should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

Zumza · 2018-02-21 12:01:38

▼Hidden text

Pingohits · 2018-02-21 22:07:38

gosh zumza what a threadkiller, i mean, how would one even argue with that picture?

TaskManager · 2018-02-22 00:03:31

o wait is this a "lets bash usa" topic
i dig those

Xfrogman43

bgic · 2018-03-02 02:02:08

Stopping Power: We Deserve The Ability to Prevent Crime This article is in response to calls for gun-control on the first anniversary of the Sandy Hook tragedy. In the wake of a slew of horrific mass-shootings, gun-control became one of the top agendas for many Americans. Gun-control advocates say that they want to find a “common sense” solution to American gun violence but would their proposals actually be effective in limiting gun violence? The first step to understanding our perspective is understanding why. There is a common misconception that citizens want to be armed to be able to hunt game. The overwhelming reason a law-abiding citizen wishes to be armed is for self-defense, whether that be from an assailant, foreign invasion or tyranny. Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander in Chief of the Japanese Navy during WW2 stated: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Of course, an invasion of the USA is unlikely, but, it allows Americans to be sure of the fact that in the unlikely event that their way of life is infringed by a tyrannical government - foreign or domestic - they would be able to defend their rights. Note, we don’t advocate the use of deadly force to prevent a non-violent crime. We advocate the use of reasonable force - as judged by our justice system - when one’s life or health are clearly in danger as a result of criminal attack. Many gun-control advocates use the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary to promote their agendas. Some like to claim that if the guns used by the shooter had been illegal, this tragedy would have never happened, yet, that firearm was not legally obtained. Adam Lanza - the perpetrator - stole the firearm from his mother; he committed a felony before ever leaving his house. The fact that not a single person at SHES was armed meant every human life inside that school was at the mercy of police response time. Adam Lanza took their lives into his hands, and they could do nothing to defend themselves. One of the two shooters at Columbine High School, Eric Harris, also used illegally obtained firearms to massacre students in a gun-free zone. In his journal he had written, “Go ahead and change gun laws. How do you think we got ours?" Similar to the former prohibition of alcohol and the current one of drugs, gun bans would simply enlarge the black market and make it more profitable to smuggle black market weapons. America is the world’s largest weapons manufacturer. 300 million firearms can be found in America. What makes gun-control advocates think that they will simply be able to mop up all of them with legislation? It’s clear that criminals with the intention to kill do not care whether or not they obtain their weapons legally and these weapons will always be readily available for these criminals. In counter to this, some like to point at the UK as having very strict gun-control laws and much lower numbers of gun crime. It is true that the nation has a lower gun-crime rate than the USA. However, the United Kingdom has a much higher violent crime rate than the USA. In fact they have eight times the violent crime rate of the USA and have one of the highest crime rates in the world, second only to Australia, which, coincidentally has gun laws about at the same stringency level as the UK. Also, consider the relative size and access of the two nations. The American border is massive, and as the previous paragraph alluded, impossible to completely patrol and prevent smuggling. The UK on the other hand is an island, and a small one at that. It takes a relatively miniscule amount of manpower to patrol the border, especially considering it is surrounded by water, and in almost all locations a wharf or port are required for a boat to dock. As such it is majorly easier to patrol and prevent illegal firearms from entering the nation. Not only would preventing the flow of weapons into our country be difficult, but hundreds of millions of firearms are already within the borders. Finding and confiscating these weapons would be costly and near impossible. “When seconds count, police are mere minutes away,” is a popular saying among the pro-gun community. LEOs are first responders, arriving only after a crime has taken place. In essence they have no ability to prevent a crime. In response, some promote so-called “gun-free zones” in the hope that this would prevent gun violence. Yet, this very premise is based on a logical fallacy, the idea that criminals with the intent of committing a crime would be prevented by a law. They are inherently unlawful, and designating an area as unarmed not only will not prevent a crime. In fact it will do quite the opposite - rather than stopping a shooter it will rather reassure the perpetrator that no law-abiding citizen can stand up to them. In fact according to John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center in Washington DC: “‘With just one single exception... every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.’” Arapahoe High School, Colorado: the location of a shooting on December 13th, 2013. A lone gunman, 18, enters the school with the intent to kill a teacher who had recently reprimanded him. He carried with him a shotgun with over 125 rounds of ammunition, molotov cocktails and a machete. Yet, the attack only had one casualty. Why? “He killed himself as a security officer closed in on him” NBC News reports. An armed officer intent on stopping the shooting forced the gunman’s attack to come to an end in a mere 80 seconds. Molotov cocktails are easily made from materials that can be purchased for under $20 and machetes are legal to purchase anywhere. Guns are not the only weapons that are used to cause harm. It goes to show - if someone has the intent to hurt, they will carry it out, regardless of what weapons are legal where. The only way to stop these people is to even the playing field.

N1KF · 2018-03-02 02:52:28

bgic wrote:

The UK on the other hand is an island, and a small one at that. It takes a relatively miniscule amount of manpower to patrol the border, especially considering it is surrounded by water, and in almost all locations a wharf or port are required for a boat to dock. As such it is majorly easier to patrol and prevent illegal firearms from entering the nation.

The United Kingdom isn't an island. I think you mean Great Britain.

TaskManager · 2018-03-02 03:34:54

N1KF wrote:

bgic wrote:
The UK on the other hand is an island, and a small one at that. It takes a relatively miniscule amount of manpower to patrol the border, especially considering it is surrounded by water, and in almost all locations a wharf or port are required for a boat to dock. As such it is majorly easier to patrol and prevent illegal firearms from entering the nation.
The United Kingdom isn't an island. I think you mean Great Britain.

Tomahawk's guide, step 1

LukeM · 2018-03-02 11:23:56

bgic wrote:

In counter to this, some like to point at the UK as having very strict gun-control laws and much lower numbers of gun crime. It is true that the nation has a lower gun-crime rate than the USA. However, the United Kingdom has a much higher violent crime rate than the USA. In fact they have eight times the violent crime rate of the USA and have one of the highest crime rates in the world, second only to Australia, which, coincidentally has gun laws about at the same stringency level as the UK.

Just thought I would look into this because it just doesn't sound right to me, and it turns out that yes, this statistic it a bit skewed:

Firstly the USA and the UK have different definitions of violent crime, where in the UK pretty much any physical violence, even things like pushing and shoving are included, wheras in the US the definition is much stricter: "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a 'violent crime' as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." This would mean that the UKs statistics would be much higher than the US, even if there were the same number of crimes.

Secondly, in the UK crimes are more likely to be reported, so, although the difference is small, this would also slightly tilt the statistics in the UK's favour.

Zumza · 2018-03-09 14:48:03

HeyNK · 2018-03-11 04:58:42

why are you posting that guy, its not 2015?

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2018-02-21 12:01:38

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#27 2018-02-21 22:07:38

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#28 2018-02-22 00:03:31

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#29 2018-03-02 02:02:08

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#30 2018-03-02 02:52:28

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#31 2018-03-02 03:34:54

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#32 2018-03-02 11:23:56, last edited by LukeM (2018-03-02 11:26:43)

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#33 2018-03-09 14:48:03

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#34 2018-03-11 04:58:42

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

Board footer