Jump to content
Security

What is better, no guns, or more guns?

Recommended Posts

Seems that with more people arming themselves in Detroit, there is less crime. Can't just let the bad guys have guns. Need mandatory minimums on using guns that are not legal in crimes of at least 25 years.

 

http://www.caintv.com/detroit-police-chief-says-priv

 

Little bit of both here:

 

From the Detroit News:

"Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings.

...Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon. I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.

I can’t say what specific percentage is caused by this, but there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect.”

Detroit's crime rate is still disastrously high, but it is dropping. Of course, don't waste your breath telling any of this to the anti-2nd Amendment nutjobs. They're still running around, yapping about how gun control works.

“Our position is, more guns equals more crime,” Horwitz said “These are complicated issues, but the empirical evidence shows the states with the lowest gun ownership and the tightest restrictions have the fewest instances of gun violence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is better

 

Idiots w/o guns

 

 

 

I'm not a fan of "everyone should be carrying a gun".

 

basic stats tell us that the more guns there are, the more people will be killed by guns.

Edited by BillsFan-4-Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Our position is, more guns equals more crime,” Horwitz said “These are complicated issues, but the empirical evidence shows the states with the lowest gun ownership and the tightest restrictions have the fewest instances of gun violence."

 

I would really like to see his "empirical evidence".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Idiots w/o guns

 

 

 

I'm not a fan of "everyone should be carrying a gun".

 

basic stats tell us that the more guns there are, the more people will be killed by guns.

 

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are much like political parties: the ideal amount of either is zero, but given the reality of both's existence, the next best amount is "billions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

what's not to understand?

 

The more people that have guns, the greater the chances that more people will be killed by guns.

 

Just because people have a right to carry a gun does not mean that they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's not to understand?

 

The more people that have guns, the greater the chances that more people will be killed by guns.

 

Just because people have a right to carry a gun does not mean that they should.

Do more knives lead to more stabbings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I surely don't think more are better but there are so many out there now that I think people should have the right to own one or two or three. I don't agree with the stockpiling 'in case the government wants to attack me' theory that promotes bigger and bigger arsenals. I don't think we need weapons that make it easier for the mentally unstable on their suicide mission to kill dozens either. Hunting, home protection, and defense against a realistic attack are all good reasons to own guns. Lots of weapons for sale seem to be offensive rather than defensive.

 

 

Let's say that you are the lone adult that is supervising a group of 5 or 6 teen boys on a camping trip. One of the kids comes to you with a nasty welt he's gotten on his face. He says that he was shot with a BB gun that one of the other kids has smuggled in.

 

What do you do to resolve the problem?

 

Do you take the gun away and devise some punishment for the shooter?

 

Or, would a better idea be to give all the boys BB guns so that they can be on equal footing with the shooter? Maybe .22's would put them in a superior position and then you could be sure that the BB gun owner wouldn't shoot at them anymore.

 

Which solution would cause less injury to the campers as a group? If you were the adult in control, which would you choose?

 

This is hypothetical. I know we can't take guns away from everyone. I get that. Ideally though, I don't think arming everyone is the best possible world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I surely don't think more are better but there are so many out there now that I think people should have the right to own one or two or three. I don't agree with the stockpiling 'in case the government wants to attack me' theory that promotes bigger and bigger arsenals. I don't think we need weapons that make it easier for the mentally unstable on their suicide mission to kill dozens either. Hunting, home protection, and defense against a realistic attack are all good reasons to own guns. Lots of weapons for sale seem to be offensive rather than defensive.

 

 

Let's say that you are the lone adult that is supervising a group of 5 or 6 teen boys on a camping trip. One of the kids comes to you with a nasty welt he's gotten on his face. He says that he was shot with a BB gun that one of the other kids has smuggled in.

 

What do you do to resolve the problem?

 

Do you take the gun away and devise some punishment for the shooter?

 

Or, would a better idea be to give all the boys BB guns so that they can be on equal footing with the shooter? Maybe .22's would put them in a superior position and then you could be sure that the BB gun owner wouldn't shoot at them anymore.

