Gun Control...

[Kirkreng]

Killing someone who is breaking in to your house is ridiculous. Not that i think breaking in to someone's house is a good thing to do by any means but that is just to much of a punishment.

[Angel Blood]

Well, now I can actually say I'm slightly more awake, I can justify this.

1, I have on fucking idea who you are. If you're my brother or a member of my family, and you left your key or something, then certanily, I'll put the gun down and get you a drink or something and send you to bed.

2, Going on from that, if you're wearing a balaclava, gloves and have clear intentions, I'd pull the trigger cause I don't know who the hell you are. For all I know you've got a gun of your own.

3, I agree that giving them a second to fuck off would be great, but I'd much rather sit him on my couch and call the police, all the while aiming my sexy gun at his head.

4, If someone comes into your house with a butchers knife, (say you've had an argument) what are you going to do? "Hi buddy, what're you doing with that---OH GOD MY LIMBS, M PRECIOUS LIMBS!" I'd much rather have a gun in my hand, and the option to pull the trigger before he can butcher me in my sleep, like he obviusly planned to.

[Kirkreng]

You've seen to much TV. People breaking in to your house with a gun or butchers knife with the intentions of assaulting you doesn't happen that often. And even if it does, why do you think he/she has a gun? Because according to you you should be allowed to have one. It's like trying to kill fire with fire.

[Doom Shepherd]

Criminals are 80% less likely to invade a home when they have reason to believe the owner is armed. That is a fact.

 

And even if it does, why do you think he/she has a gun?

 

Because he's a goddamn CRIMINAL, that's why! Here's the thing about criminals: they don't CARE about the laws that say they can't own guns. He obviously doesn't give a damn for the laws that say he can't break in to other people's houses and take their stuff!

 

This isn't rocet science, it's BASIC logic!

 

And even if he doesn't have a gun, he could have a knife or a crowbar. Both are deadly. How do you think he got IN in the first place?

[The Giant Napkin]

Criminals are 80% less likely to invade a home when they have reason to believe the owner is armed. That is a fact.

 

And I still think that the logic behind more guns > less shooting/crimes is slightly odd. Most statistics seem to suggest the opposite. (Of course, if everyone had a gun, I'd definitely rob someone who doesn't have one... but that's simply solving the gun problem by introducing MORE guns)

 

Also,

This isn't rocet science

You're damned right it isn't : P (Ok, sorry, I'm a foreigner and if you were to point out my every mistake, this forum would be about grammatical errors only... but you really misspelled the wrong word in your post.)

[Doom Shepherd]

And I still think that the logic behind more guns > less shooting/crimes is slightly odd.

I grant that it SEEMS counterintuitive, but there have been case studies. Every so often, there are two virtually identical towns in the US, one that decides to ban all weapons, and another that decides to allow unrestricted access.

The crime rates in the former always rise, the crime rates in the latter always decline.

 

Between 1991 and 2009, the number of firearms owned in the US increased by around 90 million guns.

Over the same period, violent crime declined by 43%.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/crime_091310.html.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_04.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_04.html

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/

 

Also,

This isn't rocet science

You're damned right it isn't : P (Ok, sorry, I'm a foreigner and if you were to point out my every mistake, this forum would be about grammatical errors only... but you really misspelled the wrong word in your post.)

Ha! Good catch. I'm going to pretend that that was ironically intentional.

[ProHypster]

And I still think that the logic behind more guns > less shooting/crimes is slightly odd.

I grant that it SEEMS counterintuitive, but there have been case studies. Every so often, there are two virtually identical towns in the US, one that decides to ban all weapons, and another that decides to allow unrestricted access.

The crime rates in the former always rise, the crime rates in the latter always decline.

 

Between 1991 and 2009, the number of firearms owned in the US increased by around 90 million guns.

Over the same period, violent crime declined by 43%.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/crime_091310.html.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_04.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_04.html

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/

 

Also,

This isn't rocet science

You're damned right it isn't : P (Ok, sorry, I'm a foreigner and if you were to point out my every mistake, this forum would be about grammatical errors only... but you really misspelled the wrong word in your post.)

