106 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

Maizer, on 22 December 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

The analysis is pretty much useless when you can buy a gun in any state and drive across the border. Gather data from different countries, where you can't just cross a border with a Glock

Or... Drive down to Mexico and get guns.

questionmark, on 22 December 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

There are several things to consider here. First as you have already noted, the homicides in Vermont are quite lowin number (I think it was 2 in 2010, and only one of them with firearms and 4 in 2011) so they would not be a concern to the legislative (the index remained below 3 per 100,000 since the 80s and never got any higher than 5.5since the 70s). There were people handle their guns responsibly you don't need laws.

And yes, you are right, of the 721 murders in 2011 641 were committed in Chicago, and most of the rest in the suburban area of Chicago. For Illinois at large you would not need harsh laws.

You are right, the Urbanization of an area has more to do with violent crime then how many guns are owned. The problem is not the US Culture, but the Urban Poor culture... the Gang Culture.

Are more deaths caused by gang members or from kids who play Call of Duty too much?

Does anyone really think that taking away any kind of gun is going to prevent criminals and gangs from getting their hands on them? I mean... drugs are illegal and criminals and gangs are mostly the ones selling those, right?

You're never going to be able to stop the Lone Gunman Crazed Idiot. If he does not have an AR-15 or assualt rifle, he'll have a pipe bomb, or a machete, or a carpenter's hatchet. What are we going to do, have licenses and training on how not to kill people with kitchen implements and garage tools?

I'm actually against private ownership of machine guns and fully automatic weapons and I think there is no good reason to need 30 or 50 round clips. But, we can't just let the criminals have the only guns.

[Stellar]

Quote

Does anyone really think that taking away any kind of gun is going to prevent criminals and gangs from getting their hands on them? I mean... drugs are illegal and criminals and gangs are mostly the ones selling those, right?

How many non-gang members are getting into shootouts with gang members?

Quote

You're never going to be able to stop the Lone Gunman Crazed Idiot. If he does not have an AR-15 or assualt rifle, he'll have a pipe bomb, or a machete, or a carpenter's hatchet.

Are you telling me that you wouldnt rather a crazed idiot with a machete over a crazed idiot with an AR15?

[AsteroidX]

Dont punish innocent people for the crime of someone thats already dead.

[DieChecker]

Stellar, on 24 December 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

How many non-gang members are getting into shootouts with gang members?

Haven't got a clue. I suspect not many non-gang members shoot it out with gang members unless they are being robbed/burglerized.

Quote

Are you telling me that you wouldnt rather a crazed idiot with a machete over a crazed idiot with an AR15?

I'd rather the guy have a machete, of course. You're not going to stop his attack, but might prevent a greater death toll.

From what I've seen of foreign death rates due to violence in "industrialized" nations, guns usually lead to twice as many people getting killed in these kind of events. So maybe 10 kids would have been killed instead of 20. That would be great, but it does not save those 10.

So then is the occational lower death rate going to be worth the effort of taking everyones guns away? (Going with worst case) Some would say Yes, and some would say No. I suspect it is going to fall around 50/50.

[Br Cornelius]

I read today that gun related deaths in the UK were 41 with an equivocalant figure of 10,000 for the USA. Thats a shocking difference.

Criminals in the UK are not uncommon - but they rarely use guns - because they are not available. Hence homicides which are incidental to theft are vanishingly small in the UK. Any criminal found in possession of a gun is treated extemely harshly by the law and this is an effective deterrent against the militarization of crime in the UK.


Your arguments in defense of guns are logically backwards. You say you need guns to defend yourself against criminals buts statistically you only need your guns because criminals can freely get guns. Your supposed safety by been able to use a gun to defend yourself leads to the peverse situation where you are far more likely to end up been shot.

It is a fetish for guns which makes your argue these blatantly ludicrous positions and it would be far more honest if you owned up to that fact and stopped using personal safety as a defense of guns.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 24 December 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 24 December 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Does anyone really think that taking away any kind of gun is going to prevent criminals and gangs from getting their hands on them? I mean... drugs are illegal and criminals and gangs are mostly the ones selling those, right?

