|
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. |
Uh-uh, I think the main difference is that it's Switzerland.
But that's the point, the main difference isn't levels of gun ownership or availability of guns. It is socioeconomic conditions and culture.
|
On February 20 2012 03:05 Babyfactory wrote:
Gun control only serves to make it harder (or impossible) for law abiding citizens to have and use them for either home defense, the illusion of safety, or whatever reason they feel they want to have said weapon. If someone wants to obtain a gun to kill someone, gun control isn't going to put up any barrier to prevent this to happen as they are most likely already obtaining this weapon illegally.
That being said, gun ownership only poses one problem in my mind and that is vigilantism or the "Make My Day" law. Unfortunately, a large contingent of gun owners aren't qualified to be using them and should they deem it necessary to use them to protect others, they only serve to endanger or further exacerbate a dire situation.
I'm all for relaxed gun control laws. I find it obscene that any government can remove the ability of a populus to defend itself from terrorist and tyrants alike. I do feel that there needs to be some sort of mandatory / provided class(es) or training that completely familiarizes the individual with the use of the weapon, proper storage, understanding of munition the weapon uses, maintenance of the weapon and situations in which a concealed carry permit would be merited.
I think the biggest problem with these arguments of having a gun "for self defense", is that it leads to kind of a domino effect, where no matter what you do, people who are determined to commit a crime will find newer and more effective way (which is potentially more devastating) in order to achieve the same goal and things will always go back to status quo. So if you start giving out licenses for hand guns, criminals will start using shot guns and automatics which have a far more devastating effect and can lead to a much higher loss of life. So whats next? Do you start giving out licenses for automatic weapons to individuals? And then what happens when criminals decide to start using explosives? Nerve gas? While some of these possibilities may seem outlandish to you right now, you just have to remember that the availability of these is driven by demand. And trust me, when criminals decide to find newer ways to achieve their goals, these kinds of weapons will become easier and even cheaper for them to obtain illegally as time goes on. Higher demands and better production capabilities serve to drive the prices down
It is just an endless vicious circle, from which the only beneficiaries are the arms manufacturers.
P.S - Also, in the end if a person jumps you from behind in a parking lot or restroom, carrying a handgun in your hip or your car trunk is not going to help you one bit. I daresay, carrying a gun might even given you a false sense of security which may even lead to you being less careful.
|
On February 20 2012 09:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:But that's the point, the main difference isn't levels of gun ownership or availability of guns. It is socioeconomic conditions and culture.
so would you agree that given the culture and socioeconomics of the us,its not wise to have people own and carry guns?
|
On February 20 2012 09:32 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:27 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 09:23 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 20 2012 09:07 Kukaracha wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already. The US would need to buy back all the guns in the country. Its been done in Australia when semi-automatics were banned after a mass shooting of civilians, it would be much more costly in the US however. Since then there has only been 1 gun related death in more than a decade. Actually i think i recall there being an innocent bystander involved that was shot to eliminate witnesses only that iirc it was because he went to save the victim instead of running away, he may have thought there was some relationship between them. On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't? Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_SwitzerlandPractically everyone in Switzerland has guns, and yet there is hardly any gun crime. The difference is that Switzerland also has much lower poverty rates than inner-city US. Poverty is what causes the high crime rates, not guns. Immensely important point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
75% of all murders in DC were committed with firearms. DC also has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
So, insanely high gun crime rate and strict gun control in the same jurisdiction, how can this be?
The answer, is poverty. DC has an extremely poor inner-city, overrun with gangs. Poverty correlates directly with crime rates, while the availability of guns does not.
On February 20 2012 09:38 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Uh-uh, I think the main difference is that it's Switzerland. But that's the point, the main difference isn't levels of gun ownership or availability of guns. It is socioeconomic conditions and culture. so would you agree that given the culture and socioeconomics of the us,its not wise to have people own and carry guns?
The issue is the poverty, not the guns. Solve the poverty problems, and all the gun problems go away too. But, if you get rid of the guns only, you still have the poverty problems, and the crime rates that come with them.
|
To the OP you said in a perfect world only the law enforcement would have weapons, but then admitted we don't live in a perfect world. No we don't live in a perfect world, that is why the founding fathers put the second amendment in the Constitution, because everyone has the right to arm themselves to protect themselves and that which they hold dear. Life is not perfect and guns are not perfect, but the old saying "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal" is right. Guns are the great equalizer in American history, used as a constant protection against tyrants and criminals. We don't live in a perfect world, and tyrants love a de-armed populace. You cannot take away the right to bear arms without a fundamental abridgment of liberty by the government. If the people are too dumbed-down to bear their arms responsibly don't blame the guns, blame the people dumbing down the society.
|
On February 20 2012 09:16 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. I am not a pro gun control believer. I live in the Netherlands, no guns allowed. No need to spend another thought on it  . I am not less free, I am not less safe, I don't feel so scared that I need to arm myself in my own house. I don't mind that you have guns in your hand, or in your house. Geographically it is impossible for you to hit me with it :p.
