i have always lived in countries where private gun ownership was strictly controlled and mainly restricted to what "ordinary" citicens could sensibly use guns for - hunting. also for me there is a definite distinction with regards to the term gun - basically anything with a long-ish barrel you can take, hide yourself and shoot that rabbit, deer or bear - they are also called hunting or sporting rifles. so an uzi or ak47 doesn't really fit the bill - they have been designed to KILL PEOPLE.
same with hand guns. nobody creeps around the forest with a colt or revolver to look for that delicious sunday pheasant - again, they have been designed to KILL PEOPLE.
this is just my interpretation of "gun" - other people may differ.
and then i look at the ongoing issue of gun controll in america. what a mess. with the new ruling of the supreme court it's getting even messier.
and the whole thing goes back over 200 years where some lawmakers said that every citicen has the "right to bear guns" in the "second amendment".
ok. lets try to be realistic.
THEN it was just after the declaration of independence. things in the usa were still quite rough in many parts. the "west" was still the "west". wild people and animals still had the run around and it was in many parts down to the citicens to look after themselves and their survival.
NOW it's quite different. there is nationwide law enforcement - in principle annyway. if you get out of town in your suv, you're not likely to be attacked by a pack of hungry wolves - the animal kind - or a crazed bear.
so there is a difference between THEN and NOW.
you still wanna go hunting??? - if that's what takes your fancy, get a sporting rifle and hop around the country side.
BUT WHY DO PEOPLE STILL INSIST TO RUN AROUND LIKE BILLY THE KID WITH A HAND GUN STRAPPED TO THEIR PERSON??? or even keep it at home???
look at the crime statistics - the "western" country with the most gun crime - and most carried out with tools which were build to KILL PEOPLE, not animals.
and when someone challenges that fact, they start pointing at something that made sense 200 years ago but in a so-called "civilised" society is a total anachronism. that's a word that desribes a situation between backward and stupid for people who should have grown wiser.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080719/ap_on_go_su_co/guns_legal_challenges
makes one wonder.
should it be the "NEED" to bear arms?????
cheers Your right there are some nut jobs out there that should not have guns of any kind. But to say that certain kinds of guns should be made illegal just because you can't hunt with them is ridiculous. Shooting guns (pistols, rifles, shotguns) is a lot of fun.
Oh and unless you've been to the Alaskan wilderness don't tell me you don't need pistols anymore for personal protection against animals. Either way I'd like to have protection against my government in the case that they need to be overthrown. The American government is beginning to have to much power already, and it's only a matter of time a new one needs to be developed. Our countries founding fathers never would have imagined our government would be doing what we are doing now, the exact same things they fought against England for to gain our independence.
Currently there is a movement in the state of Vermont to succeed from the US. If it grows and becomes more than a movement do you think the federal government is going to say sure you can succeed. No they are going to send large deployments of forces to the state (probably National Guard) and there will be a battle. I'd like to see someone win a battle with federal troops with BB guns.
The anti-gun ideal is a flawed ideal just like many liberal and conservative ideals. Its not as simple as yes or no, or ban or no ban. It must be regulated like anything but to blindly ban something because it's dangerous is just ignorant.
It's a pretty well known fact that the majority of gun related crimes are not committed by citizens who have legally obtained their firearms (ie went through the entire official procedure, got background checks, waited the allotted time before the firearm could be transferred from seller to buyer, etc.). Placing heavy restrictions on firearms (in the US) has done nothing but raise crime (I don't feel like going to find all the statistics...they're pretty readily available).
It's also pretty well known that there is a huge, long list of reasons gun crime (and crime in general) is so high in the US. Little of it has to do with the right to keep and bear arms. If you want to discuss why it's so high, look at the whole picture, don't pick and choose minute details that you want to base your argument upon. There are plenty of countries where private gun ownership isn't looked down upon and the gun related crime rates are nothing compared to the US. So there are obviously other HUGE factors involved.
As for the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (By the way, this idea of universal militias came about long, long before the US Constitution got started...we're talking 12th century)
Perfectly fine. To be honest, I don't think it's exaggerated to say the citizens should be wary of their government (and military) and not put 100% trust in them. All you have to do is look around at the world. It's not some insane fantasy to think a government can rapidly turn on its citizens. And if that time comes (I hope it doesn't), I see no problem with the citizenry being remotely prepared to defend themselves.
