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 August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote: How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible.
You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc.
On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote: How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible.
Considering there was ~91% more bought under Obama's first term than under Bush's (Almost 65 million background checks were performed) people have to understand by now that options that include taking away guns just can't happen (barring burning bush style revelations) The whole crime correlation is mostly coincidence, other than obviously where there are guns they will generally be involved more often. Which isn't a small deal but again the guns are here to stay, period.
Just to put into perspective for people outside of the US:
~65,000,000 background checks.
That's enough guns bought in 4 years to arm every man, woman, and child in Great Britain. Not to mention that doesn't include the millions of transactions that don't 'require' background checks.
On August 28 2014 07:23 Millitron wrote: Other places don't have a thriving black market fueled by the war on drugs. Other countries don't have a prisons that act as a revolving door, arresting harmless drug offenders and introducing them to the hardcore criminals. Other countries don't have Detroit, L.A., or Chicago.
I wasn't saying that guns are the sole reason for every crime in the US. But they surely don't make life safer, else the homicide rate involving guns wouldn't be as high as it is.
The homicide rate involving guns would go down if you reduced the number of guns. But the overall homicide rate would not. The vast majority of gun-related homicides are also gang related. Take away the guns, and gangs will find other ways to kill each other.
On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote: How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible.
You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc.
Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks.
On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote: How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible.
You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc.
Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks.
Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'?
On August 28 2014 07:23 Millitron wrote: Other places don't have a thriving black market fueled by the war on drugs. Other countries don't have a prisons that act as a revolving door, arresting harmless drug offenders and introducing them to the hardcore criminals. Other countries don't have Detroit, L.A., or Chicago.
I wasn't saying that guns are the sole reason for every crime in the US. But they surely don't make life safer, else the homicide rate involving guns wouldn't be as high as it is.
The homicide rate involving guns would go down if you reduced the number of guns. But the overall homicide rate would not. The vast majority of gun-related homicides are also gang related. Take away the guns, and gangs will find other ways to kill each other.
On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote: How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible.
You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc.
Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks.
Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'?
On August 28 2014 07:23 Millitron wrote: Other places don't have a thriving black market fueled by the war on drugs. Other countries don't have a prisons that act as a revolving door, arresting harmless drug offenders and introducing them to the hardcore criminals. Other countries don't have Detroit, L.A., or Chicago.
I wasn't saying that guns are the sole reason for every crime in the US. But they surely don't make life safer, else the homicide rate involving guns wouldn't be as high as it is.
The homicide rate involving guns would go down if you reduced the number of guns. But the overall homicide rate would not. The vast majority of gun-related homicides are also gang related. Take away the guns, and gangs will find other ways to kill each other.
I haven't read any of the thread so forgive me if this was covered but, guns are just a device that propel projectiles, if there were no guns there would still be countless other ways to inflict harm, guns are so popular because they are user friendly and easily obtainable (in the states at least). Yeah automatic guns and well any gun in the hands of someone intending to use it for a criminal purpose is a bad thing, but we live in the modern age, crafting an explosive or a device to disperse toxic fumes or buying a strong laser pointer, blinding someone with it, and bludgeoning them with a hammer are all plausible avenues of accomplishing the same crime.
I do believe anyone who proves themselves to be mentally stable should be allowed to own a handgun, but it must be kept in their residence or car depending on career, with extreme legal repercussion, say 5 years of prison, if caught with a gun outside of your home or if licensed for it your car. There would be special cases/obtainable licenses for hunters, law enforcement etc.
But this is just whimsical thinking. Give everyone a gun when they turn 18, have it be registered federally to them, and hope for the best.
I do believe everyone should be able to own a handgun, but it must be kept in their residence or car depending on career, with extreme legal repercussion, say 5 years of prison, if caught with a gun outside of your home or if licensed for it your car. There would be special cases/obtainable licenses for hunters, law enforcement etc.
But this is just whimsical thinking, give everyone a gun when they turn 18, have it be registered federally to them, and hope for the best.
People in 'Murica get less then those penalties when they "forget" to leave their kid in a 140F/60C car, you don't think they may forget their firearm accidentally - And get a felony on their record that ruins their life? Or since a mother was going for a job interview, nothing? Source Your punishments do not make sense.
Responsibility is key - 99.98% do not have any issues here. It was a tragic accident, but we do not need any more m'fing laws.
On August 28 2014 10:18 Velious wrote: I haven't read any of the thread so forgive me if this was covered but, guns are just a device that propel projectiles, if there were no guns there would still be countless other ways to inflict harm, guns are so popular because they are user friendly and easily obtainable (in the states at least). Yeah automatic guns and well any gun in the hands of someone intending to use it for a criminal purpose is a bad thing, but we live in the modern age, crafting an explosive or a device to disperse toxic fumes or buying a strong laser pointer, blinding someone with it, and bludgeoning them with a hammer are all plausible avenues of accomplishing the same crime.
I do believe anyone who proves themselves to be mentally stable should be allowed to own a handgun, but it must be kept in their residence or car depending on career, with extreme legal repercussion, say 5 years of prison, if caught with a gun outside of your home or if licensed for it your car. There would be special cases/obtainable licenses for hunters, law enforcement etc.
But this is just whimsical thinking. Give everyone a gun when they turn 18, have it be registered federally to them, and hope for the best.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
People in 'Murica get less then those penalties when they "forget" to leave their kid in a 140F/60C car, you don't think they may forget their firearm accidentally - And get a felony on their record that ruins their life? Or since a mother was going for a job interview, nothing? Source Your punishments do not make sense.
