Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

I don't only take it from my experiences though. It can be hard to be objective, and I'm not claiming that a few statistics are that helpful, but it seems to me from reading the stats that there really is no correlation between gun ownership, gun legality and crime rate. So citing crime as a reason to have a gun makes no sense. Fear of crime is an even worse reason, because the perception so often does not match the reality.

I mainly mentioned my experience of crime because I know that it is easy to be a liberal when you've never had anything bad happen to you; I wanted to assuage any sense you might have that I simply "don't know how it feels". I don't see personal experience as a solid foundation for a position at all, purely because of how fallible it is.

 

This is exactly the correct response to this...

There is no form of Gun control in existance that would eliminate the population of them. There is no Civilized area in this world that has 100% gun free cities/countries regardless what ludicrous control you dream up.

And the more you try to surpress them, the more the crime rate will be esculated and higher deaths will occurr. Why?

Plain and simple. There is many ways of smuggleing illegal guns into the US. Its done daily. Takeing the guns away from Innocent citizens only means the criminal now has Complete advantages over everyone in a city. Criminals would have no fear of walking into a retail joint and pointing a gun at people and randomly shooting. Because we are makeing it so that he is relieved of the thoughts of someone around the corner isle haveing a gun for protection (That would now be illegal) Cops have intervals of time in order to get to places. Most of the time, its way to late.

With Peoples right to bear arms, Criminals have to bring in the forthought fear that some individual maybe useing this right, hence have to have backup and several others to even attempt anything. Along with requireing line of eye sight to all individuals in the business being robbed. All these factors includeing fear surpresses the crime from the get go, only the ones with enough guts are going to try to pull it off.

But if they are now given clarity that there is no real death risk to doing the crime, due to it being illegal to own weapons, then its free sport.

 

Also to add, News does not like touting Criminals being stopped, taken down by Citizens who own guns .. This occurrance actually happens everyday as well. Citizens stop a host of percentage of crimes. Just your everyday broadcasters and news sources do not like giveing praise to gun owners.

 

reports of civilians using weapons for protection and stopping crimes can be found here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646860/posts

audio of the 911 call can be heard here, its on the left side of the page at the top of the article
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/46733292.html#audio

Now let me make this clear, the robber was not the victim. If I was a criminal incidents like this would make me reconsider my lifes work.

heres some stuff for the Brits
http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/mypersonal.htm

 

There are places in the world such as Canada, where guns aren't much harder to aquire than in the US and violent crime is as low as the UK. I would contend that violent crime is usually influenced by factors of culture and poverty rather than acess to firearms.

 

I would feel safer with a gun then without.

But i think that is common sence.

 

sure, if everyone had a gun, then i would feel save with a gun too. as it is, i feel save without a gun, because i can be quite sure not every idiot has a gun.

if you live amongst sheep, its the best thing to be a sheep.

 

Earthmother

Sorry but your replies seem heavy on contradiction and unsubstantiated assertion and rather light on explanation or clarity and once more a certain level of dishonesty.

*

Quote:
So why not think of ways to try and reduce that fear, so that the reality of the future is different that today’s?

You are trying do reduce the feelings of fear by saying that there is little to do to combat growing crime and that “even people who we thought were our friends may ultimately turn out to be thieves” and other such comments.
I mean when Mad said people are “liars, cheats incredibly self centered, money hungry, raping, weapon wielding, gang joining, drug using, murdering, sometimes mentally disturbed sons of bitches”
You replied

Is that the positive outlook you are trying to promote?
*

*
Quote:
What I’m highlighting is that many pro-gunners don’t seem to think things can change for the better and promote guns as a solution to their societies ills.

This is simply evasion, you’re not addressing what said and instead are trying to belittle it.
But seeing as you’ve expressed the view that you expect things to get worse for your society and the way to deal with that ‘reality’ is to get armed, would seem to back up my view.
*
Quote:
If you go into virtually any thread on this subject you will see fear mongering being used to sell guns.
It will be about violence and how guns are the only thing that can stand between a victim being violently abused, raped or murdered as if to say - ‘You should be afraid, very afraid…so get a gun’

It is about selling the view that guns are a solution to living in a violent society.

