Guns lead to more or less crime? your opinion.
Proliferation of guns in our society leading to an increase in crime?
0
The vast majority of people are idiots, why would you let them be more dangerous idiots by giving them guns?
0
Masongate wrote...
The vast majority of people are idiots, why would you let them be more dangerous idiots by giving them guns?
0
Masongate wrote...
The vast majority of people are idiots, why would you let them be more dangerous idiots by giving them guns?Why would we "let them be more dangerous by giving them guns"? The rights of human beings are not subject to arbitrary standards for their utilization. Those rights are absolute (especially when you step into a discussion of natural rights). In the United States the rights granted to the populace is absolute and shall not be infringed!
How would you feel if I proposed to violate your right to free speech (or privacy) simply because I don't think you're "intelligent" enough to be responsible. Get my point?
0
Guns aren't evil, the purpose for using them in the first place is though. If you kill somebody with a gun, chances are you'll share their fate as guns continue to be seen as more of an accessory to any one individual rather than a weapon intent on murder.
0
I understand your point but the jump from free speech to guns is a pretty huge. An idiot can spout as much nonsense as he wants to, but its when when you hand him a gun that i get nervous. It's naive to think that everyone should be able to have a gun especially civilians. The biggest argument for civilian gun ownership is protection. In truth a gaurd dog would be a much safer and more effective alternative, not only for families but also single people, i dont know how capable you are with a gun when some guy breaks into your house at 2am but for most people theyre just a danger to themselves. Besides, i assumed that our founding fathers just meant we were allowed to hang a pair of bear arms on our walls. Also what anime is that squid girl from, i see her everywhere.
0
Masongate wrote...
I understand your point but the jump from free speech to guns is a pretty huge. An idiot can spout as much nonsense as he wants to, but its when when you hand him a gun that i get nervous. It's naive to think that everyone should be able to have a gun especially civilians. The biggest argument for civilian gun ownership is protection. In truth a gaurd dog would be a much safer and more effective alternative, not only for families but also single people, i dont know how capable you are with a gun when some guy breaks into your house at 2am but for most people theyre just a danger to themselves. Besides, i assumed that our founding fathers just meant we were allowed to hang a pair of bear arms on our walls. Also what anime is that squid girl from, i see her everywhere.How would a guard dog be safer and more effective? Especially if the potential assailant/thief is armed?
-Though it gets tossed around that a gun in the household is 43 times more likely to hurt/kill you, that statistic is manipulated by the Violence Prevention Center. The data was taken from a relatively small area (I forget the exact location), and the total injuries/fatalities from guns included not only the household occupants but the perps of various robberies and home invasions, which made-up the majority of the statistic.
0
Masongate wrote...
I understand your point but the jump from free speech to guns is a pretty huge. An idiot can spout as much nonsense as he wants to, but its when when you hand him a gun that i get nervous. It's naive to think that everyone should be able to have a gun especially civilians. The biggest argument for civilian gun ownership is protection. In truth a gaurd dog would be a much safer and more effective alternative, not only for families but also single people, i dont know how capable you are with a gun when some guy breaks into your house at 2am but for most people theyre just a danger to themselves. Besides, i assumed that our founding fathers just meant we were allowed to hang a pair of bear arms on our walls. Also what anime is that squid girl from, i see her everywhere.There have been studies that have shown that guard animals are less effective than a security system on your doors and windows. Not to mention that the owner of such guard animals are introduced to increase liabilities. I've personally witnessed videos of thieves breaking into someones house and petting/playing with the "guard" dog. As far as being capable with a gun, it's called going to the shooting range and learning how to use the tool properly. If people take the time to understand the weapon they won't have delusions of being Rambo.
This is all beside the point as the bottom line is; rights exist free from arbitrary standards such as "intelligence". Either you believe people have inalienable rights or they have no rights at all. Trying to pick a middle ground eliminates the "rights" in question and reduces them to minor a privilege.
Oh and for the "especially civilians" part. I trust Ma and Pa civilian with a firearm more than I trust law enforcement or the military. Ma and Pa want to be left alone. The increasing power gap between the citizens and government is cause for concern for anybody who truly embraces freedom. There is a reason dictatorships always ban weapons from the hands of the populace. Think about it.
