. They get them in prison sometimes, for crying out loud! Just like with the drugs. The benefit of firearms legalization is that the weak can defend themselves against the physically strong, and it is a disincentive against would-be criminals from robbing or assaulting people- they aren't as dumb as they look; criminals go for the easiest targets whenever they can. That and they're often spineless cowards ;)


So you are for laws being relaxed that a Child predator or mentally incopetant person can get a firearm LEGALLY right?

I am for some gun control laws personally. So what say you Firefox, are you against ALL gun control laws, for some, or for them all?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
Here is the thing I have to ask. Are there serisouly people that think there should be NO GUNTROL LAWS whatsoever?

El, the only gun control laws that should exist are laws that EMPOWER individual rights, not limit them.

In other words, laws that already have, such as laws governing the proper use of a firearm for self-defense against unjust force.

Once again, it seems you are back at the issue of not trusting your justice department, and using it as an excuse to CREATE MORE LAWS.
(which makes no sense)

Incompetent people are required to have legal guardians, are they not? This means they don't have full rights.

Sex predator is a term for a CRIMINAL, not a citizen. How could a CRIMINAL get a gun legally? You think they sell them in prison?

Once they have served their time, they are no longer CRIMINALS if the justice system DOES ITS JOB. The problem is, thanks to PROHIBITIONISTS, our jails are overcrowded thanks to idiotic drug laws that put non-violent offenders in prison, forcing jails to release violent criminals early.

What is more of a threat? Non-violent DRUG USERS, or sexual predators?



ANYONE who wants a gun, can get one of they try hard enough and the LAW is no boundary.

Making guns illegal only affects LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

[AlanC]

Convicted felons have long had a prohibition from owning or possessing firearms or voting. It is a consequence of their actions and I have no problem with that.

I also have no problem with laws designed to ensure that law is supported and enforced.

Other than that, free members of this Republic should have the ability and the right to defend themselves, their property and their families and they should have the access to the tools needed to accomplish that without restriction from the government.

I believe I share those sentiments with the framers of our Constitution as well. Massive government restrictions on gun ownership have proven to be a total failure. Police are like car locks. They help keep honest people honest, but they cannot protect people from the activities of committed criminals. Not all the time, not in all places.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree Alan, but at the same time, the are trying to add new crimes to the list of "felonies" everyday.

I don't think the classification "felony" holds water anymore as a grounds to prevent someone the right to self defense, unless they have a history of VIOLENT crime. Not all felonies are violent criminals.

[AlanC]

Osborn, that is a distinction I could live with. though it might be harder to define than it appears on the surface.

[maten149]

Here is the thing I have to ask. Are there serisouly people that think there should be NO GUNTROL LAWS whatsoever?

I mean, do you think a child predator who is on the sex offender list should be able to get a gun? Do you beleive someone who is mentally retarded and not able to take care of themselves should be able to own a gun?

So for those arguing against GUN CONTROL Laws, I'm curious what your thoughts are on what I said.


If the argument is that Guns alter the balance of power in favor of the
victime, then of course guns should be freely allowed. This ofcourse
assumes that the 'bad guys' are in possession of more guns than the
victims. It would be a better position if there were only few guns available in the market as a whole. Then, having tight weapon control would
actually do some good. Compare to other nations where gun control
is really really tight - there are very few incidences of domestic
shooting, 'mad-man'-shootings, very few 'falling down' scenarios.

But, since the saturation of weapons is already so high in the US, I think the work to undo that weapon prevalence is very very difficult. And perphas balance of power is then only way to go.

Sad but true.

/Mattias

[Keith Hamburger]

I agree Alan, but at the same time, the are trying to add new crimes to the list of "felonies" everyday.

I don't think the classification "felony" holds water anymore as a grounds to prevent someone the right to self defense, unless they have a history of VIOLENT crime. Not all felonies are violent criminals.


Agreed. Which brings up the point of the straw man of the "child molestor". Virtually none of those criminals used a gun to force a child to submit, almost all of those crimes were committed through seduction and subversion.

Personally, I would have no problem whatsoever with a child molester having a gun. That is not the sort of crime which they committed. A gun would not be of any use to them in their prediliction.

Can there be any more irrelevant question on the topic?

Keith

[davo]

I'm going to commit heresy here and suggest that a certain extent of gun control can reduce crime. It also depends on what kind of crimes we're talking about - For example, the UK has far less homicides than the US but more muggings and burglaries.

Obviously if there's an easy availability of guns (especially handguns), there's going to be alot more people getting murdered or wounded. Some people might even be law abiding citizens before obtaining a handgun, and then become non-law-abiding afterwards. An easy and widespread availability of guns can turn an incident like a traffic dispute from a potential punch-up into a potential homicide.

Going to the other extreme, if guns are outlawed as they are in Britain, honest people are always assumed to be unarmed, and crooks intending to rob/rape have no intention of following weapons laws in the first place. Thus strict gun control would also increase crime through assumptions that victims of crime have no lawful right of effective self defense, even in their own home.

According to DOJ statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm) handguns are completely disproportionately used in homicides compared to other weapons. I do not believe in strict gun control, however, one thing the US could do as a nation is implement a proper system of licensing for handguns and make sure buyers have a legit reason for wanting a handgun instead of a rifle or shotgun, and to prevent straw purchasing.

One of the major problems I'm seeing with US gun debates is the establishment wants to totally destroy the second amendment and have gun laws similar to Britain. The vocal population overwhelmingly opposes this and tries to remove almost every regulation on guns in existence. I find both approaches quite scary.

[Wndrtch]

If sick and twisted criminals are looking for guns, they will get them. They get them in prison sometimes, for crying out loud! Just like with the drugs. The benefit of firearms legalization is that the weak can defend themselves against the physically strong, and it is a disincentive against would-be criminals from robbing or assaulting people- they aren't as dumb as they look; criminals go for the easiest targets whenever they can. That and they're often spineless cowards ;)


...and if they can't get a gun, they will find something else to kill with.

