|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 25 2012 11:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter? If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully....
You can't really proliferate guns anymore than they are already in the United States. The US has one of the highest gun ownership rates, if not the highest, in the world. If criminals aren't scared about civilians carrying guns already how will more guns deter them?
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
some weird statistics you must be reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
The United States is up there with some third world countries in terms of death rates due to firearms.
![[image loading]](http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif)
Here's a comparison of death rates with ownership. You can see that, despite all its laws regarding gun ownership and education, gun homicide in Switzerland is pretty high too (compared to other European countries). I don't think it's merely a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the only countries in Europe with such free access to guns (though it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the evidence is pretty significant)
Compare England and the United States, for example. The United States has 14 times more guns per capita (88 guns for every 100 people; almost a gun per person) and 60 times the gun-related homicides per year.
EDIT: I should clarify, the gun ownership in the United States is a bit misleading since households that carry a gun are more likely to carry multiple guns. Thus only about 30% of households carry guns but some carry multiple.
|
That article is not exactly making fair comparisons or good logical sense.
In the other less publicized case, we have a guy who was chasing someone else into a church and shot someone (who was probably trying to stop him) on the way in. This shooter was trying to kill a specific individual after a traffic dispute and unfortunately an innocent person got in the way. The shooter did not seem to have any intention of going on a mass killing. The shooter didn't lead off by throwing any type of grenade. The shooter was not armed in full combat gear. The shooter likely only had one weapon and that weapon likely didn't have more than 15 rounds in it. The cases are extremely different long before you add in the self-defense killing by the police officer with the gun. The comparisons are completely off.
The article also insinuates that the movie theater shooter knew that everyone would be unarmed. Yet, for some reason he felt the need to wear bullet-proof equipment from head-to-toe. Does that sound like someone who is not expecting anyone to have a gun? It also insinuates (and many of the replies completely claim) that a person with a concealed weapon would have been able to take down the shooter. It's a darkened theater with gas in the air and a guy with a semi-automatic rifle firing bullets repeatedly. Are you really going to stand up, take clear aim, and then hit the guy? Probably not because you'll probably be shot first. Are you going to fire wildly in his direction while ducking behind seating? Maybe, but then there's a damn good chance you'll hit innocent bystanders and possibly kill them. Are you willing to take responsibility (life in prison) for that? And even if you do manage to hit him, do you think you'll do anything more than sting him? I don't know how his armor compared to the Hollywood Bank Robbers, but I remember the videos of police officers hitting those armed guys and then getting a spray of bullets in return. That was multiple well-trained people firing many clips of ammunition with almost zero effect. How well do you think one or even a few poorly trained people would have fared?
The article also completely ignores the idea that strict gun control laws could have kept guns out of the shooter's hands in the first place. It's not a matter of testing or training either since it is very likely that this guy would have passed nearly any test necessary since he was essentially a model citizen up until very close to his shooting spree. He wasn't part of some criminal organization who could obtain guns on the black market. If guns were illegal, the best he could do is either create some improvised version himself or he could possibly procure a pistol from some lowlife. He'd have no shot at obtaining as many guns and as much ammunition as he did. And there's no chance he could cause as much death and injury as he did with guns.
So overall, I'd have to say that article is pretty fail.
|
On July 26 2012 06:11 CampinSam wrote:A gun's main use is NOT to have fun with and socialize with. A gun's use is for self-defense, or killing, war, and the likes. That is the design of it, it is a weapon. Cars are not weapons by design, neither is alcohol or electricity. + Show Spoiler +using guns too shoot clay, is not it's intended purpose, just like using a car too kill someone is not it's intended purpose either.
Unfortunately at this point, all american gun laws are for naught, as everyone has a gun anyway, criminal or not.
And any speculation is pointless, when it is already way too late to make a change.
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a gun, what does that matter?
The real main purpose of a gun is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every gun owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people.
Alcohol might have the main purpose of enjoyment. Does that mean we should ignore that is causes harm in a variety of ways as well? "A review by Murdoch, Pihl & Ross (1990) identified a substantial role of alcohol in homicide and assaults across different countries and over time. Approximately 50% of offenders convicted of assault, murder, or attempted murder had been drinking before they committed the crime."
