Why are guns so important to Americans?

[southernwolff]

Yes, Illegal guns are a problem, the vast majority of crimes are from those "Illegal guns" the democrats keep talking about. OK, so they just answered their own question without even thinking... sounds like usual.

If the guns used in crimes are already Illegal guns, how is it that restricting gun sales, or making it harder to own guns, or limiting how many guns one can own going to help with this problem.

Change the laws, make it so the ones being threatened by the thugs, the gangs, the people using the illegal guns are the ones that pay the heaviest price for their crimes. Before the Jury, make all the facts available about the person, their criminal past, even their youth, allow what they have done before to be brought into play in the decision making.

Change the laws, if someone is breaking into my house, my shop, threatening my family, and ends up getting wounded, hurt or dead, yes is said dead, that is not the fault of the one defending what is his, it is the fault of the criminal. If he ends up wounded for life, and it happened while he was committing a crime, or even trying to commit a crime, the problem is his, not the person that shot or wounded him, he ask for it, he gave up his rights when he decided to do harm to another.

However it seems that this is an "Unfair" statement, he was brought up that way... You know what, Many people have it hard, but they still do not have to right to carjack, kill, wound, steal, or otherwise take from those innocent individuals just because they want to, or just because they can.

You want crime to go down, arm the law abiding citizens, yes, have everyone apply for a weapons permit, a background check is preformed, fingerprints are taken, and the police see no problem out of these people. Why, because they are not the criminals.

 

[Dr Grump]

"An armed society, is a polite society."joy.

Well America has certainly proven that isn't the case...

 

[KGB]

Yes, Illegal guns are a problem, the vast majority of crimes are from those "Illegal guns" the democrats keep talking about. OK, so they just answered their own question without even thinking... sounds like usual.

If the guns used in crimes are already Illegal guns, how is it that restricting gun sales, or making it harder to own guns, or limiting how many guns one can own going to help with this problem.

it doesn't, but liberals like to bait & switch on this....let's not forget it's a power issue with them....

Change the laws, make it so the ones being threatened by the thugs, the gangs, the people using the illegal guns are the ones that pay the heaviest price for their crimes. Before the Jury, make all the facts available about the person, their criminal past, even their youth, allow what they have done before to be brought into play in the decision making.



Change the laws, if someone is breaking into my house, my shop, threatening my family, and ends up getting wounded, hurt or dead, yes is said dead, that is not the fault of the one defending what is his, it is the fault of the criminal. If he ends up wounded for life, and it happened while he was committing a crime, or even trying to commit a crime, the problem is his, not the person that shot or wounded him, he ask for it, he gave up his rights when he decided to do harm to another.

Castle Doctrine does just that.....a few states have already enacted these laws.....

However it seems that this is an "Unfair" statement, he was brought up that way... You know what, Many people have it hard, but they still do not have to right to carjack, kill, wound, steal, or otherwise take from those innocent individuals just because they want to, or just because they can.



You want crime to go down, arm the law abiding citizens, yes, have everyone apply for a weapons permit, a background check is preformed, fingerprints are taken, and the police see no problem out of these people. Why, because they are not the criminals.

Couldn't agree more.....

 

[LOki]

Well America has certainly proven that isn't the case...

Untrue. Everywhere in the U.S. that the presumptive right to bear arms is respected proves you wrong; everywhere in the U.S. where the presumptive right to bear arms has been infringed proves you wrong.

 

[Vintij]

More children die each year of battery than die from accidental gunshots.

I guess we should make it illegal for women to take on second husbands, have boyfriends...and all men should have their hands amputated.

First of all, if you pull out something like that you must prove it by citing it.

Second of all, if a wife marry's an abusive husband and has a kid....that is not an accident....it is just plain negligence.

 

[Dr Grump]

Untrue. Everywhere in the U.S. that the presumptive right to bear arms is respected proves you wrong; everywhere in the U.S. where the presumptive right to bear arms has been infringed proves you wrong.

Who's talking about America, alone? Heinlien didn't say America, he said, society and thus I was talking about comparitive societies. As far as western countries go, the US is far more violent than most, and when it comes to firearm violence they are streets ahead of other western societies.

 

[del]

i'd like to see your source for that claim

kirk told him

 

[DiveCon]

kirk Told Him

Lol

 

[necritan]

BAN WATER NOW.....IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOUSANDS OF DEATHS EACH YEAR!!!!!!

Water-Related Injuries Facts - NCIPC

 

[DiveCon]

BAN WATER NOW.....IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOUSANDS OF DEATHS EACH YEAR!!!!!!

