|
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 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school?
So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime?
|
On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso.
Really?
|
On February 20 2012 04:38 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:31 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:26 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:24 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:17 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:15 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:14 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote:
Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life? What if he has a GUN on top of that? That would certainly make things a lot more scary than his intentions alone. What if he does? What if he has a knife? What if he has a hand grenade? It doesn't matter what he is using, what matters is the scenario. What? It absolutely does matter. I'd certainly prefer it if he had a knife instead (grenades should be covered by the same laws that guns are anyway). The scenario is different depending on how easy it is for him to hurt or kill you. And I would personally prefer the kind of scenario where he doesn't only have to move his finger by an inch at long range to do so. With a knife, you'd have to get up close and personal with them, preferably with a knife of your own, and hope to hell they aren't bigger, stronger, or more experienced in a fight. With a gun, you just have to hope you get a shot off first, and you are the one with the home field advantage. Are you serious? I'm a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who shoots first? There are only a few similar ways that scenario would end and none of them looks like something out of an episode of Chuck. You're a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who wins in a knifefight? With guns in the mix, at least your neighbors might hear the gunshot and call the police and/or be there to apprehend your attacker. Yeah, the after I'm DEAD. Thinking you have ANY KIND of advantage in a gun-to-gun scenario against somebody who has fired a gun in the past with intent to harm/kill is borderline delusional. This is not a game, whatever theoretical advantages you have you'll be pissing away in fear.
People who own a gun should know how to use it and regularly practice. Criminals don't do this, criminals just buy them illegally from some drug lord and think they're all cool with fake gold jewelry and their pants hanging half way down. Most of them don't know the first thing about gun safety or how to properly use a gun, they just hold it side ways like a gang banger and go "hurrr durrr hurrr" and just randomly shoot at things.
|
On February 20 2012 04:33 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:30 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all. Because the main argument against gun control is that people can use them for self defense. If this is true, then taking that persons life is also implied as a possible consequence and thus it's a discussion of the value of human life. Show nested quote +While I agree that OrchidThief doesn't seem to understand the pleasure of target shooting the rest of your post is just, I don't know what to say. Well I do, but I play darts or something instead. It's the fact that you need a gun to show how precise you are that I find repulsive because of what the intend of guns is.
How about this; one life is worth one life. Taking the life of someone who goes around threatening other people's lives has therefore got positive utility.
|
On February 20 2012 04:06 NotSorry wrote:
Legal or not I will always have guns to protect my family and neighbors, outlawing guns isn't going to stop the little wanna-be gang bangers around here from getting them and using them on unarmed people
Yet I have never felt the need or inclination to carry any form of weapon. I am not frightened that someone will shoot me, because due to the difficulty in obtaining guns in the uk - the only people with guns are those I don't associate with. We have wannabe gangs in the UK - and most of the time they're just bored teenagers standing around on the street. If you could buy a gun easily, yet still have it be a status symbol, an icon of power - pretty sure they would.
If the wannabes can get guns easily, they'll get them. If they can't - they won't, because they're wannabes. And I don't tend to hang around mafia and thugs.
If your only justification for having a gun is that you're scared of other people having guns... surely other people having fewer guns is just as good as mutually assured death. Just looked up a few statistics:
since 2008 there have been 47 guns removed from London's streets by the police. That's 12 a year. There have been more than 4,500 arrests by the related force. Pretty much speaks for itself.
If you have a gun or a knife, you can end up using it, which means that other people end up using it. Statistically those who carry weapons are far far more likely to end up injured than those who don't, this is not only true in the UK, where one could argue that having weapons increases tendencies to be doing something illegal, since it's already illegal:
http://bit.ly/wb4xya
(shortened the link)
Legal or not - I will never carry a gun, because I want to protect my own and loved ones' health.
|
On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime?
corrolation odes not imply causation. just because they went down does in no way show that it was caused by looser gun laws. crime rates fluctuate.
|
On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso.
Saying that we worship Barosso is saying that Texas people worship Obama.
On February 20 2012 04:33 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Legalized abortion. I'm not kidding. Read the book Freakonomics.
This² Its a fun book too.
|
On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school?
worse, they went to american school
User was warned for this post
|
On February 20 2012 04:33 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:30 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all. Because the main argument against gun control is that people can use them for self defense. If this is true, then taking that persons life is also implied as a possible consequence and thus it's a discussion of the value of human life.
I don't think that's true. A bigger concern than people killing someone in self-defense (which is totally acceptable imo) is that
a) by having no gun controll you make them easily obtainable for every nutjob that might like the idea of shooting someone
b) you run a high risk of gun-related accidents (children getting their hands on them; shooting someone you think is an intruder but isn't; etc.)
c) if guns are a normal part of every day life, people don't have as much respect as they should have towards a tool that's made to kill, so they are more likely to use them, even if they don't have to.
|
On February 20 2012 04:27 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:20 saMas wrote:
Imo give US more guns to shoot each other = profit for the rest of the world
no but honestly guns are the reason US has a high crime rate and high muder rate....... captain obvious to the rescue! nananananan There are countries with equal or higher arms per capita rates, with nowhere near the crime-rates of USA. There isn't a proven causality even if there might be some correlation. The liberal guns laws of the USA and the high crime rates are two seperate subjects.
