EPTReasons for Gun Control? - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
| ||
|
RobOwns
45 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: It would be 100% if there was a gun ban.66% reported that they hadn't. On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: Japan also has an entirely different societal structure than most other countries. Apples and oranges.Japan has a gun ban and has one of the lowest crime/homicide if not THE lowest in the world. On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: I have to agree with you here. Although, it's human nature to do that. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's nothing wrong with that, especially seeing as he isn't writing a paper that will be published in an academic journal. It's just a forum post designed to spark some discussion.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. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:18 pirate cod wrote: Konni really nails it on the head. Lets say guns are banned, death by homocides drop drastically. 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 [removed quote within quote] The problem with that is that a gun ban wouldn't stop criminals from having guns. They are criminals, so they won't mind having to break the law to get their hands on guns, whereas law abiding citizens won't purchase guns for defense because it is illegal. Therefore the criminal will be more likely to have a gun, and the victim will be less likely to have a gun. | ||
|
ShabZzoY!
Great Britain760 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:45 hasuprotoss wrote: Everyone stating that criminals will still have weapons with a gun control ban just support what I believe in. With a gun control ban nobody would have a way to defend themselves. At least three-quarters of a million times in a year will a person defend himself against crime with a firearm. There was a shooting in a Law School in Virginia where a failing student decided to go on a shooting spree. He was tied down by three students, two of which had guns on their body at the time they subdued him. I find it very strange you would choose this example to support your case. Look at it: An apparently normal person had enough and went on a shooting spree. How exactly would he have been able to do this if guns were banned? Its not suggested he was an organised criminal, more than he simply walked into a shop one day and left with a lethal weapon. | ||
|
drift0ut
United Kingdom691 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:15 hasuprotoss wrote: 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. and from your first post starting this topic: I just wanted to know why you favor gun control. you've lost me btw. bloviating is a good word well done, had to look that one up (i know lots of words but can't spell 'em so end up useing the same old crappy ones again and again On September 25 2006 18:22 Lemonwalrus wrote: [removed quote within quote] The problem with that is that a gun ban wouldn't stop criminals from having guns. They are criminals, so they won't mind having to break the law to get their hands on guns, whereas law abiding citizens won't purchase guns for defense because it is illegal. Therefore the criminal will be more likely to have a gun, and the victim will be less likely to have a gun. it's more more crime to arrest them for tho. | ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
imo i wouldn't trust the everyday person to own a gun. people have their ups and downs and when something like that is readily available you never know what might happen. if you really wanted to rid everyone of their guns, you'd have to ease them into the idea over time. when people are accepting that guns are no longer necessary, then you can put in anti-gun laws. my guess is, that won't happen anytime soon though. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4681 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:21 RobOwns wrote: Japan also has an entirely different societal structure than most other countries. Apples and oranges.Whoa, unneccessary hostility. Newb made his points, but you don't have to attack him because his opinions differ from yours. [removed quote within quote]has one of the lowest crime/homicide if not THE lowest in the world. On September 25 2006 18:08 NewbSaibot wrote: I have to agree with you here. Although, it's human nature to do that. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's nothing wrong with that, especially seeing as he isn't writing a paper that will be published in an academic journal. It's just a forum post designed to spark some discussion.[/QUOTE]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. Yes, I probably went over my head, but the fact is that he attempted to prove me wrong by not backing up any of his statistics. I agree with L!MP, if a gun ban could have been enacted before guns were far abound in America there would be a better chance of gun control working; unfortunately, it is too late. NewbSaibot, if you decide to actually make some points and prove your opinion is actually better by providing your own research, then I would be happy to try and debate with you farther. | ||
|
pirate cod
810 Posts
Obviously thugs will get their hands on guns. But think of it like this. If heroin were legal, do you not think that more people would be doing it as it would be more easily accessible. Sorry I can't think of a better comparison as of now I don't really like that one but oh well. | ||
|
Sharkey
668 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:46 DJEtterStyle wrote: [removed quote within quote] 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. Yeah, I was 'just' reporting the facts. But I agree with you that facts can only say so much, if you don't interrept them, they become useless and not applicable to real life situations. But if you do interpret them, their is a probability that they will be biased. I am glad that you corrected my assumption, that is all it was, about the violent crime rate in Alaska. Do you have any stats about violent crime rate in Alaska and how it pertains to certian ethnic groups. Is their a correlation between them and violent crimes, or is it between poor people (who often happen to be miniorities) and violent crimes. If you could provide facts about your statements it would deliver much more validity to your assumptions. But overal thanks for correcting me, I really appreciate it. | ||
|
ShabZzoY!
