No one's feelings or fears about firearms really much matters in America. Their ownership is protected by the Constitution. People fear them because they have no familiarity with them. To me carrying it has become as natural as wearing shoes. I have spent more time carrying one than not over my lifetime. They should not be banned, and in America they cannot, without the overthrow of our nation.
Throwback is correct is saying this right is Constitutionally protected. However, WHO should have a gun is the real controversy and whether or not it is necessary to carry long guns to a supermarket? Really, I mean gun owners have way more "rights" than those of us who find guns in public unnecessary. I don't think carrying long guns in a Wal*Mart is pleasing for a customer when they have no idea of what the intent of the gun owner is (mens rea) and children are running around. If you are trained, like a cop, you know how to assess a situation with a calm demeanor and act accordingly...Billy Bob might just go off with no afore thought misreading a situation. I think Throwback can attest to this scenario. If people want to buy guns to hunt or to protect their homes..By all means they should. But what gun owners are carrying in public now is like thumbing it in the face of those of us who do not care for large intimidating weapons. Isn't a hand gun sufficient for public carry? And by the way, I am familiar with guns, I do not fear them. My father was a small arms specialist in the Wehrmacht, so I was around guns all my life. He was also an avid hunter. I not only went with him, I had my own gun. I still have that old shot gun. But it is way back in a closet and I keep it just for sentimental reasons. We have very strict gun laws in Germany anyway. But I digress, No one in the US should speak of banning guns, it is protected under your Constitution like Throw back so correctly pointed out, however, why is it so implausible to discuss better ways of keeping guns out of the hands of miscreants, mentally unstable, and any yahoo with an itchy trigger finger? I'm sure Throwback, as a cop, would agree a gun is a huge responsibility and should be treated with respect. I was taught that. I don't see the wrong in making sure those who buy guns have to be well trained and mentally stable.
I don't think we disagree. I believe carrying long guns should be prohibited. I believe open carry should be prohibited unless it is a peace officer wearing a badge. I believe carrying should require some level of proficiency testing and understanding of law. I believe all adults who are not felons or mentally unstable should be able to possess a firearm on their private property.
Karlmarx. You can carry a gun and not have others see it. Thats called concealed carrying. If your gun is visible that is open carrying. US cities that allow conceal and carry permits and open carry permits have less crime. CCP and OCP holders prevent crimes often. So if you want to bring a gun to a public space, fine. However, private businesses don't have to allow you in. And I agree open carrying in certain places is very un tasteful. BTW to get an open carry permit or a conceal carry permit you are required to pass a background check and take a 12+ hour class. Its not like anyone can just get one of these permits.
The strict gun laws in Germany are not helping with the migrant crime wave.
"why is it so implausible to discuss better ways of keeping guns out of the hands of miscreants, mentally unstable, and any yahoo with an itchy trigger finger?" 90% of Americans support background checks. Most of us want to keep guns away from criminals. You're right, having a gun is a huge responsibility.
Migrants and Crime in Germany: The data gathered for the study was based on crime statistics dating from January until the end of September 2015. It evaluated overall crime rates, while also singling out trends among migrants. In particular, the report noted a marked spike in crime at arrival centers for refugees - a trend it attributed to the overcrowding of these facilities.
The study concluded that the majority of crimes committed by refugees (67 percent) consisted of theft, robbery and fraud. Sex crimes made for less than 1 percent of all crimes committed by refugees, while homicide registered the smallest fraction at 0,1 percent. Refugees from Iraq and Syria as well as from the Balkans were also more likely to commit crimes than from other countries of origin.
"Each criminal act is one too many regardless of who commits it," de Maizière said. "The tendencies shown in this evaluation demonstrate that there is no disproportional increase in crime because of the presence of asylum seekers and refugees."
The study did not examine or juxtapose crimes committed against refugees, which have been on the rise since the onset of the refugee influx in the summer of 2015.
Ss/kms (AFP, Reuters)
Karlmarx59 "Each criminal act is one too many regardless of who commits it," Yes and in Germany migrants have a very high crime rate. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7470/germany-migrants-crime Crimes against refugees are mostly by other refugees.
