lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: You should've seen this coming with all the recent shootings
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-04-2006, 01:00 PM   #1
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Question You should've seen this coming with all the recent shootings

With the recent series of school shootings, and the influx of new members to the Senate (such as Emp. Devon and J. Onasi), I thought it'd be an idea to bring this subject up again.


Thread topic: Are you for or against gun control, and if for, to what extent?


I'm personally against gun ownership for home defense (as they are 43 times more likely to kill someone in the house than a burglar, they do not exactly provide safety), and I'm definetly against owning Firearms of Mass Destruction (AK-47s and the like), as there's simply no need for civilians owning such things.

Hunting and sporting I'm less decided on. Perhaps you could buy be allowed to buy a rifle if you had a permit and made an oath to use it only for hunting or sports, and to never leave it armed at home and keep the ammunition out of reach of children.

As for the old "guns keep the government from taking away our democracy"-argument, that is of course a fallacy. The US military of today has everything from stealth planes to carriers, from tanks to cruise missiles. A bunch of civilians with various sorts of firearms would do nada. Iraq is a good example on how "well-regulated militias" of fantical Muslims and Saddam loyalists, armed even more heavily than the NRA members in the US, are failing to drive out the Coalition occupants.

Furthermore, if there's one thing the Bush presidency has proven, it is that authoritarian elements (need I give examples?) can easily be introduced into a country, no matter how many guns the residents have. "All you have to do is declare that the nation is under attack, and accuse the pacifist of being cowards and of exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in ever country".


PS:
1. It might be a good idea to go quickly through the old threads on the subject, such as the old Gun Control thread.

Edit: 2. One of the sources on Göring's "All you have to do..."-quote. Felt it didn't deserve it's own post all by itself.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 10-04-2006 at 01:55 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 01:50 PM   #2
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Absolutely for. If gun ownership made people safe, the US would be the safest place on the planet. You like shooting things? Join the army. That's what it's there for.

And the full quote is: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Hermann Goering, 1946.


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 03:10 PM   #3
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Two more related threads:
Guns - please vote.
The ban on assault weapons - lifted?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 04:05 PM   #4
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Please don't step on my right to own a gun. If I want it for defense, a collection, hunting, or just hey, maybe because I want one, that is my constitutional right. Even if the justification for owning a gun isn't to build a militia, there's still no legitimate reason to change the Constitution just for a utopian ideal (no guns).

There are studies that show that gun ownership decreases gun violence (a deterrent to crime - would you rob someone if you think they could have a gun?), but then there's studies that show the opposite. So it's not really provable either way if they make us safer or not, so why not side with giving people more freedom as opposed to taking away a freedom that many people use lawfully every day?

Banning guns isn't going to make guns go away entirely - it just means that law-abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals will still have guns, because they can smuggle them into the country. Look at that shooting in Canada recently - the guy had an automatic weapon, didn't he? So much for Canada's gun control!

My family is considering getting a pistol in the house for defensive purposes... sure you'll say to just get a security system, but once someone is inside the house, there's not much that you can do. That's why having a pistol, as dangerous as it may be, at least gives you a feeling of being in control.

Plus... if China invades, at least the people can fight them guerilla style.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 05:06 PM   #5
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
^^^
Couldn't have said it better myself, TK.

BTW: No offense, really, but why do citizens of other nations care whether or not US citizens have the right to own firearms anyway?
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 05:14 PM   #6
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Please don't step on my right to own a gun.
Rights aren't absolute things that have to be universally accepted. Canadians have the right to free health care, American right-wingers (the same people who want less gun control) fight the introduction of that right to America with all their strenght.

In Norway we have the right to go whereever we want to, even on private property, as long as it's not on cultivated fields or near a house. So in other words, I can hike in the mountain behind my house, even though some of it is privately owned, but I can't walk through the backyard of the guy who owns it. Don't you want that freedom in the US, too, if you're so crazy about rights?

And let's not get into the right to own a slave, the right to walk around nude in the streets...

Right doesn't make right.

Quote:
If I want it for defense, a collection, hunting, or just hey, maybe because I want one, that is my constitutional right.
Right does not make right.

There was a time when drinking alcohol was unconstitutional, which resulted in the 23rd amendment, which kicked out the 18th one. Did you see the NRA (if they existed then) go bananas and protest the "attacks on the constitution"?

