| Forum Index > Closed |
|
RobOwns
45 Posts
On September 25 2006 16:51 QuietIdiot wrote: Were they registered to the shooter? If so, then I'd look for any psychological disturbances in his past. If he had any, he shouldn't have been approved for firearm ownership.Yeah well, let's not forget that canadian shoot-out not so long ago. All the guy's guns were registered from what I've heard. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 25 2006 16:55 RobOwns wrote: [removed quote within quote]Good point, I admit. However, this is why I support very thorough background checks and as much as I'd hate to have to deal with the paperwork, I fully support the effort you have to go through to obtain any deadly weapon specifically designed for killing. I personally will purchase a pistol when I'm of legal age for the sole purpose of defending myself. I will however, have taken and completed a firearms use and safety course before I even step foot in a gun store. I personally think this should be mandatory. As it is you can buy a firearm if you have a clean record. Safety courses aren't mandatory. I'm willing to bet there'd be a lower occurance of accidents of people know how to correctly use and operate a firearm, as well as how to store it to prevent accidental misfirings. If I had children I would consider getting rid of any firearms I own for fear they'd accidentally stumble across it, even knowing that if I do my job adequately, that should never happen. Thanks. I can respect that. I'm not trying to say that I have the perfect solution, or even that there is a perfect solution, just that care must be taken to protect those without guns. Your idea of mandatory checks and training sounds like it could get the job done. | ||
|
Sharkey
668 Posts
In Alaska, the "Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 635" in 2005; which grew from 72 per 100,000 the year before and 180 per 100,000 from 2003. So it is safe to assume that unrestricted gun control is not working in Alaska and Violent Crimes are drastacally increasing. Whereas in Vermont the Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 112 in 2005; which grew marginally from 107 per 100,000 in 2004, and was 137 per 100,000 in 2003. This is the least offenses per 100,000 of all the states. While Alaska was 44th state for least violent crimes. Sources: http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2005/states/Alaska.html http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2005/states/Vermont.html | ||
|
Konni
Germany3044 Posts
| ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32269 Posts
| ||
|
pirate cod
810 Posts
| ||
|
drift0ut
United Kingdom691 Posts
On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: [*]Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates. that's just rubbish, guns have never been common in the UK, (as in i won't rob that helpless old woman cos she might be packing a 9mm, common) the fact that crime has rocketed would have had nothing to do with it, the ppl who had guns would still have them just illigally. i'm against guns because to be frank, they scare the shit out of me. I've lived my live for 20 odd years now and the only time I've seen guns have been at airports and target ranges. i like it that way. The way i see it is that the more guns you have the more ppl get shot and to my mind that's bad. I don't get the deterent argument either: If you have a gun you can just mug someone at gun point, even if you think the other person has one too you can still say "don't draw your gun or i'll shoot you" (or words to that effect, i'm not really bad-ass enough to make it sound convincing) what good is the deterent now? a gun is a deterrent in that if the mugged person decides to fight back, the criminal get hurt more, but they are less likly to fight back because the hurt for them if they try and fail will be equally worse. Also say fight back is susessful, and the robber dies, is that really a good thing? the law (and any country/state) would say no because even most gun crimes are not punishable by death. edit: urg i hate writing give me numbers any day, the guy above me said the last 3 paragraphs much better than i did and faster, sorry | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4611 Posts
However, I cannot dispute the fact that the increase in violent crime can only be attributed to gun control. I know that there are many other variables that correspond to violent crime. However, one must also see that there are paralells. Most of you people use statistics with plenty of variables and give the statistics as facts as well. I know that I probably should have pointed out the fact that some variables could have changed the outcome of the statistics; however, one cannot fail to see that there are plenty of examples of gun control and violent crimes showing a clear trend. | ||
|
j0ehoe
United States2705 Posts
On September 25 2006 16:25 penitent exile wrote: I figure that liberals think the 2nd amendment is outdated. Except for those few who need to hunt for food, guns are only used in crime. So, if it were possible, complete gun control is good. [2nd amendment is just for fighting against an injust gov't, and, since the gov't is so unbelievably powerful militarily, no chance of that] However, since the criminals will always be able to get guns, I don't think gun control makes much sense. gun control would be awesome, but its something thats never going to happen. too unrealistic; its a utopian idea. most crimes involved with guns are acquired illegally. take away legal guns, how do you defend yourself? i wish it would happen, but if anything, crime will raise at an alarming rate, as scumbags begin to pray on people without any reservations | ||
|
DJEtterStyle
