Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Gun culture, gun culture, gun culture...

But for over 95% of the population, guns play no part at all.

edit on 7-1-2011 by JR MacBeth because: (no reason given)

Yep, gun culture, gun culture, gun culture......you got that right.

Only 5 percent of the population you say? I did a quick search and found that to be bullcrap, unless you are right and the surveys are wrong? Based on the below stats, your whole post falls apart. Unless you're now going to 'shoot down' the sources?


www.justfacts.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.libraryindex.com...

www.gallup.com...


Also

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Most "Americans" today still curl up into the fetal position when guns are mentioned, just like their European cousins.

It's funny you should say that because when I think about those news reports I often read about where kids have accidently been killed by guns whilst playing with them or whatever I really do feel like curling up into a fetal position.

Originally posted by kevinunknown

Now baring in mind that there are almost enough firearms America for every citizen the robbers are going to know you have a gun in your house, they are going to be prepared and have the element of surprise on their side.

Actually, when I was studying criminal justice we were required to conduct interviews with convicts regarding risk aversion, and the manner in which they picked their victims. In gun crime cases, nearly 95% of the convicts reported that they picked victims based on the probability of the victim having a gun. In home invasion cases nearly 70% of the convicts were "caught" due to the owner of the home being armed. Criminals are more likely to target homes where the owner is not a gun owner.
From personal experience - the deafening sound of a shotgun being cocked was enough to send the invader running - I didn't even need to say a word.

Originally posted by kevinunknown

Now am sorry to spit on your 2nd amendment right, but for me self defence is not a valid argument for defending the 2nd amendment.

Actually, it is the very basis of the second amendment. It is for both a preservation of self, as well as preservation of a free state.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
In the UK I know no one who owns a gun, and no one I know has ever been disadvantaged because of this why is it that the worlds “super power” is any different, Gun Laws are out of date, rip up the second amendment and join the 21st century .

You and those you know are lucky, in that you have never been in a situation where the lack of a gun would be a disadvantage, unfortunately not everyone is that lucky. I personally know someone who would no longer be walking this earth were it not for the ownership of her gun - in her situation, where the assailant was coming through the window of her home, and could be heard on the 911 tape yelling threats at her - the police would have never reached her in time to prevent her from being raped and murdered. It was her "gun control" that insured she did not become the victim of an "evil" person.

I do understand that for those who do not reside in the United States it is difficult to understand the overwhelming gun culture in America. Like another poster stated, were it possible to wave a wand and remove all weapons of destruction from the hands of all people I'd be the first to offer up the wand. Sadly, that is not an option, and as such I, as a free citizen, should not have my ability to protect myself denied based upon the irresponsibility of others.

Heres a documentary to watch. I have a short description below that gives an overview. The quote is direct from the website

This documentary effectively shatters gun control myths and fallacies. Owning a firearm is not a privilege – it’s a basic right. In fact, it’s the basic right to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Throughout History, there has been a disturbing pattern: sooner or later (often sooner than later), disarmed populations become the hapless victims of tyrannical governments and criminals.

The right to own a weapon is one that is usually conquered in the aftermath of centuries of suffering and genocide.

Today, we tend to forget that. Yet, the last 100 odd years were undoubtedly the most brutal of all, in what concerns organized violence against deliberately disarmed populations.

This is what Innocents Betrayed documents. How innocents are constantly betrayed — and brutalized – by gun control.

here

reply to post by Arista


Thank you, that is the first intelligent pro-gun post I have read in the last 15 to 20 pages.

I appreciate your input.

reply to post by Hawkwind.

Only 5 percent of the population you say? I did a quick search and found that to be bullcrap, unless you are right and the surveys are wrong?

I haven't bought in to the surveys in years. They seem to have an agenda, specifically, gun control.

The numbers can be interpreted all over the place. Here's some examples of things that "should" have people reconsidering how useful these surveys are:

How many firearms are simply old relics, passed down, and aren't even worth counting? Recall that America has continually fought in wars for the last century. My mother had a rifle, her father's WWI antique. She could have answered the survey truthfully, yes, she had a firearm. Did it even fire? Who knows! Alas, it was stolen.

How should police/military.law enforcement "count"? America is a police state, I'm not sure how that should undermine my point at all, quite the contrary. Should we count "households" with firearms on the military bases?

Here's something the average American will probably agree with: Most of the people they know who are into guns, have multiple firearms. How "should" we count these people? In marketing/sales, there is something known as the "80/20" rule. In general, 20% of people who buy a product, buy 80% of the product! Certainly, someone can mention "millions" of guns in America, but why not mention the fact that they are in police, military, and gun enthusiast hands a very high percentage of the time?

