More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

What surprises me most is the "solutions" many seem to have after a massacre like this. I've scrolled through some of the gun-debates on this forum, and opinions like "If the students had guns, they could have taken out the killer" and "more guns makes a safer community" seems to be shared by many users.

I live in Norway in Europe. We have a very strict gun law. Even the police aren't allowed to carry guns. Some of you might now think "wow, that's stupid". Actually it's not. When the police don't use guns, criminals doesn't need to either. The result is that people doesn't get killed in stealing/robbing related cases. And if the criminal does have a gun? Well, then he doesn't feel the pressure of using it, cause nobody else is a treat. I think this is a good thing. Yes, so a criminal might get more easily away. But isn't that a better outcome than either the criminal and/or the victim getting killed because both were armed? Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

If I turn into some mental nut, I think the chanses are good I could get a gun in the US. I could buy one legally. I could get one from my family. Or, I could buy one from a friend or steal one. In Norway, I don't know how to start. Not even after 20 years of living here.

Many Americans seem to use the argument "but the criminals would get guns no matter what, so we might aswell allow it".

what a stupid thing to say. the harder it is to get a gun, the less likely it is that someone would get one.

and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore. when everybody else have guns, say in the us, of course criminals must use guns. and it becomes a bad circle, and people get shot in the confrontations.

I think it's strange so many people doesn't agree that more guns means more gun-related violence.

Especially since almost all western industrial countries but the US has stricter gun laws AND less murder rates. I think it's pretty obvious. It's like what more proof do you need? Just look to whatever country you want that has a good, strict gun-control.

I can understand many peoples argument about being able do "defend themself", and therfore having guns. But the thing is, if guns are illegal, you don't have to.

Last year New York City had about 560 homicides. NYC has about 8 million people. Let's compare it to Norway. We have about 4 million people, so we can't compare directly. But if we take Norways number, which is about 20-30 a year, times to, we can compare the numbers. It's about 10 to 1. Sure I could compare it to Texas or California. Frankly, I don't think it would make much a difference.
Or, we could compare the US to another Scandinavian country or west european with strict gun laws. I believe the result is still alot lower than in the US.

The point is, the murder rates could be so much lower if guns were restricted.

I welcome other thoughts at this, and I respect people having other opinions. I know alot of people disagree with me, I just wanted to get it off my chest.

Thanks for reading.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

Guns will never be banned in the US for a very long time if ever so this is a moot point.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

Well, the counter arguments to your points are in many other emails, so I don't want to start another long thread of arguments and counter arguments. But here's a summary of my point of view and I'll leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
what a stupid thing to say. the harder it is to get a gun, the less likely it is that someone would get one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not really true. The market for guns exists, whether you ban them or not. When you ban them, it just pushes the demand to a black market instead of a recognized market. Activity in black markets promotes violence because when the market is "unofficial" in society's eyes then the only recourse for dissatisfied consumers in that market is violence. When you force people to participate in a black market it encourages violence, including gun use.

[ QUOTE ]
and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore. when everybody else have guns, say in the us, of course criminals must use guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a huge mistake to think that demand for a product or service will go away if the product is deemed illegal by the government. This is simply not the case and the existence of black markets far and wide in the world is evidence of that.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially since almost all western industrial countries but the US has stricter gun laws AND less murder rates. I think it's pretty obvious. It's like what more proof do you need?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about proof of causation instead of just correlation? You should consider the possibility that Norway's more progressive taxation system, for example, reduces the demand for guns rather than the ban on the guns.

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand many peoples argument about being able do "defend themself", and therfore having guns. But the thing is, if guns are illegal, you don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be true if your ban on guns was sufficient to ensure that no criminals would buy the guns. But as I've noted, a government ban will not eliminate demand.