Migrants committed 208,344 crimes in 2015, according to a confidential police report that was leaked to Bild. http://www.bild.de/bild-plus/politik/inland/bundeskriminalamt/der-bka-bericht-44587004,var=a,view=conversionToLogin.bild.html
And according to Statista half crimes n German are solved. http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/2303/umfrage/entwicklung-der-aufklaerungsquote-von-straftaten-seit-1989/
This shows that migrants have committed 400,000 crimes. How many came in? 1 million? 1 million people commited 400,000 crimes. 400,000 is quite an increase isn't it?
@Heterodox i live in the UK, yes we have crime like any other country, and we have gang problems in major cities. Last year there were 5,127 recorded crimes involving firearms in England and Wales (http://www.Ons.Gov.Uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmar2016) an older analysis for comaprison of USA and US gun crime (http://www.Nationmaster.Com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murders-with-firearms) shows significantly less gun crime.
@Dilara Sorry, i was expecting research material or studies from reputable sources. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of guns being used to prevent crimes, but how many are their in comparison to guns used to commit crimes. Has their been any research to suggest that the ability to own guns reduces gun crime or increases it. Additionally i am bit concerned that some of your examples are gun owners killing suspected criminals, i would not consider this prevention of a crime. If the justice system is to be held, these suspected criminals are innocent until proven guilty by a judge. Owning a gun does not give you the right to be judge jury and executioner.
@foxxhajti thanks for the material, it does appear to conclude that gun use in self defense pales in comparison to miss-use of guns, and they provide the data used to back up the claim. Will take the conclusion with a pinch of salt as one of the backers 'The Joyce Foundation' actively pursues Reduction in gun crime and therefore may have an influencing interest in the outcome.
Hoey. These are local news stories showing cases where guns were used for self defense. According to the CDC guns are used 1 million times a year to prevent crimes in America. "Has their been any research to suggest that the ability to own guns reduces gun crime or increases it. " Yes. In American cities that allow conceal and carry and have high gun ownership crime is lower. Guns in the hands of criminals increases crime, or at least gun crime. But guns in the hands of responsible law abiding people decreases crime.
These examples include gun owners killing people who were obviously committing a crime or at least trespassing and had a high chance of committing a crime. "If the justice system is to be held, these suspected criminals are innocent until proven guilty by a judge. " Thats when determining punishment. These gun owners were not trying to punish the offenders they were trying to protect them selves. They did not have time to give the offender a trial. They were not trying to be judge jury and executioner they were protecting them selves and others.
Foxhajt. Does your study include guns being used to scare criminals away? "Using the NCVS numbers, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or
completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700" The study also says that in 5 years gun were used
235,700 to prevent violent crime. Even If that is true guns prevented violent crime 47,000 times a year. Thats a lot. But it turns out that the violence policy center is an organization that advocates for gun control. So they are biased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/assault-weapons/
@Dilara VPC generated the report, but the raw data come from Bureau of Justice Statatistic. I have found the source of the data and it matched their report. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf Table 11. Self-protective behaviors, by type of crime, 2007–2011 out of a total of 29,618,300 victims of crime 235,700 0.8% defended themselves with a firearm, therefore the use of guns for self defense is a poor argument for the right to have a gun. Can you provide the data for the 1 million self defense claims. And the claims the states with more guns have lower crime rates.
I disagree that the role of the justice system is to only give out punishment, they most prove the guilt of the accused. Every gun owner is a law abiding system... Until they brake the law.
Shooting someone who has a chance of committing a crime is a poor and potentially unlawful argument for shooting someone.
Shooting someone because i fear for my life, i'd rather run the other way rather than taking my chance in a high noon shoot out, your fear could be misplaced and you have unlawfully shot someone for no reason.
Shooting to protect someone else is perhaps the only argument i may agree with, but i would consider that the last possible option. Non lethal weapons could be just as good.
