|
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. |
Stop fighting.....
just stop fighting.
ages 5-10... man.. fucking ages 5-10.
|
On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help?
Making large amount of mustard gas is simply impossible at home. Getting chemicals is way harder than you would think.
|
On December 15 2012 06:53 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:48 Benjamin99 wrote:On December 15 2012 06:44 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 06:41 Benjamin99 wrote:On December 15 2012 06:39 Nagano wrote:
At these times, it's important that you remember to use facts to back up your claim. Gun control laws DO. NOT. WORK. PERIOD.
At first it might make sense, hey they used guns to kill, guns are dangerous, ban them etc. Just look at all the facts available to you on the internet from reputable sources. This is where personal beliefs might not equal reality. So before you go calling for a gun ban, read up on the facts of gun control efficacy.
CT has had an assault weapon ban in place since 1994, it did nothing to stop this. NYC has a complete gun ban, so do many other crime ridden areas. Gun crime rises when there are gun bans in place. Again, the internet is your friend here--use it.
Furthermore, I'd like to ask the gun control folks, who obviously haven't been exposed to the facts regarding gun control, what other constitutional amendments they aren't in favor of. There is a certain ignorance to following the constitution only as how you see fit.
look at the numbers below you they work. We have never had a school shooting in Denmark. You know why? its not because we don't got crazy people but its because they cant get armed. its simple logic. You're wrong. A quick google search shows 4 seperate shootings in denmark schools on the very first page. Well that's not true at all. It happens 1 time in Århus and it only involves 1 person not mass killing. Seriously I simply cant believe the attitude coming from the US members. If you really believe that gun control don't stop mass gun killings then well you deserve what you get guns make it easier for people to kill people, no one is denying this. but like you said, "simple logic" just imagine what it takes, how it could be done, to control guns in USA. really, think on it and see how realistic it is. only thing i can think of is ban gun purchase, find and destroy every gun found, do this for about 50 years then maybe. thats without implicating politics. instead of just saying "no guns = no gun kill", be realistic about it.
of-course it will take time and work and major policy changes but it can be done. US sent a man to the moon I'm sure they could fix this problem if they really wanted to.
|
On December 15 2012 06:41 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:33 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 06:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 06:08 divito wrote:On December 15 2012 05:53 JingleHell wrote:
Who deserves more protection under law, the person violating the rights of others, or the person having their rights violated? Whether I own a gun or not, my "right" to not be broken into can still be violated. If I'm armed in my house, I think I stand more chance of being fired upon than if I'm not armed; only thing that will change that is the frame of mind of the criminal. The whole issue is fairly circular though. The US is the only first-world nation that has such loose restrictions on guns, and has the kind of population and violence to showcase ridiculous stats. This gives pro-gun people something to point to, saying "see, we need it." It's going to be impossible to convince outside countrymen that have lower gun-related crime and higher restrictions on obtaining guns, that it somehow makes sense. I'm aware that the argument is circular. See my other posts, regarding my opinion on gun control. However, I don't agree that being unarmed makes you safer. It just changes the form the violence might or might not take. If the criminal isn't going to be violent if you're unarmed, they're probably just going to run or surrender if you pull a gun. If they're going to attack you, there's a chance they might have anyways, just to prove who's in control. As for whether that attack will be lethal or potentially lethal, there's actually no way to prove it either way, because every situation will be different, and since it's all hypothetical from here, we can make it any hypothetical we want to support our side of things. It makes you safer in the long run. As in the long run gun supply would dry up also for criminals. It does not make you completely safe, but is nonsensical requirement. It is enough that statistics go down. I'd rather not be a statistic, thanks. But you are, and I am much safer statistically without a gun than you with one. And that is my point. In no system are you guaranteed safety. But in some you are guaranteed high probability of such. Incidentally those systems do not involve so many guns. Gun ownership doesn't automatically correlate with high gun crime. I doubt the statistics for violent crime would change much for the better even if there were a magic no-gun button. Maybe there'd be less deaths, but there'd still be similar numbers of victims. If I can reduce my chances of being a victim in the system I live in, I'm going to.