Stop it altogether not there will always be brain amputated who will try this type of stunt:





And yes, there will be a minority paying disproportional prices for illegal guns, but there is where the whole idea of control sets in: disproportional prices. If an illegal weapon costs in the 1000s instead of the 100s we will at least preclude the most dangerous from having them: teenage punks. And if on top of it, if getting stopped for a broken taillight with an illegal gun gets you 5-10 in Leavenworth at least the brainier ones will see that having one is dangerous, showing one much more. The less brainy ones will be in Leavenworth for a while.

[itsnotoutthere]

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans seem quite happy for their children to be shot to pieces as long as you don't threaten to take their guns away.

Edited by itsnotoutthere, 24 December 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[DieChecker]

Br Cornelius, on 24 December 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

I read today that gun related deaths in the UK were 41 with an equivocalant figure of 10,000 for the USA. Thats a shocking difference.

Criminals in the UK are not uncommon - but they rarely use guns - because they are not available. Hence homicides which are incidental to theft are vanishingly small in the UK. Any criminal found in possession of a gun is treated extemely harshly by the law and this is an effective deterrent against the militarization of crime in the UK.

Your arguments in defense of guns are logically backwards. You say you need guns to defend yourself against criminals buts statistically you only need your guns because criminals can freely get guns. Your supposed safety by been able to use a gun to defend yourself leads to the peverse situation where you are far more likely to end up been shot.

It is a fetish for guns which makes your argue these blatantly ludicrous positions and it would be far more honest if you owned up to that fact and stopped using personal safety as a defense of guns.

Br Cornelius

Well. I'd challenge you and others to make is Safe FIRST. Then after completing your Social Change that takes away crime and takes the guns from the criminals, the public can give up their guns. Oh... and while you are at it, fix the issues with Drug abuse and the issues with Illegal immigration while you are at it.

What evidence is there that taking away the publics guns is going to make society safer? Becuase it worked in England/United Kingdom? The US is not the UK. The UK is 63 Million people in 243,610 km². The USA is 315 million people in 9,826,675 km². Six times the people in fifty times the land area. Put a crime ridden border along one whole side of the UK and see how easy it is to keep out drugs and firearms.

My arguement is not backwards. It simply is asking how criminals will be prevented from getting guns when we can't keep people, drugs or anything else from walking right over a thousand mile long border?

I actually don't own a gun. I use a dog instead. But I would quickly yell out if there was a burgler downstairs at night that, "I have a gun up here and I've called the police!". Police statistics say that issuing such a challenge almost always chases intruders away. Millions of home invasions per year are ended this way. The invasions where gunfire is actually exchanged is so small as to statistically irrelivant. Except those occurances that involved gangs and purposeful violence. And the old chestnut that kids kill themselves with guns is not valid either. Sure, hundreds of kids per year are killed and wounded accidentally, but compared to the number of guns it is still statistically irrelivant. Campare to childhood electrical deaths, or automotive deaths, or choking deaths, or heat burns... Guns really are not statistically that dangerous.

Those that call for unilateral Disarmament are those who speak out of Ignorance.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 24 December 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Stop it altogether not there will always be brain amputated who will try this type of stunt:

And yes, there will be a minority paying disproportional prices for illegal guns, but there is where the whole idea of control sets in: disproportional prices. If an illegal weapon costs in the 1000s instead of the 100s we will at least preclude the most dangerous from having them: teenage punks. And if on top of it, if getting stopped for a broken taillight with an illegal gun gets you 5-10 in Leavenworth at least the brainier ones will see that having one is dangerous, showing one much more. The less brainy ones will be in Leavenworth for a while.

