Convivea
Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: bosoxfan on October 04, 2006, 12:35:20 pm
-
Do you think it is wise to allow citizens to legally carry a firearm in the US or anywhere else? Is it a basic right to be able to protect ourselves, or would banning guns effectively protect us even more? And is it realistic to ban guns, since lawbreakers would still have them?
I think this is an issue where there is no yes or no answer because of all of the variables, but I'll ask anyway..
-
I think banning guns would be pointless, other weapons would be used instead. Britain today is a prime example of this, guns are banned so we go around stabbing or beating people to death instead. The homicide rates in our inner cities are comparable to those observed in the states. Besides even if guns were banned an illegal trade of them would crop up to fill the gap and create more crime in the process, despite the ban here will still have gun crime.
-
I think banning guns would be pointless, other weapons would be used instead. Britain today is a prime example of this, guns are banned so we go around stabbing or beating people to death instead. The homicide rates in our inner cities are comparable to those observed in the states. Besides even if guns were banned an illegal trade of them would crop up to fill the gap and create more crime in the process, despite the ban here will still have gun crime.
That's only true in the sense that everything is 'comparable' to everything else. You may go around stabbing and beating people to death, but I would say in that case you are in the minority.
Have you seen the difference in gun crime statistics between the U.S and the U.K, it's huge. There are about as many guns in the U.S as there are people, illegal trade does not reach those levels in western countries when guns are banned.
-
I think banning guns would be pointless, other weapons would be used instead. Britain today is a prime example of this, guns are banned so we go around stabbing or beating people to death instead. The homicide rates in our inner cities are comparable to those observed in the states. Besides even if guns were banned an illegal trade of them would crop up to fill the gap and create more crime in the process, despite the ban here will still have gun crime.
That's only true in the sense that everything is 'comparable' to everything else. You may go around stabbing and beating people to death, but I would say in that case you are in the minority.
Have you seen the difference in gun crime statistics between the U.S and the U.K, it's huge. There are about as many guns in the U.S as there are people, illegal trade does not reach those levels in western countries when guns are banned.
No you may have missed the point here while our GUN CRIMES may be a lot lower our homicide rates are NOT. This means despite the ban on guns people still get murdered just as often here as they do in the states regardless if its done by a gun. As for the other, not sure what you are getting at but people who commit crimes are always the minority, unless you speak of war. People determined to commit a crime will always do so, if doing through one means is difficult they will revert to another... my point....
Guns are NOTthe problem
-
Sadly, it's a sign of the times in UK....more guns are being smuggled in than ever was before.
the only thing that might curtail it is by severe penalties for anyone caught with a gun, let alone ppl using one >:(
-
I think banning guns would be pointless, other weapons would be used instead. Britain today is a prime example of this, guns are banned so we go around stabbing or beating people to death instead. The homicide rates in our inner cities are comparable to those observed in the states. Besides even if guns were banned an illegal trade of them would crop up to fill the gap and create more crime in the process, despite the ban here will still have gun crime.
That's only true in the sense that everything is 'comparable' to everything else. You may go around stabbing and beating people to death, but I would say in that case you are in the minority.
Have you seen the difference in gun crime statistics between the U.S and the U.K, it's huge. There are about as many guns in the U.S as there are people, illegal trade does not reach those levels in western countries when guns are banned.
No you may have missed the point here while our GUN CRIMES may be a lot lower our homicide rates are NOT. This means despite the ban on guns people still get murdered just as often here as they do in the states regardless if its done by a gun. As for the other, not sure what you are getting at but people who commit crimes are always the minority, unless you speak of war. People determined to commit a crime will always do so, if doing through one means is difficult they will revert to another... my point....
Guns are NOTthe problem
I didn't miss your point, I was just too subtle about mine.
We don't have the same homicide rates, every statistic I've seen shows that taken in to account of population we have about 1/3 - 1/4 the homicide rate. So please provide factual evidence rather than stuff you just made up.
Furthermore, the statistics I've seen put non-gun related homicide rates at lower than the U.S, as well as gun-related homicide rates significantly lower.
-
Got to love these Republicans...
