|
| |||||||||||||||
Penn Teller,gun,laws Penn & Teller - Bullshit - Gun ControlPenn & Teller - Bullshit - Gun Controltags:Against gun control laws. part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnAEvqI6V9E part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS0hKNuS8zU
Comments  playlists with this video Discuss! by MINK
• Gun Fu - The Modern Martial Art by rembar
who voted for this video eric3579
- siftbot
x70who has this post bookmarked ronin165
- chiataur
Penn & Teller - Bullshit - Gun Control Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 15. reiwan
(165 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Upvote for hot lawmaker. Almost made me forget about the fur shop owner. Almost.
On edit and after watching this one it gets a vote though. Most police at lower levels support what they call a responsibly armed citizenry, it's not until you get to the higher and more political levels you hear much noise in the other direction. Trying to restrict ownership or types of weapons based just on looks like the assault weapons ban doesn't accomplish much and criminals don't have much problem getting them anywhere in spite of some tough laws. Still wish they'd spent more time talking about the issues and less on theatrical reenactments though.
I remember the recycling one being great, except that similarly they didn't give the few useful reasons to have recycling centers more than two seconds of acknowledgment (properly dispose of toxic chemicals, profitably recycle aluminum to require less bauxite mining, reuse old goods which would otherwise be land-filled, etc.)
That story of the woman who might have saved her parents if she had her gun with her, but couldnt because of the new law, was really horrible.
Also the argument that the government has to be afraid of its citizens, is pretty good. Especially if they are going towards a police state.
They disregard the standard 'X number of people are killed or maimed accidentally', but then spend 3 minutes outlining the murdering spree victim's story as if this happens all the time? And then spend half the show talking about the possibility of armed militias overthrowing our government, like its something we should encourage? The elected government should be afraid of its citizens because of the guns they have? Hold the phone. I call wtf on that. What do you think this is, Kenya? Jesus Christ, they really need to teach critical thinking in highschool.
There's always the good old Constitutional rights thing too. Fully automatic weapons are available under some circumstances and most outside of the movie studios don't have a real use past entertainment so use hasn't been the real legal test so far, though some argue that it should be. We've had a vid or two here showing them fired at ranges I'm pretty sure.
Additionally, anyone who were to propose that guns should be allowed to be carried by citizens in schools and universities, in a developed country outside of the US would be ridiculed. Why is it that gun advocates always ignore the fact that they could be funding security guards in these locales? No doubt, handing them out to some erratic, potentially emotional cornered and irrational youth is a far better solution. Instead they make ludicrous arguments suggesting that just because extending gun laws to allow concealed firearms hasn't enveloped a region in a bloodbath that they are somehow justified. Well yes, not everyone is a vicious murder and mentally unstable person, but some are.
Guns don't deter people from robbing a store, they empower them. Anyone unable to conceptualise the fact that a criminal will inevitably have the upper hand by carrying a gun and pointing it first with free gun ownership and not the other way around is fooling themselves. Any odd criminal who would have previously been hard pressed to acquire a firearm from the black market can just go into a store and buy an AK. Better yet just go to a gun show, I heard they don't require any background checks. There, now you're more than capable of suppressing a number of people of better physical stature than yourself while you clean out the cashier instead of brandishing around a knife.
This IS what the 2nd amendment is for. Crimes committed with guns are an unfortunate side effect but is solved with education and getting people out of situations where they need to commit crimes. You can't take guns away from criminals. What are they afraid of, being caught with a gun? They are already criminals! It would work just as well as the drug war (hint: it doesn't work). Guns didn't create criminals, they were around long before the first matchlock.
If you're concerned about safety outside the home, buy a couple mace spray devices. Use one up practicing getting used to how to operate it safely and effectively by touch (as if it were night time). If you can find the time, get some hands-on, real-world self defense training (which can be a lot of fun).
If you're concerned about the safety of our country, educate yourself, your friends and your family on the local, state, and federal election candidates (their voting records, their funding base, their previous employment, etc.). A well informed, highly participatory citizen is a patriotic citizen; an anti-government militia member, in this day and age, is typically just a misguided person with an agenda.