I agree that less demand for guns would be good. I don't agree that a government ban would eliminate the demand.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guns will never be banned in the US for a very long time if ever so this is a moot point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible thing to say. In the late 18th century would you have said "slavery will never be banned in the US for a very long time if ever so this is a moot point"? The only way that humanity has any chance of evolving is to challenge the status quo and promote change.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one person involved had a gun.

Thanks for reading.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one person involved had a gun.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and if he had no way of getting to a gun it would have been tough for him to kill 31 people the way he did.

Guns are bad, mkay? It's not tough to understand. Sure, people kill people, but its a hell of a lot tougher to kill someone with a rudimentary weapon such as a knife. At least then you can run.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guns will never be banned in the US for a very long time if ever so this is a moot point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible thing to say. In the late 18th century would you have said "slavery will never be banned in the US for a very long time if ever so this is a moot point"? The only way that humanity has any chance of evolving is to challenge the status quo and promote change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really isn't fair to compare gun control to slavery. I seriously doubt guns will be banned in the US in our lifetime.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see any citations for an incident like this.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guns are bad, mkay? It's not tough to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why hasn't the government gotten rid of its guns yet?

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one person involved had a gun.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and if he had no way of getting to a gun it would have been tough for him to kill 31 people the way he did.

Guns are bad, mkay? It's not tough to understand. Sure, people kill people, but its a hell of a lot tougher to kill someone with a rudimentary weapon such as a knife. At least then you can run.

[/ QUOTE ]
This guy was planning this killing spree for well over a month and I doubt any amount of gun control would have stopped him. If he couldn't get a gun off the black market what about a bomb?

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really isn't fair to compare gun control to slavery. I seriously doubt guns will be banned in the US in our lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it not fair? If we think that some commonly accepted current practice is bad, we should encourage people to stop. Whether we think it's likely to work or not, the only way things get better is by someone saying "this can be better" and getting other people to go along.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one person involved had a gun.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and if he had no way of getting to a gun it would have been tough for him to kill 31 people the way he did.

Guns are bad, mkay? It's not tough to understand. Sure, people kill people, but its a hell of a lot tougher to kill someone with a rudimentary weapon such as a knife. At least then you can run.

[/ QUOTE ]
This guy was planning this killing spree for well over a month and I doubt any amount of gun control would have stopped him. If he couldn't get a gun off the black market what about a bomb?

[/ QUOTE ]


Look, I'm not exactly in favor of bombs either, but in most cases you need to have some sense of how a bomb works and its a lot harder to pull off a successfull bomb operation than it is to walk down a hallway with a gun pulling the trigger.

Bottom line is that guns have done way more harm than they have good. Please argue that one.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not fair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Human rights violations aren't comparable to prohibition. Slavery takes every right away from a person. Gun control would be taking away a right granted to citizens by the US constitution. Your assumption that taking guns away from the people is socially progressive is the problem in your logic.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guns are bad, mkay? It's not tough to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why hasn't the government gotten rid of its guns yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be in favor of EVERYONE banning guns. Trust me. i would rather the gun be in the hands of a cop or FBI agent than a street thug though. Which is more likely to cause you and I harm?

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not fair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Human rights violations aren't comparable to prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people consider prohibition by forceful coercion to be a violation of their right to lead their lives the way they see fit. The argument for and against this point is not decided. We ought not declare certain topics off limits because some people don't want to talk about it anymore.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

What surprises me most is the "solutions" many seem to have after a massacre like this. I've scrolled through some of the gun-debates on this forum, and opinions like "If the students had guns, they could have taken out the killer" and "more guns makes a safer community" seems to be shared by many users.

I live in Norway in Europe. We have a very strict gun law. Even the police aren't allowed to carry guns. Some of you might now think "wow, that's stupid". Actually it's not. When the police don't use guns, criminals doesn't need to either. The result is that people doesn't get killed in stealing/robbing related cases. And if the criminal does have a gun? Well, then he doesn't feel the pressure of using it, cause nobody else is a treat. I think this is a good thing. Yes, so a criminal might get more easily away. But isn't that a better outcome than either the criminal and/or the victim getting killed because both were armed? Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

If I turn into some mental nut, I think the chanses are good I could get a gun in the US. I could buy one legally. I could get one from my family. Or, I could buy one from a friend or steal one. In Norway, I don't know how to start. Not even after 20 years of living here.