Again evasion, again you don’t address the issue, again instead try to belittle it. It is a snide remark meant to imply that I have little ‘perspective’ of the subject.
This isn’t honest debating.
Again if you would just bother to read my posts you’d know that I’m not basing my view solely on what’s been said on the hipforums politics forums. But what is said by many pro-gunners on these forums often back up my views on the subject.
And I don’t claim my views are ‘facts’ only theories and ideas that seem to have stood up well to scrutiny.
If you have some valid arguments then please present them because you’re going to get nowhere with this type of behaviour.
*
Quote:
So why not work toward trying to stop the something happening in the first place? By working to make a society where those things are a lot less likely to happen.

If that is what you see then back it up.
*
Quote:
But that’s what you don’t seem to get from pro-gunners, many don’t seem to question the violence in their society (it is just the ‘reality’) and few seem to offer up solutions, or suggest things that could only make the situation worse.

They just seem to want to sell guns as a solution they don’t seem to be thinking about alternative solutions.

And so they…are doing what? To me they seem to be promoting guns a lot more that they seem to be thinking through viable alternatives.
Even you who talk about prison and drug law reform don’t seem able to explain your views very well and get annoyed when asked to do so, but seem very forthright on the subject of being armed to face what you see as Americans violent ‘reality’.
*

Quote:
To repeat what I’ve said before
“it often seems to come down to two differing philosophies. One is divisive built on fear and mistrust and retribution, the other is about community and is built on hope, inclusiveness and redemption.”

Another snide remark that doesn’t address what’s been said.
Well there will be differing levels of fear and mistrust just as there they would be differing levels of hope and the desire for inclusiveness.
As I’ve pointed out many times in the past (you’d know that if you’d just read my posts) this isn’t a black and white issue.
As I’ve said to me this issue has a lot more to do with certain attitudes and mentalities.
There are those that seem to promote a climate of fear (to one degree or another) rather than looking for viable alternative in a spirit of community.
*

 

Earthmother

Quote:
And here again the ‘reality’ that people have little chance in changing (the implication being – so why bother) and the sowing of the seeds of fear and mistrust of other people (implying that the only way to be is armed).

OH earth – how many times to I have to explain?
I put down my viewpoint and people can reply to it, if they think my judgement is based on an imperfect understanding then they can explain where they think I’m going wrong – that is debate.
The problem is that some people (including yourself) seem to think that assertion can take the place of explanation or rational argument, they just tell me (and others) they are wrong, simply because they think they’re right and for them it seem that is all the argument they need.
The thing is that if someone talks of a ‘reality’ that people have little chance in changing, the implication for many will be that that if there is little chance of change then they might as well just adapt to that ‘reality’ rather than try and change it.
*

Quote:
Oh dear, once more with the snide remarks.

Oh come on Earth what honest question were you asking?

You were being snide, trying to imply that my views were all down to some personal fear of guns due to some ‘traumatic happen’ in my past, rather than an objective assessment of the subject.
My standpoint has grown out of years of look and researching this subject, of course to you it is ‘biased’ because you don’t agree with it, the question is do you have any rationally based counter arguments.
Could you please try and debate a little more honestly?
*
Quote:
Now in regards to fear, well look at your own statements many seem soaked in fear of others, almost to the point of paranoia.

My fear is not of people but for people, I fear for the future of US society when so many Americans seem to have these divisive attitudes.

But that seems to contradict what you’ve said before, your assertion is that you are unafraid of people and trust them, yet you have said on a number of occasions in this thread that people shouldn’t trust others (even friends) and believed that the ‘reality’ –“is that "people" (in general taken as a whole) are egocentric, selfish, violent assholes.”

Thing is playing at host to ‘guests’ on property you have control over isn’t the same as having a genuine commitment to changing your society for the better.

*

To me it is a matter of honesty, if someone is promoting right wing views but claims not to be right wing then they’re being dishonest to others (and possibly as well as to themselves).

Many of my views are left wing but I couldn’t claim they weren’t or that I wasn’t a leftie because that would seem to me to be dishonest.

In my opinion being open and honest goes a long way to gaining trust.

*

Quote:
Prob is, we seem to be talking about what we WISH could be as opposed to what IS.
Quote:
As I said earlier this is the conservative view that supports the status quo, if you don’t wish for change and just accept ‘what IS’ then nothing ever changes.

