No, you should obviously be in prison if you want to harm others. Because you might not be in prison, the people you wish to harm should not be disarmed.
You're twisting around what I'm saying. I don't believe free people should be disarmed. There are obvious limits to freedom, when they relate to limiting others freedom. Disarming all free people because a few can't be trusted with guns goes way, way to far. Is it not true that it would be extremely hard for these criminals to get guns, or hurt people if they were in prison?
So why let people out of prison early? Overcrowding or lack of funding is what I hear most often. It is very likely that people are incarcerated who shouldn't be. From what I have seen these are people who have minor drug offences, or other non violent crimes. Another reason to not have gun laws, or only allow gun charges to be brought if someone has commuted another crime where a gun was in their possession.
Are you aware that it is illegal for a citizen of Mexico to own a firearm and the police can and do arrest people for possession of guns? Making up stories because you are wrong is no way to offer advice on how to fix a problem. Especially when that problem didn't exist until you created it.
And how do you propose the laws are enforced? Sure it's easy to get guns away from law abiding people, but when someone is ready to murder for their cause how do you enforce the law?
Some of the guns available in the US end up in Mexico. Good! There are already places where the citizens have revolted with what few firearms they had, and take back their state. Once they gained the upper hand, the confiscated the police and drug dealer's guns. Guess what, those firearms that came from the US are now in the hands of honest people trying to protect their city, no thanks to the gun control laws that preventing them from having these weapons to begin with.
Are you that evil that you would rather the gun laws enforced than the people to have rights?
The CDC did a study that found that number. The NRA protested the study so you can't blame them. President Obama him self made an executive order and gave $10 million for the study. If it doesn't go along with your numbers, feel free to ignore reality and hurl more insults. The number comes from police calls where a report of a gun was used, or cases where a gun was used. So there's that.
You're still denying the fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated anger and aggression issues. So, perhaps the reason you are so anti gun is because you personally can not own them, or you know if you did you would use them to harm others in a criminal manner.
I just noticed your study includes Canada, but not Mexico. Mexico has stricter gun laws than the US, perhaps the numbers don't show what you want them to so you didn't include that number?
Half of the murders is about 8,000. So 8k people use a gun as their weapon to murder. That number is insignificant when compared to the defensive uses of firearms which is over 3,000,000. That's not 3 million dead, it's 3 million times where having the gun was enough to stop the crime from continuing.
Perhaps the reason you don't believe people should own guns, is because you would use one for murder. It is in fact the person using the weapon, and their intentions that kill, not the object. So you want to allow these people, including your self, to continue to have freedom while you remove the guns from the people who use them to stop these people? You are only re-enforcing my belief that lunatics should be locked up for the rest of their life. I believe you have an anger issue. I am typing in calm manner, and you continue to hurl insults and ignore the major point I have made through out this discussion.
Actually the number of people murdered by guns only accounts for half of the murders, or possibly less. So your bloody nose could cause death. Where did you get the notion that a fist fight can't cause death? Being robbed can cause death too. There was a case in my town where a prominent business man was tied up and robbed, well guess what he had a heart condition and being tied up killed him. So you go on believing your nonsense, keep believing that guns are the big bad monster that must be stopped. I will keep my guns and donate my money to civil rights groups that protect my right. At least now you know the argument can go both ways, and there is a significant number of defensive uses in the US that would go away. That number once again is 3 million times. So once you figure out how those 3 million people can defend them self other than with guns, then we have a discussion.
What does burglary have to do with violent crime? Is that all you can come up with. A burglary means no one was home. How is a burger going to run into an armed victim if the victim isn't home? So the home owner might be armed, and the criminal waits for them to leave, that is a burglary. Because you drew your conclusion from a false premise I will once again ask for scientific evidence that removing my natural right will cause violent crime to go down. Remember the number of defensive uses of a firearm is 3 million.
I'll leave this here for you:
"In the United States, a home invasion is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping."
Note: "home invasion" != "burglary"
Thank you for proving that when questioned for scientific data, anti-gun nuts will respond with nonsense. I provided you with a number of defensive uses of guns, that number is 3 million. We can not ban guns because it would be possible that 3 million people are hurt by criminals. Now you respond with a number that backs up your claim. Thank you.
No. If someone wants to hurt me, they either know I have a gun and I won't be an easy target, or they know we are in a state with gun control. This is a concept that has been backed by science. Use science please. I do not believe in notions, stereotypes, or false rumors.
