What? Shades, people from low socio-economic backgrounds are primarily the people that ALREADY own illicit fire arms. And when you start talking about poor inner city neighborhoods, they ALL have them. That isn't to say that they are all necessarily "criminals" or involved in dangerous illegal activity, it's simply a matter of life. People in the inner cities carry guns for protection, a lot of them can't obtain them legally because they are prior felons, or they don't go through the proper channels. Either way, the vast majority of illegally owned handguns reside in the inner cities of people trying to protect themselves from the pragmatic, relentless violence that surrounds them.

Thanks for everybody else that answered my questions for me.

There are a lot of interesting case studies. Washington DC pops to mind. So doesn't Florida. Florida used to have one of the highest crime rates in the country. And as gun laws have been relaxed over time, their crime has plummeted even more so than the national average.

Every place and every country is unique, and that was my main point in my very first post. You cannot apply a gun to America. It'll be a complete and total disaster. It might work in Canada, but it will never, ever work in America. Our society is way too fucked up and splintered.

LW-i asked a question and I understand if your offended by it and I even apologise but there's no need to get shitty, plus if you cant see the sense in this question above, You're in space smoking heavy stuff. I wanna personally understand or grasp the need for the gun in American life. I just don't understand why a country that literally has everything going for it, needs to be so backward in its view on this. It's a fuckin amazing place, the most hospitable friendly people, but the gun is a blindspot culturally, across the board, and to everyone else it doesn't make sense. I'm just looking for the other side to try understand why.

be as free as you want to be, i still think guns are an entirely ridiculous point or argument to express your "freedom"

Couple of weeks ago, a guy in a liqour store here in a town called Limerick(our craaaazy gang ridden drug economy town) refused to sell alcohol to a minor, no ifs or buts, she was a minor, 14, so because of that he got shot..in the leg..
this week, her brothers went into the guys local pub, and in front of everyone, shot him.. but it wasnt him, it was his cousin, they shot the wrong guy..he was sitting up for a few minutes with his dad holding him but he died shortly thereafter,
so I understand it's impossible to ban outright, we're a nation of 5 million where the gun has ruled(and it's still there) but for too long..I just was wondering why America can't/won't lead the way and at least try take it out. Naive and idealistic I may be, but the reasoning for having them is completely incomprehensible to me. There ARENT that many burglars/deer to shoot in the US, crime happens everywhere! Hopefully one day it'll happen.

Ridiculous statement. On every level.

You're trying to make this the gun's fault, right?

No, just illustrating that it's a problem here too, but for all the crime we have (in that town especially) there isn't burglars climbing in windows armed or psycho moms shooting their kids in the head.
Per capita there are probably more guns here, but those things don't happen, and unless the US has this burglar epidemic the rest of us haven't heard about, I don't see the point in owning one. That's all. How many deer do you need to shoot?/how many ghetto boys are you expecting over the hill? and when? and is it 'bad guys' or as a few people have said, the government that you're afraid of?

You dismiss this so easily, but it seems that your problem throughout this thread is your fundamental inability to understand that a very large percentage of Americans feel this way, whether they are gun owners or not, whether they favor stronger gun laws or not. I don't know what you think of when you hear the word "liberty", but it's a pretty important word to Americans, and understanding that is pretty integral to understand us as a culture. The nature of your comments and questions leads me to believe that you have little understanding of Americans in general.

Liberty..unless you're gay and wanna marry your boyfriend.
It's not about that and I certainly don't wanna make it about that, but this below? seriously...

we're all fat, flag waving, gun lovers

Or smoke some weed, or have an abortion, or perform euthanasia, or have titties on the telly. But nobody take away my rights to own a gun, or I will shoot you!

FTFY- Thats how it probably would have gone in even the most ghetto of areas in the US.

part of freedom is the right to be ridiculous.

lots of people still smoke weed, have abortions, perform some sort of euthanasia without societal repercussions. having tits on the television is pretty trivial. Some people don't want tits on their tv and there is the internet for those who do.

