|
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 January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs.
Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime?
I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue.
I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional.
|
On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional.
Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing.
How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings.
As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't.
|
On January 16 2013 04:49 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. + Show Spoiler +The fact is that it CAN happen. In most situation, yes, it would be disadvantageous to those in power to precipitate such a "crazy hypothetical situation", but don't rule it out. History teaches us not to. Don't dismiss us "crazies". We're not saying it'll happen tomorrow, or even at all, simply that it is always a possibility.
So you've made the point that governments can change to forms which you disagree with. Unfortunately you haven't provided any evidence that
1. The United States Government will become a tyrannical force and enslave its people
2. That civilian firearm ownership will prevent this
Your first two videos show well known psychological experiments where people in positions of unchecked power become tyrannical. Grats, but our government system isn't your PSY 120 lab. If your point is that humans can do bad things, then thanks for that.
Next: Nazi germany.
This has very little to do with your little hypothetical future because Hitler was a populist dictator. He had the support of the majority of his country. Civilian firearm ownership had nothing to do with the Third Reich. It was their ideas and propaganda, and government influence which won them control of Germany and its people. If this is where you try to say that the 200,000 jews left in Germany would have stood a fighting chance if they hadn't been disarmed, then you're not capable of holding a rational discussion. 200,000 jews vs (lets say only 1% of germans really liked the 3rd reich) ~700,000 german civilians, the german SS at ~ 1,200,000 soldiers, the 36000 of the Gestapo, and however many regular police officers they had. Jews would have stood a chance, I promise.
Next: Congo
Mobutu was in power for 32 years until, you guessed it, he was overthrown by popular revolt at the hands of armed citizens.
OH WAIT, that's not what happened at all. Congo was invaded by the military forces of Uganda and Rwanda. Still not helping your argument.
Next: Stalin
Stalin ruled Russia for about 30 years, until he died from a stroke, or rat poison depending on who you listen to. Still not a bunch of armed civilians liberating themselves.
Next: Mao
Mao died from the aftermath of a severe heart attack.
will flesh out more after this restart.
|
On January 16 2013 05:29 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:49 Kimaker wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. + Show Spoiler +The fact is that it CAN happen. In most situation, yes, it would be disadvantageous to those in power to precipitate such a "crazy hypothetical situation", but don't rule it out. History teaches us not to. Don't dismiss us "crazies". We're not saying it'll happen tomorrow, or even at all, simply that it is always a possibility. So you've made the point that governments can change to forms which you disagree with. Unfortunately you haven't provided any evidence that 1. The United States Government will become a tyrannical force and enslave its people 2. That civilian firearm ownership will prevent this Your first two videos show well known psychological experiments where people in positions of unchecked power become tyrannical. Grats, but our government system isn't your PSY 120 lab. If your point is that humans can do bad things, then thanks for that. Next: Nazi germany. This has very little to do with your little hypothetical future because Hitler was a populist dictator. He had the support of the majority of his country. Civilian firearm ownership had nothing to do with the Third Reich. It was their ideas and propaganda, and government influence which won them control of Germany and its people. If this is where you try to say that the 200,000 jews left in Germany would have stood a fighting chance if they hadn't been disarmed, then you're not capable of holding a rational discussion. 200,000 jews vs (lets say only 1% of germans really liked the 3rd reich) ~700,000 german civilians, the german SS at ~ 1,200,000 soldiers, the 36000 of the Gestapo, and however many regular police officers they had. Jews would have stood a chance, I promise. Next: Congo Mobutu was in power for 32 years until, you guessed it, he was overthrown by popular revolt at the hands of armed citizens. OH WAIT, that's not what happened at all. Congo was invaded by the military forces of Uganda and Rwanda. Still not helping your argument. Next: Stalin Stalin ruled Russia for about 30 years, until he died from a stroke, or rat poison depending on who you listen to. Still not a bunch of armed civilians liberating themselves. Next: Mao Mao died from the aftermath of a severe heart attack. will flesh out more after this restart.
Those weren't meant to be examples of civilians with small arms overthrowing a government, they were democracies that became tyrannical. Kimaker referenced the Nazi's to show that the Stanford experiment wasn't just some Psy101 nonsense. Besides, it doesn't matter if the Jews never stood a chance, wouldn't it have been preferable to at least be able to TRY to do something? Saying it's hopeless is just so unbelievable defeatist.
|
On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't.
Cite those sources then. Just claiming they exist means nothing. Banning the guns is one step, restricting/collecting them another, altering the culture one more. Gang violence is a difficult problem to address, particularly in the US where it has been allowed to spiral out of control (this is partly down to the availability of guns; other first world countries do not have the issue to the same extent). Gun crime still happens, including gang related shootings, in the UK. You can imagine why this is not as frequent, however. In a country where it is so easy to own a gun, you would feel obliged to own one yourself. They will then inevitably be used when gang clashes occur.
Gang culture itself is really a separate issue, but the availability of guns facilitates the escalation of gang violence.
Stop trying to redirect the argument. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, but this does not negate the fact that guns are also dangerous. Both should be addressed, this is a thread about guns.
It's good that you haven't used guns to kill anything. It doesn't change the fact that guns are for killing. That is their design. Whether you use them for that or not is irrelevant. They are idolised for their power, and their potential.
|
On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't.
Nuclear warheads are not killing instruments. The vast majority of nuclear warheads have never killed a person. Many of them have never killed any living thing.
And that's why you seem a little bit blind.
As for your argument for there being no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime, you forget that the majority of these statistics are made up by biased, bullshit-spewing fucks (on both sides of the argument). Very little comprehensive research has been done because it is easy enough to come up with a talking point statistic that favors either view.
These fail to acknowledge mountains of confounding variables such as
- The difference in gun control laws between states. DC may have strict gun laws, but its neighbors don't.
