Thread: Unconstitutional Action and Gun Laws

Originally Posted by gregs656

Stubear, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests arming a society reduces crime.

Limiting gun access does not reduce crime

The second paragraph reads:

"Places where handgun carry is more common are better off for it. FBI statistics illustrate the fact that states allowing concealed weapon carry have much lower rates of violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault than states with significant restrictions. Conversely, restricting or eliminating the right to carry inevitably causes gun-related crimes to increase. A perfect example is Australia, where the crime rate was dropping steadily for 25 years prior to 1996, when the government banned private ownership of most guns. Then, in 2000, armed robberies were up 45 percent and gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria were up 300 percent. A law in England that mandated handgun turn-in by 1998 produced similar results; in the five years following, total gun crimes almost doubled and gun homicides increased by 65 percent."

That's in the states.

Find me evidence that a society that was not previously armed, like ours, introduced guns and the crime went down.

It happens sometimes in London. How many people actually die though? After all, any one can buy a shotgun and hold up a place. We still posses the legal right to own a shotgun in this country, do you have one to defend your home with? Do you shoot regularly? Do you own a .22 rimfire and use it?

Originally Posted by gregs656

That's in the states.

Find me evidence that a society that was not previously armed, like ours, introduced guns and the crime went down.

It happens sometimes in London. How many people actually die though? After all, any one can buy a shotgun and hold up a place. We still posses the legal right to own a shotgun in this country, do you have one to defend your home with? Do you shoot regularly? Do you own a .22 rimfire and use it?

Hate to tell you this but your society is armed. Criminals will always be armed, if not with guns with rocks, or even their own fists.

So re-introducing the right of self-defense will make crime go down. You do realize that if a guy breaks into your house and you hit him with a frying pan, to keep him from killing you, that under current British law you will go to jail and he will not. Thats just insane.

Beyond getting self defense back guns level the playing field between the physically powerful and the physically weak. Used properly they allow the Grandma to defend her life from the hudlum who would harm her. Nothing more.

Of course they allow any citizen to be the equal of the military or the police and that is what your government is unwilling to allow. They feel they must control and "protect" you because you are incapable of doing it for yourself. Perhaps you are, but I'm not, I don't tolerate babying from my own mother let alone my government.

I dont think a society exists thats never been armed. Once the first person discovered gun powder, its basically been an arms race since then..!

And we are an armed society. The crooks are for sure, and you see police with submachine guns at high profile locations.

It does say in the quote though "A law in England that mandated handgun turn-in by 1998 produced similar results; in the five years following, total gun crimes almost doubled and gun homicides increased by 65 percent." And it also cites Australian stats where gun crime went up after a ban.

Now if we were to increase the presence of guns in society and gun related crime fell, that would rather prove the point that guns prevent crime. But it'll never happen because most people just have the mentality of "guns=bad" and no amount of persuasion will convince them otherwise.

I do shoot regularly, both rifle and shotgun. In fact I've shot target rifle at a national standard and I've been shotgun shooting since I was big enough to pick one up, so I do know what I'm talking about.

I've introduced many people to the sport over the years and not one of them has ever come away thinking shooting and guns should be banned. In fact, I've had friends who have been anti-gun come shooting and go away pro-gun. Most people when they try it realise that we're not a bunch of yahoos shooting up the countryside.

But not everyone can buy a shotgun or rifle. The police vet applicants very thoroughly and you need references from your doctor and other unbiased figures to vouch for you. People like your boss, your lawyer, your dentist, people who know you but would not be biased in your favour. Then the police interview you and examine the location where you plan to keep your weapons, as well as checking where you plan to use it. Any unsatisfactory answers and you wont get your licence.

In terms of deaths, 42 people were killed in 2008 in gun related crime and 15 of them in London. It doesnt sound much, but you try fitting 42 people in your kitchen and you'll see its quite a few!

But most crimes are committed with illegal weapons, usually pistols due to the ease of concealment, which have been illegal since 1998. So the handgun ban worked well then...?

My point is that banning guns doesnt actually prevent crime, it only stops the people who obey the law and criminals generally dont obey the law.

And I do think that most petty crooks would think twice about robbing someone if they knew there was a good chance that their intended victim and/or a passer by would be armed!

There is a difference between wepons for personal defense, and for waging war. I am not against people having guns. But I think there is no reason for civilians to have military grade weapons. There is an army for that purpose.

Originally Posted by Bruno

There is a difference between wepons for personal defense, and for waging war. I am not against people having guns. But I think there is no reason for civilians to have military grade weapons. There is an army for that purpose.

I beg to differ on this one. Look at American history. Who controls the military/army? That's right, the government. If we ever have to wage war against our government AGAIN, we must keep the playing field even. This is how many of us here in the U.S. feel, we wish to keep America "The land of the free and home of the brave".

Originally Posted by shooter74743

I beg to differ on this one. Look at American history. Who controls the military/army? That's right, the government. If we ever have to wage war against our government AGAIN, we must keep the playing field even. This is how many of us here in the U.S. feel, we wish to keep America "The land of the free and home of the brave".

great point..without a level field we would only be slaves and as about effective as ants against a giant anteater. we need to be able to stop an out of control gov't if it comes down to that...(i do agree we do not need nukes for personal use and i do not think the gov't would be stupid enough to use them against the citizens of the country)

Originally Posted by shooter74743

I beg to differ on this one. Look at American history. Who controls the military/army? That's right, the government. If we ever have to wage war against our government AGAIN, we must keep the playing field even. This is how many of us here in the U.S. feel, we wish to keep America "The land of the free and home of the brave".

I used to be amused when friends of mine stockpiled ammunition. I have always kept a small supply but these guys who bought thousands of rounds struck me as a little off the wall. After all, we live in a semi civilized society with laws and law enforcement.

As I grew older and I hope wiser I realized that the thin veneer of civility could be wiped away by unforeseen circumstances and that it could come down to living or dieing based on who got there first with the most. Seems incredible but so did the Soviet Union self destructing and the near crash of the worldwide financial system. If it had gone down the way it could have anarchy might have become the rule rather than the exception.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I used to be amused when friends of mine stockpiled ammunition. I have always kept a small supply but these guys who bought thousands of rounds struck me as a little off the wall. After all, we live in a semi civilized society with laws and law enforcement.

As I grew older and I hope wiser I realized that the thin veneer of civility could be wiped away by unforeseen circumstances and that it could come down to living or dieing based on who got there first with the most. Seems incredible but so did the Soviet Union self destructing and the near crash of the worldwide financial system. If it had gone down the way it could have anarchy might have become the rule rather than the exception.

another thought from the past..we all remember Y2K and the possible chaos that could have happened.. this is where i had a fair amount of stockpile of food items(nothing super big as some did). i also had the firepower to stop anyone trying to take from me and my family and friends.
in other words, it is better to be prepared for what "may" happen and survive, than be completely defenseless and you and your family helpless against any and all "types" of enemies..

Originally Posted by shooter74743

I beg to differ on this one. Look at American history. Who controls the military/army? That's right, the government. If we ever have to wage war against our government AGAIN, we must keep the playing field even. This is how many of us here in the U.S. feel, we wish to keep America "The land of the free and home of the brave".

While I understand the concept, I think it is unrealistic. The only way to enable a small group of militia men to wage war agains the US government itself would be to arm them with all the high end toys that the military has at its disposal.

So that means there are many groups of people with cruise missiles, lots of high explosives, and (why not) nukes and other things.

We've tried that approach in Europe. Lots of independent armies, armed to the teeth, so that noone would invade the others. Guess what: It didn't work.