Ha! Good catch. I'm going to pretend that that was ironically intentional.

 

Doom, the statistic that would interest me is the amount of deaths due to violent crime not the amount of violent crime.

 

In my theory, guns are much more dangerous then knives, meaning, a person robbed with a Baton/Knife may survive the attack and the robber will leave the house with goods without a murder on his case.

 

Then, if one person has a gun and the other doesn't it is also a good scenario as the other will usually give up right away resulting with no deaths in case of a robbery.

 

A conflict with two guns though has much more higher chance to end up with murder, even both getting killed.

 

So, even though I believe you that there will be less conflicts, I tend to think there will be more deaths in those few conflicts then in the many conflicts where only one person has a gun or both have a baton or a knife.

 

You can run from steel weapons, you can't from guns.

 

Logically, if I were robbed for example, I would prefer it to be either a person with a gun and me without one, in which case I will let him rob me but then hunt him down or a fight between steel/wood/barehanded weaponry as a conflict in which I and my enemy have guns is based much more on luck and not skill.

 

EDIT: Also, just something I remembered, the US used to have a much more problematic mafia, part of the crime decrease could just be the mafia weakening.

[Doom Shepherd]

Logically, if I were robbed for example, I would prefer it to be either a person with a gun and me without one, in which case I will let him rob me but then hunt him down or a fight between steel/wood/barehanded weaponry as a conflict in which I and my enemy have guns is based much more on luck and not skill.

 

Of course, if he thinks you might hunt him down later (a common fantasy, BTW. This never happens in the real world. Even the police usually can't solve around 75% of such crimes after the fact.), he's just as likely to shoot little ol' unarmed and not-resisting you.

 

You know the phrase "no witnesses?" There are plenty of criminals who'd rather do the murder and probably not get caught for that then he would risk you being able to identify him in a lineup.

 

A conflict in which I and my enemy both have guns (or I have one and he does not) is a lot more likely to end in my favor than a conflict in which my enemy has a gun (or any other weapon) and I have nothing, for several reasons, which include the fact that criminals aren't usually actually trained to use the guns they have - see the fad among 'gangstas' to fire handguns while holding them sideways, a stupid thing to do - while I have recieved such training.

 

EDIT: No, our mafia (organized crime) doesn't really go in for robbery, mugging, rape and home invasions. Those are more our street gangs. Our mafia prefers more profitable crime, like graft and kickbacks.

[ProHypster]

Logically, if I were robbed for example, I would prefer it to be either a person with a gun and me without one, in which case I will let him rob me but then hunt him down or a fight between steel/wood/barehanded weaponry as a conflict in which I and my enemy have guns is based much more on luck and not skill.

 

Of course, if he thinks you might hunt him down later (a common fantasy, BTW. This never happens in the real world. Even the police usually can't solve around 75% of such crimes after the fact.), he's just as likely to shoot little ol' unarmed and not-resisting you.

 

You know the phrase "no witnesses?" There are plenty of criminals who'd rather do the murder and probably not get caught for that then he would risk you being able to identify him in a lineup.

 

A conflict in which I and my enemy both have guns (or I have one and he does not) is a lot more likely to end in my favor than a conflict in which my enemy has a gun (or any other weapon) and I have nothing, for several reasons, which include the fact that criminals aren't usually actually trained to use the guns they have - see the fad among 'gangstas' to fire handguns while holding them sideways, a stupid thing to do - while I have recieved such training.

 

EDIT: No, our mafia (organized crime) doesn't really go in for robbery, mugging, rape and home invasions. Those are more our street gangs. Our mafia prefers more profitable crime, like graft and kickbacks.

The hunt him down part was a joke.

 

For all the rest you just have to find a statistic of actual deaths. I have a friend who was robbed 3 times with batons/knifes and he did get injured during all of those but he never died and he now lives pretty well as a manager of a good company. Another girl friend got stabbed in the stomach with a screwdriver byt some idiot and she survived finely. I have also another friend who survived of a knife stab refusing to give her purse to the bandit and but died refusing to go to the hospital afterwards...

