WolfmanHarris Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) ...and how many murders would happen by other means or illegally procured guns regardless of if the second amendment existed? On the other hand, there is plenty of case law saying that the police are under no duty to protect any specific individual. As I said. Not anti-gun. But the assertions made by Eric with regards to crime rates compared to the US in countries with strict gun control or in US cities with stricter local control were flat out false. Not to mention the ominous sign of a debate about to go far astray, the mention of Hitler/Nazis. Edit: Reread and removed my original last sentence. Came off cranky and nasty, which was unintended. Sorry. Edited May 7, 2009 by docharris
CBEMT Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 Apparently he missed the center mass (highlight the black box in my first post). His control is fine, he just needs to upgrade the caliber so the target is put down instead of retaining the ability to shoot back, run away, and die tired down the block.
Lone Star Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) I'm not anti-gun, but I am anti-wrong facts. Please take a look at this link for murder rates per capita and see how the US compares to the rest of the world. Although looking closely those numbers are dated. I'll try to find more up to date ones in a sec. Edit: Couldn't, in the time I was willing to put into this, find a better source than wiki. But here are some more current murder rates for around the world. Also take a look at this page of crime stats for the US by city. Specifically review violent crime, murder and manslaughter, robbery and forcible rape. I think you'll be surprised to see (as I was) that LA and NYC sit fairly low in the rates per capita. In fact it seems to me that there's a fairly diverse cross section of cities above them in terms of size and whether they're above or below the Mason-Dixon. Cheers, - Matt Your list of murder rates around the world was more of a surprise for me. With all the shaking of fists and the gnashing of teeth while the US is proclaimed one of the most uncivilized countries with such a high murder rate due to the proclivity of personal firearms, it seems that the US ranks WAYYYY down on the list! Guess we're not as violent as some of the other parts of the 'civilized world', hey? Edited May 8, 2009 by Lone Star
Katiebug Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 I contend that criminals are far less likely to victimize people that will shoot back. I also contend that a people that wish to maintain a system of self government and self representation must maintain the right to bear arms.
tskstorm Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 I contend that criminals are far less likely to victimize people that will shoot back. Have you asked a criminal this ? How could you possibly know this ? If this was true why are there so many gang retaliation shootings? If everyone carries hand guns, criminals will carry around machine guns, if everyone carries machine guns they will carry something larger ... etc.... Again I sit on the fence when it comes to gun control, I see arguments from both sides, but your contention seems quite ridiculous without some way of backing it up.
Dustdevil Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 Statistics back it up, time and time again, in every state that it is studied. And gang retaliation is not crime. It is warfare. Warfare and crime are not comparable entities, despite what Osama Obama says. The rules are different. If you took away the warfare deaths from gang and drug violence in this country, and counted only those crimes that are not related, the numbers would drop to almost immeasurable levels. And that drop would happen regardless of gun numbers because, as simple as it seems, guns don't kill people. Now, the question is, why is it that the same politicians who are always pushing for more gun laws are the same politicians who are always fighting tougher criminal justice policies for violent criminals?
WolfmanHarris Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 Have you asked a criminal this ? How could you possibly know this ? If this was true why are there so many gang retaliation shootings? If everyone carries hand guns, criminals will carry around machine guns, if everyone carries machine guns they will carry something larger ... etc.... Again I sit on the fence when it comes to gun control, I see arguments from both sides, but your contention seems quite ridiculous without some way of backing it up. Very good point. Street gangs do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time shooting at each other.
Lone Star Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 I contend that criminals are far less likely to victimize people that will shoot back. I also contend that a people that wish to maintain a system of self government and self representation must maintain the right to bear arms. Well said! Statistics back it up, time and time again, in every state that it is studied. And gang retaliation is not crime. It is warfare. Warfare and crime are not comparable entities, despite what Osama Obama says. The rules are different. If you took away the warfare deaths from gang and drug violence in this country, and counted only those crimes that are not related, the numbers would drop to almost immeasurable levels. And that drop would happen regardless of gun numbers because, as simple as it seems, guns don't kill people. Now, the question is, why is it that the same politicians who are always pushing for more gun laws are the same politicians who are always fighting tougher criminal justice policies for violent criminals? When the state of Michigan first proposed legislation that was supportive of concealed carry, the 'Brady Bunch' and other anti gunner groups cried '...it will cause the streets to run red with blood', 'and that it would 'elevate crime rates to astronomical proportions'. They also predicted that it would revert us back to the 'old west', where there would be shootouts happening on a continual basis. The first year that the legislation was enacted, a study by the Michigan State Police showed that violent crime actually DROPPED 10% for the period studied and compared to the same period a year prior to the enactment of the legislation. As far as prisons go, they're not a 'deterrent', and they WONT ever be a 'deterrent' as long as we continue to acquiese to the prisoners! Prison inmates live better than some of the 'law abiding' people in this country! Yeah, we may HAVE to feed them, clothe them, and provide basic medical care...but theres NOTHING in the constitution that guarantees an inmate 'recreational equipment', cable television, etc! Face it; if you're in prison, you're there because you did something that broke the 'rules' of a civilized community. You do NOT require gym quality exercise equipment, cable television, or 'snacks' to survive! You don't NEED frizbees in prison to live! Until we actually make prison a true 'punishment' again, it will NEVER have the 'deterrent effect' that it used have.
Recommended Posts