What I do for myself and what others can do aren't the same thing, before we even tried to reduce the number of guns I'd think we should work on that prison system and try to make people feel they have less need for them. Emotion plays as large a role as anything and can be more powerful than real need. At the moment we're the biggest jailer of our own people by a long shot both per capita and in raw terms and with our emphasis on security and "get tough" as a people guns aren't going anywhere anytime soon. If anything the system just increases the self defense need for them, you learn to do things and think in ways on the inside that honestly should scare the hell out of the average person. Might be an idea to stop taking non-violent offenders and sending them to school for aggression, reduce those numbers and maybe we wouldn't feel such a need.
In my opinion, none of the other things mentioned here really have any bearing on that ultimate point. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how you think certain defense concepts are outdated, or that firearms being beneficial is ludicrous, but the fact still remains that the government should not be allowed to take away the right of a law abiding citizen to own a firearm in a free country.
If you're concerned about the safety of our country, educate yourself, your friends and your family on the local, state, and federal election candidates (their voting records, their funding base, their previous employment, etc.). A well informed, highly participatory citizen is a patriotic citizen; an anti-government militia member, in this day and age, is typically just a misguided person with an agenda.
To be fair, nearly every totalitarian state that has emerged in the Western world in the 20th century came from a democracy where the citizenry was overwhelmingly "well informed, highly participatory", from Spain pre-Franco to Weimar Germany. They were not, however, well-armed.
And to whomever made the comment about the unlikely nature of a slightly armed, poorly trained populace resisting a modern military... Chechnya? Bosnia? Uh... Iraq?
Where one right infringes on another we can and do make compromises including with guns but we'd better take the time to examine and justify that compromise first or we're also making the rest of it more open to compromise as well, intended or not. Opinion and preference should have nothing to do with it outside of the question of do we want to change the Constitution itself. That we can do if you can raise the votes for it but as long as it stands that Amendment means just as much as the rest of the document does. Used to at least, I'm not sure how much the whole document means after the last few years.
Gun control doesn't work and it will NEVER work.
Look at the thousands of people who have guns illegally even though there is a gun control law. The only people who don't have a gun are the people who are LAW ABIDING. And if you are law abiding you wouldn't want to murder or shoot other people because that is also against the law.
Does this make sense?
There will always be an underground supply for anything that is banned... Like satellite tv in Cuba and Iran.
Yeah it might be safer in a world where no one and absolutely no one can get access to a gun, but the reality is, there will always be a way for someone who wants to break the law to get a gun. You just can't control that!
So the only thing you can do is defend yourself and what is better defense against gun than a gun?
As Penn pointed out, if you gave the entire female population access to a gun, whether they choose to carry it or throw it away, what is the likelihood that someone will rape them?
Roger Rosenblack or whomever that journalist was suggested call a cop. Hahahahaha. How laughable. By the time they get there, the criminals would have rape, skinned and chopped you up into a pot of boiling water.
What do you think would happen in the US if you introduced a handgun ban? Suddenly a lot of criminals would be armed while the populace would become defenceless. Its not like the UK where very few people have guns, so only the gangs get them, nearly any criminal is likely to be armed because they have been so freely available before.
The most telling point in this show was that killing sprees tend to occur in "Gun free zones". Now make the entire country a "gun free zone" and see what happens
The argument that we need guns to keep the government afraid is absolutley ridiculous. The laws as they are prevent that. It is much more likely that the members of the military itself would turn on our leaders if such a catastrophic change were necessary. After all, they are citizens too, and they are dedicated to the constitution. But if there were to be a time where the military were pitted against the citizenry? The idea that a few handguns and illegally converted automatic rifles would be any threat to the modern weaponry of our army and marines is simply laughable. Not to mention the absolute domination by our air force and navy in their respective domains.
The best argument is that it keeps the criminals afraid of their victims. But then again, a good can of pepper spray will defuse most any situation that comes up without killing anyone.
I don't want a nanny state, but at the same time, I don't want that crazy fur store lady to have 7 guns laying around her store where any jackass might pick them up. And I don't want to get shot just because I'm 6'4", and happen to be parked next to you outside of the mall.
