|
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. |
(1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates,
(2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence,
(3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and
(4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01064462?LI=true
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf
Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime
Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Fact: It seems to be slowing down property crime (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate.
Fact: Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
62 Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994
63 Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide
Review Commission, July 13, 2009
64 Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health
and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002
65 Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997
66 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun
supply
67 Ibid Handgun Supply Millions
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, BATE firearm ownership ests.
Gun Facts
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.68
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because
they fear being shot.69
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot
burglaries”70 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the
owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot
burglary” rate of only 13%.71
Fact: Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a
murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is
less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of
the Washington, D.C. rate.72
Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime
control.73
Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least
one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.74
Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following5
• 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at
home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more
Myth: Private guns are used to commit violent crimes
Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.76
Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the
crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun.77
68 Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter
Rossi, Aldine, 1986
69 Ibid
70 A “hot burglary” is when the burglar enters a home while the residents are there
71 Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999)
72 Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998
73 Crime Against Small Business, U.S. Small Business Administration, Senate Document No. 91-14, 1969
74 Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February
1988
75 The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985,
Department of Justice
76 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998
|
On December 15 2012 06:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:50 mcc 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.
Any partial or even complete bans that do not cover whole territory of the state (as in country not US state) make absolutely no sense. The only way for gun control to work is to limit illegal supply of guns and that can happen only if legal supply is minimal and smuggling hard enough. That can happen only if the ban is in effect in a whole country. Plus even then effects would take decade(s) to show. Right. Clearly your invisible country lines are more effective than our imaginary state lines..... -_- Seriously, some people need to learn a lot more about American government before they post stupid shit like this. If a gun is illegal in a state, it's illegal in that state. You don't get an exemption because you brought it from a state where it's legal. It's no different than if it was from one European country to the next.
Difference is in border security, and the lack of it between states means that it can be easily transported.
Your analogy doesn't apply.
|
On December 15 2012 07:00 ArmOfDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:56 Antyee 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? 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?
Let me rephrase it.
Without proper education in chemistry, and a lot of time AND a huge amount of chemicals (suspiciously large amount), you can't make anything harmful at home.
And yes, it would at least partly prevent it, since there isn't an easy and convenient way to to go and murder a large amount of people. Murderous rage and planning ahead very rarely go hand-in-hand.
|
On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote: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
What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people?
|
On December 15 2012 07:05 Benjamin99 wrote:Well the difference is you cant mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
what about 17 people leaving 7 dead, in 2 minutes Benjamin? I'd argue you could mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife..
|
On December 15 2012 07:02 Infinite976 wrote: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.htmlArticle + 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?
Thank you for posting this. It is quite a thorn to the gun control crowd to realize they are completely in the wrong. They hate this type of story.
|
On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote: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 What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people?
Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids?
Omg is it really that hard to understand lol.
|
Today´s shooting is terrible but terrible i cant even imagine how devastated the families can be, maybe it could´ve been otherwise if guns werent so accesible in the US.
Guns are lethal
Less guns = less agression with guns = less lethal agressions. you can´t go on a killing spree with wrench or a knife within seconds. with a gun that spits x amount of bullet per second it is pretty easy to demonstrate violence ; each of those bullets has a high lethal potential.
The US citizen's right of bearing a gun was meant for protection. it turned out to be a double edged sword.
|
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder.
|
On December 15 2012 07:09 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:02 Infinite976 wrote: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.htmlArticle + 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? Thank you for posting this. It is quite a thorn to the gun control crowd to realize they are completely in the wrong. They hate this type of story.
People ignore alot've facts when emotions are involved... Just trying to be a realist =]
|
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
|
On December 15 2012 06:59 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:52 Antyee wrote: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.
that's not my assumption at all, infact I didn't make an assumption at all. It's common knowledge that handguns are the preferred weapon type in violent gun crimes. I'm sorry but you aren't likely going to get much damage done (or be very discrete) running around with a bolt action hunting rifle.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf
California gun crimes report from 2010.
