more guns = more crime

Post Reply New Topic

I like guns, my husband does not, so I don't have any. I don't see why anybody NEEDS an assault rifle but they are fun to shoot and I know several people who just have them for that and to say they have them. I like to shoot and I have no problem with guns. I grew up around guns and they don't freak me out. It's like that for a lot of folks where I live. You see guns everywhere here. Unattended in gunracks in unlocked pickup trucks with the windows down at Walmart, on people's hips, in ladies purses when they are rooting around for something and take everything out, they are all over the damn place. Above doors, fireplaces, propped up in corners and under car seats and pillows and in bedside table drawers. Other than this last little crime spree my town had (one murder was cause of douchebag and I'm not going into it because he's gonna go to trial soon and I can't) and the other was cause them kids robbed that Dollar store and bought a bunch of coke and got geetered and paranoid, not because there were a lot of guns. If they hadn't shot each other they would have stabbed each other. Everybody in both of these murders had decided to kill the other person first. It wasn't accidental and it wasn't because of the guns. In fact, we rarely have any crime down here because everybody knows that everybody else has a gun and you are likely to get shot. That's why folks don't lock doors here, you don't have to. We have a rifle and a shotgun but no handgun or anything. Everybody has a long gun. Even kids as young as ten cause they go hunting.

So, it's not that more guns mean more crime, I"m a big advocate of open carry because it discourages it. I damn sure wouldn't rob some place if there are already a couple guys in there with guns on their hips. I damn sure won't break in to a house if I think the owners might be home and I know they are armed. I'm not anyway but if I was going to, that would deter me and it deters the criminals here because most go to Tuscaloosa or Birmingham to do their s**t and I know several who do and why they do it, and it's cause they don't want to get shot.

Would I like to see nobody have guns? Yes, I'd like it if no guns had ever been invented or there was suddenly a way to just vaporize every gun in the world and no way to ever make any more. We would all go back to fighting with swords, bow and arrow and hand to hand. I'm fine with that. But there would still be murders cause you can't ban every damn thing. You want to kill somebody bad enough, you will no matter what you can get or can't.

But assault weapons? They are for collectors, target shooters, conspiracy nuts and militia guys off the grid, and gangs. Lets keep them away from the gangs and we will do OK. Personally I think it would be a lot safer if everybody just could buy revolvers. Not even sell speed loaders. It would make a lot less killing per spree, especially if other folks were armed. I'm just saying.

If gun bans worked, then why have almost all mass shootings in the U.S. in the past few decades occurred in places where guns are completely banned? Why is Mexico, where civilian ownership of guns is banned, a war zone with countless murders and shootouts between drug thugs and Mexican authorities? The idea that people who plan on killing as many people as possible are going to be deterred by gun laws is ridiculous. They are already willing to commit murder, which is the most severe malum in se crime, so what legal or moral incentive do they have to refrain from committing a less serious malum prohibitum crime? Such gun laws only affect people who would never wrongfully hurt anyone else with a gun.

guns don't kill people. they just make it easy to kill people. the right kind of gun laws make it harder.

If gun bans worked, then why have almost all mass shootings in the U.S. in the past few decades occurred in places where guns are completely banned?

I call BS. Name five mass-shootings that took place in a place where guns are completely banned.

First off guns are not completely banned any place in the US.

I'm glad you posted this because your honesty reveals something about gun ownership that the gun lobby try and hide under the carpet. The apparent recreational enjoyment of shooting a bullet that can potentially kill.

Many otherwise normal people seem to get a thrill from shooting things (clay pigeons or harmless animals). Being exposed to guns from a young age normalises it's use but hides the dangers/risks on the person's psychology. While only a small fraction of people who own guns will eventually harm somebody with this form of weapon the fact a person can feel enjoyment from destroying things with a bullet or taking the life of a harmless animal (for fun) reveals that guns are doing irreparable harm to the person's moral compass.

The gun lobby argument that guns are soley to protect one's family is somewhat feeble. I saw a member of the Australian rifle shooters association yesterday and his car and t-shirt glorified guns like some type of shrine. Something not quite right about this

For a while I lived in an apartment just outside of a black district. The distant sound of gunfire from that direction (followed by sirens) was not uncommon. It must have all been in my imagination, though. I'd be a racist if I really heard it. That's not even going into all the reports of muggings, knifings, carjackings, rape B&E, etc, in that part of town but I guess that was all just rumor, eh?

I call BS. Name five mass-shootings that took place in a place where guns are completely banned.

First off guns are not completely banned any place in the US.

Hey Raptor, I haven't had a chance to dig into this latest "study", but care to wager on my chances of finding cherry picked data and false correlations when I do?

Perhaps a side bet on whether I can rebut it with something I posted 5 years ago?

If gun bans worked, then why have almost all mass shootings in the U.S. in the past few decades occurred in places where guns are completely banned? Why is Mexico, where civilian ownership of guns is banned, a war zone with countless murders and shootouts between drug thugs and Mexican authorities? The idea that people who plan on killing as many people as possible are going to be deterred by gun laws is ridiculous. They are already willing to commit murder, which is the most severe malum in se crime, so what legal or moral incentive do they have to refrain from committing a less serious malum prohibitum crime? Such gun laws only affect people who would never wrongfully hurt anyone else with a gun.

Hey Raptor, I haven't had a chance to dig into this latest "study", but care to wager on my chances of finding cherry picked data and false correlations when I do?

In "gun-free" zones guns are, in effect, banned. The community college campus in Oregon may not have been gun free but most campuses are. Sandy Hook, VT, and Northern Illinois University were gun free zones.

Not only was the Umpqua Community College campus not a Gun Free Zone, but it was a CCW zone, with multiple people concealed carrying, and not one of them could do jack s**t to stop the attack.

Which by the gun nut's twisted logic is a FAIL. That's what we always hear. Oh look, shooting, Gun Free Zone, gun control doesn't work, proof.

Well here is proof for you that CCW doesn't work.