[apdst]

Here is the thing I have to ask. Are there serisouly people that think there should be NO GUNTROL LAWS whatsoever?

Yes.

I mean, do you think a child predator who is on the sex offender list should be able to get a gun?

They don't typically use guns when they offend. So, what difference would it make?

I am for some gun control laws personally. So what say you Firefox, are you against ALL gun control laws, for some, or for them all?

One gun prohabition law leads to another, then another, then another, then another; you get the picture.

I'm going to commit heresy here and suggest that a certain extent of gun control can reduce crime.

The statistics prove otherwise. Canada's violent crime rate has gone up 300% since their total prohibition of firearms. Purdy much the same thing in Australia. Washington D.C. has a gun ban in place and the murder rate has only risen since it's inception.

The bottom line is, you're not going to change human nature by banning guns.

[davo]

I'm going to commit heresy here and suggest that a certain extent of gun control can reduce crime.

The statistics prove otherwise. Canada's violent crime rate has gone up 300% since their total prohibition of firearms. Purdy much the same thing in Australia. Washington D.C. has a gun ban in place and the murder rate has only risen since it's inception.

The bottom line is, you're not going to change human nature by banning guns.


Exactly what statistics are they? Do you really think Miami is safer than Melbourne or Sydney?

[apdst]

Do you really think Miami is safer than Melbourne or Sydney?

That's not the point. The point is, that Melbourne and Sydney are no safer after gun control than they were before gun control. If anything, they're more dangerous.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Maten said:
If the argument is that Guns alter the balance of power in favor of the
victime, then of course guns should be freely allowed.

That is the argument. Part of that argument, is that when governments become corrupt enough to turn state controlled or federal controlled armies against its own populace (happened many times over history when populations have been disarmed), the populace must have a means of defense.

Maten said:
This ofcourse
assumes that the 'bad guys' are in possession of more guns than the
victims.

Guns are not complex machines, for the most part. Any skilled machinist can make just about any single man operated firearm in any caliber, limited to one man operation. It is IMPOSSIBLE to effectively ban guns.

If you could magicly snap your fingers today and eradicate every single existing firearm on the entire planet, in hours, black markets would be providing the WILLING PURCHASING CONSUMER with guns that were manufactured in that amount of time. Banning guns is a fallacy, of the utmost proportions.

Maten said:
It would be a better position if there were only few guns available in the market as a whole.

Why is this, what reasoning? The fewer the guns, the bigger the black market. Black marketeers pay no mind to laws, that is why its a black market. People who use black markets, do so, because they cannot attain a NEED THEY INDIVIDUALLY VIEW MANDATORY or REASONABLE through a legal market.

Even the most forcefully regulated market can't come close to 90% effectiveness, and by the year, that 10% will grow as more time passes, more arms are created in the black market and circulated.

The idea is entirely utopian, and entirely unworkable not to mention self-detrimental to ALL involved except those trusted with the power of what weapons do exist.


Maten said:
Then, having tight weapon control would
actually do some good. Compare to other nations where gun control
is really really tight - there are very few incidences of domestic
shooting, 'mad-man'-shootings, very few 'falling down' scenarios.

There is also a proportional increase of crimes against the weak, the elderly, etc. It puts the biggest (most likely choice) victims at the highest risk, and increases the rate at which they are put at risk.

Maten said:
But, since the saturation of weapons is already so high in the US, I think the work to undo that weapon prevalence is very very difficult. And perphas balance of power is then only way to go.

The fact is, all nations are a part of the arms trade to some degree, either manufacturing or trafficking. All nations use firearms in an official capacity to some degree, so arms must exist to fill that capacity, one of which, the BASIC FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A NATION, which is to protect its citizens from undue or unjust aggression, state, national or otherwise.

If people are to be considered as "equals" and "responsible", they must have the ability to repel unjust or undue force. This is where nations and states DRAW their rights for national or state protection.... from the individuals. Individuals have the right to set the limits of sanction to the point at which it infringes individual rights, and no further.

Maten said:
Sad but true.

Untrue, flawed logic, and lack of support entirely. Your proposed is utopian in goals and methods of achievement, therefore, entirely unrealistic and inapplicable to reality.

davo said:
I'm going to commit heresy here and suggest that a certain extent of gun control can reduce crime.

I am going to call you on that allegation, and ask you to explain why, what method, and show me support for such theories.

davo said:
It also depends on what kind of crimes we're talking about - For example, the UK has far less homicides than the US but more muggings and burglaries.

Therefore, less homicides looks good on paper, but the reality is with more muggings and burglaries, MORE people are being made victims to those who break the law.

In the US, individual rights are PRIORITY ONE.
The collective goal of reducing homicide does not outweigh the rights of others not to become victims IF THEY CAN DO SO, through use of arms and training.

davo said:
Obviously if there's an easy availability of guns (especially handguns), there's going to be alot more people getting murdered or wounded.

The question is who is being murdered or wounded more, victims or criminals.

davo said:
Some people might even be law abiding citizens before obtaining a handgun, and then become non-law-abiding afterwards.

Where is the logic here?

davo said:
An easy and widespread availability of guns can turn an incident like a traffic dispute from a potential punch-up into a potential homicide.

Appeal to emotion, lack of evidence or support for such claims.

davo said:
Going to the other extreme, if guns are outlawed as they are in Britain, honest people are always assumed to be unarmed, and crooks intending to rob/rape have no intention of following weapons laws in the first place. Thus strict gun control would also increase crime through assumptions that victims of crime have no lawful right of effective self defense, even in their own home.

Exactly, a right to reasonable and competent self-defense, as we are charged with owning, caring for and maintaining the health and welfare of our own bodies as legal full rights holding individuals.

davo said:
According to DOJ statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm) handguns are completely disproportionately used in homicides compared to other weapons.

