Guns in America

Most people who advocate gun control do so because they believe it lowers the crime rate. In fact, just the opposite is true. Violent crime (rape, robbery, and homicide) decrease dramatically when states pass laws that permit peaceful citizens to carry concealed weapons.One famous example: in 1966 and 1967 Orlando, Florida police responded to a rape epidemic with a highly-publicized program to train 2,500 women in the use of firearms. Orlando became the only city with a population over 100,000 which showed a decrease in crime. Rape, aggravated assault, and burglary were reduced by 90%, 25%, and 24% respectively — without a single woman ever firing a shot in self-defense.Criminals are looking for an easy mark and avoid those who might be armed. Anyone who doubts this might wish to put a sign on their front lawn saying “This house is a gun-free zone” to experience the consequences firsthand.Gun control is actually “victim disarmament.” It exposes the weakest among us — women, children, and the elderly — to greater risk of attack. It denies us the ability to defend ourselves against those who would harm us.Since the courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect an individual citizen from attack, we have no legal recourse if they fail to do so.Acting in self-defense, armed citizens kill more criminals each year than police do, yet shoot only one-tenth as many innocent people by mistake. Clearly, armed citizens act as responsibly (if not more so) than trained law enforcers.

Reply 43

Drewski

19

Original post by cherryred90s

People like you are annoying. Just answer the question or don't click on the thread :colonhash:

1. Interesting to note that you've done exactly the same. Where's your answer?

2. Check my first post in the thread, I did answer it - it's a complex question and the the simplistic answer OP wants is pointless. A ban won't work.

Reply 44

Original post by Docjones1

There are around 60 million registered republicans in the USA. Guess what they think about gun laws in the USA?

It's irrelevant anyway. Just because an opinion is shared by the masses it doesn't make it right.

On that leg, we can say the same about those 60 mil Repubs who oppose modification of gun laws

I feel people on here don't understand Federal constitutions and legislature...and state constitutions and legislature.

The gun laws can chirp all they want about formalities.

But if the state law like Georgia says their citizens can do a,b,c...that's that. And the gov't can be sued for breaching civil rights.

So those 60 mil Repubs whether that's the actual number or not, are preventing obvious resolutions from happening.

Also Republicans and Conservatives are not the same. :h:

Reply 45

Here.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/15/zimmermans-prosecutors-did-not-think-the

Posted from TSR Mobile

Original post by DiddyDec

Again you are blatantly dodging the question.

Which sources do you find credible? You're not answering because if I find a source that says Stand Your Ground was used (don't worry I will), you'll look even dumber than usual.

Reply 46

DiddyDec01

3

Original post by Docjones1

Except... It's wholly relevant. You essentially said "prove he was innocent", when u should be the one proving "he was guilty". :wink:

XD

Missing the point of the debate. Well done.

Reply 47

Plagioclase

21

Original post by scnotcrazy

do you think guns should be banned in America?

Well there's no chance of that happening and regardless, whilst a gun ban might improve the situation it definitely wouldn't solve the problem because it's just as much a social problem as it is an availability problem.

Reply 48

Docjones1

18

Original post by mrsjenner

On that leg, we can say the same about those 60 mil Repubs who oppose modification of gun laws

I feel people on here don't understand Federal constitutions and legislature...and state constitutions and legislature.

The gun laws can chirp all they want about formalities.

But if the state law like Georgia says their citizens can do a,b,c...that's that. And the gov't can be sued for breaching civil rights.

So those 60 mil Repubs whether that's the actual number or not, are preventing obvious resolutions from happening.

Also Republicans and Conservatives are not the same. :h:

No clue what you're even trying to say m8. Stop jabbering on and make a point. If it's that it's lawful for the US government to ban guns - it's not. The constitution is the highest form of law in the USA.

Reply 49

Docjones1

18

Original post by DiddyDec

Missing the point of the debate. Well done.

Has no point, well done.

Reply 50

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Drewski

It's too late for a ban to be effective. There are hundreds of millions of handguns, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles in the country - a ban wouldn't change that.

Personally I would call for a ban anyway. It's not like it can hurt - every gun that isn't sold is one that will not be used to kill someone. The guns that are already on the market will go on killing people, but the ones that are banned out won't.

Reply 51

cherryred90s

Original post by scnotcrazy

do you think guns should be banned in America?

Yes, it only does more harm than good, there are too many people dying for no reason in the states.

Reply 52

cherryred90s

Original post by Drewski

1. Interesting to note that you've done exactly the same. Where's your answer?

Just answered.

2. Check my first post in the thread, I did answer it - it's a complex question and the the simplistic answer OP wants is pointless. A ban won't work.

It's not a complex question, it's a very simple question, yes or no.

Reply 53

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by TattyBoJangles

Even if all new firearms were subject to tighter restrictions, it would take at least a generation - if not two - for it to have an appreciable impact, IMO.

So let's do our grandchildren a favour, shall we?

Reply 54

Original post by Docjones1

No clue what you're even trying to say m8. Stop jabbering on and make a point. If it's that it's lawful for the US government to ban guns - it's not. The constitution is the highest form of law in the USA.

You have no idea "m8?" Never read something more true than that, you don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you lol

"The Constitution?"

LOL Like I said

THE Constitution...is Federal.

Federal is, the national government's laws and rights.

STATE law...is the state...law. How hard is that to understand? :hmmm:

And there are...STATE LAWS...that circumvent
Federal law.
Which prevents
the amendment...
of the general
gun laws.

An example

would be

The State of Georgia
creating a law that states
they can legally display
firearms
and use them
if they feel it's necessary

and the national Government
can not
deny them
that right.

It's called
state
sovereignty.

Got it?

Reply 55

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Personally I would call for a ban anyway. It's not like it can hurt - every gun that isn't sold is one that will not be used to kill someone. The guns that are already on the market will go on killing people, but the ones that are banned out won't.

Do you know what the 2nd amendment of the USA and the NRA are.

You're not a genius coming up with a gun ban right now

Everyone wants to do that.
They simply cannot.

Reply 56

TattyBoJangles

19

Original post by mrsjenner

No. I disagree with background checks!
Those are futile gestures at pretending to "tackle the issue."

How can you background check an illegal or smuggled or stolen gun :hmmm:

?

You can't. But that doesn't mean restrictions on the legal ownership of guns shouldn't be tightened.

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

So let's do our grandchildren a favour, shall we?

Not saying we shouldn't, just pointing out I don't think it'll be an overnight fix.

Reply 57

Original post by Docjones1

No clue what you're even trying to say m8. Stop jabbering on and make a point. If it's that it's lawful for the US government to ban guns - it's not. The constitution is the highest form of law in the USA.

Just realised you didn't make any kind of sense here, and that is clearly what I was not saying.
Do you even understand words?
Also again you're wrong. The Constitution is not the highest and final form of law, smarty.

Reply 58

Original post by Docjones1

State law doesn't have the authority to overturn federal law you dumbshit. Otherwise the states could make slavery legal. What do you think the US Civil War was about?

Pretty hypocritical calling others uninformed then spouting off that ********.

I never said State Laws have the authority.
I said Federal Law doesn't have the authority to deny states of the rights to govern.

I also said in former posts that AS LONG AS STATE LAW DOESN'T VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW, they have a right to govern as they please!

It was Reagen who came up with it, just...google, my child.

Reply 59

anosmianAcrimony