http://www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons murders. 1. Firearms (misleading) Nearly 75% of the cases involving firearms are actually gang related and another fraction of it are justifiable cases in self-defense. As stated in the opening paragraph, many lives are actually saved by those have them and use them for protection; hundreds of thousands of women use guns in the US to protect themselves against rapists and criminals. It is historically and socially proven that the more right to arms are taken away from the regular citizenry the more crime brews thereafter and more innocent lives are lost. Not only that, total freedom means freedom to protect ones self without complete reliance on government, which in a majority of cases does not respond in time and is itself a threat when corrupted; the founding fathers understood this common sense. Moreover, the states with the most strict gun control laws like Illinois and New York have the worst gun crimes simply because criminals can easily do what they want, whereas southern states like Texas with the least gun control have some of the lowest gun crimes since individuals can protect themselves against criminals. Ask this intellectual questions WHY? 4. Blunt objects + 3. Body weapons + 2. Knives result in MUCH larger crime numbers than 1. Firearms Also note that: Use of knives, bats, personal body weapons and blunt objects (as highlighted in red) are the tools, which the criminals use to take far more lives that guns. Criminals will always get their their weapons, no matter what. That is a FACT! What weapon would YOU chose to defend your wife, kids, and property? A lamp? Also, Home break ins on the rise nationally: Too many to list here with limited links, but Google: "house break ins on the rise"
Insofar as gang related shootings, these guys are mostly brain dead teenage thugs, not exactly master criminals with webs of connections to multinational smuggling operations... Gun control would impact much of this 75% as they would no longer be able to replace firearms faster than the police take them away. In cases of self defense, you make it should like killing the attacker is the only option... What about tasers? I wonder how many of these "justifiable cases" of "self-defense" resembled the Treyvon Martin case...? This is a debateable statement at best. I can't think of a single first-world democracy where this has been proven accurate. How many tyrants have been deposed by a "well regulated militia" in the United States? How many people have been killed as a direct result of a moron with a gun? Obviously, there is nothing stopping someone from driving into New York with guns from New Jersey. A NATIONAL gun control program would not be comparable, since it is more difficult to traverse a NATIONAL border than it is to traverse a state border. Total crime, possibly... Deaths? Not even close. All these countries have blunt objects and knives... Interesting to note the PER CAPITA number of firearm deaths. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/christophermajka/2012/12/death-innocents-murder-and-guns-usa Also, View attachment 17270 If the person breaking into my house didn't have easy access to a firearm, I don't think I'd need the lamp. You're saying that there is already a rise in house break ins.... BEFORE gun control is passed nationally..... After one of the most frantic periods of guns being purchased....? I guess you're well on your way to proving that society having guns doesn't reduce crime within that society.
By the way, you forgot to ask my question... If knives and clubs are so effective during an assault, why do you need guns?
And so YOU, the prime protector of your family, what weapon would YOU prefer in effectively defending your wife, kids, & property? A Lamp? Oh yeah, criminals play by the rules and couldnt get a hold of a gun....ALL data says different!!
And btw, you shud train your wife in "Lamp Safety" in case you're not around to protect them....I'm sure that she will 'appreciate' your efforts to keep her & family safe..
Laws are necessary. There is a fine line though when they become cumbersome and do not improve upon the laws already on the books.
Yes, but the point is--NOT everyone is like YOU. If guns are available to you, then they are also available to the drunk next door, who treats his revolver like a toy. May not be fair, but we need to ban guns to prevent people like that from having them. If that prevents people like you from having fun with guns, then that's just collateral damage.
So, since there is an epidemic of drunks accidentally shooting their neighbors with revolvers, I'm sure you can find a couple of news stories about such events, yes?
Dad's outrage as son, 6, and friend are suspended for making imaginary guns with their FINGERS Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263499/Stephen-Grafton-finger-gun-Dads-outrage-son-6-friend-suspended-making-imaginary-guns-fingers.html#ixzz2IHABe2ZN This country is going absolutely STUPID! Wonder where he learned about shooting someone...TV, Movies..or the NRA?!!
People and society are the problem not the guns. Case and point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Notice this evil person did not use an AR15. He just blew everyone to kingdom come. Where there is a will there is a way. Another interesting note is that the guy was stopped with a gun.
Better yet, I can agree that guns are not the problem in and of themselves.... Idiots with guns are the problem. You cannot make a law against stupidity, but you can make laws limiting the access idiots have to guns. The attached should help illustrate this... Watch the video, it's amusing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-fails-second-amendment-rights-gone-wrong_n_2490579.html
If it's acceptable to base your outlook on gun control on a single incident, try this one... It happened less than 85 years ago, unlike the example you provided. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/16/three-killed-in-kentucky-with-gun-bought-hours-earlier/
I picked a very old one to make a point. Even without modern guns mass murder was still possible and very fast. Dynamite was used. No matter what one tries to regulate the death dealers will find a way to kill whoever they want. Regulating innocent people is not the answer. Criminals and evil people do not care about regulations and law.
So which is your problem with gun control as a theory? A) you don't believe it can be written in a manner that isn't cumbersome. B) you don't believe it will be an improvement on laws already in place.
When you leave home, do you lock your front door? I do. I know that, if someone REALLY wanted to get in, they could just break the door down or use some other means of entry like breaking a window. I still lock my door, because I figure there's no point making the criminals' job easier than it already is. If there were fewer guns in the US, there would be fewer criminals with guns in the US, because the gun would be harder to get. Guns and explosives make murder easy. That's why we have "dynamite control", and even ammonium nitrate based fertilizers are now regulated. Why not regulate guns and make life a little more difficult for criminals who decide to commit murder?
A permit? Really? You poor thing... Is that level of regulation doing a good job of keeping weapons off the streets?
LOL You assume that regulating guns will actually make them harder to get. We've had government 'regulation' of the manufacture, import, and distribution of cocaine and heroin for decades now. I've not noticed that they are any harder to get now than they were 40 years ago. We've also had government 'regulation' of undocumented immigration for decades now, with the same result, or lack thereof. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.
Of course not you idiot because we all know CRIMINALS don't file for permits. For the last time, criminals don't care about the law. The most common way criminals get guns is by getting someone else without a criminal background to buy it for them. Permits don't work either but it is part of gun control.
WAAAAAAY before an M16 - why the !@#!@ do you need THAT much firepower? - - - Updated - - - Worked in Australia - see a gun is somewhat larger than a "hit" of cocaine and does not pack into convenient little spaces
See, Australia isn't the US. Its an island, a big island, but still AN ISLAND. And it doesn't have a 2000 mile border with a quasi-failed state like Mexico. And smugglers, even your smugglers, don't deal in individual hits of cocaine http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20422400 How many AK's you think they could get into that bad boy? But even if they did bother to smuggle individual hits, there quite a few guns that will break down into convenient little pieces.
No but it has lots and lots and lots of unguarded coast line and some interesting neighbours who like smuggling - things like drugs, guns, people.............., But if you cannot get them on the way in you get them HERE You have an illegal gun that is XXXXX fine and or jail timehttp://www.aic.gov.au/documents/8/6/9/%7B869921F9-AB4D-4B65-AB95-338F4BF50C00%7Dtbp031.pdf page 5
Given that all supply chains and distribution technologies in the world are significantly improved today over those of 40 years ago, it could be considered a success that the distribution of illegal drugs has not improved accordingly... The success of drug law enforcement (along with confiscation/destruction of drugs) has been so significant that our prisons are packed to capacity (and then some) with minor drug offences... As many drugs can be grown/produced within the US, there has been limited success on total prevention. With guns, this would be a less complicated issue.