This is a no brainer, they are the easiest to conceal. Criminals seek weapons that can be easily concealed and disposed.

davo said:
I do not believe in strict gun control, however, one thing the US could do as a nation is implement a proper system of licensing for handguns and make sure buyers have a legit reason for wanting a handgun instead of a rifle or shotgun, and to prevent straw purchasing.

We have that, but it differs by state and has proven relatively ineffective.

davo said:
One of the major problems I'm seeing with US gun debates is the establishment wants to totally destroy the second amendment and have gun laws similar to Britain. The vocal population overwhelmingly opposes this and tries to remove almost every regulation on guns in existence. I find both approaches quite scary.

The public Constitutionally retains the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms, much like any governments people retain the right of revolt, should government become oppressive, destructive of its own ends.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Some additional data....

Banning Guns decreases crime.

False:

Examples:
Washington DC

Crime Data Underscore Limits Of D.C. Gun Ban's Effectiveness



Australia

NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets

VIOLENT CRIME ________1997 1998 TREND
Murder _______________321 284 -11.5%
Attempted Murder ______318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter __________39 49 +25.6%
Assault _______________124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault ________14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abduction ___562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery ________9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery _______12,251 12,928 +5.5%
TOTAL ________________161,398 172,690 +7.0%

In a March 22, 2000, letter, Australia`s Attorney General Daryl Williams raised objections to an NRA video (http://www.nralive.com/gunban/gunban.cfm) which asserts that after the Australian government`s confiscation of hunting rifles and shotguns, armed robberies rose, assaults with guns rose, murders with guns rose and home invasions rose. Williams said NRA was using "misleading" statistics to make its case against gun control. He also claimed "the national firearms agreement has succeeded in removing more than 640,000 dangerous weapons from circulation in the community." Would he call it "misleading" to say instead that "the national ban has led to the destruction of 640,000 commonplace semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns?"
If the Attorney General has a real problem with NRA`s video, his problem is much closer to home than NRA headquarters. The video shows real people protesting their loss of liberty and loss of the right to self-defense. Those people are Australians. And the statistics presented in the NRA video were reported in real newspapers--Australian newspapers. Here are several examples:

• "The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

• "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.

• "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

• "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

• "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

• "The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

General Examples

Just For Skeptics: Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries (see link for detailed citation)


1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.

2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5

3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.

* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11

* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:

a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12

b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13

c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15

* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:

High Gun Ownership Countries

Country_________ Suicide Homicide Total*
Switzerland _____21.4 2.7 24.1
U.S. ___________11.6 7.4 19.0
Israel __________6.5 1.4 7.9

Low Gun Ownership Countries

Country Suicide Homicide Total*
Denmark 22.3 4.9 27.2
France 20.8 1.1 21.9
Japan** 16.7 0.6 17.3

* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (199, cited at America: The Most Violent Nation?.

6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.

* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18


DONT BUY INTO THE LIE!

[micfranklin]

I wonder what a robber is thinking to himself when he breaks into someone's house and ends up staring down the barrel of the gun-wielding home owner....is it:

A) "He isn't going to shoot me."
B) "I'll just quickly reach for my own weapon and take him out."
C) "How was I supposed to know he was armed?"

[Go Fish]

I'm going to commit heresy here and suggest that a certain extent of gun control can reduce crime. It also depends on what kind of crimes we're talking about - For example, the UK has far less homicides than the US but more muggings and burglaries.

Obviously if there's an easy availability of guns (especially handguns), there's going to be alot more people getting murdered or wounded. Some people might even be law abiding citizens before obtaining a handgun, and then become non-law-abiding afterwards. An easy and widespread availability of guns can turn an incident like a traffic dispute from a potential punch-up into a potential homicide.

Going to the other extreme, if guns are outlawed as they are in Britain, honest people are always assumed to be unarmed, and crooks intending to rob/rape have no intention of following weapons laws in the first place. Thus strict gun control would also increase crime through assumptions that victims of crime have no lawful right of effective self defense, even in their own home.

According to DOJ statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm) handguns are completely disproportionately used in homicides compared to other weapons. I do not believe in strict gun control, however, one thing the US could do as a nation is implement a proper system of licensing for handguns and make sure buyers have a legit reason for wanting a handgun instead of a rifle or shotgun, and to prevent straw purchasing.

One of the major problems I'm seeing with US gun debates is the establishment wants to totally destroy the second amendment and have gun laws similar to Britain. The vocal population overwhelmingly opposes this and tries to remove almost every regulation on guns in existence. I find both approaches quite scary.

That's the thing. You're suggesting that government should be the final judge of what a legitimate reason truly is, and as one who shoots frequently (Nearly every weekend) and keeps a loaded gun in the house for family defense, I don't want some weasel in Washington telling me that I can't walk the streets with it on my hip because I'm not either at home or at the range. I bought my weapon legally without a background check and quite honestly consider regular practice more of an obligation of ownership than a some kind of "Dirty Harry" penis extension. Actually it's a very small gun, so practice is important. That's what my wife says, anyway.
Laws only apply to the law-abiding, and the police spend much more time with pens in their hands describing crimes than they do with guns in their hands preventing them.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am very suprised, though not dissappointed at the little number of posts opposing the OP.

For those who contributed to the debate, I thank you.

[gpruitt54]

I agree with the assertion that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding people only make things easier for criminals. This is the politically easy approach; blame the instrument and not the person wielding it. Deal with the bastard who uses a gun in a crime and leave me the-F alone.

I will keep my guns, thank you.

[moses2792796]

Where I live (not America) it is extremely difficult to get hold of a gun, and, surprise surprise, gun crimes are virtually unheard of.

[AlanC]

And where exactly is this crime free paradise? I'm sure there are others that would move there in a heart beat if you would enlighten them.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Moses said:
Where I live (not America) it is extremely difficult to get hold of a gun, and, surprise surprise, gun crimes are virtually unheard of.

Good for you, and I am glad you enjoy it where you are.