The problem is with people who want to harm other people. Remove that problem and there is no gun problem. Stop blaming a liberal judicial system on an inanimate object. The shell game is trying to ignore human nature and seek an alternative target to place the blame upon.
In ten years from now we will all look back at you and the deniers as if you were creationists.
That is an excellent opinion. Until I see facts it is just an opinion. There are citys where large populations own firearms and constitutional carry is recognized. That means everyone who can legally own a gun, can legally carry that gun where ever they go. How come the police in those states don't have a problem with people being armed? Perhaps the problem is that the more liberal city's allow criminals out of jail sooner that the city's that have strict penalties for crime?
There are states with common sense gun laws. But there is no data to link the gun laws to the number of rapes. If you have the data please present it.
The numbers that do exist were in a study recently done by the CDC. They show over 3 million defensive uses of guns each year. While this does not correlate directly to rapes, it does mean a crime was stopped. So looking at crime in general, a gun in the hand of a victim has been a preventative measure over 3 million times a year. Those are the numbers, and until your prove violent crime will go down once I hand in my gun, I will have them and be prepared to defend my self with them. If you want to live in a make believe world where you believe all people will always be humane, you have that right in the US. What you don't have is right to ignore statistics and take away my right to defend my self. Remember I am basing my decision off of scientific facts, you must prove those facts wrong with your own facts before you can change gun laws in the US. The Supreme laws of our land have already thrown out so called common sense gun laws that had no scientific evidence to back them, even though they had been in place for over ten years.
There was a study done by the CDC that showed guns are actually used quite a bit to defend human life. I believe one of the numbers of uses was well over 3 million. The number of murders per year is under 12,000 per year. I believe some murders are prevented by people having guns to defend them self, or by the criminals knowing people have guns. What ever totaltarian country you come from is probably realizing right now that they messed up bad by banning guns. The US is about to do away with many irrational gun laws, which will make the crime statistics change in a way you don't like. Good luck getting your laws changed in the next ten to twenty years. We are here to help if you have any questions.
Slashdot Mirror
Have the police run into criminals with their cars, like the officer who hit the guy that stole a rifle from Wallmart. Effective and non lethal.
No, you should obviously be in prison if you want to harm others. Because you might not be in prison, the people you wish to harm should not be disarmed.
You're twisting around what I'm saying. I don't believe free people should be disarmed. There are obvious limits to freedom, when they relate to limiting others freedom. Disarming all free people because a few can't be trusted with guns goes way, way to far. Is it not true that it would be extremely hard for these criminals to get guns, or hurt people if they were in prison?
So why let people out of prison early? Overcrowding or lack of funding is what I hear most often. It is very likely that people are incarcerated who shouldn't be. From what I have seen these are people who have minor drug offences, or other non violent crimes. Another reason to not have gun laws, or only allow gun charges to be brought if someone has commuted another crime where a gun was in their possession.
Are you aware that it is illegal for a citizen of Mexico to own a firearm and the police can and do arrest people for possession of guns? Making up stories because you are wrong is no way to offer advice on how to fix a problem. Especially when that problem didn't exist until you created it.
And how do you propose the laws are enforced? Sure it's easy to get guns away from law abiding people, but when someone is ready to murder for their cause how do you enforce the law?
Some of the guns available in the US end up in Mexico. Good! There are already places where the citizens have revolted with what few firearms they had, and take back their state. Once they gained the upper hand, the confiscated the police and drug dealer's guns. Guess what, those firearms that came from the US are now in the hands of honest people trying to protect their city, no thanks to the gun control laws that preventing them from having these weapons to begin with.
Are you that evil that you would rather the gun laws enforced than the people to have rights?
The CDC did a study that found that number. The NRA protested the study so you can't blame them. President Obama him self made an executive order and gave $10 million for the study. If it doesn't go along with your numbers, feel free to ignore reality and hurl more insults. The number comes from police calls where a report of a gun was used, or cases where a gun was used. So there's that.
You're still denying the fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated anger and aggression issues. So, perhaps the reason you are so anti gun is because you personally can not own them, or you know if you did you would use them to harm others in a criminal manner.
I just noticed your study includes Canada, but not Mexico. Mexico has stricter gun laws than the US, perhaps the numbers don't show what you want them to so you didn't include that number?
