• 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!

guns save lives [W:245]

I'm not prejudiced against people from a rural background. I'm from a rural background. My nearest neighbors growing up were half a mile away. There are, of course, tons of smart rural people. And, of course, there are tons of smart, sane, gun owners. It is a useful tool out in the country.

But gun nuts? Gun nuts are a whole different thing. To them, a gun isn't a tool, it is a crutch for their self esteem. It makes them feel better about themselves. It makes them feel tougher and less powerless. They can't get respect by being respectable, so they try to get it by carrying around a gun. They claim that they need a gun to be safe in the same streets my grandmother walks around unarmed. They fight against sensible safety precautions because in the fantasy they're constantly running over in their heads where somebody breaks into their house and they kill him to protect their crappy tv there aren't any trigger locks. They expose their family to danger under the pretense of protecting them and they fight against other people protecting themselves from irresponsible gun owners at the same time.

And, yes, that is primarily a problem amongst stupid, rural, people. There are plenty of stupid people in cities too, but the gun nut is mostly a rural thing.

Holy crap Tea, I can't believe you're saying this stuff. My boys both live near you in San Francisco, and they both own .45 caliber 1911s. Why don't you let them take you to the range. Afterwards I'll join you with my .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic and we'll shoot together. We'll make a man out of you. Come on it will be fun.
 
Holy crap Tea, I can't believe you're saying this stuff. My boys both live near you in San Francisco, and they both own .45 caliber 1911s. Why don't you let them take you to the range. Afterwards I'll join you with my .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic and we'll shoot together. We'll make a man out of you. Come on it will be fun.

LOL. Thanks for the offer, but I'm not actually living in SF at the moment. I've shot plenty of guns in my time though. I grew up country.
 
I don't believe suicides would be decreased overall. People who are really determined to kill themselves will find a way. The unsuccessful ones don't really want to kill themselves as a rule, but are trying to find some kind of consolation and validation from other people.
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

View attachment 67129742

Guns are just one among numerous available deadly instruments. Thus, banning guns cannot reduce the amount of suicides. Such measures only reduce the number of suicides by firearms. Suicides committed in other ways increase to make up the difference. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. They kill themselves for reasons they deem sufficient, and in the absence of firearms they just kill themselves in some other way.
.............
 
You are far more into the whole gun culture than I am. Could you please present that data on England that you apparently have available to you. I would love to see actual verifiable evidence of a gun violence problem there because of gun bans.

Please do present it.
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**


The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)
.

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES


More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.


<snip>


Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.
Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack

Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009


article-1196941-015B644E00001005-992_468x309.jpg


In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax. In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
This is from an official parliament report.

GunCite-Gun AccidentsFatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.


(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).
 
Last edited:
That didn't happen, and it was limited. No one has banned guns. No one is asking for it now.

stop lying-chicago banned hand guns

DC banned handguns and demanded other guns be unable for ready use

that's a ban

any politician who supports a ban should not be able to avail himself to police protection
 
Brady didn't do that. And how about counting the countless. I suspect those few voices are a small minority. Guns are not at risk in this country.

the brady thugs pioneered incrementalism which was the mantra of the former president of the organization that became the brady conspiracy against the second amendment-Pete Shields who called for registration etc and ultimately bans

how do we know that the bradys are incrementalists? easy, sarah brady first said all they wanted was a waiting period. that passed and they then wanted a semi auto ban etc

they never stopped because they liked the limelight and the power and the money
 
stop lying-chicago banned hand guns

DC banned handguns and demanded other guns be unable for ready use

that's a ban

any politician who supports a ban should not be able to avail himself to police protection
D.C. made it impossible to own guns in one's own home, their property. Chicago made it so restrictive to own on one's own property that even if a household did have a firearm the person invading their domicile had the advantage of a five step access to the victims best means of self defense. Someone was telling me in many west coast states there has to be a seperation between weapons and ammo, even for a CCW permit holder in their own vehicle, restrictions such as the magazine has to be on the opposite end of the vehicle from the gun.......yeah, that really helps if you are under attack.:roll:
 
the brady thugs pioneered incrementalism which was the mantra of the former president of the organization that became the brady conspiracy against the second amendment-Pete Shields who called for registration etc and ultimately bans

how do we know that the bradys are incrementalists? easy, sarah brady first said all they wanted was a waiting period. that passed and they then wanted a semi auto ban etc

they never stopped because they liked the limelight and the power and the money
I swear, people who attack the people like the Brady Campaign and other niche special interests should be fed slowly into a wood chipper feet first............this of course is in a more just world.
 
the brady thugs pioneered incrementalism which was the mantra of the former president of the organization that became the brady conspiracy against the second amendment-Pete Shields who called for registration etc and ultimately bans

how do we know that the bradys are incrementalists? easy, sarah brady first said all they wanted was a waiting period. that passed and they then wanted a semi auto ban etc

they never stopped because they liked the limelight and the power and the money

Two separate issues. A lot of people see no need for automatic weapons.

