If "stripping them of that right" was going to have any impact, then why don't we strip them of their right to commit murder in the first place?

Was the problem in the North of your country the result of them having the right to have the weapons they did? Was the solution arrived at by just banning their weapons?

Yes a determined effort at cutting off the weapons supply was a key factor and the eventual decommissioning of those already smuggled into the country was a prerequisite to confidence building and the eventual success of the peace process

 

Surely some sort of gun control where the nuts & deranged can be stripped of that right would inevitably lead to a safer society.

The mentally ill in the USA do not have the right to buy guns; it is against the law for a dealer or an individual to sell a gun to a known mental defective. But mental disability is often not apparent, and as we all know, laws are often broken; thus, it is obvious that more gun laws won't prevent more gun crimes. If laws prevented crime, there would not be any ponzi schemers, drunk drivers, drug dealers, bank robbers, parking violaters, etc., etc., in the USA. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the laws.

 

For some reason this kind of things are less likely to happen in other 1st world countries. Why?

This is probably one of the main arguments of people who oppose the current gun laws in the US. It just happens less often in Germany, France or any other country in Europe or Canada.

It seems kind of logical that if firearms are freely available to anyone it will be more likely that the wrong person gets one too, doesn't it?

The argument that anything could be used as a weapon doesn't count, it's just not the same thing...

Anyway, now it's to late to do anything about it since everybody seems to have one. Especially those who shouldn't.

Here is an AP article that I just ran across; it lists "some of world's worst mass shootings." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/deadliest-mass-shootings_n_1688820.html

I have not verified the data included in the article, and have no expertise in the matter. In addition, my methods are less than scientific. However, I did total the number of victims by country and divide that by the population per country (as found in a Google search, also not verified.) This gave me a victims per million figure by country over the entire time period in the article (1966 to the present.) Here are my results.

1. Norway, 15.4 victims per million
2. Finland, 3.3 victims per million
3. Scotland, 3.07 victims per million
4. Australia, 1.54 victims per million
5. Azerbaijan, 1.3 victims per million
6. USA, .55 victims per million
7. England, .31 victims per million
8. Canada, .26 victims per million
9. Germany, .16 victims per million

I am no statistician, and I don't claim these results are accurate. However, if there is any validity at all, it would seem the USA may not be as bad as some seem to think. It is a big country and an easy target for criticism.

 

The mentally ill in the USA do not have the right to buy guns; it is against the law for a dealer or an individual to sell a gun to a known mental defective. But mental disability is often not apparent, and as we all know, laws are often broken; thus, it is obvious that more gun laws won't prevent more gun crimes. If laws prevented crime, there would not be any ponzi schemers, drunk drivers, drug dealers, bank robbers, parking violaters, etc., etc., in the USA. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the laws.

Hell come to a FL gun show. You can buy anything you want papers or not. If you wanna bypass the cool down law they even issue concealed weapons permits for $40 which allows you to buy a pistol and take it home that day. The gun shows here are like the wild west. They have thier table stock, then their trunk stock. None are base firearm dealers, 90% are just traveling gun dealers.

 

Hell come to a FL gun show. You can buy anything you want papers or not. If you wanna bypass the cool down law they even issue concealed weapons permits for $40 which allows you to buy a pistol and take it home that day. The gun shows here are like the wild west. They have thier table stock, then their trunk stock. None are base firearm dealers, 90% are just traveling gun dealers.

I have been to gun shows in Florida. There are criminals there just as there are criminals in every state, but I have no way to know what the percentage of sellers are that have FFL's, and are breaking the law by selling undocumented guns.

 

Here is an AP article that I just ran across; it lists "some of world's worst mass shootings." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/deadliest-mass-shootings_n_1688820.html

I have not verified the data included in the article, and have no expertise in the matter. In addition, my methods are less than scientific. However, I did total the number of victims by country and divide that by the population per country (as found in a Google search, also not verified.) This gave me a victims per million figure by country over the entire time period in the article (1966 to the present.) Here are my results.

1. Norway, 15.4 victims per million
2. Finland, 3.3 victims per million
3. Scotland, 3.07 victims per million
4. Australia, 1.54 victims per million
5. Azerbaijan, 1.3 victims per million
6. USA, .55 victims per million
7. England, .31 victims per million
8. Canada, .26 victims per million
9. Germany, .16 victims per million

I am no statistician, and I don't claim these results are accurate. However, if there is any validity at all, it would seem the USA may not be as bad as some seem to think. It is a big country and an easy target for criticism.