Should we count rural people who must face predators, or farmers who may have to kill wolves or coyotes preying on their cattle? Well certainly! But then, don't go and compare numbers in a nation where this is a factor, to nations that are nothing but wall-to-wall cities. Apples and oranges.

Statistics have always been abused, and perhaps my number is low, who would be able to really tell? But I would submit that it is highly likely that pro-gun control numbers are high.

Here's an example of what I mean, although others have raised the issue before me. According to the WWW Gun Defense Clock, every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm to thwart criminals. That adds up to over 4.5 million defenses this week, according to their "clock".

How exactly do the "statistics" reflect this important issue? Mostly, BACKWARDS!!

If a homeowner should justifiably shoot an intruder, perhaps preventing his daughters from being raped and killed, etc., the police will list this as a "gun related homicide". Not that such abbreviated categorization is incorrect, but it does not reflect the reality of what took place.

Later, gun control nuts will add up their statistics! Millions of "gun related homicides", and yet what portion of those PREVENTED rapes and murders? No, they're not even interested in that kind of info!

This is not an easy issue to tackle with statistics, as anyone should be able to see. Again, perhaps my estimates are "low", but I am convinced that most of the stats are too high.

Also, I would like to see serious, up-to-date info on this issue one day, although finding anything unbiased would be a pipe-dream. Most everything seems to be from the mid-90's, and in the 15 years since, I can only see the American "gun culture" (as you call it) in massive decline.

JR

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Trust me the MSN is not in my head, I think you are really fanatical about your mistrust in your government, having a suspicious eye is fine but I think your views are dangerous and paranoid to the extent you might shoot a law enforcement officer. I could be wrong, but based on your comments on this thread I think it is a fair evaluation of your overall persona.

I wasn't planning on hijacking your thread, but you act like they're not watching.
And I'm sure as hell not going to shoot a LEO, I know alot of them and they're nice guys. They're not the problem, they're just messengers for TPTB, and I don't shoot messengers. The CIA, OIA, and FBI are the ones who I'm paranoid about.

reply to post by kevinunknown
Your avitar resembles someone ,,, hmmm thats right BUSH!. Your spewing words mirror his also. Anyone who thinks any part of our constitution is just a piece of paper needs his head examined. If it wasnt for guns and our fighting for this country Hitler would be your daddy.

I can kill people with my hands...should I chop them off? In fact, my knuckles have been describe on several occasions as the knuckles of death, because they look so evil, same with my elbows. I permanently changed someones gum line by lightly tapping them in the mouth when I was drunk( reason why I don't drink any more). Should I chop them off to? And outlaw any use of knuckles. Face it- you want guns gone because you think they are the only thing between you and your tryannical plans for dominating society. If you want to help people out, take control of your thoughts, and raise your level of consciousness out of "my way is the only way", or "I'm always right" because- your not. Guns are but one method to stop the tyranny of some individuals, hint hint, who wish to force their ideas on others. If the citizens should not have guns, why not the central government? Why don't we take all the guns in the world and melt them, censor all the ideas behind guns, get rid of the entire concept. Remove it from everyones minds? Huh? Wouldn't that solve the problem? Or just remove the idea of being evil from a persons mind. Just de-patternize their brain. And then institute whatever programs you want. Eventually we will end up with a stable human race that isn't bent on killing each other, right? Raise your level of consciousness, entertain divine thoughts, not "I'm right, your wrong thoughts". I had to lower mine to even speak about such illogical bull#. When I do, I get very cynical in nature. You don't even live in America- if you did, you'd know they were
DEPOPULATING Louisiana. Check it out. They are removing people because of the toxicity of the Gulf. They are going to turn the entire state into an oil refinery so they can break away from the Middle East. This government doesn't give a rat's ass about the people, all it cares about is maintaining its function- thats the whole issue on national security- why they call it NATIONAL and not the PEOPLE OF THIS NATIONS security. They are protecting their assets, and sometimes, they consider the American populace in the way of this at times...like in Louisiana. Do your goddamn research before you open your mouth again. People are too nice on this forum, because they treat creeps like you with respect, when infringing on peoples universal freedoms is outrageously parasitic. You think you know whats good for people? You? Who want to control what people do or do not do? Please, grow up, and look at the universe.

