Gun Control...

[Michael Archer]

Goddammit, Bullseye; this thread did not need a Nazi reference.

 

Quoting Ayn Rand? Doesn't she stand for everything you don't believe in?

[BTGBullseye]

I don't really care that much; it is a supporting statement for my position.

[Twilight Sparkle]

As some of you may be aware, for quite a while now Mexico has been raging what is essentially a Civil War between the Government, and the numerous Drug Cartels. It's become a clusterfuck of epic proportions, and there is no end in sight. Supposedly, all Mexicans have the right to bear arms, similarly to the US. That was said in 1857, in their constitution, where it was clearly stated that any citizen had the right to carry guns for personal defense. Gradually, over the next century. It was slowly toned down because of a specific mention that the government could prohibit certain firearms with new laws.

 

"Article 10: Every man has the right to have and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense. The law will indicate which arms are prohibited and the penalty for those that will carry prohibited arms"

 

Let's fast forward to 1917.

 

"The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms in their homes for their security and legitimate defense with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and of those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard. Federal law shall determine the cases, conditions and place in which the inhabitants may be authorized to bear arms."

 

Under the Mexican Constitution, you are guaranteed the right to own firearms, and yet at the same time it makes it quite clear that the Government has absolute control over them. That doesn't seem like much of a guarantee, really.

 

Despite their supposed right, no Mexican citizen is permitted any military caliber handgun, or anything larger than a .38 special (as far as pistols are concerned). That pretty much limits their options to the .380, the .38 special, and the .22. That isn't a problem so much as the fact that a constitutional right to own guns for self defense has been twisted into gun laws that are punished with ridiculous prison sentences. You can get up to 30 years for illegal firearm possession, which according to Mexican Law is a 9mm firearm with a 10 round magazine. Say what you want to about using guns for self defense - If you're going to do it, you want a caliber that will actually drop the guy trying to rape/murder/rob you. And what's the problem with military calibers anyway? Doesn't the army and police get body armor? Isn't police Kevlar effective against any practical pistol round?

 

Now for the kicker. There is one gun shop in Mexico. That's right. Just one. It is controlled by the army. They wear camouflage. They have assault rifles. The only source of legal weapons in Mexico is guarded like a King's Citadel. How many guns do you think are in Mexico?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122803644.html

 

The Mexican Government claims a total of 305,424 confiscated weapons, of all types, since the war began in 2006. There are more confiscated weapons in Mexico than there are soldiers in most of Europe's militaries.

 

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2009/05/07/115945-mexico-s-weapons-cache-stymies-tracing/

 

How many are left? Well, I think the ongoing war speaks for itself. The Drug Cartels don't seem to be short on firepower.

 

Mexico is a living example of why gun control doesn't work. One gun shop in the whole country, controlled by the army, and yet they still manage to confiscate thousands of illegal firearms each year from enemy combatants. Most of those guns come from the US. You know. Illegally. So that tells us that restricting legal sources of firearms isn't effective, because there will always be ILLEGAL ways of obtaining them. The Mexican Government is confiscating as fast as they can, but the Cartels aren't anywhere near being unarmed.

 

They've done a damn fine job of making sure their citizens are unprotected in the midst of a civil war though. How can Mexico's 85,000 man army protect it's 112 million citizens from the 100,000 men that are estimated to be fighters for the Drug Cartels? And that number doesn't even account for the huge amount of corruption that infests both the army and the police force. How can you depend on an army and police force for protection when half of them are working for the criminals anyway? If someone breaks into your house and you call the police, you might be treated to the sight of a uniformed officer leaving the scene with a hundred bucks in his pocket and a murderer carefully selecting the knife he's going to use to remove your kidney.

 

The reasons are obvious. The Mexican Leadership is terrified. It's in genuine danger of losing power. It's citizens are miserable and at constant risk. It's military is under-sized for the conflict and corrupted beyond hope. The enemy has an endless supply of weapons. They have to deter people from joining the Cartels. Ask yourself this. Would you go to war without a weapon? Neither would the Mexican Citizens. However, despite the government's best efforts, there are still plenty of weapons to arm the willing. Except for the good and innocent, of course.