 

Which solution would cause less injury to the campers as a group? If you were the adult in control, which would you choose?

 

This is hypothetical. I know we can't take guns away from everyone. I get that. Ideally though, I don't think arming everyone is the best possible world.

 

Your analogy is weak.

 

A. You're already acting in complete control of the guilty party, the BB gun holder. The government has no control over criminals until they are caught.

 

B. You're comparing adult citizens to "teenagers" who need the gov. to tell them what's best.

 

Sorry, but it's just not a good analogy.

 

The possibility of everyone being armed is what I like. A criminal second-guessing a burglary cause the guy in there might blow his head off. A criminal second-guessing a mugging cause the target might have a hand-gun in his waistband.

 

Gun laws that make it likely for the average citizen to not have a gun destroys that deterrent.

Edited by FireChan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the ideal world, less guns would be better.

 

In reality, there's no way for us to make that happen in the US, so I understand why people want to arm themselves for protection.

 

Personally, I'll never own one.

Edited by Dorkington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analogy is weak.

 

A. You're already acting in complete control of the guilty party, the BB gun holder. The government has no control over criminals until they are caught.

 

B. You're comparing adult citizens to "teenagers" who need the gov. to tell them what's best.

 

Sorry, but it's just not a good analogy.

 

The possibility of everyone being armed is what I like. A criminal second-guessing a burglary cause the guy in there might blow his head off. A criminal second-guessing a mugging cause the target might have a hand-gun in his waistband.

 

Gun laws that make it likely for the average citizen to not have a gun destroys that deterrent.

 

It is a hypothetical situation. Just answer the question rather than complaining that you won't like your own answer. What is the best solution to the hypothetical camping scenario?

 

Also, arming everyone may very well deter crime. I have doubts but let's say that it does,

 

The problem with arming everyone becomes all of the shooting that will happen just because people have tempers and people get drunk and people want to act tough and relationships go south and etc, etc. Most people would say that I was easy going and would be shocked to hear that I shot someone. Without a doubt there may be a handful of times in my life that I very well could have shot someone had I been armed.

 

Also, where does it all end when everyone is armed? We'd have to arm the teachers and the bus drivers and we probably better arm the students just in case the bus driver snaps out. And when they develop new and better weapons, well, everyone must have one or they could easily be outgunned, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basic stats tell us that the more guns there are, the more people will be killed by guns.

Link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the ideal world, less guns would be better.

 

In reality, there's no way for us to make that happen in the US, so I understand why people want to arm themselves for protection.

 

Personally, I'll never own one.

 

 

I thought that too. Now I have one with 1500 rounds of ammo.

 

Link?

 

Only if he washes it 10 times after he pulls it out of his ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a hypothetical situation. Just answer the question rather than complaining that you won't like your own answer. What is the best solution to the hypothetical camping scenario?

 

Also, arming everyone may very well deter crime. I have doubts but let's say that it does,

 

The problem with arming everyone becomes all of the shooting that will happen just because people have tempers and people get drunk and people want to act tough and relationships go south and etc, etc. Most people would say that I was easy going and would be shocked to hear that I shot someone. Without a doubt there may be a handful of times in my life that I very well could have shot someone had I been armed.

 

Also, where does it all end when everyone is armed? We'd have to arm the teachers and the bus drivers and we probably better arm the students just in case the bus driver snaps out. And when they develop new and better weapons, well, everyone must have one or they could easily be outgunned, right?

 

Your hypothetical scenario has no place in this discussion. The comparison is faulty as I have pointed out. I won't deign to answer an irrelevant and stupid comparison.

 

And IN NO WAY did I say arm everyone. Look at yourself, you can buy a gun today if you wanted. But clearly you have some doubts about what you might've done with that power (which is kinda scary to be honest, unless you're talking about your teenage years). But if a guy wants to break in your house, he knows there's a possibly that he'll get shot. I like that deterrent.