Having lived in W TN I can tell you the numbers are wrong for there! In Memphis theres like 10 murders a day.

 

Having lived in W TN I can tell you the numbers are wrong for there! In Memphis theres like 10 murders a day.

I didn't quote any numbers for West Tennessee, and the numbers I quoted were for mass murders, not individual killings.

The total number of murders in Memphis for the last 8 years through 2011 is 1153, which is an average of about 144 per year, which is an average of .39 per day. Here's my source. http://www.wmctv.com/story/16432049/memphis-police-explain-increase-in-murder-rate

 

I have been to gun shows in Florida. There are criminals there just as there are criminals in every state, but I have no way to know what the percentage of sellers are that have FFL's, and are breaking the law by selling undocumented guns.

They had a special on the news here last year that showed we had like 10,000 felons with concealed weapons permits. Somehow there was a loophole and all these guys were able to get permits. So imagine all the gangbangers having permits to carry they glocks.

 

I didn't quote any numbers for West Tennessee, and the numbers I quoted were for mass murders, not individual killings.

The total number of murders in Memphis for the last 8 years through 2011 is 1153, which is an average of about 144 per year, which is an average of .39 per day. Here's my source. http://www.wmctv.com/story/16432049/memphis-police-explain-increase-in-murder-rate

Having lived their you don't know this but thy don't count the whole city. Its gotten big enough where Memphis, West Memphis which is in Ark. Germantown, Arlington, Summerville, and tons more don't make that list. And figuring crime is everywhere there its much like St Louis. Its claimed to be in the top 5 most deadly cities but they don't count the suburbs so the numbers are unnaturally high, where Memphis is not counting half the hood so the numbers are lower then they should be.
Heres the problem with these lists.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/

#'s 3 and 19 are the same cities, 1 and 10 are the same cities,6 7 and 11 are the same cities. Take Tampa vs Tampa Bay. Tampa is a small city in a port. But the actual real city of Tampa Bay consists of 10 cities in 4 counties.

 

They had a special on the news here last year that showed we had like 10,000 felons with concealed weapons permits. Somehow there was a loophole and all these guys were able to get permits. So imagine all the gangbangers having permits to carry they glocks.

I have a hard time buying that, but even if it's true, are you really trying to say that any of these gangbangers would go, "Darn, I didn't get my permit, I guess I will just have to not take my gun to my next drug buy."

 

Having lived their you don't know this but thy don't count the whole city.

Fine, then let's count the whole state!

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm

Year #Murders
2010 357 (less than one per day in the entire state)
1974 555 (the highest count from 1960 on, less than two per day)

You are claiming that there are over 3600 murders a year in Memphis alone.

 

For those who questioned about someone being armed ....

Here is a 71 year old taking action against some thugs ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSJv8nwVBk

 

For those who questioned about someone being armed ....

Here is a 71 year old taking action against some thugs ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSJv8nwVBk

While confrontations of this type are fairly uncommon, the use of a firearm by a law-abiding citizen to prevent a crime and even to apprehend and hold a criminal for police is actually fairly common. Unfortunately, the mainstream press has a long anti-gun bias and so these stories are usually buried deep in a local paper and seldom reported beyond that.

I remember on night when I came into my parent's house at about 2am (they were expecting me the next morning, but I made better time than I had planned for) and just after walking in the door I heard the unmistakable sound of a round being jacked into the pipe on a .45. I immediately called out, "Dad! It's only me!" Had I been a burglar or even someone intending to rape some gal I thought was in the home all alone, you can bet I would have hightailed it for the door as fast as I could move! Now, was there the potential for tragedy in a situation like this? Yes. But then there is the potential for tragedy in many things we do on a daily basis.

 

I already posted that, Joe...post #18.

and I have been saved from trouble 3 times by just the sound of racking my semi-auto rifle. Thugs and window peepers suddenly change their mind when realizing they don't have a good victim.

 

Here is an AP article that I just ran across; it lists "some of world's worst mass shootings." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/deadliest-mass-shootings_n_1688820.html

I have not verified the data included in the article, and have no expertise in the matter. In addition, my methods are less than scientific. However, I did total the number of victims by country and divide that by the population per country (as found in a Google search, also not verified.) This gave me a victims per million figure by country over the entire time period in the article (1966 to the present.) Here are my results.

