EPTAnother Teenage Shooting/Suicide - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ilikestarcraft
Korea (South)17743 Posts
| ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 08 2007 10:24 Mayson wrote: Yeah, because people that are media drones do nothing but regurgitate the intellectual crap fed to them by the Brady campaign, and then people who use logic, statistics, and history to support their views get attacked, so we have to defend ourselves. Pretty accurate synopsis of this thread, actually. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
| ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
This is an immaculate example of why comparing two different countries is intellectual fraud. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On December 08 2007 11:07 Mayson wrote: This is an immaculate example of why comparing two different countries is intellectual fraud. I agree. Everyone should keep their problems to them selves. Since we are all different in some regards we should stop trying to learn from each others misstakes. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
I was significantly happier when people were arguing about how Europe was safer because of the gun laws, despite the obvious differences. http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/13/guns/index.html Quick summary: The US has higher crimes rates than comparable countries, but with or without guns, the US still has the highest crime rates. Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 11:18 Mayson wrote: Ignorance is bliss. I was significantly happier when people were arguing about how Europe was safer because of the gun laws, despite the obvious differences. http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/13/guns/index.html Quick summary: The US has higher crimes rates than comparable countries, but with or without guns, the US still has the highest crime rates. Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal. Are people actually saying that restricting guns significantly lowers the amount of crimes (I haven't read through the thread yet)? While there are a lot of crimes that could not happen without the gun laws that we have today, the shooting of this thread being a prime example, unless these crimes are a high percentage of the total crimes, gun laws do not effect the crime rate. And I think most anti-gun people believe this. But that still leaves the fact that if the same amount of violent crimes occurs with, or without guns, the ones with guns will result in more damage. The topic of this thread is an example of this as well. If these psychos did not have guns they simply would not be able to go on these rampages. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
On December 08 2007 11:18 Mayson wrote: Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal. Ok so you agree that having guns or not having guns make no difference whatsoever. Then, what the hell do you need a gun for? To show it off to your friends? | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 11:47 qgart wrote: Ok so you agree that having guns or not having guns make no difference whatsoever. Then, what the hell do you need a gun for? To show it off to your friends? Perhaps Freud could of told us. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 11:47 qgart wrote: That's not what I said at all.Ok so you agree that having guns or not having guns make no difference whatsoever. Then, what the hell do you need a gun for? To show it off to your friends? I said that gun laws make no statistically-significant difference on crime. As has been stated numerous times, law-abiding citizens are not the problem. The problem is criminals, and their access to firearms. However, criminals do not purchase firearms legally. They are criminals; by definition, they do not follow the laws. Therefore, laws will have no substantial effect on the illegal ownership and use of firearms. Gun control is an inherently flawed ideal. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 11:37 Servolisk wrote: Those in favor of gun control who have not done their homework firmly believe that gun control has a positive effect on crime rates.Are people actually saying that restricting guns significantly lowers the amount of crimes (I haven't read through the thread yet)? While there are a lot of crimes that could not happen without the gun laws that we have today, the shooting of this thread being a prime example, unless these crimes are a high percentage of the total crimes, gun laws do not effect the crime rate. And I think most anti-gun people believe this. But that still leaves the fact that if the same amount of violent crimes occurs with, or without guns, the ones with guns will result in more damage. The topic of this thread is an example of this as well. If these psychos did not have guns they simply would not be able to go on these rampages. Apparently they know more about criminal behavior than criminologists do, as they keep repeatedly affirming their belief that criminals actually do not break the law when it comes to acquisition of firearms, and that gun control will actually do something. The gun control laws already in place in various parts of the country have had little to no effect on crime rates. I'm sorry, but seeing as the anti-gun camp is full of people who disregard unbiased, statistically-significant studies, and then make up their own statistics and "facts" on the spot, I absolutely cannot respect that position. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