0
I guess i woul believe overall that people have the right to bear arms, while i would prefer stricter standards for gun ownership. Also lets say you are a father with several kids and you buy a gun to protect your family, anywhere you put this gun thatwould be ready in case of an emergency would also be acessible to your kids. Another thing, many people buy gaurd dogs without knowing the tendencies of the breed, labs would help a burglar carry out your tv if they had opposable thumbs, while breeds like boxers make reliable gaurd dogs. Most armed assailents would get scared away by a large dog barking. The point is unless youre preparing for the zombiepocollapse guns are not the most reliable form of protection, except maybe in combo with other forms of protection, while an alarm is very effective most of the time its still a machine that can be hacked or shorted out and even after the alarm goes off there still enough time for someone to shoot you and leave. So i guess a combo would be best.
0
Masongate wrote...
I guess i woul believe overall that people have the right to bear arms, while i would prefer stricter standards for gun ownership. Also lets say you are a father with several kids and you buy a gun to protect your family, anywhere you put this gun thatwould be ready in case of an emergency would also be acessible to your kids. Another thing, many people buy gaurd dogs without knowing the tendencies of the breed, labs would help a burglar carry out your tv if they had opposable thumbs, while breeds like boxers make reliable gaurd dogs. Most armed assailents would get scared away by a large dog barking. The point is unless youre preparing for the zombiepocollapse guns are not the most reliable form of protection, except maybe in combo with other forms of protection, while an alarm is very effective most of the time its still a machine that can be hacked or shorted out and even after the alarm goes off there still enough time for someone to shoot you and leave. So i guess a combo would be best.-There are small nightstand safes with biometric locks. Palm the reader and the door snaps open. Most cost less than the gun itself. Alot of gun owners believe in teaching your children about gun safety. In fact, a female-centric gun ownership site, Cornered Cat advises allowing the child/ren to handle then gun [unloaded of course] to sate their curiosity, desensitize them to the gun's presence, and educate them about gun safety. That, and keeping it inaccessible to them when not on one's presence would curb all but the rarest of incidents.
-It is in this vein that I preach education and responsibility in the use of guns if one is to own them. Unfortunately though I must concede that there are stupid people out there. I knew a person while at community college who enjoyed blowing-up almost-empty propane canisters with shotgun slugs, but have not a doubt in my mind that given the time and money required he could get even a NYC handgun permit (widely reputed to be one of the most arduous and draconian processes to acquire a handgun).
-Thus the idea of restrictions on guns is a tough issue even for me. I think that one should need to prove to the state that one knows the laws regarding gun use defensively and can actually use a gun to reasonable accuracy to carry a handgun. I have a hard time buying the slippery-slope argument as of late. I don't believe that such a requirement is unreasonable or would lead the way to further gun restrictions.
-A gun is not an absolute defense, it is the ultimate defense, the last card in one's hand to play. Use of a gun in defense means that all your other defensive or preventative mechanisms have failed, that one has failed. It is never the desired outcome. It would take a psychopath or a souless individual to sleep soundly after having to take another life, even if justified.
0
Here's what the Chechen Rebels did when they couldn't get their hands on any AK-47s.
http://englishrussia.com/2007/06/04/chechen-self-made-weapons/
http://englishrussia.com/2007/06/04/chechen-self-made-weapons/
Spoiler:
0
BadDay wrote...
If they really want to commit a crime, they won't need guns. :|Agreed. Guns are just a medium in the end. However, guns are quite a significant medium. They make it easier to rob a bank, rape a person etc due to its ranged lethality. Lets just look @ a case study; the US. It has 1 of the highest violent crime rates when compared globally - thus fairly safe to assume guns act as an incentive to commit crimes or just give people the illusion of 'power'. Without guns, are you more confident about going against anti-crime units :)? Lets not forget about personalities too tho - which will not be a subject I will elaborate on.
0
I believe every American has the right to bear arms.
Now I am with diget that guns both increase/decrease violence but it all depends on who is getting the gun.
Me I would only use a gun in a survival/protection or sports way [hunting and firing range (but not hunting just for killing an animal for game but for food)].
I believe in gun regulation but to a certain degree; like peoples backgrounds should be thoroughly screened before that person can own a gun however I do not agree with the fact of needing a license to own a gun.
I also think that if the gun is concealed then you should be able to carry it around (yes I know, most people will say that would cause more problems) think of it this way A girl was raped at gun point on school premises, however she did have a CHL (concealed handgun license) but was not allowed to have it on her person while in the school. Now she could have saved herself from being raped if she had her gun on her. (it is a true story, look it up) or imagine this scenario a guy come into a bank with a SMG (sub machine gun) and tries to rob it but wait everyone else pulls out a gun and points it at the robber who is going to give up first. (this may or may not be a real story but I used it as a simple scenario).
