Gun Control and Crime

http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/ACCC.htm

Guns are used much more often in self-defence than in violent crime. 

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_katesreal.html#h8

Read the section titled "massacres."

The proliferation of firearms in the United States could be used to counter terrorism, and stop violent crimes and massacres just like it does in Israel, if people would allow it.

The proliferation of firearms in the United States could be used to counter terrorism, and stop violent crimes, and massacres just like it does in Israel, if people would allow it.

fixed

actually i believe the comma should be after "massacres" not after "crimes"  but what the hell it's the internet WTF do I know in fact i take a stand against punctuation on the internet by ignoring any need for any comma or period in this paragraph

ichoosenottoputspacesinmysentenses

>>2
How about accepting fact that people die mr. goverment loving paranoid? Gun control is trade between freedom and security. I tend to choose freedom. I ain't fearing death or any terrorists and neither should you. Such incidents are as rare as winning lottery. Stop worrying and have fun.

>>2-3 you both fail.

"How about accepting fact that people die mr. goverment loving paranoid? Gun control is trade between freedom and security. I tend to choose freedom. I ain't fearing death or any terrorists and neither should you. Such incidents are as rare as winning lottery. Stop worrying and have fun."

I agree.  People are too damn paranoid nowadays.  My mom shit her pants over the bird flu shit, the west nile virus, possible terrorist attacks(after 9/11), and the expiration of the assault weapons ban... and look what we have now?  If anything, we are better off.  The first 3 things never really happened, not on a large scale anyway.  The final worry about bloodshed in the streets with the expiration of the assault weapons ban? LOL, the crime rate dropped 3.6%...

The Patriot Act, and gun control are both trading freedom for "security."  What a bunch of bullshit. 

kinda sucks, if you vote for the democrats, they'll vote down the patriot act, but they'll make new bullshit gun control laws... and if you vote for the republicans, they'll let you keep your guns but they'll piss all over your privacy rights..  it's kinda win/lose either way.  which way you vote depends on which freedom you want more....

Libertarian party all the way!

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

Benjamin Franklin

>>10
Couple of more famous liberty supporting quotes:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Thomas Jefferson

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Thomas Jefferson

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Patrick Henry

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth."

George Washington



Wish we had such fine men ruling our country today.

Alas, liberty ensures otherwise

Another good Patrick Henry quote from the same speech.

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."

lol get yer guns, te british are coming.. ZOMG their NOT our enemy.. damn [place whatever you so feathfully hate here] Lets shoot them up.. yerr.. ye..like..guns..ye..whole countries.. work fine without them..ye.. but..nah ..we need them

NEED THEM!


NEEED THEM

>>14
Enjoy your police state.

Canada and Switzerland allow guns and their crime rates are lower than countries like Britain that have severe gun control. Just think how high crime in the US would be with gun control, for a start the only people who you could get the guns back from would be settled citizens and not the professional criminals and considerring how lapse border control is future crinminals could continue to get guns very easily and against law abiding citizens would probably be too afraid to acquire guns on the black market.

Use your fucking guns for something good and revolt you retarded amerikkkans.

>>14

Why do you make so many damn generalizations? You probly think just because I am for the bill of rights I am a southern country hick from texas or something. 

Some people like guns.  Some people like cars.  Some people use guns as a way of life (hunting).  You can be damn sure we won't vote for your shitty politicians if you try and disarm us, just like you could be sure people who like sports cars wouldn't vote for a politician who decided to ban all Porsches, Lambos, Ferraris, Corvettes, Vipers, and any other notable car.

Face it, the United States of a America is a freedom loving nation, and that includes the second amendment. 

Sad your gun-hating dems lost this last election? Maybe they wouldn't have if they didn't have such a horrible track record with their LACK of support for the second amendment.  The dems lost by a pretty slim margin. 