People try to make the argument that the amendment states "well regulated militia" and doesn't mean firearms in the hands of whoever wants to obtain them legally. What they fail to mention (or realize) is the militias in that time were made up of exactly that: citizens who wanted to obtain firearms.
I don't think people should be able to walk in a pawn shop or gun shop and pick up a gun that day. There should be extensive background checks, criminal record checks, psychiatric background checks, waiting periods before the gun can be picked up, etc. The obvious 'checks and balances' need to be in place just for the sake of it. But like I said, the majority of the guns that are involved with gun related crimes are not legally obtained.
| icecool wrote: |
i have always lived in countries where private gun ownership was strictly controlled and mainly restricted to what "ordinary" citicens could sensibly use guns for - hunting. also for me there is a definite distinction with regards to the term gun - basically anything with a long-ish barrel you can take, hide yourself and shoot that rabbit, deer or bear - they are also called hunting or sporting rifles. so an uzi or ak47 doesn't really fit the bill - they have been designed to KILL PEOPLE.
same with hand guns. nobody creeps around the forest with a colt or revolver to look for that delicious sunday pheasant - again, they have been designed to KILL PEOPLE.
|
Sometimes killing people is what needs to be done. Those times that it does become needful are rare, but when it happens, it is very bad to be unprepared for it.
Besides, the USA has a very bad track record when it comes to prohibiting things. Just look at the prohibition making a way for the mob to grow huge and powerful, and how banning drugs makes today's gangs possible. (Both of those restrictions have vastly increased violence, wouldn't a gun ban do the same?)I strongly believe in the right to bear arms as I think it empowers the people to stand up against oppression from both their own governments and foreign countries.
Many people believe that this is outdated and no longer a valid argument. I disagree.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.."
The operative word is "regulated", which means controlled.
The government and it's militia needs to be controlled by the armed citizens.
It's essentially another check and balance branch of the system.
It has nothing to do with hunting.
As US is almost handing guns to every man, woman and child, it's no surprise that US tops the statistics with crimes committed with gun. But there's more. There have also been studies about frustration among people who return from the war. Like Hell's Angels where formed after WWII, various armed streetgangs were formed after Vietnam and KKK was founded after US civilwar.
So country constantly in wars with almost no gunrestrictions. Voilà!
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Besides, the USA has a very bad track record when it comes to prohibiting things. Just look at the prohibition making a way for the mob to grow huge and powerful, and how banning drugs makes today's gangs possible. (Both of those restrictions have vastly increased violence, wouldn't a gun ban do the same?) |
In my country we also had prohibition for 22years after which our drinking has never returned to civilized and reasonable. Our country also banned drugs, but as the producers are located so far away, it was thought that no major problems would occur. But when police got resources to research the drugculture, they were shocked. A lot of problems.
We also have nowadays pretty strict surveillance over guns. But surprise, there's not much crimes committed with guns. And still we have 3rd most guns per-capita in the world. So banning guns is not necessary, but restrictions (like how old can carry a gun) and monitoring should be very sharp.More pressing issues should be handled.
Like the right to arm bears.
This isn't a question of taking away the bad toys, it's a question of liberty and, of course, of asking the question "what if everyone...?".
First of all, I don't think it's liberal to take away weapons of any sort, make then illegal and stuff like that. Permits, tests, ok, but not way too strict, if a guy, a normal guy wants a gun, he should have it.
This is the question of "What if everyone had a gun?". THe anti-gun lobby imagines a world where on your way to the shops you gotta shoot 18 people, just because you're having a bad day... That's just too far-fetched.
If a criminal wants to kill somebody, he WILL do it! I totally doesn't matter if he can't get his hands on a gun (even though I presume that him being a criminal, will have an easier way to obtain a gun than a normal citizen), he will pick up anything and attack, and the attacker in such cases usually has the advantage of surprise. Whereas the victim, being deprived of guns (and later on, mace, batons, knives) has no advantage can only run o defend himself with his bare hands. If he had a gun, he could atleast intimidate the criminal. If other people around had guns, then the criminal would have shat himself of attacking another guy, because the other people would probably shoot him first.
I'd like to add a comment about handguns not being needed when hunting. If you live in a snake heavy region, and are out and about in the wilderness, hunting, or are just working on some property, it is a good idea to carry a pistol loaded with snake shot, since a rattlesnake can be as deadly as a wolf. Also, if you're hunting bears or moose, you don't want your only means of attack to be a bolt action hunting rifle because a pissed off bear is FAST.