Do you ignore the possible cause and focus only on the tools used? Alcohol is not harmless. It is not harmless to the individual using it nor to the people that have to interactive with them. To say that people can't enjoy guns because they can kill people but say people can enjoy alcohol even though it can directly cause deaths as well is silly to me.
|
On July 26 2012 06:58 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:11 CampinSam wrote:A gun's main use is NOT to have fun with and socialize with. A gun's use is for self-defense, or killing, war, and the likes. That is the design of it, it is a weapon. Cars are not weapons by design, neither is alcohol or electricity. + Show Spoiler +using guns too shoot clay, is not it's intended purpose, just like using a car too kill someone is not it's intended purpose either.
Unfortunately at this point, all american gun laws are for naught, as everyone has a gun anyway, criminal or not.
And any speculation is pointless, when it is already way too late to make a change. I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a gun, what does that matter? The real main purpose of a gun is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every gun owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. + Show Spoiler +
Alcohol might have the main purpose of enjoyment. Does that mean we should ignore that is causes harm in a variety of ways as well? "A review by Murdoch, Pihl & Ross (1990) identified a substantial role of alcohol in homicide and assaults across different countries and over time. Approximately 50% of offenders convicted of assault, murder, or attempted murder had been drinking before they committed the crime."
Do you ignore the possible cause and focus only on the tools used? Alcohol is not harmless. It is not harmless to the individual using it nor to the people that have to interactive with them. To say that people can't enjoy guns because they can kill people but say people can enjoy alcohol even though it can directly cause deaths as well is silly to me.
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a container of Sarin / landmine / bomb, what does that matter?
The real main purpose of a container of arin / landmine / bomb is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every container of Sarin / landmine / bomb owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people.
|
On July 26 2012 07:15 Toadesstern wrote:
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a container of Sarin / landmine / bomb, what does that matter?
The real main purpose of a container of arin / landmine / bomb is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every container of Sarin / landmine / bomb owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people.
Why troll? Your comparisons are not at all relevant, but you feel the need to argue them to belittle my argument, without actually putting forth a dialogue on your stance. Good work.
|
On July 26 2012 07:15 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:58 dp wrote:On July 26 2012 06:11 CampinSam wrote:A gun's main use is NOT to have fun with and socialize with. A gun's use is for self-defense, or killing, war, and the likes. That is the design of it, it is a weapon. Cars are not weapons by design, neither is alcohol or electricity. + Show Spoiler +using guns too shoot clay, is not it's intended purpose, just like using a car too kill someone is not it's intended purpose either.
Unfortunately at this point, all american gun laws are for naught, as everyone has a gun anyway, criminal or not.
And any speculation is pointless, when it is already way too late to make a change. I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a gun, what does that matter? The real main purpose of a gun is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every gun owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. + Show Spoiler +
Alcohol might have the main purpose of enjoyment. Does that mean we should ignore that is causes harm in a variety of ways as well? "A review by Murdoch, Pihl & Ross (1990) identified a substantial role of alcohol in homicide and assaults across different countries and over time. Approximately 50% of offenders convicted of assault, murder, or attempted murder had been drinking before they committed the crime."
Do you ignore the possible cause and focus only on the tools used? Alcohol is not harmless. It is not harmless to the individual using it nor to the people that have to interactive with them. To say that people can't enjoy guns because they can kill people but say people can enjoy alcohol even though it can directly cause deaths as well is silly to me.
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a container of Sarin / landmine / bomb, what does that matter? The real main purpose of a container of arin / landmine / bomb is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every container of Sarin / landmine / bomb owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people.
Just to make you look foolish. You do realize a lot of mining and excavation work, controlled demolitions, even roadwork use explosives right?
Bombs are a usefull tool. It's hard to see all the obvious shit when you are so concentrated on the bad.
|
On July 26 2012 07:18 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:15 Toadesstern wrote:
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a container of Sarin / landmine / bomb, what does that matter?
The real main purpose of a container of arin / landmine / bomb is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every container of Sarin / landmine / bomb owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. Why troll? Your comparisons are not at all relevant, but you feel the need to argue them to belittle my argument, without actually putting forth a dialogue on your stance. Good work.
Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible.
Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!"
When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned.
I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone?
I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand.
I could use them as a part of a collection.
All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem.
These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose.
Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo.
|
On July 26 2012 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:18 dp wrote:On July 26 2012 07:15 Toadesstern wrote:
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a container of Sarin / landmine / bomb, what does that matter?
The real main purpose of a container of arin / landmine / bomb is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every container of Sarin / landmine / bomb owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. Why troll? Your comparisons are not at all relevant, but you feel the need to argue them to belittle my argument, without actually putting forth a dialogue on your stance. Good work. Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible. Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!" When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned. I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone? I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand. I could use them as a part of a collection. All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem. These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose. Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo.