Many Americans seem to use the argument "but the criminals would get guns no matter what, so we might aswell allow it".

what a stupid thing to say. the harder it is to get a gun, the less likely it is that someone would get one.

and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore. when everybody else have guns, say in the us, of course criminals must use guns. and it becomes a bad circle, and people get shot in the confrontations.

I think it's strange so many people doesn't agree that more guns means more gun-related violence.

Especially since almost all western industrial countries but the US has stricter gun laws AND less murder rates. I think it's pretty obvious. It's like what more proof do you need? Just look to whatever country you want that has a good, strict gun-control.

I can understand many peoples argument about being able do "defend themself", and therfore having guns. But the thing is, if guns are illegal, you don't have to.

Last year New York City had about 560 homicides. NYC has about 8 million people. Let's compare it to Norway. We have about 4 million people, so we can't compare directly. But if we take Norways number, which is about 20-30 a year, times to, we can compare the numbers. It's about 10 to 1. Sure I could compare it to Texas or California. Frankly, I don't think it would make much a difference.
Or, we could compare the US to another Scandinavian country or west european with strict gun laws. I believe the result is still alot lower than in the US.

The point is, the murder rates could be so much lower if guns were restricted.

I welcome other thoughts at this, and I respect people having other opinions. I know alot of people disagree with me, I just wanted to get it off my chest.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.K. has very strict gun laws also, yet has far more violent crime than Norway. London has a higher rate of violent crime than New York City.

I don't think you can draw a cause-and-effect relationship between strict gun laws and crime by using only Norway and the U.S. as an example. Some countries have stricter gun control laws than the U.S. yet also more violent crime (Russia, Brazil, South Africa). Gun laws in the U.K. haven't stopped the trend of increasing violent crime rate.

My guess is that cultural differences are one of the biggest reasons for the disparities in the violent crime rates between Scandinavian countries and the U.K. or U.S.A.

I would suggest you read some of the linked studies in recent threads. The correlation between gun laws and gun crime, or violent crime, is not what it intuitively would seem. More guns does not = more crime.

You also seem to think that outlawing guns would remove guns from society. That didn't work in the USA for alcohol during the Prohibition period; it isn't working now for illegal drugs; and there is no reason to presume that it would work for guns.

Thanks for reading.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not fair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Human rights violations aren't comparable to prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people consider prohibition by forceful coercion to be a violation of their right to lead their lives the way they see fit. The argument for and against this point is not decided. We ought not declare certain topics off limits because some people don't want to talk about it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Not sure what your saying here. I never said I didn't want to talk about slavery, but I just don't think it is at all useful in comparing it to gun control. You would be better off comparing it to drug laws or something that at least partially relates.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? Not sure what your saying here. I never said I didn't want to talk about slavery, but I just don't think it is at all useful in comparing it to gun control. You would be better off comparing it to drug laws or something that at least partially relates.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just seems to me that your initial post was saying "this issue isn't going to get resolved so it's not worth having another discussion about it". I think that the only way anything ever changes is by having people argue about them.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that guns have done way more harm than they have good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show your calculations. Should be simple since you're so sure.

Guns are here. They're not going away. They can't be uninvented. Now, given that, why do you think putting all of the "bad" guns in the hands of one party is a good idea? Especially given that government agents, not civilians, have been the driving force behind the most disgusting mis-uses of guns throughout history.