- The current firearm saturation. Regardless of whether or not firearms have been outlawed, there will still be those who refuse to turn them in. This means that it would probably take several generations to reduce firearm saturation in any given area.
- The amount of time that specific measures have been in place.
- The amount of gun control measures actually in place, when compared to political theatre measures like the NY bill.
|
On January 16 2013 05:47 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Cite those sources then. Just claiming they exist means nothing. Banning the guns is one step, restricting/collecting them another, altering the culture one more. Gang violence is a difficult problem to address, particularly in the US where it has been allowed to spiral out of control (this is partly down to the availability of guns; other first world countries do not have the issue to the same extent). Gun crime still happens, including gang related shootings, in the UK. You can imagine why this is not as frequent, however. In a country where it is so easy to own a gun, you would feel obliged to own one yourself. They will then inevitably be used when gang clashes occur. Gang culture itself is really a separate issue, but the availability of guns facilitates the escalation of gang violence. Stop trying to redirect the argument. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, but this does not negate the fact that guns are also dangerous. Both should be addressed, this is a thread about guns. It's good that you haven't used guns to kill anything. It doesn't change the fact that guns are for killing. That is their design. Whether you use them for that or not is irrelevant. They are idolised for their power, and their potential.
The National Academy of Sciences is one source:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/17/naspanel/
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
Read number 5, they cite academic articles I can't get without paying some exorbinant fee. In fact, read all of them.
Gang culture is not a separate issue because you, and others, conflate the high crime rates with guns when in fact its the gangs and War and Drugs that cause most of it. Legalize pot, or get better at fighting it, and gangs lose their biggest market, and thus all their funding. With no money left to fight over, gang violence will plummet, and so will gun violence. Restricting guns is only treating the symptoms, not the disease. Again, look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo. All urban hellscapes, all with strict gun laws.
On January 16 2013 05:55 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Nuclear warheads are not killing instruments. The vast majority of nuclear warheads have never killed a person. Many of them have never killed any living thing. And that's why you seem a little bit blind. As for your argument for there being no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime, you forget that the majority of these statistics are made up by biased, bullshit-spewing fucks (on both sides of the argument). Very little comprehensive research has been done because it is easy enough to come up with a talking point statistic that favors either view. These fail to acknowledge mountains of confounding variables such as - The difference in gun control laws between states. DC may have strict gun laws, but its neighbors don't. - The current firearm saturation. Regardless of whether or not firearms have been outlawed, there will still be those who refuse to turn them in. This means that it would probably take several generations to reduce firearm saturation in any given area. - The amount of time that specific measures have been in place. - The amount of gun control measures actually in place, when compared to political theatre measures like the NY bill.
Why do people always bring up nukes? That's such a ridiculous strawman. Besides, if you look at history, you will see that up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, wars were getting more destructive, and more widespread. Fear of the nuclear bomb, i.e. mutually assured destruction, prevented WW3. Further, it is in fact true that the vast majority of nukes have never killed anyone. Only two have ever been used in anger.
I agree both sides statistics are biased, which is why I have never relied on them in this thread. I only posted them because the person I replied to seemed to not realize this.
|
On January 16 2013 05:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:29 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 04:49 Kimaker wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. + Show Spoiler +The fact is that it CAN happen. In most situation, yes, it would be disadvantageous to those in power to precipitate such a "crazy hypothetical situation", but don't rule it out. History teaches us not to. Don't dismiss us "crazies". We're not saying it'll happen tomorrow, or even at all, simply that it is always a possibility. So you've made the point that governments can change to forms which you disagree with. Unfortunately you haven't provided any evidence that 1. The United States Government will become a tyrannical force and enslave its people 2. That civilian firearm ownership will prevent this Your first two videos show well known psychological experiments where people in positions of unchecked power become tyrannical. Grats, but our government system isn't your PSY 120 lab. If your point is that humans can do bad things, then thanks for that. Next: Nazi germany. This has very little to do with your little hypothetical future because Hitler was a populist dictator. He had the support of the majority of his country. Civilian firearm ownership had nothing to do with the Third Reich. It was their ideas and propaganda, and government influence which won them control of Germany and its people. If this is where you try to say that the 200,000 jews left in Germany would have stood a fighting chance if they hadn't been disarmed, then you're not capable of holding a rational discussion. 200,000 jews vs (lets say only 1% of germans really liked the 3rd reich) ~700,000 german civilians, the german SS at ~ 1,200,000 soldiers, the 36000 of the Gestapo, and however many regular police officers they had. Jews would have stood a chance, I promise. Next: Congo Mobutu was in power for 32 years until, you guessed it, he was overthrown by popular revolt at the hands of armed citizens. OH WAIT, that's not what happened at all. Congo was invaded by the military forces of Uganda and Rwanda. Still not helping your argument. Next: Stalin Stalin ruled Russia for about 30 years, until he died from a stroke, or rat poison depending on who you listen to. Still not a bunch of armed civilians liberating themselves. Next: Mao Mao died from the aftermath of a severe heart attack. will flesh out more after this restart. Those weren't meant to be examples of civilians with small arms overthrowing a government, they were democracies that became tyrannical. Kimaker referenced the Nazi's to show that the Stanford experiment wasn't just some Psy101 nonsense. Besides, it doesn't matter if the Jews never stood a chance, wouldn't it have been preferable to at least be able to TRY to do something? Saying it's hopeless is just so unbelievable defeatist.
When your enemy has a severe number advantage, a far higher level of organization, far better equipment, better training (both individual and as part of a unit). When your enemy is able to watch every move you make from satellite, when you're fighting against an army AND a police force on their home turf.
When all that is said and done, I'm happy being 'a defeatist' rather than being forced to die because of some moronic freedom fighting ideology.
Also, I'm slightly skeptical about the number of people in this thread who could defend themselves from
1. A cop
2. A swat team
3. National Guard
4. Army
and still come out smelling like a rose.