You almost went 2 sentances without being completely wrong, I won't bother reading the rest but if you are curious as to why you are wrong then read my previous post. You sound like some babbling crazy with "guns are made to kill people! Bombs are made to kill people!" You might as well as thrown broadswords into the mix while you were at it.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 26 2012 07:23 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:15 Toadesstern wrote:On July 26 2012 06:58 dp wrote:On July 26 2012 06:11 CampinSam wrote:A gun's main use is NOT to have fun with and socialize with. A gun's use is for self-defense, or killing, war, and the likes. That is the design of it, it is a weapon. Cars are not weapons by design, neither is alcohol or electricity. + Show Spoiler +using guns too shoot clay, is not it's intended purpose, just like using a car too kill someone is not it's intended purpose either.
Unfortunately at this point, all american gun laws are for naught, as everyone has a gun anyway, criminal or not.
And any speculation is pointless, when it is already way too late to make a change. I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a gun, what does that matter? The real main purpose of a gun is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every gun owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. + Show Spoiler +
Alcohol might have the main purpose of enjoyment. Does that mean we should ignore that is causes harm in a variety of ways as well? "A review by Murdoch, Pihl & Ross (1990) identified a substantial role of alcohol in homicide and assaults across different countries and over time. Approximately 50% of offenders convicted of assault, murder, or attempted murder had been drinking before they committed the crime."
Do you ignore the possible cause and focus only on the tools used? Alcohol is not harmless. It is not harmless to the individual using it nor to the people that have to interactive with them. To say that people can't enjoy guns because they can kill people but say people can enjoy alcohol even though it can directly cause deaths as well is silly to me.
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a container of Sarin / landmine / bomb, what does that matter? The real main purpose of a container of arin / landmine / bomb is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every container of Sarin / landmine / bomb owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. Just to make you look foolish. You do realize a lot of mining and excavation work, controlled demolitions, even roadwork use explosives right? Bombs are a usefull tool. It's hard to see all the obvious shit when you are so concentrated on the bad.
I know. Okay I have to admit I was typing under an assumption and I'm not sure if it's really the same thing in the us but here it is:
Where I am from you're still not allowed to own those things as a private person, even if they're used as tools in some areas.
So basicly a chief blaster has to own a certificate or he isn't allowed to do shit. People using explosives to do ecavation work as well.
If it's different in the us and you can legally purchase those things as a private person, sorry my bad.
If it's the same way it's not changing a thing about my argument: Those things are prohibited for the population, just like automatic weapons are prohibited for the population outside of the US.
That does NOT mean that noone is allowed to use them. We are not allowed to have guns in germany, yet our army uses them.
There's no flaw if it's the same way with explosives in the us.
|
I'm 99% positive that German citizens can obtain a license to own a firearm. I doubt it's as easy as in the US but you can do it all the same.
Now that I'm looking at it, there are indeed a lot of hoops to jump through and limitations on the barrel size but you can still get a gun in germany. Only main difference I am seeing is that you cannot get a conceal carry license unless you are under threat of some type.
|
The reasons for banning guns, or any other substance, should be pragmatic. A test tube filled with smallpox, highly radioactive materials, a load of powerful explosives... All these have practical purposes not related to killing, but access to them is regulated. Why? Because in the wrong hands they can be used to kill many, many people.
As I've stated already, it is important to devise sensible policies to limit the destructive capability of Any one individual. This need not involve a total gun ban. It may be as simple as adding more checks and tests to ensure that a potential gun buyer is of sound mind and has no criminal or mental health issues. Also a ban on semi automatic rifles And limits on ammunition purchases could help.
Unfortunately, such policies are difficult to implement, because gun lobbyists view any curtailing of the 2nd amendment as a threat to the entire concept of a "right to bear arms".
|
On July 26 2012 07:42 Leth0 wrote:
I'm 99% positive that German citizens can obtain a license to own a firearm. I doubt it's as easy as in the US but you can do it all the same.
yeah but as far as I know no automatics or semi-automatics which is all I'm talking about.
I already said I don't mind someone having a pistol and I don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle.
I however don't see a legit reason to own an automatic weapon as a private person.
Let me rephrase what I said earlier: All those things [bombs, poisonous gas, automatic weapons] don't have a single purpose for private usage
I know explosives are used for stuff, but they're still banned in general unless it's a specific case.