I will tell you why I own weapons. First off, *what if scenario* say we have a huge solar flare wipe out the electric grid and satellites during the suns magnetic flip (go to physicist Michio Kaku website, its possible) mkaku.org... and there is no news, internet, electricity for wells/water, food, etc etc. You have what you have on hand. Say you own a pool, everyone wants your water, ummmm I will defend my water supply with a rifle/semi auto... period. Unless of course you want to trade some water for ammo to hunt with or a rabbit to eat. If the above scenario were to come true what to you think would happen, really!!???I have children and I will fight to survive period. That of course is just one scenario.

Next scenario, what if the New Madrid fault line breaks. You dont think the pipelines from the south wont crack? You dont think the economy wouldn't collapse from the trauma? Its possible.

Next scenario: A terrorist with just ONE nuke can detonate overhead causing an outage of the electric grid/EMP burst, EASILY wiping out almost the entire country. It would take just one ship off coat to get away with it....You dont think thats possible? READ ONE SECOND AFTER by William Forstchen. This man was a military commander! This book was passed out in congress for gawd sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a survivalist and a realist. The reality is that you cant take away every citizens rights because of a crazy few who get a hold of a gun.

reply to post by gunner50cal


Eh?

Bush was anti gun control, human (apparently) and American citizens having arms did not lead to the defeat of Nazi Germany, to say so is just a testament to American arrogance.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Dude, you REALLY need to check your math.... That's not 4.5 million this week, that would be 56K a week. 60/13=4.6 per minute x 60 gets you per hour x 24 gets you per day x 7 gets you per week.....

If you're going to use math when making an argument, you should atleast use it correclty...

Jaden

reply to post by kevinunknown


Ummm. America having arms DID lead to Germany's defeat, but that wasn't what he was arguing. He was stating that America's existence, led to the defeat of Germany, which it did aid in doing along with Hitler's lack of acknowledging history (the invasion of russia in winter), and that the COTUS and the second amendment is an integral part of America's existence.

Jaden

According to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion regarding McDonald vs Chicago,

An 1876 decision by the Supreme Court] holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.

With out the second amendment a whole race of people were denied their rights under the 14th amendment. This continued for nearly a century with "licensing" and permit laws that allowed sheriffs to deny a person the proper paper work to buy a firearm.

I find it interesting that the democrats on the court came to this conclusion,

[T]he use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation.

It doesn't matter that the use of arms helped a whole race to prevent it's annihialation in places across the continent. Firearms were often the only defense many former slaves had against racist and corrupt policeman and their friends. When politicians, pundits, pontificaters, and police turned their back on the black community they often had to depend on their own firearms to stay alive. Unfortunately many times they were denied their second amendment rights and were lynched. Many were chased from the little scraps of land they did own because they were unable to fight back.

Never mind that by aquiring fire arms the Native Americans also prevented their extermination. There is no need for the federal government to ensure states don't trample on parts of the constitution the justices are uncomfortable with.

You can cut it however you want to but the facts speak clearly. Guns have been used for centuries to fight against tyrany of all types in America. The tyrany of the king, the tyrany of the lynch mob, and the tyrany of predatory criminals have all been detered by the successful use of second amendment rights.

Even in modern America conservative estimates hold that guns are used nearly 15 times more often to save a life than take a life. Less conservative estimates hold that guns are used nearly 94.6 times more often to save a life than take a life. They are used daily to prevent those that are morally corrupt from preying on innocent people.

According to a 2002 Justice Department study 21.6% of felons released from jail return for a violent crime with in three years. In other words, the criminal justice system does not stop predators from being predators. So, it is up to the citizen to protect their life and well being where the government fails.

There are some important things to remember that the anti-gun crowd forgets to tell you.

Even if all criminals stopped using guns it would only eliminate about 8% of violent crime.

You are more likely to end up in the emergency room because you were injured as a pedestrian, injured riding your bike, were poisoned, or for over exertion than an acidental gun wound. (In fact gun shots account for only 0.4% of accidents that result in hospitilization, and 0.05% of emergency room visits.)

Gun fatalities as a result of accidental gun wounds account for only 0.5% of all accidental deaths in America.

Gun rights lobby contributions to politicians aren't even in the top fifty of special interest groups.

Texas, Michigan, and Florida all saw their murder rate fall faster than the national average after passing shall issue concealed carry laws. Florida's murder rate has averaged 36% lower since the law was instated than the previous average. In comparison the national average is only 15% lower over the same time period.

The often cited "fact" that, "in homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns," has been found false. What the study found out is that when there is a history of domestic abuse and drug use in the home a family memember is 6 times more likely to be killed. If you have been convicted of domestic abuse you are prohibited from owning a firearm by federal law. If you are addicted to illegal drugs you are prohibited from owning a firearm by federal law. In other words, if a home is filled with criminals that illegally posess firearms a family member is 6 times more likely to be killed.