[ QUOTE ]
Please argue that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh? Not sure what your saying here. I never said I didn't want to talk about slavery, but I just don't think it is at all useful in comparing it to gun control. You would be better off comparing it to drug laws or something that at least partially relates.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just seems to me that your initial post was saying "this issue isn't going to get resolved so it's not worth having another discussion about it". I think that the only way anything ever changes is by having people argue about them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll talk about gun control, I was just expressing the fact that it isn't going to change any time soon.

I am a very big supporter of rights and little to none should be given away to the government.

Drug laws are hurting us prostitution gambling. It's all still being traded on the black market but at what cost to society?

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]

The U.K. has very strict gun laws also, yet has far more violent crime than Norway. London has a higher rate of violent crime than New York City.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really a pretty powerful argument in favor of gun control.

A lot of people who oppose gun control claim that it wouldn't reduce the murder rate because the US is simply a different (more violent) culture than countries that have both strict gun control and much lower murder rate.

Yet England and many other countries with strict gun control still have a high rate of violent crime. This suggests that the culture of violence in these countries isn't much different than America's. Indeed, petty violence like bar fights and soccer riots seem like a much bigger part of the culture in England than in the US. Gun control does not lessened the natural propensity for violence present in humanity.

What is the big difference between the crime rate in England and the US? A much much lower murder rate. Essentially, gun control has taken what would have been murders and turned them into much lesser violent crimes like assault. Isn't this exactly what you would intuitively expect? Gun control hasn't reduced the number of criminals, but it has dramatically reduced the damage that criminals are able to cause.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

The US also has stricter drug laws than about any country which partially accounts for such a higher murder rate.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that cultural differences are one of the biggest reasons for the disparities in the violent crime rates between Scandinavian countries and the U.K. or U.S.A.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is definitely true.

Some countries have lots of guns but a very low murder rate. That obviously says something about the US, and it's not good.

I also agree that legalizing drugs would probably eliminate a great deal of the gun violence in the US. Mass shootings like VT are very rare even though they get all the media attention.

However, I don't think we can dismiss the OP's point about making it harder for criminals to get guns. Just saying, "the criminals will always get guns" is defeatist and is no different than saying, "if a rapist wants to rape someone he'll find a way." We still need to try and make it as difficult as possible.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

Gun control laws that target criminals but don't effect rites of the average citizen are fine with me.

1)Mandatory 5 years added to sentence for having a gun in the commission of a felony
2)Felons not allowed to purchase guns

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a third party to this transaction that you didn't agree to participate in. Which situation is better for you:

1) Bullets flying
2) No bullets flying

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "edge" would make the criminal into a near super villian if he had the only gun how could anyone stop him? I dont see why any criminal wouldnt seek this situation at all costs.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]

20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

I would much prefer situation 1. There is no way that I could stop from being killed in situation 2 (I am obviously going to wield my weapon much slower than the 20-year old). But in situation 1, there is a high likelihood that bystanders will be able to stop the attack before I am killed.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, gun control has taken what would have been murders and turned them into much lesser violent crimes like assault. Isn't this exactly what you would intuitively expect? Gun control hasn't reduced the number of criminals, but it has dramatically reduced the damage that criminals are able to cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you actually have any data that indicates that is what is happening in the UK?

Drug activity is a huge contributor to violent crime, including murder. There's no huge wave of bar fights that escalate to shootouts.

Washington DC has basically the strictest gun control laws of any US city. It also has the highest murder rate.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

I would much prefer situation 1. There is no way that I could stop from being killed in situation 2 (I am obviously going to wield my weapon much slower than the 20-year old). But in situation 1, there is a high likelihood that bystanders will be able to stop the attack before I am killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if said bystanders also had guns?

besides there is no way an 80 yo woman will be able to club to death a 20 yo man. With a gun she at least has a shot (no pun intended)

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a third party to this transaction that you didn't agree to participate in. Which situation is better for you:

1) Bullets flying
2) No bullets flying

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if both have guns, the likelyhood of an actual confrontation is greatly reduced.

