I am in favor of a hand gun ban. In the U.S. 81% of firearm associated homicides were committed with small caliber hand guns.
Additionally, for every single occurrence of firearms used in self defense, there are 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides. Overall, only 2.3 gun related deaths are considered justifiable self-defense.
Guns are not an adequate deterrent. Guns are not an effective means of protection. I'd be willing to argue that rifles used for hunting should remain legal, but there is no reason for handguns to be allowed.
U.S.: Should People Be Allowed To Legally Carry Loaded Guns?
SodaHead News
2010/05/14 14:40:20
|
|
|||||
|
409 votes
|
|
73% | ||
|
85 votes
|
|
15% | ||
|
64 votes
|
|
11% | ||
A majority of Americans oppose people carrying loaded guns openly in public. More feel unsafe than feel safer - and a third feel much less safe with that knowledge.
“Politicians who are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, and businesses who worry about offending gun rights extremists, should look at this data and be aware that there is potentially a large price to pay with voters and customers alike,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center. “Having more guns in public places not only puts more people at risk, it clearly makes people feel less safe.”
There is a sizable gender gap in the data, according to a poll conducted for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence by Lake Research Partner, with 63 percent of women feeling less safe with allowing open carry. The gap, of 49 points between men and women, represents “one of the largest divides seen on current issues,” researchers report. Voters who were identified as people of color also “solidly and intensively” oppose allowing open carry.
· Fifty-two percent oppose allowing people in general, not just those connected to law enforcement, to carry loaded guns openly in public;
· Fifty percent of voters feel less safe knowing that people not connected to law enforcement can carry guns in public, while 38 percent feel more safe.
· A majority - 51 percent of those polled - said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier for people to carry loaded guns in public, compared to 27 percent who were more likely to support such a candidate. Fully 63 percent of women said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier to carry guns in public.
· Women across all groups oppose open carry broadly - 76 percent of women of color, 68 percent of urban women and older women, 59 percent of suburban women 55 percent of younger women and a majority of rural women.
· When it comes to concealed weapons, 57 percent of respondents said they felt less safe knowing people can carry loaded, concealed guns in public. Fully 39 percent of respondents said they felt much less safe knowing that people may be carrying concealed, loaded weapons.
“Politicians who are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, and businesses who worry about offending gun rights extremists, should look at this data and be aware that there is potentially a large price to pay with voters and customers alike,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center. “Having more guns in public places not only puts more people at risk, it clearly makes people feel less safe.”
There is a sizable gender gap in the data, according to a poll conducted for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence by Lake Research Partner, with 63 percent of women feeling less safe with allowing open carry. The gap, of 49 points between men and women, represents “one of the largest divides seen on current issues,” researchers report. Voters who were identified as people of color also “solidly and intensively” oppose allowing open carry.
· Fifty-two percent oppose allowing people in general, not just those connected to law enforcement, to carry loaded guns openly in public;
· Fifty percent of voters feel less safe knowing that people not connected to law enforcement can carry guns in public, while 38 percent feel more safe.
· A majority - 51 percent of those polled - said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier for people to carry loaded guns in public, compared to 27 percent who were more likely to support such a candidate. Fully 63 percent of women said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier to carry guns in public.
· Women across all groups oppose open carry broadly - 76 percent of women of color, 68 percent of urban women and older women, 59 percent of suburban women 55 percent of younger women and a majority of rural women.
· When it comes to concealed weapons, 57 percent of respondents said they felt less safe knowing people can carry loaded, concealed guns in public. Fully 39 percent of respondents said they felt much less safe knowing that people may be carrying concealed, loaded weapons.
Read More: http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1247/
Top Opinion
-
Epistemically Justified -- BN7 2010/05/14 17:16:27
The reason he will likely give this answer is because he wants his potential victims to BECOME victims one said inmate is released and strikes again! I have used a firearm in self-defense, and didn't have to fire it. The statistics will not reflect cases such as mine or anyone else's which have similar circumstances, because it doesn't get filed, make the news, or go to court!
Take our freedom to adequately defend ourselves away from us and you will have criminals preying on vulnerable people MUCH more often!
Bears would be a primary reason why many Canadians in rural areas travel armed! But hey you know right?
I understand....my Pop never shot anyone (Bombed the crap outta a few in WW2) until our home was invaded and he defended his family! Just like a mother bear would hers!
No law enforcement was available at the time. They came after the fact!
A driving test does not cover a person later having road rage and using their auto as a weapon.
Do you take your childs skateboard away because little Billy down the street screwed up a trick and broke his wrist or worse is in a coma?
The proper interpretation of the Constitution is what keeps these laws from getting stricter.
We've seen crime increases as a result of gun prohibition in countries around the world; Mexico, UK and Australia to name a few. I'm an NRA member and a CCW permit holder who's never committed a crime (other than 1 moving violation) and I feel insulted and threatened by the California's legislator for declaring the carry of firearms on their state territory a serious offense. I've never committed a crime in Arizona, New Mexico, Florida or Colorado and I've carried my gun without incident in each of these states; am I to assume I'll become a deadly felon upon crossing Cal...
We've seen crime increases as a result of gun prohibition in countries around the world; Mexico, UK and Australia to name a few. I'm an NRA member and a CCW permit holder who's never committed a crime (other than 1 moving violation) and I feel insulted and threatened by the California's legislator for declaring the carry of firearms on their state territory a serious offense. I've never committed a crime in Arizona, New Mexico, Florida or Colorado and I've carried my gun without incident in each of these states; am I to assume I'll become a deadly felon upon crossing California's border?
I recommend you watch this video documenting the aftermath of Britain's gun ban before jumping to any rash conclusions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The bottom line is: guns are an extension of it's user's will. A young woman can fend of a physically superior rapist, or a cowardly criminal can take advantage of his unarmed victims. This fact will not change if guns are made illegal.
I'm sorry but thats not a logically sound argument, the problem is equivalence. If someone draws a hand gun to threaten me, I should have the means to deter that action, drawing an equivalent gun means that he is at least on equal footing, we both run the possibility of losing our lives. That fact is the reason it deters criminals. Its the same reason criminals dont want to be caught by the law, the difference is long term versus immediate, the law deals with long term consequences, I have to deal with the immediate, but without an equivalent deterrance the criminal doesnt have to deal with an immediate consequence.
As an outlandish example if I see some guy carrying around a gatlin gun, I am not going anywhere near him. Reason being I can see the danger ahead of time. Its the unknown circumstances that we need to be prepared for.
And you are right about one thing, if I carry a gun I should be prepared to use it, up to and including killing someone, if i'm not then the gun does me no good. However it is just as wrong to allow someone to kill me without trying to stop it.
Unfortunately the most effective way to stop someone is to bring the consequences immediately to the forefront, again, up to and including killing them if needed.
I didn't see it recently when I looked at their website, but you can call them and ask.
http://www.masterguard.com/