I agree that owning a gun doesn't necessarily rid your neighborhood of crime.
It's simply a matter of having the option to protect yourself and the people that you care about. Nobody wants to be the victim. Especially for people who are living in impoverished areas, it would be a great relief to know that you have the power to defend yourself if a criminal knocks on your door.
I wouldn't put all my faith in the police because that requires actually picking up a phone to call them and then waiting for them to arrive.
Yeah, of course, there's no point for somebody to own an automatic AK-47 or fancy M249 LMG... but civilian firearms can actually be quite useful for self-defense if the populace is properly educated.
I agree the police are poorly trained in the US but how often does a violent person show up at someone's door step? If there is a shooting in public, the safetest thing to do is get down and try and escape. In otherwords, there is no point of having a gun for protection.
I agree that many people shouldn't own guns (even most people), but when talking about legal gun ownership, it's a tight-rope act to enact laws that wouldn't have their constitutionality successfully challenged.
Hunting, sport but there are so many laws on having the ammo stored separately and guns have to be well hidden. Nothing wrong with a sane and responsible person having a gun for sport. It's just in the US idiots can gain access to guns and it's because they are all afraid of each other. Fear makes people do stupid things. On top of that, it's considered a right not a responsibility. In Switzerland many people own guns but it's for sport not shooting each other and they have laws on which guns are allowed, same with Canada.
I personally feel Guns should be only be limited to law enforcement agencies like Police forces,Paramilitary forces and Army,Navy & Air force.
Civilians will be allowed to keep Guns only if there is a serious threat to their life and that too limited to Pistols or small arms.No way they should be allowed heavy machine guns.
This system is prevalent in India and thanks to God we have no mass shooting incidents here.If USA also does it,then I am sure it will decrease there too.
I personally feel Guns should be only be limited to law enforcement agencies like Police forces,Paramilitary forces and Army,Navy & Air force.
Civilians will be allowed to keep Guns only if there is a serious threat to their life and that too limited to Pistols or small arms.No way they should be allowed heavy machine guns.
This system is prevalent in India and thanks to God we have no mass shooting incidents here.If USA also does it,then I am sure it will decrease there too.
Citizens should not use guns for protection. It's the law enforcement's job to protect citizens and to use guns only when needed. This is the problem with the US: ordinary citizens think they need a deadly weapon to protect themselves from criminals. As a result, people die from misuse and people with the intent to kill who should not have access to guns in the first place. If the Police aren't properly trained or cannot arrive at the scene in a timely manner, that is a problem with the law enforcement system. Ordinary citizens should not confront violent individuals because they lack the training but mainly it's a safety issue.
I agree the police are poorly trained in the US but how often does a violent person show up at someone's door step? If there is a shooting in public, the safetest thing to do is get down and try and escape. In otherwords, there is no point of having a gun for protection.
It might not be often where we live. But there are plenty of areas in the United States which are infested with criminals and gangs. For families who are living in impoverished neighborhoods, the chances for domestic violence or criminal activity is pretty high.
Especially if the offender knows that nobody in that neighborhood owns guns (assuming they are banned).
There have been criminals who stalk families and follow them home. If they execute their plans right, then the police will either be too late or there will be nothing that they can do to stop them. The best option at that point would be self-defense.
Ideally, less guns will mean less death.
But with the "bad guys" buying their stuff off of the black market, it's impossible to regulate all activity and prevent criminals from doing what they want.
If guns are legal, a random criminal wouldn't risk barging into a house because they don't know for sure if the family owns a gun or not (even if there are actually no guns in the house, it leaves a possibility that there is, in the criminal's mind).
In contrast, if they are guaranteed that absolutely all civilians in an entire city are unarmed, then it would be easy to commit a crime.
