Ban all guns

...which is totally irrelevant to the fact that when an armed burglary or mugging is taking place, the police come after the fact. The potential victim who is armed stands a better chance of preventing the crime. I read stories about armed citizens defending themselves almost every day in e-newsletters.

 

And people die by idiots who shoot people on their property who had no malicious intent.

 

Believe it or not, there are other differences between the US and the UK. To suggest that private gun ownership is the cause of those different murder rates, especially with absolutely no evidence to back it up, is ridiculous.

There are legitimate arguments against extensive private gun ownership but you are making a complete hash of presenting them in a clear and intelligent manner. All you are doing is slightly weakening the cause you clearly feel so strongly about.

I don't doubt the numbers they present are broadly correct but that isn't the point. They would come across much better if they'd made any kind of attempt to source their headline statistics and presented the numbers per-capita (since they're comparing the US with countries which have much smaller populations.

It shouldn't be difficult to look up if you really cared. I believe it's to do with how their national service works.

 

So I was correct when asking if you resided in Disney Land.....They have an over 10K population when including all shifts and both locations.

Give a shout-out to Minny for me.

 

Isn't one a Disney World? My area is too classy for guns, apparently.

 

Wow I can’t believe the Mods let an obvious Troll thread like this exist.

Based on your logic of guns causing violence, all of my guns must be defective.

I can tell it’s a troll post because it contradicts itself in the OP, and any person with any ability to reason knows the that correlation does not imply causation.
The contradiction of Finland is what tells us who and what you really are. Finland is number 2 in Europe for gun ownership, and number 8 in the world (out of 178 nations surveyed in 2007.) If your logic was accurate, then Finland would be a very violent place indeed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership )

No its common knowledge, I want to assume you can use the internets, but due to your lack of logic and thought in your own troll thread, its linked for you in the above link. Switzerland is number 1 in Europe and number 3 on Earth, as far as gun ownership goes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland ), once again another real life example that shows your logic holds nothing.

Of course the obligatory off topic refute of Switzerland. The OP clearly states that more guns equal more violence. The regulation of Swiss arms for citizens is irrelevant on this thread and this topic, that more guns mean more violence. Try to stay on topic if you can.

 

I love the above troll complaining about a troll— the irony.

Switzerland has universal conscription and mandatory training in arms. Such is not a requirement in the US, as it should.

 

Less guns, less crime? Frome the BBC:

In case you didn't know, guns were pretty much banned in 1997 there.

 

The country you live in was founded by people with guns who wouldn't give them up. They needed weaponry to protect themselves. I'm in for a clever debate but this seems a little juvenile.

I have a weapon in my home. Because violence is going to be happening, it will take time to grab the phone to call them. More time to tell them what is happening. Top that off with more time needed for the police to actually arrive and save me.

Sad fact is that if violence is going to happen- the cop is going to be about 5 minutes to late.

I house a weapon because it is cheaper, more effective, and faster than a police officer. Plus I can carry it with me.

True, guns are meant to kill things. No surprise there. But outlawing them isn't the answer.

Marijuana is illegal, so is cocaine and so on. These substances can kill people if used improperly. Same thing with weapons. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people will stop doing it.

If someone is going to break into a place and kill someone he will find a way to do it. Guns are just an accessory to his bag of tricks. So why remove such an effective instrument from the defender?

I love the idea of a utopian world where we all get along and have wonderful jobs and perfect health care. But until I find it I'll hang on to my .45.

It is much lighter than a cop.

 

I'm not big on the idea of banning arms on a federal level in the United States. I see some advantages to it but, I really don’t trust our government, or our law enforcement, or many of the people here for that matter. If we as a society were more like some of countries listed I would be more into the idea I guess, but as things stand, I’m not sure it would be the greatest idea.

 

liberal censorship at it finest.

 

For the OP.

I don't know if you're actually here to troll or not. But if you care to discuss the issue, you could start by looking over countries by total homicides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Again, some countries with high ownership are very low, and some of those high murder rate third world countries have harsh anti-gun laws. It just isn't as simple as more guns make for more violence.

Further even the anti-gun studies are quick to admit that other factors are very important with regards to crime rates. Poverty for example.

Judging by your username, I'm going to guess you have a lot of sympathy for causes like that. So how about focusing your efforts on those aspect instead of banging up against a wall trying to deny American's their second amendment rights.

You could say it lets the Republicans get away with murder.

Really? Your stance is that more training is what causes their homicide rate to be one of the lowest in the world despite the very high total gun ownership?

 

Move to Finland! We can solicit donations for a one way ticket.

 

Duh, all carriers are makeshift soldiers. And require basic training for a gun.

 

When are the liberals going to admit they lost the gun-control war?

 

So your stance on gun control is that you'd support far more people having guns, you just think they should go through boot camp and some service first?

I'm going to go with "never" unless they can finally be educated to resist the deceptions of politicians who don't want to go after the real problems and need a convenient scapegoat that will make people vote for them.

You've got slums, drugs, gangs, unemployment, etc, etc and they get people thinking the solution is making a hunter in the country stick a gun lock on their shotgun. Genius.

Still, I hold out some hope here. For the most part I don't think even way out there liberals are so much opposed to rights as they are vulnerable to rhetoric on this matter and simply have not seriously considered if gun laws are really the answer.

 

Banning guns does not work.

Besides, I thought we all wanted a stronger economy. Look at all the jobs that will be lost if guns are banned.

Think again my friend.

 

Everyone should own a gun.

It's governments that should be banned, they kill more people than all the gun toting civilians in the world combined.

 

"...a gun" how about more than one, in case you run out of ammunition for the first one?

 

You can't ban guns because it's unconstitutional to do so as stated by the USSC last year.

There may be reasonable regulations put in place, but outright bans have been deemed completely and totally unconstitutional. So you are crying for something that will probably never happen.

 

I own several, but I usually hit what I'm aiming at, so one would suffice.

 

I understand, if there is only one target. What if you are in a target rich environment?

 

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'

8. Beware of the woman who only has one gun, because she probably knows how to use it very well.

'The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.' G. K. Chesterton

A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..." - Thomas Jefferson.

 

I don't support guns but the UK has high knife killings only because guns are illegal. Its obvious that gun's don't kill people, people kill people. But guns can be a catalyst to people having the drive, having a gun instead of a knife is like risk control(in the shoes of the murderer), and just like enterprises, when a project has lower risk, its more likely to be undertaken.