You are missing the whole point and you are actually arguing against your own case. You said the Iraquis are winning with very little. IF that is the case then what do you have to worry about? If the US goverment can not beat down 26 milliions Iraquis, how do think it will oppress 300 million Americans?
I can't believe some of the arguments that is flying around here. A way to prevent a mass murder is to have a shoot-out; A way to prevent a dictatorship is to have civil war. Sorry, but that is pretty much the implication of the Pro-gun argument when taken literally. That sound awfully similar to those third world African countries doesn't it? Nobody ones a car for purpose of car wrecks unless you want to argue that the main purpose of car owners is to crash into each other. Gun, on the other hand, is designed to kill, be it self defence or not. There is a profound difference between two analogies. In anycase, those car accidents do pose genuine cost to the society from policy makers point of view, but any reasonable analysis should indicate that benefits the benefits of car driving far exceeds any cost they accrue (Even if I believe more people should use public transport especially in U.S). Beside those who benefit from driving is also the ones that get killed in the accident since car running over a pedestrian is extremely rare. The same cannot be said of gun, I am afraid. Many rights such as the right to free-speach tends to be public in domain; meaning one consumption of the right doesnt necessarily impede the right for others to enjoy the same previleges. In case of gun, the same cannot be said since, by definition, those who get killed are exactly those who doesn't enjoy the right; except for the case of duels. I have yet to seen a detailed report on Mexican Gun problem, but it is not out of realm to think that strict prohibition to be largely driven by initial gun problem pestering the society. You may have got the causality-outcome other way round. Beside, any reasonable account will tell you what matters is not so much juridical reforms, but ability of the government to enforce such reforms. It is not out stretch to suggests that with their corrupt government officials from top to bottom that law enforcement is one of the fundamental reason why prohibition is largely not respected. As for Switzerland, I know quite a few Swiss people myself, but I yet to seen a person who claim that they carry pistol for self defence purposes. Gun is largely irrelevant in this case. You make a gross assumption that all criminals are the same. I know quite a few people working in law and they tell you further cannot be away from truth. The majority of those who commit petty crimes have absolutely no interested in killing other people. Their main concern is monetary purposes, and any fatal accidents that arise during the process are largely unintended. Many have little or no access to organized crimes. Thus if you limit the availability of gun, most burglers will simply find the cost of obtaining a gun too much, and they will assort to other means, such as physical abuse, knives, or commiting it stealthfully. As a case in point, there are many empirical studies that find high correlation between the gun theft, and violent crime. The most natural way of reading this statistic is to suggests those guns that are being stolen are used in violent crimes. In such a case, the prohibition of new gun entering the market won't necessarily have major impact on crimes, but to argue that gun is irrelevant to the crime statistics is to draw false conclusion. As a case in point, is very little armed robbery in Japan, and most people tends to loose their goods when they are out, not when a robber points a gun at your head. In life you have many choices. In the case of public policy, what you have to consider is not what particular arrangement do for you, but consider alternatives that exist. To suggests that choice of individual possessing a gun to defend themselves against fellow citizens and their own government is superior to that of electing a proper government that enforces law, and do everying in its power to ensure the satefy of citizens, sounds awfully foolish to me.
So because I can not protect my loved ones all the time, I should not be able to protect them any of the time? You are an idiot, and if you don't care enough about your own flesh and blood to be prepared, REALLY prepared to keep them from harm, that's your shortcoming, but don't try to tell my how I should defend my loved ones. You should really shut your mouth because you have not been in my shoes.
So now we have switched from protecting ourselves from our government to protecting ourselves against Panzer divisions...great!
Like I said before...all criminals are in favor of gun control. If the law abiding citizens are unarmed, they can break the laws without fear of getting shot.
I open my mouth because I don't EVER want to be in YOUR shoes. Don't you get that? Sorry you lost someone you loved, but guess what, they might have not had their live cut short if we didn't have the NRA.
where does this come from? I love how people always use this argument but have absolutely no facts to back it up. Amazing.
ive seen several over the years. heres a couple for starters. http://hematite.com/dragon/usatodayccw.html In a comprehensive study that may reshape the gun control debate, researchers have found that letting people carry concealed guns appears to sharply reduce killings, rapes and other violent crimes. The nationwide study found that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed handguns: Homicide, down 8.5%. Rape, down 5%. Aggravated assault, down 7%. The University of Chicago study, obtained by USA TODAY, is set to be released next Thursday. But its impending release has already sent shock waves through the gun-control debate because of the effect it may have on one of the most controversial areas of gun law. The drop isn't primarily caused by people defending themselves with guns, says John Lott, the study's author. Rather, criminals seem to alter their behavior to avoid coming into contact with a person who might have a gun. Concealed-weapons laws have drawbacks, too, the study found. Auto theft and larceny increased. Criminals shifted to property offenses, in which contact with a victim is rare, says Lott. "The policy implications are undeniable: If you're interested in reducing murder and rape, then letting law-abiding, mentally competent citizens carry concealed weapons has a positive impact," says Lott. http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992) - The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000). The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000). The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000). The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000). Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding. Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used). Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually. By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars. Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.
You are one to speak of arguments with nothing to back it up. Go down to you local crackhouse and ask them if they are in favor of gun control...let me know how that works out.
Your neighbor will post a sign that says " I believe in personal gun ownership, my neighbor does not" The criminal will be quite happy with that info.
katrina feds in bullet-proof vests w/ assault riffles hiding behind trees while one kid goes on a killing spree government sending two border patrol agents to prison for shooting a drug smuggler in the butt and giving the drug smuggler immunity to testify, despite the fact that he continues to smuggle drugs and the feds know it. to suggests that the government will protect you and actually enforce the laws sounds awfully foolish to me.
You know, the thruth is even with all the whining and crying about gun control, I will continue to carry my Glock, and not one of the antis will even know about it. Concealed carry is a beautiful concept. And for those that think that making it illegal to purchase handguns is keeping handguns out of people's hands, keep telling yourself that. If it helps you sleep easier, you do what you have to do to get through a day.
Ok, this line of reasoning is just plain stupid and you need to stop it right now. To think that less restrictive gun laws could have prevented the Holocaust is absurd at best and horribly offensive at worst. You make some decent points in this thread, but you have also made some idiotic ones throughout as well.