I know automatic weapons are used for stuff (military I guess), but they're still banned over here.
|
On July 26 2012 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible.
Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!"
When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned.
I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone?
I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand.
I could use them as a part of a collection.
All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem.
These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose.
Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo.
If you really can't see the difference between personal gun ownership and personal ownership of sarin gas(or nukes LOL), I don't know if there is a point in talking.
My comment was directed at someone with a specific purpose, to pose the question of why is it important to ban the tool used for homicide but not a main contributing factor. It was directly related to the position that both alcohol and guns are used for enjoyment, and have a direct influence over the lives of others. To say that alcohol's main purpose isn't to kill, but guns are, so guns should be banned seems illogical to me.
If your main purpose is to save lives, shouldn't the lives being lost from any non-necessary substance/object be compared the same? People might be more likely to kill someone with a gun. People might also be more likely to kill someone because they are drunk. Are the overall negative affects of alcohol not relevant because their main purpose is not to kill?
|
While anyone can go bad at any time, his destructive potential is always limited by the laws we put in place to prevent access to the most dangerous materials. We aren't seeking to make everyones lives a little less free and a little more safe, we are trying to make it so that the worst, most psychotic and dangerous killers are limited in the destruction they can cause.
That is consistent with the Us's position on preserving, within reason, individual liberties.
|
On July 26 2012 08:23 Zahir wrote:
While anyone can go bad at any time, his destructive potential is always limited by the laws we put in place to prevent access to the most dangerous materials. We aren't seeking to make everyones lives a little less free and a little more safe, we are trying to make it so that the worst, most psychotic and dangerous killers are limited in the destruction they can cause.
That is consistent with the Us's position on preserving, within reason, individual liberties.
Some of the most dangerous and psychotic killers of our time didn't even use guns...
|
On July 26 2012 06:41 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 11:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter? If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully.... You can't really proliferate guns anymore than they are already in the United States. The US has one of the highest gun ownership rates, if not the highest, in the world. If criminals aren't scared about civilians carrying guns already how will more guns deter them? Show nested quote +
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
some weird statistics you must be reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryThe United States is up there with some third world countries in terms of death rates due to firearms. + Show Spoiler +Here's a comparison of death rates with ownership. You can see that, despite all its laws regarding gun ownership and education, gun homicide in Switzerland is pretty high too (compared to other European countries). I don't think it's merely a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the only countries in Europe with such free access to guns (though it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the evidence is pretty significant) Compare England and the United States, for example. The United States has 14 times more guns per capita (88 guns for every 100 people; almost a gun per person) and 60 times the gun-related homicides per year. EDIT: I should clarify, the gun ownership in the United States is a bit misleading since households that carry a gun are more likely to carry multiple guns. Thus only about 30% of households carry guns but some carry multiple.
That depends, then, (again) on the motive of the shooter. If they won't be deterred by reason or greater opposing force, then I don't want to be defenseless against them; and surely we've heard the old adage about "bringing a knife to a gunfight," lol.... If they will be deterred by greater force, then I would want as many areas as possible to accept people bearing firearms, because when said would-be criminal considers his/her options to strike, they'll go to the location that is less likely to pose a threat to him/her. In other words, they will not go to the area where someone COULD pack heat, and more likely to go to a place where guns are forbidden. Ergo, the crime would be prevented before it could even occur.
Some weird statistics? LOL, "my statistics disagree with yours; yours must be weird." X-D This article is, yes, biased, but written by someone whom I trust to do his research. That's my source. And Wiki... aaaaahhhhh, Wiki.... m-D No, I don't trust Wikipedia for issues like this (for much of anything, really), even if there are "citations."
Plus, I can poke a couple holes in that pretty picture you got there. The first is that the US has a larger population than most of those countries (still working this argument out). Second, is that the US has areas of vastly different social structure. The murder rates in Washington D.C. are the highest in the nation, but they also have very strict laws regarding gun ownership. Compare that to a rural area, like some rural city in the West, and you'll see the disparity pretty quickly. So it's not necessarily representative of the entire country.
Thrid, at the end of the day, it's just a picture made by someone who is biased like the rest of us. The data may not back up what we wish to espouse, because of the sample we select or the location(s) that we choose to sample or other, hidden factors that play an important role in how one should interpret data. But I'm getting off-topic a bit here. I admit I have no "pretty graphs" at my disposal to toss up and "prove" you wrong; I am arguing more from a theoretical standpoint. The point I'm trying to make is that statistics and the graphs and things that are extrapolated from statistics should not be trusted so fully. There is "data" that goes both ways, even if I can't find it to upload to this thread. You do not convince me with that graph, just as I am sure I would not convince you if it were vice versa.