People intent on killing others don't need firearms to do so. Almost anything surrounding you as you read this is capable of causing fatal damage to a human body.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-law-which-takes-away-guns-from-all-Americans
Defective humans are tools, we are surrounded by tools fer crissakes, our brains are big and connected to hands......surprised to see only one, "Guns are bad" person on this thread...encouraging-
I'm also amazed that the UK is being used as a negative example of what happens when strict gun control is enforced - gun crime was rising even before the recent legislation was passed, so to suggest that its introduction created a dangerous new gun culture is misleading. Even so to put this in perspective, of the 755 recorded murders in 2006/07 barely 7% involved a gun.
In fact, in the Home Office's 2006/07 British Crime Survey, crimes involving firearms decreased pretty much across the board - due to gun control, knives are still by far the most popular weapon. These figures are on page 78 of the survey.
Gun crime in the UK (and I expect the US) is predominately concentrated in a few urban centres and more often than not is linked to some form of inter-gang activity i.e. it's 16-24 year old males from ethnic minorities killing each other. I'd say I'm fairly safe in assuming that the majority of the people who have commented here are white and of European origin, which automatically means the likelihood of you being involved in a gun crime are statistically and comparatively small.
As a non-US citizen the whole debate over an anachronistic right to bear arms mystifies me.
There was a program in Florida, I believe in the 70s, where a police department trained and armed 2,000 women with handguns, and publicized it very well. It was shown that crimes committed against women dropped it think 70% after the program was announced to have started.
Reason? Criminals think twice about attacking someone where there's a good chance they have a gun.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
-Cesare Beccaria
*discuss
Just curious what that means Oxdottir- do you mean that P&T have given tacit permission for distribution?
The rule has always been that unless we have some indication that the episode is in the public domain, or released for free distribution- we shouldn't post them. Mainly because these are the ones we tend to C&D letters for ... and I hate dealing with lawyers... (and their flunkies)
To fulfill the rule, all Eric would have to do is dump the player, put up the first clip, and link to the other two. I think there are actually good, not just rule-obsessed, reasons to do this, as a nod towards not doing it at all.
I'm absolutely FOR gun control and I pity people who feel they need one to feel safe.
I pity people even more that discover too late how dangerous it is to have a firearm around the house... accidental deaths by firearm are not the way to learn how ridiculous it is to be armed.
But you're going from one extreme to another, by suggesting that the government has no say in you owning a gun or not, because, well, you just should be able to dangit. Then surely you should also be allowed to own a grenade launcher? Or a nuclear warhead? Where is your line?
Well, actually... I think in the US you have no pool fencing laws (at least that's what I thought when I saw Transformers and saw the little girl standing by the pool. In Australia it's LAW that you have any pool safety fenced. Problem by and large solved right there... kids can't wander in. So yes, we don't outlaw pools, but we DO enforce that they be a lot safer, and as such a lot less drownings occur.
BUT... deaths from things like car accidents come about from a USEFUL object that CAN be dangerous if not treated correctly. You can't just outlaw cars because how would people get around? But guns, what practical purpose do they have in the average person's home? Sweet bugger all, I get along perfectly well with no deadly firearm in my home as does EVERYONE else I know.
It's such a convenient argument to say that the government banning guns is a Nanny State or babysitting you, while ignoring all the other things that are illegal that you find to be perfectly reasonable. Outlawing guns is removing something that has no reasonable, practical purpose in a normal home. In Australia if you work on a farm or other occupation where a gun is useful for rabbit/fox control or the like, then yes, you can have a gun (but not an automatic or semi-automatic), but those of us in metro housing, there is NO NEED TO HAVE A GUN... hence we don't feel nannied or deprived because they're illegal.
Are crime rates higher in Australia because we all can't defend ourselves against all these criminals who 'will get a gun illegally while us poor citizens can't buy one'? Nope... We're doing just fine without everyone and their dog being armed thanks, and THAT law does not make us a nanny state.
