Why are guns so important to Americans?

[Diuretic]

Gun control doesn't work....it's a proven fact....the problem is in the sentencing of the thugs....if the courts would just enforce the laws on the books & get these bastards off the street, we wouldn't have the violence we now have.....

As far as firearms are concerned, the right to defend oneself is one of the basic rights you have in this country. The 2nd Amendment isn't a right to hunt as the Left would have you believe, it is a right to protect yourself & your community.......

Gun control does work....it's a proven fact....

It really depends on where you are. It won't work in the US, I accept that, there are cultural and economic imperatives against gun control in the US so it's pretty much doomed to failure. The gun control lobby should forget about it and arm themselves to the teeth. I would.

Crime control is a different issue from gun control.

Self-defence and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are probably only distantly related. Self-defence doesn't mention in its concept anything about firearms specifically. Of course you could use a firearm to defend yourself, I've done it several times and here we don't have a 2nd Amendment but I could still defend myself with a firearm.

 

[Dr Grump]

You appear to be losing it.

You are dealing with right-wing Yanks here, y'know....

 

[Diuretic]

You are dealing with right-wing Yanks here, y'know....

Check out the gun control threads at Democratic Underground, even those on the moderate left debate this fiercely. But yes, the personal stuff gets a bit old, I can do without it. I suppose my views are paradoxical to people who can only see discussion in this topic as having to be conducted from the trenches. The conflation of crime control with gun control is an example of the confusion that occurs when the grounds for discussion get muddied.

 

[necritan]

You are dealing with right-wing Yanks here, y'know....

Who says we're right winger's.....grump???

 

[necritan]

Gun control does work....it's a proven fact....

True....very true. It is the most effective way to subjugate the people.

 

[Ninja]

That sounds like the case where a woman brought suit against the city police department because they didn't protect her from domestic violence. If that's the right case then you're using it in the wrong context. The judgement held that the police department isn't obligated to any single citizen but is obligated to the law. The idea is that if the law is obeyed and properly enforced on those who choose to disobey it then harm in society will be minimised. But it's a blanket coverage, not a specific obligation.

So that case doesn't destroy my point.

It most certainly does.

Police aren't required to protect. Therefore they aren't required to put their asses in harm's way.

 

[Bern80]

In a case like this if no one was allowed gun ownership if they took them all would you be okay with that?

Do you understand the concept of why criminals are criminals?

 

[Bern80]

I am very anti gun. I think they should all be collected and melted down to make something useful. When i say this most people look at me like I am crazy. You may too. I just want to know why people feel the need to have them. Please explain this need if you would be so kind.

Have you ever considered that guns are not the problem, rather your prespective of them?

 

[Diuretic]

It most certainly does.

Police aren't required to protect. Therefore they aren't required to put their asses in harm's way.

Then why is the new doctrine for active shooter predicated on first responders being trained and ready to enter a building where there is an active shooter (this before the tactical unit actually arrives)?

The case cited in previous posts stated that the police department doesn't have an obligation to the individual citizen. That's about liability. The fact is that police officers are required to put themselves in harm's way. As the saying goes when people are running away from something it's the police (and other emergency service workers) who run to it.

Even here our paramedics refer to cops as "blue canaries" as in canaries in the coal mine. It's not a paramedic's job to go into a hazardous situation, but it is the duty of a police officer to do so.

 

[Diuretic]

True....very true. It is the most effective way to subjugate the people.

I wasn't referring to subjugation, I was referring to gun control.

 

[Missourian]

Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.

I posted this in another thread a few days ago and no one bit so I'll ask those in favor of gun control here.

Why do the rural communities with twice as many legal gun owners and four times the owned firearms have 25 times less gun crime than urban communities?

Look here for firearm ownership study

Of the 22 Missouri counties with populations between 25K and 50K, having a combined population of 806,764 persons, there were 163 total firearm assaults and 2604 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.

MSHP stats for 22 rural Missouri counties (PDF)


During the same period, in only the city of St. Louis and the city of Kansas City contained within the state of Missouri (half is in Kansas of course), with a combined population of 793,587 persons, there were a total of 4,143 firearm assaults and 8986 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.

MSHP stats for St. Louis (PDF)

MSHP stats for KC, MO (PDF)





The 2006 stats on Missouri crime came from this website : Missouri State Highway Patrol Statisical Analysis Center, they are the most recent available.
The 2004 rural/urban chart came from this website : Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 2004 study.





.

 

[Diuretic]

Why do the rural communities with twice as many legal gun owners and four times the owned firearms have 25 times less gun crime than urban communities?

Because rural communities have less crimogenic factors than urban communities.

 

[Missourian]

Because rural communities have less crimogenic factors than urban communities.

So, in other words, guns are not really the problem, it's actually crimogenic factors.





.

 

[mightypeon]

Eh? Lots of law-abiding citizens have concealed carry permits in states that allow them. And concealed carry laws have reduced crime rates, as Professor John Lott showed in More Guns, Less Crime. The great thing about concealed carry is, criminals have no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't.

Would you care to link that please?
What I know is that crimes are usually done with Handguns, while rifles are perfectly sensible for self defense, hunting and just about everything else that the pro gun group claims to be doing with their guns.

 

[LOki]

You appear to be losing it.

Not quite.

You have lost:

“[no obligation] to provide adequate police protection, prevent the commission of crimes, investigate, detect or solve crimes, identify or apprehend criminals or suspects, arrest or detain suspects, or enforce any law.”

"“neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service.”

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
Davidson v. City of Westminster
Ford v. Town of Grafion
Calogrides v. City of Mobile
Weutrich v. Delia
Morgan v. District of Columbia
Thurman v. City of Torrington
Bowers v. DeVito
Silver v. City of Minneapolis
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
Freeman v. Ferguson
Keane v. City of Chicago
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
Stone v. State 106 California
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
Hartzler v. City of San Jose
Souza v. City of Antioch
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
Riss v. City of New York
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
Zinermon v. Burch
Keane v. City of Chicago
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb3rAglRsqU"]Warren v. District of Columbia[/ame]

 

[Bern80]

Would you care to link that please?
What I know is that crimes are usually done with Handguns, while rifles are perfectly sensible for self defense, hunting and just about everything else that the pro gun group claims to be doing with their guns.

"rifles are perfectly sensible for self defense"

Are you kidding me?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wasn't referring to subjugation, I was referring to gun control.

An unarmed populace ARE subjects and subject to what ever whim the Government chooses.

 

[Seraph]

I don’t see what the problem is:

Armed Americans = happy Americans
Armed Americans = Americans shooting each other = happy everyone else

 

[Bern80]

Armed Americans = Americans shooting each other = happy everyone else

Yes very accurate, NOT.

 

[KGB]

Gun control does work....it's a proven fact....

It has failed in Great Britain & in every major city in the US with tight gun control laws.....

It really depends on where you are. It won't work in the US, I accept that, there are cultural and economic imperatives against gun control in the US so it's pretty much doomed to failure. The gun control lobby should forget about it and arm themselves to the teeth. I would.

Crime control is a different issue from gun control.

If crime control were made the issue in this country, there would be no discussion about banning any firearms.....

Self-defence and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are probably only distantly related. Self-defence doesn't mention in its concept anything about firearms specifically. Of course you could use a firearm to defend yourself, I've done it several times and here we don't have a 2nd Amendment but I could still defend myself with a firearm.

Actually, no. The 2nd Amendment has always been about self defense & defense of the state. A lot on the Left think it is a "hunting" right, which is completely off base. That is a big reason why they have re-packaged the issue around hunting hoping to dupe misinformed sportsmen of their true agenda....