@Hoey, To conclude that firearms don't work for self-defense you can only examine the cases where they were used and whether or not they worked. That relatively few people have used them for self defense is irrelevant and that's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the data you presented and that's assuming the data presented is accurate.|| Also, rights are not something people get to decide, people can only decide whether to oppress rights or not.
@Heterodox The fact the guns can be successively used in self defense is outweighed by the fact that, using the data (accurate enough for use by the american government) previously presented that for each act of self defense with a gun there are 10 crimes committed with a gun, 2 of which result in death. So every time you hear or see someone defending themselves with a gun. Statistically 2 people have been killed with a gun. Conclusion. Ban guns. I will also agree that in America you have the right to bear arms. That right originated from the British Bill of Rights  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction (except the bit about only protestants can bear arms) That right is still valid, however we also have FIrearms Act 1968 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction which effectively makes it illegal to carry firearms without a license. So this debate as to whether guns should be banned is valid and achievable in America, if the people decide that banning guns will make for a safer society it can be done. Just because you have a right to bear arms. That does not stop additional legislation restricting the type of arms you can bear as done in Britain.
@Hoey, What data did you present that shows this? Because all of the data I've seen indicates otherwise, unless you are twisting the statistics (I mentioned that in my previous comment). The table in your previous post doesn't have that data (How many guns were used in self defense and were they successful?). Heck, it even says right on the table that it's not very credible, "Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%." You will also note that on that same pdf on page 13 the majority of all criminals (surveyed) who used a gun for a crime obtained them illegally (ie. Banning is irrelevant) ||Owning guns isn't an American right, it's a human right. While the USA, in many states, have infringed on this right to some degree or another, even if they completely oppressed the right (banned guns) it would still be a right. Laws don't give you rights or take away rights, they can only oppress them, infringe on them, protect them, etc. (thought I mentioned this already).
@Heterodox I will provide the working for my statement. I used the data provided by U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.Bjs.Gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.Pdf) TABLE 11 Self-protective behaviors, by type of crime, 2007–2011, Threatened or attacked with a firearm = 235,700 0.8%. The statement '! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. ' is only relevant for the data marked with a ! Which this data is not. It does not say if the Self protective behavior was successful or not so i cannot comment. I also used TABLE 1 Criminal firearm violence, 1993–2011, In my original working i used the average from 1993-2011, this time i will only use the 2007-2011 period. The average percent of All violence involving firearms over the 2007-2011 period = 7.7% 7.7/0.8 = 9.6 i rounded up to 10. Which means for ever for every 1 incidents of self defense with a firearm there are 10 incidents of violence involving a firearm. I did the same for All firearm violence
that was homicide over average over 2007-2011 (again i originally used 1993-2011 average) = 2.6% 2.6/0.8 = 3.25 rounded down to 3. Which means that over the same period for every 1 incident of self defense there are 3 incidents of firearm violence that was homicide. Using the corrected data range the results appear to be worse.
I disagree that the people of USA have a right to own a Gun and i have never heard of owning a Gun being a Human right can you provide the evidence for these statements. I can understand the right to bear arms is a right in the USA and UK. You can take away your ability to own a gun, without taking away your right to bear arms, as other weapons can still be used. If guns did not exist, you would still have a right to bear arms. You could argue that banning guns restricts your rights, but it only restricts your choice of arms. Choice in arms is a luxury not a right. Finally your argument about most criminal obtaining their firearms illegally is a valid one, however i would argue that if guns were banned and therefore were more difficult to get hold of, both legally and illegally, gun crime will fall. In the UK it is difficult (Though not impossible) for criminals to get hold of guns and they are not used very often as it is just as difficult to get ammunition for them.
Hoey. And VPC may have twisted the data to fit their agenda. According to Florida State criminology professor Gary Kleck and his colleague Marc Gertz there are 760,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. So gun crimes do not overweigh gun usage in self defense. Even so, criminals committing crime is no reason to take away the rights of law abiding people to protect them selves. The acts of gangsters and other types of thugs should not result in the punishment of law abiding people, by making them less safe from criminals. We should not loose our rights because of what criminals do. And again, most gun deaths are suicides, and we should not loose our rights based on what mentally ill suicidal people do. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082#.VR606fnF-Sr Since the 1990s as gun ownership has been increasing crime has been dropping in tehe US.
