This is getting out of hand.

[headwards]

What enables killing sprees is the mentality that such powerful weapons are necessary in day to day life. Senojekips I thinkthe movies are a result of the mentality more the the other way around.
Self defense experts mostly agree that to go around armed is to be looking for trouble and here at least the law agrees.
Our law forbids carrying personal weapons and to carry one is seen as upsetting the social balance (except for south african guys who all seem to carry knives as tools)
It makes a violent senseless outburst much less harmful and planned murder largely does not have collateral damage.
A handgun is a truly insane weapon to allow your average citizen. Every conflict/breakdown automatically has the potential to kill multiple people.

 

[Yossarian]

What enables killing sprees is the mentality that such powerful weapons are necessary in day to day life. Senojekips I thinkthe movies are a result of the mentality more the the other way around.
Self defense experts mostly agree that to go around armed is to be looking for trouble and here at least the law agrees.
Our law forbids carrying personal weapons and to carry one is seen as upsetting the social balance (except for south african guys who all seem to carry knives as tools)
It makes a violent senseless outburst much less harmful and planned murder largely does not have collateral damage.
A handgun is a truly insane weapon to allow your average citizen. Every conflict/breakdown automatically has the potential to kill multiple people.

Their presence at this point cannot be negated, first word firearms are illegal and people will stash their automatics in shoe boxes across the country.

Even in such an enviroment I see these instances still occuring in the future, as the do in terms of terrorist acts occur without firearms both inside and outside the country already today.

What I want to know is what combitnation of factors which forms this "perfect" societal killer.

And more importanly how to find a way to neutralize such occasions through prevention if at all possible., what average citizen would want otherwise?

 

[senojekips]

I look at this thread and can't help having a quiet giggle to myself. The question has been asked, but any answers that attempt to confront the problem are rejected.

THAT is exactly why this problem persists,... no one is actually willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary, they think that the problem can be fixed by wishing it away, without actually "doing" anything or facing the underlying problems.

 

[-- Dusty]

Colt M1911 - Giving liberals bleeding hearts since 1911....

 

[-- Dusty]

I can't imagine killing anyone that I don't have a specific problem with. I can't stomach the idea of taking the lives of those not directly involved in my plight. It's just plain wrong. And those that survive claim they are victims? Not in my eyes. Nothing justifies things getting "that bad".

 

[BritinBritain]

lol, don't compare the Israeli situation to U.S's. They are completely different. While I don't give a crap about gun rights and all (as I will just stay away from violent cities and neighborhoods), I do not really believe more guns in the hands of civilians will reduce crime. If someone is going to kill someone, they will do it regardless of the threat of being caught or killed. Guns make it way easier to kill not just one person, but many others at the same time. You can't successfully go on a public mass killing spree without a firearm.

First reason why your Israeli comparison is off is because they have a common enemy (terrorists) and a higher morale standard than the average American (going by what I witness). Also U.S is way more diverse, so comparing us to homologous countries is also incorrect.

I can drown you in reliable statistic's from around the world that proves that where there are very restrictive gun laws crime increases and the reverse with more sensible gun laws. Washington DC was the murder capital of the US where handguns were banned, Florida was the rape capital of the US until concealed carry was introduced.

As for school shootings and why so many killings take place? The answer is simple, "Gun Free Zones." The thing about passing laws that make schools gun free zones, criminals, thugs or whatever you want to call them, simply ignore the law.

In South Africa a certain Mall in Cape Town is a gun free zone, in as many weeks it was hit six times by armed gangs. Yep gun free zones work, only it's the law abiding that obey the law, criminals don't.

Because of the restrictive gun laws in South Africa we are dealing with over 75 murders a day, some put it as high as 150.

In the UK as far as i can remember, there is (or plans for) legislation to make parents responsible for their children's actions, YET the law forbids parents the use of effective discipline. In the Isle of Man where birching was lawful there was very little in the way of crime by youths. When the Europeon Court of human rights stepped in and demanded that birching is banned, crime went up. As far as I am aware Singapore has corporal punishment on the law books and very effective from what I understand.