[ProHypster]

Let's not use mexico as an example of failure for specific subjects/laws/regulations, mexico's government in general is a failure, so stop trying to demote gun control just because mexico's gun control doesn' work. I mean the same thing happened in legalizing marijuana topic, someone brought up mexico, and I thought, Oh god another thread where someone's gonig to use the failures of mexico for the better judgement of the subject overall. Just stop, all countries in Europe have decent gun control. In Ukraine we are also limitied to what weapons we can legally have. Anyway, I hope my point was made.

[Twilight Sparkle]

So, you believe that Mexico isn't a good example because of an overall failure in government? Alright, I'll bite. Let's look at a more successful country.

 

What exactly do you consider to be 'decent' gun control? The fact that they have strict laws? The fact that many of the citizens don't have guns? Well let me explain something. The only reason gun control works ANYWHERE is because of a culture that teaches people they don't require them.

 

Let's use Britain for an example. Their laws are a staple of gun control. Huge amounts of requirements and regulations to own anything as much as a hunting rifle. In Britain, there has ALWAYS been weapons control. In the days of the Absolute Monarchy, you couldn't use a cane for support without a permit because it could be used as a weapon. It could take years to get that permit, because the well-being of physically disabled people is less important than a ridiculously small risk to public safety, if there is even a risk at all. The fact of the matter is, the United States was created because of a need for guns. Britain never had a birth like that. Britain was already unified by the time guns came around.

 

So most people in Britain agree that guns are bad. Even the police officers don't carry guns. So how does that work out for them? Well, in the last few years, their crime rate has surpassed the US on a per capita basis for almost all major crimes. Even worse, it has more crime than South Africa, widely considered one of the most dangerous countries on Earth.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

Is that what you call decent gun control? Even in a nation which prides itself on being civilized, there is more crime than the supposed "wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun."

 

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

 

From that same source, here are some of Britain's many 'successes' with gun control, all of which took place within the span of a few days in the summer of 2001.

 

Gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants.

 

A shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded.

 

Two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London.

 

A 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone.

 

Despite the fact that the residents of Britain are supposedly happy with the performance of their police force, the London Police is now looking to New York City for advice.

 

Handguns were banned in 1997. From then until 1999, handgun violence was up by 40%.

 

53% of burglaries occur while the occupants are at home, compared to 13% in the US.

 

You are six times more likely to be robbed in London than in New York City.

 

Burglars have admitted to fearing armed homeowners more than the Police.

 

Should I go on, or is that enough? There are plenty more where that came from. I would not call Europe's gun control to be 'decent' by any means. It's not even acceptable, it's utterly counterproductive. Crime has been rising since the 1950s in Britain, similarly to the United States, and despite their pride in being civilized, their crime is higher than the US' even as they look at us with scorn for clinging to our guns.

 

But hey, if they want to follow their government blindly and believe that gun control works even as they're getting robbed and assaulted, then that's fine with me. Just keep that bullshit out of the country that I live in.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

@Holywarrior:

 

I want to +rep you, but I'm out of points...

[ProHypster]

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

 

 

Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000

 

The table below indicates mode of death for firearms injuries in the ten countries with the most reported deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age. (CDC, 1997)

 

 

Actually I'm not going to try to help your country anyways, I'm just showing the statistics. I'm not going to try to intervene.

[Twilight Sparkle]

Why mention gun crimes specifically? As far as I (And the ones that die) are concerned, it doesn't matter how you die, it matters if you were able to prevent it. The fact of the matter is, people are able to kill each other. Are you going to ban knives and fists too? What about cars? Anything heavy? If you want to stop crime, that's sure as shit what you're going to have to do, although that assumes you can get them away from the criminals in the first place.

 

The nice thing about guns is that it levels the playing field. Do you think that if a man breaks into an old lady's house that she will be able to defend herself with some well-placed Taekwondo kicks? Or do you think she could scare him off with a $100 .38 Special snub-nose? What if two men with knives break into your house with the intent to rape your wife and daughter? If you have a gun, they're screwed. If not, your family is.

 

If you're a criminal and you want to rob someone, are you going to rob the man with a Glock 17 on his hip, or the liberal home owner who is well known for not owning any guns? Guns don't punish crime, they prevent it from happening. Why do you think the police never get mugged? I don't need a chart to show you that.

