• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

What's the gun related death toll in your country?
Now compare that to the USA.
Thank you.
Factor in the number of guns to that number of deaths and they are remarkably similar.

If more guns - more deaths, then the rate per gun would be higher where there are more guns.
 
Last edited:
No, hes saying that it CAN lead to that. And it has.


I believe the story points out that the guns were made illegal and their owners were required to turn them in..

Yeah, it was turn them in, or they'll be confiscated.

A whole lot of choice they had there. :roll:
 
That would leave out cultural factors and relative population.

Instead, let's look at all violent crime before the UK instituted strict gun control, and all violent crime after. While we're doing that, lets not forget that there have been a number of scandals about police departments and gov't bureaus in the UK under-reporting crime to make themselves look better.
You're making up excuses to dodge the answer because you know full well that England's gun related death is WAY lower than the USA. We aren't talking about violent crimes, we are talking about gun related crimes. But that harms your argument so you'd better avoid it...

Then we can look at some studies about how often guns are used in the USA to stop a crime; for example the CNN study that put defensive firearm uses in America at the better part of a million per year.
I'd like to read that, got a link?
 
If you say so. You don't sound much like it in this thread.
How so, because I am an advocate for gun registration?

Hm. And while he is pointing a gun at people, we are supposed to divine whether he is a mere robber or a mass-murderer-wannabe through telepathy?
Is this supposed to pass as an argument? Can you name one mass murderer who shouted "give me your money" before opening fire? Mass murderers do go to liquor stores and 7/11 to find masses of people to kill. Keep trying.

Actually, in the vast majority of states, you don't have to register your guns to carry, merely obtain a carry permit. You may then carry whatever gun you wish.
And that is a problem in my view.

While the case may be overstated sometimes, there is nonetheless considerable truth in registration as a prequel to confiscation, thus:

RU|Once again, registration leads to confiscation

Irons in the Fire: Once, more, "Registration leads to confiscation",

(Gun) Registration: The Nazi Paradigm

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

Nazi Germany's registration-to-confiscation-to-genocide is particularly instructive.

I think it is more than mere hyperbole.

Kleck's study on defensive gun useage vastly exceeding homicides:

Kleck-Gertz DGU Freq Study (gunsandcrime)
No, it is mere hypoerbole as well as fear mongering. There are over 300 million people in the USA, our government will NEVER be able to pass a law that would enact the confiscation of private citizens guns. To say otherwise is either intellectual dishonesty, fear mongering and or ignorance.
 
How so, because I am an advocate for gun registration?


Is this supposed to pass as an argument? Can you name one mass murderer who shouted "give me your money" before opening fire? Mass murderers do go to liquor stores and 7/11 to find masses of people to kill. Keep trying.


And that is a problem in my view.


No, it is mere hypoerbole as well as fear mongering. There are over 300 million people in the USA, our government will NEVER be able to pass a law that would enact the confiscation of private citizens guns. To say otherwise is either intellectual dishonesty, fear mongering and or ignorance.

They'd never be able to do it right now.. but how far down the road would their attempt be? How long would it take to restrict gun rights to the point where they can just take them?

Registration has never prevented crime, nor has it ever really helped all that much in solving crime. And historically it's led to confiscation.

Last I checked, mass murderers like targeting gun free zones... schools, post offices, federal buildings, etc..etc. Are you lost in the conversation?
 
Registration has never prevented crime, nor has it ever really helped all that much in solving crime.
AND it is an infringement on your right to arms.
But hey - what's wrong with ignoring the Constition, especially when doing so creates no real benefit?
 
AND it is an infringement on your right to arms.
But hey - what's wrong with ignoring the Constition, especially when doing so creates no real benefit?

I like how their only justifications are "The government won't try and take your guns right now.".

I bet 75 years ago people wouldn't have believed the government would be doing mass spying on it's own citizens... or declaring pre-emptive strikes, or bailing out failing companies...

My, how things change.
 
I like how their only justifications are "The government won't try and take your guns right now.".

I bet 75 years ago people wouldn't have believed the government would be doing mass spying on it's own citizens... or declaring pre-emptive strikes, or bailing out failing companies...

My, how things change.

....maybe I`m a libertarian, because I understood every single word you said, and what you meant by your statements.:2wave:
 
GUN CONTROL - What its done to the world In 1929, the Soviet Union
established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established
gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in
the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Go ahead and fact check all of that...