I too enjoy living in the nation I live in, with my gun, but if the place you live doesn't allow guns, I can assure you I wouldn't like it there no matter how peaceful it is. ;)

[I Like Beer]

Canada's violent crime rate has gone up 300% since their total prohibition of firearms.
The bottom line is, you're not going to change human nature by banning guns.

I'm sorry but your 300% stat is not only exaggerated, but only looks at a small part of the picture.

Canada enacted some gun control measures in 1977. At that time, the violent crime rate did continue a trend upwards that had begun in early 1960 (Bill C-151 came in in 1977). So, why was it already increasing BEFORE the gun control law? Well, the only reasonable answer is that there was another reason for the increase.

Here's the link to Violent Crime Stats in Canada from 1962 to 2001. The source is Stats Can. As you can clearly see, violent crime rates rose steadily from 1960 to 1990 and have been generally falling since.
http://www.thefreeradical.ca/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm

Why did crime rates begin to rise in 1960? Well, this is from Correctional Services of Canada which blames the rise on increasing numbers of baby boomers entering their 'crime-prone' years.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e123/e123h-eng.shtml

So, the reason the violent crime rate rose was due to demographics, not gun laws. Otherwise, the trend upwards in crime rates would have coincided with 1977 passage of Bill C-151 and not with the advent of the 1960s. Right?

Since the early 90's violent crime and murder (specifically) have been trending downwards. Why is this significant? Well, in the 1990s, Canada enacted much stricter gun control laws - I took this directly from Wikipedia for ease.

In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on any firearms that had a military or paramilitary appearance. Legislation also made changes to the FAC (Firearm Acquisition Certificates) system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, pass a more thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued one. Finally in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high capacity magazines, limiting handguns to 10 rounds and most semi-automatic rifles to 5. The restrictions did not cover rimfire rifles or manual (e.g., bolt action rifles). Provinces have the choice to opt-out of this regulation.

In 1995, Bill C-68 introduced new, stricter, gun control legislation. The current legislation provides harsher penalties for crimes involving firearm use, licences to possess and acquire firearms, and registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles.[3] This legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reference re Firearms Act (2000). The FAC system was replaced with Possession Only Licences (POLs) and Possession and Acquisition Licences (PALs). Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was not public safety policy, but rather an election ploy by the Liberal Party of Canada intended to help defeat Prime Minister Kim Campbell.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

If gun restrictions were solely responsible for violent crime rates - the rates in Canada would be not only rising as we continue to pass stricter gun control laws - but much higher than the US. Don't ya think?

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

The Daily

The Daily. Tuesday, December 18, 2001
Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States
2000

Over the past 20 years, Canada recorded much lower rates of violent crime than the United States did. However, rates for property offences have generally been higher in Canada, according to a comparison of police-reported crime between the two nations.

Crime rates in both countries have followed similar trends during the past two decades. After peaking in 1991, rates for both violent and property crime generally declined throughout the 1990s.

Based on selected offences, the United States has had a much higher rate of reported violent crime than Canada. The homicide rate was three times higher in the United States than it was in Canada, while the American rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. For robbery, the rate was 65% higher in the United States.

[I Like Beer]

And where exactly is this crime free paradise? I'm sure there are others that would move there in a heart beat if you would enlighten them.

Well, I live in Toronto. Outside of Montreal, I bet it's the most liberal city in North America. It's also inside a liberal country with relatively restrictive gun laws. Our murder rate is around our national average of 2/100 000.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2093.aspx

Now, let's contrast that with a very conservative city like Lubbock, Texas which has a murder rate of 6/100 000 (three times higher). In fact, Lubbock has a violent crime index higher than the US national average.

http://lubbock.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

I think it's safe to assume that there are a greater proportion of gun owners in Lubbock than in Toronto. If true, it follows that guns by themselves, are not the greatest deterrent to violent crime. For if they were, the situation would be reversed.

[Pookie]

Oh for crap's sake. Of course there should be gun control laws. And there are.
However, many do not follow these laws and obtain guns illegally.
THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM.
Many who obtain guns illegally do so to commit crimes.
Otherwise, most law-abiding folks here have guns legally.
Guns are stolen from homes, businesses, many places from criminals who sell them on the street.
I was shot by a stolen gun. I was shot by a criminal.
Doesn't anyone ever think that maybe violent crimes with guns MIGHT have to do with obtaining guns illegally?
If it were up to me, the damn guns wouldn't exist.
But they do and this is a reality we must face.
And that is one very sad fact. Just ask my left arm.
Pookie

[Osborn F. Enready]

It all reduces down however, to the RIGHT to competent self-defense.

In a world where force is required to defend against unjust force, innocent law abiding people have a right to prepare and be armed against the threats that face them. The threats that face mankind right now are nature, and other men bearing weapons to cause harm. This would logically mean that innocent people have a right to bear arms, to counter the very real, very tangible threat of arms in the hands of criminals, or corrupt governments, both of which exist in varied % in all countries of the world.

Gun control laws are built on the a very slippery slope, one that contradicts individual rights to defense, but is supported by a thin frame of reason while limited to reasonable "gun control"...... the problem is, reason is on the downturn, while faith and irrational lifestyles are on the upturn.

I tend to err on the side of innocent law abiding individuals, which as supported by the facts, makes sense, whether viewing RECENT history, or ALL of mans history.

Pookie, I am very sorry to hear you had to suffer at the hands of a criminal...... but I think it should be obvious that regardless of what laws exist, law breakers will not be put-off or kept at bay by new laws, new restrictions, new gun control legislation..... it only weakens innocent peoples ability to protect themselves from unjust force, with the ADDITION of adding a threat of government force against them for non-compliance with arbitrary laws on types of firearms.

[suralos]

Here's about 2 cents worth:

Recently on Craigslist, while advocating Hillary (anybody) over Obama, I came across a post thoroughly indignant over someone's proof that Obama is in fact for gun control. That angry post, apparently by a black, took issue with whites' heritage of gun ownership and tradition of hunting, like that's a good idea. To paraphrase his diss of the proof, except for the four letter material, he wrote: blacks don't give a shit about hunting and fishing.