And I quote:
Guns don't make your[sic] safer, they make you less safe.
I'm pretty sure that means you're on the gun control side of the argument? Unless I'm just high and don't know what I'm talking about.
Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns.
An example to support this is how Roe v. Wade (legalized abortions) reduced the crime rates years later because the theory was that unwanted children were more likely to become criminals.
Equating guns with crime is a blanket response and I get why most people do it. But it's about time people actually learn about crime and gun control inefficacy.
|
On February 20 2012 09:43 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:16 Domus wrote:On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. I am not a pro gun control believer. I live in the Netherlands, no guns allowed. No need to spend another thought on it . I am not less free, I am not less safe, I don't feel so scared that I need to arm myself in my own house. I don't mind that you have guns in your hand, or in your house. Geographically it is impossible for you to hit me with it :p. And I quote: I'm pretty sure that means you're on the gun control side of the argument? Unless I'm just high and don't know what I'm talking about. Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns.
so what do you say when we present you with areas poorer,with gun control,where the murder rate is so much lower?
poverty is the reason,guns are the tools.get rid of the tools,you still get crime,just not murder;)
|
On February 20 2012 09:45 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:43 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:16 Domus wrote:On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. I am not a pro gun control believer. I live in the Netherlands, no guns allowed. No need to spend another thought on it . I am not less free, I am not less safe, I don't feel so scared that I need to arm myself in my own house. I don't mind that you have guns in your hand, or in your house. Geographically it is impossible for you to hit me with it :p. And I quote: Guns don't make your[sic] safer, they make you less safe. I'm pretty sure that means you're on the gun control side of the argument? Unless I'm just high and don't know what I'm talking about. Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns. so what do you say when we present you with areas poorer,with gun control,where the murder rate is so much lower?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your sentence. Could you rephrase this?
|
Why would law enforcement have to have weapons if it was a perfect world?
Police in Norway dosen't carry weapons, people respect the police because they are the police, not because they wave their guns around.
Even pepperspray in Norway is banned, it's illegal to have it.
|
On February 20 2012 09:47 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:45 clementdudu wrote:On February 20 2012 09:43 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:16 Domus wrote:On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. I am not a pro gun control believer. I live in the Netherlands, no guns allowed. No need to spend another thought on it . I am not less free, I am not less safe, I don't feel so scared that I need to arm myself in my own house. I don't mind that you have guns in your hand, or in your house. Geographically it is impossible for you to hit me with it :p. And I quote: Guns don't make your[sic] safer, they make you less safe. I'm pretty sure that means you're on the gun control side of the argument? Unless I'm just high and don't know what I'm talking about. Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns. so what do you say when we present you with areas poorer,with gun control,where the murder rate is so much lower? I'm sorry, I don't understand your sentence. Could you rephrase this?
there are areas a lot poorer in the western world,in countries with gun control.
the murder rate in those areas is a lot lower than in the us.
poverty is the reason,guns are the tools.get rid of the tools,you still get crime,just not murder;)
|
On February 20 2012 09:35 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
ridiculous ... I'd rather see someone dying from an accidental gun shot then a drunk driver killing 3 kids and 2 parents... Try to think with your head... what difference does it makes if a person dies by a gunshot or by drunk driving? exactly, none. guns are there to shoot people. alcohol isnt there to drunkdrive kill someone. you cant forbid planes because some terrorists use them to fly into stuff. you can forbid guns because they kill innocent people.
You quoted a tiny part of my point and took it entirely out of context...
Try to place things in context before you shit all over someones point, its a horrible way to argue because you have no backing when you mis-interpret everything... I simply said that if you were to compare the 2, its possible and gave a reason, and then stated my opinion on which is better.. and I said "accidental gunshot" not "murder"... Get your shit right.
|
On February 20 2012 09:43 Nagano wrote:
Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns.