But this is for only the rather small percent of the population who might face situations like this. The rest of us need guns as an offshoot of the basic right to "life." As many people have mentioned, the people doing a vast majority of the killing are the people who obtain firearms illegally. Making it illegal for anyone else to acquire a weapon is quite stupid-in fact, equally stupid as allowing everyone to by guns without regulation at all. Sure, this is a very different time when compared to the 1700s or the 1800s, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people who have no respect for the human life most people cherish.
I believe that it is not entirely out of line to require every household to maintain a firearm (Israel does this, although their situation is rather more dire). If everyone has a gun, then a would be thief would think thrice before breaking into anyone's home. The power of having a gun would be distributed to everyone, making a gun toting gangster much less of a threat. As Ender put quite eloquently:
"The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy,
because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can,
and nothing and no one will ever save you."
| Jmanamj wrote: |
"The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy,
because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can,
and nothing and no one will ever save you." |
Good quote! | Tutor wrote: |
As US is almost handing guns to every man, woman and child, it's no surprise that US tops the statistics with crimes committed with gun. But there's more. There have also been studies about frustration among people who return from the war. Like Hell's Angels where formed after WWII, various armed streetgangs were formed after Vietnam and KKK was founded after US civilwar.
So country constantly in wars with almost no gunrestrictions. Voilà! |
Bold = Not at all. Terrible accusation/assumption. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Tutor wrote: | As US is almost handing guns to every man, woman and child, it's no surprise that US tops the statistics with crimes committed with gun. But there's more. There have also been studies about frustration among people who return from the war. Like Hell's Angels where formed after WWII, various armed streetgangs were formed after Vietnam and KKK was founded after US civilwar.
So country constantly in wars with almost no gunrestrictions. Voilà! |
Bold = Not at all. Terrible accusation/assumption. |
The situation is terrible, not my metaphor. Better stick to the alerting issue and not accuse about being provocatice. | Tutor wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Tutor wrote: | As US is almost handing guns to every man, woman and child, it's no surprise that US tops the statistics with crimes committed with gun. But there's more. There have also been studies about frustration among people who return from the war. Like Hell's Angels where formed after WWII, various armed streetgangs were formed after Vietnam and KKK was founded after US civilwar.
So country constantly in wars with almost no gunrestrictions. Voilà! |
Bold = Not at all. Terrible accusation/assumption. |
The situation is terrible, not my metaphor. Better stick to the alerting issue and not accuse about being provocatice. |
How was that a metaphor at all? It has none of the characteristics of a metaphor.
It's nothing more than a huge, false exaggeration that paints the situation 100x worse than it is (I would assume that was your intention).Read this article for a real life example of how the right to bear arms has reduced crime in the little Georgia town of Kenesaw
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 I used to be really against guns, because I'm just a pacifist by nature, and because most liberals favor gun control and I was a liberal. 
I've been reconsidering that position lately, though. Or maybe just really thinking about it for the first time. The 2nd amendment was put in there in the first place because the only reason the American revolution was able to happen was because the colonists had guns. (am I right?) I will be really worried if guns ever get outlawed, because I think the only reason a government would ever pass that is so that the citizens can't fight back if the government starts doing really awful things. It's not like the government will give up IT'S right to bear arms.
It's a really big complicated issue and I don't know enough about it yet. But I guess I'm against guns but also against laws taking away guns. (hah, just like abortion) | Libby wrote: |
| the only reason a government would ever pass that is so that the citizens can't fight back if the government starts doing really awful things. |
An excellent point. One of Hitler's first acts when ruling Germany was to outlaw civilian ownership of firearms. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Libby wrote: | | the only reason a government would ever pass that is so that the citizens can't fight back if the government starts doing really awful things. |
An excellent point. One of Hitler's first acts when ruling Germany was to outlaw civilian ownership of firearms. |
Err...no. Not true at all. You need to re-read your history.
Gun ownership in the Weimar republic was restricted after WWI by the terms of the Versaille treaty (1919) which required all guns to be surrendered.
In 1928 the Weimar republic passed legislation which introduced a firearm licensing system (effectively a relaxation of previous policy).