Aaaaahhhhh, I just noticed the URL on your graph. Yeah. I'm REALLY unconvinced now, lololol!!
I think I'm done with this thread. Was a good mental workout. Thanks to all whom I talked with, and I wish you pleasant discussions in the future. Good day. 
|
On July 26 2012 07:23 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:15 Toadesstern wrote:On July 26 2012 06:58 dp wrote:On July 26 2012 06:11 CampinSam wrote:A gun's main use is NOT to have fun with and socialize with. A gun's use is for self-defense, or killing, war, and the likes. That is the design of it, it is a weapon. Cars are not weapons by design, neither is alcohol or electricity. + Show Spoiler +using guns too shoot clay, is not it's intended purpose, just like using a car too kill someone is not it's intended purpose either.
Unfortunately at this point, all american gun laws are for naught, as everyone has a gun anyway, criminal or not.
And any speculation is pointless, when it is already way too late to make a change. I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a gun, what does that matter? The real main purpose of a gun is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every gun owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. + Show Spoiler +
Alcohol might have the main purpose of enjoyment. Does that mean we should ignore that is causes harm in a variety of ways as well? "A review by Murdoch, Pihl & Ross (1990) identified a substantial role of alcohol in homicide and assaults across different countries and over time. Approximately 50% of offenders convicted of assault, murder, or attempted murder had been drinking before they committed the crime."
Do you ignore the possible cause and focus only on the tools used? Alcohol is not harmless. It is not harmless to the individual using it nor to the people that have to interactive with them. To say that people can't enjoy guns because they can kill people but say people can enjoy alcohol even though it can directly cause deaths as well is silly to me.
I keep hearing this but I don't understand how it matters. Even if that was the MAIN purpose of a container of Sarin / landmine / bomb, what does that matter? The real main purpose of a container of arin / landmine / bomb is determined by its owner, simple as that. Not every container of Sarin / landmine / bomb owner is the same, and the uses for them are more than just killing other people. Just to make you look foolish. You do realize a lot of mining and excavation work, controlled demolitions, even roadwork use explosives right? Bombs are a usefull tool. It's hard to see all the obvious shit when you are so concentrated on the bad.
That is still very different from guns. These bombs and explosives, are used in controlled environments, by workers, and professionals, paid to do something like this.
The average Joe doesn't have access too these kind of things, not for any personal use.
|
On July 24 2012 07:26 felizuno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 07:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
So why would you want a gun, if not to inflict cruelty on other people? Hunting? Target shooting? Home defense? I will never own a gun, but I'm not scared that my neighbor can buy a .22 rifle and going hunting. That being said, I recently went to a gun show in Demming, WA (FYI Euro friends, Washington state is like the Switzerland of the US) and saw on sale: 1) A Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle, the same high-power sniper rifle issued to US snipers in active duty 2) A table covered in UZIs ... I really can't see why anybody would need either of these items for "recreation" and it made me more than a little nervous that they were being sold to my neighbors. Especially considering the Barrett could be purchased for cash on site with no background check :-(
A barret .50cal. So what? I fired one of those before. It is just a gun with a large caliber. The gun, ammo, and optics are expensive enough that the average person will not be able to afford to use and shoot it. Plus a gun is nothing without a competent shooter behind it pulling the trigger. It is not like the average joe is going to get behind the barrel and start taking down targets a mile away. The average person cant get 3 shots in a 3 inch circle at 10 yards with a pistol.
It was just semi auto uzi's. No different than any other pistol besides the look. A legal full auto costs about 7-8grand, plus an intensive background check and a 6 month wait. You can't even put a stock on it or it would be considered a short barrel rifle, which goes through the same process as a full auto.
|
On July 24 2012 10:12 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:35 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 24 2012 05:23 m4inbrain wrote:On July 24 2012 04:51 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 24 2012 04:42 Rassy wrote:
Defacer Canada. July 24 2012 04:32. Posts 3248
He said there may be discussion of limiting the sale of the sort of protective clothing that Holmes allegedly donned. "Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller asked. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."
Now that would be something.
Keeping in the guns but banning the gear that protects against them.