Quote:
Even if the justification for owning a gun isn't to build a militia, there's still no legitimate reason to change the Constitution just for a utopian ideal (no guns).
Reducing the number of firearms deaths each year from 11 000 isn't legitimate?

There are studies that show that gun ownership decreases gun violence (a deterrent to crime - would you rob someone if you think they could have a gun?), but then there's studies that show the opposite. So it's not really provable either way if they make us safer or not, so why not side with giving people more freedom as opposed to taking away a freedom that many people use lawfully every day?

Quote:
Banning guns isn't going to make guns go away entirely (...)
So? Banning rape didn't make rape go away entirely. Banning theft hasn't made burglars go away.

- it just means that law-abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals will still have guns, because they can smuggle them into the country.

Quote:
Look at that shooting in Canada recently - the guy had an automatic weapon, didn't he? So much for Canada's gun control!
Indeed, look at the shooting in gun-control Canada. Just about the only one of its kind in I don't know how long?

Quote:
My family is considering getting a pistol in the house for defensive purposes...
Let's say there's a new fire-fighting system for private homes on the market. Let's not get into details as to how it works, but it's supposed to be wonderful in taking out fires starting in your home. It allows you all the "effectiveness" of a squad of fire-fighters, so that you can easily take out the fire yourself before the slow fire department people arrive.

The problem is that it's been proven to start 43 times more fires it puts out. Would you buy it? I don't think anyone but a pyromanic lunatic bent on actually burning down his house would. Why's it not the same for firearms?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 05:31 PM   #7
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Rights aren't absolute things that have to be universally accepted. Canadians have the right to free health care, American right-wingers (the same people who want less gun control) fight the introduction of that right to America with all their strenght.
Free health care?? Who pays for the doctors and the medicine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
In Norway we have the right to go whereever we want to, even on private property, as long as it's not on cultivated fields or near a house. So in other words, I can hike in the mountain behind my house, even though some of it is privately owned, but I can't walk through the backyard of the guy who owns it. Don't you want that freedom in the US, too, if you're so crazy about rights?
Private property rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
There was a time when drinking alcohol was unconstitutional, which resulted in the 23rd amendment, which kicked out the 18th one. Did you see the NRA (if they existed then) go bananas and protest the "attacks on the constitution"?
Ehh I don't see why the NRA would need to protest for the right to alcohol. It's not related to their cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Reducing the number of firearms deaths each year from 11 000 isn't legitimate?
No it's not, because it's not proven that gun prohibition is going to actually reduce gun-related deaths. Just like drug and alcohol prohibitions... come on, everyone drinks and smokes weed, at least at my school. Banning it does nothing except burden the legal system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
So? Banning rape didn't make rape go away entirely. Banning theft hasn't made burglars go away.
The difference is that rape and theft are acts that directly hurt people. Simply owning a gun and having it stashed in a closet does not hurt anyone. And don't make me bring up the old "guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do people kill people" line...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Indeed, look at the shooting in gun-control Canada. Just about the only one of its kind in I don't know how long?
But it still happened. People still have automatic weapons with the intention of using them to murder, even in Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Let's say there's a new fire-fighting system for private homes on the market. Let's not get into details as to how it works, but it's supposed to be wonderful in taking out fires starting in your home. It allows you all the "effectiveness" of a squad of fire-fighters, so that you can easily take out the fire yourself before the slow fire department people arrive.

