|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote:
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime.
The counter argument is that would it be better off to completely restrict guns and make it harder for people to commit crimes with a gun?
|
On February 20 2012 10:35 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:21 clementdudu wrote:
so we can agree that poverty is the real problem but guns are still bad.good enough for me! I guess the whole "guns are bad" idea only happens when your only exposure to it is from the movies or the news. I know many people who own firearms without giving it another thought. It's like someone discussing the "problem" of knives. Some of us don't even give the knives in our kitchen a second thought. It's the same for guns. It's not a big deal at all if you've been exposed to it.
We used to own a semi-automatic rifle in our house.
We got rid of it.
Fair to say, I feel safer without it in the house.
|
On February 20 2012 10:49 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
The less guns there is in circulation the more difficult it will be to get one.
Because a simple gun is rather hard to find and most importantly very expensive not any crack addict can buy one.
There are some areas dangerous, but 95% aren't. And therefor 95% of the population have no use in guns(I would say 99% on TL forums...). There are just fantasizing over the FOX news and thinking they are fucking Jack Bauer (season 1 xD).
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
If you want to be a good father and good husband just take care of your wife and your kids, do your dad/husband job right. And no guns are necessary for this.
EDIT: I guess arguing makes no sense with all those pro RDA and all their crap of american cow boy hero jack bauer protecting his land saving his family from the usual serial killer coming to your home, there are difficult areas all over the world. In Europe as well, and the rest of the world is showing through stats that strict gun control lowers murders rate, even in poor areas.
And for your culture, the famous founding fathers. If they wanted guns for all it was to kick the brits from the US. That's it, 300y later I don't think it's relevant anymore. Mexico has super strict gun laws. Mexico also has some of the highest crime rates on Earth. Washington DC has strict gun laws. DC also has extremely high crime rates. Strict gun laws do not stop violent crime. You claim its statistically supported, but people, including myself, have shown that the complete opposite is statistically supported. Poverty correlates directly with crime, gun control does not. Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:46 FliedLice wrote:On February 20 2012 10:27 stokes17 wrote:
I am completely in favor of public open carry for law abiding citizens who don't work with children. And See absolutely no reason not to be allowed to have a firearm in the home for self defense. Yeah, happens to me every week that some dude invades my home and tries to kill me, right? Additionally I always wear a bullet proof west, a helmet, full skater protection on hands, arms and legs when I leave the house, only drive 20km/h with my car AT MAX and never forget to put on my surgical mask because one day that freaking swine flu could come and get me right by my balls... The world is fucking dangerous man, best thing is to build a bunker and never leave it again. Do you own a fire-alarm? Yes? Why? do you think your house is going to burn down? Does that happen often? No? Then why own the fire-alarm?
Fire alarm can kill people, like guns. I forgot about that. Your point sir.
It works when all the country is strict on gun law, if you can get a gun 30 kilometers from there, in a state not strict it makes no sense.
Mexico is not a developed country, in this case poverty is not the main factor. It's the gangs and the drug traffic. You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc. One has gun control, the other doesn't have it. Guess where the murder rate will be higher?
It's simplistic but I'm trying to be on your level.
3 arguments, all invalid. Good job.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
That is a bullshit way to look at this. You have no idea what you are talking about. "Swallow my American Hero Pride" What the fuck does that mean? Just let someone take my shit and do what they want with me/my family? You want a reason for people needing guns, go look at the video someone posted in the thread earlier. The girl was home alone with her 3 month old baby and 2 men - one carrying a huge knife - broke into her home. She shot the one dead and the other ran. If she hadn't had a gun she would have been raped/killed and the baby probably killed as well. Notice that the soon-to-be rapists didn't have a gun either. Don't worry though, you can blame raping someone on poverty.
I'll keep my "American Hero Pride" and my shotgun.
|
On February 20 2012 10:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:35 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 10:21 clementdudu wrote:
so we can agree that poverty is the real problem but guns are still bad.good enough for me! I guess the whole "guns are bad" idea only happens when your only exposure to it is from the movies or the news. I know many people who own firearms without giving it another thought. It's like someone discussing the "problem" of knives. Some of us don't even give the knives in our kitchen a second thought. It's the same for guns. It's not a big deal at all if you've been exposed to it. We used to own a semi-automatic rifle in our house. We got rid of it. Fair to say, I feel safer without it in the house.
