Gun Control: Good or Bad?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by Zzagg

Oh, OK! If Thomas Jefferson said so, I guess there's no issue any more

Just bumping this thread back to the OP's original topic.

[Zzagg]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Just bumping this thread back to the OP's original topic.

OK, sorry for that.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Gilby

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

YOu have joined a wonderful FAITH! This belief is not supported by science, but who cares. Let's proselytize!

[Peripatet]

Actually, there is a mountain of statistics that at least indicate correlation (dare I even posit, causation?) between strict gun control and increased instance of violent crime.

Ecce:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


. . .That's not even getting into the nuts and bolts of more mundane crimes like homicide, armed robbery, and rape.

[Daytripper63]

Originally Posted by Peripatet

Actually, there is a mountain of statistics that at least indicate correlation (dare I even posit, causation?) between strict gun control and increased instance of violent crime.

Ecce:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


. . .That's not even getting into the nuts and bolts of more mundane crimes like homicide, armed robbery, and rape.

Dont forget Chicago
Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and murders with handguns continued to rise. Its registration system in place, Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982, and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related murders doubled.2

[Zzagg]

OK let's figure out the scenario:
1- The US decide to globaly adopt gun control.
2- Obama suddenly turns into a megalomaniac dictator and decides to get rid of a specific minority, BMX rider, for instance.
=> Do you really think there would be no or less BMXers killed if they still had the right to carry a gun? (fighting against the best army in the world with handguns)
How many BMX riders in the US? sevral thousands? more probably millions don't you think?
You argument is out of context + If you compare death by firearms per inhabitant NOW, I'm pretty sure the US are in the top 5... Far before Turkey or China.
Actually:
"Le taux d'homicide est cinq fois plus élevé aux États-Unis que dans tous les autres pays réunis." source
Wich translate in: The homicide rate is 5 times higher in the USA than in all the other countries gathered.
Is the tiny risk of civil war, or domestic genocide, in the short run less bearable for you than decreasing your death by firearms in the longer run?

[JJuggle]

Originally Posted by Zzagg

Is the tiny risk of civil war, or domestic genocide, in the short run less bearable for you than decreasing your death by firearms in the longer run?

The short answer is yes.

<slightly longer rant>
The general attitude here is that 10, 20 or more deaths caused by accidental shootings is well worth the occasional time a gun happens to be used successfully to thwart a crime. All the better if the would be victim kills rather than wounds the perpetrator. Read the blogs and newsgroups and the majority of the posts will say how much better we all are that the "animal" was killed. That our tax dollars have been saved since no trial is necessary. That the would be victim is a hero.
</slightly longer rant>

[Dingo]

Going back a step, I do think it would have been best if this thread had not mentioned the race of the "group" members. However, although I dont really know the demographic of the area he was in, if I were to see a group of 20 people all with the same skin color, regardless of what it was, I would assume that race was a uniting factor for them. As such, I can sort of see why he felt the need to mention their skin color, and why he may have felt a little more threatened. Regardless, the harsh undertones are undue, even if unintended.

Anyways, back to gun control....

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
The Sheriff here in my county fully supports concealed weapons permits. Statistics have shown that less than 1% of the permits issued have had to be revoked. It is not the law abiding citizens who are willing to go through the process of earning these permits that you have to worry about, but instead the outlaws who would retain their weapons even in the event that a ban were enacted. This country is saturated with firearms, and since there is no magic button that can be pressed to make them all disappear, banning firearms would make sure that guns are only in the hands of those who should not have them.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by Zzagg

2- Obama suddenly turns into a megalomaniac dictator and decides to get rid of a specific minority, BMX rider, for instance.

Sudden? No, he was voted into that position. Just the realization by some that he is a megalomaniac dictator may be sudden.

Originally Posted by Zzagg

Is the tiny risk of civil war, or domestic genocide, in the short run less bearable for you than decreasing your death by firearms in the longer run?

Your assumption that gun control decreases death by firearms is at dispute.

Civil war and genocide are not tiny risks. Statism, the belief that government has broad powers to use force against citizens, has killed more people in the last century than the total of all individual non-government murders in the history of the world. When the government's murderers come to your door to murder you, you might have little chance against them, but being armed will give you at least some chance, and the ability of your community all being able to arm themselves and form a resistance will increase the chances that those murderers never make it to your door. Murder is only one of the many crimes of the State, add to that the mass theft, imprisonment, and torture, done by the State and no other source of death and destruction can compare to that of the State. Do you really want to support these criminal organizations in disarming you and your neighbors?

Contrary to many people's ignorance, the US is not immune to civil war, or genocide. It's not a tiny risk, especially now when the US empire is on the edge of collapse.

[Peripatet]

MMMMM. . .fuel for the fire

[lunicycle]

Originally Posted by Peripatet

MMMMM. . .fuel for the fire

hmm for which fire... good or bad?

[Peripatet]

Could be both. . .

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

YOu have joined a wonderful FAITH! This belief is not supported by science, but who cares. Let's proselytize!

Ah yes. Faith is a beautiful thing, especially faith in Science.

Faith comes when people don't understand Science, like when they cannot distinguish correlation from causality.

Faith in Science: A beautiful thing.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by ThisGuyIKnow

But again I'm done. Creating discussion of this pertinent issue is all I can do. People have to open their eyes for themselves.

I haven't seen these sorts of lines since back when the forum was overrun with 9/11 threads. Perhaps you'll have better luck with them than Shaun did.

[Into the blue]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I haven't seen these sorts of lines since back when the forum was overrun with 9/11 threads. Perhaps you'll have better luck with them than Shaun did.

Zing!