The USA has millions of firearms owners, hunters, sportsmen, campers, whatever, and it's pretty safe to say a lot of those are disproportionately likely to vote republican, because the republicans support their rights to do what they want.  Bearing in mind that the election was won by such a slim margin, and though I may be jumping to conclusions, I think it's pretty safe to say if the Democrats had a more favorable stand on the second amendment, they would have gotten elected. 

Maybe it's time you told the Dems to re-embrace their Jeffersonian/Libertarian roots, and stop pandering to anti-gun fanatics like the Brady bunch?

cars can kill, they should be B&

>>14
    How is it that if I support the constitutional rights of americans to say whatever the fuck they want, have whatever fucking religion they want, or something like that I am considered to be a liberal-fruitcake by one side, but If I support the constitiutional right of americans to have and keep firarms in their private posession than i am a right-wing-gunnut.  I support both so what the fuck does that make me?

        Not every person that owns a gun shoots sombody with it.   you are more likely to be hit by a car than a bullet in ordinary life, and you are more likely to die from the car too.  and as for criminals haveing more acess to legal guns-they don't care.  they don't want people to legally have guns, because if you can't legally own a gun it means they will still have theirs and you won't.  Guns used in violent crimes-most guns used in violent crimes are illegally obtained int he first place.  The right to keep and bare arms has to do with my right not to have to depend on the government to protect my life, to take control of my own destiny.  People like you keep on saying shit like there are so many guns in the nation and it makes us so dangerous. my question is that if so many people own guns, what the fuck makes you think we are so willing to give them up to asshole politicians that want us to be in a police state????I am a Jeffersonian-conservative and proud of it.

        I have a label to toss at you now, and I bet that it is 90% accurate at the very least.  You are a left wing democrate that is more soicalist than capitalist.  you hate george bush, and you think that he is a theocratic dictator that is running our nation into the ground and taking more and more power from the individual people and giving it to the government.  And on top of that, you want him to take our guns away too so that we can't say "fuck you" the next time he tries to take one of our civil rights away.  You have this much distrust in someone running the government and yet you still think everyone with a gun should be in the military or police-both under his direct control under the executive branch of the US government.  You sir have no logic and are a complete dumbass!!!!


"They who would trade liberty for temporary security, deserve neither"

Benjamin Franklin

>>20
It does make you classical liberal. Don't believe in American Liberals. They're fake liberals. Libertarians are very close to real liberals although liberalism has no take on economy, so some liberals(real ones) might not like libertarian "ultra capitalistic" take on economy.

>>20

"    How is it that if I support the constitutional rights of americans to say whatever the fuck they want, have whatever fucking religion they want, or something like that I am considered to be a liberal-fruitcake by one side, but If I support the constitiutional right of americans to have and keep firarms in their private posession than i am a right-wing-gunnut.  I support both so what the fuck does that make me?"

Well, if you (generally speaking) are also in favor of less government intereferance in the economy (capitalism), this makes you a Libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.self-gov.org/

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Libertarians support all civil and individual liberties... including the right to own firearms, the bill of rights, the whole shot. 

Libertarians could also be referred to as somewhat "Jeffersonian" in nature.  Many Libertarians make references to, and look up to Jefferson, politically speaking. 

>>21
In essence liberalism is ideology of true freedom loving men who founded united states. One of finest men ever lived. Blame socialism(the cancer of mankind) for fucking up term liberal. Socialism has given us commies, nazis(not true socialist, but without socialism Hitler likely wouldn't have gained power), fake liberals and other such loonies. Now I agree that social wellfare is great thing thing, but it should be funded by such means that it won't be tax heavy. Pretty much other things associated with socialism are pure madness though.

>>21

It is important to note the distinction between neo-liberals like John Kerry, Clinton, and other dems, in comparison with classical liberals or those who may be described as "libertarian," such as Jefferson. 