Mainly because if you do any of those 4 your life is pretty much over. Even on the off chance that you aren't killed or sent to jail you will still have a target on your head for the rest of your life.
|
Any time someone asks me why anyone would ever own a gun for purposes other than hunting or murder I always tell them because a cop is too heavy 
|
United States24569 Posts
NY Law just passed the legislature, despite the fact that not everyone voting in either house has even fully read it yet, and the amendments haven't been worked out... we will see what the fallout of this is.
|
On January 16 2013 06:14 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:34 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:29 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 04:49 Kimaker wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. + Show Spoiler +The fact is that it CAN happen. In most situation, yes, it would be disadvantageous to those in power to precipitate such a "crazy hypothetical situation", but don't rule it out. History teaches us not to. Don't dismiss us "crazies". We're not saying it'll happen tomorrow, or even at all, simply that it is always a possibility. So you've made the point that governments can change to forms which you disagree with. Unfortunately you haven't provided any evidence that 1. The United States Government will become a tyrannical force and enslave its people 2. That civilian firearm ownership will prevent this Your first two videos show well known psychological experiments where people in positions of unchecked power become tyrannical. Grats, but our government system isn't your PSY 120 lab. If your point is that humans can do bad things, then thanks for that. Next: Nazi germany. This has very little to do with your little hypothetical future because Hitler was a populist dictator. He had the support of the majority of his country. Civilian firearm ownership had nothing to do with the Third Reich. It was their ideas and propaganda, and government influence which won them control of Germany and its people. If this is where you try to say that the 200,000 jews left in Germany would have stood a fighting chance if they hadn't been disarmed, then you're not capable of holding a rational discussion. 200,000 jews vs (lets say only 1% of germans really liked the 3rd reich) ~700,000 german civilians, the german SS at ~ 1,200,000 soldiers, the 36000 of the Gestapo, and however many regular police officers they had. Jews would have stood a chance, I promise. Next: Congo Mobutu was in power for 32 years until, you guessed it, he was overthrown by popular revolt at the hands of armed citizens. OH WAIT, that's not what happened at all. Congo was invaded by the military forces of Uganda and Rwanda. Still not helping your argument. Next: Stalin Stalin ruled Russia for about 30 years, until he died from a stroke, or rat poison depending on who you listen to. Still not a bunch of armed civilians liberating themselves. Next: Mao Mao died from the aftermath of a severe heart attack. will flesh out more after this restart. Those weren't meant to be examples of civilians with small arms overthrowing a government, they were democracies that became tyrannical. Kimaker referenced the Nazi's to show that the Stanford experiment wasn't just some Psy101 nonsense. Besides, it doesn't matter if the Jews never stood a chance, wouldn't it have been preferable to at least be able to TRY to do something? Saying it's hopeless is just so unbelievable defeatist. When your enemy has a severe number advantage, a far higher level of organization, far better equipment, better training (both individual and as part of a unit). When your enemy is able to watch every move you make from satellite, when you're fighting against an army AND a police force on their home turf. When all that is said and done, I'm happy being 'a defeatist' rather than being forced to die because of some moronic freedom fighting ideology. Also, I'm slightly skeptical about the number of people in this thread who could defend themselves from 1. A cop 2. A swat team 3. National Guard 4. Army and still come out smelling like a rose. Mainly because if you do any of those 4 your life is pretty much over. Even on the off chance that you aren't killed or sent to jail you will still have a target on your head for the rest of your life.
Oh, I'm not saying the average individual would win in a fight. They wouldn't. But that's why you don't get into conventional fight. Guerrilla warfare is a powerful thing. There are plenty of forests and swamps so dense that satellites can't see into them (look how long Bin Laden managed to hide from those same satellites), and numbers mean nothing in an asymmetric war.
Even then, the individual probably won't win, and might not even survive. But there's worse things than death. Do you really think that the Jews had it better because they didn't fight back? Wouldn't pretty much any hardships in a struggle be better than what they went through?
I personally would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, and I'm saddened that there are people who would prefer chains to a grave.
|
On January 16 2013 06:02 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:47 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Cite those sources then. Just claiming they exist means nothing. Banning the guns is one step, restricting/collecting them another, altering the culture one more. Gang violence is a difficult problem to address, particularly in the US where it has been allowed to spiral out of control (this is partly down to the availability of guns; other first world countries do not have the issue to the same extent). Gun crime still happens, including gang related shootings, in the UK. You can imagine why this is not as frequent, however. In a country where it is so easy to own a gun, you would feel obliged to own one yourself. They will then inevitably be used when gang clashes occur. Gang culture itself is really a separate issue, but the availability of guns facilitates the escalation of gang violence. Stop trying to redirect the argument. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, but this does not negate the fact that guns are also dangerous. Both should be addressed, this is a thread about guns. It's good that you haven't used guns to kill anything. It doesn't change the fact that guns are for killing. That is their design. Whether you use them for that or not is irrelevant. They are idolised for their power, and their potential. The National Academy of Sciences is one source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/17/naspanel/http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htmRead number 5, they cite academic articles I can't get without paying some exorbinant fee. In fact, read all of them. Gang culture is not a separate issue because you, and others, conflate the high crime rates with guns when in fact its the gangs and War and Drugs that cause most of it. Legalize pot, or get better at fighting it, and gangs lose their biggest market, and thus all their funding. With no money left to fight over, gang violence will plummet, and so will gun violence. Restricting guns is only treating the symptoms, not the disease. Again, look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo. All urban hellscapes, all with strict gun laws. Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 05:55 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Nuclear warheads are not killing instruments. The vast majority of nuclear warheads have never killed a person. Many of them have never killed any living thing. And that's why you seem a little bit blind. As for your argument for there being no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime, you forget that the majority of these statistics are made up by biased, bullshit-spewing fucks (on both sides of the argument). Very little comprehensive research has been done because it is easy enough to come up with a talking point statistic that favors either view. These fail to acknowledge mountains of confounding variables such as - The difference in gun control laws between states. DC may have strict gun laws, but its neighbors don't. - The current firearm saturation. Regardless of whether or not firearms have been outlawed, there will still be those who refuse to turn them in. This means that it would probably take several generations to reduce firearm saturation in any given area. - The amount of time that specific measures have been in place. - The amount of gun control measures actually in place, when compared to political theatre measures like the NY bill. Why do people always bring up nukes? That's such a ridiculous strawman. Besides, if you look at history, you will see that up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, wars were getting more destructive, and more widespread. Fear of the nuclear bomb, i.e. mutually assured destruction, prevented WW3. Further, it is in fact true that the vast majority of nukes have never killed anyone. Only two have ever been used in anger. I agree both sides statistics are biased, which is why I have never relied on them in this thread. I only posted them because the person I replied to seemed to not realize this.