I’d rather work and hope from a better future rather than just wallow in the mire clutching a gun to my chest in fear.

So you don’t like what’s being said but you don’t really have a counter argument other than you don’t like it?

*

Quote:
I’m not saying that law abiding citizens can’t own guns only that it would be a good thing for American society if people didn’t feel so afraid that they felt they needed a gun for protection. And most of that would involve policies that had nothing to do directly with guns.

Except you promote fear and mistrust.
*
Quote:
But this is an example of the attitudes and mentality I’ve been trying to highlight. The belief that nothing much (or nothing) can be done to improve society so there is little or no point in trying. And if little or nothing can be done the only solution they see is guns.

To me it is that attitude that could be the real problem because it means little is likely to change except for the worst.

But as you and others keep repeating to you the ‘reality’ is that people are by nature vicious and even friends can turn against you and there is not that great a chance of any change with this and crime will inevitably rise and so be afraid and get a gun.

*

Assertions that doesn’t seem to be backed up with proof.

But what you seem to be suggesting in the meantime is to be afraid and get a weapon that is a clear message - all the alternatives you’ve hinted at don’t seem that thought through, and you don’t seem willing or able to explain or discuss them.

 

john

Why?

Are you so afraid of your fellow citizens and the society you live in that you think the only way to address that fear is to have something of such deadly force that you could kill people if you needed to?

*

In what way?

The only way to make having a gun effective is to have it out at all times and sighted on all those around you.

So ‘common sense’ would dictate that you do just that, do you?

*

Why not try and bring about a society where you didn’t feel so frightened?

 

Istar

Thank you

Again it comes down to fear and intimidation.

And again the seeming futility of trying to change things.

You back up my observations completely.

 

got-cha.

Talkin' to Balbus is like swimmin' thru West Virginia red clay mud, and he's the boulder in the middle of the mud pond.

 

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation or arms as the blackest

-Gandhi

 

heres the nooj

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUYlYTJb6mQ

 

I will give Balbus one thing. He makes a body realize just how good they have it. And reaffirms beliefs and ideas about many of the things we've been talking about. His tactics are the perfect example of something to NOT do or be, if you are one of those individuals who can learn from other people's actions.

What he calls dishonest and contradictory, I call open mindedness and balanced. No one must believe in only certain limited things in order to fit into someone else's categorically organized mind. And only a shallow mind would expect everyone to fit into such limited categories.

I am ALLOWED to see things from various perspectives and take from those perspectives that which seems to work. What works in one situation might not in another. I would rather take a case individually and see what is needed...

I am allowed to disagree and my disagreement should not be mistaken for belittlement or dishonesty. Rather the opposite is happening here. I am TOO honest, and it is making someone squirm. We have gone far, far from any possibility of debate.
I say what I think and I am berated, belittled, insulted, and told I am not debating properly. I say what I think and Balbus whines.

And what's funny is that by being so rabidly for gun control he SEEMS TO BE INFERRING that HE thinks people are too stupid and violent to be able to own them safely. Why else would anyone be SO worried about it? And why would anyone be SO disturbed by what some stranger says unless it's just DAMN WELL GETTING UNDER HIS SKIN...

If nothing else, Balbus keeps us entertained... But I have better things to do.
(Laughs to self, shakes head and hits "post")

 

Why are you so afraid of people that you cannot stand to see them have the right to own guns?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Bullshit.

Yea, why don't-cha?

I guess if guns were banned, and only the "true criminals" had them (b.s.), then you would feel safer? So get right with the program. Because I'm certain from your posts that you are one of the only people in the world who is working towards a better world - by spending hours on a so-called "free speech" forum pissing people off. Yea, you know what's up...

"If guns were banned only criminals would have guns..." Well, that would make a whole bunch of otherwise law abiding folks into "criminals", now wouldn't it? Just like those of us who smoke weed. Would be one of the most law abiding folks around EXCEPT for that one thing... Sort of gives a muddied meaning to the word "criminal" doesn't it?

I think SOMEONE with a really bad personality is just plain scared they might piss off someone enough....... But if guns were "banned" then it really wouldn't matter because there would be enough "criminals" hangin' around that it STILL wouldn't be safe.....

