|
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 01 2013 04:08 Zandar wrote:
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it.
Scotland probably has some of the strictest weapon control in the world.
"Section 47
Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him/them, has with him/them, in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence.
Lawful Authority - Their possession was lawful, e.g. a soldier with a bayonet on duty.
Reasonable Excuse - Under all of the circumstances their possession was reasonable.
Public Place - Includes any road and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.
Offensive Weapon - Includes any article made or adapted for the use of causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with them for such use by either themselves or by some other person"
Basically it's worded in such a way that anything can be banned in a public place unless you have a very good reason for possessing it. i.e. I'm using this chainsaw to cut down trees, not carve up the local school kids.
|
I just googled "should people be alowed guns"
Top 10 consists mostly of USA based sites with the "yes" viewpoint.
But this thread is among them.
Another good reason to keep it alive, isn't it.
At least here people can read the views of both sides.
|
On February 01 2013 04:23 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:
[quote]
do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. On February 01 2013 04:09 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:08 Zandar wrote:
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it. it will be once you ban guns. people will still want to kill each other, theyll just be more creative about it. And he will very likely be MUCH less effective at killing if compared to the same person having a gun. I, with no training and being a skinny asshole could pick up a handgun and kill a bunch of people. A sword? I bet I'd slash myself before killing anyone LOL. Wait, if guns are so easy to use to kill, why do people need to practice with them? Do you have any idea what happens the first time most people pick up a gun? They're lucky to hit paper with no training. I've seen people drop a gun in surprise at the recoil. I saw a SOLDIER break his nose the first time he used a shotgun. They're so loud they require hearing protection to shoot, the noise can startle people into dropping them if the recoil doesn't. Different guns work different ways, if you try to use an M2 machine gun without training, odds are you won't even figure out how to put it on full auto. The first time you pick up an M249 or M240B, you might get completely lost trying to get the belt to seat. If you try to mag feed an M249 without modding your mags, you're going to misfeed and chop bullets. Holding a pistol the wrong way can put you in the hospital missing chunks of your hand. Sure, takes zero fucking training. Ok. A week or 2 ago some people in this very thread said that an elderly woman could easily use a gun without any training effectively. Or did they just say that because their main point was that this is the only way an elderly woman could protect herself?
Well, I sincerely doubt that she'd be particularly effective with absolutely zero training. It could still make an effective deterrent in that scenario.
However, if you compare it to the amount of training that same elderly woman would need to defend herself without a gun, it would certainly be minimal.
|
On February 01 2013 04:22 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:18 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 04:15 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:
[quote]
Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol.
So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people?
I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now.
The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people.
A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. see i would think it would be much more useful and effective to try to find the root of what is causing people to go on killing sprees, address that and prevent them that way, rather than continuously banning things. But that root exists everywhere in the world. Do you think you have more problem kids than other countries? Mentally disturbed kids exist everywhere, kids who'd love to go on a killing spree if they could. Luckily in most countries they cannot get a gun or that school shooting list would be much larger. so they just sit at home, content with not killing anyone at all? if i wanted to kill people id still do it, even if i had to resort to a less effective method. (or you could make a home made bomb with is more effective)
Yes they try, and occasionally succeed unfortunately.
But it's a lot more difficult, so a lot less deaths.
|
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
|
On February 01 2013 04:31 KingJames wrote:
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
Oh, now there's a clever new slippery slope argument. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before...
If it's so unreasonable for "gun nuts" to think that gun control would just keep going once it started, why do gun control nuts get to think that all gun owners want to own nukes?
|
funny how gunpower, an innovation meant to kill, is nowadays in USA a symbol of freedom. when over ages, it was used to supress, enslave, murder, opress. you know, these things that don't really rhyme with freedom.
I've seen in this thread many arguments based on statistics, probabilities and such to say guns either aren't related to crime or aren't related to deaths in USA. Now I think you should look at the FACTS. FACTS are, every year in USA, there is at least 1 school shooting, regardless of the stats or probabilities, and im being kind on at least 1. view by youself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
You could also consider that there is more guns per habitant in america than TV monitors, which just demonstrate the absurd amount of guns legal/illegal. stats can be interpretted all the way around (depending on ideology you're trying to support). and y'all seen that colombine movie, where moore shows how easy and accessible they are.
