Consider great britain. They have a violent crime rate that is higher than the US. And yet, our homicide rate is much much higher. In fact, among industrialized nations, the US has a comparable violent crime rate. And yet, our homicide rate is the highest. Why is that? Why do we have such a low rate of violent crimes, but such a high rate of homicides? Well, it's simple--if you use a knife to commit a crime, it is much less likely to result in homicide than if you use a gun. Less guns=less deaths. And consider the death of Chris Kyle - he was a Navy SEAL sniper, who broke the record for kills in Iraq. He was a weapons specialist and an avid supporter of guns and gun ownership. He was shot to death by a fellow marine last week at a gun range. It goes to show you that owning a gun does not make you safe. In fact, it makes it MORE likely for you to die. This is because most murders don't take place in the setting of home invasion or random crimes (as is the scenario most often envisioned by gun-supporters). In most cases, the murder victim knew their killer. So if you own a gun, and you hang around people who also own guns, your chances for being murdered are way higher, than if you don't own a gun and you hang around people who don't own guns. Simple, but statistically true.
Maybe if your responsible citizens were allowed to have guns then they could eliminate some of the scum that is driving up your violent crime stats like rape and assault.
The person who shot the decorated seal also had PTSD and probably needed more help once he was out of the military system. But of course THAT dosnt matter. right?
So lets say he had killed him with a Mag flash light while they were camping instead of at a shooting range, would the light be to blame as well? It wouldnt of mattered to him as well being bludgened to death right?
I believe that Chris Kyle is looking down from the heavens right now and is still a supporter of the 2nd amendment.
It sure wouldn't. He'd be just as dead. I actually don't recall making any reference to the type of weapon. My reference is to his association with a homicidal maniac.
Actually with your title "Why having less guns makes sense" It says you would rather have less weapons for such an instance that you wrote about the seal. Which would mean your position would be less guns in the hands of people. "Less guns = Less Deaths" Same deaths different weapons.
I know lots of people with PTSD. But I don't know anyone who's been murdered. That's cause I don't hang around people who carry guns around all the time. a guy with PTSD + no guns = a guy with PTSD a guy with PTSD + gun = potential murderer - - - Updated - - - i believe that he's not cause heaven doesn't really exist.
The gun doesn't actually make any difference. If he's a potential murderer with a gun, he's a potential murderer regardless of whether or not he has a gun. If he's going to kill people, he could use knives, a vehicle, home-made explosives, or any number of other things.
Yeah, because getting into an argument and poking someone in the chest (assault) definately warrants an on-the-spot death sentance with no trial or jury... It's this type of ignorant response that makes the rest of the world believe Americans are a bunch of spoiled, violent morons.
So, if all these things are so effective, why do you need a gun to defend yourself? A gun makes it easy for a POTENTIAL murderer to become an ACTUAL murderer.
Hang on, are conservatives suddenly going to SUPPORT disabled vets (after calling them part of the 47% freeloaders), and mental health care (like that available under Obamacare)? And I suppose we're suddenly going to expect the government to find a way to identify everyone with a mental problem without critics finding something else to whine about? I can already imagine the moronic "Obama wants to know everyone's mental state so he can implement his socialist/communist/fascist/nazi/kenyan world domination plans" arguments.
As an outsider i see that both sides have valid points , i think that in a country with high homicide rate owning a shotgun is absolutely justified , in a country where mass shootings are very common allowing people to own machine guns with 50 bullets is insanity .
It's not just about those guns... http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/05/pink-gun-mistaken-for-toy-3-year-old-s-c-boy-killed-video/
This is criminal neglect from the side of the parents , i am sure that there are several more cases of children who fell from stairs or got electrocuted not a good argument for banning electricity .
I am not sure what side of the fence I am on on politics, I just like to ask questions and usually try to find information to choose a candidate or if I dont like either I refraim from voteing but then I have no reason to complain since I took no choice in the election. Honestly "Mental well being" Is what a lot of people are saying and I agree if they start looking to help people, people will whine, however I see it as regardless someones going to complain. This is what I tell people "No matter what you do, your going to p*** someone off and make someones day, Be happy for those you make happy today"
But he's a potential murderer with or without the gun. The gun just makes some people feel less safe. It doesn't actually make you less safe. Either he's a potential murderer or not. As for the gun to protect yourself, it is a very compact, versatile, inexpensive equalizer. They put a 90 pound woman on even ground with a 250 pound body-builder. They put a wheelchair bound grandfather on par with a 20 year old thug. Nothing is so versatile or effective at leveling the field. The items I mentioned are pretty good offensive weapons, but not very good defensive weapons. You can't defend yourself from a thug using a car or home-made explosives, and if the thug is stronger than you he might be able to block or shrug off a knife, but almost no one can ignore a bullet or two to the chest.
I will address this point because a lot of what anti-self defense people are saying is that an AR-15 (semi-automatic weapon) is an assault weapon. This is easily confused with an assault rifle which is a machine gun in all respects. The current debate is banning certain firearms that look like machine guns, but act like a semi-auto weapon in every other respect. Thank you. Blame the people responsible, not the object.
nimdabew, People don't CARE about the facts they just want to ban things to make themselves feel better. Generally people don't own machine guns - they are too rare, expensive, and require an FBI background check. I do not recall EVER hearing about a "shooting" with a legally owned machine gun. Probably safer, statistically, than any other type of weapon. People that own them respect their power and know what they are doing.
Do you expect anyone to believe that? Obviously, if you carry a gun around, and you're mentally unstable, you're gonna be a lot more dangerous than if you don't have a gun. It's much easier to kill with a gun than a knife. Plus, many murders are crimes of passion, and it's a lot easier, in the spur of the moment, to pull a trigger if you already happen to be carrying a gun (versus building a bomb, which is a lot of effort).
Stop whining. Going to purchase more firearms this weekend. Quality pieces are a fine hedge against inflation.
LOL--inflation is fairly low. If you're buying guns as an investment--I hate to tell you, but you're a poor investor. Fear of runaway inflation is just another irrational boogie monster that conservatives seem to be obsessed with. We keep on hearing from these conservatives that runaway inflation should be just around the corner due to all the monetary expansion that's occurring. I'm still waiting....
Apparently your definition of assault is different than mine. Way to minimize to make your weak point.
That's exactly my point. You're comparing "assault" stats in multiple countries without any verification that all countries are defining "assault" the same way... You're comparing figurative apples and oranges. If this is the basis of your opinion, I'd advise doing some research.