 

[RayManKiller3]

I can drown you in reliable statistic's from around the world that proves that where there are very restrictive gun laws crime increases and the reverse with more sensible gun laws. Washington DC was the murder capital of the US where handguns were banned, Florida was the rape capital of the US until concealed carry was introduced.

As for school shootings and why so many killings take place? The answer is simple, "Gun Free Zones." The thing about passing laws that make schools gun free zones, criminals, thugs or whatever you want to call them, simply ignore the law.

In South Africa a certain Mall in Cape Town is a gun free zone, in as many weeks it was hit six times by armed gangs. Yep gun free zones work, only it's the law abiding that obey the law, criminals don't.

Because of the restrictive gun laws in South Africa we are dealing with over 75 murders a day, some put it as high as 150.

In the UK as far as i can remember, there is (or plans for) legislation to make parents responsible for their children's actions, YET the law forbids parents the use of effective discipline. In the Isle of Man where birching was lawful there was very little in the way of crime by youths. When the Europeon Court of human rights stepped in and demanded that birching is banned, crime went up. As far as I am aware Singapore has corporal punishment on the law books and very effective from what I understand.

The problem with those statistics is they don't take into account other things that was happening. It is sooo easy to find guns its not even funny, so how can one state successfully restrict handguns when the state right next to it allows it? Sure D.C can restrict the guns from its residents, but how can they stop the resident from going out of state and purchasing one? The only way they would of restricted guns successfully is if they acted as if they were another country. They would need to have checkpoints at every legal entry and patrols bordering other areas, to completely prevent firarms. During the time D.C was the murder capital, we were also facing another epidemic, that many statistics leave out: crack. There was a very widespread use of crack during this time, which upped the crime rates dramatically. Aparently the people who did the stastistics left that out either purposely (to fight gun restriction laws) or were truly naive to what was going on at the time.

I am aware and of the belief that it is too late to actually illegalize guns completely as our border is too open and too many people already have weapons.

You are talking about the whole of South Africa when you state 75 murders a day right? Well in Detroit (one city with 700,000 population), there is 1 murder a day. In New York City (population of 8 million), there is 1.3 murders a day. Regulations in New York City has tightened since 2006 and ever since, the city has been reducing the amount of crime.

70% of homicides in Detroit is not solved...

I lived in Brooklyn and as children we had to learn to get down all the time because of gun shots, even in our own homes. I still don't see the correlation with more firearms out there = less crimes. The only crime I see being reduced is the fact that it is not illegal to have one.

Guns may increase your feeling of safety, but it also increases the bad guy's confidence in being successful. It will mainly depend on how unthought out was the crime and who was more effecient with their weapon. If I was a criminal I would give no time for the male/female I am violating to pull out a weapon.


If your going to bring more statistics up, make sure it is relevant to U.S's situation. Homologous country statistics I will not count as a relevant statistics as U.S is too diverse for it.

 

[Yossarian]

I look at this thread and can't help having a quiet giggle to myself. The question has been asked, but any answers that attempt to confront the problem are rejected.

THAT is exactly why this problem persists,... no one is actually willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary, they think that the problem can be fixed by wishing it away, without actually "doing" anything or facing the underlying problems.

Can't help but agree on that.

 

[George]

but how can they stop the resident from going out of state and purchasing one? The only way they would of restricted guns successfully is if they acted as if they were another country. They would need to have checkpoints at every legal entry and patrols bordering other areas, to completely prevent firarms.
70% of homicides in Detroit is not solved...

If your going to bring more statistics up, make sure it is relevant to U.S's situation. Homologous country statistics I will not count as a relevant statistics as U.S is too diverse for it.

Stop people from getting guns from another State. If the problem was actually guns, the States with lax gun Laws would have a higher crime rate.
70% of Detroits murders go unsolved. Now here is the real problem, poor or ineffective policing, with politicians trying to take the easy way out by banning guns, ect instead of vigerious prosecution & incerceration. Throw in broken familys, no father figure to show guidance, "It's societys fault, not the person, ect.
Movies & video games. Saw a story about a guy who as a young teen had watched "The Godfather" & was impressed, & lacking guidance on behaviour from a nonpresent Dad, he adopted what he saw. When a guy insulted his sister, he pumped bullets into the guy, just like in the movie. Schools are/were teaching a "Moral relativism" that let children decide what actions were right & wrong w/o the teachers stepping in to correct mistakes, just another part of the problem.