Citizens should not use guns for protection. It's the law enforcement's job to protect citizens and to use guns only when needed. This is the problem with the US: ordinary citizens think they need a deadly weapon to protect themselves from criminals. As a result, people die from misuse and people with the intent to kill who should not have access to guns in the first place. If the Police aren't properly trained or cannot arrive at the scene in a timely manner, that is a problem with the law enforcement system. Ordinary citizens should not confront violent individuals because they lack the training but mainly it's a safety issue.
No I personally feel if there is a serious threat to life small fire arms should be allowed.
In India if someone is really threatened the police will do a background check and then will decide if they can buy small fire arms.You need a proper license for it and need it renew it regularly.
And the system has worked fine.Thankfully no mass shootings happened here.
It might not be often where we live. But there are plenty of areas in the United States which are infested with criminals and gangs. For families who are living in impoverished neighborhoods, the chances for domestic violence or criminal activity is pretty high.
Especially if the offender knows that nobody in that neighborhood owns guns (assuming they are banned).
There have been criminals who stalk families and follow them home. If they execute their plans right, then the police will either be too late or there will be nothing that they can do to stop them. The best option at that point would be self-defense.
Ideally, less guns will mean less death.
But with the "bad guys" buying their stuff off of the black market, it's impossible to regulate all activity and prevent criminals from doing what they want.
If guns are legal, a random criminal wouldn't risk barging into a house because they don't know for sure if the family owns a gun or not (even if there are actually no guns in the house, it leaves a possibility that there is, in the criminal's mind).
In contrast, if they are guaranteed that absolutely all civilians in an entire city are unarmed, then it would be easy to commit a crime.
It might not be often where we live. But there are plenty of areas in the United States which are infested with criminals and gangs. For families who are living in impoverished neighborhoods, the chances for domestic violence or criminal activity is pretty high.
Especially if the offender knows that nobody in that neighborhood owns guns (assuming they are banned).
There have been criminals who stalk families and follow them home. If they execute their plans right, then the police will either be too late or there will be nothing that they can do to stop them. The best option at that point would be self-defense.
Ideally, less guns will mean less death.
But with the "bad guys" buying their stuff off of the black market, it's impossible to regulate all activity and prevent criminals from doing what they want.
If guns are legal, a random criminal wouldn't risk barging into a house because they don't know for sure if the family owns a gun or not (even if there are actually no guns in the house, it leaves a possibility that there is, in the criminal's mind).
In contrast, if they are guaranteed that absolutely all civilians in an entire city are unarmed, then it would be easy to commit a crime.
The best method of preventing break ins is locking doors/windows and a well lit area. I was a civilian shadowing police officers during high school and most preventive matters against crime have nothing to do with guns. Again, if law enforcement cannot get to someone in distress in a timely manner that is a problem with the law enforcement system. It's a fallacy to presume more people with guns = safer society because when people take the law in their own hands with a gun, people end up dead. Yes, reducing poverty reduces crime but I'm going to go off topic but in order to do so, better labour laws, access to education and more social services are proven to reduce poverty, which the US doesn't believe in these facts.
No I personally feel if there is a serious threat to life small fire arms should be allowed.
In India if someone is really threatened the police will do a background check and then will decide if they can buy small fire arms.You need a proper license for it and need it renew it regularly.
And the system has worked fine.Thankfully no mass shootings happened here.
And the negative side is that you are seeing mass shootings happening in every 2 months because of unrestricted arms supply.
The best method of preventing break ins is locking doors/windows and a well lit area. I was a civilian shadowing police officers during high school and most preventive matters against crime have nothing to do with guns. Again, if law enforcement cannot get to someone in distress in a timely manner that is a problem with the law enforcement system. It's a fallacy to presume more people with guns = safer society because when people take the law in their own hands with a gun, people end up dead. Yes, reducing poverty reduces crime but I'm going to go off topic but in order to do so, better labour laws, access to education and more social services are proven to reduce poverty, which the US doesn't believe in these facts.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
What constitutes as a threat? People can think anything is a threat but that doesn't mean they deserve a gun.