"Liberal" as a word, has changed meaning quite a lot over time.  If you are for less government, less bullshit laws, less taxes, less bullshit restrictions and bullshit gun control, but still favor most or all of the other civil rights, you are a libertarian. 

>>23

You can't have welfare and "true freedom."  If you like "true freedom," and those true freedom loving men you speak of, there is no compromise to be made on issues like welfare and social security.  If you are really pro-freedom, support an individuals right to choose--including to not pay for welfare, and to opt out of Social Security if they want. 

Anyways, Social Security has been perverted and turned into a form of National ID.  Many famous people have warned that if Fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the guise of socialism...

I think we should make it compulsory for schools to include true liberal values and constitutional propaganda in their curriculum. I as true classical liberal support true freedom and I feel that would be against my beliefs, but it needs to be done to save free america. Other side is fighting very dirty too. We can't lose or free society is doomed to die. We have many enemies like commies, fake liberals, republicans, soccermoms, fundamentalist and only few allies such as libertarians. In essences it's not fight for just gun rights or freedom of speech. It's for free society.

>>25
Well, I don't support any kind of goverment identification to be precise. When I said social wellfare would be great thing I meant it should be completely optional to apply for it and when I said tax heavy I meant it should be done in such way that taxes shouldn't rise up at all. Pretty impossible with such low taxes, but I don't have anything against the idea itself. Only it's execution.

>>26

Fundamentalist peoples, and ultra-religious people won't be enemies of liberty once you show them that real liberty allows everyone--including themselves to practice their religion in peace, without govt intereferance, so long as they don't harm others in the process. 

Likewise, once you explain to people that freedom is not only in their interest, but, generally speaking, in the interests of most others, they will like the idea as well. 

Soccermoms are really just misguided.  They see terrorism and incidents like columbine as being of great threat to their security and their children, when in reality, the likelyhood of any such incident directly harming them or their direct family is like winning the lottery.  The Patriot Act, and Gun-Control, on the other hand, is a direct threat to the liberty of all in the nation they live in..  once they catch on to this, they will become supporters of liberty and freedom as well.

Republicans? Many are religious.  See example for radical religious folks.  Explain to them that what is really "american" is the freedom of religion, and the freedom of everyone to do as they wish, so long as it doesn't cause direct physical harm to another individual.  (A very "libertarian" thought).  They can be persuaded too.  Many republicans also vote republican because they see it as a patriotic party that supports low taxes, and real american values... you just need to show them that freedom is the most american thing of all, and the Libertarians support the maximization of it (generally speaking).  Show them Libertarians are the true patriots... which they are. 

Show the ACLU, and the NRA, and when you can, and explain to them both, that as pro-freedom, pro-liberty, and pro - civil/individual rights organizations, the Libertarian party is what is right, and american.

The bottom line is, while there might be some people who will just flat out reject the ideas of liberty, many can change, with guidance, and persuasion.

Persuade, don't force.  It's the Libertarian thing to do.

>>27

But, see, the facts are, someone has to PAY for that social welfare.  Who pays for it? The taxpayers... ultimately, it will get extorted from them at the point of government guns, if they disagree.

>>29
I see your point and know very well that problem, but note that I said it would be completely voluntarily system. I said it already it would be impossible to do that way. Infact would be better if it wasn't govermental system at all, but some private charity.

>>28

Also, keep in mind, the Republicans haven't exactly been barking up the "wise and frugal government" tree recently. 

I quote, from a Libertarian-leaning business leader:  "The Republicans are supposed to be a party of free trade and economic freedom. [But President George W.] Bush has been one of the worst free-trade presidents we've had in a long time. He is a big spender who makes Bill Clinton look like a penny pincher."


http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/tj-rodgers.html

>>31
Bush doesn't really represent most of republicans. More like he represent typical misguided rednecks. It's true though that republicans could be seen as enemy of freedom by their current policies.

