|
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 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person".
Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? If the problem is the number of deaths, alcohol kills 100k people in the US every year. Guns kill about 30k. Alcohol kills over three times as many people, and yet you're fine with it. Guns may provide a way to kill people, but they need to already be "that kind of person".
If you think guns should be banned because they kill people, then so should alcohol. I think the real reason why you don't want to ban alcohol is that it is culturally engrained in European culture just as much as it is here in the US. You've grown up with it, so you've accepted it as a fine thing. Well we've grown up with guns, so we've accepted them as fine things.
Again, let me reiterate for the 4th time today that there are no decently-gathered statistics on violent crime in general, let alone gun-related violent crime.
|
On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person".
California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P
On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them?
Yeah, it does :o
|
On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o
But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible.
Hypothetical time:
You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around.
100,000 > 30,000
|
On February 21 2012 04:36 Gentso wrote:
Ehh, my point isn't so much about the weapons the armies use so much as armies shouldn't exist period. Personally, I feel like in this day in age killing is an archaic form of dominance. Just don't understand how killing can ever be justified anymore, at least in the developed world.
Ah pacifism. Evil's favourite unwitting accomplice.
Frankly theres a good few problems in the world today that would have been better solved with brutal violence than any "peaceful" resolution. Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe springs to mind. Pity it doesn't export oil and share a coastline with Europe, or it would of long since went the way of Libya.
As for gun control I'm fairly ambivalent on the matter when it comes to relatively egalitarian countries like the Scandinavian states or Canada. When you have large swathes of the population relatively impoverished however creating the breeding ground for crime, firearms are likely more a catalyst than anything else, explaining USA's abnormally high homocide rates.
Being brought up in Scotland, which has some of strictest gun control in the entire world (even air rifles are completely banned here) since the dunblane massacre. I'm content with the current situation and have never once felt the urge that I need a gun to protect myself. I can only imagine what would happen in Glasgow if you armed over half the city with firearms and live ammunition and told them to protect themselves. It would probably make LA riots look like a domestic disturbance call out.
|
On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000
We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters.
Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality.
|
On February 20 2012 11:47 Nagano wrote:Let's end this discussion once and for all. Below is an excerpt. The entirety of the document is here, start on page 19: ( http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf) The sources are fine, check for yourself. For those claiming republican/democrat bias. Show nested quote +
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
Show nested quote +
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 following:75
• 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
There are more many facts if people actually, well, click the link. There seems to be a lot of myths and hearsay being spread around. Well, why don't you just read up on all the facts on guns, crime, crime prevention, gun control before posting your likely myth-based opinion. All sources are credible.
|
Should people be allowed to own and carry a gun?
Uh, yeah! Its our constitutional right. Out country was founded on personal freedoms such as this..will there be more random violence as a result of guns? Yes...but black Friday holiday shopping causes random violence too. Not the same...I know, but my point is: where do we draw the line regarding what is and isn't acceptable regarding personal freedom? First guns...then what? Tasers? Knives? Fireplace-coal pokers?
People should be allowed to obtain a permit and training to carry a gun on their person and should be allowed to keep one in their house without anything more than a background check...IMO...A classic argument which I will use: if everybody had guns in their home and it was considered normal to use them in self-defense, criminals would think really hard about invading someone's home or robbing people.
The problem with banning firearms is that while that may seem reasonable to some people...others find it arbitrary...We should err on the side of more personal freedoms and then change things if certain areas get out of hand....most gun enthusiasts are pretty serious about locking them up, being trained, etc....most people who are anti-gun seem to use isolated anecdotal evidence to support their claims and often have an underlying irrational fear of guns...I live in Miami and if I owned my own home I would most definitely have a gun just in case...
Another classical argument: If we outlaw guns then the criminals will be the only ones who use them...it is kind of like DRM (anti-piracy) coding in games....the legitimate buyers often have to be online or have to deal with annoying copyright protections while the pirates find a way around it and steal the game anyway...
|
On February 21 2012 05:49 hillman wrote:
Should people be allowed to own and carry a gun?
Uh, yeah! Its our constitutional right.
Your second argument is your opinion so I won't touch it but the fact that it's a constitutional right is not an argument, it's just a fact. Just because the founding fathers had some values, it doesn't mean they're good ones. Might as well argue that guns are good because your mom says so.
Edit: as for your third argument, I'm not in favor of outlawing guns so I don't technically disagree with the general idea.
|
On February 21 2012 05:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:49 hillman wrote:
Should people be allowed to own and carry a gun?
Uh, yeah! Its our constitutional right.
Your second argument is your opinion so I won't touch it but the fact that it's a constitutional right is not an argument, it's just a fact. Just because the founding fathers had some values, it doesn't mean they're good ones. Might as well argue that guns are good because your mom says so.
You're right. You should pick and choose what amendments fit your opinion. FBI doesn't like your 4th amendment right to search and seizure? Ehhh, fuck it, the founding fathers didn't know what they were talking about.
I swear to God, people should have to ace at least high school Civics before they can become actual citizens of the U.S.
|
On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:
[quote]
The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google.
Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks.
By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000 We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters. Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality.