It's the police's job to protect that citizen. That's like a paramedic giving someone bandaids and gauze and telling them to heal themselves. There is training required for a firearm and it's the police's job to keep up to date.
It isn't necessarily the guns that are the problem. It partly has to do with the way society operates and treats people. Since the U.S. consists of a large and diverse population, it's only natural that domestic violence exists. The "amount of freedom" given to citizens also helps create a favorable environment for criminal behaviors.
Since the demographics are so widespread and unbalanced, there is very little control over child raising and discipline. Guns actually deter crime and are useful for self-defense, but that's only if the user is properly educated and informed.
The United States also has a major problem with gang wars and conflicts, which isn't the case in other countries. Another major problem is that society often blames "mental illness" as an excuse for a mass shooter's actions. That kind of leniency actually invites for greater criminal problems, which is practically the main issue here.
The bad guys can get their weapon supply off of the black market, so banning firearms would only lead to law-abiding citizens being defenseless. With that said, I have no problem with stricter gun regulations and restrictions (ex. banning weapons capable of rapid fire, more careful background or license checks, etc.).
And besides, a lot of other countries besides the US also have mass shootings or massacres. Some of them even allow citizens to own guns after obtaining a license.
Russia has stricter gun laws, but have a much higher homicide/murder rate than the United States.
That just goes to show that criminals will fulfill their evil deeds, regardless of whether a firearm is involved.
The best method of preventing break ins is locking doors/windows and a well lit area. I was a civilian shadowing police officers during high school and most preventive matters against crime have nothing to do with guns. Again, if law enforcement cannot get to someone in distress in a timely manner that is a problem with the law enforcement system. It's a fallacy to presume more people with guns = safer society because when people take the law in their own hands with a gun, people end up dead. Yes, reducing poverty reduces crime but I'm going to go off topic but in order to do so, better labour laws, access to education and more social services are proven to reduce poverty, which the US doesn't believe in these facts.
True, from a criminological perspective, target hardening and the installation of lamp posts might discourage criminals, but it can only do so much to keep them at bay. If criminals know that there are no real defense mechanisms in a neighborhood (i.e. self-defense), there is nothing stopping them from barging right in and trapping the victim.
Some victims can't even call for help because they are immediately assaulted, raped/sexually abused, or restrained (like being tied to a bed).
The law enforcement system is likely in top enough shape to respond quickly, but some officers are even hesitant to combat the perpetrator, in fear of their own lives or simply due to hostage situations.
And it's difficult to blame them for that. But yes, guns do need to be more strictly regulated and controlled. I just think that banning them altogether could pose more of a problem than a solution.
And yes, I also agree that education and discipline is an important factor to reduce crime.
It isn't necessarily the guns that are the problem. It partly has to do with the way society operates and treats people. Since the U.S. consists of a large and diverse population, it's only natural that domestic violence exists. The "amount of freedom" given to citizens also helps create a favorable environment for criminal behaviors.
Since the demographics are so widespread and unbalanced, there is very little control over child raising and discipline. Guns actually deter crime and are useful for self-defense, but that's only if the user is properly educated and informed.
The United States also has a major problem with gang wars and conflicts, which isn't the case in other countries. Another major problem is that society often blames "mental illness" as an excuse for a mass shooter's actions. That kind of leniency actually invites for greater criminal problems, which is practically the main issue here.
The bad guys can get their weapon supply off of the black market, so banning firearms would only lead to law-abiding citizens being defenseless. With that said, I have no problem with stricter gun regulations and restrictions (ex. banning weapons capable of rapid fire, more careful background or license checks, etc.).
And besides, a lot of other countries besides the US also have mass shootings or massacres. Some of them even allow citizens to own guns after obtaining a license.
Russia has stricter gun laws, but have a much higher homicide/murder rate than the United States.