The problem is that it's been proven to start 43 times more fires it puts out. Would you buy it? I don't think anyone but a pyromanic lunatic bent on actually burning down his house would. Why's it not the same for firearms?
Perhaps those people who are using it to start fires are just retarded, and can't figure out how to use it correctly.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 05:47 PM   #8
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
There are studies that show that gun ownership decreases gun violence (a deterrent to crime - would you rob someone if you think they could have a gun?), but then there's studies that show the opposite. So it's not really provable either way if they make us safer or not, so why not side with giving people more freedom as opposed to taking away a freedom that many people use lawfully every day?
Actually, the only US studies that support guns decreasing levels of gun violence are those ones sanctioned by the NRA, and if you believe those guys, I've got a bridge to sell you. Most of the studies done are in academic journals which I can't link to, but the vast majority of research shows that the more guns in a society, the more shootings. The only exception to this is places like Switzerland, where everyone has to serve in the military and be ready to form a militia and people are comprehensively trained in weapons use and storage. As I said, if all of the US's precious, precious guns really did help make them safe, it'd be the safest place on Earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Banning guns isn't going to make guns go away entirely - it just means that law-abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals will still have guns, because they can smuggle them into the country. Look at that shooting in Canada recently - the guy had an automatic weapon, didn't he? So much for Canada's gun control!
Actually, the vast majority of illegal and criminall-owned wepaons are smuggled up from the US. Thanks, guys. The guns that are typically owned in Canada are rifles and shotguns, and it's handguns which are the weapons of choice for criminals. Here's a breakdown of weapons used in crimes in the US: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
Here's an article on the gun ownership in Canada and its effect on crime: http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/1998/wd98-4a.html
Aaaaaaand here's a comparison of Canadian and American crime rates:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
My family is considering getting a pistol in the house for defensive purposes... sure you'll say to just get a security system, but once someone is inside the house, there's not much that you can do. That's why having a pistol, as dangerous as it may be, at least gives you a feeling of being in control.
There's another meta-analysis that I can't link to that I actually included in my own research when I was still in university. It's a very interesting study that added up all the police reports that dealt with homeowners or shop owners who whipped out guns on criminals. Less than once in ten met with positive results, ie: shot the robber, drove the robber away. In better than 90% of the circumstances where a private citizen confronted a perp with a gun, the perp took the gun from them and either shot them or finished robbing them then got away with a shiny new gun. Better than 90%.
Quote:
That's why having a pistol, as dangerous as it may be, at least gives you a feeling of being in control.
Yeah, it's a feeling of being in control. It's a feeling of being safe. It's not the same thing as actually being safe. You're far, far more likely to blow away your wife, your kid, your dog or you yourself than you are to shoot an intruder if you buy the damn thing. Carrying a gun in your waistband only makes you feel safe until you blow your balls off with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Plus... if China invades, at least the people can fight them guerilla style.
That's what your army's for. That's why Dubya and his buddies are pumping billions and billions into your armed forces, remember?


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 06:55 PM   #9
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Free health care?? Who pays for the doctors and the medicine?
Private property rights.
My point exactly. Just that something's a "right" doesn't mean it should be 100% accepted. Same with the righ to own a gun. No one can say that "it's my right, so it's OK and shouldn't be challenged". Rights aren't always right.

Quote:
Ehh I don't see why the NRA would need to protest for the right to alcohol.
Why not? I thought they were out to defend the constitution (ie. the 18th amendment). But judging by how they stand idly by while Bush picks the whole Constitution apart, I suppose you're right.

Quote:
And don't make me bring up the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line...
Please don't. Worst, most nonsensial cliché ever.

Quote:
Perhaps those people who are using it to start fires are just retarded, and can't figure out how to use it correctly.
Or perhaps it's not that safe a device. Face it, you don't have to be retarded to have a firearms accident.

Quote:
Actually, the vast majority of illegal and criminall-owned wepaons are smuggled up from the US. Thanks, guys.
You'd also be surprised by how many foreign partisan groups, terrorists included, set up shop in the US, buy guns there, and then ship them off to their country to use them against whatever enemy there is to fight.

Which is why it makes so much sense for the PATRIOT ACT to check for library records and not gun purchases.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 10-04-2006 at 07:51 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 09:23 PM   #10
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
I've returned from my holiday in the fair continent of North America. Was nice.

As regards "gun control", the issue is not as cut and dried as both "camps" would have us believe. The US already has some degree of gun control, in the form of cool-off periods for handguns, firearms licenses, etcetera. The issue is to what degree should gun ownership be allowed/monitored by the state. To answer this question, I'll use a couple of real-world examples.

First, bringing in more stringent gun-law is no cure for gun crime. Here in the UK where I live, handguns are illegal, heavy rifles are illegal, and only airguns and shotguns for farmers and those sorts of things are allowed. And even for those, you need a license and a specific job-related purpose for using them. We do have small-bore rifle clubs still as far as I'm aware, but once again those require licenses. Pretty heavy gun control, yes? Yes.

But that doesn't help us when it comes to gun crime. Gun crime in the UK is steadily increasing and has been increasing for years. Violent yob culture and frankly, yes, foreign gangsters coming to our shores have been seemingly responsible for this rise. It's easy to get hold of pistols illegally in the UK. It's relatively easy to get hold of something fully automatic, for god's sake.

