|
On September 03 2009 22:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
I think most people can agree that it is almost a fact that banning guns long-term would result in fewer murders since guns result in fatality so much more often than other forms of violence and the fact that many violent interactions would not occur in the first place without guns. (When someone shoots at you and you have a gun you might shoot back. But if they have a knife and you do too you'd probably not be inclined to get in a knife fight.)
(Talking about the US here)
The problem is the interim period where the law-abiding citizens give up their guns, but the criminals don't. Then you have people who complain, somewhat rightfully imo, that they can't defend their homes and families and even though it might be safer long-term, short-term the bad guys have a big leg-up on normal citizens (yes, yes, I know it's rare but when a single family is held at gun-point and robbed the media would eat it up and public opinion would want their guns back). Also, I bet this would result in black marketing of guns and stuff but guns seems like they'd be harder to smuggle than drugs so that shouldn't be a huge problem. The biggest problem is no politician, except in a really liberal state, could ever push for a gun ban, or even increased restrictions because so many people are against it.
honestly the reason guns will never be banned has less to do with the reasons you listed, and alot more to do with the fact that the sale of firearms is a billion dollar business. People hate it when you try to fuck with there cash.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
Enough said.
+ Show Spoiler +Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding those registered prior to February 5, 1977; however, this law was subsequently overturned in March 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.[35] The ruling was upheld in June 2008 by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller. Both courts held that the city's handgun ban violated individuals' Second Amendment right to gun ownership.[36] However, the ruling does not prohibit all forms of gun control; laws requiring firearm registration remain in place, as does the city's assault weapon ban.[37] Additionally, city laws still prohibit carrying guns, both openly and concealed.[38]
Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective. However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states.[39][40] Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws.[39]
Washington, D.C., has tried a number of other strategies to deal with gun violence. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police Department conducted Operation Ceasefire, a gun-violence crackdown initiative involving intense gun law enforcement, in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office.[41] This initiative resulted in seizure of 282 firearms in its first four months, mainly 9mm, 380ACP, and .25ACP pistols, and .38 caliber revolvers, most of which were purchased in Maryland and Virginia.[42]
http://newsbusters.org/node/9140
+ Show Spoiler +Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.
Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states.[
Ah, who am I kidding, people won't actually read the facts.
|
Yea you know your whole argument goes up in smoke because all attempts to restrict guns are only in limited areas and does not apply to an attempt to do it nationwide at the same time.
|
Washington D.C is just a small 60 square mile block of land so even if it does put a gun restriction into place it obviously won't have a huge effect since someone can drive 30 minutes to bring in guns for their gang or w/e from a neighboring state. America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work.
I don't think your examples are that valid for this reason since the current system admittedly is bad and can't work if it's done a state by state basis.
|
Slaughter said it first... and much more concisely.
|
On September 04 2009 05:03 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2009 22:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
I think most people can agree that it is almost a fact that banning guns long-term would result in fewer murders since guns result in fatality so much more often than other forms of violence and the fact that many violent interactions would not occur in the first place without guns. (When someone shoots at you and you have a gun you might shoot back. But if they have a knife and you do too you'd probably not be inclined to get in a knife fight.)
(Talking about the US here)
The problem is the interim period where the law-abiding citizens give up their guns, but the criminals don't. Then you have people who complain, somewhat rightfully imo, that they can't defend their homes and families and even though it might be safer long-term, short-term the bad guys have a big leg-up on normal citizens (yes, yes, I know it's rare but when a single family is held at gun-point and robbed the media would eat it up and public opinion would want their guns back). Also, I bet this would result in black marketing of guns and stuff but guns seems like they'd be harder to smuggle than drugs so that shouldn't be a huge problem. The biggest problem is no politician, except in a really liberal state, could ever push for a gun ban, or even increased restrictions because so many people are against it. honestly the reason guns will never be banned has less to do with the reasons you listed, and alot more to do with the fact that the sale of firearms is a billion dollar business. People hate it when you try to fuck with there cash.
IMO, the reason why gun reform hasn't been implemented is neither of the above. It's that there are way too many people who think it is their right to have the gun (republicans.. country hicks..). Basically, one will lose a lot of political capital by trying to tone down guns.
But why the hell don't we ban everything except pistols/rifles... Anything else is unnecessary for self-defense/hunting. Best would be if only rifles were allowed. You can't hide them, so they can be basically used for hunting and self-defense but hard to use aggressively.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On September 04 2009 04:12 Slaughter wrote:
That reminds me of the southpark where the birtish were sailing to invade the US in a fleet of old school wooden warships rofl.
When exactly does south park start again?
|
United States24670 Posts
On September 04 2009 05:32 Jonoman92 wrote:
America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work.
I think your blanket statement is unfair and uninformed. You can disagree about which issues you think should be handled on a national, state, or local level, but don't just decide that they all should be controlled by the federal government.... or if you really believe that then you have a much larger job of justifying yourself.
|
I don't understand the pro-gun argument at all.