But, you have not disputed my point at all. Read it again.

Boo said:
Brady didn't do that. And how about counting the countless. I suspect those few voices are a small minority. Guns are not at risk in this country.
 
That didn't happen, and it was limited. No one has banned guns. No one is asking for it now.

Encyclopedia of Chicago
Gun Controle
....Soon other suburbs began passing gun control legislation. In the fall of 1982, Evanston banned handguns. In 1984, Oak Park became the third municipality to ban handguns. The following year, Oak Park became a battlefield for national forces, as both the National Rifle Association and Handgun Control, Inc., poured resources into a referendum on repealing the ban, which failed narrowly. The impact of the Chicago freeze was felt far away, as Mayor Diane Feinstein of San Francisco began her own campaign for similar legislation. Highland Park began restricting handguns in 1989.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008


District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home.

The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban - CNN

Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Chicago Gun Ban Axed After Violent Weekend: At Least 29 Shot, 3 Dead In Weekend Shootings

Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Handgun Ban, Affirms Individual Gun Rights Nationwide | The Weekly Standard

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[SUP][1][/SUP] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[SUP][2][/SUP]

~snip~

Immediately after the Supreme Court's ruling, the NRA filed a
lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, followed the next day by a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco over its ban of handguns in public housing.[SUP][56]
[/SUP]
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

That doesn't dispute anything (though I love the Weekly Standard as a source). Guns are not banned, and wouldn't be even if they were't allowed in certain cities. Hunters have guns and so do most who actually need them. In this country, with our EMOTIONAL attachment to weapons, they will never be banned.
 
That doesn't dispute anything (though I love the Weekly Standard as a source). Guns are not banned, and wouldn't be even if they were't allowed in certain cities. Hunters have guns and so do most who actually need them. In this country, with our EMOTIONAL attachment to weapons, they will never be banned.

So you're just going to ignore my link to the Encyclopedia of Chicago and my link to the Supreme Court, aye?
 
So you're just going to ignore my link to the Encyclopedia of Chicago and my link to the Supreme Court, aye?

There's nothing there I dispute. The ban was axed. Axed, not held up. Again, guns are not at risk. I said this doesn't dispute me.
 
There's nothing there I dispute. The ban was axed. Axed, not held up. Again, guns are not at risk. I said this doesn't dispute me.
You said there was no Chicago gun ban:
Look up Chicago, IL gun laws. ;-)
That didn't happen, and it was limited. No one has banned guns.
Yes there was, I proved it, and now you deny saying it as though we can't still see your posts. So, whatever man, a pidgin's gotta strut I guess :2wave:
 
Last edited:
You said there was no Chicago gun ban. There was, I proved it, and now you deny saying it as though we can't still see your posts. So, whatever man, a pidgin's gotta strut I guess :2wave:

Is there one? I thought it was overturned. However, that effort was limited. It did not ban all guns. It did not say hunters couoldn't have guns. It was as I said, very limited. Your links don't dispute me.

However, I think my point was guns will never be at risk here. I stand by that.
 
Last edited:
Is there one? I thought it was overturned. However, that effort was limited. It did not ban all guns. It did not say hunters couoldn't have guns. It was as I said, very limited. Your links don't dispute me.

However, I think my point was guns will never be at risk here. I stand by that.
Untitled3.jpg

Here pidgie pidgie you like bread crumbs? Yes you do, here ya go...goood pidgie....
 
toasted-bread-crumbs.jpg

.....................

I prefer coffee. But you are disappointing here. Is this how conservatives act when shown their error? I hope this is not representative.
 
I prefer coffee. But you are disappointing here. Is this how conservatives act when shown their error? I hope this is not representative.
Oh yesh youz loves doz breadcrumbs...here, try these, they're home made...

bread-crumbs-collage.jpg
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the trolling, Jerry.
 
Two separate issues. A lot of people see no need for automatic weapons.

But, you have not disputed my point at all. Read it again.

the only NEED that matters is that of the citizen wishing to own such a thing. I don't need golf clubs since I am not a golfer nor do I need leotards since I am not a gymnast. But that has no relevance to what Tiger Woods or Shannon Miller might need or want
 
the only NEED that matters is that of the citizen wishing to own such a thing. I don't need golf clubs since I am not a golfer nor do I need leotards since I am not a gymnast. But that has no relevance to what Tiger Woods or Shannon Miller might need or want

OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?
 
OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?

Must be a good fishin' hole with all the red herrings I see.
 
That doesn't dispute anything (though I love the Weekly St andard as a source). Guns are not banned, and wouldn't be even if they were't allowed in certain cities. Hunters have guns and so do most who actually need them. In this country, with our EMOTIONAL attachment to weapons, they will never be banned.

Apparently you have a later copy of the 2nd amendment than the one I have. Mine says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Your's seems to say the rights of some people, who live in some locations, to keep and bear arms, shall not be banned.
 
Back
Top Bottom