 

I have no friends which survived guns. But this is not the point right? The point is if banning guns is effective, the way we will find out is if you give us a statistic of deaths due to violent crime...

[Doom Shepherd]

I have no friends which survived guns. But this is not the point right? The point is if banning guns is effective, the way we will find out is if you give us a statistic of deaths due to violent crime...

 

In the US, we have several major metropolitan areas which have outright total firearms bans. These include Washington DC and Detroit, Michigan.

 

Not coincidentally, those areas also lead the nation in violent gun crimes.

 

If you go by a strict per-capita rate, states and areas in the uS which ban gun ownership are always more violent. The gun homicide rate in Totally-Gun-banned DC is 19:100,000. In "Gun Crazy" Montana, it's 1:100000. in "Really Gun Crazy" Vermont, it's ZERO.

 

That's the thing about laws. They only affect the behavior of the kinds of people who obey laws.

 

But if it's statistics you want, While Ukraine's firearm homicide rate is considerably lower than ours, your overall homicide rate is almost twice as high as ours.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[cs_strike]

I have no friends which survived guns. But this is not the point right? The point is if banning guns is effective, the way we will find out is if you give us a statistic of deaths due to violent crime...

That might happen but in the other hand, that would also help reduce most of the crimes caused by most of the guns.

[ProHypster]

I have no friends which survived guns. But this is not the point right? The point is if banning guns is effective, the way we will find out is if you give us a statistic of deaths due to violent crime...

 

In the US, we have several major metropolitan areas which have outright total firearms bans. These include Washington DC and Detroit, Michigan.

 

Not coincidentally, those areas also lead the nation in violent gun crimes.

 

If you go by a strict per-capita rate, states and areas in the uS which ban gun ownership are always more violent. The gun homicide rate in Totally-Gun-banned DC is 19:100,000. In "Gun Crazy" Montana, it's 1:10000. in "Really Gun Crazy" Vermont, it's ZERO.

 

That's the thing about laws. They only affect the behavior of the kinds of people who obey laws.

 

But if it's statistics you want, While Ukraine's firearm homicide rate is considerably lower than ours, your overall homicide rate is almost twice as high as ours.

Yeah but Ukraine is in a way different situation then the US, we have some tensions here between different ethnic people (In some cities). Plus overall lower salary etc etc..

 

A better statistic would be all in one country.

[Doom Shepherd]

Yeah but Ukraine is in a way different situation then the US, we have some tensions here between different ethnic people (In some cities).

 

Yeah, because the US doesn't have different ethnicities and tensions between them. Those white, black, hispanic and asian gangs? They're like unicorns and pegasi.

[Michael Archer]

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.

 

There are many peaceful and legitimate reasons for owning a gun. To name a few: marksmanship (sports), hunting, self-defense.

 

What's the purpose of a baseball bat? It's used for killing other people; it's easy to obtain, deadly, and a child could literally use it with great effect. It's mostly used to play baseball, but I'm conveniently ignoring this fact.

[ProHypster]

Yeah but Ukraine is in a way different situation then the US, we have some tensions here between different ethnic people (In some cities).

 

Yeah, because the US doesn't have different ethnicities and tensions between them. Those white, black, hispanic and asian gangs? They're like unicorns and pegasi.

Oh common, I'm just saying, a better statistic would be for one country's effect after and before gun ban. By the way it is legal to own guns here.

[Doom Shepherd]

Yeah but Ukraine is in a way different situation then the US, we have some tensions here between different ethnic people (In some cities).

 

Yeah, because the US doesn't have different ethnicities and tensions between them. Those white, black, hispanic and asian gangs? They're like unicorns and pegasi.

Oh common, I'm just saying, a better statistic would be for one country's effect after and before gun ban. By the way it is legal to own guns here.

 

maybe you can try this: some folks in Belgium did a before-after comparison in (as well as other comparisons) while researching the feasability of a gun ban in Belgium.

http://home.scarlet.be/guncrime/wapenbezitcriminaliteitEnglish.pdf

[Axeldeath]

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.

 

There are many peaceful and legitimate reasons for owning a gun. To name a few: marksmanship (sports), hunting, self-defense.