Being dead and alive but a victim are quite different. I would prefer the latter. Also note that there is no contradiction in owning a gun in US and at the same time being a proponent of changing the system to one that does not require so many of them. US is in a bad situation, because any gun ban is only regional and even federal gun ban would take maybe even more than a decade to show positive results. In the meantime situation could actually get worse. So do not mistake me for someone who says gun control laws are the way to go for US. I have no idea what US can do to deal with this issue. I was arguing that in societies that are not so dysfunctional, guns are not necessary and do not have positive utility. Also US would be better of without them in the long run, but how to get there is unclear.
|
On December 15 2012 06:53 ImAbstracT wrote:
The US has had lax gun laws, compared to the rest of the world, since its conception. However, these mass attacks on innocent people in this magnitude has only happened in the past few decades. Of course it happened before, however I believe it comes from a culture which is increasingly desensitized to death and killing. People don't seem to value human life any more.
You are right in that this is one of the many factors that contributed to today's killings. I'd venture to say that this man was also just plain messed up in the head.
|
On December 15 2012 06:53 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:47 crms wrote:On December 15 2012 06:25 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 Teodice wrote:
I would never even consider owning a gun since I´d just think of all the backfire situations that might occur. I can´t see how people can feel more safe with a gun in their home, then you do not feel safe in the first place and why stay at a place where it´s not safe?
The argument about your freedom and right to wear a gun... So what? Are you really prepared to shoot somebody? Since that´s what they are made for, shooting people.
As stated before. The ones who commits these shootings are not registered criminals, they appear and act like a normal person. I wouldnt really like the idea that the guy next door owns a AK47 just since it´s his "right". Then stuff like this seam to happen.
Dunno, I´m just a pussy swedish communist who likes restrictions. But sometimes I´m glad they´re there. Sweden has a very high rate of gun ownership. you have to look deeper than the superificial though. Sweden's predominate gun ownership is hunter rifles, not semi-automatic hand guns or assault rifles. I bet if you looked at the number of violent gun crimes in the US committed with bolt action hunting rifles, it would be very, very low... THIS RIGHT HERE. What do you think the gunman used in the CT shooting today? A .223 sports rifle. You're wrong. Assault weapons are the lowest type of gun used in perpetrating violent crime. It's somewhere around 0.5% of all gun crimes. Are you speaking out of your ass? Please, look up facts about gun crime, gun laws and efficacy and you will realize the gun control crowd resembles followers of Fox news. Their claims are simply not backed up by fact. They speak on emotion.
What are you going on about?
I'm merely pointing out just because Sweden has similar levels of 'gun ownership' than us, most of their guns are hunting rifles, not hand guns or assault rifles. What emotion am I catering too with such a statement? It's basic arithmetic. Most gun crimes are commited with hand guns, we have way more hand guns than most nations on earth. This is why you can't blindly look at 'gun ownership' to draw conclusions. Hunting rifles vs hand guns is a very important distinction.
|
On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. Look up what happend in china recently. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children.
Comparing the Chinese school stabbing vs the connecticut school shooting as a way to argue against guns is pointless and shows your lack of understanding. it's only convenient if you are ignorant because the chinese school stabbings are part of a series of massacres going on for the last two years due to social problems in china. not only that but this is probably the only assault of multiple where many people did not die. if you look up the previous stabbings many kids and adults were murdered by cleavers and hammers.
|
On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help?
Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd.
Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you.
|
On December 15 2012 06:52 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:50 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:47 crms wrote:On December 15 2012 06:25 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 Teodice wrote:
I would never even consider owning a gun since I´d just think of all the backfire situations that might occur. I can´t see how people can feel more safe with a gun in their home, then you do not feel safe in the first place and why stay at a place where it´s not safe?
The argument about your freedom and right to wear a gun... So what? Are you really prepared to shoot somebody? Since that´s what they are made for, shooting people.
As stated before. The ones who commits these shootings are not registered criminals, they appear and act like a normal person. I wouldnt really like the idea that the guy next door owns a AK47 just since it´s his "right". Then stuff like this seam to happen.
Dunno, I´m just a pussy swedish communist who likes restrictions. But sometimes I´m glad they´re there. Sweden has a very high rate of gun ownership. you have to look deeper than the superificial though. Sweden's predominate gun ownership is hunter rifles, not semi-automatic hand guns or assault rifles. I bet if you looked at the number of violent gun crimes in the US committed with bolt action hunting rifles, it would be very, very low... ummmm.... you do realize that a lot of USA guns are the same? Almost all guns are hunting rifles or handguns (designed for personal protection). It's not like the Corner Store sells a collection of AK-47s. At least, read his post before answering. He said, hunter rifles. You said, yes, the same, designed for personal protection. Hunting is not for personal protection.