**EDIT**
I just wanted to add a few things now that I have more time to sit down and write. While it's getting repetitive, it can't be stated enough in this case. Your statement that, "the government has no say in you owning a gun or not, because, well, you just should be able to dangit" is just plain trivializing the issue. It's not an arbitrary statement like "I wants me sum gunz!" It's the 2nd amendment to the contitution, the document this country is founded on. Australia never had a right to bear arms. The United States does. Banning firearms in Australia was not trampling on a guaranteed freedom for the people of that country, even if I personally find it objectionable. Different story in the US.
Why? Just because you can see the lunacy in allowing grenade launchers and the like to be legal but somehow think that guns are ok doesn't immediately make the distinction clear. Why is it ok for those things to be rightly illegal, but not guns? Neither have any useful place in a modern society.
" It's the 2nd amendment to the contitution, the document this country is founded on."
I'm sorry, but this blind adherence to a text written in the 18th Century is quite simply baffling to the rest of the world. It's no better than bible bashes picking certain texts from the bible and focusing on them with great fervor.
Yes Amendment 2 says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, it was written in an age when they felt they needed a Militia to stay safe... and Amendment 3, right after that one is:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Which really does set the light in which the document was written, it was a time of fighting, of bloodshed and the like, and to BLINDLY try and use the second amendment to justify any and all gun ownership is plainly a cop out. I'm sorry, but rational reason is required here, not just saying 'Well, a 217 yr old document says so'.
That is not very ambiguous. Ordinary military equipment does not include weapons of mass destruction by the way. Yes, grenade launchers are legal in the US. Yes, an AR-15 which is quite close to the weapons issued to US troops is legal. Civilian versions are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. One round for each pull of the trigger. What does that matter? Your argument basically follows that since the constitution is old, and guns kill, it's perfectly acceptable to forcibly disarm the population of an entire country without even having actual data to backup claims that it will reduce crime. I just can't agree with that. Look for reports on the results of gun bans and see if you can find a conclusive scientific study that proves a notable increase or decrease in public saftey. What you end up with is spikes in burglaries, assaults, and home invasions. This can't positively be linked to gun bans either since crime was usually on the rise before the bans and no one can seem to agree on the how of it. Crime in the UK doubled in the years following the 1997 ban and is now only in recent years beginning to decrease. Crime continued to rise independent of the gun ban. Your own country saw a drastic rise in home invasions and assaults following the final removal of all guns. Was it related? It's very difficult to tell with many outside factors involved.
Having a decrease in shooting deaths, but an increase in stabbing deaths solves nothing. You take away a gun? No problem, get a knife. Take away knives? No problem... plenty of big rocks and sticks laying around. The idea that passing legislation to ban a weapon will make an area safer is not taking human nature into account. Someone determined to commit a crime will do so with or without the help of a gun. If there was notable scientific data to prove that gun bans created a safer society with actually less violent crime, then that might at least make it appear more justified for a country like Australia that didn't have a guaranteed right to bear arms in the first place. That data just doesn't exist. In fact, in 1996, John Lott from the University of Chicago Law School published 15 years of FBI analysis on over 3,000 countries to find a correlation, if any, between violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. The results showed a major decrease in countries where citizens were more likely to be armed.
The point I've been trying to make over and over again is that none of that even matters anyway. Removing something with good intentions doesn't make it the right decision. This goes beyond just rights to firearms. When you make it acceptable for the government to alter your fundamental rights, for whatever reason, that is like opening Pandora's box. What prevents the same logic that bans a previously guaranteed right from applying to anything else that is deemed a threat? Dramatizing everything by calling people gun nuts, or thinking in terms of extremes, like having shootouts over a fender bender with depleted uranium rounds, is just trivializing an important issue.
In regards to your example of the 3rd amendment, it still has merit today. There are still scenerios where National Guard troops could be deployed within the borders of the United States (although this is increasingly rare). Disaster relief comes to mind as a recent example. This amendment prevents the government from tossing you to the curb to use your home or forcing you to shelter a soldier. Is it likely to be used anytime soon? Probably not, but every citizen is still constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to have a say in soldiers using their property. You seem to view this issue as something almost inconsequential. As if it's just common sense that all guns should be banned regardless of prior laws and in total disregard to individual freedoms because it would secure you peace of mind. I personally consider this to be ignorant of the future consequences involved with allowing the government that kind of control. There is no possible way to enact a complete ban of all personally owned firearms in this country without violating the law.
