What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Security]

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."

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

 

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 July 17, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[Koko78]

“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".

[FireChan]

 

 

 

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?

[TakeYouToTasker]

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".

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

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.

[Jauronimo]

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?

[Bob in Mich]

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.

[FireChan]

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 July 18, 2014 by FireChan

[Dorkington]

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 July 18, 2014 by Dorkington

[Bob in Mich]

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?

[Security]

I think all schools should have metal detectors.

[Alaska Darin]

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

Link?

[Chef Jim]

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.

[FireChan]

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 July 18, 2014 by FireChan

[Azalin]

 

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.

[Bob in Mich]

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.

[Bob in Mich]

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.

[FireChan]

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 July 19, 2014 by FireChan

[3rdnlng]

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.

[Bob in Mich]

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.

[CountryCletus]

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..

[DC Tom]

 

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]

[Bob in Mich]

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

[Alaska Darin]

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."

[Bob in Mich]

Is it easier to distinguish the people or the rifles, genius? Enlighten us, please

 

Put out all rifles manufactured today and try to divide them into piles of hunting rifles versus non hunting.

 

You will have two pretty big piles with a third, much smaller pile left over to argue about. Some will be hard to define but most are not.

 

I'll try not to stumble over my ignorance but let me give you a tip. Don't let your perceived superiority get in the way either

[3rdnlng]

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

 

As it pertains to small arms, what is the difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon?

[DC Tom]

As it pertains to small arms, what is the difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon?

 

And before anyone answers this, I'd like to say that your answer is wrong and you're a moron.

[Bob in Mich]

And before anyone answers this, I'd like to say that your answer is wrong and you're a moron.

 

lol

[3rdnlng]

lol

 

Do you think that we should be able to have weapons for self defense, and if so, please explain the difference between them and offensive weapons.

[Alaska Darin]

Is it easier to distinguish the people or the rifles, genius? Enlighten us, please

My response was pretty clearly about guns, followed by an insult. Though I would say it's generally pretty easy to distinguish whether people are informed on this particular subject.

Put out all rifles manufactured today and try to divide them into piles of hunting rifles versus non hunting.

You will have two pretty big piles with a third, much smaller pile left over to argue about. Some will be hard to define but most are not.

So do it then. After all, it's your hypothesis that we're talking about. Give us three examples from each group. That's nine guns total. Shouldn't be that hard to do, right? You know, since you know what you're talking about and obviously have some data to back up what you're saying.

I'll try not to stumble over my ignorance but let me give you a tip. Don't let your perceived superiority get in the way either

Oh, I'm quite sure by the end of this there won't be anything left to "perceive."

[Bob in Mich]

The guns that I own are not new. I don't have model numbers for you. It is not my hobby and I am not going to research that for you.

 

I don't have to know that level of detail to carry on a discussion however.

 

1) Are you saying that gun experts, such as yourself apparently, could not make a determination with the MAJORITY of rifles made today as to whether or not the rifle is an appropriate hunting rifle?

 

2)Are they all made today so that one looks like the other? No way an expert could choose a pile to put it in, is that right?

[FireChan]

The guns that I own are not new. I don't have model numbers for you. It is not my hobby and I am not going to research that for you.

 

I don't have to know that level of detail to carry on a discussion however.

 

1) Are you saying that gun experts, such as yourself apparently, could not make a determination with the MAJORITY of rifles made today as to whether or not the rifle is an appropriate hunting rifle?

 

2)Are they all made today so that one looks like the other? No way an expert could choose a pile to put it in, is that right?

 

That depends. How high are they when they separate the piles?

[Alaska Darin]

The guns that I own are not new. I don't have model numbers for you. It is not my hobby and I am not going to research that for you.

 

I don't have to know that level of detail to carry on a discussion however.

Actually, you do. YOU made the statement that rifles could be separated into 3 piles: Hunting versus non-hunting with a third that apparently have big bird stickers on them to appeal to children (or something suitably ridiculous). I asked you for 3 examples from each group. You asked ME to do the research to prove YOUR hypothesis. Another ignorant "genius" exposed because when asked to provide the basis for opinion, you ran into the closet to search for your blankie.

