NationStates

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:let's start with the easy one. would unrestricted access to nuclear bombs give the each particular individual in a society more liberty? obviously not - it would give lunatics and madmen 'liberty' to nuke the fuck out of the rest of us, thereby reducing our liberty to radioactive ashes. so fuck that bullshit 'liberty'.

Who would have thought that "tanks n nukes" could actually be used as an argument in a gun related thread without being completely irrelevant. I must applaud you sir.

Or yours?

New Aerios wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:let's start with the easy one. would unrestricted access to nuclear bombs give the each particular individual in a society more liberty? obviously not - it would give lunatics and madmen 'liberty' to nuke the fuck out of the rest of us, thereby reducing our liberty to radioactive ashes. so fuck that bullshit 'liberty'.

Yeah, that's great, but NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT LEGALISING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

I'm actually surprised we got this far on a thread about guns before someone went "hurr durr wy do u want 2 have nooks every1?"

As a matter of fact it is a valid point considering it is not an argument against guns but an argument for the need of reducing individual liberties in order to achieve a greater societal liberty. Putting criminals in prisons or rehabilitation is another valid example of why this is.

Vazdania wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:I personally prefer table 11, which is a breakdown of all weapons and the circumstances in which they were used.

table 8 is better in my opinion in regards to firearms.

How so? Table 11 breaks down the weapons in the same way, the only thing that table 8 is better for is a five-year statistical set. Which is good for the basic trends, but to get a relevant and useful idea on why guns are used you need table 11.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

New Aerios wrote:
Yeah, that's great, but NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT LEGALISING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

I'm actually surprised we got this far on a thread about guns before someone went "hurr durr wy do u want 2 have nooks every1?"

So is an utter inability to deal in anything but concretes your badge of pride?

No, just an utter inability to tolerate nonsensical arguments which deal with nothing but ridiculous hypothetical bullshit.

Another prime example of politicking bullshit.

I wonder how long it will take them to change the meaning of every word in the English language at this rate.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Who would have thought that "tanks n nukes" could actually be used as an argument in a gun related thread without being completely irrelevant. I must applaud you sir.

Or yours?

Stop trying too hard. I was actually being serious.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Vazdania wrote:table 8 is better in my opinion in regards to firearms.

How so? Table 11 breaks down the weapons in the same way, the only thing that table 8 is better for is a five-year statistical set. Which is good for the basic trends, but to get a relevant and useful idea on why guns are used you need table 11.

its just better by default because I say so

Frisivisia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:You miss the point. I'm not even sure you read the point.

If a criminal wants a firearm to commit a crime, he will go acquire one. If he can't acquire one legally, the guy who wants to do over the 7-11 at three in the morning will probably give up and resort to a crowbar or a lit firework - the would-be drug runner will source one through whatever source is available. Fuck legality.

If a criminal wants meth, he will get it. If he can't get it legally, he will get it illegally.

Legalize meth 2013!

You are again reassuring us that you aren't even trying by bringing drugs into discussion.

New Aerios wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
So is an utter inability to deal in anything but concretes your badge of pride?

No, just an utter inability to tolerate nonsensical arguments which deal with nothing but ridiculous hypothetical bullshit.

So yeah, you're unable to deal in anything but concretes.

Because if you were, you'd be able to grasp the broader conceptual argument FS made and not get bogged down in your childish, concrete-bound "what a doofus we're talking about guns not nooks" response that completely misses the point.

I can't help but scoff at California's attempt to ban semiautomatic rifle's when they are doing a superminorityof deaths....They should be concentrating on handguns.

Imperializt Russia wrote:If a criminal wants a firearm to commit a crime, he will go acquire one. If he can't acquire one legally, the guy who wants to do over the 7-11 at three in the morning will probably give up and resort to a crowbar or a lit firework - the would-be drug runner will source one through whatever source is available. Fuck legality.

^ This.

It doesn't matter if you ban guns entirely, if someone wants one bad enough they'll buy them across the border or from the guy in the van in the alley. Hell, you can even build your own guns if you're good with metalworking.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

New Aerios wrote:
No, just an utter inability to tolerate nonsensical arguments which deal with nothing but ridiculous hypothetical bullshit.

So yeah, you're unable to deal in anything but concretes.

Because if you were, you'd be able to grasp the broader conceptual argument FS made and not get bogged down in your childish, concrete-bound "what a doofus we're talking about guns not nooks" response that completely misses the point.

It's not about concrete, Bluth.

It's about reality.
FS's argument would have made decent sense, if we currently had weapons comparable to the destruction of nukes, and that the general public having said weapons would, in fact, not increase liberty, it would, again, have been a decent comparison.

But it isn't.

Frisivisia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:You miss the point. I'm not even sure you read the point.

If a criminal wants a firearm to commit a crime, he will go acquire one. If he can't acquire one legally, the guy who wants to do over the 7-11 at three in the morning will probably give up and resort to a crowbar or a lit firework - the would-be drug runner will source one through whatever source is available. Fuck legality.