The 1938 Nazi gun laws actually relaxed still futher gun-ownership laws, APART from Jews who were specifically forbidden to own or manufacture firearms or ammunition. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Libby wrote: | | the only reason a government would ever pass that is so that the citizens can't fight back if the government starts doing really awful things. |
An excellent point. One of Hitler's first acts when ruling Germany was to outlaw civilian ownership of firearms. |
Err...no. Not true at all. You need to re-read your history.
Gun ownership in the Weimar republic was restricted after WWI by the terms of the Versaille treaty (1919) which required all guns to be surrendered.
In 1928 the Weimar republic passed legislation which introduced a firearm licensing system (effectively a relaxation of previous policy).
The 1938 Nazi gun laws actually relaxed still futher gun-ownership laws, APART from Jews who were specifically forbidden to own or manufacture firearms or ammunition. |
Hm, apparently I do. Now where did I read that... Oh well. I remember reading it somewhere, but can't remember where. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Hm, apparently I do. Now where did I read that... Oh well. I remember reading it somewhere, but can't remember where. |
You can be forgiven - it is commonly repeated on pro-gun lobby sites.
Here's the twist, however. The National Alliance (a white supremacist movement in the US, who are, of course, pro gun) actually say that Hitler enabled gun ownership for the masses.
It's a sad day when the fascists start getting their facts correct (even if it is for all the wrong reasons)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=557183 | liljp617 wrote: |
How was that a metaphor at all? It has none of the characteristics of a metaphor.
It's nothing more than a huge, false exaggeration that paints the situation 100x worse than it is (I would assume that was your intention). |
If you have issues with english and the correct words to be used, rather than discussing about the topic then better forget the whole conversation.
Remember people, that forbidding the firearms is no solution, at least not the best one. More realistic ideas include mostly regulations and so. It's more important to discuss how would new regulations affect on the US rather than discussing how would the ultimate banning of firearms affect on the US.don't remember where i saw this so can't put a citation but remember seeing that a family that own a gun are more likely to be injured because of the gun (child playing with it etc) than they are of preventing a burglary or thwarting anyone.
on the balance banning guns is probably a good thning and should be done in the us (gun crime stats tell it all) - yes you risk an underworld of people who will always be able to get guns however all of those people now have guns anyway and what you do elimitate is the ordinary person who wouldn't bother getting an illegal weapon who probably has one now anyway and may lose his rag one day.
The US might need their guns after the past government they have had, and the government they will likely get. They already have watered down their 2nd amendment, they might need the 4th to get it back... | j_f_k wrote: |
don't remember where i saw this so can't put a citation but remember seeing that a family that own a gun are more likely to be injured because of the gun (child playing with it etc) than they are of preventing a burglary or thwarting anyone.
on the balance banning guns is probably a good thning and should be done in the us (gun crime stats tell it all) - yes you risk an underworld of people who will always be able to get guns however all of those people now have guns anyway and what you do elimitate is the ordinary person who wouldn't bother getting an illegal weapon who probably has one now anyway and may lose his rag one day. |
-.- Please read the thread.more control less gun crime - thats all I have to say
| Bannik wrote: |
| more control less gun crime - thats all I have to say |
False. That's all I have to say. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | | more control less gun crime - thats all I have to say |
False. That's all I have to say. |
firstly, that's very short for a statement coming from you.
secondly, if you make a statement like that, can you please substantiate it.
thirdly. reading some of the statements and opinions to my original post really has me wondering.
i was under the impression that my post was quite clear in its content and expression.
i am also aware that this is a very sensitive subject, especially in the usa.
but having first hand so-called civilised, grown up people talking about needing arms just in case they don't like their governments policy, handling of affairs or even turning against the population is quite astounding.
i am not making the mistake of saying this are the opinions of a wide section of american society.
but i thought we had developed from the stone age, recognised thhat the wheel is actually a great thing even if some people use it for a bd purpose and instead of clubbing them over the head it this is not OUR purpose just sit down and have a chat about how we can together improve life for everybody.
but alas - some people think with their brains, some people don't think.
neanderthals abound even now.
cheersI don't understand why US citizens see protecting themselves as their own business. I mean, like they had the duty to look after their safety by solely themselves. Like they would all be just households in an war of anarchystate. But as there's no anarchy it is the business of state to look after their own citizens. It's the business of police and government to ensure the safety on the streets, not the citizen's. Citizens looking over their own safety with arms are more likely to increase the unsafety in the neighbourhood.
Do any countries or local goverments require households to have guns?