By having a gun, you make it much more likely you will get hurt/killed, because the burglar/attacker will be threatened.
You also massively increase the chance of killing someone for stealing property, which is appalling.
In return, in the incredible unlikelihood of a serial killer coming to your house, you get a small chance of fighting them off, bearing in mind that they're a killer and you're just an idiot with a gun, so you have no guarantee of even stopping them.
Added to this the chance of a family member accidentally firing the gun during 'peacetime', and the kind of mindset you put yourself into, it just seems fucking stupid.
A serial killer is not going to come to your house. If preserving your life at any cost is your goal, then stopping driving/smoking/drinking/walking in the rain/living in a city/swimming/cycling/horse riding would all give you much better odds than having a gun. A gun makes it more likely you will be killed.
|
On September 04 2009 19:10 Tal wrote:
I don't understand the pro-gun argument at all.
By having a gun, you make it much more likely you will get hurt/killed, because the burglar/attacker will be threatened.
You also massively increase the chance of killing someone for stealing property, which is appalling.
In return, in the incredible unlikelihood of a serial killer coming to your house, you get a small chance of fighting them off, bearing in mind that they're a killer and you're just an idiot with a gun, so you have no guarantee of even stopping them.
Added to this the chance of a family member accidentally firing the gun during 'peacetime', and the kind of mindset you put yourself into, it just seems fucking stupid.
A serial killer is not going to come to your house. If preserving your life at any cost is your goal, then stopping driving/smoking/drinking/walking in the rain/living in a city/swimming/cycling/horse riding would all give you much better odds than having a gun. A gun makes it more likely you will be killed.
Your lack of understanding of the pro-gun argument probably has a lot to do with your perception of an armed homeowner as an "idiot with a gun." I understand that you're from the UK and guns are a rare sight, so if the average citizen in your country had a gun they would probably be just an "idiot with a gun" since they've never used one. The average homeowner with a gun probably has more experience firing it than a thug that just brandishes it. A lot of people don't understand the argument of sitting in your house and "hoping" that you don't get assaulted. "Hoping" that they just take your personal belongings and leave. You're probably in the minority here if you'd rather have someone steal your stuff and get away than having them get hurt or killed.
|
On September 04 2009 05:25 Slaughter wrote:
Yea you know your whole argument goes up in smoke because all attempts to restrict guns are only in limited areas and does not apply to an attempt to do it nationwide at the same time.
Fact1: Crime goes up where guns are prohibited or extremely restricted.
Fact2: Crime goes down when right to carry laws are loosened.
The liberal conclusion: Ban guns everywhere.
Also a side note, most criminals already obtain their guns illegally, making them illegal for everyone wont stop them.
|
On September 02 2009 04:05 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 03:52 DrainX wrote:On September 02 2009 03:48 Forgottenfrog wrote:
My dad and two nephews were home when we got robbed. My nephews were 4 and 5 at the time and my dad is in his 60's [sad that i dont know my dad's age]. There were 3 guys with guns who repeatedly beat my dad with their guns and tied all 3 of them up. My dad is a war veteran so he fought back which caused the beating. It was a good thing he fought back because they took awhile to tie my dad up, they left without taking much. Now we have cameras around and inside our house. I live in Hawthorne, CA. How is risking your health/life for material gain ever a good thing? What kind of coward, defeatist attitude is that though? That is sort of accepting the criminals doing what they want and just roll over. It's obviously not just about loosing some things but to be brutalized and have someone enter your home and do what the hell they want. It's not okay for obvious reasons. The self-protection laws in Sweden are the worst ever btw. The guy protecting himself will many times be sued by the criminal who commited the crime in the first place and chances are that the victim of the original crime ends up getting fucked over due to the fact that he defended himself "too much". C'mon, he's not the one doing the original crime and he just reacted in a very normal way. While people getting shot obviously isn't a good thing, nobody should tell you that you can't defend yourself, your family or property if necessary.
Yeah, self-defence laws are pretty lame here in Sweden. We should be allowed to kill/beat up any intruders on our property and not get sued for trying to defend our property/selves.
|
My life is all I've got. If I felt that I needed to have a nuke in my basement to protect my life, I'd do it.
Humanity is crazy. If you don't like guns, I feel you! I don't like them, or violence, or poverty or sickness or suffering (...I don't think I do...). But nothing will keep you safe but yourself -- and sadly that might not be enough!
What can you do then? BECOME AS STRONG AS POSSIBLE!
|
On September 04 2009 20:27 shidonu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 05:25 Slaughter wrote:
Yea you know your whole argument goes up in smoke because all attempts to restrict guns are only in limited areas and does not apply to an attempt to do it nationwide at the same time. Fact1: Crime goes up where guns are prohibited or extremely restricted. Fact2: Crime goes down when right to carry laws are loosened. The liberal conclusion: Ban guns everywhere. Also a side note, most criminals already obtain their guns illegally, making them illegal for everyone wont stop them.