It was an expression of "higher moral worth" in support of a brutha, I suppose.

But the gist of it is true. I can't remember ever seeing a black hunting or fishing, and the only interest they have in guns is to kill people.

Put another way, gun control is a powerful black contrivance -- a win-win for blacks.

Make that 2 dollars worth.

[I Like Beer]

I tend to err on the side of innocent law abiding individuals, which as supported by the facts, makes sense, whether viewing RECENT history, or ALL of mans history.


I also like to err on the side of innocent, law abiding individuals and I also like to look at facts. To be sure, there are differences between Canada (where I live) and the US. Canada has a very liberal justice system (too liberal in some respects for me), no death penalty, no three strike rule, and very restrictive gun laws.

So, given that, I'd really like your reaction to the following.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

Based on selected offences, the United States has had a much higher rate of reported violent crime than Canada. The homicide rate was three times higher in the United States than it was in Canada, while the American rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. For robbery, the rate was 65% higher in the United States.

[4Reaganomics]

That can easily be explained by demographics.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I Like beer said:
Based on selected offences, the United States has had a much higher rate of reported violent crime than Canada.

That is the only way these stats hold true, hence the reason they only show SELECTED OFFENSES. When you remove arms from the people, it has been proven crime goes up across the board, while some times VIOLENT crime drops. So, while violent crime MAY indeed drop, more people overall are directly exposed to criminality and become victims, than in armed societies.

I like beer said:
The homicide rate was three times higher in the United States than it was in Canada, while the American rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. For robbery, the rate was 65% higher in the United States.

Well, the United States is a big place and each state can have its OWN gun laws to some degree. You have to remember, the crime CAPITAL is Washington DC where there is a handgun BAN, which prevents people from carrying arms for defense.

I could take just about any group of statistics, and present them in a way that appears to make a point I am trying to make, and so can you or any other media or government source. The fact is, when you take into account ALL crimes, and ALL VICTIMS, there are less victims in armed societies than unarmed societies, which is why when you see these "comparisons", it is almost always using only "selected" information for comparitive analysis.

Also, nothing protects a person from BECOMING a victim better than self-defense training with a firearm.

[I Like Beer]

That can easily be explained by demographics.

How?

[I Like Beer]

That is the only way these stats hold true, hence the reason they only show SELECTED OFFENSES. When you remove arms from the people, it has been proven crime goes up across the board, while some times VIOLENT crime drops. So, while violent crime MAY indeed drop, more people overall are directly exposed to criminality and become victims, than in armed societies.

In 1991, Canada enacted far stricter gun control legislation and since then, crime rates have continued to fall.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

How do you explain that? It's fallen 12% since 1991. This is total crime (including property crime). So, here is proof that crime (across the board) has fallen.


Well, the United States is a big place and each state can have its OWN gun laws to some degree. You have to remember, the crime CAPITAL is Washington DC where there is a handgun BAN, which prevents people from carrying arms for defense.

What about St. Louis? Doesn't Missouri have a right to carry a concealed weapon provision?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15475741/

http://www.missouricarry.com/

Why does St. Louis continue to be so violent? Crime rose 20% in 2006.

Shall we cherry pick cities and counties?

I could take just about any group of statistics, and present them in a way that appears to make a point I am trying to make, and so can you or any other media or government source. The fact is, when you take into account ALL crimes, and ALL VICTIMS, there are less victims in armed societies than unarmed societies, which is why when you see these "comparisons", it is almost always using only "selected" information for comparitive analysis.

Of course you can get stats to say whatever you want if you misrepresent them - like has been done throughout this thread.

So, you are equating someone stealing your bike with murder - is that right? These are equal crimes?


Also, nothing protects a person from BECOMING a victim better than self-defense training with a firearm.

Tell that to the people in St. Louis.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I like beer said:
In 1991, Canada enacted far stricter gun control legislation and since then, crime rates have continued to fall.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

How do you explain that? It's fallen 12% since 1991. This is total crime (including property crime). So, here is proof that crime (across the board) has fallen.

From your source.....

Violent crime down but homicide rate up
In total, about 300,000 violent crimes were reported to police in 2004, the majority of which were common assault. The violent crime rate fell 2%, continuing a general decline since 1992. The violent crime rate was 10% lower than a decade earlier, but 35% higher than 20 years ago.

Canada's homicide rate rose 12% in 2004 after hitting a 36-year low the year before. Police reported 622 victims of homicide, 73 more than last year. Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec accounted for most of this increase. The rate of 1.9 homicides for every 100,000 population was 5% lower than it was 10 years earlier.

That should explain it quite well.....

Violent crime went down, as victims felt more obligated to comply to protect THEMSELVES, which is only dependent on the MERCY of the criminal. I won't bet my life to the criminal trying to take my rights, having mercy and on the basis of complying with the criminals irrational wants, and abject use of force.

Also, your source has qualifier here, which lacks a complete transparency of the system of scoring, etc....

Data on incidents that come to the attention of the police are captured and forwarded to the CCJS via the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey according to a nationally-approved set of common scoring rules, categories and definitions.

I like beer said:
What about St. Louis? Doesn't Missouri have a right to carry a concealed weapon provision?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15475741/

http://www.missouricarry.com/

Why does St. Louis continue to be so violent? Crime rose 20% in 2006.

Shall we cherry pick cities and counties?

You are asking for a simplistic answer, to a complex problem. What makes you think this is a FAULT of arms? Elaborate.

I fail to see a causal link here to firearms, and if you do, I suggest your explain it.

I like beer said:
Of course you can get stats to say whatever you want if you misrepresent them - like has been done throughout this thread.

Are you accusing ME of doing such? If so, please site the sources and mentions and why you think they are "not representative".......