I'm sure you represent the feelings of all gun owners.
|
On February 20 2012 10:57 FoeHamr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
That is a bullshit way to look at this. You have no idea what you are talking about. "Swallow my American Hero Pride" What the fuck does that mean? Just let someone take my shit and do what they want with me/my family? You want a reason for people needing guns, go look at the video someone posted in the thread earlier. The girl was home alone with her 3 month old baby and 2 men - one carrying a huge knife - broke into her home. She shot the one dead and the other ran. If she hadn't had a gun she would have been raped/killed and the baby probably killed as well. I'll keep my "American Hero Pride" and my shotgun.
American hero pride, is not for americans. But for americans thinking they are heros and they have to protect their property. Thinking if I let the guy steal my TV, I'm not a real man anymore. I should get my gun out and risk my family's life. If someone breaks in, he is coming to steal you. You let him, he takes what he wants and goes away. If you come with your gun, there are 2 solutions:
1) The guy runs away, great you are a hero
2) You shoot each other, but since you're Jack Bauer you get him first. Great you're a hero but you killed someone, was it worth your TV?
3) He shoots you or your family. Sadly you tried to be a hero instead of letting him take your TV.
You make exactly my point, you watch too much sensational news. And you directly react to it. Sadly people die for a lot of reasons, good for this woman. But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price.
But you don't take that into account, because it's bigger than sensational news.
|
On February 20 2012 10:57 FoeHamr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
That is a bullshit way to look at this. You have no idea what you are talking about. "Swallow my American Hero Pride" What the fuck does that mean? Just let someone take my shit and do what they want with me/my family? You want a reason for people needing guns, go look at the video someone posted in the thread earlier. The girl was home alone with her 3 month old baby and 2 men - one carrying a huge knife - broke into her home. She shot the one dead and the other ran. If she hadn't had a gun she would have been raped/killed and the baby probably killed as well. Notice that the soon-to-be rapists didn't have a gun either. Don't worry though, you can blame raping someone on poverty. I'll keep my "American Hero Pride" and my shotgun.
I feel very uneasy with the intense hostility towards firearms. I have a remington 12ga stored in the closet in another room that I haven't even thought about until now. Firearm ownership is something to be taken seriously and with responsibility, no doubt. But I just don't understand the immense fear some people have with it.
It reminds me a little bit of religion. No matter what the facts say about the inefficacy of gun control, people will still find reasons to fear and hide behind their beliefs even more.
|
On February 20 2012 10:56 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
The less guns there is in circulation the more difficult it will be to get one.
Because a simple gun is rather hard to find and most importantly very expensive not any crack addict can buy one.
There are some areas dangerous, but 95% aren't. And therefor 95% of the population have no use in guns(I would say 99% on TL forums...). There are just fantasizing over the FOX news and thinking they are fucking Jack Bauer (season 1 xD).
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
If you want to be a good father and good husband just take care of your wife and your kids, do your dad/husband job right. And no guns are necessary for this.
EDIT: I guess arguing makes no sense with all those pro RDA and all their crap of american cow boy hero jack bauer protecting his land saving his family from the usual serial killer coming to your home, there are difficult areas all over the world. In Europe as well, and the rest of the world is showing through stats that strict gun control lowers murders rate, even in poor areas.
And for your culture, the famous founding fathers. If they wanted guns for all it was to kick the brits from the US. That's it, 300y later I don't think it's relevant anymore. Mexico has super strict gun laws. Mexico also has some of the highest crime rates on Earth. Washington DC has strict gun laws. DC also has extremely high crime rates. Strict gun laws do not stop violent crime. You claim its statistically supported, but people, including myself, have shown that the complete opposite is statistically supported. Poverty correlates directly with crime, gun control does not. On February 20 2012 10:46 FliedLice wrote:On February 20 2012 10:27 stokes17 wrote:
I am completely in favor of public open carry for law abiding citizens who don't work with children. And See absolutely no reason not to be allowed to have a firearm in the home for self defense. Yeah, happens to me every week that some dude invades my home and tries to kill me, right? Additionally I always wear a bullet proof west, a helmet, full skater protection on hands, arms and legs when I leave the house, only drive 20km/h with my car AT MAX and never forget to put on my surgical mask because one day that freaking swine flu could come and get me right by my balls... The world is fucking dangerous man, best thing is to build a bunker and never leave it again. Do you own a fire-alarm? Yes? Why? do you think your house is going to burn down? Does that happen often? No? Then why own the fire-alarm? Fire alarm can kill people, like guns. I forgot about that. Your point sir. It works when all the country is strict on gun law, if you can get a gun 30 kilometers from there, in a state not strict it makes no sense. Mexico is not a developed country, in this case poverty is not the main factor. It's the gangs and the drug traffic. You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc. One has gun control, the other doesn't have it. Guess where the murder rate will be higher? It's simplistic but I'm trying to be on your level. 3 arguments, all invalid. Good job.