Guns used in violent crimes (NOT homicide)
87.5% Handgun
7.7% Rifles
3.8% Shotguns
1.0% Fully Automatic Weapons
Good to note also that the 7.7% of rifles even less (unspecificed) were common cailber single shot (bolt action) hunting rifles, most seemed to be .223 with mod kits or AR-15s etc.
Guns used in HOMICIDES.
90% Handguns
8% Rifles
2% Shotguns
Guns used in GANG Crimes
91.7% Hand Guns
8.3% Shotguns
|
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
I see your "point". More time to do != harder to do. As for the gas comment, no one can rent a U-Haul? No one can break into a place at night and set these things up? Like I said, more time to do something bad != harder to do it. It just takes more time. I am neither "very young or just not that bright", I see that bad things happen, no matter what you do. You can put more hoops to jump through, you can restrict until you're blue in the face, you can do anything and everything to try and prevent things from happening, but in the end, a criminal will find a way. The only thing that you do is hurt people who will follow the laws because they won't be able to defend themselves. Maybe you're the one that's very young or just not that bright?
Edit: I give up on trying to fix the quote...
|
On December 15 2012 07:08 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:50 mcc 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.
Any partial or even complete bans that do not cover whole territory of the state (as in country not US state) make absolutely no sense. The only way for gun control to work is to limit illegal supply of guns and that can happen only if legal supply is minimal and smuggling hard enough. That can happen only if the ban is in effect in a whole country. Plus even then effects would take decade(s) to show. Right. Clearly your invisible country lines are more effective than our imaginary state lines..... -_- Seriously, some people need to learn a lot more about American government before they post stupid shit like this. If a gun is illegal in a state, it's illegal in that state. You don't get an exemption because you brought it from a state where it's legal. It's no different than if it was from one European country to the next. Difference is in border security, and the lack of it between states means that it can be easily transported. Your analogy doesn't apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Regulation_of_internal_borders
|
On December 15 2012 07:10 crazyweasel wrote:
Today´s shooting is terrible but terrible i cant even imagine how devastated the families can be, maybe it could´ve been otherwise if guns werent so accesible in the US.
Guns are lethal
Less guns = less agression with guns = less lethal agressions. you can´t go on a killing spree with wrench or a knife within seconds. with a gun that spits x amount of bullet per second it is pretty easy to demonstrate violence ; each of those bullets has a high lethal potential.
The US citizen's right of bearing a gun was meant for protection. it turned out to be a double edged sword.
Wrong, please google more facts about gun control efficacy or refer to top post on page 192. This crime was horrendous--killing children is just sick. However, let's not use this event to propagate misinformation about gun control. We want to stay on the factual side of the debate, and if you want to do that, the best thing you can do is to google more information, from reputable sources, about the efficacy of gun control.
|
i've taken interest in gun control debate long ago as a korean fob and read up a lot on it, talked about it. those who have done research to some degree, talked to people, will side with guns but with stricter requirements. its the most realistic way with the current condition in USA, maybe a very slow transition could be possible but still far fetched, even with today's news.
those who support control seems to only think in the lines of "no guns, no kills" while ignoring all the details on what control would actually do, like those who want marijuana banned. i have never ever seen a gun control debate where gun control advocate clearly wins, just like i havnt seen anti-marijuana advocate win. i've seen a creationist win against a evolutionist though lol
|
On December 15 2012 07:09 Infinite976 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:05 Benjamin99 wrote: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacrewhat about 17 people leaving 7 dead, in 2 minutes Benjamin? I'd argue you could mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife..
Well everything is possible but highly unlikely. But I could kill 200 people in 15min with an automatic rifle in a state of rage. My point is there will always be murders and mentally unstable individuals in our world. The challenge for our society should be to limit there killing potential. And removing guns would defiantly help with that. If US someday make nuclear weapons legal I guarantee you there will be nuclear bombs going off 24/7. Same with guns.
|
On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder.