Great Britain760 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:56 RobOwns wrote: 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. You are walking down the street. Everything goes black. You just got shot in the head by a maniac with a rifle, who yesterday had happily strolled into a shop and purchased said weapon with no problems. I suppose my point is, where do you stop? Say if everyone still had swords, you could buy a suit of armour for protection. When everyone has pistols you can buy some kevlar and a gun of your own. Are you safe? Hell no. What about if someone shoots an rpg at you? Maybe you should carry a nuke to protect yourself. I just think guns are one step too far on the ladder. | ||
|
red.venom
United States4651 Posts
On September 25 2006 17:45 ))(())(( wrote: [removed quote within quote] 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 This is the kind of fear-monger thinking that keeps america scared and buying guns(Which is what the gun manufacturers want of course). A person with this type of idealogy would rather put one far fetched instance ahead of the safety of hundreds of people who are victimized via legally acquired weapons... America may have a problem with poverty, but it doesnt mean that banning fire arms in the states would turn our world into Thunderdome. There are many other countries, some far poorer than america that have firearm bans, much easier to evade law enforcement and they do OK. Considering we are the richest country in the world I am sure it could be kept under control. | ||
|
ShabZzoY!
Great Britain760 Posts
| ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4681 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:35 red.venom wrote: [removed quote within quote] This is the kind of fear-monger thinking that keeps america scared and buying guns(Which is what the gun manufacturers want of course). A person with this type of idealogy would rather put one far fetched instance ahead of the safety of hundreds of people who are victimized via legally acquired weapons... America may have a problem with poverty, but it doesnt mean that banning fire arms in the states would turn our world into Thunderdome. There are many other countries, some far poorer than america that have firearm bans, much easier to evade law enforcement and they do OK. Considering we are the richest country in the world I am sure it could be kept under control. I see the point you make here. Would violent crimes increase or decrease with a gun ban on America? It can only be speculated at this point and I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that violent crimes will go up. However, I am not a criminologist or whatever so I can't really say my speculation is completely correct. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
The simple fact is when a gun is involved in any type of struggle the chance of someone dying skyrockets. Brandishing a firearm is a crisis is only inviting further danger to yourself. Unless the attacker is 30 feet away and from now on you will just start pulling your gun on any suspicious looking villain to keep that safety bubble intact. Hasuprotss wrote: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. And so is the website you linked to. 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? What im saying is of course violent crimes are going to increase in a city who's population increases whether there is a gun law or not. There is a reason there are more crimes in Los Angeles than in Dinglewood Kansas. Referring to Japan's gun control: 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. You dont see any connection here at all? You think it purely coincidental? What do you think would happen if Japan abolished their gun laws? Do you honestly think nothing would change at all? I agree that it wont work in america, and ill explain why later.Referring to florida's elderly popluation: Doesn't change the fact that the crime rate DECREASED and that gun control played at least a minor role in the issue. Crime has a certain demographic. When that demographic completely vacates a location, so will the crime. Florida's gun laws had nothing to do with their crime rates. Florida now has a dense population of senior citizens, so regardless of how many street thugs there are, their sheer size in numbers will skew the statistic lower (the fundamental reason why you should never rely on statistics only to paint a picture).