Just because nukes haven't killed anyone recently doesn't mean that it isn't their purpose.
Just because I use cyanide to paint my house doesn't mean that it isn't a poison.
Eating my own shit doesn't suddenly make it food.
Similarly, firing a gun at a target range doesn't mean that its primary purpose is for fun and games. Unless you've taken the Hippocratic oath or double pinky promised to never ever shoot somebody.
Guns are tools for killing people. If you cannot understand that, you are not mature enough to be near one.
|
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it.
|
On January 16 2013 06:40 bardtown wrote:
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it.
No offense, but not everyone who serves or finishes service in our military is without mental health issues...
|
On January 16 2013 06:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 06:14 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 05:34 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:29 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 04:49 Kimaker wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. + Show Spoiler +The fact is that it CAN happen. In most situation, yes, it would be disadvantageous to those in power to precipitate such a "crazy hypothetical situation", but don't rule it out. History teaches us not to. Don't dismiss us "crazies". We're not saying it'll happen tomorrow, or even at all, simply that it is always a possibility. So you've made the point that governments can change to forms which you disagree with. Unfortunately you haven't provided any evidence that 1. The United States Government will become a tyrannical force and enslave its people 2. That civilian firearm ownership will prevent this Your first two videos show well known psychological experiments where people in positions of unchecked power become tyrannical. Grats, but our government system isn't your PSY 120 lab. If your point is that humans can do bad things, then thanks for that. Next: Nazi germany. This has very little to do with your little hypothetical future because Hitler was a populist dictator. He had the support of the majority of his country. Civilian firearm ownership had nothing to do with the Third Reich. It was their ideas and propaganda, and government influence which won them control of Germany and its people. If this is where you try to say that the 200,000 jews left in Germany would have stood a fighting chance if they hadn't been disarmed, then you're not capable of holding a rational discussion. 200,000 jews vs (lets say only 1% of germans really liked the 3rd reich) ~700,000 german civilians, the german SS at ~ 1,200,000 soldiers, the 36000 of the Gestapo, and however many regular police officers they had. Jews would have stood a chance, I promise. Next: Congo Mobutu was in power for 32 years until, you guessed it, he was overthrown by popular revolt at the hands of armed citizens. OH WAIT, that's not what happened at all. Congo was invaded by the military forces of Uganda and Rwanda. Still not helping your argument. Next: Stalin Stalin ruled Russia for about 30 years, until he died from a stroke, or rat poison depending on who you listen to. Still not a bunch of armed civilians liberating themselves. Next: Mao Mao died from the aftermath of a severe heart attack. will flesh out more after this restart. Those weren't meant to be examples of civilians with small arms overthrowing a government, they were democracies that became tyrannical. Kimaker referenced the Nazi's to show that the Stanford experiment wasn't just some Psy101 nonsense. Besides, it doesn't matter if the Jews never stood a chance, wouldn't it have been preferable to at least be able to TRY to do something? Saying it's hopeless is just so unbelievable defeatist. When your enemy has a severe number advantage, a far higher level of organization, far better equipment, better training (both individual and as part of a unit). When your enemy is able to watch every move you make from satellite, when you're fighting against an army AND a police force on their home turf. When all that is said and done, I'm happy being 'a defeatist' rather than being forced to die because of some moronic freedom fighting ideology. Also, I'm slightly skeptical about the number of people in this thread who could defend themselves from 1. A cop 2. A swat team 3. National Guard 4. Army and still come out smelling like a rose. Mainly because if you do any of those 4 your life is pretty much over. Even on the off chance that you aren't killed or sent to jail you will still have a target on your head for the rest of your life. Oh, I'm not saying the average individual would win in a fight. They wouldn't. But that's why you don't get into conventional fight. Guerrilla warfare is a powerful thing. There are plenty of forests and swamps so dense that satellites can't see into them (look how long Bin Laden managed to hide from those same satellites), and numbers mean nothing in an asymmetric war. Even then, the individual probably won't win, and might not even survive. But there's worse things than death. Do you really think that the Jews had it better because they didn't fight back? Wouldn't pretty much any hardships in a struggle be better than what they went through? I personally would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, and I'm saddened that there are people who would prefer chains to a grave.
So your point is that people could go live in the swamps or the mountains until they got killed. Good point, glad we got over the "fightin jer gubermint tyranny" bit.
I still don't get your bit with the jews in Germany. So they could have died with guns in their hands. Maybe even taken a Nazi or two with em. They'd have been dead a lot faster though.
As for your final bit, being a failed martyr really isn't on my to-do list. If waving a gun around achieves nothing for me, I'm not going to wave a gun around. I try not to get caught up in absolutist ideologies that result in my death.
When the government comes for your gun, and you fight them, give my regards to your wife and kids before you die.
|
On January 16 2013 06:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 06:40 bardtown wrote:
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it. No offense, but not everyone who serves or finishes service in our military is without mental health issues...