Wis. lawmaker urges arming teachers
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MADISON, Wis. -- A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent.
It might not be politically correct, but it has worked effectively in other countries, Republican Rep. Frank Lasee said Wednesday.
"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_School_Weapons.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_School_Weapons.html)
-
Just a little footnote fom a few years ago.
http://www.guninformation.org/
cheers
-
with guns in school, who would need to bring a gun with them in order to shoot up a school. I'd just grab one off the cop and start a rampage.... that is like saying to the people, "No need to buy a gun, just take one here." School is supposed to be a saf haven from violence by teaching kids to do good. Not giving them the old, "do as I say but not as I do." bull...
-kyopedlr
-
I think banning guns would be pointless, other weapons would be used instead. Britain today is a prime example of this, guns are banned so we go around stabbing or beating people to death instead. The homicide rates in our inner cities are comparable to those observed in the states. Besides even if guns were banned an illegal trade of them would crop up to fill the gap and create more crime in the process, despite the ban here will still have gun crime.
That's only true in the sense that everything is 'comparable' to everything else. You may go around stabbing and beating people to death, but I would say in that case you are in the minority.
Have you seen the difference in gun crime statistics between the U.S and the U.K, it's huge. There are about as many guns in the U.S as there are people, illegal trade does not reach those levels in western countries when guns are banned.
No you may have missed the point here while our GUN CRIMES may be a lot lower our homicide rates are NOT. This means despite the ban on guns people still get murdered just as often here as they do in the states regardless if its done by a gun. As for the other, not sure what you are getting at but people who commit crimes are always the minority, unless you speak of war. People determined to commit a crime will always do so, if doing through one means is difficult they will revert to another... my point....
Guns are NOTthe problem
I didn't miss your point, I was just too subtle about mine.
We don't have the same homicide rates, every statistic I've seen shows that taken in to account of population we have about 1/3 - 1/4 the homicide rate. So please provide factual evidence rather than stuff you just made up.
Furthermore, the statistics I've seen put non-gun related homicide rates at lower than the U.S, as well as gun-related homicide rates significantly lower.
I find it amusing you arrogantly assume I have made stuff up then go on to put down some statistics without citing any sources thus perpetuating what you accuse me of... ::)
But very well let me explain why I'm of the opinion that guns are not the problem..
1) In the NEW YORK POST circa 14th June to 8th July 2006 (I dont have the article but I'm sure you can request an online copy of it) there was a coloumn on Guliani Cleaning up new york city and within they illustrated that despite new york having the same population as London you were up to 8 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime in London, this inluded muggings along with homicide.
2) Found a similar article in the Anmerican spectator on the web... I quote
"Recently total crime rates for London have been estimated at about seven times those of New York for a slightly smaller population and some authorities suggest these figures have been minimized. England and Wales are now accounted by some estimates as the most dangerous places for crime in the developed world.
New York and London have populations of 8 million and 7 million respectively and comparable police budgets"
"In 2002 a study found that 11 million crimes had been left out of British government figures, including hundreds of thousands of serious crimes involving woundings, robberies, assaults and even murders as well as thefts. Dr. David Green of the Civitas research institute said: "When you check the small print, it turns out the Home Office itself thinks that there were far more than the 13 million crimes discovered by the [official] British Crime Survey, perhaps four times as many."
SOURCE :http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9641
3) SWITZERLAND (one word) do I really need to say anymore... give more sources as on this there would be many, this is also one country of several with a high gun ownership per populus percantage and low homicide percantage per populus. This example I regard as common knowledge however if you want sources I would be happy to provide. Finland is another example...
I'm not saying gun ownership doesn't contribute to homicide rates, just that it is not the main problem behind the issue. It's an opinion I made based on articles I read and statistics I've seen NOT made up... while the UK overall may have lower homicide rates, the rates observed in our inner cities is arguably comparable. In New York guns have not been banned but the homicide rate is lower than London, where guns have been banned.
-
I quote Kujo:
"This means despite the ban on guns people still get murdered just as often here as they do in the states regardless if its done by a gun."
