The Right To Bear Arms

[RetiredGySgt]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.

Those three all have much lower homicide rates. What crimes in particular are you speaking of?

You claimed crime was lower in Europe. It is not.

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

 

[westwall]

And, historically correct.

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

Swedens numbers are current. The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point. Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.

 

[Brain357]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.

Those three all have much lower homicide rates. What crimes in particular are you speaking of?

You claimed crime was lower in Europe. It is not.

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

They seem to have us beat here:
Crime Index by Country 2015
And this is much newer.
And they have us beat in homicide rates:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Brain357]

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

Swedens numbers are current. The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point. Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.

Soon follow? I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries. And well they have been doing quite well ever since. That is hardly soon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And another, this chart just shows all crimes and does not break it down by population or per 100000, it it were this is the result....

Alex is correct. These figures are NOT incidents per 100,000 citizens as some readers have stated despite the fact that the U.S. lists over 11 MILLION incidents which would equate to about every fourth citizen committing a violent crime! When you divide the incidents of violent crime by the population the list changes dramatically. In order of Highest to Lowest crime rate: 1:Columbia, 2:U.K., 3:Iceland, 4:Mexico, 5:Montserrat, 6:Sweden, 7:New Zealand, 8:Finland, 9:Belgium, 10enmark, 11:Netherlands, 12:Germany, 13:Canada, 14:Norway, 15:Austria, 16:France, 17:S.Africa.
The U.S. is #27, a far cry from the number 1 position implied in this list.
Other than to make some sort of an ideological point villifying the United States I can't figure out why a misleading list like this would be published without qualifiers.
Wanna bet the same people who embrace this list for the ingenuous way it misrepresnts would denounce it when population is factored in to show the truth?

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

 

[turtledude]

why do WHITE americans who have the HIGHEST RATE of LEGAL gun ownership have a LOWER RATE of gun violence than BLACKS AND HISPANICS who have far LOWER rates of LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP

why do WHITE AMERICANS with "Easy access to guns" have lower rates of gun crime than WHITE EUROPEANS living in gun hating nations?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:

Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger

since the SC has sided against most of that

True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.

What is your own definition of a NaziCon?

dont

And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....

And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."

Yes individuals should decide.

The French also have a much lower homicide rate. And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns. Companies don't let employees carry.

Companies don't let employees carry.

some do some dont

Yes some small do. But name some large companies that do.

dont be absurd

there are tons of them

almost every state has laws preventing employers

from banning employees bring firearms in their vehicles

on the company site

You didn't name any or provide a link supporting your claim.

one would think (wrongly so)

that you would have been aware of such a common fact

http://www.cozen.com/cozendocs/Outgoing/alerts/2013/Guns_in_Workplace_Chart.pdf

 

[jon_berzerk]

When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?

oh they certainly can

look at the terrorists in Paris for example

with very strict gun laws

they had full auto rifles

pistols and

rpgs

 

[Brain357]

Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:

Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger

since the SC has sided against most of that

True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.

What is your own definition of a NaziCon?

dont

Yes individuals should decide.

The French also have a much lower homicide rate. And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns. Companies don't let employees carry.

Companies don't let employees carry.

some do some dont

Yes some small do. But name some large companies that do.

dont be absurd

there are tons of them

almost every state has laws preventing employers

from banning employees bring firearms in their vehicles

on the company site

You didn't name any or provide a link supporting your claim.

one would think (wrongly so)

that you would have been aware of such a common fact

http://www.cozen.com/cozendocs/Outgoing/alerts/2013/Guns_in_Workplace_Chart.pdf

What good does keeping a gun in the car do? Sounds like a good opportunity for it to get stolen.

 

[EatMorChikin]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

 

[MaxGrit]

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

you should move to one of them

it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers

And there you go, right back to being a child. If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.

Brainless, why don't you have a brain?

 

[Brain357]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

Where have you been? Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed? It was far from taking guns away. Relax, don't be so paranoid.

 

[EatMorChikin]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

Where have you been? Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed? It was far from taking guns away. Relax, don't be so paranoid.

Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.

 

[DriftingSand]

A person's right to defend himself and his family will never get old. Disarming ones self in a dangerous world is simply stupid.

 

[Brain357]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

Where have you been? Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed? It was far from taking guns away. Relax, don't be so paranoid.

Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.