Water-Related Injuries Facts - NCIPC

Penn & Teller beat you to it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw]YouTube - Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition[/ame]

 

[Ninja]

What do you mean Heller being "incorporated". It's law... same as RvW.

SORRY. I meant getting the 2A incorporated.

 

[LOki]

Who's talking about America, alone? Heinlien didn't say America, he said, society and thus I was talking about comparitive societies.

Oh. Ok, then. But I was comparing societies too...just ones within the U.S.--the ones that my experience is best able to speak to.

As far as western countries go, the US is far more violent than most, and when it comes to firearm violence they are streets ahead of other western societies.

Less violent than (armed) Sweden? More violent than (disarmed) England?

And though I (through Heinlein) brought up being polite, and you might be able to fairly argue that the English are more polite than Americans (but not Southern Americans); technically, you were talking about a civilized society:

I feel a society that has restrictions on firearms is a lot more civilised than one that doesn't...

I find it difficult to consider a society (like England's) to be civililized when it doesn't classify a crime like rape to be a "violent" crime.

Also I like your dishonest caveat: "firearm violence"--societies without baseball bats don't have baseball bat violence, but that doesn't mean they don't have violence. (You don't see your opposition pointing out the low (non-existent) rate of Cricket Wicket violence in the U.S., to make the point that we have virtually no violence what-so-ever.) Disingenuous retards like yourself like to pretend that "firearm violence" is some special class of violence to be set apart from violence committed by other means; so you can ignore the broad spectrum of violent acts that occur in "disarmed" societies, while you mendaciously mis-characterized the violence in the U.S. in your fatuous comparisons.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Only a very retarded nation would legalise firearms.

Its got nothing to do with being free...as the US is one of the least free nations in the western world.

Its just very very silly.

But then again so is capital punishment... again another key indicator of a backward country.

Dont worry americans... maybe in 50-100 years you can join the first world?

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think English law uses the classification "violent" crime, they're more likely to call it "aggravated". And the max penalty for rape in England and Wales is life, I think they take it seriously.

 

[Diuretic]

Only a very retarded nation would legalise firearms.

Its got nothing to do with being free...as the US is one of the least free nations in the western world.

Its just very very silly.

But then again so is capital punishment... again another key indicator of a backward country.

Dont worry americans... maybe in 50-100 years you can join the first world?

No, legalising firearms is fine, it's how you control the legal use of firearms that's important.

 

[MichaelCollins]

I don't think English law uses the classification "violent" crime, they're more likely to call it "aggravated". And the max penalty for rape in England and Wales is life, I think they take it seriously.

Do you know the average length of a life sentence in the UK?

Take a guess.

 

[LOki]

You want crime to go down, arm the law abiding citizens, yes,...

Of course.

...have everyone apply for a weapons permit, ...

Why should people apply for a permit to excercise their right? Would you have them apply for a permit to a jury trial? To practive their religion, perhaps? Mybe gun owneres should also be required to drink from separate drinking fountains, swim in different pools, etc., too.

...a background check is preformed,...

Why, when law-abiding people won't have problems, and the criminal won't submit themselves to the check? What is the exact point of such "background checks"?

...fingerprints are taken,...

Why would you treat excercising a right as if it's a criminal activity?

...and the police see no problem out of these people.

And what of the problems the People might have with the police who--should the anti-rights crown get their wish and outlaw gun ownership--come kicking in the doors of all the firearms permit applicants they conveniently now have on a list; positively ID these "criminals" by their conveniently pre-collected fingerprints; and confiscate their guns, conveniently kept on a regularly updated (during the "background check") inventory?

Why, because they are not the criminals.

You seem to think they already are. Why?

 

[Diuretic]

Do you know the average length of a life sentence in the UK?

Take a guess.

That besides the point, the point I was making is that the legislature has made life the maximum sentence for rape.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That besides the point, the point I was making is that the legislature has made life the maximum sentence for rape.

Not quite, you claimed that since it was life it meant they take it serious. If in fact a life sentence is no where near any such thing, then your whole point falls apart.

 

[Diuretic]

Not quite, you claimed that since it was life it meant they take it serious. If in fact a life sentence is no where near any such thing, then your whole point falls apart.

No Rock, the legislature takes it seriously and imposes a maximum sentence of life. But it's entirely possible (I'm not familiar with English law) that there are other pieces of legislation that impact upon how a court will sentene an individual. The genius of that sort of system is that each case is considered on its merits. That means that justice rather than pure revenge is adminstered.