 

[BritinBritain]

If your going to bring more statistics up, make sure it is relevant to U.S's situation. Homologous country statistics I will not count as a relevant statistics as U.S is too diverse for it.

The town of Kennesaw in Georgia passed a law years ago that all home owners are required to own a firearm. There are of course exceptions, such as religious, if a person is mentally ill or has a criminal conviction.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Criminals are not stupid, they will not attack anyone they know to be armed. Would you?

I'm not getting into the pro gun anti gun debate, but statistics in the US alone points to "More guns = less crime. That's fact.



Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Its exactly the same story around the world.

Last figures I have received, the US has 17,000 murders a year and dropping, South Africa has 27,000 plus (some have inferred that it is actually twice that number as they are government figures) and climbing.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The town of Kennesaw in Georgia passed a law years ago that all home owners are required to own a firearm. There are of course exceptions, such as religious, if a person is mentally ill or has a criminal conviction.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Criminals are not stupid, they will not attack anyone they know to be armed. Would you?

I'm not getting into the pro gun anti gun debate, but statistics in the US alone points to "More guns = less crime. That's fact.



Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Its exactly the same story around the world.

Interesting, I have never heard this before. I assume the people in this city got proper training and education to handle weapons (including the safety and storage of them). Weapons don't kill, the people holding them do. I have from time to time been thinking about the legal access to firearms, we cannot do much about the illegal market. What do you think if a "new" gun owner when (s)he is buying a gun, they need to have a chat with a psychologist first to see if they are in a mental stage to have a gun. It isn't complete water proof, but better than nothing. Just a thought

 

[RayManKiller3]

Stop people from getting guns from another State. If the problem was actually guns, the States with lax gun Laws would have a higher crime rate.
70% of Detroits murders go unsolved. Now here is the real problem, poor or ineffective policing, with politicians trying to take the easy way out by banning guns, ect instead of vigerious prosecution & incerceration. Throw in broken familys, no father figure to show guidance, "It's societys fault, not the person, ect.
Movies & video games. Saw a story about a guy who as a young teen had watched "The Godfather" & was impressed, & lacking guidance on behaviour from a nonpresent Dad, he adopted what he saw. When a guy insulted his sister, he pumped bullets into the guy, just like in the movie. Schools are/were teaching a "Moral relativism" that let children decide what actions were right & wrong w/o the teachers stepping in to correct mistakes, just another part of the problem.

I see what your saying. I am not for or against gun laws, just attacking the example you stated of the Israeli's and BritainAfrica's statistics as they are incorrect.

I am still not convinced that more firearms out there = less violent crimes. Sure it may work in some instances and BritainAfrica's latest post was quite interesting, but I just don't see it completely.

There is only one real way to prove either one correct and that is by going with solutions to it: by arming the whole country or disarming and then fortifying the borders.

I agree that society do have a problem especially since these latest generations seem to be born with no father figure and completely questionable idols. The question is can today's society really agree on the solutions necessary to advert this?


BritinAfrica:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Its exactly the same story around the world.

Last figures I have received, the US has 17,000 murders a year and dropping, South Africa has 27,000 plus (some have inferred that it is actually twice that number as they are government figures) and climbing.

This statistic is interesting, but remember statistics are made to gather support for a side. Just like your statistics proves firearm prevent crimes, there will be some that states it causes more crime.

I am not going to debate this statistic though. To clear it one more time: I am not for or against gun rights. I don't see enough evidence to sway me either way, especially considering the places I have seen.

I believe if we were able to reduce poverty to acceptable levels and increase education, then every U.S citizen can be armed and it will not increase crime rates. I agree that it isn't the guns itself, I just believe it makes it easier.

 

[VDKMS]

The question is very simple, the answer is very complicated.

We can rule out violent games and movies. Millions play and watch them and only once in awhile someone goes berserk.