I'm not arguing with you on the subject of firearm availability to criminals - even though a 10 yrs old would understand the repercussions that supply and demand would have on the actual prices of those illegal firearms. The premise of your argument is that "law-abiding" citizens would be able to defend themselves. However, your own statistics show that even in areas where those "law-abiding" citizens are allowed to own firearms, the crime rates do not change. So why would you want to actually own a gun for if it's useless in the fight against crime? | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
Crime rates do not change in a statistically-significant way as a result of gun control laws. Therefore, gun control laws serve no purpose other than to restrict the means of self-defense of law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens do not own firearms to fight crime; they own firearms legally for the purposes of sporting, recreation, hunting, self-defense, and home-defense. On December 08 2007 12:56 qgart wrote: Firearms are significantly cheaper to obtain illegally. Some criminologists did some research with convicted criminals, and found that the same weapon available on the black market was maybe a fifth of the cost of the same weapon on the legal market.I'm not arguing with you on the subject of firearm availability to criminals - even though a 10 yrs old would understand the repercussions that supply and demand would have on the actual prices of those illegal firearms. On December 08 2007 12:56 qgart wrote: Exactly. Crime still exists, thus the need to defend oneself against violent crimes, including, but not limited to, rape, murder, and robbery, still exists.The premise of your argument is that "law-abiding" citizens would be able to defend themselves. However, your own statistics show that even in areas where those "law-abiding" citizens are allowed to own firearms, the crime rates do not change. On December 08 2007 12:56 qgart wrote: Private citizens are not responsible for the enforcement of the laws. Why do you have this asinine belief that law-abiding citizens are the ones fighting crime?So why would you want to actually own a gun for if it's useless in the fight against crime? Citizens do not own firearms to enforce laws. | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
The states where there are restrictions could still get flooded with guns by people buying them across state. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 12:44 Mayson wrote: Those in favor of gun control who have not done their homework firmly believe that gun control has a positive effect on crime rates. Apparently they know more about criminal behavior than criminologists do, as they keep repeatedly affirming their belief that criminals actually do not break the law when it comes to acquisition of firearms, and that gun control will actually do something. The gun control laws already in place in various parts of the country have had little to no effect on crime rates. As I said, I think that is probably correct. But it is hard to imagine that it would not have a positive effect on the outcome of the crime. Guns give the criminal more power. It's obvious fights with guns result in more deaths than other fights. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
Do you agree that if a "law-abiding" citizens successfully defends against a violent crime, then he/she would not figure among the "murdered" "raped" or "robbed" when the stats are compiled? If so, the violent crime rates should be much lower in areas where ppl are allowed to carry firearms. Your own stats showed that this was not the case. I didn't say that citizens who own guns have to fight crime. However, if you successfully defend yourself against a criminal, can we say that you have effectively contributed in the decrease of crime rate in the area you live? But then again, you showed yourself that letting ppl own guns does not decrease crime rate. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 12:59 Mayson wrote: You don't comprehend English very well. Crime rates do not change in a statistically-significant way as a result of gun control laws. Therefore, gun control laws serve no purpose other than to restrict the means of self-defense of law-abiding citizens. Completely false. :/ | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
On December 08 2007 12:59 Mayson wrote: Firearms are significantly cheaper to obtain illegally. Some criminologists did some research with convicted criminals, and found that the same weapon available on the black market was maybe a fifth of the cost of the same weapon on the legal market. It is certainly very convenient for you to forget mentioning where those researches took place. Illegal firearms may cost less than legal firearms in a country where firearms are legal. It is another story if you want to get an illegal firearms in a country where firearms are prohibited altogether. If you thought that smuggling 1kg of cocaine was hard, try smuggling 1kg worth of firearms through the border. And do I need to mention that doing the later does not pay off nearly as much as doing the former? | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
Servolisk, don't bother posting unless you intend to cite a (reputable and unbiased) source. qgart, I am in no position to pass judgment on the ease of committing crimes, and presumably, neither are you. | ||
| ||