All of this to say I'm pretty sure guns are killing much more than they protect or save people from danger.
Some then, bring arguement that it would be something else people kill with. swords or knifes.... really? a gun drops anything, from small to big to even a bear. try to rampage a school with a sword when your 16. people will run away, a sword or knife as no power/range and it is easily countered with any projectile(a fucking cocacola can on the head and your done) or any kind of group asasult on you.
|
On February 01 2013 04:35 crazyweasel wrote:funny how gunpower, an innovation meant to kill, is nowadays in USA a symbol of freedom. when over ages, it was used to supress, enslave, murder, opress. you know, these things that don't really rhyme with freedom. I've seen in this thread many arguments based on statistics, probabilities and such to say guns either aren't related to crime or aren't related to deaths in USA. Now I think you should look at the FACTS. FACTS are, every year in USA, there is at least 1 school shooting, regardless of the stats or probabilities, and im being kind on at least 1. view by youself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_StatesYou could also consider that there is more guns per habitant in america than TV monitors, which just demonstrate the absurd amount of guns legal/illegal. stats can be interpretted all the way around (depending on ideology you're trying to support). and y'all seen that colombine movie, where moore shows how easy and accessible they are. All of this to say I'm pretty sure guns are killing much more than they protect or save people from danger. Some then, bring arguement that it would be something else people kill with. swords or knifes.... really? a gun drops anything, from small to big to even a bear. try to rampage a school with a sword when your 16. people will run away, a sword or knife as no power/range and it is easily countered with any projectile(a fucking cocacola can on the head and your done) or any kind of group asasult on you.
Stamina, don't forget stamina.
Just try and see how many pigs you can kill with a knife before succumbing to fatigue.
|
On February 01 2013 04:20 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:15 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:
[quote]
do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. see i would think it would be much more useful and effective to try to find the root of what is causing people to go on killing sprees, address that and prevent them that way, rather than continuously banning things. You'd have to restrict, or modify the following (at least): -TV shows -Movies -Video games -Advertisement campaigns -History lessons -Military -Books -Magazines -School teachings Amongst probably many more, these are just a few of the things that teach us that guns are made for killing people. They do not cause people to be violent, certaily not, but a violent or psychiatrically affected person (which is very likely to go unnoticed), learns from these amongst other things and media, that guns are made for killing. I will note and repeat, these are not the causes of shootings, but you're saying guns have other uses. What I'm saying is that through their life, people learn that guns are made for killing, most of them don't do anything with that knowledge, but some of them will, those who are violent or psychiatrically ill. If all the killing we're shown in our life was made by swordarm, and swords were widely available, you can bet your ass there would be a lot of mass sword butcherings. Since you cannot prevent the presence of mentally ill people or violent people, you have to restrict their access to murdering tools, AKA firearms in this case.
I would argue its more feasible to detect mental instability of the kind that leads to killing sprees than to get rid of guns. if people wanted guns they would be able to get them. just like they can with drugs. it seems unjustified for my rights to be taken away because someone else is an asshole.
|
On February 01 2013 04:34 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:31 KingJames wrote:
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
Oh, now there's a clever new slippery slope argument. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before... If it's so unreasonable for "gun nuts" to think that gun control would just keep going once it started, why do gun control nuts get to think that all gun owners want to own nukes?
I guess he wanted to point out that the line drawn what people are allowed to posses is drawn arbitrarily. + Show Spoiler +(Although the wording is provocative.)
|
|
|
There is already a thread about this very thing, and you should probably educate yourself on schooling in the US before jumping to any conclusions.
|
That has nothing to do with sparing the feelings of anyone...
funny how gunpower, an innovation meant to kill, is nowadays in USA a symbol of freedom. when over ages, it was used to supress, enslave, murder, opress. you know, these things that don't really rhyme with freedom.