I like beer said:
So, you are equating someone stealing your bike with murder - is that right? These are equal crimes?

Stealing property is stealing a portion of someones life, labor and sacrifice.

It took labor to earn the money to purchase that bike.
It took life, or time of life, to labor to earn that money to purchase the bike.
It took sacrifice, and saving to earn that money to purchase the bike.

Do you disagree with any of the above three sentences and logical facts?

Stealing property is equivalent to stealing life, yes.

A person forgoes their rights when they use force against others to obtain what they want.

I like beer said:
Tell that to the people in St. Louis.

Its not my burden to bear, its each of those citizens OWN burden to bear, for their health, welfare and safety.

I take my right to defense seriously, so I own arms and practice with them, and train with them to adequately prepare myself for problems I may encounter regarding people trying to use force against me. If they feel that way, they should also exercise their natural right to do the same.

Their life, their safety, their burden.

I, nor you, have any right to speak for them or their views, values or outlooks on defense.



So, let me ask you a question "I like beer"......

Who, if anyone should be able to own arms in your IDEAL society?
What prevents your "ideal society" from existing?

[suralos]

In 1991, Canada enacted far stricter gun control legislation and since then, crime rates have continued to fall.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

How do you explain that? It's fallen 12% since 1991.

God bless Canada, home of the loveliest national anthem, the most beautiful flag and the greatest assortment of potable brews in the world, much of which I haven't explored. What for?

According to your table, "Crime rates for selected offences", crime in Canada has dropped very significantly across the board between 1994 and 2004, not just gun-related crimes -- everything except marijuana-related offenses, counterfeiting money and disturbing the peace (partying).

You gotta keep it down.

Obviously and more to the point, something else is going on in Canada having nothing to do with guns.

I skipped most of these posts, but why wag your finger guns, in 100 words or less, eh?

[I Like Beer]

You are asking for a simplistic answer, to a complex problem. What makes you think this is a FAULT of arms? Elaborate.

I thought your point was, wherever there are arms, crime goes down. Isn't that right? You pointed out Washington DC as an example where gun restriction led to high murder rates. There is a gun ban and yet, it's the murder capital of the US. I pointed out St. Louis, America's most dangerous city, but it has 'right to carry' legislation.

So, how do reconcile that?


Are you accusing ME of doing such? If so, please site the sources and mentions and why you think they are "not representative".......

Nope, I'm not accusing you of anything. It was adpst who posted info on Canada's Crime Rate going up 300% since prohibition against firearms. It was misleading and incorrect.


Stealing property is stealing a portion of someones life, labor and sacrifice.

It took labor to earn the money to purchase that bike.
It took life, or time of life, to labor to earn that money to purchase the bike.
It took sacrifice, and saving to earn that money to purchase the bike.

Do you disagree with any of the above three sentences and logical facts?

No, I agree with them. I've had a bike stolen, it sucks. I'm just saying it's not equivalent to murder. I can buy a new bike. I would much rather have my bike stolen than be the victim of a violent crime which is much more likely to happen to me in the States than here despite your widespread ownership of firearms.

Stealing property is equivalent to stealing life, yes.

A person forgoes their rights when they use force against others to obtain what they want.

That's your opinion and that's cool. I see a difference between a human life and the ugly tie my wife got me for Christmas - but hey, that's probably just me.

Its not my burden to bear, its each of those citizens OWN burden to bear, for their health, welfare and safety.

I take my right to defense seriously, so I own arms and practice with them, and train with them to adequately prepare myself for problems I may encounter regarding people trying to use force against me. If they feel that way, they should also exercise their natural right to do the same.

Their life, their safety, their burden.

I, nor you, have any right to speak for them or their views, values or outlooks on defense.

I wasn't trying to. I was only seeking to understand how a city with right to carry legislation was so crime ridden? Why did it go up in 2006 with everyone packing heat? SHouldn't the trend be the other way?

Maybe this thread should be titled, 'Gun Propagation Reducing Crime is a Myth'.



So, let me ask you a question "I like beer"......

Who, if anyone should be able to own arms in your IDEAL society?
What prevents your "ideal society" from existing?

I'm sorry, when exactly did I use the word "IDEAL"?

Dude, all I'm doing is showing you examples of two things...

Places where getting rid of guns has not let to an increase in crime and places where propagation of guns has not led to a decrease in crime.

[suralos]

Obviously and more to the point, something else is going on in Canada having nothing to do with guns.

Let me be clearer: According to your data, all crime in Canada has dropped very significantly across the board between 1994 and 2004, not just gun-related crimes.

Obviously, something else is going on in Canada that has nothing to do with the illegality of guns.

In 100 words or less, explain how this doesn't severely impair your apparent anti-gun position? Thanks.

[I Like Beer]

First off, I didn't say I had an anti-gun position. I only said that restricting guns did not increase crime as was mentioned in the thread.

Also, as I posted, crime has decreased because Canada's population is aging and have outgrown the "crime prone" years.

The same phenomenon is happening in the US - that's why crime is decreasing in both countries, simultaneously. Old people don't commit crimes.

Guns - their proliferation or restriction - have nothing to do with it.

That's 81 words.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I like beer, I don't discredit your findings as much as I question your point.

Do you dispute the use of force for self protection?
Do you deny that arms are the single most effective tool at equalizing opponents of drastic physical differences?
Do you deny that arms are an essential part of fighting off tyranny, be it tyranny of man over one man, or millions of men against few?

Please, elaborate.

You are obviously taking an anti-gun position, whether or not your anti-gun.

Those facts and data, were collected specificly to address the false cause and effect equation of "less guns = less violence".

[I Like Beer]

Do you dispute the use of force for self protection?
Do you deny that arms are the single most effective tool at equalizing opponents of drastic physical differences?
Do you deny that arms are an essential part of fighting off tyranny, be it tyranny of man over one man, or millions of men against few?

Please, elaborate.