That just goes to show that criminals will fulfill their evil deeds, regardless of whether a firearm is involved.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
True, from a criminological perspective, target hardening and the installation of lamp posts might discourage criminals, but it can only do so much to keep them at bay. If criminals know that there are no real defense mechanisms in a neighborhood (i.e. self-defense), there is nothing stopping them from barging right in and trapping the victim.
Some victims can't even call for help because they are immediately assaulted, raped/sexually abused, or restrained (like being tied to a bed).
The law enforcement system is likely in top enough shape to respond quickly, but some officers are even hesitant to combat the perpetrator, in fear of their own lives or simply due to hostage situations.
And it's difficult to blame them for that. But yes, guns do need to be more strictly regulated and controlled. I just think that banning them altogether could pose more of a problem than a solution.
And yes, I also agree that education and discipline is an important factor to reduce crime.
We have far more diverse population and people than USA has.Still we don't need to distribute guns to everyone.
Look it doesn't matter if one is educated or not.Don't educated people commit murder? If you have a gun in your hand if your temper rises suddenly,then one may shoot without even realising in a fit of rage.
I don't see the logic why an ordinary civilian should have a machine gun.
Though I agree with you women should be allowed guns to protect themselves from sexual assaults.
It isn't necessarily the guns that are the problem. It partly has to do with the way society operates and treats people. Since the U.S. consists of a large and diverse population, it's only natural that domestic violence exists. The "amount of freedom" given to citizens also helps create a favorable environment for criminal behaviors.
Since the demographics are so widespread and unbalanced, there is very little control over child raising and discipline. Guns actually deter crime and are useful for self-defense, but that's only if the user is properly educated and informed.
The United States also has a major problem with gang wars and conflicts, which isn't the case in other countries. Another major problem is that society often blames "mental illness" as an excuse for a mass shooter's actions. That kind of leniency actually invites for greater criminal problems, which is practically the main issue here.
The bad guys can get their weapon supply off of the black market, so banning firearms would only lead to law-abiding citizens being defenseless. With that said, I have no problem with stricter gun regulations and restrictions (ex. banning weapons capable of rapid fire, more careful background or license checks, etc.).
And besides, a lot of other countries besides the US also have mass shootings or massacres. Some of them even allow citizens to own guns after obtaining a license.
Russia has stricter gun laws, but have a much higher homicide/murder rate than the United States.
That just goes to show that criminals will fulfill their evil deeds, regardless of whether a firearm is involved.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
True, from a criminological perspective, target hardening and the installation of lamp posts might discourage criminals, but it can only do so much to keep them at bay. If criminals know that there are no real defense mechanisms in a neighborhood (i.e. self-defense), there is nothing stopping them from barging right in and trapping the victim.
Some victims can't even call for help because they are immediately assaulted, raped/sexually abused, or restrained (like being tied to a bed).
The law enforcement system is likely in top enough shape to respond quickly, but some officers are even hesitant to combat the perpetrator, in fear of their own lives or simply due to hostage situations.
And it's difficult to blame them for that. But yes, guns do need to be more strictly regulated and controlled. I just think that banning them altogether could pose more of a problem than a solution.
And yes, I also agree that education and discipline is an important factor to reduce crime.
Guns that deter crime is statistically incorrect. Japan, Sweden, Norway have a low crime rate with low gun ownership.
Banning does create a black market and because a lot of things are illegal (prostitution, Marijuana, drugs etc) there is a lot of criminal activity in the US. What needs to be changed is a mindset that guns give protection. On top of that, poverty reduction needs to be a priority because if people are making a decent living and have the social services they wouldn't need to resort to crime. Denmark has one of the lowest pay inequality and there isn't a gun issue.
We have far more diverse population and people than USA has.Still we don't need to distribute guns to everyone.
Look it doesn't matter if one is educated or not.Don't educated people commit murder? If you have a gun in your hand if your temper rises suddenly,then one may shoot without even realising in a fit of rage.
I don't see the logic why an ordinary civilian should have a machine gun.
Though I agree with you women should be allowed guns to protect themselves from sexual assaults.