It's the idea that they are guns designed for peaceful use. His assumption is that Sweden's guns are OK because they are guns designed for peaceful use while the American guns aren't. That's just not true.
|
On December 15 2012 06:56 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Making large amount of mustard gas is simply impossible at home. Getting chemicals is way harder than you would think.
Mustard gas can be made with household chemicals obtained by buying simple things from a Walmart. Sure, making a lot of it would take time, but it's nowhere near hard or impossible to do. You didn't answer the question I posed though. Would it stop situations like this from happening?
|
On December 15 2012 06:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:37 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:32 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 06:25 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 Teodice wrote:
I would never even consider owning a gun since I´d just think of all the backfire situations that might occur. I can´t see how people can feel more safe with a gun in their home, then you do not feel safe in the first place and why stay at a place where it´s not safe?
The argument about your freedom and right to wear a gun... So what? Are you really prepared to shoot somebody? Since that´s what they are made for, shooting people.
As stated before. The ones who commits these shootings are not registered criminals, they appear and act like a normal person. I wouldnt really like the idea that the guy next door owns a AK47 just since it´s his "right". Then stuff like this seam to happen.
Dunno, I´m just a pussy swedish communist who likes restrictions. But sometimes I´m glad they´re there. Sweden has a very high rate of gun ownership. And as stated before, a much lower rate of gun related violence. The requirements for having a gun here are pretty steep. Gun ownership per capita United States 88.8 Rank - 1 Sweden 31.6 Rank - 10 Canada 30.8 Rank - 13 We're not far behind from you guys. But our gun violence rates are relatively low. Of course, essentially most nations in the global north have low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Homicide Rates United States 4.2 Total - 12,996 Canada 1.6 Total - 554 Sweden 1.0 Total - 91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate homicide rates != homicide by firearm rates.
Alright I'll bite.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate
2008-2010
United States 9.00
Homicide - 2.98
Suicide - 5.75
Unintentional - 0.27
1992
Canada - 4.78
Homicide - 0.76
Suicide - 3.72
Unintentional - 0.22
I can't find data on Sweden's unfortunately, and Canada's is outdated. So I'll look at other countries in the global north.
2009
United Kingdom - 0.22
Homicide - 0.03
Suicide - 0.16
Unintentional - 0.01
Other data sets in the Global North with restrictive gun laws are far too outdated.
Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
It's still the same point.
Easy access to guns = increase in gun-related homicides, intentional, suicide and non-intentional.
So my point back to you.
Gun =/= Safety.
|
On December 15 2012 06:57 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:41 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 06:33 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 06:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 06:08 divito wrote:On December 15 2012 05:53 JingleHell wrote:
Who deserves more protection under law, the person violating the rights of others, or the person having their rights violated? Whether I own a gun or not, my "right" to not be broken into can still be violated. If I'm armed in my house, I think I stand more chance of being fired upon than if I'm not armed; only thing that will change that is the frame of mind of the criminal. The whole issue is fairly circular though. The US is the only first-world nation that has such loose restrictions on guns, and has the kind of population and violence to showcase ridiculous stats. This gives pro-gun people something to point to, saying "see, we need it." It's going to be impossible to convince outside countrymen that have lower gun-related crime and higher restrictions on obtaining guns, that it somehow makes sense. I'm aware that the argument is circular. See my other posts, regarding my opinion on gun control. However, I don't agree that being unarmed makes you safer. It just changes the form the violence might or might not take. If the criminal isn't going to be violent if you're unarmed, they're probably just going to run or surrender if you pull a gun. If they're going to attack you, there's a chance they might have anyways, just to prove who's in control. As for whether that attack will be lethal or potentially lethal, there's actually no way to prove it either way, because every situation will be different, and since it's all hypothetical from here, we can make it any hypothetical we want to support our side of things. It makes you safer in the long run. As in the long run gun supply would dry up also for criminals. It does not make you completely safe, but is nonsensical requirement. It is enough that statistics go down. I'd rather not be a statistic, thanks. But you are, and I am much safer statistically without a gun than you with one. And that is my point. In no system are you guaranteed safety. But in some you are guaranteed high probability of such. Incidentally those systems do not involve so many guns. Gun ownership doesn't automatically correlate with high gun crime. I doubt the statistics for violent crime would change much for the better even if there were a magic no-gun button. Maybe there'd be less deaths, but there'd still be similar numbers of victims. If I can reduce my chances of being a victim in the system I live in, I'm going to. Being dead and alive but a victim are quite different. I would prefer the latter. Also note that there is no contradiction in owning a gun in US and at the same time being a proponent of changing the system to one that does not require so many of them. US is in a bad situation, because any gun ban is only regional and even federal gun ban would take maybe even more than a decade to show positive results. In the meantime situation could actually get worse. So do not mistake me for someone who says gun control laws are the way to go for US. I have no idea what US can do to deal with this issue. I was arguing that in societies that are not so dysfunctional, guns are not necessary and do not have positive utility. Also US would be better of without them in the long run, but how to get there is unclear.