The fire-alarm analogy was shooting down the idea that gun owners are all constantly terrified that we're going to be attacked. We aren't, just like how people who own fire alarms are not constantly terrified that their house is going to burn down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
In Switzerland, practically everyone has guns. There is also practically no gun crime in Switzerland. Further, the vast majority of what gun crime IS there, is with illegally owned guns, so gun control would not have stopped it. Switzerland has very low crime rates as well. So, gun prevalence does not correlate with high crime rates.
|
On February 20 2012 11:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:56 TanTzoR wrote:On February 20 2012 10:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
The less guns there is in circulation the more difficult it will be to get one.
Because a simple gun is rather hard to find and most importantly very expensive not any crack addict can buy one.
There are some areas dangerous, but 95% aren't. And therefor 95% of the population have no use in guns(I would say 99% on TL forums...). There are just fantasizing over the FOX news and thinking they are fucking Jack Bauer (season 1 xD).
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
If you want to be a good father and good husband just take care of your wife and your kids, do your dad/husband job right. And no guns are necessary for this.
EDIT: I guess arguing makes no sense with all those pro RDA and all their crap of american cow boy hero jack bauer protecting his land saving his family from the usual serial killer coming to your home, there are difficult areas all over the world. In Europe as well, and the rest of the world is showing through stats that strict gun control lowers murders rate, even in poor areas.
And for your culture, the famous founding fathers. If they wanted guns for all it was to kick the brits from the US. That's it, 300y later I don't think it's relevant anymore. Mexico has super strict gun laws. Mexico also has some of the highest crime rates on Earth. Washington DC has strict gun laws. DC also has extremely high crime rates. Strict gun laws do not stop violent crime. You claim its statistically supported, but people, including myself, have shown that the complete opposite is statistically supported. Poverty correlates directly with crime, gun control does not. On February 20 2012 10:46 FliedLice wrote:On February 20 2012 10:27 stokes17 wrote:
I am completely in favor of public open carry for law abiding citizens who don't work with children. And See absolutely no reason not to be allowed to have a firearm in the home for self defense. Yeah, happens to me every week that some dude invades my home and tries to kill me, right? Additionally I always wear a bullet proof west, a helmet, full skater protection on hands, arms and legs when I leave the house, only drive 20km/h with my car AT MAX and never forget to put on my surgical mask because one day that freaking swine flu could come and get me right by my balls... The world is fucking dangerous man, best thing is to build a bunker and never leave it again. Do you own a fire-alarm? Yes? Why? do you think your house is going to burn down? Does that happen often? No? Then why own the fire-alarm? Fire alarm can kill people, like guns. I forgot about that. Your point sir. It works when all the country is strict on gun law, if you can get a gun 30 kilometers from there, in a state not strict it makes no sense. Mexico is not a developed country, in this case poverty is not the main factor. It's the gangs and the drug traffic. You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc. One has gun control, the other doesn't have it. Guess where the murder rate will be higher? It's simplistic but I'm trying to be on your level. 3 arguments, all invalid. Good job. The fire-alarm analogy was shooting down the idea that gun owners are all constantly terrified that we're going to be attacked. We aren't, just like how people who own fire alarms are not constantly terrified that their house is going to burn down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_SwitzerlandIn Switzerland, practically everyone has guns. There is also practically no gun crime in Switzerland. Further, the vast majority of what gun crime IS there, is with illegally owned guns, so gun control would not have stopped it. Switzerland has very low crime rates as well. So, gun prevalence does not correlate with high crime rates.
I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise?
I said "You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc"
|
On February 20 2012 11:11 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:06 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 10:56 TanTzoR wrote:On February 20 2012 10:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
The less guns there is in circulation the more difficult it will be to get one.
Because a simple gun is rather hard to find and most importantly very expensive not any crack addict can buy one.
There are some areas dangerous, but 95% aren't. And therefor 95% of the population have no use in guns(I would say 99% on TL forums...). There are just fantasizing over the FOX news and thinking they are fucking Jack Bauer (season 1 xD).
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
If you want to be a good father and good husband just take care of your wife and your kids, do your dad/husband job right. And no guns are necessary for this.
EDIT: I guess arguing makes no sense with all those pro RDA and all their crap of american cow boy hero jack bauer protecting his land saving his family from the usual serial killer coming to your home, there are difficult areas all over the world. In Europe as well, and the rest of the world is showing through stats that strict gun control lowers murders rate, even in poor areas.