Just like all weapons... funny how it's governments who used them to enslave, and the people who used them to protect and later on free themselves.
|
On February 01 2013 04:46 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:34 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 04:31 KingJames wrote:
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
Oh, now there's a clever new slippery slope argument. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before... If it's so unreasonable for "gun nuts" to think that gun control would just keep going once it started, why do gun control nuts get to think that all gun owners want to own nukes? I guess he wanted to point out that the line drawn what people are allowed to posses is drawn arbitrarily. + Show Spoiler +(Although the wording is provocative.) Especially the discussion about assault rifles in the US seems a bit weird in that regard.
Yeah. It is weird. It's weird that bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, pistol grips, vertical foregrips, all mostly cosmetic, are more prone to regulation than say, specific optics. It's weird that somehow, people have decided that an AR is more deadly than a Remington 700, which you can buy virtually identical to it's relative, the M24 sniper rifle.
It's weird that an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic weapon based on an automatic weapon. That's literally one of the criteria. A semi-auto that looks like an Uzi is a semi-fucking-auto. With terrible ergonomics, might I add.
|
On February 01 2013 04:47 farvacola wrote:There is already a thread about this very thing, and you should probably educate yourself on schooling in the US before jumping to any conclusions.
Well it is on topic isn't it, I can't check every on topic reply for another thread about it existing.
I'm happy to educate myself more about US schooling, but I'm unsure what it is I jump to conclusions about.
|
On February 01 2013 04:50 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:46 Hryul wrote:On February 01 2013 04:34 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 04:31 KingJames wrote:
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
Oh, now there's a clever new slippery slope argument. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before... If it's so unreasonable for "gun nuts" to think that gun control would just keep going once it started, why do gun control nuts get to think that all gun owners want to own nukes? I guess he wanted to point out that the line drawn what people are allowed to posses is drawn arbitrarily. + Show Spoiler +(Although the wording is provocative.) Especially the discussion about assault rifles in the US seems a bit weird in that regard. Yeah. It is weird. It's weird that bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, pistol grips, vertical foregrips, all mostly cosmetic, are more prone to regulation than say, specific optics. It's weird that somehow, people have decided that an AR is more deadly than a Remington 700, which you can buy virtually identical to it's relative, the M24 sniper rifle. It's weird that an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic weapon based on an automatic weapon. That's literally one of the criteria. A semi-auto that looks like an Uzi is a semi-fucking-auto. With terrible ergonomics, might I add.
You don't get it man. It doesn't matter. It looks scary, so it must be a super killing machine that absolutely no one needs, even though in range and stopping power it's inferior to almost any hunting rifle and either exactly the same or only slightly superior in rate of fire.
|
On February 01 2013 03:50 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:48 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 03:39 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 01 2013 03:16 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 03:09 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 01 2013 03:01 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 02:51 silynxer wrote:On February 01 2013 02:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Again, you're wrong. There are not more school attacks in the US than anywhere else and the US does not have more combined than anywhere else. You're not thinking about a rather large part of the world, apparently. Why not quote this article and just count the shootings (actually just count the shootings for the years 2000+ in the US and then every other school shooting outside). I have yet to see an explanation of why we cherry-pick school violence. Sure, it's shitty, but last time I checked, dead is dead, regardless of cause and location. Violent crime, and crime in general, are symptoms. If you go to the doctor because you have a fever, and the doctor tells you "you have a fever, stick these leeches on your neck", and you die three days later from pneumonia, being told about a symptom and handed leeches didn't really do you much good. By the same token, if you say "The US has school violence", do murder victims outside the US say "Oh, well, at least I wasn't killed in a school!"? The answer, of course, is obvious. A murder victim is dead regardless of where or how it happened. And if other countries cite gun control and gun violence, but can't stop other violence with gun control, why should I believe the gun control fixed the symptom? Well if we exclude Eastern Europe our murder rate is about 4 times higher than the EU's. That's a lot fewer dead people. They cite gun control and they have much lower murder rates, so it seems to have worked in developed nations. Their gun violence is much lower, their murder rate is much lower, so something is working better there. Why, exactly, are we excluding countries? The second we start dismissing data as "not relevant enough due to X", we're removing our ability to see the whole picture, which might help us see what the violence is a symptom of. I'd say it's reasonable to state that violence and gun control do not directly correlate, any more than say, violence and video games. We can't dismiss things if we want to solve societal issues.. Mostly I discounted them because the IMF considers a large portion of Eastern Europe to be developing countries, who have a host of problems that are known to contribute to crime. The US should be compared to other developed nations because that is where we fit and developed nations share a lot of characteristics, like very low crime. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to crime. Homocide rates in one OECD nation being far above any other says that one nation is doing something wrong. It really seems to be gun control. I'm not talking about violence, I'm talking about homicide rates. The US has homicide rates about as high as Yemen, Thailand, Georgia and the Phillipines. These countries have a GDP per capita of between 1/10 and 1/5 of ours. They are not the sort of industrial powers with the economic and educational opportunity of the US. The go-to explanations for their crime rates are all related to underdevelopment. The US doesn't have those problems, it has a gun ownership rate of 88 guns per 100 people though. Can someone please tell me why we have a murder rate 4 times higher than most other industrialized nation? Just to hazard a guess, maybe there's less difficulty accessing basic services in other industrialized nations? Who knows, maybe difficulty affording things like healthcare and higher education have something to do with it. Maybe lingering effects of social issues like segregation. Correlation != causation. So you don't know, but you've ruled out prevalence and access to guns because...? Because I consider them to be an enabler. Not a cause. Which I've stated already. Please, show me, how there's a strong statistical correlation between owning a gun and committing a crime with it. Because, per capita, America has a metric fuckton of guns, and the vast majority of them have NEVER been involved in a crime. Just like rape isn't due to a lack of chastity belts.
Stats are very hard to find and easily manipulated in this area but...
There is plenty of research indicating that firearm possession drastically increases the likelihood of accidental deaths or suicides. If a crime is committed by someone who possesses a firearm it is far more likely that a property crime will become a homicide.
Ownership is a fuzzy term, if you do not possess/in some way "own" a firearm, you cannot commit a crime with one. So there's a de facto correlation there. A small minority of a fuckton of guns is still enough to kill a fuckton of people. I don't really understand what sort of stats you're looking for.
+ Show Spoiler +Firearms are used in about 60 percent of the murders committed in this country, and attacks by firearms injure thousands of others. The risk of being murdered with a firearm falls disproportionately on young people, particularly young black men. o Greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to affect general violence levels. o Self-defense is the most commonly cited reason for acquiring a gun, but it is unclear how often these guns are used for self-protection against unprovoked attacks. o According to the latest available data, those who use guns in violent crimes rarely purchase them directly from licensed dealers; most guns used in crime have been stolen or transferred between individuals after the original purchase. o In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed. The first research approach asks how differences in violence across American cities are related to variations in gun availability, controlling for other relevant factors. These studies generally find small positive correlations between measures of gun availability and both felony gun use and felony murder. However, they find no consistent relationship between gun availability and overall rates of violent crime. The second approach used was a comparison of two jurisdictions. The neighboring cities of Seattle and Vancouver have similar economic profiles and were found to have similar rates of burglary and assault. However, Seattle, with its less restrictive gun possession laws, had a 60 percent higher homicide rate and a 400 percent higher firearm homicide rate than Vancouver. It is not clear whether the differences in gun laws accounted for all the variation between the two cities in homicide rates, or whether differences in culture were also contributing factors. The third approach relies on cross-national statistical comparisons. These studies have generally reached one of the conclusions found in studies of American cities: a small positive correlation between gun availability and homicide rates. The finding is difficult to interpret, however, in view of differences by country in culture and in gun regulations. For example, murder rates are low in Switzerland, where militia requirements make possession of long guns by males nearly universal. This seems to suggest there is no positive correlation between gun availability and murder rates. But this interpretation is clouded because in Switzerland access to guns is limited: militia members are required to keep their guns locked up and to account for every bullet. https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt
|
On February 01 2013 04:31 KingJames wrote:
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
you got the argument wrong. its about the fact that these things have legitimate recreational uses, and in vast majority of cases are harmelss. nukes dont have legitimate recreational uses as far as i know.