Half of the murders is about 8,000. So 8k people use a gun as their weapon to murder. That number is insignificant when compared to the defensive uses of firearms which is over 3,000,000. That's not 3 million dead, it's 3 million times where having the gun was enough to stop the crime from continuing.
Perhaps the reason you don't believe people should own guns, is because you would use one for murder. It is in fact the person using the weapon, and their intentions that kill, not the object. So you want to allow these people, including your self, to continue to have freedom while you remove the guns from the people who use them to stop these people? You are only re-enforcing my belief that lunatics should be locked up for the rest of their life. I believe you have an anger issue. I am typing in calm manner, and you continue to hurl insults and ignore the major point I have made through out this discussion.
Actually the number of people murdered by guns only accounts for half of the murders, or possibly less. So your bloody nose could cause death. Where did you get the notion that a fist fight can't cause death? Being robbed can cause death too. There was a case in my town where a prominent business man was tied up and robbed, well guess what he had a heart condition and being tied up killed him. So you go on believing your nonsense, keep believing that guns are the big bad monster that must be stopped. I will keep my guns and donate my money to civil rights groups that protect my right. At least now you know the argument can go both ways, and there is a significant number of defensive uses in the US that would go away. That number once again is 3 million times. So once you figure out how those 3 million people can defend them self other than with guns, then we have a discussion.
What does burglary have to do with violent crime? Is that all you can come up with. A burglary means no one was home. How is a burger going to run into an armed victim if the victim isn't home? So the home owner might be armed, and the criminal waits for them to leave, that is a burglary. Because you drew your conclusion from a false premise I will once again ask for scientific evidence that removing my natural right will cause violent crime to go down. Remember the number of defensive uses of a firearm is 3 million. I'll leave this here for you: "In the United States, a home invasion is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping." Note: "home invasion" != "burglary"
Thank you for proving that when questioned for scientific data, anti-gun nuts will respond with nonsense. I provided you with a number of defensive uses of guns, that number is 3 million. We can not ban guns because it would be possible that 3 million people are hurt by criminals. Now you respond with a number that backs up your claim. Thank you.
No. If someone wants to hurt me, they either know I have a gun and I won't be an easy target, or they know we are in a state with gun control. This is a concept that has been backed by science. Use science please. I do not believe in notions, stereotypes, or false rumors. The problem is with people who want to harm other people. Remove that problem and there is no gun problem. Stop blaming a liberal judicial system on an inanimate object. The shell game is trying to ignore human nature and seek an alternative target to place the blame upon. In ten years from now we will all look back at you and the deniers as if you were creationists.
That is an excellent opinion. Until I see facts it is just an opinion. There are citys where large populations own firearms and constitutional carry is recognized. That means everyone who can legally own a gun, can legally carry that gun where ever they go. How come the police in those states don't have a problem with people being armed? Perhaps the problem is that the more liberal city's allow criminals out of jail sooner that the city's that have strict penalties for crime?
There are states with common sense gun laws. But there is no data to link the gun laws to the number of rapes. If you have the data please present it. The numbers that do exist were in a study recently done by the CDC. They show over 3 million defensive uses of guns each year. While this does not correlate directly to rapes, it does mean a crime was stopped. So looking at crime in general, a gun in the hand of a victim has been a preventative measure over 3 million times a year. Those are the numbers, and until your prove violent crime will go down once I hand in my gun, I will have them and be prepared to defend my self with them. If you want to live in a make believe world where you believe all people will always be humane, you have that right in the US. What you don't have is right to ignore statistics and take away my right to defend my self. Remember I am basing my decision off of scientific facts, you must prove those facts wrong with your own facts before you can change gun laws in the US. The Supreme laws of our land have already thrown out so called common sense gun laws that had no scientific evidence to back them, even though they had been in place for over ten years.
He said without any gun control laws. Are you that misguided that you don't know of the gun control laws in the US?
There was a study done by the CDC that showed guns are actually used quite a bit to defend human life. I believe one of the numbers of uses was well over 3 million. The number of murders per year is under 12,000 per year. I believe some murders are prevented by people having guns to defend them self, or by the criminals knowing people have guns. What ever totaltarian country you come from is probably realizing right now that they messed up bad by banning guns. The US is about to do away with many irrational gun laws, which will make the crime statistics change in a way you don't like. Good luck getting your laws changed in the next ten to twenty years. We are here to help if you have any questions.