Per capita stats please. It's very relevant. I can't properly respond to this without it (or at least a link).
|
On December 15 2012 07:13 jinorazi wrote:
i've taken interest in gun control debate long ago as a korean fob and read up a lot on it, talked about it. those who have done research to some degree, talked to people, will side with guns but with stricter requirements. its the most realistic way with the current condition in USA, maybe a very slow transition could be possible but still far fetched, even with today's news.
those who support control seems to only think in the lines of "no guns, no kills" while ignoring all the small details on what control would actually do, like those who want marijuana banned. i have never ever seen a gun control debate where gun control advocate clearly wins, just like i havnt seen anti-marijuana advocate win. i've seen a creationist win against a evolutionist though lol
Indeed, completly outlawing guns in America would never work, it is a unique situation, but they should try to put more restrictions on who can buy new firearms and then take babysteps from there.
|
On December 15 2012 06:26 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:20 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On December 15 2012 06:10 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 06:08 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:01 revel8 wrote:
Guns should be controlled. The current situation is not really working in America. How many more times must these sort of things happen there before people realise that? From reading this thread, still some way to go.
A very sad day. They are controlled. Quite a bit actually. Evidently not enough. It doesn't matter how controlled guns are.. if some sick fuck wants to walk into a school and shoot/kill people they will find a way to do it. End of story, when anything is banned/controlled heavily there will ALWAYS be a black market to get said banned thing. Banning guns will not stop these kinds of things, the only real way to stop shit like this from happening is to notice the signs of a family member/friend. It takes some form of mental illness to pull of something that horrible. To stop it, people need to pick up on when others around them seem off or start acting off or showing signs of psychotic behaviour and step in then before hand. People who want to use a gun to kill people will always find a way to get a gun. Heavily gun control will only stop the people who want a fire arm to defend themselves. But..that's why countries with heavily regulated federal level gun control are much more dangerous right? I find the US is beyond help. Their marketplace is already too over-saturated with guns. But we see the failures in their current system way too often in the news.
this. sorry to bring it to you but your country is doomed already and there is NOTHING you can do about it except just leave.
you made mistakes in the past and you are suffering the consequences. the question "should a person be allowed to carry his own gun?" doesnt make any sense at all. its the same question as "should a nation be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" of course not. there could always be someone mad enough who doesnt value his own life or the ones of others to press the button or pull the trigger. so why do you think the whole world fears an iranian a-bomb? because people fear they would use it despite the consequences that would have for themselves. so ask yourself this question: do you want a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of people who dont care at all about their own life or the life of others? no you dont. there are and will always be people who dont fear retaliation so what do you do to minimize the risks of weapons of mass destruction to be used? u put heavy regulations on it and let as few countries as possible have it to achieve a balance of power. its the same thing with guns just on a much smaller scale. how do you minimize the risk of someone shooting another person with a gun? you hand out as few guns as possible and make them really hard to obtain isnt that just pure logic? ofc now u will argue that insane people will not care about laws and get the gun anyways. im not saying things like the tradegy would cease to exist because of strict gunlaws but ask yourself when was the last time you heard about a tragedy like this and the shooter was killed by a law abiding citizen who just happened to be around with his gun? dont you think minimizing the number of guns and making them illegal would prevent more deaths than people having their own guns to defend themselves? sadly in case of the u.s....well this country is so oversaturated with guns already that i dont think any strict gun laws would do anything so you are fucked anyways. my point is the question being asked here is wrong. it should not be "should a person be allowed to carry his own gun?"(no there is no sane reason to) it should be "why is it necessary to carry your own gun in a society with so many guns" you shouldnt be proud of your amendment/freedom to carry your own gun you should be ashamed of your country that u obviously dont trust enough that you have to carry your own gun to defend yourself fromehatever evils may be out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