We have far more diverse population and people than USA has.Still we don't need to distribute guns to everyone.
Look it doesn't matter if one is educated or not.Don't educated people commit murder? If you have a gun in your hand if your temper rises suddenly,then one may shoot without even realising in a fit of rage.
I don't see the logic why an ordinary civilian should have a machine gun.
Though I agree with you women should be allowed guns to protect themselves from sexual assaults.
It's not that simple. The United States is held to a much higher standard because we are often compared to the "developed countries" in the world. Among all the developed countries, we are pretty high on the diversity scale, along with Russia.
If you compare our murder rates and mass shooting statistics to other developed countries, we top the charts.
However, compared to underdeveloped or developing countries, we have far less intentional homicides and violent crimes. You hear more stories about mass shootings from the US compared to other countries because we are always in the center of attention.
I never said educated people don't commit murder. But being educated makes you far less likely to do so. According to criminological theories, educated people statistically commit far fewer crimes than uneducated people.
Impulsiveness regarding violence mostly happens when people aren't educated.
And I never said I was supportive of the general population walking around with machine guns...
In fact, in my above posts, I even stated that there should be no reason for ordinary civilians to carry M249 LMGs or other weapons capable of rapid fire. However, civilian firearms are actually useful for self-protection and hunting, which benefits society if controlled.
And how come you think women are allowed to use guns, but not men?
Men should also be allowed to use guns for protection if there are women in society using it for self-defense. It's not like muscles make a man invincible.
Guns that deter crime is statistically incorrect. Japan, Sweden, Norway have a low crime rate with low gun ownership.
Banning does create a black market and because a lot of things are illegal (prostitution, Marijuana, drugs etc) there is a lot of criminal activity in the US. What needs to be changed is a mindset that guns give protection. On top of that, poverty reduction needs to be a priority because if people are making a decent living and have the social services they wouldn't need to resort to crime. Denmark has one of the lowest pay inequality and there isn't a gun issue.
Most cases of guns deterring crime/protecting victims are not recorded, mostly because it's too difficult to measure. Criminals wouldn't attempt to raid a house in the first place if they suspect that the owner possesses a firearm.
The United States is different from Japan, Sweden, and Norway because we have a far larger and more diverse population.
And I would even wager that Japanese, Swedish, and Norwegian families are much more disciplined, leading to a more controlled society and population.
Many factors contribute to low crime rates, and I am aware that guns isn't the only problem in existence.
That's why I agree with your third sentence and the rest following that.
Crime is mainly influenced by the general population's mindsets as well as the systems that govern society. U.S. citizens are given a good amount of freedom with little attention.
And yeah, I think the US needs to make some changes with social issues and society in general.
It's not that simple. The United States is held to a much higher standard because we are often compared to the "developed countries" in the world. Among all the developed countries, we are pretty high on the diversity scale, along with Russia.
If you compare our murder rates and mass shooting statistics to other developed countries, we top the charts.
However, compared to underdeveloped or developing countries, we have far less intentional homicides and violent crimes. You hear more stories about mass shootings from the US compared to other countries because we are always in the center of attention.
I never said educated people don't commit murder. But being educated makes you far less likely to do so. According to criminological theories, educated people statistically commit far fewer crimes than uneducated people.
Impulsiveness regarding violence mostly happens when people aren't educated.
And I never said I was supportive of the general population walking around with machine guns...
In fact, in my above posts, I even stated that there should be no reason for ordinary civilians to carry M249 LMGs or other weapons capable of rapid fire. However, civilian firearms are actually useful for self-protection and hunting, which benefits society if controlled.
And how come you think women are allowed to use guns, but not men?
Men should also be allowed to use guns for protection if there are women in society using it for self-defense. It's not like muscles make a man invincible.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Most cases of guns deterring crime/protecting victims are not recorded, mostly because it's too difficult to measure. Criminals wouldn't attempt to raid a house in the first place if they suspect that the owner possesses a firearm.