" the use of guns for self defense is a poor argument for the right to have a gun" What? That is absurd. Why don't you tell the people in the examples I gave you that their story is a poor reason to have a gun. Because other people use guns for bad, law abiding people aren't allowed to use them for protection?
Heres a video that explains the differences in US cities with less gun control and those with lots of gun control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
The role of the justice system is both to punish and in some cases rehabilitate criminals, not only to give punishment .And yes they must prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "Shooting someone who has a chance of committing a crime is a poor and potentially unlawful argument for shooting someone" That depends. If they have broken int your house and there is is very high chance they will commit the crime then the home owner is in the right to shoot them. That person should not have broken in. In America we have something called the castle doctrine which allows one owners to use force to stop someone who has broken in, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine "Shooting someone because i fear for my life, i'd rather run the other way rather than taking my chance in a high noon shoot out, your fear could be misplaced and you have unlawfully shot someone for no reason" You might want to run the other way but some people can't. Maybe there is no where to run, maybe if they run the criminal will come after them or maybe the criminal is armed and will shoot them if they run. Maybe if they run the criminal will continue to steal their items. Maybe if they run the criminal will harm someone else. Running away could be more dangerous than shooting the suspect. They might just shoot anyways, so you would not be avoiding a "high noon shoot out." It is true that you could shoot an innocent person, but if you don't recognize them and they have come in uninvited those chances are very low. "Shooting to protect someone else is perhaps the only argument i may agree with, but i would consider that the last possible option" What about shooting to protect your self or your property? And shooting should be the last resort, but if it what you have to do to protect your self and others you have to do it. Besides ,when a violent criminal is attacking you don't really have much time to weigh your options. You and the other innocent people come before the criminal. "Non lethal weapons could be just as good." Unlikely. If the criminal is armed with a gun, then a non lethal weapon wold not be as helpful. If the criminal is much stronger than you, you may not be able to physically fight and take him down with out a gun. If he is on angel dust he might not be stopped by a non lethal weapon because he would not be able to feel pain. There are so many factors to consider. In some cases a baseball bat or something could do just fine, but in many you will need a lethal weapon. No innocent person should risk their own life by using a non lethal weapon to protect a criminal. Violent criminals simply do not matter.
Banning guns is a horrible idea. Criminals will get them anyways whereas law abiding people would not have guns .We'd have defenseless law abiding people with out guns and armed criminals who could easily commit crimes against their unarmed targets. Therefor crime would rise. Even if you could stop criminals for getting gun by banning them, people would still need guns to defend them selves. If the criminal is much stronger than you he can overpower you without a gun, therefor you would need a gun to defend your self even if he is unarmed. By banning guns you would be preventing 700,00-2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, therefor causing 700,000-2.5 million more crimes. What would you tell the woman who has just left a violent marriage an wants a gun to protect her self? That she can't have a gun? That she has to take the risk of being killed because she can't have a gun? Would you tell the rape victim that she can't have a gun to prevent that form happening again? The millions of people who live in high crime areas and need guns should not be punished for what criminals do. There are 300 million guns in America and criminals will be able to get them. Therefor banning guns, especially banning them from criminals is not achievable. Even law abiding people won't abide by such absurd laws. The people here will never decide that banning guns makes us safer, because it does not. And even if law abiding people turned them in criminals wouldn't. The right to bare arms includes guns (thats what they specially meant). The second amendment right gives us that. And even if we did not have a 2nd amendment, evidence still shows that gun ownership makes us safer. The right to be able to defend your self, is like Heterodox said, a human right, not just an American right. Sometimes, people need guns, as knives, baseball bats or pepper spray wont stop the criminal. Because guns are sometimes the only weapon that can be used, the right to own one is a right. "Choice in arms is a luxury not a right." People have the right to be able to defend the selves with the gun necessary, which sometimes is a semi automatic.