I have to say this thread has made me little bit happier. Nice to see that there are still freedom loving people in world. Sometimes it's not so bright for freedom loving gay man like me. Not that I go parading around telling that I'm gay, but I believe it would add something to post as I've heard some accuse libertarians of being bit anti-gay(which is not true). Not that I have noticed it myself much. I guess they think that's "anti-gay" to not support such blatant first amendment offenses as anti-discrimination laws.

>>32

Maybe so, but even when they aren't behaving like they are now, they still tended to support government intervention into non-2nd amendment civil liberties, which the Democrats sought to protect (generally speaking).  The Libertarians will defend it all.

The Republicans, by overwhelming majority support limmitations and fines on free speech, television, radio, and other bullshit.  Probably the main reason Howard Stern moved to satellite radio (to get out of the grasp of the FCC).

If you take a look at the recent house vote for raising the penalties on broadcasting companies for violating decency laws, you will notice that the republicans OVERWHELMINGLY voted for it.  (With the exception of a select few).  The only major opponents to the regulation were, surprisingly, the DEMOCRATS.


Yet, I thought the republicans were supposed to oppose regulation in the economy, and support the bill of rights? (freedom of speech, the press?)

They also don't take a stand on other issues (generally speaking) like commodity backed currency. 

Well... just because they support your right to be, or act gay, so long as you don't hurt anyone in the process, doesn't mean they are in any way pro-gay, or supportive of it... many libertarians are pretty religious. 

The same goes for their policy on drugs.  Are they pro-legalization? Yeah.  Do they think doing drugs is a good thing? No.  They are just pro-freedom, and unlike the other parties, they will take a principled stand, even when it is unpopular, and even if they don't like the notion of doing drugs, because they are simply pro-freedom, and they stick to their principles. 

>>35
That's pro-gay and pro-drug policy IMO. I mean it never should be goverment's job to support any lifestyle or anything else. Giving people choice to do something is pro-something and not giving that choice is anti-something by goverment terms.

>>36

No it is NOT pro-gay and pro-drug policy.  Indifference and inaction is not the same as action which PROMOTES that lifestyle. 

Since the ACLU supports the right of NAZIS to have free speech, are they "pro-nazi"? No, they are pro-free speech, and they stick to their principles.  They are indiscriminately for the rights of everyone to have free speech, including Nazis. 

The Libertarians are in no way a "pro-gay" party.  They are a pro-freedom party, and they are indifferent to what you do, so long as you don't harm someone else, or destroy their liberty in the process. 

>>37
What is point of this discussion anyway? My wording might have been bit misguided, but we believe in same things.

>>38

Well, yeah, we got a little off topic.  But it's important that you see the difference.  Many people at my old high school hated the dems because they saw them as "pro-gay."  What a bunch of bullshit.

>>>>39
       Yeah sorry, i kind of pulled everyone off topic with my little rant.  here is the important part of it to return to the real issue.

        Not every person that owns a gun shoots sombody with it.   you are more likely to be hit by a car than a bullet in ordinary life, and you are more likely to die from the car too.  and as for criminals haveing more acess to legal guns-they don't care.  they don't want people to legally have guns, because if you can't legally own a gun it means they will still have theirs and you won't.  Guns used in violent crimes-most guns used in violent crimes are illegally obtained int he first place.  The right to keep and bare arms has to do with my right not to have to depend on the government to protect my life, to take control of my own destiny.  People like you keep on saying shit like there are so many guns in the nation and it makes us so dangerous. my question is that if so many people own guns, what the fuck makes you think we are so willing to give them up to asshole politicians that want us to be in a police state????

"They who would trade liberty for temporary security, deserve neither"

Benjamin Franklin

>>40

Damn right, and also, calling the police is dandy when you are in a deadly situation, but keep in mind, the burglar isn't gonna sit around and WAIT for the cops to get there.  They do their business and get out and away-FAST.  Would you rather have a cell phone to call the cops, or a good concealed firearm to surprise 'em with?