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. You fail to seek the truth because you know a better source of information exists and yet you avoid it. You cant play it off like you came here hoping to find the answers to all your questions and be converted and if that didnt happen, well you did your best, and in the end you were right all along and gun control is useless. Let's understand a little something about crime. Most crimes are committed out of a persons belief in necessity. If you make it dangerous for a criminal to attack someone, by instilling a fear of death into every criminal because they must now face the very likely possibility that every citizen is armed, do you really think they will just stop robbing people, and choose to live under the bridge, suck dick for a living, and banana peels out of the dumpster? No, they will simply guarantee their crimes to be a success. When a man attacks you from behind to steal your wallet, he isnt hoping that he is successful, he feels he will 100% be successful. With the opponent having a weapon at their disposal, he must now escalate his measure to guarantee success. So instead of him simply puching you in the face and kicking you while you are down, he will just casually walk up from behind you and kill you on the spot, before you even have a chance to defend yourself. Not worth the risk for him since everyone has a gun. In america right now, it's pretty much as good as you can get if you arent willing to reform people, improve quality of life, invest in law enforcement, etc etc, which most people arent. Since criminals are just "bad people" and theres no way to change them, let alone how bad it makes you feel to improve those who's lives are worse than yours. So we let them rott, and become hazards to our own health. If we disarm everyone, yes crime will probably increase. The country is too far blown, there are too many illegally spread firearms distributed amongst the criminals. But it could be a lot worse if we let firearms go completely unrestricted. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
"Yea man so when i was in New York, I had to wait like 2 fuckin weeks to get my baretta! What the fuck is that shit? Man so inconvenient. Anyway once i got down here (south carolina) i figured i might as well stock up on all the shit i want so i dont have to put up with that hassle next time. So i went to the gun store today and picked up a .45 on the spot, filled out a little paperwork, bam im done, no hassles." I mean thats fuckin bullshit right there, nobody should be able to do that. | ||
|
drift0ut
United Kingdom691 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:47 hasuprotoss wrote: [removed quote within quote] I see the point you make here. Would violent crimes increase or decrease with a gun ban on America? It can only be speculated at this point and I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that violent crimes will go up. However, I am not a criminologist or whatever so I can't really say my speculation is completely correct. An honest question: if violent crime goes up, but the number of innocent ppl killed or cripled drops dramatically, is that bad? i don't think there is an easy answer, but i'd rather be mugged 20 times than killed. i would dispute that violent crime would rise. i see having easy access to guns as having easy access to mug with near certian success, as you would be the one with the gun pointing at them so they are in your power. however that is just speculation | ||
|
RobOwns
45 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:33 ShabZzoY! wrote: You stop when the firearm is overkill. That's why automatics are restricted. Your analogies are unrealistic, and don't present the point you're attempting to make as well as you could have. I still get what you're trying to say.[removed quote within quote] You are walking down the street. Everything goes black. You just got shot in the head by a maniac with a rifle, who yesterday had happily strolled into a shop and purchased said weapon with no problems. I suppose my point is, where do you stop? Say if everyone still had swords, you could buy a suit of armour for protection. When everyone has pistols you can buy some kevlar and a gun of your own. Are you safe? Hell no. What about if someone shoots an rpg at you? Maybe you should carry a nuke to protect yourself. I just think guns are one step too far on the ladder. If gun laws are changed to prohibit sale of firearms to those who aren't fit to own one, there will be less problems. If firearms are legally available to anyone and everyone, then well, you get the US. If firearms are entirely banned, well then criminals still have them, and you're punishing those who play by the rules. There's nothing wrong with a law-abiding citizen owning a firearm. | ||
|
Atlantic
Canada133 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 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. I'm pretty sure that's how most people feel. That is, until they actually have to kill someone.. I think most people who've had to kill someone to defend themselves wish they could have done it some other way.. The guilt associated with it must be huge, although I guess I'm not speaking from personal experiences either =] Not a whole lot of guns here :C | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 25 2006 18:21 Meta wrote: guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do. Rofl :D | ||
| ||