Neither have any useful place in a modern society.
That couldn't be further from the truth. I keep a rifle under my bed. For protection? No. I have it for sport. What you're saying is that firearms have no place in society. Screw the millions of people that love to hunt? I like my deer, thank you.
Problem by and large solved right there... kids can't wander in.
Another completely false statement. No, kids can't wander in from the outside, but there's still a LOT of homes that have a pool right next to the house, and there is no fence between the patio door and the pool. You're saying that a kid can't walk out the back door into the pool?
I'm sorry, but this blind adherence to a text written in the 18th Century is quite simply baffling to the rest of the world. It's no better than bible bashes picking certain texts from the bible and focusing on them with great fervor.
If we want to argue that the document could use updated there might be a point to that but we can't just ignore one 18th century aspect without ignoring and weakening the other 9 articles of the Bill of Rights as well. Free speech, due process, and so on. We've tried that with drug war exceptions for search and seizure among other things as well as with efforts to outlaw rather than control guns in some cities and not only did it not offer the positive results we intended but it also made it so much easier to get away with other apparent violations of the Constitution that we've seen so much of in recent years.
The problem is that once we decide to ignore one part of it for our own reasons the precedent is set and others can just as easily ignore other parts for their reasons too. Either the document means something or it doesn't. If it does mean something one Amendment means as much as the next, it's all the law.
Compromises between various rights where they might conflict with each other we can and do make, gun control in simple terms can mean something as basic as they can't carry one without a license to carry or they don't need a tripod mounted automatic weapon on their roof. But to try to carry it to the next step and restrict the right to own one at all, we really do need to adjust the Constitution itself unless we are willing to risk major damage to the whole document and I don't believe the majority of the nation really wants either.
Edit: If there was ever a need to overthrow our country's government, do you honestly think that a corrupt system would listen to a gathering of peaceful protesters? Every revolution that has given birth to a new form of government has been obtained by the shedding of blood and born in violence and uncertainty. It's not ideal for anyone but it's the truth and it's the way the world works. I'll die with my last line of protection in defense of my family, and freedom before I'll see someone take away the only thing standing between me and a life of misery and hopelessness.
I don't care if it's in the constitution or not, I want rational discussion on why guns are good for your average Joe to own.
Look, there's no way I'm ever going to sway one inch those people who love their firearms, so I'm just going to bow out now, happy that I live in Australia, and not the US.
oh, and
Another completely false statement. No, kids can't wander in from the outside, but there's still a LOT of homes that have a pool right next to the house, and there is no fence between the patio door and the pool. You're saying that a kid can't walk out the back door into the pool?
Except that in Australia you are not allowed to have any building access to the pool area except where said access is a child proof door that self latches and has handles out of reach of children.
I know from many online arguments that Americans just love their guns and really do get ultra shitty at anyone who suggests that their 'freedom' to own them is ever impinged upon, so I'll just stop now...
just ban the damn things. i dont understand why any normal rational thinking person would defend the right to own a GUN. its in your constitution ? so what ?
Well, fine then. Let's just get rid of all of these pesky amendments! Who needs them anymore?
No thanks. I may not hunt, I may not own a gun, but I'll purchase one if I have to to defend the rights guaranteed to us by the founders of this country who were greater and smarter men than most. I'll fight for the rights of people to be able to say what they want (other than libel and slander) whether I like what they say or not, and yes, one of those freedoms is the second amendment. To say that people say such things without giving reason means that you weren't listening. Guns have been tools for centuries now, just because you don't need one in modern suburbia doesn't mean other people don't. And because a government's military might be strong doesn't mean that a people should just lay down and take oppression AFTER peaceful protesting and diplomatic channels have been exhausted. If they had in the past, then we never would have gained our freedoms from England in the first place. I don't know what's so difficult to see about that.