 

Also, I'd like to direct your attention to this.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

 

Total crimes on a per capita basis, not just gun crimes. As you can see, the UK still ranks higher than the US in total crimes, despite much stricter gun laws. It doesn't matter if I'm getting shot or getting stabbed, I'm still going to die afterwards. The moral here isn't the cause of crime, it's how it can be prevented and what does not prevent it.

[ProHypster]

Why mention gun crimes specifically? As far as I (And the ones that die) are concerned, it doesn't matter how you die, it matters if you were able to prevent it. The fact of the matter is, people are able to kill each other. Are you going to ban knives and fists too? What about cars? Anything heavy? If you want to stop crime, that's sure as shit what you're going to have to do, although that assumes you can get them away from the criminals in the first place.

 

The nice thing about guns is that it levels the playing field. Do you think that if a man breaks into an old lady's house that she will be able to defend herself with some well-placed Taekwondo kicks? Or do you think she could scare him off with a $100 .38 Special snub-nose? What if two men with knives break into your house with the intent to rape your wife and daughter? If you have a gun, they're screwed. If not, your family is.

 

If you're a criminal and you want to rob someone, are you going to rob the man with a Glock 17 on his hip, or the liberal home owner who is well known for not owning any guns? Guns don't punish crime, they prevent it from happening. Why do you think the police never get mugged? I don't need a chart to show you that.

 

Also, I'd like to direct your attention to this.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

 

Total crimes on a per capita basis, not just gun crimes. As you can see, the UK still ranks higher than the US in total crimes, despite much stricter gun laws. It doesn't matter if I'm getting shot or getting stabbed, I'm still going to die afterwards. The moral here isn't the cause of crime, it's how it can be prevented and what does not prevent it.

 

Haha, this is where you are wrong,

 

1. With knifes there is no accident killings.

 

2. I can fight off a guy attacking with a knife

 

3. It takes a lot more crazyness to kill someone with a knife and there is a high probability you will just injure them.

 

4.

 

 

Although Ukraine and east europe in general is pretty high, you have to consider that Ukraine's average HDI right now is 0.719 and USA's is somewhere near 0.85-8.

 

5. The rest of the crime statistics are thefts, sexual assaults, copyright infringements etc, which obviously we have a lot more here due to our culture but that doesn't have anything to do with guns.

 

6. Only Britain and Finland are higher then United States, the former a Neo-European Country and the latter a small population and known alcoholic country ....

 

7. All the crimes reported to the court?? Horrible statistic. In Ukraine noone even reports sexual abuse, it 's pretty normal for a boss to somehow sexually harass some worker. And that's everywhere in europe. Lots of people prefer not to report then to report. So the Crime per capita statistics might just be showing how many people actually report crimes to the court. Seeing the british as orderly people I can imagine lots of them do report instead like maybe in Russia where you would deal with a situation yourself a lot.

 

8. If in your opinion your system works, then sure I don't mind. . I don't know much about the US crime rate but I do know that Ukraine's system is still somewhat corrupt.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Twilight Sparkle]

1. http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/06/investigators_agree_center_poi.html

 

2. You certainly can. And I can do it better, since I have guns.

 

3. This doesn't really work. You can't use the 'level of crazyness' as an argument because that isn't the only reason people commit crimes. People commit crimes out of desperation, not always because they just want to kill someone. And the level of crazyness doesn't have anything to do with the weapon of choice. If they can afford a firearm, they will use a firearm. If all they have is a piece of sharp metal, that's what they will use. If you really wanted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, you'd make them ridiculously expensive. Since that would piss a lot of people off and ruin a lot of things economically, the next best thing is to allow people to carry guns for their personal defense.

 

4. All this proves is that less developed countries have higher homicide rates than more developed countries.

 

5. You're right, here. I didn't even consider things like Copyright Infringement when I dug up that list.

 

6. What exactly does "Neo-European" mean in this context? Also, don't bring alcohol into it. Most people don't commit crimes while drunk (not pre-mediated ones, anyway).

 

7. It's served us well enough so far. Just imagine how the Fort Hood shooting would have ended if the soldiers on station had actually been carrying their weapons at the time.

[Doom Shepherd]

Japan banned guns... And in recent years had a number of mass-stabbings. They seem to like going after schoolchildren.