I say shoot 'em, call after, and explain.  Safest thing to do, both economically (lose less of your stuff), and personal safetywise as well.

http://www.haciendapub.com/humeven1.html

Gun rights make women safer. 

>>26

Compulsory anything wouldn't be in accordance with the values system you would be trying to promote.  That is exactly like Bush saying he is working to protect our freedom (blanking out the fact that the 'protections' involve taking away most of the freedoms in order to safeguard what tattered remains there are).

>>43
Yeah that's true, but then again opposing side is fighting very very dirty too and somehow you gotta educate kids about constitution.

>>43
       "Compulsory anything wouldn't be in accordance with the values system you would be trying to promote."
      When you send someone to prision is it not compulsory, when you get a traffic ticket is it not compulsory, when you pay taxes is it not compulsory, when you go the speedlimit is it not compulsory?
       How is "Compulsory anything" not in accordance with the values we would be trying to promote?

>>45

Libertarians generally think taxes are immoral.  However, they are practical, and see the necessity for some taxes... there is argument among them about how much, and what programs are essential.  Some are laissez-faire capitalists, others are just more economically conservative than republicans (which isn't saying much, Bush is a HUGE spender).

Also, libertarians are against bullshit laws that are not necessary (victimless crimes...such as seat belt laws).  They generally say you should be able to do whatever you want (within reason), so long as that activity doesn't cause direct harm or injury to another person. 

COMPULSORY education, does not exactly fit their bill.  They don't want truant officers dragging kids out of their homes, against their parent's wishes, to be educated in a government institution, if they/their parents really don't want to.  In that respect, they are as pro-family as you can get, really.

Of course, being pro-market capitalists, they are enthusiastic about private education. 

It's not a big deal anyway, 99% of American parents would likely force their kids to go, and do. 

Anyways, if you wanted to teach the ideals of freedom, wouldn't you expect private companies to be more willing and able to do this (private schools) than government institutions, run by government officials and politicians?

>>46

Why not make the education availible, but not compulsory?

>>45

Libertarians are for sending people to prison _if they committed real crimes_ (such as murder, robbery, assault, rape, whatever).

They are (generally speaking) for removing unnecessary compulsion in other aspects of life.  (i.e. , own a gun if you want, but if you murder someone, you'll go to jail... unless it was self defence..etc)

I am actually a republican right now. I dont think i will be for much longer though. Our president is a terrible domestic ruler, and the two party system in general is now too bloated to acomplish anything. Wost of all is the controversy that surrounds everything. Republicans are for capitolism (usually) democrats are for communism. Repubicans are for censership, democrats are for freedom of the press. Republicans are for guns democrats are not. Republicans are for progress, deomocrats are for saveing the environment, republicans are for war democrats are for peace. The way i see it there are several spectrums here not just left and right. There is the freedom vs control spectrum whitch is selectively supported by bolth sides, the Capitolist vs. Communist spectrum whitch has a side each, and the Fight vs. dont fight spectrum whitch also has a side each. The republican party is failing me in propagateing this flawed system. The freedom issues, and capitolism issues should not even be an issue. This nation was intended to be a place where you work for what you have, and do what you like with it. Thus the people who live here should uphold theise values in a good world. War on the other hand is different. Not shure why but when you think of a country as a company the war thing gets really funny, all I have to say on that subject.

Libertarians are pro-freedom, and pro-capitalism.  They are for any freedom guaranteed you in the bill of rights (INCLUDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT).  The libertarians are for low taxes.  They are for letting you keep more of what you earn. 

libertarians=freedom party

>>46
What about drink driving and dangling babies about of windows, as long as no one is hurt it's ok, right?

>>51
What about common sense? It's good to have it right?

>>51

You are asking pretty redundant questions, since nobody would want to do that anyway.  I was thinking more along the lines of completely pointless, bullshit laws, like seatbelt laws, where if you are alone in the car, and you crash (not wearing it) you will only hurt yourself.