 

If you think there are more crazy, unhinged lunatics who would shoot somebody at the drop of a hat than there are normal, responsible people who would use good judgement with their guns, then I see your point. But I don't believe that. For every lunatic that shoots up a school, there are hundreds of crime-free gun users. Maybe a principal or security guy could've stopped one of those lunatics.

 

Just about every college is supported with security/police. What's their death toll over the last 8 years? High schools, middle schools, and elementary schools don't have as much security. What's their death toll?

 

Gotta love your "where does it end?!??!" lunacy too. This is the world we live in bud, get used to it. If you have kids in school, you want an armed guard there. You don't want a "please shoot us up" gun-free zone.

 

On a side-note, I have a feeling a certain scenario will happen eventually. Some kid will bring a knife to school regularly, for defense or to be cool or whatever. Some lunatic will show up to kill someone, and the kid will stab him and save the class. Then the kid with the knife will be expelled for breaking school policy. Doesn't that sound realistic?

Edited by FireChan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with arming everyone becomes all of the shooting that will happen just because people have tempers and people get drunk and people want to act tough and relationships go south and etc, etc.

 

if that were true, every weekend night on 6th street in Austin, Texas would be a bloodbath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone with a gun will fire it daily in anger. But if you are honest, you would have to admit if almost all adults are carrying weapons we will have more shootings of people than we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hypothetical scenario has no place in this discussion. The comparison is faulty as I have pointed out. I won't deign to answer an irrelevant and stupid comparison.

 

 

 

Deign,eh? I had to look that one up. You are certainly smarter than your posts would indicate.

 

It is just a lil hypothetical question. It can't hurt you.

 

So what if your answer is to take away everyone's gun. That is OK.

 

Go on, just try and answer it. Try Chan. I think, and I know that I don't know you all that well yet but I really think you can answer it if you would just try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deign,eh? I had to look that one up. You are certainly smarter than your posts would indicate.

 

It is just a lil hypothetical question. It can't hurt you.

 

So what if your answer is to take away everyone's gun. That is OK.

 

Go on, just try and answer it. Try Chan. I think, and I know that I don't know you all that well yet but I really think you can answer it if you would just try.

 

Fine. In terms of unruly children, I would take away their BB guns.

 

Don't draw any conclusion from this answer.

Edited by FireChan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deign,eh? I had to look that one up. You are certainly smarter than your posts would indicate.

 

It is just a lil hypothetical question. It can't hurt you.

 

So what if your answer is to take away everyone's gun. That is OK.

 

Go on, just try and answer it. Try Chan. I think, and I know that I don't know you all that well yet but I really think you can answer it if you would just try.

 

You need to relax. Have a smoother entry here, you'll do much better. I'm not being sarcastic or busting your balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to relax. Have a smoother entry here, you'll do much better. I'm not being sarcastic or busting your balls.

 

Yeah, sorry, you are right. I was getting frustrated I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are much like political parties: the ideal amount of either is zero, but given the reality of both's existence, the next best amount is "billions".

 

I'm sorry if this is a duplicate response, as I have not read the entire thread yet...

 

I have a limited personal experience with guns used in crimes. While I work as a corrections officer, I deal with criminals on a a daily basis. In my life, where I live, thousands of people own guns, but there is almost ZERO crime stemming from such.

 

I live in NWPA and people own guns for hunting. There is no possible way to make a distinction using gun legislation to differentiate between "hunters/sportsman" and "everyone else"...

 

I have to say that I am against any form of legislation that infringes upon my ability to own/purchase firearms..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I live in NWPA and people own guns for hunting. There is no possible way to make a distinction using gun legislation to differentiate between "hunters/sportsman" and "everyone else"...

 

 

So you support sport hunting of humans???? [/average liberal PPP poster]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be very tough to distinguish between a hunter/sportsman and 'everyone else' Agree completely

 

However it is not nearly as difficult to distinguish a rifle designed for hunting from one designed for combat and offensive purposes. So I don't think the legislation is so impossible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However it is not nearly as difficult to distinguish a rifle designed for hunting from one designed for combat and offensive purposes.

Wrong. But don't let your ignorance on the subject get in the way of your passion. That's what makes so many people today "special."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×