The American military and the Swiss military are two completely different entities, and national service is not the same as serving in Afghanistan, for example.
|
On January 16 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 06:02 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:47 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Cite those sources then. Just claiming they exist means nothing. Banning the guns is one step, restricting/collecting them another, altering the culture one more. Gang violence is a difficult problem to address, particularly in the US where it has been allowed to spiral out of control (this is partly down to the availability of guns; other first world countries do not have the issue to the same extent). Gun crime still happens, including gang related shootings, in the UK. You can imagine why this is not as frequent, however. In a country where it is so easy to own a gun, you would feel obliged to own one yourself. They will then inevitably be used when gang clashes occur. Gang culture itself is really a separate issue, but the availability of guns facilitates the escalation of gang violence. Stop trying to redirect the argument. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, but this does not negate the fact that guns are also dangerous. Both should be addressed, this is a thread about guns. It's good that you haven't used guns to kill anything. It doesn't change the fact that guns are for killing. That is their design. Whether you use them for that or not is irrelevant. They are idolised for their power, and their potential. The National Academy of Sciences is one source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/17/naspanel/http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htmRead number 5, they cite academic articles I can't get without paying some exorbinant fee. In fact, read all of them. Gang culture is not a separate issue because you, and others, conflate the high crime rates with guns when in fact its the gangs and War and Drugs that cause most of it. Legalize pot, or get better at fighting it, and gangs lose their biggest market, and thus all their funding. With no money left to fight over, gang violence will plummet, and so will gun violence. Restricting guns is only treating the symptoms, not the disease. Again, look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo. All urban hellscapes, all with strict gun laws. On January 16 2013 05:55 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Nuclear warheads are not killing instruments. The vast majority of nuclear warheads have never killed a person. Many of them have never killed any living thing. And that's why you seem a little bit blind. As for your argument for there being no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime, you forget that the majority of these statistics are made up by biased, bullshit-spewing fucks (on both sides of the argument). Very little comprehensive research has been done because it is easy enough to come up with a talking point statistic that favors either view. These fail to acknowledge mountains of confounding variables such as - The difference in gun control laws between states. DC may have strict gun laws, but its neighbors don't. - The current firearm saturation. Regardless of whether or not firearms have been outlawed, there will still be those who refuse to turn them in. This means that it would probably take several generations to reduce firearm saturation in any given area. - The amount of time that specific measures have been in place. - The amount of gun control measures actually in place, when compared to political theatre measures like the NY bill. Why do people always bring up nukes? That's such a ridiculous strawman. Besides, if you look at history, you will see that up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, wars were getting more destructive, and more widespread. Fear of the nuclear bomb, i.e. mutually assured destruction, prevented WW3. Further, it is in fact true that the vast majority of nukes have never killed anyone. Only two have ever been used in anger. I agree both sides statistics are biased, which is why I have never relied on them in this thread. I only posted them because the person I replied to seemed to not realize this. Just because nukes haven't killed anyone recently doesn't mean that it isn't their purpose. Just because I use cyanide to paint my house doesn't mean that it isn't a poison. Eating my own shit doesn't suddenly make it food. Similarly, firing a gun at a target range doesn't mean that its primary purpose is for fun and games. Unless you've taken the Hippocratic oath or double pinky promised to never ever shoot somebody. Guns are tools for killing people. If you cannot understand that, you are not mature enough to be near one.
How about javelins? They were invented to kill. Same with bows. But people still use them in sporting events.
On January 16 2013 06:40 bardtown wrote:
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it.
Did you see that the same day as the Newtown shooting, a man in China knifed around 20 schoolchildren? How about Timothy McVeigh? he just used fertilizer and a truck. Guns are not to blame, the individuals behind them are.
The availability of alcohol has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line. If you want to save children, get rid of alcohol first, it kills far more kids than guns do.
As for the statistics, I don't really care. Your statistics leave out just as many socioeconomic factors. There are no good, unbiased stats. I'm cool with not using the ones on my side if you're cool with not using yours.
As for Switzerland and the mental health stuff, I'm all for background checks for purchasing guns. Violent criminals or the mentally infirm should not have guns. But gun violence is only a symptom, not the disease. Until we treat the disease, i.e. shitty mental healthcare, we'll just bounce from one crisis to the next, putting bandaids on each one when we really need open-heart surgery.
Guns do not enable gang culture, the illegality of pot, and the porosity of the border does. If pot was legal, the market would fall out from under gangs, and they'd simply go out of business, per se. If the border was less porous, you could further shut down the illegal drug market. Take away the guns, and the gangs will just switch weapons, or even just get illegal guns. Take away their markets though, and that's game over.