>>51

Drunk driving is up for debate.  Drink and drive all you want _on your property_.  As soon as you do it on public property, it is in the public domain, and is not so much of a bad thing to restrict it. 

Note:  Roads are public property.

>>51

Look, as >>53 said, there are just plenty of worthless laws that are essentially pointless.  The seatbelt law is just one example.  What about cigarettes? Why does the government have a say in whether an individual smokes or not?

A valid question to ask is, should the government make any particular lifestyle "illegal"? Should it 'punish' any lifestyle through taxation of the activities of that lifestyle? Some people like smoking, and doing so on their own property hurts nobody but themselves.  There is no reason this activity should be taxed.  If people want to smoke, let them smoke...

People these days just need to live and let live, and mind their own business, imo.  Live free, be free, so long as you don't infringe on other people's right to do the same.  As a very _GENERAL_ guideline, what is wrong with that?

>>51
      Yeah, you did jump the gun on that one.  nobody else was talking about legalizing drunk driving or dangleing babies out of windows.  This debate is about guns anyways and not babies or cars.(btw:>>54  you can legally drunk drive in your own yard as long as it doesn't break any local laws such as public drunkenness, domestic desturbance, noise polution, public indangerment, etc.)
        This is supposed to be about guns and my legal right to have one, or lack thereof.

>>56
That was the point of my post... if done on your property, so long as you don't harm anyone, why the fuck shouldn't you be allowed to ? (I know you can). 

The same goes for drugs... is there any reason why you should not be able to smoke pot -on your property-? Frankly, if my neighbor decided to smoke a joint in his basement, I wouldn't give two shits. 

On the contrary, I'd rather have the folks in the police department in my area actively hunting 'real' criminals, such as rapists, murderers, and thieves, than pointlessly hunting down potsmokers and druggies.

        This is supposed to be about guns and my legal right to have one, or lack thereof.

>>57
Drugs like heroion tend to be common cause in crimes, but legalization could help that as that they would available at low prices, so junkies don't have to rob to get their drugs. Several banned drugs like pot, lsd, shrooms etc. aren't even worth banning. Sure they all can mess up your brain, but it's your brain and you have choice. Only stupid people do drugs anyway and helping them to get them easier helps them remove themselves from world.

>>59
Exactly... the price would drop significantly.  The drugs themselves (in many cases) are not THAT expensive... what is expensive is that when you buy them, you are essentially paying someone to smuggle them through the U.S. to you. 

If they were legalized, this price would be removed, and on top of it, you would likely see large corporations and industries start producing them.  Large businesses and corporations production of them using the methods created during the green revolution (agri-business techniques) would drive the price WAY down. 

With lower prices to get them in the first place, there would likely be a further reduction in violent crime, as the poor folks would be able to buy plenty without stealing (supposing they were corporately produced, in a legal manner).

>>59

Keep in mind a lot of drug-related crimes are likely due to people stealing money so they can buy more of the drugs they want... if they were mass produced by corporations in a legal manner, resulting from the price drop, criminals might be able to buy them with earnings from legitimate work, and crime may subsequently drop. 

>>60
Not to mention that such legal atmosphere would open drug companies new markets and they might be able to create safer drugs similar to current ones. Would also help medical research that has been progressing quite slowly. Hell, we don't even have good medicine to use against AIDS(or any other virus) or cancer. We don't even have actually working weight-loss pills...

>>60
>>61
>>62
       Once again just what does this have to do with gun control?  Start another thread on legalizing drugs, this is about guns and their effect on crime rate.

>>63
No, this thread if about legalizing drugs. Just read  >>60-62 and get with the program.

Tobacco companies have large plots of land just waiting to be filled with cannabis seeds. They actually want pot to be legalized.

>>65
Good thing too.  The drug war is stupid.  Pot legalization would be a big step in the right direction.