What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it. All it's other effects are negative. Even if you don't drunkenly crash your car or fall down and split your head open, you're still damaging your liver. Even if there are no physical losses, you still can ruin your life, and the lives of those you love because of alcohol. How many people lose their life-savings in Vegas because they're drunk?
At least guns have a couple of legitimate uses which involve no human fatalities. They're fun at the range, and can be used for hunting/defense against wild animals.
To be clear, I'm not saying we actually should ban alcohol, just that if you want to get rid of guns, then to avoid being hypocritical you need to get rid of alcohol too.
|
On February 21 2012 05:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:49 hillman wrote:
Should people be allowed to own and carry a gun?
Uh, yeah! Its our constitutional right.
Your second argument is your opinion so I won't touch it but the fact that it's a constitutional right is not an argument, it's just a fact. Just because the founding fathers had some values, it doesn't mean they're good ones. Might as well argue that guns are good because your mom says so.
Well I did forget about the international community on that one...but still, despite the US congress' best efforts, the constitution was a founding document for nearly all the laws in this country. It was one of the fundamental pieces of law upon which nearly all other laws were later derived or built upon..So yeah, I would say it is a little more important than something my mom said dude....No offense but you really didn't engage on any issue whatsoever, just a weak argument...
I guess I should go out and steal software or rape women because "my values" say its ok....just because they are legal values doesn't mean they are good ones. Might as well argue that stealing and raping are bad because someone's mother said it wasn't ok..
|
On February 21 2012 05:49 hillman wrote:
Not the same...I know, but my point is: where do we draw the line regarding what is and isn't acceptable regarding personal freedom? First guns...then what? Tasers? Knives? Fireplace-coal pokers?
Scotland actually does ban all of those more or less. Anything that be construed as an "offensive weapon"
Guns, tasers, peppersrays, non-domestic knifes, air rifles, certain types of bb guns, etc. Hell football grounds dont even allow glass bottles.
If you can argue a functional reasonable use for it, say a chainsaw, then your free to go about your way with it.
|
On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:
[quote]
The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google.
Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks.
By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:
[quote]
I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:[quote] They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000 We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters. Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality. What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it.
In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made 
On February 21 2012 05:58 hillman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:53 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:49 hillman wrote:
Should people be allowed to own and carry a gun?
Uh, yeah! Its our constitutional right.
Your second argument is your opinion so I won't touch it but the fact that it's a constitutional right is not an argument, it's just a fact. Just because the founding fathers had some values, it doesn't mean they're good ones. Might as well argue that guns are good because your mom says so. Well I did forget about the international community on that one...but still, despite the US congress' best efforts, the constitution was a founding document for nearly all the laws in this country. It was one of the fundamental pieces of law upon which nearly all other laws were later derived or built upon..So yeah, I would say it is a little more important than something my mom said dude....No offense but you really didn't engage on any issue whatsoever, just a weak argument...
My argument was only weak because it wasn't responding to a proper argument. You basically implied that since the founding fathers said it, it's good. Those people were slave owners, ffs!
"Nearly all other laws were later derived or build upon [the constitution]"? How dare you say that my argument is bad when you say things like that - it's so far from the truth.
I guess I should go out and steal software or rape women because "my values" say its ok....just because they are legal values doesn't mean they are good ones. Might as well argue that stealing and raping are bad because someone's mother said it wasn't ok..
Huge slippery slope, and a strawman logical fallacy.
I'm not saying "use your values". I'm saying "don't necessarily use the values of slave owners from 250 years ago".
|
I would be curious to know how that has affected crime in Scotland..very interesting though, I didn't know that
|
On February 21 2012 06:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:
[quote]
I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:[quote] They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both.
I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms.
However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country).
How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that.
If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them.
[quote]
Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well.
"The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000 We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters. Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality. What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it. In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made
Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
|
On February 21 2012 06:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 06:00 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both.
I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms.
However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country).
How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that.
If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them.
[quote]
Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well.
"The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:[quote] I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% [quote] Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000 We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters. Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality. What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it. In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them. I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
|
On February 21 2012 06:05 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 06:04 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 06:00 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:[quote] I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% [quote] Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental.
Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns.
Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC.
I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000 We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters. Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality. What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it. In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them. I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it. Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
That's fair, but the difference is that people can organize without alcohol. Get rid of alcohol, and you lose bars/pubs, which I admit. But, nothing is stopping people from socializing. There are still clubs they can join. There are still groups like the Masons or the Knights of Columbus. In actuality, you might not lose the bars. Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
Further, not having that socialization might be a good thing, as I said.
|
On February 21 2012 06:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 06:05 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 06:00 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental.
Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns.
Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC.
I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:[quote] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000 We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters. Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality. What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it. In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them. I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it. Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different. Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
|
On February 21 2012 06:14 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 06:11 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 06:05 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 06:00 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:06 Rye. wrote:[quote] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statehere, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful. and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people. My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people. It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person". California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P On February 21 2012 05:16 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Dead is dead. Does it actually, really matter what killed them? Yeah, it does :o But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible. Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around. 100,000 > 30,000 We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters. Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality. What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it. In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them. I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it. Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different. Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it. I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
|
Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