You weren't talking about "violent crimes" there, you were talking about murders. None of the things you quote there are specific to murders. You seem to be both trying to say I am wrong and yet conceding your point, I quote you again:
"the UK overall may have lower homicide rates"
Of course I am my argument isn't valid for this different topic you just decide to insert in to the conversation, but then I was sticking to the topic at hand.
-
I quote Kujo:
"This means despite the ban on guns people still get murdered just as often here as they do in the states regardless if its done by a gun."
You weren't talking about "violent crimes" there, you were talking about murders. None of the things you quote there are specific to murders. You seem to be both trying to say I am wrong and yet conceding your point, I quote you again:
"the UK overall may have lower homicide rates"
Of course I am my argument isn't valid for this different topic you just decide to insert in to the conversation, but then I was sticking to the topic at hand.
Ok fair enough its not specific to murders but murders attribute to violent crime stats, which is why I referenced this in the discussion. I used the word MAY in my last statment because there is nothing to indicate the pattern doesn't include homicides as well only the possibility that it MAY not. Based on popular crime trends a rise in violent crime is mirrored by a rise in homicide. However I'm open minded and if you could demonstrate with a credible source that the homicide rates are lower in London than NYC I MAY have to revise my opinion and I would have to acknowledge that my quotes are not accurate reflections of my main point. I live to learn....
-
I think NYC and London are bad comparisons for a number of reasons. Lets compare the U.K and the U.S.
Here are some statistics from 1997 and 1999:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
If murder rates mirrors violent crime then these statistics wouldn't be drastically different. Same stats here but with less info: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#rest
-
I remember reading an article about this a few months ago. It brought up an interesting point saying that the US was screwed either way, and compared it to Japan. Japan having a large population the same as the USA had a much much much less rate of murders/injuries through the use of guns. It said that this was probably because guns were always illegal in Japan where in the US they have always been legal. Now the problem is because they ALWAYS have been legal, because if you ban them now, all of the 'good' citizens will give up their guns and then the only people left with them will be the 'bad guys' or 'criminals' who would have used them the same in the first place... lose-lose situation.
-
I think NYC and London are bad comparisons for a number of reasons. Lets compare the U.K and the U.S.
Here are some statistics from 1997 and 1999:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
If murder rates mirrors violent crime then these statistics wouldn't be drastically different. Same stats here but with less info: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#rest
Both were good reads and while New York and London were just one example that doesn't necessarily reflect the rest of the world I used it in conjunction with the statement that our homicide rates in inner cities are comparable to theirs, it is one example of several, there are many american cities that have more homicides than english ones, I point this out as to me it appears as though the fact there are guns available are not whats making an impact on the homicides. Your sources while useful seem to indicate though above anything else there is no direct corelation between gun ownership and crime. The first shows a number of countries where the homicide rate is higher than the states yet the populous own fewer guns per head than the united states Eg mexico). And while it does illustrate that the overall homicide rate of the UK is indeed lower, there is equally nothing to suggest that guns are the contributing cause. I WILL concede that we have fewer homicides overall but still am not convinced that the gun argument is to blame. Infact your second source has a good point which suggests this is probably not the case:
"Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals. "
This leads me to believe that the issue of high homicide is completely separate from gun ownership of the populous. This is once again when taking another look at switzerland as an example (there were a few other within your 1st source). Personally I believe its social conditions that create high homicide rates but that a different subject entirely. In any case let me know what you think..
-
Oh I agree entirely. I think local variables of individual nations play a much bigger factor than what % of people who have guns. But I've not tried to make a point otherwise, neither have I argued that guns should be banned in the U.S.
However, I do think gun avalability plays an issue in what 'type' of crimes occur, take the number of school shootings in the U.K vs. the U.S for example. I'm quite happy knowing that it's not likely that some person on the bus with me has a gun, maybe I'm living in some naive world where it's not needed for people to carry around highly leathal machines designed to kill people, but I really like that world.
-
Oh I agree entirely. I think local variables of individual nations play a much bigger factor than what % of people who have guns. But I've not tried to make a point otherwise, neither have I argued that guns should be banned in the U.S.