And for your culture, the famous founding fathers. If they wanted guns for all it was to kick the brits from the US. That's it, 300y later I don't think it's relevant anymore. Mexico has super strict gun laws. Mexico also has some of the highest crime rates on Earth. Washington DC has strict gun laws. DC also has extremely high crime rates. Strict gun laws do not stop violent crime. You claim its statistically supported, but people, including myself, have shown that the complete opposite is statistically supported. Poverty correlates directly with crime, gun control does not. On February 20 2012 10:46 FliedLice wrote:On February 20 2012 10:27 stokes17 wrote:
I am completely in favor of public open carry for law abiding citizens who don't work with children. And See absolutely no reason not to be allowed to have a firearm in the home for self defense. Yeah, happens to me every week that some dude invades my home and tries to kill me, right? Additionally I always wear a bullet proof west, a helmet, full skater protection on hands, arms and legs when I leave the house, only drive 20km/h with my car AT MAX and never forget to put on my surgical mask because one day that freaking swine flu could come and get me right by my balls... The world is fucking dangerous man, best thing is to build a bunker and never leave it again. Do you own a fire-alarm? Yes? Why? do you think your house is going to burn down? Does that happen often? No? Then why own the fire-alarm? Fire alarm can kill people, like guns. I forgot about that. Your point sir. It works when all the country is strict on gun law, if you can get a gun 30 kilometers from there, in a state not strict it makes no sense. Mexico is not a developed country, in this case poverty is not the main factor. It's the gangs and the drug traffic. You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc. One has gun control, the other doesn't have it. Guess where the murder rate will be higher? It's simplistic but I'm trying to be on your level. 3 arguments, all invalid. Good job. The fire-alarm analogy was shooting down the idea that gun owners are all constantly terrified that we're going to be attacked. We aren't, just like how people who own fire alarms are not constantly terrified that their house is going to burn down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_SwitzerlandIn Switzerland, practically everyone has guns. There is also practically no gun crime in Switzerland. Further, the vast majority of what gun crime IS there, is with illegally owned guns, so gun control would not have stopped it. Switzerland has very low crime rates as well. So, gun prevalence does not correlate with high crime rates. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? I said "You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc"
You just acknowledged that the variable in both cases--the prevalence of firearms--plays no role in crime. Yet you continue to be very fearful and spiteful of gun ownership.
|
On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price.
You make an excellent case for decriminalizing the sale and use of drugs and treating drug addiction as a medical concern rather than one fit for the criminal justice system.
I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise?
Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now.
|
On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now.
Haha, I found that amusing as well. So lost in his argument that logic seeped in and he ended up arguing for the very thing he was against.
|
On February 20 2012 11:11 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:06 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 10:56 TanTzoR wrote:On February 20 2012 10:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 10:32 TanTzoR wrote:
The less guns there is in circulation the more difficult it will be to get one.
Because a simple gun is rather hard to find and most importantly very expensive not any crack addict can buy one.
There are some areas dangerous, but 95% aren't. And therefor 95% of the population have no use in guns(I would say 99% on TL forums...). There are just fantasizing over the FOX news and thinking they are fucking Jack Bauer (season 1 xD).
If your family were to be harm, 99% chance it wouldn't be in your home and gun or not there will sadly be nothing you can do about it. People don't come to your home thinking, I'm going to rape his daughter in front of the dad 'cause it's fun. Non-sense. If they come to steal you, they will do it when there is nobody in the house. And if they come when you are there, swallow your american hero pride, and let them take your stuff. Your family safety is more important.
If you want to be a good father and good husband just take care of your wife and your kids, do your dad/husband job right. And no guns are necessary for this.
EDIT: I guess arguing makes no sense with all those pro RDA and all their crap of american cow boy hero jack bauer protecting his land saving his family from the usual serial killer coming to your home, there are difficult areas all over the world. In Europe as well, and the rest of the world is showing through stats that strict gun control lowers murders rate, even in poor areas.