You can make guns more difficult to get a hold of, but that still won't stop most criminals from getting them, as most criminals get guns on the black market. How exactly would you make it more difficult to get guns illegally?
You should have a license to carry a gun and you should have the right.
There may be third variables as to way it is harder for criminals to get guns and ammo in Britain, and why guns are not used in crime as often. Even if gun control were the cause, Britain is not America. Britain does not ave 300 million guns in circulation, like us. Plus Britain has more burglaries and robberies than the US. I think they also may have more rapes. So at what cost?
Heterodox. 700,000-2.5 million people use guns every year for self defense in America.
@Dilara, Your post is too long for this kind of a forum. I do agree that Hoey is twisting figures around though. But what is most concerning is that he is asking for evidence of natural human rights or believes they don't exist.
You give someone a gun they have the power to kill someone. You take away the gun they don't. It is as simple as that. Do you really need to carry a life threatening weapon around with you. Countries like England and Canada seem to be coping just fine banning guns.
1.) It's really not that simple, especially in countries where guns are common, the culture is deeply ingrained, and there are a prolific number of violent gangs. Criminals don't just give up their guns because they're told to, which leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless, and we've seen how that works out in America's most heavily gun-controlled cities.
2.) People absolutely have the power to kill without a gun, you're seriously underestimating how easy it is to kill. People are killed in mass without the use of firearms all the time. Just recently, a man in France killed 86 people and injured 434 more with truck, which are extremely easy for people to get their hands on.
3.) Canada hasn't banned guns. The UK was just as safe before it did, and there was actually a temporary spike in violent crime after the ban, before the numbers fell back to what they were beforehand. It also has the benefit of being on an island. And countries like Switzerland and Finland are doing just fine while being loaded with guns. Regardless, we'd be comparing apples and oranges.
Spinster "You give someone a gun they have the power to kill someone" Yes and they have the power to defend them selves. They might NEED to kill someone. Criminals can get the power to kill someone by grabbing a knife. And some criminals can do so with their bare hands.
You take the gun away they don't have the power to protect them selves whereas the criminal still has the power to commit a crime against them (with an illegal gun or another weapon).
Criminals are already getting their guns illegally, so banning them won't stop them form getting guns. It will only stop law abiding people from getting guns. So we'd have armed criminals armed unarmed law abiders.
"Do you really need to carry a life threatening weapon around with you." Some people who have stalkers after them or live in high crime areas do. Who are you to decide how they can and can't protect them selves ? BTW lots of things can be made deadly. Considering that criminals have guns (and will get them anyways) we need guns. And we still need guns to protect us from unarmed criminals who can still commit crimes.
The US is not England or Canada. They don't have 300 million guns allready in circulation. And England has more robberies, burglaries and rapes then the US.
You'd have to be delusional to think that this would actually be possible/a good idea. You can't take everyone's guns away - especially considering a good amount of them are unregistered. Also, public gun sales would decrease drastically and there would be a huge increase of guns on the black market. There's no way to ban guns and it's pretty vague to be asking that specific question. We can't ban guns from police officers - people will still commit violent crimes, they still need protection. The military still need their weapons, we can't take those away from them. You'd have to be way more specific.
In america people are trying to banned guns but you cant band guns without overthrowing the constitution first of all and even then people in america need guns. Guns have protected us for decades.People that want to band guns are normally the people that cant have one or are an illegal immigrants that want a gun but cant have one because they don't want to go back to there country.
So I am told that "You'd have to be delusional to think that this would actually be possible/a good idea. You can't take everyone's guns away." Australia did it in less than a year. Admittedly, America has a larger population but I think that a PROVEN 50% DROP IN RISK OF DEATH BY GUNSHOT is perfectly worth it. Also, a 59% drop in suicide rate occurred over 11 years. Do you really care more about your gun than the life of your neighbour? Sure, you'll say, why not give everyone a gun? My response: MORE GUNS, MORE DEATH! PROVEN!