 

What's the purpose of a baseball bat? It's used for killing other people; it's easy to obtain, deadly, and a child could literally use it with great effect. It's mostly used to play baseball, but I'm conveniently ignoring this fact.

 

The only guns that are legal in NZ are the ones that are used for hunting and marksmanship, pistols are mostly banned because they are used to kill people. Pistols can be obtained but it takes months and there are very stringent regulations.

[The Giant Napkin]

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.

 

There are many peaceful and legitimate reasons for owning a gun. To name a few: marksmanship (sports), hunting, self-defense.

 

What's the purpose of a baseball bat? It's used for killing other people; it's easy to obtain, deadly, and a child could literally use it with great effect. It's mostly used to play baseball, but I'm conveniently ignoring this fact.

 

I'm sorry, perhaps I did slightly misuse that to seem more convincing. I only meant to say guns are solely meant for shooting, not murdering. Cars, however, are used for driving. Now both can have negative consequences (such as death), but guns seem to me to be more closely related to these.

Anyway, I have heard repeatedly the argument that criminals would get guns anyway, because they don't obey the law. But I think prohibiting civilian ownage of guns will lead to less guns among criminals, too, because they'll be harder to get. Now in Holland, some people have guns (because it's not altogether prohibited, either). Now what if not only victims, but also the criminals didn't have guns. Would that be safer? I am inclined to think that, because guns are used for shooting, the removal of all guns would mean less shooting and therefore less homicides. Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, because there'll always be some criminals that will get their hands on a gun, but in the imaginary case that guns didn't exist at all, would the world be safer?

[ProHypster]

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.

 

There are many peaceful and legitimate reasons for owning a gun. To name a few: marksmanship (sports), hunting, self-defense.

 

What's the purpose of a baseball bat? It's used for killing other people; it's easy to obtain, deadly, and a child could literally use it with great effect. It's mostly used to play baseball, but I'm conveniently ignoring this fact.

 

I'm sorry, perhaps I did slightly misuse that to seem more convincing. I only meant to say guns are solely meant for shooting, not murdering. Cars, however, are used for driving. Now both can have negative consequences (such as death), but guns seem to me to be more closely related to these.

Anyway, I have heard repeatedly the argument that criminals would get guns anyway, because they don't obey the law. But I think prohibiting civilian ownage of guns will lead to less guns among criminals, too, because they'll be harder to get. Now in Holland, some people have guns (because it's not altogether prohibited, either). Now what if not only victims, but also the criminals didn't have guns. Would that be safer? I am inclined to think that, because guns are used for shooting, the removal of all guns would mean less shooting and therefore less homicides. Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, because there'll always be some criminals that will get their hands on a gun, but in the imaginary case that guns didn't exist at all, would the world be safer?

 

You are talking about something unachievable here unless all nations ban guns and keep people from gaining gun smith technology. Imagine how easy it would be for a mafia from another country to invade this "Peacaeful no gun country" Seeing how you can't really destroy knowledge of gun technology, I'd say it is impossible to keep your country completely out of guns.

 

It may be better a new way for police to control gun manufacturing properly and sales. But as long as there is money (Or even greed or lust or simple values that can be traded) there will be corruption of course.

 

It is the same situation as state anarchy, one country cannot stay in anarchy, it is too easy to invade it, now if everyone agreed it would be different. A part of Ukraine once tried anarchy, it was called Black territory and basically what happened is that the Soviets easily managed to propaganda the other nations that the anarchy was actually a cruel dictatorship and basically make up lies, so they could "Rightfully in the eyes of other nations" invade it. In reality now we know it probably was a simple peaceful society there not a dictatorship.

 

(I'm an not an anarchist or anything, just bringing it up as an example)

[The Giant Napkin]

*snap*

 

I know, that's why I mentioned it was a purely hypothetical situation. There are more than enough people and reasons to believe more gun control is bad (I'm not entirely sure, but that's another thing), but I was just wondering IF we were able to choose between guns or no guns at all in a country, aside from the military risks, would the country be safer if there were no guns at all?