Its the world upside down. None of the gear he had was able to protect him from a bullet. That "bullet proof vest" was just a mag carrying vest. The other protectors can help against blunt impacts and knife edges, but not firearms. It was all for looks and the "fear factor". Once again, the media has no idea what they are talking about. Also, if someone calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and a magazine a clip again I will pistol whip them for their stupidity. Don't talk about something you know nothing about. Youre a huge wise-ass, you know that right? Also, youre wrong. Which actually is easy to read up on, just take a look at the californian 89 assault weapon ban, also the 2000 assault weapon ban. Guess which rifle was classified as assault rifle? They even banned the AR-15 specifically by name in both laws. So does wikipedia, and alot of gun-sites i just looked up. But im curious, how do you call a full auto rifle which can be equipped with drum-mags? I don't care if the California legislator calls them evil fairy wands, it does not make them correct. The AR-15 is a semi auto sporting rifle which looks mimic the m16/m4. The ones used in the military have additional internal parts for full auto, a stronger bolt and bolt carrier, and sometimes a thicker barrel. The only people who use the word "assault rifle" are those who really don't know what they are talking about. If you really wanted a full auto "assault rifle" you would need first find one someone wants to sell. That is rare because you can not buy one manufactured after 1986. Because of this prices on m16s are about 15k plus. Then you have to fill out a class 3 form to the ATF (which included getting permission for local police chief to have the weapon), pay 200 bucks, then wait 5-6 months. What the idiot in colorado used was a cheap smith and wesson ar. How do I know it was cheap? Because it jammed with little use. So the guy didn't know what the hell he was doing or he bought an inferior rifle. Regardless I am not complaining. Also, who cares about drum magazines? Find me any fire arms instructor/trainer/etc that advocates using that in a non-recreational manner. 100 loaded drum is heavy as hell, and would quickly cause fatigue and accuracy would quickly diminish. Sporting rifle, yeah, right.. Youre kinda delusional, i get the feeling. As long as the normal AR-15 which everyone can buy legally can be legally modified to full-automatic-fire, it doesnt matter in any frikkin way if the barrel is slightly thinner. I dont even dare to show you how easy you can turn your AR-15 legally to full auto (for about 400 dollar), because it seems you either dont know that, or you try to make a point hoping that no-one knows. Either way, we both know youre bullshitting. Further, the "jam" kinda didnt stop him from killing nearly 100 people, did it? And your argument against drum-mags (which are btw called "LMG-Mags" for a reason, and guess what, its because it turns an assault rifle basically into a light machine gun - again, easy to read up on that fact, check the G36 and the germans army LMG, which is a G36 with drum mag and bipod with no mechanical modifications). We are not talking about sniper or self defense, we are talking about a freakin idiot who basically had LEGALLY a light machine gun to his disposal in a theater. The fact that it wasnt (again, legally) modified to shoot full auto was luck on "your" part, nothing more. And dont try to get me on semantics, an AR-15 that can fire 900rpm is full auto, theres no discussion about that.
Oh please tell me about this 400 dollar magic wand that can turn an AR into a legal full auto weapon. I am all ears because this is wrong on so many levels. I have had ARs and AKs and have done extensive smithing work on both. I think I know a little more about the weapon systems than you.
Drum mags are not called LMG mags. They are simple called drum mags. To my knowledge all LMG's in the army use an ammo box. There are no standard issue drum mags. Anyways, a light machine gun is...well.. a machine gun. That means fully automatic fire.
Sure, an AR can fire at a high rate of fire. Guess what though, at 900rpm you can not hit anything. For a few reasons. First even military units only use fully auto for covering and suppressing fire. Full auto has almost no tactical benefit. Too inaccurate and waste too much ammo, which both are precious. Secondly, you may not know this because you seem to have never shot what you are so adamantly against, but an AR gets EXTREMELY hot. As in just fire a standard 30 round magazine and you will be pissing your pants if you accidentally touch the metal. At 900 rounds per minute you will either melt the plastic heat shields, or make your aluminum rail so hot you will get 2nd to 3rd degree burns.
So please, go on and tell me how you are such the small arms expert.
|
"Sure, an AR can fire at a high rate of fire. Guess what though, at 900rpm you can not hit anything. For a few reasons. First even military units only use fully auto for covering and suppressing fire. Full auto has almost no tactical benefit. Too inaccurate and waste too much ammo, which both are precious."
If you fire into a big crowd in an enclosed area it does not realy matter how accurate your weapon is,
A lower rate of fire would definatly make such situations alot less dangerous/deadly.
When you say that its a useless option annyway then there should also be no problem banning it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