I know, discussion's over and I'm probably rehashing. Day late and a dollar short for me.
"let them get a new hobby."
How about people that like to race? Or swim? Or snowmobile? Or ride ATVs? Or (insert name of hobby here). People have died in each one of those activities, so you to telling me to get a new hobby just because other people (a comparatively SMALL number) have died from firearms is ridiculous.
If there are children in the home, simply lock your shit up. I can't think of a gun case in existence that can't be locked.
While we're at it, let's ban all knifes in the house too.
It's the same reason why people put up gates on stairs at houses or put those plastic things in outlets or have locks on the cupboards under the sink - kids will get into any and everything - so if you simply lock up the stuff that's dangerous - Problem solved.
What makes you even think that outlawing them will stop criminals from getting them?
Just because something is illegal doesn't make them disappear.
Oh, wait, my bad. There's no such thing as weed or acid in the U.S. I mean, how could there be? It's illegal.
Q.E.D.
How did the gun ban decrease overall violent crime? All these weapon figures from 2005 come with the homicide rate staying relatively stable after a few large spikes. The numbers for 2006 where overall homicides increased again showed 16.5% of murders were commited with firearms while 36.9% were commited with *no* weapon. That is more than double the number of firearms deaths and even more than knives at 33.7%. People are still being killed with guns, and violent crimes continue with different weapons. Prior to the ban, the leading weapon used in homicides as cited by the Australian Intitute of Criminology was a knife. It's no surprise then that a gun ban didn't achieve much. In the US, the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows a substantial and continuing decline of violent crimes involving firearms since 1998 without a ban.
So, now to recap what you are suggesting as I see it. You say "ban the damn things" with no scientific backing. You suggest that your personal opinion that guns serve no purpose should dictate law. Finally, you say that the government should be allowed to force someone to give up perfectly legal hobbies for no reason other than a false claim of deaths "left right and center." What hobbies do you enjoy? Perhaps someone else that fears it is dangerous would like to ban it for you to ensure your saftey and the saftey of others. You think that doesn't apply because you view a gun as a scary instrument of death and nothing more. Like Sketch said, the world is made up of more than just modern suburbia. Part of living in a free country is accepting that just because you don't like something doesn't mean there should be a law against it.
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9
so whatever your doing, isnt working.
now, we have deer here, and i've no inclination to go kill them. If you said to protect against bear then maybe i could see the argument, but then a handgun isnt going to cut it anyhow. And arguming that why arnt knifves and blunt instruments banned ? why should they be ? their job isnt to kill. The floor will kill you if you hit it hard enough.
besides which (after anouther ten seconds of digging - right from your own doj.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.png
"if you outlaw guns only the criminals will have them"
GOOD because there's less criminals than law abiding people, and they tend to shoot each other, not us.
If i am mugged by a guy with a gun, and I don't have a gun, what are the chances of my getting shot? Like, zero. I just hand him my wallet and phone and that's that. I am not gonna get all medieval on someone's ass for taking a small amount of money and a phone which is insured. I am not gonna "defend my property" by risking my life. Take my property. I can get some more later.
As for defending my home from an evil government, well, how about you GET REAL. It's already been said, they got nukes and apaches and clusterbombs and shit, look at Iraq, they have millions of AK's and suicide bombers and it doesn't save them from being colonised.
What are you gonna do, sit on your roof with your Magnum .44 and shout "DEATH TO THE FASCIST OVERLORDS" as a cruise missile targets your town hall?
And to those who dismiss peaceful protest... LOL. As if it's never been tried and never worked before. LOL!
Someone invoked Tiananmen Square as an exammple of the failure of peaceful protest. Erm... have you noticed something called the market economy in China lately?
1.) You ignored the overall decrease of violent crime in the US since 1998
2.) You addressed number of homicides, not how the gun ban caused no decrease in the homicide rate.
3.) You skipped over how firearm homicides were replaced with other weapons and kept the numbers steady with occasional spikes.
4.) You ignored how there is *no* consensus from the scientific community that tracks these numbers that gun control has any effect. I doubt we're going to prove something like that by citing someone else's data.
