|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 21 2012 14:35 Xapti wrote:
Assuming that knives are frequently carried around in Rwanda (something I do not know), are you implying that Rwanda is a bad place and that carrying knives around is what makes Rwanda a bad place?
If you don't think either of such things are true then there's no point in saying what you said,
He didn't imply any of that. During the Rwanda genocide and civil war, machetes were notoriously used as weapons and to do, well, bad things to people.
|
Yes but my point i that does not matter. I could do just as nasty things with a hammer or other things.
|
On February 21 2012 14:45 Xapti wrote:
Yes but my point i that does not matter. I could do just as nasty things with a hammer or other things.
Well it kind of matters. People shouldn't carry machetes on their belt unless they need to use a machete for something.
|
To illustrate the absurdity of even posing this question, let's apply a similar rationale to other situations:
Should people be allowed to acquire food? They might acquire unhealthy food.
Should people be allowed to have children? Some people aren't perfect parents.
I don't think I need to go on. Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns, or that it reduces crime.
|
On February 21 2012 15:02 0neder wrote:
To illustrate the absurdity of even posing this question, let's apply a similar rationale to other situations:
Should people be allowed to acquire food? They might acquire unhealthy food.
Should people be allowed to have children? Some people aren't perfect parents.
I don't think I need to go on. Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns, or that it reduces crime.
Should people be allowed to acquire cruise missiles?
|
On February 21 2012 15:02 0neder wrote:
Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns
It does, only big criminals have them(bank robber etc). It's relatively hard to find, and not anybody can afford them because the prices are really high. The standard little crack addict dealer won't have one for sure.
|
I feel safer when I walk in France than when I traveled through Texas 2 years ago.
Just saying.
Imo the problem with legal guns is that it is an illusion of defense that still creates a lot of paranoia and unvoluntary kills. Of course someone that want to kill will kill, banning gun would not solve murder but I still sthink the USA would win something in the process, at least I can't see what they would lose.
|
On February 21 2012 15:11 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:02 0neder wrote:
Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns It does, only big criminals have them(bank robber etc). It's relatively hard to find, and not anybody can afford them because the prices are really high. The standard little crack addict dealer won't have one for sure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
I'm not sure what the exchange rate is, but while 2k seems like a lot, I'm sure anyone who felt the need to get their hands on an illegal firearm in the UK could do it fairly easily. It also looks like the cheaper weapons are fairly reasonably priced. Just like any other 'illegal' thing, they are fairly easy to get if you know where to look.
So beyond the whole 'I hate guns', there really is no impact of outlawing firearms other than taking them from people who follow the law.
|
|
|
On February 21 2012 15:26 weekendracer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:11 TanTzoR wrote:On February 21 2012 15:02 0neder wrote:
Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns It does, only big criminals have them(bank robber etc). It's relatively hard to find, and not anybody can afford them because the prices are really high. The standard little crack addict dealer won't have one for sure. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1I'm not sure what the exchange rate is, but while 2k seems like a lot, I'm sure anyone who felt the need to get their hands on an illegal firearm in the UK could do it fairly easily. It also looks like the cheaper weapons are fairly reasonably priced. Just like any other 'illegal' thing, they are fairly easy to get if you know where to look. So beyond the whole 'I hate guns', there really is no impact of outlawing firearms other than taking them from people who follow the law.
Actually I was talking about France, but my nationality may be confusing. The thing is that in France the big criminals "grands truands" actually worked on the gun control. Because they wanted the monopoly of the firearms, they bought everyone they could find on the black market.
This didn't happen in the UK, the other thing is that a lot of weapons are coming from the IRA time.
Sadly it's getting easier and easier to find a weapon, but still harder than in the US.
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/19/violent-crime-dc-surges-2012/
DC prohibits carrying guns, open or concealed. Very strict gun registration laws are in place. Year-to-year violent crime increase is in the double digits and robbery at gunpoint.
Stories like these go to show that when criminals know their targets do not carry weapons (concealed weapons such as knives similarly banned). I'm for the concealed carry of pistols and knives. Criminals should know their target might cause them bodily harm for attempting to rob them. Tradition of second amendment, etc, for the Americans here. It serves as a deterrant to crime.
|
On February 21 2012 15:11 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:02 0neder wrote:
Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns It does, only big criminals have them(bank robber etc). It's relatively hard to find, and not anybody can afford them because the prices are really high. The standard little crack addict dealer won't have one for sure.
You...have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. Guns are so stupidly easy to acquire if you know where to look.
Of all the guns I have confiscated about 95% of them are stolen or otherwise illegally acquired. The people that are doing crime that have guns are not getting them in a means that's legal in the first place. Gun control doesn't mean shit to them.
|
On February 21 2012 15:34 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:11 TanTzoR wrote:On February 21 2012 15:02 0neder wrote:
Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns It does, only big criminals have them(bank robber etc). It's relatively hard to find, and not anybody can afford them because the prices are really high. The standard little crack addict dealer won't have one for sure. You...have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. Guns are so stupidly easy to acquire if you know where to look. Of all the guns I have confiscated about 95% of them are stolen or otherwise illegally acquired. The people that are doing crime that have guns are not getting them in a means that's legal in the first place. Gun control doesn't mean shit to them.