Bingo. And now this comment will be ignored because it is inconvenient to address it.
|
On February 20 2012 04:41 lozarian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:06 NotSorry wrote:
Legal or not I will always have guns to protect my family and neighbors, outlawing guns isn't going to stop the little wanna-be gang bangers around here from getting them and using them on unarmed people Yet I have never felt the need or inclination to carry any form of weapon. I am not frightened that someone will shoot me, because due to the difficulty in obtaining guns in the uk - the only people with guns are those I don't associate with. We have wannabe gangs in the UK - and most of the time they're just bored teenagers standing around on the street. If you could buy a gun easily, yet still have it be a status symbol, an icon of power - pretty sure they would. If the wannabes can get guns easily, they'll get them. If they can't - they won't, because they're wannabes. And I don't tend to hang around mafia and thugs. If your only justification for having a gun is that you're scared of other people having guns... surely other people having fewer guns is just as good as mutually assured death. Just looked up a few statistics: since 2008 there have been 47 guns removed from London's streets by the police. That's 12 a year. There have been more than 4,500 arrests by the related force. Pretty much speaks for itself. If you have a gun or a knife, you can end up using it, which means that other people end up using it. Statistically those who carry weapons are far far more likely to end up injured than those who don't, this is not only true in the UK, where one could argue that having weapons increases tendencies to be doing something illegal, since it's already illegal: http://bit.ly/wb4xya(shortened the link) Legal or not - I will never carry a gun, because I want to protect my own and loved ones' health.
Go to some of the immigration districts of London at night. Just do it and tell me you feel safe in your "gun free" society.
|
On February 20 2012 04:39 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Most European countires have a murder rate 5 times lower than USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Lot's of factors could result in lower crimes. Though not PC (especially in america), legalized abortion may have contributed a lot to the lower crime rates in the USA according to the authors of Freakonomics.
I never said we have a lower murder rate then anyone, so i don't know why you even said that. My point was that regardless of the rate, crime has been going down over a 20 year period. Based on your theory of guns=crime, this should not even be remotely the case.
|
On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime?
The part where you think that the only factor affecting crimerates is how many guns there are in the hands of citizens.
We've been having more solar flares as of late, and crime has been decreasing. I guess more solar flares mean less crime. Perfect logic. You need to prove your assumption.
|
On February 20 2012 04:41 JayJay_90 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:33 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 04:30 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all. Because the main argument against gun control is that people can use them for self defense. If this is true, then taking that persons life is also implied as a possible consequence and thus it's a discussion of the value of human life. I don't think that's true. A bigger concern than people killing someone in self-defense (which is totally acceptable imo) is that a) by having no gun controll you make them easily obtainable for every nutjob that might like the idea of shooting someone b) you run a high risk of gun-related accidents (children getting their hands on them; shooting someone you think is an intruder but isn't; etc.) c) if guns are a normal part of every day life, people don't have as much respect as they should have towards a tool that's made to kill, so they are more likely to use them, even if they don't have to.
That bold part is completely false.
|
On February 20 2012 04:38 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:31 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:26 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:24 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:17 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:15 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:14 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote:
Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life? What if he has a GUN on top of that? That would certainly make things a lot more scary than his intentions alone. What if he does? What if he has a knife? What if he has a hand grenade? It doesn't matter what he is using, what matters is the scenario. What? It absolutely does matter. I'd certainly prefer it if he had a knife instead (grenades should be covered by the same laws that guns are anyway). The scenario is different depending on how easy it is for him to hurt or kill you. And I would personally prefer the kind of scenario where he doesn't only have to move his finger by an inch at long range to do so. With a knife, you'd have to get up close and personal with them, preferably with a knife of your own, and hope to hell they aren't bigger, stronger, or more experienced in a fight. With a gun, you just have to hope you get a shot off first, and you are the one with the home field advantage. Are you serious? I'm a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who shoots first? There are only a few similar ways that scenario would end and none of them looks like something out of an episode of Chuck. You're a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who wins in a knifefight? With guns in the mix, at least your neighbors might hear the gunshot and call the police and/or be there to apprehend your attacker. Yeah, after I'm DEAD. Thinking you have ANY KIND of advantage in a gun-to-gun scenario against somebody who has fired a gun in the past with intent to harm/kill is borderline delusional. This is not a game, whatever theoretical advantages you have you'll be pissing away in fear. In a knife scenario, there is no knife fight. There's me running the hell away (natural instinct that kicks in instantly) making as much noise and dialing as many numbers as possible. With a greater probability of avoiding lethal wounds in any scenario. If he ever manages to get near to me in the first place.