If a criminal wants meth, he will get it. If he can't get it legally, he will get it illegally.

Legalize meth 2013!

Actually, you raise a rather important point. Drug laws in the US are fucked up in multiple ways that use SWAT raids against nonviolent offenders and actively encourage black markets and criminal activity which contributes to violence in other sectors, many times with firearms. This is due, majorly, to a series of drug laws which have focused on restricting the legality of their access and creating various agencies in charge of seeking out users or dealers with a relatively minor amount of success for an exorbitant sum of dollars and a respectable number of fuckups inherent in the policies enforcement wherein the newfound authority is abused.

Many proposed gun-control measures are rather similar in their exorbitant funding requirements for little if any practical effect.

We would be better served to reform the drug laws as they stand and eliminate the causal factor of a large portion of the violent crime in the US, because as they stand they're pretty useless and are really only exacerbating the criminal problem in the US rather than diminishing it.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:If a criminal wants a firearm to commit a crime, he will go acquire one. If he can't acquire one legally, the guy who wants to do over the 7-11 at three in the morning will probably give up and resort to a crowbar or a lit firework - the would-be drug runner will source one through whatever source is available. Fuck legality.

^ This.

It doesn't matter if you ban guns entirely, if someone wants one bad enough they'll buy them across the border or from the guy in the van in the alley. Hell, you can even build your own guns if you're good with metalworking.

I can not stress enough how easy it to make a homemade SMG in 22.

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

Personal Defense Force wrote:

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

So your whole point was that gun control doesn't actually do much, if anything at all, and that guns are actually irrelevant when it comes to reducing crimes?

Frisivisia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:You miss the point. I'm not even sure you read the point.

If a criminal wants a firearm to commit a crime, he will go acquire one. If he can't acquire one legally, the guy who wants to do over the 7-11 at three in the morning will probably give up and resort to a crowbar or a lit firework - the would-be drug runner will source one through whatever source is available. Fuck legality.

If a criminal wants meth, he will get it. If he can't get it legally, he will get it illegally.

Legalize meth 2013!

White 2016

Instead of redefining assault weapons to be any firearm with a detachable magazine holding more than ten rounds, why don't you just ban detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds?

On an amusing historical note, most military rifles up until after WWII held 5-10 rounds, many in non-detachable magazines fed by stripper clips.

Can someone tell me what the actual purpose is of carrying a gun in public?
And I mean just even something like a concealed revolver on the hip, what exactly is the purpose?

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:Instead of redefining assault weapons to be any firearm with a detachable magazine holding more than ten rounds, why don't you just ban detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds?

On an amusing historical note, most military rifles up until after WWII held 5-10 rounds, many in non-detachable magazines fed by stripper clips.

There is a reason for that.
Might have something to do with the lack of automatic fire in most rifles and in many, semi-automatic capability.

Many magazine-fed rifles did in fact feature extended magazines - most notably, the Mosin-Nagant (more properly, Mosin) and the Kar98/G98 - both of which had "trench magazines". Trench magazines were often home-made and typically featured 10-20 rounds.
Changes in infantry doctrines and the widespread acceptance of semi-automatic and automatic infantry rifles following the Second World War led to the completely predictable increases in magazine size to fifteen, twenty, 24-28 and thirty rounds.

The Assault Weapon legislature on "detachable magazine of more than ten rounds" has its uses, if you're a proponent that believes such legislature either works or achieves something.
You either limit a potential shooter to ten rounds per magazine, meaning he must reload frequently and carry a significant bulk in terms of loaded magazines upon his person - or you force them to take a weapon with a fixed magazine, which is believed to be more difficult or time consuming to load. Somehow. I have no idea where that logic comes from, since using stripper clips to recharge magazines allows you to keep up a rate of fire, possibly without ever having your magazine completely empty, and without having to fumble the bulk of an empty magazine, loaded magazine and rifle at once.

Genivaria wrote:Can someone tell me what the actual purpose is of carrying a gun in public?
And I mean just even something like a concealed revolver on the hip, what exactly is the purpose?

Self-defense?
Seems rather obvious.

Blasveck wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

So your whole point was that gun control doesn't actually do much, if anything at all, and that guns are actually irrelevant when it comes to reducing crimes?

Well actually when you look at the data and you look at countries only on the basis of gun regulation then you'll find that they are all across the board in regards to both personal freedom and crime rates.
Gun control on it's own doesn't really change much, there are far more important factors at work in my opinion.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Can someone tell me what the actual purpose is of carrying a gun in public?
And I mean just even something like a concealed revolver on the hip, what exactly is the purpose?

Self-defense?
Seems rather obvious.

From like a mugger?
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you?
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.

Genivaria wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Self-defense?
Seems rather obvious.

From like a mugger?
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you?
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.

Don't you know that guns are magic bullet shields?

The entire world should switch back to using medieval weaponry anyways.