It would be interesting to see a poll with just results from American CP'ers.
Why? Because it would likely validate your point?
That's like saying "I think the Vancouver Canucks will win the cup!, my conclusion is based on this poll I did consisting of only Vancouver Canucks fans"
At 5:30 in the morning someone is trying to break into an 89 years old womens home. She calls the police, but the burglar enters the home before they arrive.
She fires at the burglar, misses him, but it causes him to run away. How does she know she just didnt save her own life? Perhaps the man would of stabbed, choked, beat her to death, etc.
Its situations like this that show why its important for home owners if they wish to have a gun.
Trouble is 9 times out of 10 it isn't a burgler, it is her drunk son who lost his keys and the wife won't let him in so ends up staggering to mums at 4am only to get shot.
I could care less about guns but statistically they are good for nothing as a means of protection. most people can't find them when they need them or can't shoot them when they have them and end getting shot themselves.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
This has got to be one of the most overused phrases ever, yet I don't fully understand the point of it.
Yah, in the end, it's the person pulling the trigger who killed the other person. But guess what? Having access to that loaded weapon allowed for the person to easily kill the other person. Oftentimes, it's not even the intent of the gun carrier. It probably just happened because adrenaline affected rational thought. You can't argue that having a gun increases the likelyhood of death, whether intentional or not.
Responsible gun owners should be allowed to have guns.
Criminals who have guns likely didnt get them legally.
Responsible gun owners likely wouldnt use a gun unless they were using it for self defence.
Criminals would use guns to try and harm others.
If Responsible gun owners were no longer allowed to have guns, Criminals would still have them and would be able to know have a clear advantage.
That's like saying "I think the Vancouver Canucks will win the cup!, my conclusion is based on this poll I did consisting of only Vancouver Canucks fans"
Not a fair comparison..its an American Law. Its there opinions that truly matters in the subject.
But sure why not poll all of CP if thats what you want.
It proves that having a gun in your house can possibly prevent an intruder from harming you.
Shes 87 years old. Theres not much more she could of done to defend herself. The cops were called, didnt arrive in time, and the intruder would of came right after her.
No it proves that if you are going to break into a house in the states you'd better take a shotgun and couple of homies, get good and drunk for courage and then shot the old lady first.
Responsible gun owners should be allowed to have guns.
Criminals who have guns likely didnt get them legally. Responsible gun owners likely wouldnt use a gun unless they were using it for self defence.
Criminals would use guns to try and harm others.
If Responsible gun owners were no longer allowed to have guns, Criminals would still have them and would be able to know have a clear advantage.
I disagree. Hunters and target shooters use them for different reasons.
No it proves that if you are going to break into a house in the states you'd better take a shotgun and couple of homies, get good and drunk for courage and then shot the old lady first.
Thats not even relevent to the situation.
Nice try though.
If thats someones intent theres not much the old lady would be able to do, gun or not.
I disagree. Hunters and target shooters use them for different reasons.
Ok fine, I was basically taking about human/human interaction. But I guess you're correct when it comes to Hunters and target shooters, although there intent is not to harm human beings.
Thats not even relevent to the situation.
Nice try though.
If thats someones intent theres not much the old lady would be able to do, gun or not.
Having spent a lifetime working in the criminal justice system I can tell you criminals are going to break into homes no matter whether you have a gun or not, in fact I have worked with kids that broke into house's specifically to steal guns they knew were in the home, so if everyone has guns it means criminals will just arm themselves better and shoot first, in a robbery the criminal always has the advantage whether you both have guns or not.
Having spent a lifetime working in the criminal justice system I can tell you criminals are going to break into homes no matter whether you have a gun or not, in fact I have worked with kids that broke into house's specifically to steal guns they knew were in the home, so if everyone has guns it means criminals will just arm themselves better and shoot first, in a robbery the criminal always has the advantage whether you both have guns or not.
How?
A person entering a home that they are not familiar with is at a disadvantage imo.....
Like i said, im a little intrigued about who in this thread has shot firearms (those that havent stated).
Having done it, you realize the severity of the power of a firearm. The fact that some people take that power so lightly is what concerns me.
I don't take it lightly, and none of my gun-owning friends take it lightly either. We all follow the rules and nobody gets hurt.
The people you are talking about are a real slim minority.
I like to go down to the local range and shoot skeets. That is where you get a feel for your average gun owner. There are people from all walks of life, and there were even pre-teen kids that were quite good at it. There was a couple who actually brought an infant baby along to their skeet stations and put little ear muffs on him......anyways the point is gun owners by and large are highly responsible, good people.
