Gun sales in the US soar as crime continues to drop - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;34840830]I did state that in my earlier posts, but i'm going to have to, if not disagree, at least question one of your points. Gun ownership after a ban wouldn't be impossible but it certainly wouldn't be as widespread as it is today, criminals would be safer using them, yes, but I do think that the number of them would drastically decrease, far enough to compensate. After all, people would smoke and drink a lot less if bans were issued. You can bring statistics from Al Capone's time if they do contradict me, though, but I very much so doubt they will. Black markets would grow, though, no issues raised there.[/QUOTE] LOL you're going to bring Capone's time into this? You know they banned mailing firearms in 1920. Between 1920 and 1933 homicide rates in America increased by 78%.

A shining example of what other countries could accomplish. [editline]e[/editline] It's funny, I remember a thread where a European said the exact same thing about their gun regulations. To each their own, I guess.

[QUOTE=imptastick;34840938] [t]http://i41.tinypic.com/9vjb7o.png[/t][/QUOTE] 2400 bucks for a M1911? Wow :v:

when the second part of "the supreme law of the land" is about how every person is allowed to have a gun, i don't think its possible to just go back and reverse that

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;34841218]2400 bucks for a M1911? Wow :v:[/QUOTE] People buy them, there is enough money in crime that people can afford to throw it around. Also I would assume in countries/areas where guns are harder to get they are willing to pay.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;34841038]How does any country justify it's homicide rates? What the fuck are you even asking, that is some stupid shit you just posted.[/QUOTE] Seems i didn't explain my post very well. I was asking an honest question though. Why is there so much gun-related homicides in your country?

[QUOTE=Daemon;34841694]Seems i didn't explain my post very well. I was asking an honest question though. Why is there so much gun-related homicides in your country?[/QUOTE] Gang violence is a typical culprit

[QUOTE=beanhead;34841438]when the second part of "the supreme law of the land" is about how every person is allowed to have a gun, i don't think its possible to just go back and reverse that[/QUOTE] It's primary purpose was for the people to be able to hold a militia in case of invasion. Also because at the time the U.S was a very dangerous place because of Natives, fear of Britain coming back as well as the untamed wilds of the west. Though I can safely say that the problems of untamed wilds is very big here in the West, I for one, happen to live at the base of a mountain, 10 minutes to skiing and snowboarding, camping, and 20-30 to a lake. It's a pretty cool place really.

registered gun sales aren't really related to crime rates in any significant way.

[QUOTE=The one that is;34841941]It's primary purpose was for the people to be able to hold a militia in case of invasion. Also because at the time the U.S was a very dangerous place because of Natives, fear of Britain coming back as well as the untamed wilds of the west. Though I can safely say that the problems of untamed wilds is very big here in the West, I for one, happen to live at the base of a mountain, 10 minutes to skiing and snowboarding, camping, and 20-30 to a lake. It's a pretty cool place really.[/QUOTE] I don't know what they told you in history class, but the purpose of the second amendment was in case the government ever got corrupt and had to be overthrown.

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;34841703]Gang violence is a typical culprit[/QUOTE] Thank you, very informative. I guess you could say guns have always influenced that violence since the dawn of western history, but there doesn't seem to be anything you can do about it.

[QUOTE=The one that is;34841941]It's primary purpose was for the people to be able to hold a militia in case of invasion. Also because at the time the U.S was a very dangerous place because of Natives, fear of Britain coming back as well as the untamed wilds of the west. Though I can safely say that the problems of untamed wilds is very big here in the West, I for one, happen to live at the base of a mountain, 10 minutes to skiing and snowboarding, camping, and 20-30 to a lake. It's a pretty cool place really.[/QUOTE] Why the hell would we need militia for an invasion? We have the military for that. The second amendment was literally put in there for the purpose of overthrowing a tyrannical government

It could be, you know, both. Protection from injuns/british/government/canada/mountain lions all falls under the category of 'gun' [QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34842102]Why the hell would we need militia for an invasion? We have the military for that. The second amendment was literally put in there for the purpose of overthrowing a tyrannical government[/QUOTE] Because back then the military was the literal spawn of the colonial militias?