:boxing_smiley::icon_bs::banghead:

 

people are stupid. stupid people with guns are dangerous.

actually he is right. if you NEED a gun to protect yourself, you need to carry it around with you and be ready to use it on anyone who can potentially harm you. using your argument of protecting yourself without the will and ability to use it anytime on anyone assaulting you would be pure nonsense.

this argument comes up again and again. with your logic, the more guns in the hands of the"good ones", the less crime commited by the "bad ones". this is bullshit. I dare to say that the US weapon owners arent all criminal. now, the US has about the most private firearms in the world - by your logic, this should mean that in the US there is less crime than anywhere else in the world. however, this is not the reality.

experience shows that countries with good distribution of wealth and few poor ppl connected with a good social system have the least high crime rate.

experience does NOT show that countries with the most private weapons are those with the least crime rates.

also, how save does a gun really make you? if you face a dangerous situation, the appearance of a 2nd gun will reduce the outcome of the situation to a binary one - is that save?

also: most homocides are commited among famalies, friends. now tell me, how is a gun saving you from your husband killing you at night in your bed?

also: "the criminals" - why do the US have executive forces when it comes all down to private gunowners anyway? maybe somewhere in the upper echelons your fiew on savety isnt taken that serious.

 

Earthmother

A fine speech that addresses nothing.

It actually seems to be an excuse and justification for not addressing anything.

I’ve laid out where and explained why I believe there are contradictions in your arguments and I’ve done the same where I believe there have been cases of dishonesty.

You claim they are not contradictions or dishonesty, because….well because you don’t think they’re contradictions or dishonesty. You don’t actually address the criticisms or accusations, you just ignore them.

To claim from that that you are being too honest seems disingenuous at best at worse it’s a conscious lie.

Of course you are allowed to disagree and I’m not taking your disagreement as dishonesty I’m pointing to those things I see as being dishonest, if you have counter arguments give them but just ignoring the accusations will not make them go away.

What I would point out is that your disagreements seem very seldom to be backed up in any rational way. You repeatedly tell me I’m wrong but you never seem able actually to explain why, other than to say that my views are not like yours.

You say what you think, but that doesn’t seem to include explanations or answers to the criticisms of your ideas. And when I point this out it is characteristic of you to call it ‘whining’ and to declare unilaterally that ‘debate’ is over (when it never actually started).

 

Earthmother

Am I ‘rabidly’ for gun control? If you had bothered to read my posts you’d know I’ve said over and over that I’ve got nothing against law abiding people owning a gun. However I do believe that guns as far as possible shouldn’t fall into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.

Is that being ‘rabidly’ for gun control in your opinion?

As I’ve explained often and at length my concern is with American society, I don’t think the present situation is very good and I wonder why so many pro-gunners seem more interested in promoting guns as a solution to the problem rather than tackling the causes.

I think Americans should be disturbed by how many of their citizens perceive their fellow citizens and their society.

Earthmother you say you are getting under my skin, but I think that is the pot calling the kettle black, it seems to be you that seems to becoming agitated. I can understand why, your ideas are being criticised and you don’t seem to have any rational arguments to counter the criticisms or ideas being presented, it must be frustrating.

But rather than retreat into dogmatic beliefs and reliance on snipes, smears and dishonesty why not try and work out why you don’t seem able to counter what’s been presented?

*

 

Earthmother

Quote:
Are you so afraid of your fellow citizens and the society you live in that you think the only way to address that fear is to have something of such deadly force that you could kill people if you needed to?

But I’m not saying law abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to own a gun, I’m saying that there seems to be this fear in US society that drives some to feel they need guns to protect them from there fellow citizens (a fear you claim permeates US society).

I was asking this person why not try and bring about a society where people didn’t feel so frightened?

They have not replied you have, but once again you only seem able to with an uninformed snide remark.

*
Quote:
The only way to make having a gun effective is to have it out at all times and sighted on all those around you.

Why do you believe it bullshit?

*

why not try and bring about a society where you didn’t feel so frightened?

Like many pro-gunners you seem to use ‘gun control’ and the ‘banning of all guns’ interchangeably as if they were the same thing.

Again this just comes across as sniping rather than anything like genuine argument.

*