You've clearly missed the majority of my posts on the subject. In no way have I been ambiguous about the fact that the system needs a major overhaul, I'm just also incredibly pragmatic within the current system.
I also don't believe that sane gun control requires the removal of guns completely.
|
It seems to me if we all owned guns the world would be a more peaceful place..
http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-ownership-mandatory-all-households-1418143.html
Article+ Show Spoiler +Firearm Ownership is Mandatory for All Households in Kennesaw, Georgia
25 Years Later, "Gun Town USA" Continues to Maintains Exceptionally Low Crime Stats
Do you know that if you live in the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia, you are required to have and maintain a firearm?
On May 1, 1982, a new ordinance was passed by the city council of Kennesaw. This law ( Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms) made it mandatory for each household to own and maintain a gun, as well as ammunition. Not only was the ordinance passed by city council, it was a unanimous decision. The ordinance states the gun law is needed "In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore." Of course, exclusions were made to convicted felons, people with religious objections, and people with disabilities.
Members of the city council introduced and voted for the ordinance to make a statement when a city in Illinois, Morton Grove, passed an ordinance banning hand guns from anyone other than peace officers. Morton Grove was the first community to ever ban the sale and possession of handguns.
Both city ordinances drew worldwide media attention, with Kennesaw's attention being negative. Nicknamed "Gun Town USA" from a column titled the same and written by Art Buchwald, expectations were for the town to covert back to the Old West style of handling disagreements with ruthless shoot outs. This expectation never happened. In fact, more than 25 years after the ban, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low crime rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is crime has plummeted and population has soared.
In comparison, the population of Morton Grove, Illinois has dropped slightly and the crime rate has increased, especially right after the ban.
Putting a ban on owning a firearm may keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens but will it put them at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their families and possessions? Criminals who do not abide by laws anyway, will still possess handguns. If you were a criminal planning on breaking into a home to steal or cause somebody harm, would you choose a home in a city where every homeowner is required to carry a gun and ammunition or a home in a city where homeowners are banned from carrying guns?
|
On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you.
You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws.
|
|
|
On December 15 2012 07:00 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:37 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:32 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 06:25 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 Teodice wrote:
I would never even consider owning a gun since I´d just think of all the backfire situations that might occur. I can´t see how people can feel more safe with a gun in their home, then you do not feel safe in the first place and why stay at a place where it´s not safe?
The argument about your freedom and right to wear a gun... So what? Are you really prepared to shoot somebody? Since that´s what they are made for, shooting people.
As stated before. The ones who commits these shootings are not registered criminals, they appear and act like a normal person. I wouldnt really like the idea that the guy next door owns a AK47 just since it´s his "right". Then stuff like this seam to happen.
