Should weapons be outlawed In the U.S.

should they why?

 

No way. Scary question. If weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have weapons...

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. There should be strict limits on who can have firearms and who can purchase them. Enforce our existing laws to the fullest.

 

Define what is a weapon. Does my sai or kama count? How about my tonfa, eskrima bastognes, or bo staff? How about my knives or sword? Box cutters in my garage?

 

I wonder why do people keep asking the same question, but in a new
word arrangement, and I have posted it manytime there is NO WAY
in the hell will weapons ever get banned or outlawed here in the states.

Besides that would violation the 2nd admendment(The rights to bare arms)

 

If weapons are outlawed, I'll be a silent outlaw.
But not a victim.

 

I agree with Sgt. Shultz, what are you defining as a weapon here? A nail in the end of a 2x4 is a weapon, and talk to any prison guard and ask them about what they find made into weapons.
In the assumption you are talking about guns and defining them as weapons, I would disagree with that definition. A weapon is usually defined as an instrument in which one uses in an offensive way to harm or exert control over another. By this definition, the shotgun I was using earlier today to trap shoot with is not a weapon. A "weapon" is generally an inanimate object that on its own is not capable of being used as a weapon on its own, but takes a human to turn it into one.
But to answer your question, No they should not be outlawed, because in order to do that we would all have to live in isolated padded bubbles.

 

Exactly how many of your rights are you willing to give up in order to support an illusion of safety? List them off one by one.

 

Conservatives always do this. They play on your rights whenever you want to legislate something they don't want, saying you are loosing your freedoms. Then when they want to slap regulations or bans on something they say it is protecting your freedoms.

 

You either are willing to sacrifice rights and freedom for the illusion of security or you are not. It isn't a play on anything. It is what it is. People who argue to restrict firearms ownership do so because they believe that such restrictions will make them safer all the while ignoring the fact that the states with the strictest gun control measures in place have the highest gun crime rates.

Ultimately, you are responsible for your own protection and safety.

 

Interestingly though countries with strict gun control measures do not.

 

In england, since the broad gun ban went into effect in 1997,violent crime rate has risen 69 percent with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. From 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the
population -- have been victimized by violent crime. In Australia more than 30 percent of its population have been victims of violent crime. In the US, less than 2% of the population have been victims of violent crimes.

Very similar trends can be seen in canada and australia.

 

I found some interesting stats - that are surprising and disturbing. In terms of violent crime - particualrly murder, US is #24 - but note numbers 1-23, all pretty Third World countries or countries with substantial amounts of unrest, corruption, and lack of law. Australia and Canada are 42 and 43 respectively. UK is 46, Ireland is 55. Source is http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...ders-per-capita.


Murder Statistics - internationally
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

Now, according to another source (http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta_index.htm#Recorded) I found the following point in regards to the UK:


* The amount of crime recorded by the police in 2005-06 was down by 1% on the previous year's figure.
* There was a rise in violent crime of 2% compared to 2004-05
* The police detection rate rose 5% (compared with 2004-05)
* Overall crime levels were stable, as were violent crime levels.
* Victimisation rates (the chance of becoming a victim of crime) was the lowest since the BCS began in 1981
* Repeat victimisation levels were stable. Victims of vandalism and common assault were most likely to suffer repeat victimisation.

This shows that there was indeed a very small jump in violent crime in the UK. I am wondering if this is the sort of data that gun rights advocates use in making claims that strict gun control has led to a rise in violent crime? If so - I question the conclusions. Strict gun control has been in place for a long time in the UK so one would assume we should be seeing figures in violent crime that is at least comparable to that we see in the US. These sort of conclusions also don't take into account other factors for violent crime such as immigration and poverty.


In addition, I also found the following (but forgot to copy the source URL)

Gun Crime in Great Britain

The official figures for gun crime in England and Wales in 2002/03 were announced in January 2004. There were a total of 24,070 firearm offences of which 57% (13,822) involved air weapons, the highest number of offences ever. The largest increase in offences was seen with imitation firearms for which there was an annual increase of 46% to 1815 offences.

The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.

Criminal statistics England and Wales 2002/2003. Supplementary Volume 1. Homicide and Gun Crime (edited by David Povey). National Statistics. January 2004

Recorded Crimes and Offences involving Firearms, Scotland, 2003. Scottish Executive National Statistical Bulletin. October 2004



One additional item to consider in trying to make comparisons of crime rates among different countries and that is how crime is reported and categorized. In an Australian governmental site at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html, the following is found:


The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.



Anyway - make of it what you will. I'm not exactly pro or anti-control - as I own guns, but I also see the need for a reasonable degree of regulation. I'd hate to think that the guy driving behind me honking his horn and all pissed off because I'm not making a right turn on red fast enough to suit him might be packing

 

NO...No weapons should be outlawed in the United States.
Because without firmarms idiots would take over homes and
businesses. I would NEVER give my weapon up because of
some stupid law, and besizes it would violate the 2nd admend.

There is to many crooks out there with un registered weapons,
and to take away the Weapon for Protection many illegal guns
would be sold. This is the most dumbest thread question I
have ever read. I have a personal permit to carry my weapon
on me at all times.

 

murder rate

Muder rate is not the same as "murder via firearm"...do you have stats on that?