1. No, I do not dispute the use of reasonable force for self protection. If you came upon someone breaking into your car in a public parking lot - and you had your gun - what would you do?

2. No, I don't deny that arms can equalize opponents. Do you deny that guns can, just as easily, turn a punk, jackass the tool he needs to be a mass killer?

3. Arms are as essential to fighting off tyranny as they are in imposing it.

You are obviously taking an anti-gun position, whether or not your anti-gun.

Those facts and data, were collected specificly to address the false cause and effect equation of "less guns = less violence".

I've asked you to clarify "less guns=more violence" given the examples I've stated. St. Louis is the most dangerous city in the US despite having 'right to carry' legislation. How can that be if the corollary to your supposition is correct? More guns should equal safer streets, yes? Or, do you think guns really don't deter crime and this is only a personal rights issue?

Also, it doesn't matter that Canada and the US are different. I'm comparing Canada to Canada when I point out that fewer guns has NOT led to increased violence. It was not I who brought Canada into this discussion, I was only clarifying the inaccuracies stated in post #16 and you in post #20.

My own view is that guns have little to no impact on the level of crime in a society. You can set up artificial situations where it appears to have an impact.

For example, two neighbouring towns. One has gun restrictions and one does not. Since it's easy to travel between the two towns, of course, crime will rise in the town without gun restrictions - but it's an artificial situation.

Demographics, rates of poverty, religion, education and several other factors go into determining whether a society is violent or not.

Here are my questions...

1 Should people be allowed to own dangerous animals for protection in their home? (including pit bulls trained to kill?). What responsibility does one bear if their animal escapes and hurts someone?

2 Can I plant land mines on my own property to deter would-be thieves? Do I have a responsibility to post warnings, like "beware land mines"?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I like beer said:
1. No, I do not dispute the use of reasonable force for self protection. If you came upon someone breaking into your car in a public parking lot - and you had your gun - what would you do?

It would depend on several factors.....
Do they see me, and react?
Is it night or day?
Is it only me and the crook(s) in the parking lot?
What are the surroundings?

First I would call the police, second I would observe the robbery, look for helpers if they had any, keep the position of the criminal in sight, and await police without ever drawing a gun. (ideally)

Truly, its situationally dependent, and even under ideal conditions the best laid plans usually get fouled up at the point of contact, which is why people who respect their responsibility for their own safety, train regularly for the unexpected.

I like beer said:
2. No, I don't deny that arms can equalize opponents. Do you deny that guns can, just as easily, turn a punk, jackass the tool he needs to be a mass killer?

Yes I do deny it. There are several other tools that fit the bill equal or better, if mass death is your goal. Cars are quite good at it, shall we outlaw those? What about poison? Should we outlaw all the household chemicals in the name of safety? Home-made bombs or IED's?

All objects have inherant risks to humans depending on their use, but humans biggest threat is nature and other humans, and if all are equal, have an equal right to competent defense for the threats they logically would face. Aren't arms still used by all militaries? Yes, so it seems a competent defense would be arms.

Even if arms are removed from all civillians, they can be made in a basement using household items, and ammunition is rather easy as well. The militaries would also have them, so they could be stolen, lost or "sold in the black market" to provide people willing to pay large prices, and there would be many.

What would be the point?

If you snapped your fingers right now and made all arms disappear, in hours there would be more to replace them, and the law abiding people would be like sheep for the slaughter. Laws only impede people who obey law, not criminals or tyrants.

I like beer said:
3. Arms are as essential to fighting off tyranny as they are in imposing it.

Tyranny has been imposed through one means since the dawn of man, and that means is force. Be it sword, cannonball, arrows or firearms technology has always been the limit to the force man would wield against men in the name of religion, land, peace or justice.
Knowing this, rational men have vowed to never again allow themselves to become vulnerable to that point again. Arms is the most reasonable compromise.

I like beer said:
I've asked you to clarify "less guns=more violence" given the examples I've stated.

Less guns = more people vulnerable to well armed criminals or tyrants.
More gun laws = more LAW ABIDING people unable to competently defend themselves provided an opprotunity to do so through training and chance.

The amount of crime is relevant to several other factors though, from economics to social issues for the areas in question.

I like beer said:
St. Louis is the most dangerous city in the US despite having 'right to carry' legislation. How can that be if the corollary to your supposition is correct?

I don't think you have "my" supposition correct.

I like beer said:
More guns should equal safer streets, yes?

No. More guns equal better protected responsible, law abiding people as well as prevents effective mass police abuse, or a turning of military against the people.

I like beer said:
Or, do you think guns really don't deter crime and this is only a personal rights issue?

I think guns, in some ways do deter crime, but a deterrence is not their intent, its a by-product. And this is clearly a personal rights issue in our legal system.

I like beer said:
Also, it doesn't matter that Canada and the US are different. I'm comparing Canada to Canada when I point out that fewer guns has NOT led to increased violence. It was not I who brought Canada into this discussion, I was only clarifying the inaccuracies stated in post #16 and you in post #20.

I will have to go back and review them.

I like beer said:
My own view is that guns have little to no impact on the level of crime in a society. You can set up artificial situations where it appears to have an impact.

I don't think it does have a large impact, but it does make a difference in some cases as a deterrent.

I like beer said:
For example, two neighbouring towns. One has gun restrictions and one does not. Since it's easy to travel between the two towns, of course, crime will rise in the town without gun restrictions - but it's an artificial situation.

Except for those living through it.

I like beer said:
Demographics, rates of poverty, religion, education and several other factors go into determining whether a society is violent or not.

I most certainly agree.

I like beer said:
Here are my questions...

1 Should people be allowed to own dangerous animals for protection in their home? (including pit bulls trained to kill?). What responsibility does one bear if their animal escapes and hurts someone?

People are allowed to own animals, so how would one verify if they were dangerous until something happened? I wouldn't condone such activity, but no, I don't think there should be a law against it specificly. People bear legal responsibility for their pets.

I like beer said:
2 Can I plant land mines on my own property to deter would-be thieves?