So, let's suppose this scenario: Your bedroom is downstairs. Your children's bedrooms are upstairs. You have just been awakened in the night, by the sound of a serial killer breaking into your house. He is heading upstairs.
What's your response?
|
On February 20 2012 04:41 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:33 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 04:30 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all. Because the main argument against gun control is that people can use them for self defense. If this is true, then taking that persons life is also implied as a possible consequence and thus it's a discussion of the value of human life. While I agree that OrchidThief doesn't seem to understand the pleasure of target shooting the rest of your post is just, I don't know what to say. Well I do, but I play darts or something instead. It's the fact that you need a gun to show how precise you are that I find repulsive because of what the intend of guns is. How about this; one life is worth one life. Taking the life of someone who goes around threatening other people's lives has therefore got positive utility.
You see it as eye for an eye, I see it as two dead lives. Like I said, fundamental difference in the value of a life.
|
On February 20 2012 04:40 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:38 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:26 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:24 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:17 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:15 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:14 Talin wrote:On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote:
Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life? What if he has a GUN on top of that? That would certainly make things a lot more scary than his intentions alone. What if he does? What if he has a knife? What if he has a hand grenade? It doesn't matter what he is using, what matters is the scenario. What? It absolutely does matter. I'd certainly prefer it if he had a knife instead (grenades should be covered by the same laws that guns are anyway). The scenario is different depending on how easy it is for him to hurt or kill you. And I would personally prefer the kind of scenario where he doesn't only have to move his finger by an inch at long range to do so. With a knife, you'd have to get up close and personal with them, preferably with a knife of your own, and hope to hell they aren't bigger, stronger, or more experienced in a fight. With a gun, you just have to hope you get a shot off first, and you are the one with the home field advantage. Are you serious? I'm a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who shoots first? There are only a few similar ways that scenario would end and none of them looks like something out of an episode of Chuck. You're a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who wins in a knifefight? With guns in the mix, at least your neighbors might hear the gunshot and call the police and/or be there to apprehend your attacker. Yeah, the after I'm DEAD. Thinking you have ANY KIND of advantage in a gun-to-gun scenario against somebody who has fired a gun in the past with intent to harm/kill is borderline delusional. This is not a game, whatever theoretical advantages you have you'll be pissing away in fear. People who own a gun should know how to use it and regularly practice. Criminals don't do this, criminals just buy them illegally from some drug lord and think they're all cool with fake gold jewelry and their pants hanging half way down. Most of them don't know the first thing about gun safety or how to properly use a gun, they just hold it side ways like a gang banger and go "hurrr durrr hurrr" and just randomly shoot at things.
Honestly it sounds like you watch too many movies slash music videos.
Unless you intend to practice on human targets or undergo rigorous military training, all of that is worth fuck all in a life or death situation.
|
On February 20 2012 04:41 karis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:39 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:37 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. Might be because it's not true. On February 20 2012 04:36 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:35 Dizmaul wrote:On February 20 2012 04:32 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:31 Dizmaul wrote:
Why has crime in the US been on the decline since the early 90's????
We might have the highest rate but that is not the only number that matters.
I'm almost positive this was brought up before, but you guys just don't care haha. Crime has been on the decline since before the 90s, I'd say it really hit the turning point in the late 1980s, when concealed carry was first introduced. Over the past 15 years, gun laws in the US have been loosened and we have seen a rise in gun rights. The more gun rights people have, the less crime there is. Strange how people just refuse to accept this. It's because their European governments and the European Union are brainwashing them and telling them that they should all hand in their guns and worship Barosso. Did you skip school? So you don't believe crime has been on the decline? what part is not true? The part where Guns laws have been loosened, or the part where there has been less crime? corrolation odes not imply causation. just because they went down does in no way show that it was caused by looser gun laws. crime rates fluctuate.
No but you can say that looser gun laws didn't cause a rise in the crime rate. Which is the topic of debate.
|
On February 20 2012 04:23 forgottendreams wrote:
Sigh lol... any discussion about sources, trends and correlations seems to be ignored. Just another terrible opinion related political discussion about guns/religion with back and fort of herp guns r bad, derp guns r good.
![[image loading]](http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif)
The problem with people is that they will say OH WELL YOU STILL CAN'T PROVE IT but I mean just look at it -_-
|
On February 20 2012 04:44 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:41 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 04:33 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 04:30 JayJay_90 wrote:On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all. Because the main argument against gun control is that people can use them for self defense. If this is true, then taking that persons life is also implied as a possible consequence and thus it's a discussion of the value of human life. While I agree that OrchidThief doesn't seem to understand the pleasure of target shooting the rest of your post is just, I don't know what to say. Well I do, but I play darts or something instead. It's the fact that you need a gun to show how precise you are that I find repulsive because of what the intend of guns is. How about this; one life is worth one life. Taking the life of someone who goes around threatening other people's lives has therefore got positive utility. You see it as eye for an eye, I see it as two dead lives. Like I said, fundamental difference in the value of a life.
I get that one dead life is the mugger, but where do you get the second one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
6042
1828
355
EPT