|
On February 01 2013 04:34 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:31 KingJames wrote:
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
Oh, now there's a clever new slippery slope argument. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before... If it's so unreasonable for "gun nuts" to think that gun control would just keep going once it started, why do gun control nuts get to think that all gun owners want to own nukes?
I'm not literally saying that gun nuts want to own nukes. I'm showing that jumping from knives to assault rifles is as ridiculous as jumping from assault rifles to nukes. All of these things can kill people, but the mass killing potential of an assault rifle is much higher than a knife. Using the simple argument that both can kill people so therefore both should be legal doesn't make sense because it doesn't take into account the killing potential of each weapon or the ease of killing that it allows.
|
On February 01 2013 04:55 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:50 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 03:39 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 01 2013 03:16 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 03:09 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 01 2013 03:01 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 02:51 silynxer wrote:On February 01 2013 02:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Again, you're wrong. There are not more school attacks in the US than anywhere else and the US does not have more combined than anywhere else. You're not thinking about a rather large part of the world, apparently. Why not quote this article and just count the shootings (actually just count the shootings for the years 2000+ in the US and then every other school shooting outside). I have yet to see an explanation of why we cherry-pick school violence. Sure, it's shitty, but last time I checked, dead is dead, regardless of cause and location. Violent crime, and crime in general, are symptoms. If you go to the doctor because you have a fever, and the doctor tells you "you have a fever, stick these leeches on your neck", and you die three days later from pneumonia, being told about a symptom and handed leeches didn't really do you much good. By the same token, if you say "The US has school violence", do murder victims outside the US say "Oh, well, at least I wasn't killed in a school!"? The answer, of course, is obvious. A murder victim is dead regardless of where or how it happened. And if other countries cite gun control and gun violence, but can't stop other violence with gun control, why should I believe the gun control fixed the symptom? Well if we exclude Eastern Europe our murder rate is about 4 times higher than the EU's. That's a lot fewer dead people. They cite gun control and they have much lower murder rates, so it seems to have worked in developed nations. Their gun violence is much lower, their murder rate is much lower, so something is working better there. Why, exactly, are we excluding countries? The second we start dismissing data as "not relevant enough due to X", we're removing our ability to see the whole picture, which might help us see what the violence is a symptom of. I'd say it's reasonable to state that violence and gun control do not directly correlate, any more than say, violence and video games. We can't dismiss things if we want to solve societal issues.. Mostly I discounted them because the IMF considers a large portion of Eastern Europe to be developing countries, who have a host of problems that are known to contribute to crime. The US should be compared to other developed nations because that is where we fit and developed nations share a lot of characteristics, like very low crime. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to crime. Homocide rates in one OECD nation being far above any other says that one nation is doing something wrong. It really seems to be gun control. I'm not talking about violence, I'm talking about homicide rates. The US has homicide rates about as high as Yemen, Thailand, Georgia and the Phillipines. These countries have a GDP per capita of between 1/10 and 1/5 of ours. They are not the sort of industrial powers with the economic and educational opportunity of the US. The go-to explanations for their crime rates are all related to underdevelopment. The US doesn't have those problems, it has a gun ownership rate of 88 guns per 100 people though. Can someone please tell me why we have a murder rate 4 times higher than most other industrialized nation? Just to hazard a guess, maybe there's less difficulty accessing basic services in other industrialized nations? Who knows, maybe difficulty affording things like healthcare and higher education have something to do with it. Maybe lingering effects of social issues like segregation. Correlation != causation. So you don't know, but you've ruled out prevalence and access to guns because...? Because I consider them to be an enabler. Not a cause. Which I've stated already. Please, show me, how there's a strong statistical correlation between owning a gun and committing a crime with it. Because, per capita, America has a metric fuckton of guns, and the vast majority of them have NEVER been involved in a crime. Just like rape isn't due to a lack of chastity belts. Stats are very