How To Argue For Gun Control.

I am not against citizens having access to heavy weapons ...BUT...I would be ok if the law was only handguns and shotguns and hunting rifles.
So you are making a jump on Needing more than a handgun. If you can use it well then a shotgun wouldn't be any better.
For people who don't use a gun as well. They still deserve to protect themselves at home.

 

Pen

Yeah had that reply before as well –

First it is again all about fear and intimidation.

Anyway - One person been afraid they might be attacked by someone with a knife gets a guns another realising other now have guns and been afraid they might be attacked by someone with a gun also gets a gun.

So you get more guns in your society, greater ease of access to very lethal weapons and the greater likelihood that those guns will fall into the hands of criminals or the irresponsible creating greater fear fuelling the desire for more guns, bigger guns, carry guns everywhere….

Wouldn’t it be better to work towards a society where people were not so frightened that they felt the need for lethal weapons to protect themselves from their fellow citizens?

 

This is what I was reffering to.


US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57

That's non firearm related homicide. And another thing to consider is that England doesn't count a mirder unless there's a conviction.

 

Do you have evidence for this? When Florida passed its shall issue law did the criminals stepped it up to shotguns?

 

According to the CDC's own site it says that 80% of gun homocides and I believe homicides in general are gang related.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

 

I've provided sources for my argument. You came in telling me I'm a problem for sticking to my side of the argument. I'm asking you to please prove me wrong. And if you really feel that way then why even comment in the first place?

 

I'll concede to the fact that it was taken out of context but what's wrong with carrying an AK in Walmart? When I was in Alaska I saw someone walking down the road in front our house with his wife, baby, and an AK slung over his shoulder and the only thought I had was "cool, he's excercising his second amendment rights". I've seen plenty of people open carrying pistols and thought the same thing.

Pistols are in fact used more often in both normal gun crimes and mass shootings. It's the big black scary "assault" rifle that gets all the attention.

I've never claimed that. I do think that the more people armed the less crime will be committed. Take for example Florida. When they passed the shall issue law crime went down.

You're probably going to empty your mag within the first 2-3 seconds if you even have that long. Plus you're most likely going to spray in a rather narrow cone. You'll be putting lots of bullets into a few guys. By then those people who had there backs toward you would draw and fire. Also you'll be pretty stupid to want to attempt it in the first place if you knew there were twenty armed citizens there. As heartless as it may sound even if you managed to kill four people in the first round four people is better than 50.

 

Ok.

Ok.

First place that's not true. Pistols are used more in mass shootings. The VT shooter used ten round mags and pistols and committed the second largest shooting in America. Second what do you mean by the first step? What's your next step?

Wait, you were asking for a mass shooting stopped by an "assault rifle"?

 

Balbus. Yes I agree. Taking the fear out of the equation is the ideal situation.
And when criminals don't know who is carrying a concealed weapon I feel very safe.

 

It's simple, Mac. You've identified with something that I see as "the wrong team". You're into guns. ok.. You're also spreading the word about the second amendment... ok! =)

You're standing up for assault weapons... not ok.

 

Criminals usually hide their weapons for the eliment of surprise. Very few mass shooters ever exploit open carry so your concern is statistically unfounded. Also if more people carry, whether openly or concealed, if he does start shooting (giving no prior giveaway signals which is unlikely) they'll be an unknown number of people shooting back so it would be pretty dumb to initiate such an attack.

Any evidence of this? There's plenty of open carry and constitutional carry (no permit whatsoever) states to collect data from.

Even with current laws he can't just up and shoot them because they have a rifle strapped on. What guards and police go by is body language. And like I said before if they're ten other people armed then the robbers will be outnumbered. What would be a good idea is to up a sign saying "we support the right to keep and bear arms" and have special deals for those who carry. Would you rob a bank with a sign like that?

That's not true. For one "assault weapon" isn't used in the military. They call weapons like the M4 a carbine and a M16 a rifle. The civilian AR isn't used anywhere in any military. It's unsuitable for a proper military setting. The AR/M4/M16 holds 30 rounds which is only 15 more than the standard pistol magazine.

Here's where I got it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down

Just stating facts.

 

The ones affecting behavior I would agree with. I would agree about government funding such programs for the most part but that's another topic. As to your other proposals, what evidence you have that any of them would decrease crime? Especially body armor. To my knowledge there was only two instances where body armor was used in a crime. Plus if we're to have guns then shouldn't we have body armor to protect us from criminals?

Civilians have many uses for sporting rifles. From inexpensive plinking, to hunting, to self defense, to defense against tyranny.

 

Why is it not ok?

 

That doesn't even accidentally make sense.

 

Mac

You said - According to your own sources mentioned above Switzerland has gun deaths LOWER than England.

Now you are saying you meant homicides by any means – can you please make yourself clear

Or are you saying numbers not rates – which wouldn’t make much sense or are you like that other guy and don’t understand about why per 10,000 of population is used?

And your point is? Are you claiming the gun related homicide rate in the US is substantially lower and that in the UK substantially higher – have you any evidence to substantiate this?