5.) Finally, the most important point of all, you didn't address why guns should be banned based on your opinions and not facts.
I never said ban knives and blunt instruments. You inferred that from reading the Australian numbers. I just showed how stabbings and beatings, not only with blunt instruments, but with "hands and feet," increased after the removal of guns. So, now tell me why the government should intervene against the constitution of the United States to ban all firearms without conclusive proof that it will even achieve anything? You may not like the constitution, but then again, you don't like guns either, and your personal opinions don't shape policy.
MINK, you just argued the point of the other side. "If you outlaw guns only the criminals will have them. GOOD because there's less criminals than law abiding people, and they tend to shoot each other, not us." Right. So if you bar a law abiding citizen from owning a gun, how does that prevent a criminal from going outside the law to aquire one and continue using it as before? Does that mean you think that currently lawful citizens decide to commit crimes just because guns make them want to? All of these arguments we've made mean nothing. The constitution is the ultimate authority in the United States. You can't arbitrarily pass laws that are contrary to what it states. Citizens have the right to bear arms. There is no proof that banning guns will prevent crime. Why would you try and remove a fundamental right, in a free country, that is guaranteed to all citizens, without even having evidence to back up your claims? You just can't ban something because you don't like it or fear it.
I'm not saying you should ignore the constitution day in day out, but in this one case i think the foundatation which existed when the constitution was written no longer exist, and in fact it's now detrimental to your society, and thats the point where change is needed.
the mere fact that 8 of those top 10 cities are in the US shows that running a safe society isnt an american strong point, so frankly, im not suprised you've no conception of a world in which guns arnt needed.
on a side note (and yes, this will detract from previous statements, but thats the nature of a fair debate) i should mention that the one thing shown from the tobacco / drinking / mobile phone industries, is that statistics usually come good for those that want to spend the most. Seeing as you're pumping your gun industry along, i wouldnt be suprised if their lobbying and paying for as many studies to be done as possible, thats what asshole industries do.
In October 1987, Florida enacted concealed right to carry laws. Many in the media predicted wild west style shootouts and nicknamed Florida the "Gunshine State." None of the predictions came true. Homicide rates decreased 41%, and in the 10 years since then only 0.02% of permits were revoked for crimes commited by licensed holders. According to the FBI, all nine states with the lowest violent crime rates in the country have right to carry laws. The downside to this? Crime spiked on tourists. Since the citizens were now more likely to be armed, tourists definitely weren't.
There's comments in this thread trying to state that in countries where guns are banned, criminals can still get them and "gun crime in the UK has exploded" -- yes, it has exploded. There's now three times more gun crimes than a few years ago. It's now about 900 crimes a year involving firearms. In america in 2002 there were 3,012 child deaths due to gun crime. Thats just children, and the UK stats is for crimes, not deaths. So what the hell ?
anyhow, i can see that no amount of reasoning is going to convince you otherwise, so you can have your twenty fold more likely chance of getting murdered. i wont argue the point, but god im glad i dont live in the "land of the free". (quotes used in this instance as the universal sign of fallacy).
and here's a nice story of peaceful protest:
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Hill-of-Crosses-Peaceful-resistance-to-the-Soviet-Union
I admit, its possible to imagine a scenario where it's advantageous to have an armed citizenry, i just don't think it's a big percentage of possible scenarios, and the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Theres millions of people living without guns and they seem to have less chance of getting shot. go figure.
And anyway, hellLLO! America has been taken over by a crusading war criminal, your dollar's fucked, so where's your armed militia to overthrow the tyrant?
Voting for another 4 years of the same shit.
And yeah, it has been taken over. And many people are still trying those peaceful options. The current administration has been outed as incompetent and it's power has been lessened. Thankfully we do have term limits, but I've already said way above that if that were to somehow change and the Bush regime were to somehow stay in power I would certainly be ready to fight against it.
It doesn't have to be a big percentage of a possibility to still remain a possibility and have a chance of actually happening. And one day, maybe generations from now, perhaps it will all go south and those people will need it. Who knows?
7wGPd2UPv7k