[ProHypster]

Japan banned guns... And in recent years had a number of mass-stabbings. They seem to like going after schoolchildren.

 

Again, this issue should depend on the cultures.

 

But, does anyone feel creeped out by the fact that all the african countries like Nigeria, Niger, Zimbabwe are not on any lists. Does the government hide the statistics....? If so, then our situation is much better than it appears to be, at least we are honest.

[Twilight Sparkle]

Japan banned guns... And in recent years had a number of mass-stabbings. They seem to like going after schoolchildren.

 

Again, this issue should depend on the cultures.

 

But, does anyone feel creeped out by the fact that all the african countries like Nigeria, Niger, Zimbabwe are not on any lists. Does the government hide the statistics....? If so, then our situation is much better than it appears to be, at least we are honest.

 

Yeah I agree with you here. When it comes to crime (specifically the mafia) no one gets shit done like the Japanese Mafia. Those bastards don't even need guns, they half control the economy, supposedly.

 

We certainly are luckier than some countries. We're arguing gun control when there are countries where people manufacture AK-47s in their garage to trade for a few cows.

[BTGBullseye]

Japanese Mafia

You mean the Yakuza.

[Twilight Sparkle]

Yeah. I was too lazy to look up their actual name.

[Doom Shepherd]

Japan banned guns... And in recent years had a number of mass-stabbings. They seem to like going after schoolchildren.

 

Again, this issue should depend on the cultures.

 

But, does anyone feel creeped out by the fact that all the african countries like Nigeria, Niger, Zimbabwe are not on any lists. Does the government hide the statistics....? If so, then our situation is much better than it appears to be, at least we are honest.

 

Most likely they are among the countries that don;t even bother trying to gather the statistics, because they're too busing doing the actual killing. Or trying not to starve because their governments keep all the food for their soldiers (that was a large cause of the Ethopian famine.) Or both.

[Michael Archer]

People who are using statistics to show that gun control doesn't work are really missing the crucial issue here: that is, the right to bear arms derives from the right to one's own life (like all other rights). If you have the right to life, you have the right to posses tools necessary for defending your life.

 

Also, blaming guns in a shooting is like blaming cars in a crash.

[The Giant Napkin]

People who are using statistics to show that gun control doesn't work are really missing the crucial issue here: that is, the right to bear arms derives from the right to one's own life (like all other rights). If you have the right to life, you have the right to posses tools necessary for defending your life.

 

Also, blaming guns in a shooting is like blaming cars in a crash.

 

Then your assumption is that guns are necessary in order to live. I know a mightily large amount of people (in Holland) who have never possesed guns, but are still doing quite well at living. It's (here, anyway) generally not necessary to defend your own life with a gun. Perhaps in the US that's still quite common?

 

I know that in the US owning a gun is considered a right. Here, it's just considered a danger. I'm not 'blaming guns in a shooting', but what is the sole purpose of guns? And what is the purpose of cars? Therefore, owning a gun means that you are going to use that gun. Which is why owning guns in most European countries is limited to police, army and people who go to hunting/shooting clubs etc.

[Eedo Baba]

We invented guns to protect ourselves from all the people with guns.

...

hmm...

[Angel Blood]

I think that your intellect scares the shit out of me, Bullseye (Also is that The Guy from Disturbed in your profile picture?)

I live in australia, and we don't really have such a great record of gun law, but for good reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences

Read the article above and below it, you'll understand. however it's unfair to people like me, who would like one for self defence in the very case that someone breaks into my house, or the house of someone very close to me, I'm going to shoot them dead. No, I'm not a psycho, but if you're trying to break into my house, I'm going to defend whats mine.

No, I'm not asking for a sub machine gun, but I'd like something like a pistol with the calibre to put down a target without a head or heartshot (a la .22) But perhaps something flashy like http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/tactical-ii/tactical-custom-hd-ii (Yes, I love the 1911, and Kimber makes the sexiest pistols I've ever seen)

I am a gun nut, so if I'm going to be prohibited from owning a .45 because of my country, then I'd take a http://sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p220-platinum-elite.aspx These pistols because it makes me look like I know what I'm doing, and have good taste in choosing a weapon. (I've never fired one before, but I have family members in the Australian Army who have taught me proper pistol maintenance and handling, so I'm fairly competent in handling already.)