The United States is different from Japan, Sweden, and Norway because we have a far larger and more diverse population.
And I would even wager that Japanese, Swedish, and Norwegian families are much more disciplined, leading to a more controlled society and population.
Many factors contribute to low crime rates, and I am aware that guns isn't the only problem in existence.
That's why I agree with your third sentence and the rest following that.
Crime is mainly influenced by the general population's mindsets as well as the systems that govern society. U.S. citizens are given a good amount of freedom with little attention.
And yeah, I think the US needs to make some changes with social issues and society in general.
The reason why educated people don't commit as many crimes because they generally have better job; thus less likely to rely on crime to pay bills. Most deaths from guns outside the US are gang related. Other countries are different but by looking at their models and laws and studying why their crime rates are lower and why not many have guns the US can learn. In fact, I think even Canada can learn from other countries about social issues. Health care in the US heavily favours the elite and labour laws favour the employer. I think most want change (I watch a lot of US TV) but when the government is heavily conservative (no access to the birth control pill, wtf?) it's difficult to be on par socially.
Still forever balking at the idea of banning guns, mainly cuz I wanna own one some day.
No but seriously, so far it seems like banning guns would be detrimental because it won't stop people from illegally buying it. Bigger guns should be banned though, with stricter gun control laws put in place.
Still forever balking at the idea of banning guns, mainly cuz I wanna own one some day.
No but seriously, so far it seems like banning guns would be detrimental because it won't stop people from illegally buying it. Bigger guns should be banned though, with stricter gun control laws put in place.
People buying guns illegally is basically a cop-out in this case. Where do illegal guns come from? From legal guns of course. Guns that people lose, guns that get resold, guns that get stolen, asssholes who sell them illegally, god knows what else. Meaningful gun control isn't about adding an extra step to the gun buying process, it is about widespread and intentional reduction of availability of legal guns so that illegal guns become less available. But the US is simply not at a place where even gun control advocates would find this tolerable. Hence making the whole thing moot. Any gun control measure the US would be willing to pass is a wasted effort. Congress has made it illegal for public funds to go into gun violence research so even if you passed any of the less than half assed measures even the most anti gun people in the US aim for there would be virtually no way to get reliable data on whether what they are doing works. Ultimately the issue the US has with guns is cultural, people straight up worship their guns and are delusional, if not stupid, enough to think guns will protect them from a government.
People buying guns illegally is basically a cop-out in this case. Where do illegal guns come from? From legal guns of course. Guns that people lose, guns that get resold, guns that get stolen, asssholes who sell them illegally, god knows what else. Meaningful gun control isn't about adding an extra step to the gun buying process, it is about widespread and intentional reduction of availability of legal guns so that illegal guns become less available. But the US is simply not at a place where even gun control advocates would find this tolerable. Hence making the whole thing moot. Any gun control measure the US would be willing to pass is a wasted effort. Congress has made it illegal for public funds to go into gun violence research so even if you passed any of the less than half assed measures even the most anti gun people in the US aim for there would be virtually no way to get reliable data on whether what they are doing works. Ultimately the issue the US has with guns is cultural, people straight up worship their guns and are delusional, if not stupid, enough to think guns will protect them from a government.
Not necessarily. People can smuggle guns in like they do drugs.
Yeah, and the gun freaks will blame the other side for refusing to compromise when they're not even trying to ban all guns. I don't know if other countries' gun culture were as diehard as ours is, but if they were then we might have a chance.
Not necessarily. People can smuggle guns in like they do drugs.
Yeah, and the gun freaks will blame the other side for refusing to compromise when they're not even trying to ban all guns. I don't know if other countries' gun culture were as diehard as ours is, but if they were then we might have a chance.
What? Guns nowadays are smuggled from the US to mexico, not the other way around, which is how drug cartels in mexico are armed. And sure, other places produce guns but not even remotely close to what the US does.