Our national legal debate on the topic of guns really started in 1996, when an event called the Dunblane Massacre occurred. It was an incident in which a disgruntled child molester shot and killed some sixteen children and one staff member in a school in Scotland. Following this incident and some other firearms-related news stories, handguns were banned completely nationwide.

In the years that followed, handgun crime soared. Since that incident to this day, gun crime levels have increased every year. (source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-v...ime/gun-crime/)

Introducing tougher laws won't necessarily cut gun crime. End of story. Since criminals by definition disregard laws, only better policing can cut gun crime. And frankly, our police have their hands tied over here. But I digress.

* * *

Now that we've had an example of how harsher gun-control ISN'T the panacea for all woes, let's examine how it CAN work to save lives.

There are around thirty-thousand firearms related deaths a year in the US, and over half of all these are suicides. This is according to all the numbers that I have been able to find on the internet, and specifically on the NCIPC website.

Therefore it is arguable that banning legal ownership of guns would reduce the number of suicides in the US. Suicide by gun is quick and easy, and frankly more often fatal than other methods of self-destruction. So banning guns = less successful suicides. But really, these people DO want to kill themselves. So keeping them alive- to me- is less important than keeping say... victims of crime alive.

Secondly, accidental deaths by firearm. The odds are tiny that you will die by accidental shooting. Under a thirtieth of all firearms related deaths in the US are tagged as "unintentional". But these statistics don't tell you whether the accidental death was some drug-dealer cleaning his illegal piece while being coked up, or a father accidentally shooting his child, mistaking them for a burglar.

Regardless, if guns were banned then yes, the accidental death by firearm rate would definitely shrink. By how much? Who knows?

But my gut tells me that most accidental shootings are due to stupidity. Didn't put the gun back in the safe. Didn't lock the safe. Didn't unload the weapon before cleaning it. And as much as I pity fools, I do not think legislation exists to protect the stupid from their own idiocy.

* * *

Lastly does owning a gun prevent one from being the VICTIM of crime? Well to be honest, yes and no.

Yes if you carry your gun everywhere with you and practice drawing it from wherever you holster it with military precision... AND if you know basic self-protection like spatial control, awareness, body-language cues etcetera etcetera.

NO, if you buy a gun and keep it in your drawer, or don't know how to use it against another human being, or COULDN'T use it on another human being, or if you just wander the streets daydreaming and couldn't see a mugger coming even if he were to run straight towards you and lamp you in the face with a big wet fish.

Sadly most people will never be capable of defending themselves, REGARDLESS of what weaponry they're given. There are natural victims in the world.

* * *

So there you have it. In short, the debate is NOT one of "gun control" versus "total lack of gun control", nor is it a simple question as to what effect each type of control would have on death and crime rates. Personally I'm in favour of public ownership of firearms, with good solid licensing requirements. I wish we in the UK weren't so anti-gun, because in the UK, criminals DO have guns... but I'm not allowed to have one. Specifically because I'm one of the good guys.



[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 10:57 PM   #11
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Introducing tougher laws won't necessarily cut gun crime. End of story. Since criminals by definition disregard laws, only better policing can cut gun crime. And frankly, our police have their hands tied over here. But I digress.
I'd say banning or heavily restricting guns is one of the things that prevents gun crime. But it's akin to removing the training wheels of a little kid's bicycle without giving the child any balance training. There's going to be some falls.

Quote:
Therefore it is arguable that banning legal ownership of guns would reduce the number of suicides in the US.
Exactly. Suicide isn't something you do lightly. Lots of people are kept alive by the fact that they don't know of a good, easy, quick way to do it.

Quote:
Suicide by gun is quick and easy, and frankly more often fatal than other methods of self-destruction.
And, of couse, even when not fatal, it tends to ruin your life pretty effectively. A gash to your wrist can be stitched, leaving nothing more than a scar that can be hidden with an armband or whatever. A shotgun shell to your head... Let's not go there.