|
On January 16 2013 07:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 06:02 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:47 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:[quote] I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. [quote] This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Cite those sources then. Just claiming they exist means nothing. Banning the guns is one step, restricting/collecting them another, altering the culture one more. Gang violence is a difficult problem to address, particularly in the US where it has been allowed to spiral out of control (this is partly down to the availability of guns; other first world countries do not have the issue to the same extent). Gun crime still happens, including gang related shootings, in the UK. You can imagine why this is not as frequent, however. In a country where it is so easy to own a gun, you would feel obliged to own one yourself. They will then inevitably be used when gang clashes occur. Gang culture itself is really a separate issue, but the availability of guns facilitates the escalation of gang violence. Stop trying to redirect the argument. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, but this does not negate the fact that guns are also dangerous. Both should be addressed, this is a thread about guns. It's good that you haven't used guns to kill anything. It doesn't change the fact that guns are for killing. That is their design. Whether you use them for that or not is irrelevant. They are idolised for their power, and their potential. The National Academy of Sciences is one source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/17/naspanel/http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htmRead number 5, they cite academic articles I can't get without paying some exorbinant fee. In fact, read all of them. Gang culture is not a separate issue because you, and others, conflate the high crime rates with guns when in fact its the gangs and War and Drugs that cause most of it. Legalize pot, or get better at fighting it, and gangs lose their biggest market, and thus all their funding. With no money left to fight over, gang violence will plummet, and so will gun violence. Restricting guns is only treating the symptoms, not the disease. Again, look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo. All urban hellscapes, all with strict gun laws. On January 16 2013 05:55 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:[quote] I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. [quote] This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Nuclear warheads are not killing instruments. The vast majority of nuclear warheads have never killed a person. Many of them have never killed any living thing. And that's why you seem a little bit blind. As for your argument for there being no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime, you forget that the majority of these statistics are made up by biased, bullshit-spewing fucks (on both sides of the argument). Very little comprehensive research has been done because it is easy enough to come up with a talking point statistic that favors either view. These fail to acknowledge mountains of confounding variables such as - The difference in gun control laws between states. DC may have strict gun laws, but its neighbors don't. - The current firearm saturation. Regardless of whether or not firearms have been outlawed, there will still be those who refuse to turn them in. This means that it would probably take several generations to reduce firearm saturation in any given area. - The amount of time that specific measures have been in place. - The amount of gun control measures actually in place, when compared to political theatre measures like the NY bill. Why do people always bring up nukes? That's such a ridiculous strawman. Besides, if you look at history, you will see that up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, wars were getting more destructive, and more widespread. Fear of the nuclear bomb, i.e. mutually assured destruction, prevented WW3. Further, it is in fact true that the vast majority of nukes have never killed anyone. Only two have ever been used in anger. I agree both sides statistics are biased, which is why I have never relied on them in this thread. I only posted them because the person I replied to seemed to not realize this. Just because nukes haven't killed anyone recently doesn't mean that it isn't their purpose. Just because I use cyanide to paint my house doesn't mean that it isn't a poison. Eating my own shit doesn't suddenly make it food. Similarly, firing a gun at a target range doesn't mean that its primary purpose is for fun and games. Unless you've taken the Hippocratic oath or double pinky promised to never ever shoot somebody. Guns are tools for killing people. If you cannot understand that, you are not mature enough to be near one. How about javelins? They were invented to kill. Same with bows. But people still use them in sporting events. Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 06:40 bardtown wrote:
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it. Did you see that the same day as the Newtown shooting, a man in China knifed around 20 schoolchildren? How about Timothy McVeigh? he just used fertilizer and a truck. Guns are not to blame, the individuals behind them are. The availability of alcohol has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line. If you want to save children, get rid of alcohol first, it kills far more kids than guns do. As for the statistics, I don't really care. Your statistics leave out just as many socioeconomic factors. There are no good, unbiased stats. I'm cool with not using the ones on my side if you're cool with not using yours. As for Switzerland and the mental health stuff, I'm all for background checks for purchasing guns. Violent criminals or the mentally infirm should not have guns. But gun violence is only a symptom, not the disease. Until we treat the disease, i.e. shitty mental healthcare, we'll just bounce from one crisis to the next, putting bandaids on each one when we really need open-heart surgery. Guns do not enable gang culture, the illegality of pot, and the porosity of the border does. If pot was legal, the market would fall out from under gangs, and they'd simply go out of business, per se. If the border was less porous, you could further shut down the illegal drug market. Take away the guns, and the gangs will just switch weapons, or even just get illegal guns. Take away their markets though, and that's game over.
Make one valid point, please. Note that those children in China did not die. Had it been a gun attack, they would have. Bows and javelins are dangerous, but not to the extent that guns are. Want to provide an example of fertiliser as a weapon for each example I can cite for gun massacres? Again you try to divert the issue at hand.
STOP BRINGING UP ALCOHOL AS A WAY TO AVOID THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING.
Yes, gun crime is a symptom of deeper issues, but the restriction of guns can restrict the damage done by the symptom. America ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSING ITS HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS.
Cannabis is illegal in many countries. Those street dealers with the guns are selling crack, not weed.
Maybe capslock will help your reading comprehension, but you want to ignore statistics anyway, because they're incomplete. You want an argument based on nothing but prejudice.
|
On January 16 2013 07:24 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 07:07 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 06:02 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:47 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given?
Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Cite those sources then. Just claiming they exist means nothing. Banning the guns is one step, restricting/collecting them another, altering the culture one more. Gang violence is a difficult problem to address, particularly in the US where it has been allowed to spiral out of control (this is partly down to the availability of guns; other first world countries do not have the issue to the same extent). Gun crime still happens, including gang related shootings, in the UK. You can imagine why this is not as frequent, however. In a country where it is so easy to own a gun, you would feel obliged to own one yourself. They will then inevitably be used when gang clashes occur. Gang culture itself is really a separate issue, but the availability of guns facilitates the escalation of gang violence. Stop trying to redirect the argument. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, but this does not negate the fact that guns are also dangerous. Both should be addressed, this is a thread about guns. It's good that you haven't used guns to kill anything. It doesn't change the fact that guns are for killing. That is their design. Whether you use them for that or not is irrelevant. They are idolised for their power, and their potential. The National Academy of Sciences is one source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/17/naspanel/http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htmRead number 5, they cite academic articles I can't get without paying some exorbinant fee. In fact, read all of them. Gang culture is not a separate issue because you, and others, conflate the high crime rates with guns when in fact its the gangs and War and Drugs that cause most of it. Legalize pot, or get better at fighting it, and gangs lose their biggest market, and thus all their funding. With no money left to fight over, gang violence will plummet, and so will gun violence. Restricting guns is only treating the symptoms, not the disease. Again, look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo. All urban hellscapes, all with strict gun laws. On January 16 2013 05:55 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given?
Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Nuclear warheads are not killing instruments. The vast majority of nuclear warheads have never killed a person. Many of them have never killed any living thing. And that's why you seem a little bit blind. As for your argument for there being no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime, you forget that the majority of these statistics are made up by biased, bullshit-spewing fucks (on both sides of the argument). Very little comprehensive research has been done because it is easy enough to come up with a talking point statistic that favors either view. These fail to acknowledge mountains of confounding variables such as - The difference in gun control laws between states. DC may have strict gun laws, but its neighbors don't. - The current firearm saturation. Regardless of whether or not firearms have been outlawed, there will still be those who refuse to turn them in. This means that it would probably take several generations to reduce firearm saturation in any given area. - The amount of time that specific measures have been in place. - The amount of gun control measures actually in place, when compared to political theatre measures like the NY bill. Why do people always bring up nukes? That's such a ridiculous strawman. Besides, if you look at history, you will see that up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, wars were getting more destructive, and more widespread. Fear of the nuclear bomb, i.e. mutually assured destruction, prevented WW3. Further, it is in fact true that the vast majority of nukes have never killed anyone. Only two have ever been used in anger. I agree both sides statistics are biased, which is why I have never relied on them in this thread. I only posted them because the person I replied to seemed to not realize this. Just because nukes haven't killed anyone recently doesn't mean that it isn't their purpose. Just because I use cyanide to paint my house doesn't mean that it isn't a poison. Eating my own shit doesn't suddenly make it food. Similarly, firing a gun at a target range doesn't mean that its primary purpose is for fun and games. Unless you've taken the Hippocratic oath or double pinky promised to never ever shoot somebody. Guns are tools for killing people. If you cannot understand that, you are not mature enough to be near one. How about javelins? They were invented to kill. Same with bows. But people still use them in sporting events. On January 16 2013 06:40 bardtown wrote:
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it. Did you see that the same day as the Newtown shooting, a man in China knifed around 20 schoolchildren? How about Timothy McVeigh? he just used fertilizer and a truck. Guns are not to blame, the individuals behind them are. The availability of alcohol has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line. If you want to save children, get rid of alcohol first, it kills far more kids than guns do. As for the statistics, I don't really care. Your statistics leave out just as many socioeconomic factors. There are no good, unbiased stats. I'm cool with not using the ones on my side if you're cool with not using yours. As for Switzerland and the mental health stuff, I'm all for background checks for purchasing guns. Violent criminals or the mentally infirm should not have guns. But gun violence is only a symptom, not the disease. Until we treat the disease, i.e. shitty mental healthcare, we'll just bounce from one crisis to the next, putting bandaids on each one when we really need open-heart surgery. Guns do not enable gang culture, the illegality of pot, and the porosity of the border does. If pot was legal, the market would fall out from under gangs, and they'd simply go out of business, per se. If the border was less porous, you could further shut down the illegal drug market. Take away the guns, and the gangs will just switch weapons, or even just get illegal guns. Take away their markets though, and that's game over. Make one valid point, please. Note that those children in China did not die. Had it been a gun attack, they would have. Bows and javelins are dangerous, but not to the extent that guns are. Want to provide an example of fertiliser as a weapon for each example I can cite for gun massacres? Again you try to divert the issue at hand. STOP BRINGING UP ALCOHOL AS A WAY TO AVOID THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING. Yes, gun crime is a symptom of deeper issues, but the restriction of guns can restrict the damage done by the symptom. America ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSING ITS HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS. Cannabis is illegal in many countries. Those street dealers with the guns are selling crack, not weed. Maybe capslock will help your reading comprehension, but you want to ignore statistics anyway, because they're incomplete. You want an argument based on nothing but prejudice.
You do not know that those children in china would have died had it been a gun. Being shot is not an automatic death sentence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0
You also do not know that they would always live if he had not had a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 killed, 13 wounded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 killed, 10 injured.
I'm not bringing up alcohol to avoid the issue. It's an analogy, and a fitting one at that. Alcohol has no legitimate uses beyond recreation. And alcohol causes thousands of deaths.
Alcohol causes ~75,000 deaths a year:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/
Even excluding cirrhosis, alcohol related accidents accounted for more deaths than ALL gun deaths in the US that year.
Guns only cause ~31,000:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
If you want to save lives, why try to restrict the guns when alcohol kills over twice as many people, and is practically unrestricted?
I'm going to guess it's because you have no experience with guns. They don't mean anything to you, while you do like alcohol. You're OK with legislating against things that have no importance to you, but you do enjoy a drink now and then. Well alcohol doesn't really mean anything to me, but I do enjoy shooting empty cans or cardboard boxes every now and then. I also appreciate the whole defense against tyranny thing, but I've covered that enough.
I want an argument based on logic and reason. A Priori rationale means more to me than A Posteriori.
Stats can be tweaked, poorly represented, or even forged outright, logic cannot.
I never said legalizing cannabis would completely solve the gang issue. Remember the other half of my plan was to tighten border security to cut the flow of illegal drugs into the country.
Edit: fixed a broken URL
|
On January 16 2013 07:24 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 07:07 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 06:02 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:47 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given?
Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Cite those sources then. Just claiming they exist means nothing. Banning the guns is one step, restricting/collecting them another, altering the culture one more. Gang violence is a difficult problem to address, particularly in the US where it has been allowed to spiral out of control (this is partly down to the availability of guns; other first world countries do not have the issue to the same extent). Gun crime still happens, including gang related shootings, in the UK. You can imagine why this is not as frequent, however. In a country where it is so easy to own a gun, you would feel obliged to own one yourself. They will then inevitably be used when gang clashes occur. Gang culture itself is really a separate issue, but the availability of guns facilitates the escalation of gang violence. Stop trying to redirect the argument. Alcohol is a dangerous substance, but this does not negate the fact that guns are also dangerous. Both should be addressed, this is a thread about guns. It's good that you haven't used guns to kill anything. It doesn't change the fact that guns are for killing. That is their design. Whether you use them for that or not is irrelevant. They are idolised for their power, and their potential. The National Academy of Sciences is one source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/17/naspanel/http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htmRead number 5, they cite academic articles I can't get without paying some exorbinant fee. In fact, read all of them. Gang culture is not a separate issue because you, and others, conflate the high crime rates with guns when in fact its the gangs and War and Drugs that cause most of it. Legalize pot, or get better at fighting it, and gangs lose their biggest market, and thus all their funding. With no money left to fight over, gang violence will plummet, and so will gun violence. Restricting guns is only treating the symptoms, not the disease. Again, look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo. All urban hellscapes, all with strict gun laws. On January 16 2013 05:55 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 05:28 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 05:16 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 05:00 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given?
Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it. I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it? 4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs. Do you not understand that legalisation and availability is correlated with gun crime, and that support for this legalisation (which offers no benefit beyond satisfying ones 'preference' of owning guns) thus facilitates gun crime? I only said 'full of' because you made me angry. Have enough respect for your country that you want to lower gang and drug related killings, even if school shootings are the more pressing issue. I've said it a hundred times, the idolisation of killing instruments is, and can only be, a bad thing. If you want guns for self defence, do this: one model, designed specifically for self defense, brightly coloured, not easily concealable. Don't make guns cool, don't make them impressive, make them purely functional. Guns are not killing instruments. The vast majority of gun owners have never shot a person. Many of them (myself included) have never shot any living thing. How are school shootings a more pressing issue? What makes those deaths worse than any other premature death? Far more children are killed due to alcohol than in school shootings. As for gun control correlating with gun crime, it doesn't. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its almost a warzone in some neighborhoods. You can't decrease gang violence by banning guns. Many gang members already have illegal guns, and many more will simply switch to knives or bats. Some statistics might say that gun control works, but just as many, from just as reputable of sources say it doesn't. Nuclear warheads are not killing instruments. The vast majority of nuclear warheads have never killed a person. Many of them have never killed any living thing. And that's why you seem a little bit blind. As for your argument for there being no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime, you forget that the majority of these statistics are made up by biased, bullshit-spewing fucks (on both sides of the argument). Very little comprehensive research has been done because it is easy enough to come up with a talking point statistic that favors either view. These fail to acknowledge mountains of confounding variables such as - The difference in gun control laws between states. DC may have strict gun laws, but its neighbors don't. - The current firearm saturation. Regardless of whether or not firearms have been outlawed, there will still be those who refuse to turn them in. This means that it would probably take several generations to reduce firearm saturation in any given area. - The amount of time that specific measures have been in place. - The amount of gun control measures actually in place, when compared to political theatre measures like the NY bill. Why do people always bring up nukes? That's such a ridiculous strawman. Besides, if you look at history, you will see that up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, wars were getting more destructive, and more widespread. Fear of the nuclear bomb, i.e. mutually assured destruction, prevented WW3. Further, it is in fact true that the vast majority of nukes have never killed anyone. Only two have ever been used in anger. I agree both sides statistics are biased, which is why I have never relied on them in this thread. I only posted them because the person I replied to seemed to not realize this. Just because nukes haven't killed anyone recently doesn't mean that it isn't their purpose. Just because I use cyanide to paint my house doesn't mean that it isn't a poison. Eating my own shit doesn't suddenly make it food. Similarly, firing a gun at a target range doesn't mean that its primary purpose is for fun and games. Unless you've taken the Hippocratic oath or double pinky promised to never ever shoot somebody. Guns are tools for killing people. If you cannot understand that, you are not mature enough to be near one. How about javelins? They were invented to kill. Same with bows. But people still use them in sporting events. On January 16 2013 06:40 bardtown wrote:
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it. Did you see that the same day as the Newtown shooting, a man in China knifed around 20 schoolchildren? How about Timothy McVeigh? he just used fertilizer and a truck. Guns are not to blame, the individuals behind them are. The availability of alcohol has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line. If you want to save children, get rid of alcohol first, it kills far more kids than guns do. As for the statistics, I don't really care. Your statistics leave out just as many socioeconomic factors. There are no good, unbiased stats. I'm cool with not using the ones on my side if you're cool with not using yours. As for Switzerland and the mental health stuff, I'm all for background checks for purchasing guns. Violent criminals or the mentally infirm should not have guns. But gun violence is only a symptom, not the disease. Until we treat the disease, i.e. shitty mental healthcare, we'll just bounce from one crisis to the next, putting bandaids on each one when we really need open-heart surgery. Guns do not enable gang culture, the illegality of pot, and the porosity of the border does. If pot was legal, the market would fall out from under gangs, and they'd simply go out of business, per se. If the border was less porous, you could further shut down the illegal drug market. Take away the guns, and the gangs will just switch weapons, or even just get illegal guns. Take away their markets though, and that's game over. Make one valid point, please. Note that those children in China did not die. Had it been a gun attack, they would have. Bows and javelins are dangerous, but not to the extent that guns are. Want to provide an example of fertiliser as a weapon for each example I can cite for gun massacres? Again you try to divert the issue at hand. STOP BRINGING UP ALCOHOL AS A WAY TO AVOID THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING. Yes, gun crime is a symptom of deeper issues, but the restriction of guns can restrict the damage done by the symptom. America ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSING ITS HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS. Cannabis is illegal in many countries. Those street dealers with the guns are selling crack, not weed. Maybe capslock will help your reading comprehension, but you want to ignore statistics anyway, because they're incomplete. You want an argument based on nothing but prejudice.
There is little to no evidence that suggests gun legality affects violent crime rate. Chicago, the city with some of the strictest gun laws, is still in the top twenty for violent crime in the USA. Same with Washington DC. The only cities with more are all the typical gang-infested cities such as New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Atlanta, etc.
Weed dealers do own and carry guns. If you sat down in an American criminal court for one day, you would know this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