However, I do think gun availability plays an issue in what 'type' of crimes occur, take the number of school shootings in the U.K vs. the U.S for example. I'm quite happy knowing that it's not likely that some person on the bus with me has a gun, maybe I'm living in some naive world where it's not needed for people to carry around highly lethal machines designed to kill people, but I really like that world.
But there are still weapons being brought into the schools in the UK, there has been a recent media frenzy about pupils bringing in knives and attacking other pupils and staff with them at schools. Knife culture here is worse than it is in the states and knife attacks are much more common cause of homicide here. Naturally the world would be a better place with guns used in sport or hunting but saldy this is not the case. If there were no guns at all in our society or US society the crimes would still occur with other weapons or items that could be used offensively...
"Home Office statistics which show that 1,200 reported attacks occurred last year and 30 per cent of homicides were caused by knife injury."
SOURCE : http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/article_1203895.php/Serious_knife_crime_increasing
"Of the 839 homicides in England and Wales in the 12 months ending Nov. 28 — the most recent period for which Home Office figures are available — 29% involved sharp instruments including knives, blades and swords. Firearms account for just 9% of murders in Britain"
"The U.S. murder rate is 55 per million, according to the FBI. Of those, 70% of murders were committed with firearms; just 14% involved knives or cutting instruments"
SOURCE : http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-30-knife-amnesty_x.htm
If there were anti-gun laws in the states I'd be willing to bet my liver that the percentage of knife crimes would increase dramatically. My first source includes several successfully implemented ideas for combating bad behavior and crime in schools but nothing will eliminate it.
-
First of all "recent media frenzy" is rarely respective of real trends.
Who said anything about eliminating it? Of course knife crime would go up if guns were harder to get hold, remove a gun from a criminal and they are still probabily going to be a criminal. I'm not debating otherwise...
-
First of all "recent media frenzy" is rarely respective of real trends.
Who said anything about eliminating it? Of course knife crime would go up if guns were harder to get hold, remove a gun from a criminal and they are still probably going to be a criminal. I'm not debating otherwise...
I said media frenzy because its whatever they think is a good story to report at the time but home office figures do show that knife crime is on the rise despite the amnesty. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, the debate is wether banning guns would be the answer in the US so far based on what I've observed I'm skeptical it'd work.
-
If you want to think of it from a paranoid citizens viewpoint you might say that we should have the right to guns just incase we need to revolt? :-D
It would kind of suck if only the military and police had access to firearms in that case eh?
I don't really care either way.
-
It's not like it matters, its in the constitution. Its one of our rights, and it will always be that way till the downfall of America.
-
It's not like it matters, its in the constitution. Its one of our rights, and it will always be that way till the downfall of America.
It was an amendment. That means they messed up in the original, so they added it later. We've added and taken away plenty of things. Also, the wording of it in the original drafts implied that people were allowed to form armed militias.
I can kind of understand people wanting guns for hunting and personal defense. However, there are people who get upset about assault rifles being banned. Do you really need to spray bullets at deer? How often are you going to need to pull out an automatic to take care of that mugger?
I doubt will see any strong gun bans any time soon, and I'm not sure how effective they will be, but I'd rather lose the right to carry a deadly weapon than risk letting a potentially suicidal guy carry one. Why do we even need guns? Aren't tasers safer and just as effective?
-
It's not like it matters, its in the constitution. Its one of our rights, and it will always be that way till the downfall of America.
It was an amendment. That means they messed up in the original, so they added it later. We've added and taken away plenty of things. Also, the wording of it in the original drafts implied that people were allowed to form armed militias.
I can kind of understand people wanting guns for hunting and personal defense. However, there are people who get upset about assault rifles being banned. Do you really need to spray bullets at deer? How often are you going to need to pull out an automatic to take care of that mugger?
I doubt will see any strong gun bans any time soon, and I'm not sure how effective they will be, but I'd rather lose the right to carry a deadly weapon than risk letting a potentially suicidal guy carry one. Why do we even need guns? Aren't tasers safer and just as effective?
Amen, deckkeeper
cheers