1) Are you saying that gun experts, such as yourself apparently, could not make a determination with the MAJORITY of rifles made today as to whether or not the rifle is an appropriate hunting rifle?

The differences in "rifles" that liberals want to ban and legal hunting rifles are mostly cosmetic. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how firearms work understands that distinction. No need to be an expert in this particular case.

 

That being said, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting...

2)Are they all made today so that one looks like the other? No way an expert could choose a pile to put it in, is that right?

Obviously not. There is a market element that exists to get people to buy rifles at premium prices because they are the ones the idiot politicians want to ban (and have driven the price up between 300-500% from pre-ban levels). I could show Diane Feinstein or Harvey Waxmen 10 different guns, all with similar across the board characteristics, and they'd want to ban the "scary" looking ones. They're apparently as smart as you are.

[Bob in Mich]

Apparently then I was wrong.

 

You win this discussion. I was completely wrong and I apologize.

 

Is there some reason you can't carry on the discussion without being so damn condescending and insulting? Reminds me of Denniis Leary without the humor. It is a shame because it was educational there for a moment.

 

You win, I was wrong.

[Alaska Darin]

Is there some reason you can't carry on the discussion without being so damn condescending and insulting? Reminds me of Denniis Leary without the humor. It is a shame because it was educational there for a moment.

Because I'm tired of people having "opinions" that aren't based on anything even remotely factual and how generally rabid they are about them.

 

Gatorman is the prime example of today's partisan. We've generally run off most of the "died in the wool" partisan Republicans from this board but Gatorman's like an ass boil that just won't heal.

I was wrong.

Big points from me for being man enough to admit it, though I'm not looking for any kind of win.

[Bob in Mich]

Just a followup in the lightening round, can't we tell something by the number of potential rounds or the allowance for magazines on these rifles?

 

I mean unless you are hunting baby seals, why would a hunter need a hundred rounds?

Edited July 20, 2014 by Bob in Mich

[Alaska Darin]

Just a followup in the lightening round, can't we tell something by the number of potential rounds or the allowance for magazines on these rifles?

 

I mean unless you are hunting baby seals, why would a hunter need a hundred rounds?

Why does it matter? Name the last crime that was committed by someone using 100 round magazine for anything. People who want to kill people have always been able to find a way to do it. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel. The VaTech shooter used 2 pistols (a 10 round .22 caliber and a 15 round 9mm) to kill 32 people and wound 17. Changing the size of the magazine probably wouldn't have any real effect. The last time they tried a national magazine size law, the only real change was the price of larger cap mags on the used/reconditioned market. That horse has left the barn.

 

We should be chasing the things that actually matter. The vast majority of gun violence in this country is tied to gang and drug culture. That's where the concentration should be. The gun laws currently on the books should be enforced, swiftly and without mercy on those who use firearms to injure or terrorize others. Until that happens (and it rarely does), there shouldn't be another law passed.

[Tiberius]

Because I'm tired of people having "opinions" that aren't based on anything even remotely factual and how generally rabid they are about them.

 

Gatorman is the prime example of today's partisan. We've generally run off most of the "died in the wool" partisan Republicans from this board but Gatorman's like an ass boil that just won't heal.

 

Wow, you really are insane. This is so crazy for so many reasons. First off, your opinion about running off the partisan Republicans on this board blows up your statement that YOU are tired of people having opinions not based on facts. Holy crap how divorced from reality must you be to say something so factually wrong. I guess that's why you actually think the media really is out to get you. You think B-Man and company really are rational, thoughtful and non-biased posters. Crazy! Crazy! Crazy!

[ExiledInIllinois]

We've generally run off most of the "died in the wool" partisan Republicans from this board...

 

Which partisan Republicans have been "run-off this board?" State facts please, name some screen names? Rich in Ohio? Even though this is PPP, I will refuse to be disrespectful to the ones I disagreed with in the past and have left us for good.