hard to find and easily manipulated in this area but... There is plenty of research indicating that firearm possession drastically increases the likelihood of accidental deaths or suicides. If a crime is committed by someone who possesses a firearm it is far more likely that a property crime will become a homicide. Ownership is a fuzzy term, if you do not possess/in some way "own" a firearm, you cannot commit a crime with one. So there's a de facto correlation there. A small minority of a fuckton of guns is still enough to kill a fuckton of people. I don't really understand what sort of stats you're looking for. + Show Spoiler +Firearms are used in about 60 percent of the murders committed in this country, and attacks by firearms injure thousands of others. The risk of being murdered with a firearm falls disproportionately on young people, particularly young black men. o Greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to affect general violence levels. o Self-defense is the most commonly cited reason for acquiring a gun, but it is unclear how often these guns are used for self-protection against unprovoked attacks. o According to the latest available data, those who use guns in violent crimes rarely purchase them directly from licensed dealers; most guns used in crime have been stolen or transferred between individuals after the original purchase. o In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed. The first research approach asks how differences in violence across American cities are related to variations in gun availability, controlling for other relevant factors. These studies generally find small positive correlations between measures of gun availability and both felony gun use and felony murder. However, they find no consistent relationship between gun availability and overall rates of violent crime. The second approach used was a comparison of two jurisdictions. The neighboring cities of Seattle and Vancouver have similar economic profiles and were found to have similar rates of burglary and assault. However, Seattle, with its less restrictive gun possession laws, had a 60 percent higher homicide rate and a 400 percent higher firearm homicide rate than Vancouver. It is not clear whether the differences in gun laws accounted for all the variation between the two cities in homicide rates, or whether differences in culture were also contributing factors. The third approach relies on cross-national statistical comparisons. These studies have generally reached one of the conclusions found in studies of American cities: a small positive correlation between gun availability and homicide rates. The finding is difficult to interpret, however, in view of differences by country in culture and in gun regulations. For example, murder rates are low in Switzerland, where militia requirements make possession of long guns by males nearly universal. This seems to suggest there is no positive correlation between gun availability and murder rates. But this interpretation is clouded because in Switzerland access to guns is limited: militia members are required to keep their guns locked up and to account for every bullet. https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt
Let's grab, for shits and grins, a particular chunk of that data, shall we?
Firearms are used in about 60 percent of the
murders committed in this country, and attacks by
firearms injure thousands of others. The risk of
being murdered with a firearm falls
disproportionately on young people, particularly
young black men.
If the demographics show a trend like this, wouldn't that suggest some sort of causal relationship with social issues affecting that specific demographic?
If firearms were specifically the problem, wouldn't it be less disproportionate?
On February 01 2013 04:57 KingJames wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:34 JingleHell wrote:On February 01 2013 04:31 KingJames wrote:
Knives can kill people too, so its fine for us to have assault rifles.
Assault rifles kill people too, so its fine for me to have a nuclear warhead in my home right?
Is that the best logic you gun nuts can come up with at this point?? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone?
Oh, now there's a clever new slippery slope argument. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before... If it's so unreasonable for "gun nuts" to think that gun control would just keep going once it started, why do gun control nuts get to think that all gun owners want to own nukes? I'm not literally saying that gun nuts want to own nukes. I'm showing that jumping from knives to assault rifles is as ridiculous as jumping from assault rifles to nukes. All of these things can kill people, but the mass killing potential of an assault rifle is much higher than a knife. Using the simple argument that both can kill people so therefore both should be legal doesn't make sense because it doesn't take into account the killing potential of each weapon or the ease of killing that it allows.
You're not "showing" anything. You're stating an opinion based on a logical fallacy; you seem to believe that recreational, non-violent uses for firearms don't exist. Either that, or you believe that there's recreational, non-violent uses for nuclear devices.
Either suggests an astounding level of ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