Yes, just like Pot and Meth and Crack have gone up to 1000 dollars an ounce. Not.... As long as there is cheap firearms available, they will be smuggled and sold to criminals. I don't see how a $100 pistol is going to go to $1000 when hundreds of them can be smuggled effortlessly from Central America. Drug factories went up when the price of drugs only doubled. If guns were illegal, we'd see dozens of cheap gun factories going up all over Mexico and Central/South America.

Isn't that the thinkiing that has made the War on Drugs a Failure? And what is the solution that is becoming more and more commonly talked about??? Making various "lite" drugs legal.... Pot specifically.... Because with a large population of widely varying politics, cultures and ethnicities... and a giant undefended border... it is impossible to enforce any kind of Prohibition... drugs, tobacco, alcohol, guns or otherwise...

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 26 December 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Yes, just like Pot and Meth and Crack have gone up to 1000 dollars an ounce. Not.... As long as there is cheap firearms available, they will be smuggled and sold to criminals. I don't see how a $100 pistol is going to go to $1000 when hundreds of them can be smuggled effortlessly from Central America. Drug factories went up when the price of drugs only doubled. If guns were illegal, we'd see dozens of cheap gun factories going up all over Mexico and Central/South America.

Isn't that the thinkiing that has made the War on Drugs a Failure? And what is the solution that is becoming more and more commonly talked about??? Making various "lite" drugs legal.... Pot specifically.... Because with a large population of widely varying politics, cultures and ethnicities... and a giant undefended border... it is impossible to enforce any kind of Prohibition... drugs, tobacco, alcohol, guns or otherwise...

Do you understand the difference between a bodily dependence and the buying of a tool (well, I understand that for a minority a gun is more than a tool, but I also believe they are a case for a psychiatrist)? Right, that is the difference.

Taking away the economic incentive is the best way to stop things from happening, unless they are happening because the person is deranged. Those deranged should not have a gun to start with.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 26 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Do you understand the difference between a bodily dependence and the buying of a tool (well, I understand that for a minority a gun is more than a tool, but I also believe they are a case for a psychiatrist)? Right, that is the difference.

Taking away the economic incentive is the best way to stop things from happening, unless they are happening because the person is deranged. Those deranged should not have a gun to start with.

I understand and agree with that. I just don't believe it is going to work based on similar illegal substances still being widely available and easy to procure.

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 26 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

I understand and agree with that. I just don't believe it is going to work based on similar illegal substances still being widely available and easy to procure.

If we can stop mass killings and still have the other crime we will be better off than before while we had the mass killings.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 26 December 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

If we can stop mass killings and still have the other crime we will be better off than before while we had the mass killings.

How much (numerically) less mass killings will there be if we were to remove Automatic Weapon availabilty? How much with all guns illegal?

It is a very hard thing to proove. Will guns make the mass murderer more likely to commit their crime, or just make them more deadly? It is very hard to proove, since it involves more then just one variable.

And like I said, I am not against gun control. I am against Knee Jerk reactions against a single variable by the Media that results in ill thought out legislation.

This also goes to the same thinking as in the Military Drone thread... Is it better to catch 100 more criminals/terrorists each year and sacrifice a tiny possibility of loosing some privacy (From drones flying overhead, or whatnot), or is it better to have more privacy with more people dying who might have otherwise been alive. I vote for keeping people alive, and the ultra conservatives (and ultra liberals) thought it better to have privacy.

Edited by DieChecker, 26 December 2012 - 11:27 PM.

[Maizer]

DieChecker, on 26 December 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

It is a very hard thing to proove. Will guns make the mass murderer more likely to commit their crime, or just make them more deadly? It is very hard to proove, since it involves more then just one variable.

Perhaps, but it isn't a stretch to think a gunless mass murderer, generally, would cause much less damage, as we can see with the knife attacks in China.

[FurthurBB]

preacherman76, on 22 December 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

There are other factors as well. I believe Vermont is a open carry state. How much of that contributed to thier low crime rate?

Missouri is an open carry state, it doesn't seem to do much for crime in St. Louis.