What if getting rid of the 2nd did reduce gun crime

[whateverdude]

I don't debate whether or not the 2nd ammendment kills more people than it protects.
Becuase I support it anyway.

Even if liberals are right and banning guns will reduce gun crime, I don't care.

i would rather live in a place with more violence + the ability to defend oneself, rather than less violence - the ability to defend yourself.

Because if there is a violent situation in a peaceful area with no guns, people are ****ed. If you're an old lady and someone robs your home, you have no defense if someone is gonna rape or kill you, and they can do it with their bare hands.

So even if the liberals are right, and getting rid of the second ammendment would reduce gun violence, I still would not side with them.

In fact a magic wizard could ressurect the kids from Sandy Hook in exchange for banning all assualt weapons, I still would not oppose an assault weapon ban. If I could go back in time, ban assault weapons, and prevent Sandy Hook. I wouldn't

 

[celticwar17]

To me, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with a Utilitarian reduction in crime... or whatever... it is a moral and ethical right.

It is unethical for the state or ANYONE to say that a man(or woman) cannot protect themselves or their family. Since guns exist, it puts every single person who does not have a gun almost completely 100% under the mercy of those who do, therefore it is immoral to force people to possibly be put in a position of 100% mercy of evil doers without any decision onto themselves.

It's almost similar to the Abortion argument the UN uses, since birth control exists, people must have the right to have abortions... since the possible failure of said birth-control. Not that I necessarily agree whether this argument works in this reference .... the logic is similar.

 

[Rexedgar]

Abortion and gun control, what can go wrong here?

 

[SCitizen]

Guns are used in 11,000 murders and 19,000 suicides a year in USA alone.

How can anyone deny that human life has paramount value?

 

[natsb]

What if it did reduce crimes committed with guns? Would that make any difference in the crime rate? I am having a hard time imagining criminals​ thinking: "What? No more guns? I guess I am going to have to give up crime and get a job now."

 

[JLee1977]

 

[Phys251]

What if it did reduce crimes committed with guns? Would that make any difference in the crime rate? I am having a hard time imagining criminals​ thinking: "What? No more guns? I guess I am going to have to give up crime and get a job now."

And yet every year, former criminals turn their lives around, often with help from others.

 

[TurtleDude]

Guns are used in 11,000 murders and 19,000 suicides a year in USA alone.

How can anyone deny that human life has paramount value?

You have a right to end your own life. that is the ultimate right

most of those murders are caused by people who cannot legally own guns. Gun control is nothing more than a scheme leftwing scum bags use to pander to the soft-minded sheeple and to harass their political enemies

 

[whateverdude]

Guns are used in 11,000 murders and 19,000 suicides a year in USA alone.

How can anyone deny that human life has paramount value?

It does have value, however, I don't think I should give up my right to self-defense just to create a world that's a bit safer. Okay, less violence, but violence still exists. Except now, I don't have a gun, and I can't do **** if someone bigger than me is an aggressor

 

[Rucker61]

Guns are used in 11,000 murders and 19,000 suicides a year in USA alone.

How can anyone deny that human life has paramount value?

Then why do we allow people to ride in cars, drink alcohol and own ropes?

 

[zsu2357]

=SCitizen;1067217383]Guns are used in 11,000 murders and 19,000 suicides a year in USA alone.

And the ones committing the murders are they law abiding or criminals? Not saying ONLY criminals are the ones murdering,just the huge majority.

How can anyone deny that human life has paramount value?

Apparently the 19,000 that don't care about their own. Second Amendment or not or if guns just poofed out of existence it's still going to be 19,000 or close to it +or-.

 

[natsb]

And yet every year, former criminals turn their lives around, often with help from others.

Did they do it because they couldn't get a gun?

 

[Phys251]

Did they do it because they couldn't get a gun?

I was thinking about mentoring programs, job-finding programs, and the like, not their ease of accessibility to firearms.

 

[SCitizen]

You have a right to end your own life. that is the ultimate right

NO! As a Jew I do not believe there is eternal punishment.

80% of Americans are Christians believe that those who end their life will suffer eternally.

 

[SCitizen]

Apparently the 19,000 that don't care about their own.

The 19,000 people a year in USA who kill themselves with firearms mostly suffer severe mental disorders. It is a tragedy.

 

[TurtleDude]

NO! As a Jew I do not believe there is eternal punishment.

80% of Americans are Christians believe that those who end their life will suffer eternally.

smart people tend to ignore those myths. suicide can be a very selfish act. or it can be one of love. If someone is wasting away and destroying his or her family, it makes sense. if someone is upset because their girlfriend ditches them for another kid in HS or so forth, killing themselves is really really selfish.

 

[TurtleDude]

The 19,000 people a year in USA who kill themselves with firearms mostly suffer severe mental disorders. It is a tragedy.

[credible citation required for that comment]

and I say SO WHAT? if they are really whacko maybe they are saving society a lot of pain and costs

 

[natsb]

I was thinking about mentoring programs, job-finding programs, and the like, not their ease of accessibility to firearms.

Well, the original question was about criminals turning their lives around if guns were not available.

I'll try again. If guns were gone, would the crime rate drop? Not just crimes committed with guns, but all crime.

If we look at other countries that have banned guns, we will see the the crime rate did not drop. Criminals simply picked a different tool.

So, would the US be different?

 

[OlNate]

Murica has got to be a pretty gross place to live, if you have to worry so much about being attacked on such a regular basis...lol... I have literally not worried about being attacked in my adult life, ever. I mean, I do live in a place where people aren't allowed to walk around with guns, maybe it's got something to do with that...but still, ya, this thread is not a great testament to the quality of life you guys have down there, if you're so scared you need to own a gun to feel safe...sorry to hear that. *hugs*

 

[JLee1977]

Well, the original question was about criminals turning their lives around if guns were not available.