I would say no. Landmines are area weapons, and it would be hard to construe a purpose for such weapons for defense unless during a time of war or in the ownership of a state militia.


I like beer said:
Do I have a responsibility to post warnings, like "beware land mines"?

While I don't think you have a right to set area defenses around your property, I see no problem with posting signs however, just to mess with peoples heads..... ;)

[I Like Beer]

First I would call the police, second I would observe the robbery, look for helpers if they had any, keep the position of the criminal in sight, and await police without ever drawing a gun. (ideally)

Cool, just trying to find out where you stand.


Yes I do deny it. There are several other tools that fit the bill equal or better, if mass death is your goal. Cars are quite good at it, shall we outlaw those? What about poison? Should we outlaw all the household chemicals in the name of safety? Home-made bombs or IED's?

All those things would also equal the odds between disparate matched opponents. My point wasn't that since a gun could kill a lot of people it should be banned, my point was, as it can be used for good, it can also be used for bad.

Tyranny has been imposed through one means since the dawn of man, and that means is force. Be it sword, cannonball, arrows or firearms technology has always been the limit to the force man would wield against men in the name of religion, land, peace or justice.
Knowing this, rational men have vowed to never again allow themselves to become vulnerable to that point again. Arms is the most reasonable compromise.

Exactly, tyranny has been forced upon people with guns. People rise up and throw off that tyranny with guns (often, to set up a new tyranny). If we're talking about the current state of affairs in the US, what good would guns do? Most conservatives supported Bush as he took away more of your civil rights and the same right-wingers (who used to run around chanting 'Better Dead Than Red') were fighting with liberals to give up even more of their rights. It's eerily familiar to what happened in Germany after the Reichstag fire with conservatives supporting the implementation of the Enabling Act.

Less guns = more people vulnerable to well armed criminals or tyrants.
More gun laws = more LAW ABIDING people unable to competently defend themselves provided an opprotunity to do so through training and chance.

Well, I would counter and say that more guns=more violent criminals. If you're a mugger who is determined to rob someone and you're in Texas you assume your victim has a gun and are more likely to use deadly force to rob him. In Toronto, no one has a gun, so the mugger is less likely to 'shoot first'. I believe if you're a victim of a mugging in Toronto, you have a better chance of coming out of it alive whether armed or not.

I don't think you have "my" supposition correct.

I think guns, in some ways do deter crime, but a deterrence is not their intent, its a by-product. And this is clearly a personal rights issue in our legal system.

Then I apologize. If this is a personal rights issue with you, that's fine. Then, the amount of violence either spawned or deterred by guns is irrelevant, yes? If so, why concern yourself with it?

I won't comment on the rest except to thank you for answering the questions. I think I understand you better now and we're probably not so far apart from each other as it originally appeared.

Personally, I'm very happy to live where I am and I don't care if the US is overflowing with guns - just leave them at the border. :)

[Osborn F. Enready]

I like beer said:
Cool, just trying to find out where you stand.

I can respect that, and thanks for asking.

I like beer said:
All those things would also equal the odds between disparate matched opponents.

... Ahhh, but only at the risk of others that is hard to justify. Firearms are individual weapons, and allow anyone using one to be held accountable for solely their actions when using it.

I like beer said:
My point wasn't that since a gun could kill a lot of people it should be banned, my point was, as it can be used for good, it can also be used for bad.

No doubt, as can government or any other physical item on earth that I have come across.

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them …" Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775. I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

I like beer said:
Exactly, tyranny has been forced upon people with guns. People rise up and throw off that tyranny with guns (often, to set up a new tyranny). If we're talking about the current state of affairs in the US, what good would guns do? Most conservatives supported Bush as he took away more of your civil rights and the same right-wingers (who used to run around chanting 'Better Dead Than Red') were fighting with liberals to give up even more of their rights. It's eerily familiar to what happened in Germany after the Reichstag fire with conservatives supporting the implementation of the Enabling Act.

In the end, should the public need to turn to their arms to restore their rights wrongly claimed by corrupt government, it is the very tool that provides when all other peaceful means fail.

It is a form of insurance against abject tyranny, and a guarantee that is the right of all peoples who inhabit this land legally, to be recognized as legal and armed for their individual, and collective defense.

I do not dispute the point in which we are, only the optimism of where it can and may go.

I like beer said:
Well, I would counter and say that more guns=more violent criminals. If you're a mugger who is determined to rob someone and you're in Texas you assume your victim has a gun and are more likely to use deadly force to rob him. In Toronto, no one has a gun, so the mugger is less likely to 'shoot first'. I believe if you're a victim of a mugging in Toronto, you have a better chance of coming out of it alive whether armed or not.

This presupposes that criminals operate on some type of logical, or honor based system, which I dispute entirely. A criminal is a criminal, and they make their job as easy as they can, just like all people make their jobs as easy as they can with regards to how much challenge they enjoy.

Removing arms removes choice from the people, to defend against not only common criminals, but national aggressors from foreign lands, both of which they have a natural right to defend themselves from if the manmade constructs they put in place to address this issue FAIL.

I like beer said:
Then I apologize. If this is a personal rights issue with you, that's fine. Then, the amount of violence either spawned or deterred by guns is irrelevant, yes? If so, why concern yourself with it?

The threat to my personal firearms has been under threat from international pressure forever, and from national parties for decades.... I HAVE TO FACE IT, or it will consume those who fail to.

The old saying stands true.....

"If you don't have your way with politics, politics will have its way with you."

I like beer said:
I won't comment on the rest except to thank you for answering the questions. I think I understand you better now and we're probably not so far apart from each other as it originally appeared.

Fair enough, and I am content to say I think we share an equal respect and tolerance for one anothers views, which is all I am hoping to achieve.

I like beer said:
Personally, I'm very happy to live where I am and I don't care if the US is overflowing with guns - just leave them at the border.

Fair enough, and I am more than content with that.