Its sad knowing this, but people will refute it. Regardless America will never get rid of our guns, even if you take out the ability to carry concealed or open carry, guns in the home cannot and will not go away so long as the 2nd amendment exists. The founding fathers believed in the ability to take back the government should it no longer server the best interests of the people. Is it realistic with a modern day military? Likely not, but its not going to deny peoples' right to owning guns.
Secondly as far as defending yourself, Thurgood Marshall said it himself,"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." Its your life, are you gonna risk death because you're afraid of a law suit? I understand other countries are set up differently, but the laws of man are superseded by your right to live. I know that's an opinion, but really what basis does any law have if you're not even alive?
By the way I have a Londoner friend who is very much afraid of the violence, yet they have no guns. Violence doesn't come packaged with a certain type of weapon, only a certain type of intent and mindset.
|
I would rather get robbed than kill someone. I dont think its comparable the number of murders, kidnappings and rapes with the number of simple robberies. I think paranoid and untrained people with guns or some stupid heroic mentality cause just as much deaths as the actual criminals.
|
On September 05 2009 01:17 Cloud wrote:
I would rather get robbed than kill someone. I dont think its comparable the number of murders, kidnappings and rapes with the number of simple robberies. I think paranoid and untrained people with guns or some stupid heroic mentality cause just as much deaths as the actual criminals.
Do you have any studies, statistics, or anything to back this up? It appears that the criminals down in Mexico are doing quite a bit of kidnappings, killings, and other violent crimes. A would you rather, doesn't mean anything unless those "I would rather" change the 2nd Amendment.
Anyways, as I said earlier the facts will be there in the face of this nonsense and people won't bother to read them, or that they will duck their head in the sand and say nah-huh! FBI statistics are pretty irrefutable wouldn't you say?
|
"that force must be the minimum amount necessary"
This should mean that you should only harm the intruder if there is present danger for your safety. You can shoot down a bunch of armed guys. But you cannot shoot some unarmed kid that is stealing your new TV.
In the US though, this law is often interpreted in a different way... My English class teacher had a friend who was civil engineer. He was assigned some job at an oil raffinery somewhere in Texas. He could not find the way so he went to a ranch he passed by and knocked on the door. Well, the redneck living there just shot him through the door with a shotgun and killed him instantly... That guy was not sentenced because, the other entered his property unauthorized... That's a working justice system...
@ Aegraen
Well, Mexico is a pretty nasty place right now...
However, in the US it is a different situation. As for FBI statistics, did you know that less than 2% of murders involving firearms in the US happen actually because of self-defence. Actually, leathal accidents involving firearms (e.g. some little kid getting its father's handgun and giving its mate a headshot) contribute for more deaths than self-defence?
I will try to find the source i am refering to here. It's been a while since I read this.
|
On September 04 2009 11:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 05:32 Jonoman92 wrote:
America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work. I think your blanket statement is unfair and uninformed. You can disagree about which issues you think should be handled on a national, state, or local level, but don't just decide that they all should be controlled by the federal government.... or if you really believe that then you have a much larger job of justifying yourself.
Well it seems dumb to me that stuff like the tax on gas varies from state to state. Where I live everyone crosses into Missouri to buy gas because the tax is less so the stations sell it cheaper. I think New York/New Jersey have this same type of thing going on. The same thing came up with same sex marriage where the national gov. just didn't want to deal with it so they decided to leave it up to the states to decide. You're right that some things are best handled on a state level, but serious matters like the penalty for crime can vary significantly from state to state and that doesn't make sense to me.
I guess my thing is I feel as though wherever you are in America you should be living under the same rules/laws and that's not the way it is.
|
I'm not really well informed about this topic, but I lean away from gun restriction. If I had an actual house (living in apartment right now) I would want to be able to stop a violent person/people from walking all over me. In many places in the world it's a necessary thing to have (I come from the Balkans).
Also, didn't the rate of knife-use/stabbing go way up in Britain after they restricted guns?
|
On September 05 2009 02:30 Jonoman92 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 11:29 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2009 05:32 Jonoman92 wrote:
America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work. I think your blanket statement is unfair and uninformed. You can disagree about which issues you think should be handled on a national, state, or local level, but don't just decide that they all should be controlled by the federal government.... or if you really believe that then you have a much larger job of justifying yourself. Well it seems dumb to me that stuff like the tax on gas varies from state to state. Where I live everyone crosses into Missouri to buy gas because the tax is less so the stations sell it cheaper. I think New York/New Jersey have this same type of thing going on. The same thing came up with same sex marriage where the national gov. just didn't want to deal with it so they decided to leave it up to the states to decide. You're right that some things are best handled on a state level, but serious matters like the penalty for crime can vary significantly from state to state and that doesn't make sense to me. I guess my thing is I feel as though wherever you are in America you should be living under the same rules/laws and that's not the way it is.
Why is it dumb that they vary from state to state? The values of one state may vary greatly from the values of another; if you dont like the laws of your state, you move or you vote someone else into office. The federal government is not some noble entity, and it is no more capable of handling "serious" issues than a State government. The only difference is your vote matters more at the state level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