Then take a look at cali confiscating sks's that they decided all of a sudden were illegal... then look at the government and how it disarmed people that were survivors of katrina. :roll:

Then remove your foot from your mouth.
First of all this is the USA and our culture and system of government is VASTLY different than ANY of those nations you cite, nor are we living in pre-21st century. Ease of access to information, 24 hour news cycles and the ease of individual and group contact via the web and other cell/sat technology make disarming the American populace completely impossible.

As for the NRA's propaganda film.

The first woman was disobeying and arguing with THE POLICE AND BRANDISHED A HANDGUN. It doesn't matter that she is old or wasn't pointing it at her, she had it in her hand and she was telling the police she would not leave her home during a mandatory evacuation because a class 5 hurricane was approaching which devistated her city.

2nd, the guys in video were in an area that lacked police protection, was known to have looters roaming, where violence had taken place. The cops don't know these guys from adam. As far as they are concerned they could have just stolen those guns. Did the guys get their gun back?

3rd, since when isn't gods protection enough for a baptist minister? She had her gun and her bible... I wonder which she put her faith in more... Where in the NT did Jesus say keep your sword close to defend yourself? I know, that's irrelevant but I just love to catch xians being honest since it doesn't happen all that often. :mrgreen:
Not to mention that SHE DIDN'T HAVE HER GUN CONFISCATED.

4th, beyond the fact that we don't know if this guy is truthful but lets assume he is. He said it was mayhem and that the police didn't have control. So they are trying to get control and as I said earlier, they don't know a looter from a guy trying to get his things from his home. Statistically you are more safe if you don't pull a weapon out against a robber. If you give a robber what they want (material crap that's not worth risking your life over) they will leave you alive.

5th, the guy is showing us the weapons that were confiscated. Meaning, he got them back. See above for the reasons why they were confiscated.
 
This nation will be here long after we are gone. I think we have an obligation to ensure future generations right to keep and bear arms. A good first step is to not surrender little pieces. A registration here, a ban there. Next thing you know all those little things are a really big problem. The best thing we can do is stop the little things in their tracks so that they don't have a chance to become serious threats ten or twenty years from now. Those things have a way of creeping up on you.
 
Apples and oranges, Britain and America have different histories and cultures. But if you look at the figures for Britain the gun violence rises with every restriction. Now there are certainly other vfactiors in play, specifically social tension and a rise increased immigration but to simply compare the US and UK is silly if you ignore the stats which relate directly to Britain. Gun violence spiked dramatically in the five years after handguns were banned, it is still quite a bit above the pre-ban levels.

And anyway even if it hadn't that is no excuse to take away our constitution, historical rights(as set out in the 1689 bill of rights.).
That's right there are cultural differences. One is that we don't have a law the prevents citizens from owning handguns. We are a nation of gun owners and out Constitution protects our right to have guns.

Please link those stats so we can determine how far off you actually are.
 
As a former cop of many years I am absolutely opposed to gun registration. I was tickled to death when gun laws in my state changed and buyers were no longer required to get a permit to purchase. There are ways of tracking a gun without requiring an owner to report possession of his gun to the authorities. Databases already exist. While it might make some investigations flow more quickly, it's really not worth the trade off. As pointed out in this thread already, gun registration historically leads to gun confiscation (in many cases anyway).

Knowing who it is that legally owns a gun and isn't committing crime doesn't really mean much to me in an investigation. They guys I'm worrying about don't register their guns and no law requiring them to would matter to them.

I like the idea of my government not really knowing if I'm armed to the teeth, gives pause to tyranny.

Gun restriction leads to gun confiscation in OTHER nations.
 
Factor in the number of guns to that number of deaths and they are remarkably similar.

If more guns - more deaths, then the rate per gun would be higher where there are more guns.
I find it very telling that no one wants to post these stats but just want us to believe the claims.
 
First of all this is the USA and our culture and system of government is VASTLY different than ANY of those nations you cite, nor are we living in pre-21st century. Ease of access to information, 24 hour news cycles and the ease of individual and group contact via the web and other cell/sat technology make disarming the American populace completely impossible.

As for the NRA's propaganda film.

The first woman was disobeying and arguing with THE POLICE AND BRANDISHED A HANDGUN. It doesn't matter that she is old or wasn't pointing it at her, she had it in her hand and she was telling the police she would not leave her home during a mandatory evacuation because a class 5 hurricane was approaching which devistated her city.