I'll try again. If guns were gone, would the crime rate drop? Not just crimes committed with guns, but all crime.

If we look at other countries that have banned guns, we will see the the crime rate did not drop. Criminals simply picked a different tool.

So, would the US be different?

Absolutely not! I honestly think that even if the 2nd amendment was repeal the legal way we would have the next American civil war. I personally would quit my job, because I don't want to be apart of a police department going door to door taking peoples firearms that were once legal. I saw enough of that when I drove down to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to extract a relative from the chaos.

 

[Phys251]

Well, the original question was about criminals turning their lives around if guns were not available.

I'll try again. If guns were gone, would the crime rate drop? Not just crimes committed with guns, but all crime.

If we look at other countries that have banned guns, we will see the the crime rate did not drop. Criminals simply picked a different tool.

So, would the US be different?

This is usually the logic used by people who oppose gun control. The problem with that is that accessibility to guns increases the risk of homicide and suicide.

BTW, if you interpret that comment as an automatic endorsement of gun control, you'd be greatly oversimplifying this nuanced problem.

 

[soylentgreen]

I don't debate whether or not the 2nd ammendment kills more people than it protects.
Becuase I support it anyway.

Even if liberals are right and banning guns will reduce gun crime, I don't care.

i would rather live in a place with more violence + the ability to defend oneself, rather than less violence - the ability to defend yourself.

Because if there is a violent situation in a peaceful area with no guns, people are ****ed. If you're an old lady and someone robs your home, you have no defense if someone is gonna rape or kill you, and they can do it with their bare hands.

So even if the liberals are right, and getting rid of the second ammendment would reduce gun violence, I still would not side with them.

In fact a magic wizard could ressurect the kids from Sandy Hook in exchange for banning all assualt weapons, I still would not oppose an assault weapon ban. If I could go back in time, ban assault weapons, and prevent Sandy Hook. I wouldn't

I am not really impressed with liberals so no comment on what they may think. But on the other hand the argument that liberals want to ban guns does not ring true. it seems more an argument put out by the pro gun lobby. There thinking being along the line of, let's make up the most stupidest argument a liberal could make and then insist that that is there argument, that way it will be really easy to shoot down. Banning guns is ridiculous in america as that pandora's box was opened long ago and will never be closed. The guns are already out there and you simply have to find a way of dealing with them.

What is equally foolish is the silly argument put out by the pro gun side that it is about defending yourself from crime. Your own example here is a good example of that. begs the question of how stupid are criminals in america. Do they knock and wait politely while little old lady arms herself? Are they not clever enough to know the basics of breaking and entering is usually done when no one is home or when the occupant is asleep or even the basic action of sneak around. If a criminals intent is to cause harm they are not likely to put themselves in a position where the victim will have time to get a gun. Or is your whole argument dependent on the idea that the average american need be locked and loaded at all times to prevent such an incident.

If there is a violent situation in an areas where there is no guns then that by definition would include the criminal not having a gun but being just as lethal with a bat or a knife. Guns are really optional. And if both parties had guns then would not the usual situation be that the criminal would be the first to point a gun at the victim? Which would make it a foolish action by the victim to see if they are faster at taking their gun out before the criminal can shoot them. Or is it a case that in america criminals wear vests with large neon words on them warning victims that they are criminals?

I can come up with good reasons for getting rid of the second amendment that have nothing to do with gun violence. In fact i would put that particular argument as nothing more than once again the pro gun group creating really stupid arguments and saying that that is what the liberals want. Makes it easy for the pro gun group in that they do not have to strain themselves by having to deal with good arguments if they can just shout those down with their own silly arguments.

Violence in your society is dealt with by things like education, reducing poverty and better mental health programs. Banning guns will do nothing to stop violence as criminals are not as stupid or desperate as you wish to portray them.

 

[calamity]

I don't debate whether or not the 2nd ammendment kills more people than it protects.
Becuase I support it anyway.

Even if liberals are right and banning guns will reduce gun crime, I don't care.

i would rather live in a place with more violence + the ability to defend oneself, rather than less violence - the ability to defend yourself.

Because if there is a violent situation in a peaceful area with no guns, people are ****ed. If you're an old lady and someone robs your home, you have no defense if someone is gonna rape or kill you, and they can do it with their bare hands.

So even if the liberals are right, and getting rid of the second ammendment would reduce gun violence, I still would not side with them.

In fact a magic wizard could ressurect the kids from Sandy Hook in exchange for banning all assualt weapons, I still would not oppose an assault weapon ban. If I could go back in time, ban assault weapons, and prevent Sandy Hook. I wouldn't

If I was a chick, I would have a gun on me or within my reach 24/7. When we lived out on the farm, 2 miles from the nearest house and 15 minutes from the nearest cop shop, I had about a dozen guns strategically located around the house and barn. So, I guess, I see the right to have a gun as an essential equalizer--something you should have the right to have in case you need it.

I'm not sure if various military grade weapons qualify as anything we actually need, but... :shrug: I'm not interested in banning them either. However, if I had a son with mental problems, I sure as hell would not have an AR-15 in the house, like the Sandy Hook nut's mom did.

 

[SCitizen]

[credible citation required for that comment]

and I say SO WHAT? if they are really whacko maybe they are saving society a lot of pain and costs

Here. "In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others."

About 80% of Americans are Christians -- they believe that suicide would be punished by eternal suffering.

 

[SCitizen]

smart people tend to ignore those myths.

80% of Americans believe that suicides will suffer eternally. I as a Jew believe that they will suffer for some time.

How can anyone be sure that this is not the case?