Felons can't have guns. Been that way for a long time. You prefer armed criminals?

 

[Flash]

Well, sparky, it's better than listening to Ted Nugent and the NRA.

Ted Nugent is a nutcase, who, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, did not even have the courage to serve his country in the military. He is not a spokesman for anything.

However, the NRA is a grassroots organization created to protect Constitutional rights. You have heard of the Bill of Rights, haven't you?

If anything the NRA should be criticized for being too willing to compromise with the anti gun nuts.

Unlike most Libtard greedy special interest groups (whose main purpose is to get money out of the government) the NRA's mission is to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans because once you lose them you will never get them back.

You Libtards hate the NRA because they are an effective lobbying organization. They are effective because they are well funded because of the massive membership. I know because I am one of them; a Life Member. The only other organizations that come close are the AIPAC and the greedy unions, who mostly contribute to Democrats.

The NRA is not the bogeyman you Moon Bats have made them out to be. They are the good guys. The anti gun nuts are the bad guys.

 

[Flash]

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.

Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.

In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy. He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.

There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.

Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes. Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals. In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens. It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny. Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.

 

[2aguy]

Don't get me wrong. I'm licensed for CCW and I carry a gun from time to time. So I'm not opposed per se to the notion that guns do more good than harm. What I do oppose is constructing an argument for either position out of whole cloth, and John Lott has been stitching together his argument for longer than he should.

Do Guns Protect Us? Violence Policy Center Says No

The gun debate should be an honest one.

Actually, that article is innacurate....Lott provided his data...and the anti gunners have still attacked him....you should know by now that you can't trust anti gunners, ever.....

The violence policy center has made up it's numbers....I will find the links to that but the whole Concealed carry permit holders are dangerous meme is a lie......Studies have shown that concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than even police officers.....

On the Violence Policy Center....an anti gun nut group.....who will lie to push their agenda....

Bogus Gun-Control Numbers National Review Online

The Violence Policy Center regularly puts out these bogus charges in a report called “Concealed Carry Killers.” But how does it claim to arrive at these numbers?
The VPC collects cases of permit holders’ abusing their permitted concealed handguns for each state. For Michigan, for example, it cites state-police reports on permit holders indicating that 185 died from suicide during the period 2007 through 2012. Surely some alarm bells should have gone off, with Michigan suicides supposedly making up 29 percent of all 636 deaths nationwide the VPC attributed to permitted concealed handguns.

But more importantly, the suicides are not in any meaningful way linked to the issue of carrying a permitted concealed handgun outside of one’s home. If you look at page 2 in the latest report from the Michigan State Police, you will see that in the listing of suicides, there is no indication of specific cause of death. The report merely notes that 56 permit holders committed suicide, without saying whether any or all of them used a gun. Interestingly, the suicide rate among permit holders in Michigan in 2010 (13.3 per 100,000 permit holders) is lower than the rate in the general adult population (16.30). But typically suicides — with or without guns — take place at home. So, again, what would these numbers have to do with the concealed-carry

debate?

All in all, the VPC has managed to triple-count claimed cases of permit holders killing people, and the vast majority of cases it includes in its list — such as legitimate self-defense shootings or suicides not related to permitted concealed handguns — shouldn’t be counted to begin with.

Yet, put aside all these problems for a moment. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Violence Policy Center’s claim that concealed-handgun permits were responsible for 636 deaths in seven years is correct. One has to note that there are over 11 million concealed-handgun permits in the U.S. right now. With an annual number of deaths of 90, that means 0.00083 percent of concealed-carry permit holders were responsible for a shooting death each year. Removing suicides from the total reduces the rate even more, to 0.00058 percent.

The conjuring up of bogus numbers like these has become a mainstay of gun-control groups. That also includes the “studies” financed by Michael Bloomberg’s millions. However, a group of researchers, of whom I am one, are setting up the Crime Prevention Research Center to uncover and counter these misleading claims.

 

[Brain357]

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.

Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.

In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy. He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.

There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.

Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes. Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals. In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens. It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny. Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.

Thank you for providing examples of how our current laws on machine guns are working so well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

Where have you been? Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed? It was far from taking guns away. Relax, don't be so paranoid.

Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.

Felons can't have guns. Been that way for a long time. You prefer armed criminals?

Misdemeanor charges of a family squabble can now bar you from firearms ownership. Keep up.