Dunno, I´m just a pussy swedish communist who likes restrictions. But sometimes I´m glad they´re there. Sweden has a very high rate of gun ownership. And as stated before, a much lower rate of gun related violence. The requirements for having a gun here are pretty steep. Gun ownership per capita United States 88.8 Rank - 1 Sweden 31.6 Rank - 10 Canada 30.8 Rank - 13 We're not far behind from you guys. But our gun violence rates are relatively low. Of course, essentially most nations in the global north have low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Homicide Rates United States 4.2 Total - 12,996 Canada 1.6 Total - 554 Sweden 1.0 Total - 91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate homicide rates != homicide by firearm rates. Alright I'll bite. List of countries by firearm-related death rate 2008-2010 United States 9.00 Homicide - 2.98 Suicide - 5.75 Unintentional - 0.27 1992 Canada - 4.78 Homicide - 0.76 Suicide - 3.72 Unintentional - 0.22 I can't find data on Sweden's unfortunately, and Canada's is outdated. So I'll look at other countries in the global north.2009 United Kingdom - 0.22 Homicide - 0.03 Suicide - 0.16 Unintentional - 0.01 Other data sets in the Global North with restrictive gun laws are far too outdated. Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateIt's still the same point. Easy access to guns = increase in gun-related homicides, intentional, suicide and non-intentional. So my point back to you. Gun =/= Safety.
I cant find much on swedens rates either, but the only big firearms related event I can remember happening this year was the police firing at some robbers and I dont think that ended up getting anyone killed. There are probably afew more but honestly most murders here are done with knives or just regular hand-to-hand. We have certainly not had that many big firearms related crimes.
|
On December 15 2012 07:04 Infinite976 wrote:You guys and your lists of countries... how many stabbings does Japan have per capita over the US? Banning things just makes people search all the more for an effective alternative, see: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121021a1.html
Well the difference is you cant mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife
|
On December 15 2012 07:00 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:37 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:32 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 06:25 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 Teodice wrote:
I would never even consider owning a gun since I´d just think of all the backfire situations that might occur. I can´t see how people can feel more safe with a gun in their home, then you do not feel safe in the first place and why stay at a place where it´s not safe?
The argument about your freedom and right to wear a gun... So what? Are you really prepared to shoot somebody? Since that´s what they are made for, shooting people.
As stated before. The ones who commits these shootings are not registered criminals, they appear and act like a normal person. I wouldnt really like the idea that the guy next door owns a AK47 just since it´s his "right". Then stuff like this seam to happen.
Dunno, I´m just a pussy swedish communist who likes restrictions. But sometimes I´m glad they´re there. Sweden has a very high rate of gun ownership. And as stated before, a much lower rate of gun related violence. The requirements for having a gun here are pretty steep. Gun ownership per capita United States 88.8 Rank - 1 Sweden 31.6 Rank - 10 Canada 30.8 Rank - 13 We're not far behind from you guys. But our gun violence rates are relatively low. Of course, essentially most nations in the global north have low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Homicide Rates United States 4.2 Total - 12,996 Canada 1.6 Total - 554 Sweden 1.0 Total - 91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate homicide rates != homicide by firearm rates. Alright I'll bite. List of countries by firearm-related death rate 2008-2010 United States 9.00 Homicide - 2.98 Suicide - 5.75 Unintentional - 0.27 1992 Canada - 4.78 Homicide - 0.76 Suicide - 3.72 Unintentional - 0.22 I can't find data on Sweden's unfortunately, and Canada's is outdated. So I'll look at other countries in the global north. 2009 United Kingdom - 0.22 Homicide - 0.03 Suicide - 0.16 Unintentional - 0.01 Other data sets in the Global North with restrictive gun laws are far too outdated. Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateIt's still the same point. Easy access to guns = increase in gun-related homicides, intentional, suicide and non-intentional. So my point back to you. Gun =/= Safety.
UK is an outlier. You intentionally picked the one that favors you. How about you compare... say.... Wyoming or one of the Dakotas to... say... Finland? Or Luxembourg? Or hell, even the Netherlands? Their rates aren't super far off despite massive ownership rates. You can make any point you want when you cherry pick your data.
I think the question people need to be asking is "Should HANDGUNS be legal?" not, "Should GUNS be legal?"
|
On December 15 2012 07:00 Eps wrote:
Alright I'll bite.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate
2008-2010
United States 9.00
Homicide - 2.98
Suicide - 5.75
Unintentional - 0.27
Obviously where there are fewer guns there will be fewer fire arms related deaths.
The question is will there be fewer deaths?
You should compare Homicides to Homicides. Suicides to Suicides etc.
|
On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws.
And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught.
I give up on people like you lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