Heck they should ban the fully automatic fire-arms from civilian use. No one is going to hunt an animal with an AK-47 or any other fully automatic weapon you will spend the next weeks trying to get the bullets out.
I think hunting rifle's are ok with regulation.
Anyway, i think most guns should be banned.
There is no reason to keep big huge weapons in your house.
Also one thing
arms is short for armaments so in the US you can OWN (if you follow it to the letter):
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200709/r185288_689200.jpg
http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/military/m1a1abramstank/M1A1_abrams_tank_6.jpg
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_shell-parts_pic.jpg
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/1128-3/caesar.jpg
http://www.sfondideldesktop.com/Images-Misc/Military/Aircraft-Carrier/Aircraft-Carrier-0004/Aircraft-Carrier-0004.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/SS-15_ICBM.JPEG/618px-SS-15_ICBM.JPEG
Last one if you don't know what it is look in the name.
Rather ridiculous. | jwellsy wrote: |
| Do any countries or local goverments require households to have guns? |
i believe that switzerland requires any male between certain ages and of a fit physical constitution and mind to keep a rifle - and be a member of the local milicia, having training for something like 2 weeks a year.
this goes all the way back to willem tell - hundreds of years. i have no statistics but if anyone can be bothered i'm sure they would discover that in swtzerland guncrime is not very wide spread. they also have a long history of non involvement in any wars, internal riots or revolutions.
cheersThe following may be helpful (it confirms pretty much the previous posting).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm
This has absolutely nothing to do with hunting -.- | Tutor wrote: |
| I don't understand why US citizens see protecting themselves as their own business. I mean, like they had the duty to look after their safety by solely themselves. Like they would all be just households in an war of anarchystate. But as there's no anarchy it is the business of state to look after their own citizens. It's the business of police and government to ensure the safety on the streets, not the citizen's. Citizens looking over their own safety with arms are more likely to increase the unsafety in the neighbourhood. |
Please have a look at the news. Then tell me I should put 100% trust in any government and assume they will ALWAYS protect me and they will NEVER become overly corrupt to the point they turn on citizens. It's happened hundreds of times in history, it's happening at this very moment in many places, and it's not that big of an assumption to say it's likely to happen more in the future.
This ideology relating to firearms has absolutely nothing to do with the citizenry taking on foreign invasion and defending the country as the military does. That wasn't its meaning when placed into the Bill of Rights and it has never been its meaning.
I agree, citizens shouldn't be searching for vigilante work, going out and catching robbers, murderers, and other criminals. That task is the job of police. And the police are controlled and funded by the government.
But what you're saying is that I should trust a government that, at this time, rarely listens to the citizenry, does WHATEVER they can to acquire wealth, is corrupt to the core, is taking part in things like wiretapping and torture, is slowly disintegrating citizen's rights, etc. I should put every bit of trust into them, and ignore that possibility (as minuscule as it may be) of overly corrupt individuals with a terrible agenda gaining power? Fine...in a utopian world.
Would you give this advice to the citizens in Darfur or any of the other countries where people are helplessly getting slaughtered without any way to fight back? | icecool wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Bannik wrote: | | more control less gun crime - thats all I have to say |
False. That's all I have to say. |
firstly, that's very short for a statement coming from you.
secondly, if you make a statement like that, can you please substantiate it.
thirdly. reading some of the statements and opinions to my original post really has me wondering.
i was under the impression that my post was quite clear in its content and expression.
i am also aware that this is a very sensitive subject, especially in the usa.
but having first hand so-called civilised, grown up people talking about needing arms just in case they don't like their governments policy, handling of affairs or even turning against the population is quite astounding.
i am not making the mistake of saying this are the opinions of a wide section of american society.
but i thought we had developed from the stone age, recognised thhat the wheel is actually a great thing even if some people use it for a bd purpose and instead of clubbing them over the head it this is not OUR purpose just sit down and have a chat about how we can together improve life for everybody.
but alas - some people think with their brains, some people don't think.
neanderthals abound even now.
cheers |
1) I merely respond to the effort people put into their posts.
2) Perhaps you could ask the same of him?
It's not that complicated an issue. More guns != more gun crime; less guns != less gun crime. The correlation there is out of place.