United States2766 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:07 Sharkey wrote: In Alaska, the "Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 635" in 2005; which grew from 72 per 100,000 the year before and 180 per 100,000 from 2003. So it is safe to assume that unrestricted gun control is not working in Alaska and Violent Crimes are drastacally increasing. Alaska pride! Yeah! That said, the vast, vast, vast majority of killings up here are Natives, Filipinos, and Samoans. The Natives have to have access to guns because they get most of their meat from hunting and/or fishing. And the Filipinos and Samoans are in gangs, meaning that they get their guns illegally. So no, your statement about "unrestricted gun control not working in Alaska" is incorrect. I'd wager that extra gun control would result in a tiny decrease in the amount of murders and a reasonable increase in the amount of other violent crimes. Culture and context have a much greater effect upon how a people act than laws ever will. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On September 25 2006 16:12 thedeadhaji wrote: There can always be other factors causing those incrases and declines in statistics, but I guess I can leave them as truths for the time being. Here's one reason I'm for gun control. Typical TV ad situation of some kid going to a friend's house where the parents have a gun. They are playing around with it, it fires, and one of them dies. I sure as hell don't want this happeneing to anyone I know  Guns dont cause deaths. Idiots do. And there are quite a few idiots in the world dont you think? Yeah, that image of the 2 kids messing around with a gun and accidentally killing one of them is an image so deeply ingrained into my mind and certainly many others that we sometimes ignore the evidence supporting less strict gun control. Not to mention Columbine was probably a huge leap for gun control activists. Personally though, I still believe in gun control and think that those statistics have to be attributed to a multitude of other things. More specifically, I agree that a complete ban on firearms is unreasonable. I do believe that they could be more stringent with background checks and deciding who can legally own a gun. Some obvious criteria in addition to a more gruelling background check that could probably be improved upon is a clean criminal record, but that's already a prerequisite. Perhaps they should not allow parents of small children(or children living with them at all...) to own handguns. | ||
|
j0ehoe
United States2705 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:31 drift0ut wrote: [removed quote within quote] Also say fight back is susessful, and the robber dies, is that really a good thing? the law (and any country/state) would say no because even most gun crimes are not punishable by death. honestly, if i had a gun for my OWN SAFETY (not some malicious intent) and some crackhead or some other lovely character came up to me and tried to jack me up, i would have no problem putting one in his head. come to think of it, id be glad to. the idiot would be back out there the second he got out of jail, most likely. | ||
|
RobOwns
45 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:03 Lemonwalrus wrote: You're welcome. I think the problem with most guns today is that they get into the wrong hands to begin with. If you give a criminal a gun, he'll use it to benefit himself. Give a law-abiding citizen a gun, and they will use it only if they absolutely have to (ideally).[removed quote within quote] Thanks. I can respect that. I'm not trying to say that I have the perfect solution, or even that there is a perfect solution, just that care must be taken to protect those without guns. Your idea of mandatory checks and training sounds like it could get the job done. I've weighed both having guns be legal, illegal, and restriced. I think restriction needs more emphasis. If you cut off the larger problem at the root, then you fix a lot of the problems. Of course, this could cause more problems I've overlooked. Of course, criminals always will have guns, no matter what the laws say. It's awfully difficult to tell what a person's intentions are just by looking at them, so getting as much concrete information about them is key. Have they committed any crimes? If yes, were weapons involved? How long ago was this? There are a lot of variables that need to be taken into account, and currently aren't, to the best of my knowledge. Again, restricting legal firearms to those who are clearly law-abiding is, in my opinion, the best course of action. I'm open to alternatives, of course. I try to stay open-minded. On September 25 2006 17:07 Sharkey wrote: I'm glad you brought this up. I think one of the largest problems is that the laws change from state to state. I think this presents a multitude of problems. First, I could carry in one state, and go on vacation in another state, and be carrying illegally. Secondly, what's legal in one state isn't legal in another. I can't buy a butterfly knife because they're outlawed in Massachusetts, but I could have a friend in Maine buy one for me. The point I'm trying to make is that if different states can't even cooperate, how does the US, as a country, expect to control guns in general? I think the first step to improving gun conditions, in the US anyways, is to create a uniform law that all states abide by.Reasons for Gun Control seem to be state independent. From my research, ie the last five minutes, only two states have "No permit required for concealed carry" of weapons. They have unrestricted use of guns in the states of Alaska and Vermont. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States) In Alaska, the "Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 635" in 2005; which grew from 72 per 100,000 the year before and 180 per 100,000 from 2003. So it is safe to assume that unrestricted gun control is not working in Alaska and Violent Crimes are drastacally increasing. Whereas in Vermont the Violent Crime (Offenses per 100,000 population) is 112 in 2005; which grew marginally from 107 per 100,000 in 2004, and was 137 per 100,000 in 2003. This is the least offenses per 100,000 of all the states. While Alaska was 44th state for least violent crimes. Sources: http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2005/states/Alaska.html http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2005/states/Vermont.html On September 25 2006 17:08 Konni wrote: I live in the United States, unfortuntely. I didn't vote for Bush, so don't blame me. robowns where do you live?  On September 25 2006 17:23 pirate cod wrote: You make some good points. As someone who believes in taking the necessary steps to ensure one's own safety, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Police offers rarely have to draw their weapon. Actually, every police officer I've ever talked to personally, or heard speak, has said they've never had to draw their weapon, or they've had to only once or twice in their years of service. The idea behind carrying a concealed weapon is more to have it just in case than to not have it at all.I'm still a bit unsure why exactly you need guns for anything if you're a civilian. To protect yourself? From who? I've walked through rough parts of New Jersey and and New York at awful times of the night and have never held a gun in my life and if I were to be in trouble I cannot say holding a gun would change things for the better. Someone explain to me a situation where you actually need a gun that would otherwise alter a lifethreatening outcome. You're being mugged on the street by gun point. He's not out to kill you, but you take out your gun to protect yourself and he shoots you. Guys out to kill you, he shoots you, what use is that gun. Ban all guns seems like a good solution. While the obvious thug would still be able to get his hands on a gun, logic tells me even while warranting those exceptions, banning guns would be for the better. To the bold: You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has a pistol in his hand.If you have a gun, you can put two in his chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have a gun, you can either hope he isn't going to shoot you, or be shot, and die. I know that's a rather minimalist way of looking at things, but it's true. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4611 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:51 ))(())(( wrote: [removed quote within quote] honestly, if i had a gun for my OWN SAFETY (not some malicious intent) and some crackhead or some other lovely character came up to me and tried to jack me up, i would have no problem putting one in his head. come to think of it, id be glad to. the idiot would be back out there the second he got out of jail, most likely. While I most certainly don't agree with what you would be using the gun for, you do raise a somewhat awkward yet valid point. However, I would probably just threaten him with it and if he got too "friendly" I would probably shoot him in the foot or something that wouldn't endanger his life. | ||
|
RobOwns
45 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:57 hasuprotoss wrote: I agree with this.[removed quote within quote] While I most certainly don't agree with what you would be using the gun for, you do raise a somewhat awkward yet valid point. However, I would probably just threaten him with it and if he got too "friendly" I would probably shoot him in the foot or something that wouldn't endanger his life. I don't think killing is okay unless you kill that person to prevent them from killing you. If someone, for example, were to walk up to me, draw a pistol, and then point it at me, giving no indication it's a mugging, I'd have to assume they're about to kill me, forcing me to take the appropriate actions. If I honestly think someone is about to kill me, well, I don't think I'd have much trouble taking them down first. However, killing another person because they want your money, in my opinion, isn't okay. | ||
|
Konni
Germany3044 Posts
You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has a pistol in his hand.If you have a gun, you can put two in his chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have a gun, you can either hope he isn't going to shoot you, or be shot, and die. Okay how often is this going to happen? From now on you better shouldn't go out without a helmet (falling rocks) and an iron cage around you (lightning bolts!). And don't forget to always carry a fake penis with you to distract any attacking killer condoms (referring to your first post in this thread). | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:51 ))(())(( wrote: And what if that idiot crackhead had a gun himself. What do you think he's gonna do if you pull a gun on him, give up? Hell no. Since he already has the element of surprise, he's gonna fuckin put one in your head. But without the risk of death, he will most likely just take your wallet and run away. So either you are an expert marksman with 10 years of quick draw experience to outshoot him, or you get seriously injured yourself if not die. Is 20 bucks really worth it now to protect your manhood?