Responsibility is key - 99.98% do not have any issues here. It was a tragic accident, but we do not need any more m'fing laws.
Apples and oranges. How does one forget they have a handgun on them? They are a bit bulkier than a phone or wallet and weigh enough to be physically noticeably while moving, not to mention it would have to be in your pocket (why would it be there in the first place?), stashed between your waist/belt (which would be blatantly perceivable) or in a holster (again, why would one be wearing a holster, the law would prohibit bringing the gun anywhere rendering the holster pointless). Unless it was in a backpack or case of some sort, which again, why would it be there? It is never to leave your residence, unless permitted to be in your car. Owning a gun would not be mandatory, if you're the type of person who leaves for work without his pants on maybe you decline owning one, or maybe you keep it in the nightstand next to your bed and never move it so you don't accidentally bring it to Starbucks.
Incidents such as a child being left in a car in scorching heat are the result of purposeful negligence, raw stupidity, or the grey area in between, and is up to the judge/jury to decide the punishment based on all relevant factors, but if one accepts the right to own a firearm one would also have to accept the terms and conditions that come along with it.
People in 'Murica get less then those penalties when they "forget" to leave their kid in a 140F/60C car, you don't think they may forget their firearm accidentally - And get a felony on their record that ruins their life? Or since a mother was going for a job interview, nothing? Source Your punishments do not make sense.
Responsibility is key - 99.98% do not have any issues here. It was a tragic accident, but we do not need any more m'fing laws.
Apples and oranges. How does one forget they have a handgun on them? They are a bit bulkier than a phone or wallet and weigh enough to be physically noticeably while moving, not to mention it would have to be in your pocket (why would it be there in the first place?), stashed between your waist/belt (which would be blatantly perceivable) or in a holster (again, why would one be wearing a holster, the law would prohibit bringing the gun anywhere rendering the holster pointless). Unless it was in a backpack or case of some sort, which again, why would it be there? It is never to leave your residence, unless permitted to be in your car. Owning a gun would not be mandatory, if you're the type of person who leaves for work without his pants on maybe you decline owning one, or maybe you keep it in the nightstand next to your bed and never move it so you don't accidentally bring it to Starbucks.
Incidents such as a child being left in a car in scorching heat are the result of purposeful negligence, raw stupidity, or the grey area in between, and is up to the judge/jury to decide the punishment based on all relevant factors, but if one accepts the right to own a firearm one would also have to accept the terms and conditions that come along with it.
I've got muscular dystrophy. I'm wheelchair-bound, and can barely lift a liter bottle of soda. I'm probably the weakest adult you could ever meet. How do you propose I defend myself if I cannot carry a gun in public?
Edit: Off-topic, but how come it says you have 0 posts, Velious? Does it say that for anyone else or is it some kind of bug on my end?
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
And then you have cases like this:
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
I've got muscular dystrophy. I'm wheelchair-bound, and can barely lift a liter bottle of soda. I'm probably the weakest adult you could ever meet. How do you propose I defend myself if I cannot carry a gun in public?
Edit: Off-topic, but how come it says you have 0 posts, Velious? Does it say that for anyone else or is it some kind of bug on my end?
I did mention special cases would be allowed, but this opens a box of new questions. Should the elderly be allowed to be armed in public? Someone with a broken leg? Females?.. Because on the whole they are disadvantaged against males in a physical struggle and because there are far more incidents of males robbing/assaulting females than the opposite?
It would take a slew of legislators to come up with a coherent system, or, we could consider tasers for those unable to otherwise defend themselves.
Regarding the posts, it seems to be an issue with the site as you also show 0.
I've got muscular dystrophy. I'm wheelchair-bound, and can barely lift a liter bottle of soda. I'm probably the weakest adult you could ever meet. How do you propose I defend myself if I cannot carry a gun in public?
Edit: Off-topic, but how come it says you have 0 posts, Velious? Does it say that for anyone else or is it some kind of bug on my end?
I did mention special cases would be allowed, but this opens a box of new questions. Should the elderly be allowed to be armed in public? Someone with a broken leg? Females?.. Because on the whole they are disadvantaged against males in a physical struggle and because there are far more incidents of males robbing/assaulting females than the opposite?
It would take a slew of legislators to come up with a coherent system, or, we could consider tasers for those unable to otherwise defend themselves.
Regarding the posts, it seems to be an issue with the site as you also show 0.
Tasers aren't even that great of an answer. They have one shot, so you miss you're done for. The darts can get tangled in clothing and fail to shock. Both darts must pierce the skin and stay in to shock. Then you also have people who just manage to fight through the shock, like the guy at around 2:00 in this video:
What about males who have no disability, but just aren't strong? Why should they not be able to defend themselves. Even if you're some kind of hyper-fit MMA master, what do you do if you're outnumbered?
How about against dangerous animals? There are places in the south where wild boar practically own the wilderness. Would you want to fist-fight 300 pounds of angry muscle and tusks?
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
How about you people compare the number of pre-meditated homicides with second- and third- degree murder. Most homicides aren't premeditated. The argument is not that if you take away guns people won't be able to kill each other. That's obviously stupid. The argument is that you will have fewer people killing each other after making a rash decision to pull out a deadly weapon that is both cheap and plentiful, making it easy to obtain. Just stop with the idiotic arguments that you can make a bomb or fashion a weapon that is not a gun to kill someone.
EPT![[image loading]](http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-Shot-2013-02-20-at-8.59.21-AM.png)