2nd, the guys in video were in an area that lacked police protection, was known to have looters roaming, where violence had taken place. The cops don't know these guys from adam. As far as they are concerned they could have just stolen those guns. Did the guys get their gun back?

3rd, since when isn't gods protection enough for a baptist minister? She had her gun and her bible... I wonder which she put her faith in more... Where in the NT did Jesus say keep your sword close to defend yourself? I know, that's irrelevant but I just love to catch xians being honest since it doesn't happen all that often. :mrgreen:
Not to mention that SHE DIDN'T HAVE HER GUN CONFISCATED.

4th, beyond the fact that we don't know if this guy is truthful but lets assume he is. He said it was mayhem and that the police didn't have control. So they are trying to get control and as I said earlier, they don't know a looter from a guy trying to get his things from his home. Statistically you are more safe if you don't pull a weapon out against a robber. If you give a robber what they want (material crap that's not worth risking your life over) they will leave you alive.

5th, the guy is showing us the weapons that were confiscated. Meaning, he got them back. See above for the reasons why they were confiscated.

1, So the government can tell you when to leave your home? Nice, I love when the government protects me... when they shouldn't.

2, Ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty?".

3, point?

4, So, the police don't have control over the citizens.. so they take one of the only ways for their citizens to protect themselves away? And as far as your comment about material possessions, that doesn't matter, it's not you nor I... so your opinion on someone's possessions worth doesn't remotely correlate to this.

5, Doesn't matter, he was disarmed and left defenseless while there was robbing and looting going on.
 
Did they get them back when the crisis was over?

In reference to the state of California, no they did not get their SKSs back that were arbitrarily declared illegal one day... and confiscated.

You had the choice of selling it to the state for $230, or getting it confiscated anyway and destroyed.
 
I find it very telling that no one wants to post these stats but just want us to believe the claims.
There is another thread here on DP that has them. I saw them, but I have no intention of looking back for them. You can beleive it or not or you can look up the thread or not -- it doesnt really matter to me.

In the end, the number of deaths compared to the number of guns is about the same across most of the western nations.

If more guns = more deaths, then the rate per gun would be higher where there are more guns. This is NOT the case, and so more guns = more gun death is false.

Of course, if you want just a local example...
Gun murders in the US are roughly what they were 40 years ago, and yet the number of guns has nearly doubled.
If more guns = more gun deaths, that shoud lnot be possible.
 
There is another thread here on DP that has them. I saw them, but I have no intention of looking back for them. You can beleive it or not or you can look up the thread or not -- it doesnt really matter to me.

In the end, the number of deaths compared to the number of guns is about the same across most of the western nations.

If more guns = more deaths, then the rate per gun would be higher where there are more guns. This is NOT the case, and so more guns = more gun death is false.

Of course, if you want just a local example...
Gun murders in the US are roughly what they were 40 years ago, and yet the number of guns has nearly doubled.
If more guns = more gun deaths, that shoud lnot be possible.

Quite often it's been proven that communities that have a greater population of gun owners have generally had less violent crime.

But, of course our anti-gunners don't want to acknowledge these facts, they'd rather continue running the emotional rhetoric about how guns kill CHILDREN AND KITTENS!!! THEY'RE EVIL.
 
They'd never be able to do it right now.. but how far down the road would their attempt be? How long would it take to restrict gun rights to the point where they can just take them?

Registration has never prevented crime, nor has it ever really helped all that much in solving crime. And historically it's led to confiscation.

Last I checked, mass murderers like targeting gun free zones... schools, post offices, federal buildings, etc..etc. Are you lost in the conversation?
In other words, in your fantasy world of the future. :roll:
 
Quite often it's been proven that communities that have a greater population of gun owners have generally had less violent crime.

But, of course our anti-gunners don't want to acknowledge these facts, they'd rather continue running the emotional rhetoric about how guns kill CHILDREN AND KITTENS!!! THEY'RE EVIL.
Really? could you link to that study because I believe the "ghetto" probably has a lot of guns and a lot of gun violence. Oh, you mean white conservative upwardly mobile communities. Got it.
 
In other words, in your fantasy world of the future. :roll:


So, my history backed statement is a "fantasy world."... Right. :roll:

Well gee with that as your premise let's talk about how the government will one day take away our cars, and then our TVs and then...