For instance, Switzerland.
| Quote: |
| The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. |
(From Bikerman's link above)
Switzerland doesn't even keep firearm crime statistics, because they're so low. And later in the article we see the root causes of gun crime. It's not the amount of guns. It's not the type of guns. It's the other social problems that drive people to crime in general, and in this case gun crime.
| Quote: |
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation. |
As I've said quite a few times in this thread and others: GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. It is the lack of education, poverty, a threatening economy putting people out of work, a lack of responsibility, cultural "entertainment" (music, movies, TV, etc.), a lack of direction from elders. There are soooooooooooo many more factors involved in this outside of the guns that it's become incredibly annoying to see people say "ban guns and problem solved." Simply put, NO.
----------------------------------------
Let's have a look at something closer to my home: Washington DC
Not necessarily dealing with the number of guns, but it tends to further prove the point guns aren't the problem.
| Quote: |
| Washington, D.C., has tried a number other strategies to deal with gun violence. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police Department conducted Operation Ceasefire, a gun-violence crackdown initiative involving intense gun law enforcement, in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office. This initiative resulted in seizure of 282 firearms in its first four months, mainly 9mm, 380ACP, and .25ACP pistols, and .38 caliber revolvers, most of which were purchased in Maryland and Virginia. Critics of gun control legislation have made the point that although guns may be more easily obtained from the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland, the fact that these states (despite the relative ease of obtaining a firearm) do not suffer from the same level of crime as the District of Columbia, leads to the conclusion that the mere availability of guns does not necessarily incite violent crime. Fairfax County, VA, which neighbors the District on the western shores of the Potomac, has nearly twice the population of the District but has nearly 1/20th the number of murders per capita (for 2005, Fairfax County had 20 murders out of a population of 1,041,200, versus 195 murders out of a population of 550,521 in the District). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
And if you look at what Washington DC faces from a society point of view, you'll see there are many, many problems with drugs, poverty, gangs, and so on. These things are prevalent because of a lack of education, a lack of job opportunity, poverty, etc. You'll also see that the most successful method of turning around DC crime has been gentrification, not banning guns (which they tried...assault weapons are still banned, but the ban on handguns was recently overturned).
-----------------------------------------------------------
More on DC and the actual gun bans:
| Quote: |
Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.
The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.
For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.
Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.
Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.
How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit. |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html (yeah yeah, I know...FoxNews -.- lol)
So gun crime went up after the gun ban was put in place. Well that's not the ideal outcome they wanted, is it?
Good enough?
3) This isn't about liking or disliking government policy. The citizens aren't going to go in an uproar over the government's decisions dealing with Pakistan. And I really am amazed people continue to act like government's never turn on their citizens...even in some of the more "developed" nations, you're not immune to this. Like I said, it's happened hundreds of times in history, is happening at the moment in some places, and is going to happen in the future. Government, in general, corrupts people. Too much power corrupts people. And to be frank, I will not put 100% trust in them and hope they never turn on citizens. That's naive to me.
I'm all for sitting down and figuring out how to get along better. But pure statistics show banning guns has nothing to do with that. If you want to better society (from a US standpoint), you look at the public school system and recognize it's designed for the 1950s and you see people dropping out in 10th grade because little of what they're learning relates to 2008. You look at the gap between classes and realize there is resentment among those who can barely put food on the table when they look at somebody pulling in 2 million a year. You look at the level of poverty in this country, which ties into the lack of fundamental education and the gaps between classes. And this lack of education and load of poverty leads to people having to commit crime in order to get by. You look at a citizenry that feels like their government doesn't care about them, like they're being ignored. And they lose that sense of a collective community because they're so caught up in just trying to make it through the day. They lose respect for their fellow citizens and they see no problem with committing crimes against them, because after all, survival is the most important thing...and since they don't think anyone is going to help them, they take it upon themselves and do whatever they feel necessary to survive.
And that's just scraping the top of the problem. Yelling "ban guns, ban guns and crime will be solved" is lazy thinking...and simply put, false.
You forget one main purpose of civilian ownership of weapons: a last defense against a corrupt government. Although most of those pictures would be a little overkill for personal ownership (especially ICBM's), it should be conceivable for the people of the country to stage a revolution and overthrow the government. That is, after all, how the country got started in the first place... Established methods for changing the government should be tried first, but not all things can really be fixed. I forget which one of the founding fathers said that empires need a revolution once every 80 years or so, to protect them from the effects of government overgrowth and corruption (which we are having ever increasing problems with now)... There needs to be a last recourse available, and recent troubling signs would seem to indicate that the time to use it may be approaching.