If you make a decision to use force to prevent people from trading items, the old lady is a third party to the transaction that didn't agree to participate in it. Which is better for her:

1) access to resources
2) no access to resources

Your roll.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, gun control has taken what would have been murders and turned them into much lesser violent crimes like assault. Isn't this exactly what you would intuitively expect? Gun control hasn't reduced the number of criminals, but it has dramatically reduced the damage that criminals are able to cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you actually have any data that indicates that is what is happening in the UK?

Drug activity is a huge contributor to violent crime, including murder. There's no huge wave of bar fights that escalate to shootouts.

Washington DC has basically the strictest gun control laws of any US city. It also has the highest murder rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is less of a drug problem in England? Have you seen Trainspotting? There are a lot fewer drug murders (because of gun control), but I don't imagine the level of drug use is lower. (But I haven't seen any statistics on this.)

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

Lol at the "if guns are not allowed" argument. The government can't keep hard drugs out of maximum security prisons. It is literally impossible to simply wave some magic legislative wand and POOF! make guns disappear.

Simple economics FTW:

1. Pass gun law to restrict access to guns; legitimate gun supply goes down.
2. Demand for guns among criminals does not change.
3. Price of illicit guns goes up, and hence the profit in supplying them, enticing more suppliers into the illicit gun market.
4. Price increase does not impact the demand for illicit guns amongst criminals, since they are, by definition, willing to simply commit property crimes to cover the increased cost. In fact, the gun is a capital investment for them.

Throw in the fact that the black market is dominated by criminals (by definition), and you have a recipe for increased crime rates completely aside from the incentive to commit crimes that comes with disarming potential victims.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]
If no one has guns they don't need em? If you are a criminal and wanna rob a bank what are you going to use a sword?

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, have you totally forgotten the incident that brought on this thread? no, murderers certainly don't have to kill people, but they still do.

Unbelievable.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not true. Loads of people are killed in muggings every year even in places where guns are virtually non-existient (ie where I live in DC).

To become a criminal you already are acting outside the law. Couple that with the fact that becoming a criminal is (in most cases) a highly irrational choice. I dont think these people will stop to think about their actions before doing them.

Like I said, if no one else has guns there is no reason for criminals NOT to carry weapons since they will be able to act with impunity.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see any citations for an incident like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand. He doesn't get killed because he steals a handbag, but when BOTH he and the police officer is armed, a dangerous confrontation might happen.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see any citations for an incident like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand. He doesn't get killed because he steals a handbag, but when BOTH he and the police officer is armed, a dangerous confrontation might happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont need a gun to get shot by the police. Wear some dirty clothes and then run at the cops screaming. that will probably get you tazed if you are lucky and killed if you are not.

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lol at the "if guns are not allowed" argument. The government can't keep hard drugs out of maximum security prisons. It is literally impossible to simply wave some magic legislative wand and POOF! make guns disappear.

Simple economics FTW:

1. Pass gun law to restrict access to guns; legitimate gun supply goes down.
2. Demand for guns among criminals does not change.
3. Price of illicit guns goes up, and hence the profit in supplying them, enticing more suppliers into the illicit gun market.
4. Price increase does not impact the demand for illicit guns amongst criminals, since they are, by definition, willing to simply commit property crimes to cover the increased cost. In fact, the gun is a capital investment for them.

Throw in the fact that the black market is dominated by criminals (by definition), and you have a recipe for increased crime rates completely aside from the incentive to commit crimes that comes with disarming potential victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this huge black market for guns in all of the countries that have gun control?

Re: More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't think we can dismiss the OP's point about making it harder for criminals to get guns. Just saying, "the criminals will always get guns" is defeatist and is no different than saying, "if a rapist wants to rape someone he'll find a way." We still need to try and make it as difficult as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why not require every private residence, business, and most public areas to be under government video surveillance? Surely this would also make it much more difficult to commit violent crimes.

If you argue that would violate civil liberties, then you are making the exact same argument as those who support the RKBA.