1. Norway, 15.4 victims per million
2. Finland, 3.3 victims per million
3. Scotland, 3.07 victims per million
4. Australia, 1.54 victims per million
5. Azerbaijan, 1.3 victims per million
6. USA, .55 victims per million
7. England, .31 victims per million
8. Canada, .26 victims per million
9. Germany, .16 victims per million

I am no statistician, and I don't claim these results are accurate. However, if there is any validity at all, it would seem the USA may not be as bad as some seem to think. It is a big country and an easy target for criticism.

I will not trying to convince anybody, but the first place in 2010's list of intentional murder is the US (developed countries). At least according to Wiki. (who knows if it's accurate?)

However, since it will be almost impossible to retrieve the firearms of all the bad guys in the US, it may actually be better if everybody has one.. who knows.

Studies in south american countries actually showed that an intruder is more likely to kill you right away if he can expect to confront someone with a gun.

It may not even have anything to do with having guns or not, it is also plausible that the murder per capita rate has something to do with the society's situation in general, poor vs rich ratio, education deficits etc.

 

Praondevou, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are we talking about the need for guns for personal defense specifically, or the reason for guns in general? In the case of the latter, I touched on it in post #31, but Wbahn said it better; I'll post an excerpt:

...the Framers of the Constitution did not see the 2nd Amendment as having anything to do with hunting, putting food on the table, or even defending yourself against criminals. They didn't even see it primarily arising from the need to protect against foreign enemies, but primarily as the final check against rising tyranny from our own government. This was an overriding concern for them, as evidenced by the extremely weak form of government set up originally under the Articles of Confederation which proved to be too weak to function. So when they went Round Two and put together the Constitution, they acknowledged that the federal government had to have broader and stronger powers, but they still wanted to prevent it from turning tyrannical.

It's in our Declaration of Independence. see below:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

Americans and guns go way back. It has historically been our way of life. We started out very bent against ever being subjected to tyranny, but have lost a lot of steam along the way. Our generational memory is not strong and most have lost sight of why we love our guns. Now a lot of Americans see it as unnecessary and seek to force their will on the masses; their will being that guns be controlled/outlawed by the government that's meant to be kept in check by those very guns. As less and less Americans per capita are purchasing guns, I feel the grip of government control tightening. If we continue on this trajectory (increasing government control, and increasing public sentiment that gun owners are irrational, accident prone morons) we will find ourselves subject to tryanny in the future.

So, all that, plus home defense, is why I feel that I need them.

 

I feel the grip of government control tightening. If we continue on this trajectory (increasing government control, and increasing public sentiment that gun owners are irrational, accident prone morons) we will find ourselves subject to tryanny in the future.

So, all that, plus home defense, is why I feel that I need them.

Not considering an oppressive Government like Nazi-Germany, it doesn't seem to make much difference if you allow guns to all or to nobody.
Similar to the Cold War, an equilibrium is achieved.

Yes, I see why in the US you may need one, because we know that there are so many firearms in the hands of the bad guys. The situation is different in european countries. Armed robberies etc is something rarely heard of.

I'm trying to find studies about effects of recent disarmament campaigns, but they are all contradictive. There seem to be as many arguments in favor of gun laws as there are against them...

All in all it seems to make sense to arm yourself if you expect things like home intrusion or governments becoming extremely oppressive likely to happen.

Of course, the II World War may not have happened the way it did if civilians had been armed...

 

and the Japanese did not invade California because they believed the general population was armed.

 

Not considering an oppressive Government like Nazi-Germany ...

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
----Adolph Hitler

Five years before Hitler took the reigns of power, the National Socialist government enacted a gun control law and disarmed Jews and other political oppoents.

Here is a good review ... http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

 

Five years before Hitler took the reigns of power, the National Socialist government enacted a gun control law and disarmed Jews and other political oppoents.

And, ironically, while the Nazi's did enact particularly strong gun laws aimed specifically at the Jews (such as forbidding them from even working in a place that was involved in the gun trade), they didn't need to enact any to disarm the bulk of the opponents because they just used the existing laws that had been previously passed by the Wiemar republic in large part specifically to try to disarm the Nazis!

That's one of the constants throughout history -- laws are passed, often with broad popular support, as a means of addressing some immediate problem and the people passing them assume that because their motives are right and just and pure that the same will be true in the future.