The arming of civilians seems to be a good move at first, and many will feel much safer. The problem comes afterwards when something happens. You must convince the judge that you didn't murder someone but that it was self defense.
Many years ago the Belgian female champion in a martial arts discipline kicked a burglar down the stairs and called the police. The burglar was free to go and she had to go to the police station. There she was told that the burglar only entered her home unauthorised, he didn't steal anything nor did he attack her while she took justice in her own hands and hurt him pretty bad.
(in Belgium you are not allowed to defend your property)

I think it is better to severely restrict the ownership of weapons IF the police force get stronger and better armed.

 

[headwards]

These arguments come hand in hand with the insane statistics of murder by firearms in the US. I don't believe that everyone carrying a firearm is the answer and you guys are living proof of the folly of that train of though, all a firearm can do is raise the stakes and get people dead.
In a home invasion every citizen has the right to defend themselves- no doubt.
But what does it say about a society where citizens carry handguns out and about with 17 bullets in the magazine? Thats not self defense. Its extreme paranoia and collateral damage.

 

[Yossarian]

Interesting, I have never heard this before. I assume the people in this city got proper training and education to handle weapons (including the safety and storage of them). Weapons don't kill, the people holding them do. I have from time to time been thinking about the legal access to firearms, we cannot do much about the illegal market. What do you think if a "new" gun owner when (s)he is buying a gun, they need to have a chat with a psychologist first to see if they are in a mental stage to have a gun. It isn't complete water proof, but better than nothing. Just a thought

Maybe, Such as the notion that law enforcement agencies and organizations nationwide should become more noteworthy of what goes on on social media.

From recent shootings like the Arizonia incident, to the Columbine massacre, both cases where the shooters showed deep signs of either distress or disturbance via social media, or other social outlets.

Today it seems someone who is on the verge of an outburst seems to hint at the seeds of a deadly occurance in some form of social circle.

However there are counter points to this theory, can be seen in how one of the Columbine gunmen participated in a youth correctional program designed to reduce the possiblity of outlashing behavior, prio to disaster that followed in 1999. In which cases he showed complete signs of conforming to the requirements to complete the program, and despite this still engaged in the infamous attack on April 20th.

 

[George]

There is only one real way to prove either one correct and that is by going with solutions to it: by arming the whole country or disarming and then fortifying the borders.

Talking domestic criminals, though there is a big problem with crimes by illegals.

Many years ago the Belgian female champion in a martial arts discipline kicked a burglar down the stairs and called the police. The burglar was free to go and she had to go to the police station. There she was told that the burglar only entered her home unauthorised, he didn't steal anything nor did he attack her while she took justice in her own hands and hurt him pretty bad.
(in Belgium you are not allowed to defend your property)

I think it is better to severely restrict the ownership of weapons IF the police force get stronger and better armed.

In a home invasion every citizen has the right to defend themselves- no doubt.
But what does it say about a society where citizens carry handguns out and about with 17 bullets in the magazine? Thats not self defense. Its extreme paranoia and collateral damage.

There are States, especially in the Liberal Northeast, that require residents to flee their own home. It should be noted that Police are mainly a reactive force, coming to find out who murdered you rather than preventing it. For most criminals Police are a deterent on the same level as the Laws they break.

 

[MontyB]

These arguments come hand in hand with the insane statistics of murder by firearms in the US. I don't believe that everyone carrying a firearm is the answer and you guys are living proof of the folly of that train of though, all a firearm can do is raise the stakes and get people dead.
In a home invasion every citizen has the right to defend themselves- no doubt.
But what does it say about a society where citizens carry handguns out and about with 17 bullets in the magazine? Thats not self defense. Its extreme paranoia and collateral damage.

Mate as much as I agree with you I have to say you are wasting your time.

I once used the same argument as yourself and smirked at all the dodgy statistics dredged up by both sides and the more often they had shooting spree's the more adamant my arguments became but then it dawned on me, Americans rate guns higher than lives and nothing on earth is going to change that so now rather than join these discussions I just let them scroll off the front page an into history after all if they are happy with their death toll and I don't have to live in a society that emulates them what do I care how many of each other they kill.

 

[MontyB]

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

How many firearms related murders does a town of 5,000 normally have?

I live in a town of 8,000 and we have had no firearms related murders in living memory (well a cop shot a guy wielding a golf club) and we have restricted weapons laws, does this mean restrictions work better than none (which is the opposite argument to what you are pushing) but I have a population 25% larger than your sample so I must be right.