[QUOTE=The one that is;34841941]It's primary purpose was for the people to be able to hold a militia in case of invasion. Also because at the time the U.S was a very dangerous place because of Natives, fear of Britain coming back as well as the untamed wilds of the west. Though I can safely say that the problems of untamed wilds is very big here in the West, I for one, happen to live at the base of a mountain, 10 minutes to skiing and snowboarding, camping, and 20-30 to a lake. It's a pretty cool place really.[/QUOTE] Its primary purpose is to serve as a fail safe for what was originally a very unusual design for government. Intended to be the final, and ultimate, check in our check and balance system. In the event that they, being the government, fail to serve the public interest on a wide enough level, firearms provide the people with the means to cause sufficient unrest so as to cripple the government. Blah blah blah, modern armies can't be stopped by small arms. Yeah no shit. The dynamics change significantly when you are trying to stop a rebellion though. Finding people willing to shoot at civilians and maintain order in your own ranks is virtually impossible. Sufficient chaos is all that it takes to effectively render our own government inoperable. Relevant then. Relevant now.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;34841998]I don't know what they told you in history class, but the purpose of the second amendment was in case the government ever got corrupt and had to be overthrown.[/QUOTE]Actually, he is pretty much correct. [quote]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.[/quote] [quote]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.[/quote] [editline]23rd February 2012[/editline] There are frankly a number of different reasons that the Second Amendment exists.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;34836603]gun control works great in other countries but the whole "gun culture" thing in america is so ridiculously inlet that even if you DO impose strict gun control laws you do end up with a scenario where the criminals have them and others dont. it sounds ridiculous for almost any other nation and that's because in almost any other nation it IS ridiculous, but in america the acquisition of a firearm really isn't a huge ordeal, and the fact that guns are so widespread in america means acquiring one illegally isn't so hard either. [editline]23rd February 2012[/editline] hey wow now you're getting it![/QUOTE] Gun control works well in other nations but that doesn't mean it cuts down on violent crime. Just gun related violent crime, you're still just as likely to get mugged in say London, it's just now you're looking at getting stabbed in the gut along with it. It's a lot easier to give someone a poke with a blade than it is to shoot someone, especially in a mugging/street crime scenario.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34842102]Why the hell would we need militia for an invasion? We have the military for that. The second amendment was literally put in there for the purpose of overthrowing a tyrannical government[/QUOTE] Didn't have a standing army at the time. Historically standing armies have been quite rare. You build a skeleton of a military with your ranking officers and small peacekeeping force, and then you use that skeleton to mass train soldiers in times of need. The ancient Romans were so very successful in their military conquests BECAUSE they had a standing army. They fielded professional soldiers to slaughter what was mostly peasants. Then, much like many of the lessons learned from the Roman empire, we forgot all about it until many years later. The presence of a government maintained militia was expected though. Nobody questioned that the government would keep a militia for defense. What was interesting was the concept of civilian run militias that could act AGAINST the government in addition to providing domestic defense. This is why the amendment specifies that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

I think most foreigners look at Fallout as an accurate representation of gun violence in America.

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;34832951]maybe just stop letting ANYONE buy guys and gun sales will be controlled[/QUOTE] that's not how it works, but okay.

Controlling the law abiding citizen's right to own guns doesn't do anything to stop gun crime, if anything it creates more because the citizen is helpless against the person with illegally obtained guns.

[QUOTE=somescripter;34835630]ITT: GUN NUTS VS REST OF THE WORLD[/QUOTE] Get out.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34835306]The vast majority of gun crime is just gang related in bad parts of urban areas anyways. Despite what Europeans would like to think, people shooting one another outside of those areas is quite a rarity.[/QUOTE] You make a good point, that'd be like people assuming you're at a high risk of getting stabbed in every non tourist-y spot of London, which isn't the case. Only a few Boroughs of London have relatively high crime.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;34833354]Should have said overall gun crimes, people will keep guns in their homes and get concealed carry permits. [editline]23rd February 2012[/editline] Now, you have to attempt to leave your house and call the police if someone breaks in but doesn't shoot at you. As if i'm going to have time to run around past whoever broke in and say "excuse me while i wake everyone up i'm leaving now and calling the cops". But no one gives a shit about it, even the cops.[/QUOTE] I don't know about where you live, but we have the castle law here. If a man enters a home that he ought not be in, he can die right then and there.

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;34832951]maybe just stop letting ANYONE buy guys and gun sales will be controlled[/QUOTE] hi from now on please do not comment on a country if you dont understand its laws thanks

I remember reading a newspaper article about a county in Georgia (My home state, by the way) that had a problem with violent break-ins made it a law that every household had at least one gun in it, and home break-ins almost completely stopped. There is no doubt that the second amendment is beneficial , and actually stops crime rather than proliferating it. I mean, why would you rob a house if you [highlight] knew [/highlight] there was a gun inside?

[QUOTE=somescripter;34835630]ITT: GUN NUTS VS REST OF THE WORLD[/QUOTE] The rest of the world better watch its fucking back *swag*, seriously though, there's something to be said from the knoweldge that any citizen could potentially kill you if you fucked with them, Like MAD but on a personal level. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dass;34836452]What asshole? All I see is a wall full of graffiti...[/QUOTE] That's urban camo right there.

The problem is not that law abiding citizens have guns when it comes to rational arguments for gun control. The problem with things like Virginia Tech and Columbine are gun vendors not doing background checks on people who the sell to and the type of armament that is sold. Eric Harris legally should not have been able to purchase the firearms he did. All citizens should have the right to bear at least some arms, but I think age and psychological dispositions should limit what kind of firearms they may possess. In most areas of the United States, there are many regulations like that. The problem, for the most part, is the irresponsibility of some gun vendors when it comes to crazy people shooting up places, but the general population that obtains a legal firearm most likely won't commit mass murder, or ever use their weapons. I personally own a double barreled shotgun and a small hunting rifle, which both should be fine for domestic protection. The best solution for things like school shootings should be cracking down on gun vendors who don't run background checks, and maybe for firearm related accidents, gun safety courses that really drill it in peoples' heads how dangerous leaving a firearm accessible to their children.