Supply and demand? Little supply and big demand = higher price?
|
On February 21 2012 15:38 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:34 Jayme wrote:On February 21 2012 15:11 TanTzoR wrote:On February 21 2012 15:02 0neder wrote:
Let's not even discuss the absurd belief that gun control prevents criminals from accessing/using guns It does, only big criminals have them(bank robber etc). It's relatively hard to find, and not anybody can afford them because the prices are really high. The standard little crack addict dealer won't have one for sure. You...have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. Guns are so stupidly easy to acquire if you know where to look. Of all the guns I have confiscated about 95% of them are stolen or otherwise illegally acquired. The people that are doing crime that have guns are not getting them in a means that's legal in the first place. Gun control doesn't mean shit to them. Supply and demand? Little supply and big demand = higher price?
For the US specifically, it doesn't really help at this point. They are already in the shithole situation where every criminal can get a gun. Of course it would be better if gun control was always strict and you couldn't get a gun short of robbing the military, but that's not really viable for the US.
|
I think that people should be allowed to have handguns, but nothing more. There's really no need for rifles or shotguns of any type.
|
Goddamn this thread is retarded
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
It's a bit of a catch 22.
This is why most Americans seem to disagree with most people from other developed countries.
If you are in a country with not only no gun control, but where the right to gun ownership is some sort of strange cultural pride thing, eg the US, then suddenly implementing it will not work very well. Firearms will still be widespread, and obtaining one, although illegal will still be comically easy. Thus the average criminal will have easy access to them, while it will be illegal for the average citizen to have one for self defence, at least legally.
In a country that has already got gun control, like pretty much every other developed nation. Gun control works wonderfully. Yeah, it's probably not that hard to get access to them if you were really determined, but it's still alot of effort compared to in the US where guns are freaking everywhere. Enough effort that it requires quite a bit of premeditation for someone to commit a crime involving a firearm, enough that most(and I mean virtually all) petty criminals would not bother with it, spur of the moment crimes involving firearms are also rarely a problem, because it is a pain to have one just lying around(since it's illegal and all), and by the time you are logical enough to actually go about obtaining one, you will think better of it. Ultimately it's not how hard it would actually be to get a gun thats effective, it's only a minor nuisance for a determined person at most, it's the fact that guns are not ubiquitous or readily available, and the minor inconvenience is usually enough to deter most people from commiting a crime with a firearm in the first place.
The point of gun control is not to make sure there are no guns around, that is unrealistic. Merely making it really annoying to own a gun, and eventually annoying merely to obtain one is enough.
So in the end, those American's saying gun control doesn't work are both wrong and right.
Gun control won't work in the US, in the short term at least, they are correct. There is a a ingrained cultural acceptance of gun ownership, and the widespread opinion that the best way to deter guncrime is to have your own gun, furthermore guns are already everywhere and any attempt at gun control would simply be ineffective against criminals. It will certainly be ineffective on a state by state basis, since state borders are not exactly much of a barrier to moving firearms, it doesn't make it particularly annoying to obtain one. So any attempts at strict gun control so far enacted in the US has been unsuprisingly ineffective to date, on that basis they are correct gun control of that nature do not, and cannot work in the US.
Gun control can and does work in most other developed nations. There is no significant cultural attachment to gun ownership as a whole, and generally we are willing to give up the right to own guns safe in the knowledge that other people also do so. The end result is that there are less guns just lying around and there is less gun crime, exactly as it's intended to work.
|
These discussions are pretty pointless and allways devolve into a US vs Everywhere else firearms ownership is illegal (+people who live in big cities in the US)
It isn't hurting anybody in Finland(or here for that matter) that I have 10+ guns, and its not really any of their business. Frankly, I also don't really care what they think. So yeah, just let different countries and different peoples do their own thing. Its fine to have an opinion on the topic but you should worry about making your opinion the law wherever you happen to live. And not care about other places.
|
On February 21 2012 16:24 Atreides wrote:
These discussions are pretty pointless and allways devolve into a US vs Everywhere else firearms ownership is illegal (+people who live in big cities in the US)
It isn't hurting anybody in Finland(or here for that matter) that I have 10+ guns, and its not really any of their business. Frankly, I also don't really care what they think. So yeah, just let different countries and different peoples do their own thing. Its fine to have an opinion on the topic but you should worry about making your opinion the law wherever you happen to live. And not care about other places.
It's not that easy, a result of the lax gun laws has been a fueling of the increase in weapons the Mexican drug war, an unfortunate residual effect.
Since I find it unlikely that Americans will ever be willing to rescind the lax gun laws now in place I hope at least legalization of marijuana (in both countries) will come soon to strike a partial blow to the profit margin of cartels.
If this doesn't happen I hope at the very least the Mexican government designate a de facto sponsored cartel ally and help develop a monopoly in order to de-escalate the rivalries and consequentially the violence.
|
Do you trust your government? Most people don't. The whole reason the US is proud to bear arms is because it empowers the people. If the government becomes corrupt and abusive then the people have at least the opportunity to take it back. We don't want to be helpless to an all powerful government. Personally, I have lost faith in the US government's ability to do a fair and balanced job since the start of the Bush administration. Patriot act, really? How patriotic is that. I don't see things getting better from here, and I sincerely wonder where that will lead us in the next century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
