You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Should the United States adopt a form of gun control?

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2010, 02:00 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Bigcat_hunter's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 425

Gun control = Crime
If you cant buy a gun legally from the store but the gang banger down the street has a surplus of stolen black market guns do really think that is ok? Does that make you feel safe? Take a look at the rest of the world. Look at the communism. Look at dictators. look real hard where guns have been outlawed and decide for your self if its a good thing. Maybe you should look at our own FBI crime statistics. Or the NRA:

NRA-ILA :: FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime
Bigcat_hunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 02:33 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
AusLach's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Coffs Harbour,New South Wales
Posts: 1,567
Liked 41 Times on 17 Posts
Likes Given: 15


The US already has gun control.. There are certain restrictions on what citizens can possess and purchase. DO NOT in any way, shape, or form allow your restrictions to become as harsh as Australia's. The freedom that you guys have over there is eviable. Please learn from our misfortune!
AusLach is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 03:11 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
JTJ's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 9,339
Liked 5102 Times on 2754 Posts
Likes Given: 1651


NRA-ILA :: Try this website.
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.
JTJ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 08:02 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
k2000k's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 79
Liked 60 Times on 27 Posts
Likes Given: 28


Well here are some common arguments for gun control and I'll post some counter arguments.

First argument: Most violent crimes in the US are committed by firearms. Most criminals favor firearms over other means to commit crimes. Therefore if there are more guns in America there will be more crime. So we must limit the ability to own firearms as to limit the criminals ability to use firearms to commit crimes.

Counter: Now, this argument is logically sound, but factually erroneous. It might seem odd but hear me out. Here is an example of a logically sound argument that is fundamentally wrong from the GMAT:

The moon is made of cheese, the moon rocks are not made of cheese, therefore the moon landing was faked.

Of course the conclusion of the moon landing is fake is absurd. However, in a logical argument it is assumed that the premises are correct. What it means is the form of the argument is correct. If the form of our argument is correct, and if the premises are assumed as true, then the conclusion is logically sound. I call it the fallacy of logic, because you can have a logical argument but still be factually wrong. Pro gun control individualizes will follow this form to argue their viewpoint, and they aren't wholly wrong. The first two premises are in fact factually correct, however, the argument is far too simplistic as it ignores the fact that 90% or more of firearms used in crimes are acquired on the black market, or illegally. It also rests on the faulty premise if we somehow make it harder to own a firearm illegally it will somehow make it more difficult for a criminal to own a firearm. That is fundamentally untrue, and in fact the premise has been shown to factually wrong as the number of gun owners in America has increased, but violent crime in America is at the lowest it has been in decades.

Based off of that information you could make the counter argument:
Firearms are used more often than not for legitimate purposes of defense, criminals are less likely to assault an armed individual than one who is not armed, therefore if there are more guns then there will be less crime.

Second argument: Countries like Japan and France have strict gun control laws and suffer from lower crime and murder rates than the United States. America has a much higher crime and murder rate and higher firearm ownership so if we restrict firearms like Japan and France we will have crime rates like Japan and France.

Counter: First off this premise rests on the assumption that what works in Japan or France would work equally well in America. This may or may not be the case for France, however, Japan is very different from America. It is highly socially centralized whereas America is highly individualized. It should be interesting to note that while America has a higher murder rate than Japan, conversely, Japan has a much higher suicide rate than America. Add the total deaths from murder and suicide together and America and Japan are pretty much even. This could be, but not necessarily, attributed to societal differences. Also Japan is very much a police state in that they have a much higher officer to capita ratio than the United States. Simply stated, Japan is a poor comparison for America. We should look to nations like Canada or Europe in general. What you will see is that a country like Switzerland, which has very liberal, i.e loose not progressive, gun control laws. They have an ownership rate higher than Americas, and yet gun crime is so rare it isn't even statistically recorded. Another nation like Luxemburg, wealthy and developed, has strict gun control laws, yet a murder rate much higher than Americas. We can also note that in a country like Great Briton, which went from relatively liberal to strict gun control laws, has seen an increase in violent crime. Glasgow is now one of the most dangerous cities in Europe. What this lightly illustrates, and significantly covered in a certain Harvard study, is that there is no statical correlation in Europe between gun control and decrease crime.

Third Argument: Why does someone need a gun for defense, that is what the police are for. And isn't it better to leave firearms to our law enforcement as they are strictly screened and trained?