First, thanks.

Second, I'm not with you. The whole problem with access to firearms and robberies is that people who rob are after your money first and foremost. If they can achieve that goal without having to resort to violence, they usually will. Throw a firearm into the mix, and the chances that the robber will deal a fatal blow to the victim either by accident or via recklessness increases. It is more difficult to kill - indeed I would argue, it is more difficult to bring yourself to kill, with a knife.



Removing guns won't solve the problem of violent crime - you get no argument out of me on that score.

And yes, robberies as such probably won't decrease in the absence of firearms, however I do think deaths associated with robberies would. And that's a good start.




If anyone was wondering if Sunny has read The Federalist papers or any other material on why the Constitution is the way it is, this is it. He hasn't.




I'll have a look at the article later. Thanks. Your comments regarding Japan and Switzerland is right on the money. However, it doesn't then follow that removing free access to guns is not part of the solution.

I don't think the prohibition argument holds the same force with guns as it does for alcohol and drugs. Those have to do with mind alteration and socialising. I don't think the same number of people would get the same kind of reaction from the possession of a firearm, though I don't doubt such people exist.



Do you really want to walk down this slippery slope? What if I decided that I wanted to have sex with your 12 year old daughter on my private property? Would you be cool with that? It's a free country, right?

True. Low socio-economic neighbourhoods would likely have high rates of gun possession. They would also be more easily dispossessed by laws prohibiting firearms. Dispossessing organised crime groups would be much more difficult.




I don't disagree with that first sentence. I don't however share your scepticism about what a gun ban would mean for America in the long term. If it were to be done, it would happen because the electorate sanctioned the government with a mandate to carry it out.

People talking about an uprising are either living in the 18th century or have seen to many movies. Or both.

Did you have herring with your lunch yesterday?

Were they red?

Where have I been shitty in this thread? I don't see your question in what you quoted... I have pretty much said all that I care to say about America, our gun problem, and our society. I'm going to touch on the history of our second ammendment rights later in the thread. Maybe that will answer some of your questions. Let me know if you have any other comments or concerns, but at best, I see us running in circles.



I disagree. Strongly. I don't understand how a person who goes up to rob someone will have their own personal safety if there is no firearm, but will shoot if they are provided a difficult target. It doesn't make any sense. If I'm going up to someone to rob them of their money and valuables first and foremost, this isn't going to change if the victim flashes a gun. If he flashes a gun, my safety is still at the forefront of my mind, I'm simply going to leave, and get somebody elses money.

I would also argue that far mar people are mercilessly executed by muggers and thugs in this country simply because they are helpless, then people who are killed because they flash a gun. I would challenge you to find me an instance of someone getting killed by a mugger after flashing a gun. It doesn't happen.

Guns are used to put a stop to violence hundreds of thousands of times every single year in this country, and they rarely involve the legal gun owner dying. Like...way less than 1% of the time. In almost all cases the instance of violence is immediately brought to a halt, and the perp flees. The next most probable course is the legal gun owner shooting the perp. The minority is what you suggest. The perp holds me up, I draw my .45, the perp shoots me. It just doesn't happen. You rarely read about this stuff happening.











James Madison, of Virginia:








And just to invoke Godwin's Law...





Again, the majority of the weapons in these areas are already owned illegally. How are you going to repossess illegally owned firearms? Better yet, why on earth would the people give them up when they understand that organized crime that dominates, intimidates, and destroys their neighborhoods will not be giving up their guns.



A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic.

As honourable as those guys intentions were, they were speaking for a different time. America was a wild new frontier and it was silly not to be armed. Those ideals above just don't apply today I don't think. Why would US citizens be afraid of their own government telling them they can't be armed? It's not like it would be a gateway to miilions of other infringements on rights and liberties, anymore than there already is. It really wouldn't be.

The east coast of the US was not a wild frontier in the late 18th century.

If law biding U.S. citizens are armed, what are the chances that Canada and Mexico will invade the US?