A person entering a home that they are not familiar with is at a disadvantage imo.....
I think it may be because the criminal has already mentally committed to what they are doing. They could reach the decision to use their weapon faster than some person who's just woken up to a strange noise, is still half asleep, that sort of thing.
The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
The people who defend guns can look at this and STFU. I am a gun owner, but I would understand and applaud if they were removed from society:
You're telling me (the idiots who say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people') that the guns figure would be replaced by "knife and pen murders"? I think not. There are numerous studies that show people don't kill at near the frequency with weapons other than guns.
This is where I agree with the guns don't kill people ... group. its not the guns, tis the fact that guns REMOVE YOU from the act of murder. It's easy to kill someone with a gun and it removes you from teh intimacy of murder. Shooting someone is easy, attacking them with a knife is NOT.
Look at the murder rate in the USA - it is FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT GREATER than countries with strict gun control, liek Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Japan, etc.
this PROVES that the EASE of murdering witha gun versus a not-gun makes people kill more, as compared to if they didnt have guns.
Get rid of guns.
Last edited by THE SCUD; 04-19-2011 at 07:59 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to THE SCUD For This Useful Post:
It seems that our obsession with sugar and flour is nearly as lethal as our love for guns.
The U.S. is not your average nation. America has many huge cities with very poor, drug ravaged inner city neighborhoods. They are also in a steep economic decline in the last 3 years, resulting in general unrest.
These densly populated areas attract gangs and gun violence, and these murders do not under any circumstance represent your average gun owner.
It is obvious that guns are inherently dangerous. When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Guns are not going away, so the best thing to do at this point is encourage better standards of education and behavior. It can be done, and I think here in Canada we do a pretty good job of it.
When I think of gun ownership in general, I don't even think of the occasional accidents or violence that will come from it, but the more long-term purpose that citizen gun ownership was meant for, the possibility of having to fight tyranny as per 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."
this PROVES that the EASE of murdering witha gun versus a not-gun makes people kill more, as compared to if they didnt have guns.
Woah Nelly!
I wouldn't be using caps lock just yet...
I would suggest that you research the prevalence and the ease of acquisition for firearms in all those countries. Take Colombia for instance: do you think it's "easy" to acquire a gun to begin with? Most certainly not (think: economics). Though one might speculate that drug cartels and their representative demographic's relative ease of acquisition of firearms contributes to a disproportionate amount of homicide among the population.
Still, you are not proving anything. You have a point, and I don't necessarily disagree with it... I just think it's myopic. There exists a correlation (perhaps), though it would require some additional research to determine the prevalence of guns in comparative countries.
Don't posit your argument as a causal relationship - respect it for it's limits. The suspect maxim "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is at least partially true and I suggest that your opinion heeds it.
Many people are offering their interpretations of the various social, cultural, or economic conditions that promote gun violence and related homicides. Within most of these are some reasonable points, though mostly conjectural.
It's just a tad more complex than "gun = inclination to murder"
I can't speak for a person in the US in regards to their personal safety. I used to say those stupid yanks and their guns, frankly I just got tired of the arguement. I don't live in their world and I guess I shouldn't guess how safe or not safe they may feel factual or not.
All I can speak for is myself and my community. To me it is a risk vs risk and I just don't see the reward of safety for an extremely rare event of a violent home invasion happening in a greater frequency than the odds of something happening with a handgun in my neighborhood. I may feel that I can be a responsible gun owner but I can't speak for my neighbor who is in firing rang of the people I care about.
IMHO in my community a need for more guns would only increase the chance of harm, self defence or not, not lower it.
PS: Wasp spray is a great defence as it is just as bad as bear spray and you can shoot it a greater and more directional distance.
The vast majority of people murdered are killed by their family and friends, not black men breaking in, these are normal law abiding gun owners, up until their marriage falls apart and they decide to shoot the wife and then themselves.
Guns don't protect citizens from oppresive goverements, the USSR throughout communism had millions of guns in its citizens hands, nor does it protect people against crime, if it did the US would be the safest most non criminal place of earth.
Guns don't protect citizens from oppresive goverements, the USSR throughout communism had millions of guns in its citizens hands, nor does it protect people against crime, if it did the US would be the safest most non criminal place of earth.
Stalin was famous for imposing gun control from 1929 on....
Same with, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Tze Tung, Pol Pot, Castro the list goes on.....
"Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year."
"Other studies give similar results. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year. A 1986 study by Hart Research Associates puts the upper limit at 3.2 million."
"Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.
States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent."
The Following User Says Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