Counter: The supreme court has ruled many times that you alone a responsible for your personal safety. The job of law enforcement is to keep the peace, not protect you personally from crime. Also, reality states that a police officer cannot be around you at all times. When you are most likely in need of protection is when protection is most likely the most inaccessible. Florida State University published a study stating that Americas may use firearms as much as 2.5 million times a year in self defense. I believe the DOJ has stated they think they are used around 30,000 times a year for defense. That alone illustrates the fallacy of relying on law enforcement for protection.

Ultimately, the fiercest proponents for gun control want gun control because it makes them feel safer. We don't need to go into the absurdity of doing something because someone doesn't want to face reality. However, what is much more sinister. Is that some individuals do not think that the common man can be trusted. It seems far fetched but one only need to look as far as Bill Mahr, who considers half of the Americans in this country to be inbreed hillbillies that need to be brought into the 21st century. He said this on his own show. Some individuals need to control others because they think they know better than others, and firearms are a direct impediment on their ability to exert control on the populace. Just look at Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China. They all implemented fierce gun control on their populace, they also were guilty of murdering millions. An armed populace makes it much harder for megalomaniacs from exerting their will on others.

Last edited by k2000k; 11-03-2010 at 08:23 PM.
k2000k is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 09:12 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
CA357's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19,871
Liked 1179 Times on 514 Posts
Likes Given: 2978


Well said k2.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”Samuel Adams
CA357 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 09:21 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
orangello's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,156
Liked 5760 Times on 3371 Posts
Likes Given: 4889


I think the current gun stifling measures are more than what is necessary/desirable. The gun control measures don't work against criminals anyway; just in the last two months i've been offered a nice pump shotgun, a weird .22 rifle, and a Kahr PM40, all from less-than-law-abiding people that i know (me not being a gangbanger or "well-connected" person). I was quite tempted on the Kahr, but i resisted, not due to legal concerns, just didn't need another caliber right now.
Dead Bears, the only good kind.
orangello is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 09:46 PM   #27
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
robocop10mm's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 11,395
Liked 4138 Times on 2111 Posts
Likes Given: 523


k2, don't try to confuse the issue with those pesky facts. This is an emotional argument put forth by panty waist, hand wringing, birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, dude smooching, pee pee touchers. They have a Constitutional right to be afraid of firearms. We cannot impede upon their rights!
In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball
robocop10mm is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 10:24 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Liverpool,England
Posts: 2,265
Liked 1131 Times on 543 Posts
Likes Given: 1249


Post this example

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

Joyce Lee Malcolm from the November 2002 issue

On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England's low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual's rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone's illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."

But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual's right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."

The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law's enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.
Davyboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 02:00 AM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Yunus's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 5,252
Liked 1485 Times on 878 Posts
Likes Given: 466


I think most of these posts are missing the point. The guy is part of a debate and he must take the pro side. Most of the info provided helps the other side. He's not saying he is for gun control, just that he must debate the pro's of it.

To the OP. I suggest reading the dissenting opinions on Heller and McDonald.
"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson
"Do stupid things, win stupid prizes"
Yunus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 02:38 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
JonM's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 20,129
Liked 7681 Times on 4098 Posts
Likes Given: 625


Originally Posted by Yunus View Post
I think most of these posts are missing the point. The guy is part of a debate and he must take the pro side. Most of the info provided helps the other side. He's not saying he is for gun control, just that he must debate the pro's of it.

To the OP. I suggest reading the dissenting opinions on Heller and McDonald.
he has an impossible task there are no benefits to enacting gun control legislation. every where gun control is in existance people suffer brutal degradation by tyranical governments. they are subject to murderers thieves rapists and anyone who is bigger or has brought an extra body to a robbery.

the way i would spin it would take the viewpoint of a tyranical dictator or argue from the rapist's viewpoint on how much easier it is to rape a 75 year old women who doesnt have that .45 anymore to defend herself.
JonM is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Victory in The United States Supreme Court! tracker Legal and Activism 23 12-08-2010 05:59 PM
United States Army Combatives Tournament Grand Prize is a SIG-Sauer P226 PineScent96 General Handgun Discussion 3 10-19-2010 12:34 AM
USSA - United Socialist States of America - February, 2010 Last Crow Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 04-20-2010 03:47 PM
A United States Marine Goes to a Town Hall Meeting! Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 21 08-25-2009 05:43 AM
The Russia/Georgia conflict and the United States? huckleberry The Club House 26 08-16-2008 12:09 AM