That is my opinion on the matter.
Now I am with diget that guns both increase/decrease violence but it all depends on who is getting the gun.
Me I would only use a gun in a survival/protection or sports way [hunting and firing range (but not hunting just for killing an animal for game but for food)].
I believe in gun regulation but to a certain degree; like peoples backgrounds should be thoroughly screened before that person can own a gun however I do not agree with the fact of needing a license to own a gun.
I also think that if the gun is concealed then you should be able to carry it around (yes I know, most people will say that would cause more problems) think of it this way A girl was raped at gun point on school premises, however she did have a CHL (concealed handgun license) but was not allowed to have it on her person while in the school. Now she could have saved herself from being raped if she had her gun on her. (it is a true story, look it up) or imagine this scenario a guy come into a bank with a SMG (sub machine gun) and tries to rob it but wait everyone else pulls out a gun and points it at the robber who is going to give up first. (this may or may not be a real story but I used it as a simple scenario).
That is my opinion on the matter.
0
Guns serve as a deterrent to other guns. Its like how in the cold war neither side wanter to fire a nuke because they knew it would lead to retaliation. The same is true with guns. If someone with a gun breaks into a store where there is someone else with a gun then its bad for both sides. if only one person has a gun then baring unlikely circumstances the person with the gun has the better end of the deal. So guns serve to stop other people with guns. Unless guns were completely eliminated then less guns would lead to more crime. More guns would lead to a changed amount of crime but as long as there were as many people with guns who aren't criminals then people with guns there would be a fairly consistent crime rate.
I don't own a gun. I own a bow. I do archery. So because i disagree with the first three options i say i don't give a damn as long as i am safe.
I don't own a gun. I own a bow. I do archery. So because i disagree with the first three options i say i don't give a damn as long as i am safe.
0
To be honest, I think that guns are the most advertised type of weapon if that makes sense. They're relatively easy to acquire and easy to use, so they tend to make for the most sensational news. I actually think that guns can lower crime as a possible deterrent. If there were no guns and only knives, then news would simply go on about knives.
As I'm sure someone in this thread has stated, if people honestly want to get something done, not having a gun is a minor setback.
As I'm sure someone in this thread has stated, if people honestly want to get something done, not having a gun is a minor setback.
0
Guns could possibly lead to less crime depending on how well learned a gun owner is about his or her weapon and when to and when not to use it. However, I think it's not the gun itself that leads to crimes, it's the people, if you want to lower crime then you must help those who have sunken in such deep despair and poverty, or whatever reason such as drug addiction. If tax dollars goes towards social programs geared towards helping those in need crime would settle down quite a bit I think. Being a Canadian I really don't care whether or not my neighbor owns a gun or not, because there really isn't much gun violence here, most robberies are committed with knives or bats. Because we rarely get gun killings here the Canadian media always swarms on a gun story for months, but with all that publicity people would live in a short paranoid frame of mind for a while, in the US on the other hand...with all that media hype and stuff on crime and violence, people are ALWAYS paranoid (note this may or may not necessarily be true but it is what I believe). It's really the influence of our surroundings that makes the difference between pulling or not pulling the trigger.
0
I can't really answer this question.
It matters who is in posession of guns, to get more or less crime.
If guns are in the hands of everyone, then so are the people which will use it to get more power. In which case, it leads to more crime.
When guns are only in posession of, let's say, the police and the police will use it to take power from the 'criminals' I think it would lead to less crime.
I guess you could say: Something isn't good nor bad, until people use it for good or bad.
[Oh and 'good' and 'bad' also only exists when people give stuff that definition xD So then you could say: something isn't good nor bad, until people first define something as good or bad and after that use stuff the way they already defined as good or bad, which will lead to other stuff, also previously defined as good or bad. I guess that's about right xD]
It matters who is in posession of guns, to get more or less crime.
If guns are in the hands of everyone, then so are the people which will use it to get more power. In which case, it leads to more crime.
When guns are only in posession of, let's say, the police and the police will use it to take power from the 'criminals' I think it would lead to less crime.
I guess you could say: Something isn't good nor bad, until people use it for good or bad.
[Oh and 'good' and 'bad' also only exists when people give stuff that definition xD So then you could say: something isn't good nor bad, until people first define something as good or bad and after that use stuff the way they already defined as good or bad, which will lead to other stuff, also previously defined as good or bad. I guess that's about right xD]
