Put yourself in the mind of a criminal. Guns disappeared from the world. You cannot get one and you know for a fact that your victims don't have guns either. What would your next move be? You get a few of your buddies and you pick easy secluded targets. Nobody can overcome you if you attack before they can make a phone call for the police. Elderly would not be safe in their homes and it would be dangerous to live in the country where neighbors can't watch out for each other. Also, who will control the population of wild animals? Will we have to carry spears in the country? We have hundreds of thousands of feral hogs roaming TX. Some weigh well over 500 lbs and we can barely kill them fast enough to keep from being overrun with our guns. My niece totaled her truck 6 months ago when she ran into a 300 lb hog. Imagine having to use spears or arrows to control their population. How safe would trapping them be and then how do we kill them? They attack when they are wounded.
It's just common sense. The ability to own a firearm makes a lot fewer people victims of violent crimes. I think of my own situation as a disabled person. There is no way to quantify all of the crimes that may have been perpetrated by criminals. Knowing there is an armed populace that they would have committed otherwise. Without the 2nd amendment, we have no other way to protect our constitution. Especially against a tyrannical government.
No read the post i made again. I said if there were no guns, legal and illegal (that covers the criminals). Zero guns, crime would drop. No one had guns, even criminals. That was my point.
A cliche' is such a dishonorable way to conclude a discussion! How can there be any wondering about what would happen with no guns anywhere? There was a very long period in history when this was the case. Just read. It's silly to refute that more guns=less crime. In my own experience, I have found that when an evil person accosts me and I greet him with my gun, he rapidly disappears. This is the unanimous experience of any and all who greet evil persons with firearms. I'll run with that.
Read my post again. The criminals won't have guns, but they will be emboldened by a larger number of defenseless targets. They will attack in numbers in secluded areas with whatever weapon they can find. Guns don't commit crimes.
and just as often people also use them to HALT crimes. - - - Updated - - - How the hell do you propose to accomplish that? Note: if it starts with "well first we'll just register all firearms, then we'll come by later and take them away" >>> You have your answer as to why no one wants to register their firearms
We would all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" and the "Coca Cola" song until we go home and wait for the roving gangs to rob and rape us at will. Everyone will be afraid to be alone because they can be easily outnumbered. Taking everybody's guns will not change their hearts. Bad people will still rape, rob, and kill. The only difference is that they will know that their victims can't fight back. They will wait until they find a victim that they know they can overpower and nobody is around to protect them. To trust otherwise and take up everybody's guns is foolish. In your scenario, do the police and military have guns? http://www.odessahistory.com/gunhist.htm
I hope your fictional country doesn't end up like those in the link on my last post. 56,000,000 is a lot of dead people for no reason.
bear in mind that's what Hitler and Stalin both said...............look at what it got their citizenry
The context of what you originally said had to do with a childish, unrealistic, utopian fantasy, and as such doesn't really merit debate by adults.
Well, it appears that both you and I will have to agree to disagree on this thread. - - - Updated - - - Yes, today they are better off then we are in the United States; even with their restrictive gun control. - - - Updated - - - Obviously, both you and I will have to agree to disagree on this thread.
Pot call the kettle black much "logician"? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent " The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year. " Bolding is mine. This was a CDC study comissioned by Barack Obama, an anti individual gun ownership proponent. Evidence in one's favor presented by one's opponent is generally deemed to hold extra weight for one's own argument. A few more gems: "The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue, and that there is no evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime. It also stated that proposed gun turn-in programs are ineffective." " The CDCs findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research.." So you tell me who is delusional: The CDC and I, or you.
What you said was "if there were no guns deaths would go down " (paraphrased. ) This was in the context of a post you quoted about carry stats going up and homicides going down. If you AREN"T for gun control, and you're just saying "well if guns didn't exist" then you aren't actually SAYING ANYTHING. You're saying "well if puppies and rainbow blowjobs fell from the sky then happiness would abound!"< Which is meaningless because that is not how the world actually works. OR you're saying "just turn them all in">>> Which DOES NOT WORK. Making it ALSO meaningless.
Have you read gis book? His papers? The criticisms and rebuttals? I doubt it, you are just bad-mouthing what doesn't agree with you banner bias.
No, not turn them all in, just the happiness scenario is what I was saying. IF there were no guns period, there could be no crime committed using guns. That was my point.
Are you intentionally leaving out the next sentances within the same paragraph? "On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimates of only 108,000 annual defense if use is based on the national crime victimization survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use." That ommission reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Which might prove something if anyone were talking about right-to-carry as a problem, or gun turn-in programs as a solution... But nobody's saying that, so you have no point. Of course they are a good deterrent, nobody's said otherwise. Someone pointing a gun at you has a significant advantage in getting you to behave the way they want you to... In fact, there have been studies to illustrate that guns are frequently used for intimidation and coercion. But this also means they are a great enabler when in the hands of criminals. I admit that I may have been mistaken in labeling your post "delusional". I should have said "intellectually dishonest", much like your implication that you understand the entirety of the report rather than cherry picking the parts you like. Also from that same report, there are "a few more gems" (as you so eloquently phrased it): "The CDC report made no effort to reconcile the differing estimates of DGUs, except to note that the estimate provided by the Kleck group was larger by an order of magnitude than the estimate arising from the NCVS. The CDC report noted that the estimate of DGU provided by the Kleck group is twice again as large as the estimate of the Dept. of Justice that there are 1.3 million crimes committed with a gun in the USA every year." In other words, not only did the study rely on previous (highly varied) estimates as to how many DGUs (Defensive Gun Use) there are each year - no cases of alleged DGU were validated, which is interesting given previous findings. Reading the DGU section on page 8 of https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf might be educational, if you were vaguely interested in reality.
Please source one post of mine that supports a gun ban. I believe you'll find that I have repeatedly referred to gun bans as moronic. As for Lott: The major issue with Lott's premise is that shall-issue laws allow anyone of legal age without an officially documented problem of mental health or criminal record to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon - and this assumes the person buys from a source that requires the passage of a background check... Given that anyone can name at least one acquaintance who is periodically intemperate, irresponsible, or just clumsy - the idea that everyone should carry a gun (as Lott's papers imply) is simply moronic. In Lott's world, every argument (or crime) would become a shooting, and additional "good samaritans" would join in to subdue (by shooting) whoever they subjectively thought the "offender" was. Dumb.
