A Poll About Gun Control

[Lonestar_logic]

The left will never accept the fact that violence isn't the result of guns.

For too long the left has placed blame on everything except the individual responsible.

For example, five years into his presidency Odrama still blames the Republicans.

 

[RKMBrown]

The left will never accept the fact that violence isn't the result of guns.

For too long the left has placed blame on everything except the individual responsible.

For example, five years into his presidency Odrama still blames the Republicans.

lol

I think you meant democrats never get to the root causes of problems, and instead deflect and vilify all reasonable solutions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The left will never accept the fact that violence isn't the result of guns.

For too long the left has placed blame on everything except the individual responsible.

For example, five years into his presidency Odrama still blames the Republicans.

lol

I think you meant democrats never get to the root causes of problems, and instead deflect and vilify all reasonable solutions.

I mean liberals never blame the individual responsible. It's always something or some else's fault.

Like Obama, blaming his failing policies on the Republicans, the Tea Party and even Rush Limbaugh and not on the Democrat controlled Senate (namely Harry Reid) who are the ones holding everything up.

 

[Mertex]

The left will never accept the fact that violence isn't the result of guns.

For too long the left has placed blame on everything except the individual responsible.

For example, five years into his presidency Odrama still blames the Republicans.

lol

I think you meant democrats never get to the root causes of problems, and instead deflect and vilify all reasonable solutions.

I mean liberals never blame the individual responsible. It's always something or some else's fault.

Where do conservatives come up with such blather?

Like Obama, blaming his failing policies on the Republicans, the Tea Party and even Rush Limbaugh and not on the Democrat controlled Senate (namely Harry Reid) who are the ones holding everything up.

How about the Republicans in Louisiana blaming Obama for Katrina?

As for the Senate holding things up, you might want to take a look at the House, where Republicans vote "no" on everything, or waste their time coming up with yet another bill to repeal Obamacare.

 

[Vox]

It does not have to be a poll. there are hundreds of small towns in America where option B is a live proof that armed populace guarantees safety.

And courtesy

 

[Vox]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.

Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.

EXACTLY.

Since uyou do not have the option to be repped, I am doing it right here

 

[Ernie S.]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.

About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.

Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.

Reasonable post. I am surprised, shocked...
Hate crimes always ticked me off too. If you kill someone, doesn't that kind of indicate you hate them?

 

[Vox]

If it were only one that would be reason enough.

Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?

Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.

We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.

No, you do NOT. Crime has INCREASED in your country exponentially almost, since your gun control.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

 

[Vox]

Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one

It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:


Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent


Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics

You quote from a very conservative website.

LMAO

I know you ARE stupid but it is just examplary stupidity to consider FIGURES and STATISTICS differ depending on a political affiliation of the site posting them

 

[Vox]

Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is because of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?

exactly because the ability to defend oneself was taken away.
are you dumb?

 

[Meister]

Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is because of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?

exactly because the ability to defend oneself was taken away.
are you dumb?

Indeed, it really is that simple.

 

[Vox]

Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

.

No, it DOES NOT.

Japan is much smaller country - first; it is MONOethnic and MONOcutural - and this is the most important - second; it is a couple of islands, so there is absolutely no interference from outside - third.

It does not have 2ndAmendment - that's an icing

Those biases prevent any possible comparison with the US

 

[Vox]

I never said it was easy, it might not even be possible - so everyone should just give up and accept things the way they are?

No, everyone will have to support tearing down the gun RESTRICTIONS and tearing down stupid "gun free zones" - if one wants to prevent mass shootings FOR REAL.

 

[Vox]

The left will never accept the fact that violence isn't the result of guns.

For too long the left has placed blame on everything except the individual responsible.

For example, five years into his presidency Odrama still blames the Republicans.

that is NOT the reason.

The reason is - the left wants to take away your guns becasue only THEN the sheeple will become really manageable. THAT is their goal, not your safety.

The left knows perfectly well, that guns do not cause crime and neither are they interested in decreasing the crime or mass killings, or whatever blah-blah-blah are they selling to their useful idiots.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I mean liberals never blame the individual responsible. It's always something or some else's fault.

Where do conservatives come up with such blather?

Like Obama, blaming his failing policies on the Republicans, the Tea Party and even Rush Limbaugh and not on the Democrat controlled Senate (namely Harry Reid) who are the ones holding everything up.

How about the Republicans in Louisiana blaming Obama for Katrina?

As for the Senate holding things up, you might want to take a look at the House, where Republicans vote "no" on everything, or waste their time coming up with yet another bill to repeal Obamacare.

I come up with it from years of observation.

Prime examples are any crime committed with a gun, the gun, the NRA, society and everything else is blamed except for the perpetrator of the crime.

And I don't buy into the bullshit some liberal poll shows.

I'm not as gullible as liberals are.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not semantics at all.
The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.

Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?

I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is because of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?

The assumption is made when you compare crime statistics before and after the law was passed in the same general geographic area. You tried to make a comparison using Japan without any frame of reference at all and now you question statistical figures that used a before and after snapshot of the same area?

All that tells me is that your criteria for data is that it shows gun control effective. Why would you ask this question of his data and then completely gloss over that same question when referring to Japan where causation is virtually impossible to establish.

Of course, I am going to point out yet again that raising crime rates is irrelevant anyway. The fact is that the crime did not decrease after the law was passed and therefore it is a bad law. Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.

 

[eflatminor]

Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.

 

[numan]

".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."

emphasis added

Why -- GASP!! -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!! · ·

This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!

That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.

Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the form of a coherent argument.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."

emphasis added

Why -- GASP!! -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!! · ·

This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!

That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.

Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the form of a coherent argument.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
.

Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?

You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training. And they have one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

Every Swiss community has a shooting range, and depending on who is counting, the alpine country ranks third or fourth in the number of guns per capita.

But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.

 

[jon_berzerk]

".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."

emphasis added

Why -- GASP!! -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!! · ·

This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!

That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.

Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the form of a coherent argument.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment

then you would be wrong