Quote:
Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Well other coutnries have very few deaths (like England like 100-1000 a year, other european nations less than 500 for sure, some even less than 100) due to guns.
Thats mainly because the criminals don't have the guns and neither do the populace. It works for them.
|
They also have a far higher rate of violent crime than we have here in the US (mugging, home invasion, assault, etc). Look at Switzerland. They have an average of two guns in every home (50% of which are the scary and evil assault rifle), yet they have the lowest murder rate in Europe (after Vatican City). It is not about guns.
Quote:
America - too many guns are out there already. And honestly the argument of "military and police" having guns and making a police state all depends on the gov't's thinking.
If we elect a sane man it wouldn't happen.
Besides, honestly, would YOU shoot at police/military if there was a police state or martial law or whatever you want it to be?
Most "right" people wouldn't anyways despite having guns so thats somewhat irrelevant.
|
I am in the military, and I would be the first to take up arms to defend the constitution, that is the oath I took. If I had to defend it against the government, so be it.
Quote:
Guns for defense are only useful if the guy owning the gun is responsible and knows how to use it. And its responsiblity that really matters. Leaving it in an unlocked locker is hardly responsible when there are kids around.
|
True. That is why, given the fact that guns are abundant in America, we should insist on a mandatory gun safety course in our schools.
Quote:
Oh and I'd like to mention that those cases you listed - there are many more where the gunfire exchange leads to the guy trying to defend. There are many many grocery store / liquor store robberies where the owner tries to get a gun and ends up dying. Home invasions as well where they challenge there are man yas well.
You only hear about the heroes - but many more probably get injured, and sometimes its the kids getting hurt which is even worse imo.
|
Just the opposite really. The media rarely if ever reports the use of a gun in self defense. Mind you, in most cases the gun is never fired, it simply acts as a deterent.
Quote:
Hell thats even why police repeatedly say "just wait for the police and don't try to fight" because there are so many incidents where people try and they end up the victims.
|
Thats exactly the opposite of what every cop I've ever talked to says (and I am engaged to one).
Quick scenario.
You wake up to the sound of breaking glass. Footsteps creak down the hall towards your bedroom. The average response time for the cops is 5 minutes (a wildly optimistic figure). Your doorknob begins to turn.
Now, would you rather:
A. Have a gun.
or
B. Not have a gun.
Ask any cop and they will tell you, they are there to solve crimes, not prevent them.
Quote:
Of course all of this would be irrelevent if criminals didn't have guns and people didnt' as well. to get to that point though some type of measure has to be done in the beginning to stop providing criminals with it - which imo is much more important.
|
"Some type of measure", even though is has been proven not to work?
Check the areas of the country with the highest rates of gun violence, and you will find that they have the most restrictive gun laws.
Like it or not, guns are here to stay, you cannot change that. The only thing you can change is whether the law abiding citizen is allowed the chance to effectively dissuade the criminal who preys upon him.