This is a popular anti-gunner position... When you've been proven wrong, you resort to nuclear bombs, tennis shoes, or various other things to ditract from the argument at hand.

Like I've said, my position is backed by history, please tell me why it's invalid.


Really? could you link to that study because I believe the "ghetto" probably has a lot of guns and a lot of gun violence. Oh, you mean white conservative upwardly mobile communities. Got it.

Oh, sweet another anti-gun argument ditractor. Use race as a trump card!

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Slippery Slope, you chose your name well, because you are that: Slippery. Facts you don't wish to notice don't seem to stick to you. Facts have been presented and you are simply ignoring them...making it tempting to simply ignore you.


You're making up excuses to dodge the answer because you know full well that England's gun related death is WAY lower than the USA. We aren't talking about violent crimes, we are talking about gun related crimes. But that harms your argument so you'd better avoid it...

Not at all. There were statistics at a couple of the links I posted, did you bother to read them?
You use the point, "This is the USA, its a different culture, etc" as an argument that registration could never lead to confiscation HERE. At the same time, you decline to acknowlege that cultural differences between the US and UK are a primary reason for the different homicide rates.

Another thing you're ignoring is that the violent crime rate IS extremely relevant, not simply the murder rate. Things like home invasions, rapes, strong-arm robbery, armed robbery, assaults, armed assaults and so on that do not necessarily result in death DO demonstrate how much violence is going on in a culture, and is relevant to law-abiding citizens being deprived of the most effective means of self-protection.


How so, because I am an advocate for gun registration?

Yes, not to mention you seem to wish to disparage the notion of armed self-defense in general. I posted a link to the Kleck study, regarding how guns are used for defense many times more often than for homicide.



Is this supposed to pass as an argument? Can you name one mass murderer who shouted "give me your money" before opening fire? Mass murderers do go to liquor stores and 7/11 to find masses of people to kill. Keep trying.
The distinction between robbers and murderers is a thin line. An armed robber is someone whose moral/ethical view is so far gone as to threaten others with a deadly weapon in order to achieve illegal gain. From that to murder is a small step, and one that happens regularly. There are cases in the news every day of robberies that result in one or more murders, even after the victims cooperated. My best friend died in a double homicide resulting from an armed robbery, despite full cooperation.

Your point fails utterly.



No, it is mere hypoerbole as well as fear mongering. There are over 300 million people in the USA, our government will NEVER be able to pass a law that would enact the confiscation of private citizens guns. To say otherwise is either intellectual dishonesty, fear mongering and or ignorance.

I hope you are correct. Are you familiar with the analogy of how to boil a live frog? You turn up the heat slowly so he doesn't jump out of the pot.
In similar fashion, we have ended up where we are now through incrementalism, numerous small steps of little significance alone but leading over time to major changes.

The "slippery slope fallacy" does not apply if the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

G.
 
Last edited:
So, my history backed statement is a "fantasy world."... Right. :roll:
Yes because your statements are based on OTHER countries and OTHER societies, NONE of which are like ours.

This is a popular anti-gunner position... When you've been proven wrong, you resort to nuclear bombs, tennis shoes, or various other things to ditract from the argument at hand.
First, I haven't been proven wrong. Second, I'm not trying to distract from the argument at hand, I'm simply using your own "what if" and applying it to everything else which, to an intelligent person says, you're argument is fallacious.

Like I've said, my position is backed by history, please tell me why it's invalid.
Not our history however and as you and your pals like to point out, we are nothing like them.

Oh, sweet another anti-gun argument ditractor. Use race as a trump card!
I'm not using race as a trump card but you are obfuscating the point that I effectively made.

I agree that some decrease in robberies will occur as more people carry concealed weapons and I'm not arguing against that idea but unlike your ilk I'm not stopping there for convenience. You see, robberies may decrease as more people carry but by the same token you have to admit that other gun related crimes or incidents will increase. Statistically, you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun. So, will more people be shot because more people have guns handy??
My wife's friend got cut off in traffic, she flipped the woman off. The woman, with her 3 kids in the car, proceeded to chase her down, force her to the curb, got out of her car and punched my wifes friend through her open window, then the struggle ensued and the woman pulled MWF through the open window by her hair and when she fell to the ground began kicking her and had to be puled off by a bystander. Do you think she might have used a gun if she had one in the car with her?
 
Back
Top Bottom