The study was also criticized by the National Research Council because it failed "to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."

Just some facts to consider before trying to demolish the fundamental right to self defense.

This is why you have the second amendment, although I can't imagine the US army opening fire on it's own citizens..

The 2nd amendment may never have happened if it wasn't for Britain, have you thought of that?

reply to post by Auxili


Auxili, although you are showing us a video from Libya and I completely agree that this is the reason Americans and all citizens of the world should be armed I wouldn't go as far as saying that it couldn't happen here. In Libya the Army that is firing on the Libyan's is not the LIbyan Army its mercenaries and private army's of Gaddhafi. I've heard reports from many people here in the Americas that police and army alike here would follow orders to kill Americans. I'm sure there are threads about it here too.

Originally posted by HellstormRising
reply to post by Auxili

 

Auxili, although you are showing us a video from Libya and I completely agree that this is the reason Americans and all citizens of the world should be armed I wouldn't go as far as saying that it couldn't happen here. In Libya the Army that is firing on the Libyan's is not the LIbyan Army its mercenaries and private army's of Gaddhafi. I've heard reports from many people here in the Americas that police and army alike here would follow orders to kill Americans. I'm sure there are threads about it here too.

Negative. I was in the Marines and we had a poll issued to us in 1999 about our willingness to do what you suggested.

Ten questions. We didn't have to sign our name to it, but after we all turned the poll in, we talked amongst ourselves in the battalion and the consensus was we would not do that.

Never heard anything else about it again.

reply to post by kevinunknown

kevin, your broad statement that Americans owning firearms did nothing to defeat Nazi Germany is not accurate.

Britain, right after Dunkirk, ran ads in newspapers all over the United States, requesting American CITIZENS to send PERSONAL firearms - rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers - any caliber, and ammunition.

You see the dumbass Brits had taken away personal firearms, and the nation was almost defenseless. The very brave, very dedicated Air Arm was able to "hold the fort," so to speak, as had they NOT, even the British navy could have prevented an invasion.

So, a lot of good Americans sent their personal firearms to Britain. Then after the war, the dumbasses disarmed the citizenry again.

We - we who are citizens - not subjects, aren't playing that game. Our firearms are specifically to prevent our government from taking them.

Boy! With all the citizenry in so many nations overthrowing totalitarian governments, there's a few in Washington considering the possibilities. And it's not looking real good.

You're disarmed because your government says so. Not because it's "better" or "safer."

Just because a few decided so.

reply to post by kevinunknown


I can see from your profile that you are from Scotland and are not an American or so I presume. You can not understand the sacrifice our forefathers made to ensure Liberty for the American people. We carry arms because it is our inherent RIGHT to carry arms for whatever reason. We don't have to have a reason to carry arms we just simply can carry arms. We dont have to justify ourselves to you or anyone else. We do because we can it is our right as Americans. "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it derived from our maker but if we had not our our fathers have earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure and their blood." ~ John Adams

reply to post by Danbones


You make a good point,but as a Texan,I know the pulse of the American gun owning public,and the difference between Scotland and the United States.In fact,if you want to see that difference carried out to its logical conclusion,compare Scotland to Canada,and the United States to Ireland.Using this analogy is accurate,because the Irish are the number two ethnic group in the U.S.,and Scotts are the number one ethnic group in Canada.Even though guns are severely controlled in Ireland,they seem to have no trouble getting them,if and when they "want" them.Its the wanting I believe you are focused on.Canadians ,as a general rule,think things through before they do them,and try to do things the right and moral way.They are not big fans of guns in the same way Americans are,although they have many hunters,and their military is pound for pound SUPER badass.Sound family-er ? Americans,not too unlike our Irish friends,are far more ruled by base passions,and have the ability to bob and weave however we see fit.Why else would we produce so much sexual and violent entertainment?Plus,any government that does not trust its own citizens with firearms is itself untrustworthy.Imagine this;if tommorrow,a story came on the radio that said that taping two cats together would produce defecant of pure gold,Americans and Irish the whole land over, respectively ,would be grabbing a roll of tape,and start chasing cats,whereas the Scots and Canadians would reject it as absurd.That is until they(Irish,Americans) started showing up in your town with oddly shaped ingots of pure gold.I speak in analogies,so I hope you see the connection.I'm going to go listen to KISS,and tape some cats together.God,I love America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!