The reality is that guns are not the problem but they have become the solution to many Americans problems, New Zealand has one of the highest firearms ownership rates in the world yet we are much happier beating the crap out of each other than shooting each other and when you can explain why that is you will have the answer to the problem.

 

[Yossarian]

I live in a town of 8,000 and we have had no firearms related murders in living memory (well a cop shot a guy wielding a golf club) and we have restricted weapons laws, does this mean restrictions work better than none (which is the opposite argument to what you are pushing)

What is your homicide rate? Not firearm homicides, all homicides.

but I have a population 25% larger than your sample so I must be right.

Must be right? My friend if the close examination of Congressional legistration during my lifetime says anything, is that if you wish to "win" an argument then you are doomed to run a marathon you cannot finish.

As long as there are two opinions, nobody is ever going to be right.

You do not need to "win", just prove the oppisition wrong then walk out so they are left with their disproven opinion and are unable to respond.

The reality is that guns are not the problem but they have become the solution to many Americans problems, New Zealand has one of the highest firearms ownership rates in the world yet we are much happier beating the crap out of each other than shooting each other and when you can explain why that is you will have the answer to the problem.

Guns are played in movies with latex wearing sex icons, they are plastered as "cool" , and sexy additions to any action hero. Virtual firearms are avaible for misuse for any young child in America who parents cannot read a parental warning label for the latest video game.

Then this type of homicidal sprees may just be in fact a side effect of what we idolize.

Hell, firearms these days seem to be potrayed in many ways like cigarettes, cool sexy masculine, the only thing seperating them from cigarettes are that they lack the nicotine.


What I am stabbing at , is maybe homicidal maniacs do things the "Amerucan" way, and go to town the same way they grew up watching on tv.

Acts of domestic terrorism, have, and do reach higher casualty rates without firearms, in countries with and without heavy firearm regulations.

So if the argument is that firearms are necessary for homicidal sprees by mentally disorderly people is invalid.

American cultural influence upon impressionable young people today, including those who are mentally ailing seems to be a much more potent culprit.

 

[MontyB]

What is your homicide rate? Not firearm homicides, all homicides.{/quote]

In all honesty I couldn't tell you, it is not very high perhaps 5 in 20 years maybe less.

Must be right? My friend if the close examination of Congressional legistration during my lifetime says anything, is that if you wish to "win" an argument then you are doomed to run a marathon you cannot finish.

As long as there are two opinions, nobody is ever going to be right.

You do not need to "win", just prove the oppisition wrong then walk out so they are left with their disproven opinion and are unable to respond.

I was being somewhat factitious, it was a counter to the argument that forcing people to own firearms must work if a city of 5000 only has 3 murders in 10 years then surely a town of 8000 with less murders must prove that firearms controls is a better option.

It was the use of dodgy logic to disprove equally dodgy logic.

Guns are played in movies with latex wearing sex icons, they are plastered as "cool" , and sexy additions to any action hero. Virtual firearms are avaible for misuse for any young child in America who parents cannot read a parental warning label for the latest video game.

Then this type of homicidal sprees may just be in fact a side effect of what we idolize.

Hell, firearms these days seem to be potrayed in many ways like cigarettes, cool sexy masculine, the only thing seperating them from cigarettes are that they lack the nicotine.


What I am stabbing at , is maybe homicidal maniacs do things the "Amerucan" way, and go to town the same way they grew up watching on tv.

I don't agree, New Zealand has a high rate of firearms ownership and we get the same movies, video games etc. and we have the same poor standard of parenting yet we don't in general go nuts with guns.

I personally think the problem is one of immediate availability, here we are required to secure weapons at all times when not in use, if you are caught on the streets with one in firing condition or without valid reason you will lose it and a sizable chunk of cash so we don't drive around with gun racks or firearms strapped to ourselves therefore if we get into a fight it is more than likely going to be a fist fight (because few people if any go home to get a gun and most of those that do cool down before they get back).

Basically I think it comes down to what you have with you at the time, if I have issues and the best weapon I have at hand is a fist or a baseball bat then that is what I will use, if it is a firearm then that is what I will use and Americans seem to have more firearms at hand than most others.