Extreme content - Filming Live shootouts, recovery and hope.

[Noxire]

To stop crime, you need to target criminal behavior, not law abiding citizens.

And yet there is alot less murders in countries which has a more restrictive policy against firearms.

Wth is a law abiding citizen going to do with the gun anyway?
Shooting people is pretty much illegal

 

[photocist]

One of the biggest factors is an education. People without education are generally the ones who resort to violence, simply because it is the most obvious and easy solution. However, they have (generally) never been taught in an effective way, though teaching so that everyone is engaged is probably one of the most difficult things to do in the educational system. Many teachers (at least in Oakland public schools) simply note who cares and who doesnt, and the ones who dont are essentially neglected. How does one motivate someone who isnt motivated? Enthusiasm, heart, and a stroke of luck.

 

[Stradawhovious]

And yet there is alot less murders in countries which has a more restrictive policy against firearms.

Firearms are a bull****, skewed and often manipulated statistic abused by politicians and lobbyists to manipulate the minds of impressionable voters through fearmongering.

The fact is that in the absolute vast majority of those countries the population is much much smaller, and/or the punishment for crimes is substantially more harsh than it is in the US.

Wth is a law abiding citizen going to do with the gun anyway?
Shooting people is pretty much illegal

Seriously? Are you Daft?

I can think of 4 things off the top of my head.

1. Recreation. I participate in shooting sports with both handguns and long guns. Its a blast.

2. Hunting. I feed my family with hunted food. Hunting is also a very humane way of dealing with overpopulation in animals. If some of these species of animal aren't hunted, their numbers grow to the point of overpopulation and they starve thenselves out.

3. Protection from armed criminals.

4. Protecting citizens from a corrupt government. Ask Hitler, Stalin and Mao how easy it is to control an unarmed populace.... In Nazi occupied Germany the citizens were ALL disarmed. The only folks with guns were criminals and Hitlers army. Care to tell me how many murders happened there, in that country, with total gun control?


And let's not forget about the Zombie Apocalypse.........

The fact is, that even if guns didn't exist, people would be killing each other (as a matter of fact, when guns didn't exist, people did kill each other. It's documented.). The issue is crime, not guns. We need to address the criminals, provide harsher punishment for criminal activity, and better education to people before they turn to a life of crime.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Look. You want to start in on crime in the US? Here's how I think we could take the frist step.

Legalize pot.

Now, for those of you that are rolling your eyes bear with me. First off, I don't even smoke pot. I'm not a big fan of it..... but an awful lot of people are. As a matter of fact, as a result of it being illegal, it creates an awful lot of violence through the crime of trafficking, cultivating etc.

In my minds eye here's how it would happen. Pot is decriminalized. Over night, crime statistics take a dive. Prisons are no longer over crowded. The tobacco companies turn to cultivating and marketing pot, but don't have the knowhow right away...... but lots of the former violent criminals do..... BAM thousands of jobs are created. Then, much like cigarettes and alcohol, the government steps in to regulate and tax it. BAM more funding for education. As a result the schools get better funded, updated, more teachers get hired (can we say more jobs?) those teachers have fewer students so the number of neglected childern falls, resulting in fewer people resorting to a life of crime. Overpopulation decreaes through better education freeing up even more jobs for those folks that dont have one (whiich one can argue would have an adverse effect on crime), jobs are created in the government and private sectors, federal revenues are up, and all crime (including violent crime)is down just through the decriminalization of a plant that has no business on the class 1 drug list to begin with. The war on drugs is a stupid waste of time and resources and only serves to create crime and violence.

Also, people who are stoned are generally less motivated to kill each other than people who arent. Not a statistic, just an observation.

Obviously its more involved than that, but you get the idea.

 

[photocist]

Not just legalizing cannabis, but creating a system of drug education rather than abstinence.

And you must consider how idealistic your interpretation is. I would be hesitant to say that giant tobacco companies will hire former criminals simply because they know stuff about weed. Hell, if they want research, they can just google it. Just because weed is made legal (which, in all seriousness, will probably never happen, at least at the federal level, where it really matters) doesnt mean they just release all criminals indited for it.

 

[Stradawhovious]

And you must consider how idealistic your interpretation is. .

Please feel free to read the last line of my quote.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Oh sh!t. Potheads with weapons. I don't have any Cheetos. Promise.

 

[Noxire]

Firearms are a bull****, skewed and often manipulated statistic abused by politicians and lobbyists to manipulate the minds of impressionable voters through fearmongering.

Source on that please, that is just your skewed opinion and its wastly biased.

The fact is that in the absolute vast majority of those countries the population is much much smaller, and/or the punishment for crimes is substantially more harsh than it is in the US.

1. Why the size of a country matters in a murder per capita statistic is beyond me... However when comparing countries it should be with countries of similar structure of population.
2. No this isn't even correct, the US is one of the countries with the harshest laws, some states still use death penalties, and the time (min 25yrs max [infinity]) is ridiculous long.

Seriously? Are you Daft?

No not really the last two sentences was a snide remark (therefore the : ) ) and its my fault for assuming that most grown people understand sarcasm.

I can think of 4 things off the top of my head.

1. Recreation. I participate in shooting sports with both handguns and long guns. Its a blast.

2. Hunting. I feed my family with hunted food. Hunting is also a very humane way of dealing with overpopulation in animals. If some of these species of animal aren't hunted, their numbers grow to the point of overpopulation and they starve thenselves out.

3. Protection from armed criminals.

4. Protecting citizens from a corrupt government. Ask Hitler, Stalin and Mao how easy it is to control an unarmed populace.... In Nazi occupied Germany the citizens were ALL disarmed. The only folks with guns were criminals and Hitlers army. Care to tell me how many murders happened there, in that country, with total gun control?

1. I never said anything about banning weapons, I talked about a more restrictive policy against them. (So you would still be able to get a gun license after some (much needed) education on gun safety.

2. See 1.

3. See 1. And fewer guns in the society leads to fewer encounters with armed criminals. (and besides reading about kids who find their parents handguns and killing themselves/someone else is just sad)

4. See 1. (really, I think you fail at reading)


So in short; restrictive policy = Not every yahoo can aquire a gun = fewer guns in society = Fewer murders

Next time you can try to read the three sentences and understand them before posting.

 

[Stradawhovious]

I have answered your questions based on how they were worded. Don't spew spite at me now with clarifications... they should have been more clear in your original post. For example, the words "per capita" didn't appear once in your original post, but the sentiment that no law abiding citizen has any reason to have a gun did. Please re-read you own damn post before accusing me of skimming over it.

As a matter of fact, let me quote it for you so you can do that now.

And yet there is alot less murders in countries which has a more restrictive policy against firearms.

Wth is a law abiding citizen going to do with the gun anyway?
Shooting people is pretty much illegal

Give you sources? Why bother. Its obvious that you have already labeled me as the enemy in your mind, so you would just end up questioning the validity of my source regardless of where it came from. Then you would use conjecture and hearsay to argue it, like you've been doing thus far. You can't argue against conjecture and hearsay since they are not based on fact.

My Father..... a brilliant man.... once told me to never argue with idiots. They will always bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience. I'm going to take that advice now.

Good luck in life. It seems you will need it.

Now where is that ignore button?

 

[bentcountershaft]

I don't think he failed to read anything. You asked why a law abiding citizen would ever need a gun. He stated four reasons. Seems pretty straightforward to me.