And for your culture, the famous founding fathers. If they wanted guns for all it was to kick the brits from the US. That's it, 300y later I don't think it's relevant anymore. Mexico has super strict gun laws. Mexico also has some of the highest crime rates on Earth. Washington DC has strict gun laws. DC also has extremely high crime rates. Strict gun laws do not stop violent crime. You claim its statistically supported, but people, including myself, have shown that the complete opposite is statistically supported. Poverty correlates directly with crime, gun control does not. On February 20 2012 10:46 FliedLice wrote:On February 20 2012 10:27 stokes17 wrote:
I am completely in favor of public open carry for law abiding citizens who don't work with children. And See absolutely no reason not to be allowed to have a firearm in the home for self defense. Yeah, happens to me every week that some dude invades my home and tries to kill me, right? Additionally I always wear a bullet proof west, a helmet, full skater protection on hands, arms and legs when I leave the house, only drive 20km/h with my car AT MAX and never forget to put on my surgical mask because one day that freaking swine flu could come and get me right by my balls... The world is fucking dangerous man, best thing is to build a bunker and never leave it again. Do you own a fire-alarm? Yes? Why? do you think your house is going to burn down? Does that happen often? No? Then why own the fire-alarm? Fire alarm can kill people, like guns. I forgot about that. Your point sir. It works when all the country is strict on gun law, if you can get a gun 30 kilometers from there, in a state not strict it makes no sense. Mexico is not a developed country, in this case poverty is not the main factor. It's the gangs and the drug traffic. You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc. One has gun control, the other doesn't have it. Guess where the murder rate will be higher? It's simplistic but I'm trying to be on your level. 3 arguments, all invalid. Good job. The fire-alarm analogy was shooting down the idea that gun owners are all constantly terrified that we're going to be attacked. We aren't, just like how people who own fire alarms are not constantly terrified that their house is going to burn down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_SwitzerlandIn Switzerland, practically everyone has guns. There is also practically no gun crime in Switzerland. Further, the vast majority of what gun crime IS there, is with illegally owned guns, so gun control would not have stopped it. Switzerland has very low crime rates as well. So, gun prevalence does not correlate with high crime rates. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? I said "You take 2 exactly identical country, same poverty rate etc etc"
Exactly my point. The countries both have low poverty rates. Notice how they both have different levels of gun control, yet they both have low crime. The reason being is that they both have low poverty rates, not the availability of guns.
The real problem is not guns, it is poverty.
|
On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. You make an excellent case for decriminalizing the sale and use of drugs and treating drug addiction as a medical concern rather than one fit for the criminal justice system. Show nested quote +I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now.
I like people who quote only one line out of their context. Lovely.
The poverty and gun control are working on combination.
I'm done here, it's your country. If you think your country is safer with anyone and nobody being able to buy a gun for a xbox 360's price good for you.
The rest of the world is living without, and I think we are doing better for ourselves on this concern.
|
If you have a clean record and no known mental problems I have absolutely no problems with you owning a gun because a majority of crimes committed are with stolen or unregistered guns.
All of my friends own guns. They go to the range and have fun. They secure them and take it seriously. We are all in our early 20's. As for me, I personally will not own one because I know I would use it. When I was jumped by ten people last year, if I had a gun I would have used it, and possibly killed them. In the end, yes I has to go to the hospital and they continue to roam the streets robbing and beating people up, but I didn't have the conscience of killing anyone.
|
On February 20 2012 11:18 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. You make an excellent case for decriminalizing the sale and use of drugs and treating drug addiction as a medical concern rather than one fit for the criminal justice system. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. I like people who quote only one line out of their context. Lovely. I'm done here, it's your country. If you think your country is safer with anyone and nobody being able to buy a gun for a xbox 360's price good for you. The rest of the world is living without, and I think we are doing better for ourselves on this concern.
The classic backfire effect: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. (source)
It was expected, actually.
|
On February 20 2012 11:16 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. Haha, I found that amusing as well. So lost in his argument that logic seeped in and he ended up arguing for the very thing he was against.
He's saying that in a rather wealthy, peaceful society it makes no difference, which both of these countries have.
|
Canada10681 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:19 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:18 TanTzoR wrote:On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. You make an excellent case for decriminalizing the sale and use of drugs and treating drug addiction as a medical concern rather than one fit for the criminal justice system. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. I like people who quote only one line out of their context. Lovely. I'm done here, it's your country. If you think your country is safer with anyone and nobody being able to buy a gun for a xbox 360's price good for you. The rest of the world is living without, and I think we are doing better for ourselves on this concern. The classic backfire effect: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. ( source) It was expected, actually.
The fun part is that it works both ways, for the person who's right and the one who's wrong. Which side are you on?
"I'm right" you say? Who would've thought.
|
Guns are crazy, and the world would do quite a lot better without them.
I think all countries should strive as hard as they can to limit the access of guns to anyone within that country (normal citizens as well as criminals)
|
On February 20 2012 11:20 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:16 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. Haha, I found that amusing as well. So lost in his argument that logic seeped in and he ended up arguing for the very thing he was against. He's saying that in a rather wealthy, peaceful society it makes no difference, which both of these countries have.
Exactly. And that the prevalence of firearms and gun control is a non-factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