[removed quote within quote] honestly, if i had a gun for my OWN SAFETY (not some malicious intent) and some crackhead or some other lovely character came up to me and tried to jack me up, i would have no problem putting one in his head. come to think of it, id be glad to. the idiot would be back out there the second he got out of jail, most likely. On September 25 2006 16:03 hasuprotoss wrote: 66% reported that they hadn't. Since TL.net is a more liberal site, I just wanted to know why you favor gun control. While looking at the facts, I just can't see any good reason at it for all. Here are some of the reasons: [list][*]In 1982, 34% of prisoners reported that they had been shot at or scared off by a victim's handgun. [*]Between 1976 and 1991 Washington DC has had the highest crime rate in the country (Washington DC enacted a gun ban in 1976) The population of washingon has skyrocketed since and become a surprisingly impoverished and dangerous city. [*]Since enacting a gun ban in Great Britain, it's violent crime rates have skyrocketed, near or above America's rates. Japan has a gun ban and has one of the lowest crime/homicide if not THE lowest in the world.[*]Between 1987 and 1996 Florida had seen a 36% decrease in homicide, a 37% decrease in firearm homicide, and a 41% decrease in handgun homicide; The population among elderly people has dramatically increased in Florida. 80 year old grannies arent known for homicide. (Note: Most of my statistics were gained from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ,except the staistic on Great Britain where I read it from Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg) Like most people, you selected a source of information designed to validate your points. This is not the method of a truth seeker. If you are honestly curious about gun ownership and homicide rates, you need to seek out information which disproves your theory and question their motives as well. | ||
|
RobOwns
45 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:06 Konni wrote: It probably won't ever happen. I never said it would happen. I simply gave an example.Okay how often is this going to happen? From now on you better shouldn't go out without a helmet (falling rocks) and an iron cage around you (lightning bolts!). And don't forget to always carry a fake penis with you to distract any attacking killer condoms (referring to your first post in this thread) [removed quote within quote] Rocks don't fall out of the sky for no apparent reason where I live. Maybe you should consider moving. O.O If I'm outside in thunderstorms, it's my own fault if I get hit. I also never once mentioned killer condoms. You missed the point, and took my idea out of context. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4611 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: [removed quote within quote] And what if that idiot crackhead had a gun himself. What do you think he's gonna do if you pull a gun on him, give up? Hell no. Since he already has the element of surprise, he's gonna fuckin put one in your head. But without the risk of death, he will most likely just take your wallet and run away. So either you are an expert marksman with 10 years of quick draw experience to outshoot him, or you get seriously injured yourself if not die. Is 20 bucks really worth it now to protect your manhood? 66% reported that they hadn't. You fail to see the importance. There are many ideas as to why the 66% hadn't reported so. Maybe their victims didn't have a gun. You, sir, are an idiot who tries to distort facts. The population of washingon has skyrocketed since and become a surprisingly impoverished and dangerous city. You fail to see that the violent crime rate with FIREARMS has skyrocketed as well. So gun control ISN'T WORKING, and yet you validate it because it will work? What the fuck? Japan has a gun ban and has one of the lowest crime/homicide if not THE lowest in the world. A good point. So maybe their is some other variable. Yet, I don't see the fact that gun control works, and it won't work in America. The population among elderly people has dramatically increased in Florida. 80 year old grannies arent known for homicide. Doesn't change the fact that the crime rate DECREASED and that gun control played at least a minor role in the issue. Like most people, you selected a source of information designed to validate your points. This is not the method of a truth seeker. If you are honestly curious about gun ownership and homicide rates, you need to seek out information which disproves your theory and question their motives as well. I fail to see your point. I put forward points to make gun control seem irrational. I asked YOU, the people who I would think agree with gun control, to come up with the facts and statistics and reasoning behind it. I fail to see how I fail to see to seek the truth. Stop bloviating, and shut up. | ||
|
pirate cod
810 Posts
You wake up to the sound of shattering glass. You peek out of your bedroom door to see a shadowy figure moving up your stairs. It's obvious he has an axe in his hand.If you have an axe, you can hide behind your door, wait to see what his priorities are and as he comes into your bedroom to kill you and your wife you nail him right in the chest. Now you're alive, and he's dead.If you don't have an axe, you can either hope he isn't going to chop you, or be chopped, and die. What's the difference? Ban guns. The ability to kill is less likely, crimerates drop as it's alot easier to run from a guy with a 2x4 with a rusty nail lodged in it than a gun. And you can protect yourself with a less lethal but still efficient weapon. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War actioN Dota 2 1320Larva 636firebathero  336Leta 103Shinee 77Hyun 66sorry 60Killer 58Last 50NaDa 32[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
WardiTV Invitational
herO vs ByuN
TBD vs Zoun
Classic vs GuMiho
TBD vs Cure
SHIN vs ShoWTimE
SKillous vs Bunny
Epic.LAN
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
Clem vs Zoun
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