You may have a motive for nailing two planks together, but if you don't have a hammer, you may decide not to do it with your hands. It would be too hard.
|
On February 20 2012 09:48 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:47 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:45 clementdudu wrote:On February 20 2012 09:43 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:16 Domus wrote:On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. I am not a pro gun control believer. I live in the Netherlands, no guns allowed. No need to spend another thought on it . I am not less free, I am not less safe, I don't feel so scared that I need to arm myself in my own house. I don't mind that you have guns in your hand, or in your house. Geographically it is impossible for you to hit me with it :p. And I quote: Guns don't make your[sic] safer, they make you less safe. I'm pretty sure that means you're on the gun control side of the argument? Unless I'm just high and don't know what I'm talking about. Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns. so what do you say when we present you with areas poorer,with gun control,where the murder rate is so much lower? I'm sorry, I don't understand your sentence. Could you rephrase this? there are areas a lot poorer in the western world,in countries with gun control. the murder rate in those areas is a lot lower than in the us.
It's a different country, with a different demographics and a different culture. I know it might seem like a copout on my part, the US is its own monster that has to be tackled in its own way. Crime here has proven to be unrelated, and in most cases positively correlated, to the gun control policies implemented in different cities and states. Meaning that more gun control equaled more crime.
|
On February 20 2012 09:47 Tomba wrote:
Why would law enforcement have to have weapons if it was a perfect world?
Police in Norway dosen't carry weapons, people respect the police because they are the police, not because they wave their guns around.
Even pepperspray in Norway is banned, it's illegal to have it.
But even the Norwegian police have guns for when simply commanding respect doesn't get the job done, don't they?
|
On February 20 2012 09:52 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:43 Nagano wrote:
Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns.
You may have a motive for nailing two planks together, but if you don't have a hammer, you may decide not to do it with your hands. It would be too hard.
Yes, but we have to take the whole problem into context. The US will never be able to rid itself of firearms, and attempting to do so now has proven to only aggravate the problem. So while there may be countries like Finland or S. Korea where there are little to no gun-related deaths, that may only work for them because they have never had a prevalent firearm carrying population in the first place.
|
On February 20 2012 09:48 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:47 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:45 clementdudu wrote:On February 20 2012 09:43 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:16 Domus wrote:On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. I am not a pro gun control believer. I live in the Netherlands, no guns allowed. No need to spend another thought on it . I am not less free, I am not less safe, I don't feel so scared that I need to arm myself in my own house. I don't mind that you have guns in your hand, or in your house. Geographically it is impossible for you to hit me with it :p. And I quote: Guns don't make your[sic] safer, they make you less safe. I'm pretty sure that means you're on the gun control side of the argument? Unless I'm just high and don't know what I'm talking about. Motive is what kills; a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, or nail-gun, or a knife, or words. And as far as motives go, poverty is a big one and has proved time and time again to be the main culprit behind crime, not guns. so what do you say when we present you with areas poorer,with gun control,where the murder rate is so much lower? I'm sorry, I don't understand your sentence. Could you rephrase this? there are areas a lot poorer in the western world,in countries with gun control. the murder rate in those areas is a lot lower than in the us. poverty is the reason,guns are the tools.get rid of the tools,you still get crime,just not murder;)
poverty isnt the reason, its a reason. there are plenty other reasons to it. too lazy to list some of them now~ in the end guns are not suitable for the US. not gonna post here anymore gn8
|
I think an important part that w are missing is Gangs in America i honestly have no idea about gangs or organizations other than the ones in the US. But the US has a serious problems, maybe i watch to much gangland, but i mean if you just searched gangs in america you would find a lot of gang related- gun killing, look at Mexico. They are a prime example of what happens when gangs get out of hands, drug dealing is a very lucrative business and those with those drug connections are willing to kill for them.
|
Yes, and we are. There is a fuck ton of paperwork, background checks, fingerprinting etc that go into legally owning a gun. As long as all of the proper avenues for possession are followed without exploiting any loopholes (they should be closed as a matter of fact) then owning and carrying a firearm is perfectly fine.
I think crime is less likely if many people own guns.Think about it. I'm a mugger, I have a gun, but I know that you probably have one too, I'll probably think twice before I try to rob you. Or we could just have a shootout......
|
On February 20 2012 09:58 shankems2000 wrote:
Yes, and we are. There is a fuck ton of paperwork, background checks, fingerprinting etc that go into legally owning a gun.
didnt want to post anymore but 1 last thing
ever been to a gunshow?
|
I look at issues like this based on principle. If you say that no one should be allowed to carry a gun, just who is going to stop them? Other people with guns? Hmmm interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