Quote:
But really, these people DO want to kill themselves. So keeping them alive- to me- is less important than keeping say... victims of crime alive.
Except they don't think clearly. Most of them are mentally ill, after all. Or to put it another way, you'd be surpsied by how many people try to commit suicide and then regret it once they're given the help they need and realize psychiatry isn't all about evil mind-reading patronizers. Score one for getting psychiatry out of the closet. But that's for another thread.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-04-2006, 11:45 PM   #12
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
I'd say banning or heavily restricting guns is one of the things that prevents gun crime.
A sweepingly general statement with little or no meaning there, Eagle. Are you trying to say:

a: That increasing controlling legislation WILL cut gun crime, (clearly nonsense, I cited the UK handgun crime statistics as one example of why it's nonsense)
b: That increasing controlling legislation will cut gun crime if combined with some other measure(s), (please specify what other measure(s).)

Quote:
But it's akin to removing the training wheels of a little kid's bicycle without giving the child any balance training. There's going to be some falls.
What? I'd say that citing my own country's experience as an example, after banning legal ownership of handguns completely, handgun crime continued to rise year after year for the past... what... eight years. Let's face it, that's a little more than "some falls". It's a complete failure, and frankly the measure was merely introduced to shut the public outcry up following some school killings. After all, gun owners who go through background checks and licensing are never going to be the big problem. It'll always be the crims with their illegally obtained weapons that are the big problem.

Quote:
Except they don't think clearly. Most of them are mentally ill, after all.
Most are depressed. Many people who are depressed enough to contemplate suicide choose the difficult way. The difficult way is to live. Call depression a mental illness if you like, but depression does NOT eradicate free will, any more than drug-addiction does. We all have choices. Choose to kill yourself... and live with your decision. Are you strong enough to live? The answer to this question determines whether or not you live.

And finally to address the main thrust of your post, as I said, yes, suicide rates might indeed drop sharply if guns were banned in the US. What I'm NOT certain about, is whether that would be a great thing or not.

I read a short sci-fi story once about an alien society that had achieved perfect stability by providing all its people with a quick and easy method of killing themselves. They ended up with a much smaller but infinitely better adjusted race of aliens.

Quote:
you'd be surpsied by how many people try to commit suicide and then regret it once they're given the help they need
No Eagle, I really wouldn't be surprised, because I know all about it. Trust me. My stance on suicide might be different to your own, but that does not mean that it is based on inexperience concerning the topic, nor does it indicate faulty logic.

Call me brutal, but I do actually look on life as a game. And just like in a game, there are those who have the strength of character necessary to carry on when the chips are down, and those who quit when they still have a good chance to win. That's on them. They bear the weight alone. Nobody can "drive" you to press that quit button. The last click is yours. Always.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 10:56 AM   #13
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
This only ever seems to be an issue in the states. Other countries have guns, or not, and thats that.

It seems to me that the problem isn't GUN OWNERSHIP, its GUN MANUFACTURE. US weapons companies seem to be producing weapons at a rate that they couldn't possibly sell them at... if it wasn't for them relying on the fact that a large number will get stolen or end up in the wrong hands. Its like the way cellphone sales growth depended on the high theft rate of mobiles.. and handset makers and networks resisted putting in place measures to block stolen phones.
Gun companies seem to similarly rely on the theft and loss of weapons to keep their market growing.. and similarly fail to create systems to prevent the theft and use of stolen guns that funds their profits.

Liberals in the US should give up on ever attempting to get a ban on guns, the people there have too much of a romantic, fetishistic relationship with the idea of guns to ever give them up.

IMHO they should go for the total opposite approach. Compulsory gun ownership for all adults. Every adult gets a government funded double barrelled shotgun and 4-6 shells. All come with some form of gun lock, pin code and embedded serial number that can be linked to the owner. All must be re-registered once per year.. and failure to do so or report a theft results in a fine.

Tax on all additional weapons and ammo should be increased exponenitially.. though approved weapons clubs and schools can get reductions on this tax. All weapons and ammo are embedded with registration numbers linked to the seller and the owner.

People can register at schools or gun clubs and check out weapons.. but the process is thorough and the gun club is responsible for all actions.

This way everyone gets their precious consitutional gun.. but they are controlled like cars and they are weapons that can be used for home defence and deterent, but not for shooting sprees.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 11:23 AM   #14
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
It seems to me that the problem isn't GUN OWNERSHIP, its GUN MANUFACTURE. US weapons companies seem to be producing weapons at a rate that they couldn't possibly sell them at... if it wasn't for them relying on the fact that a large number will get stolen or end up in the wrong hands. Its like the way cellphone sales growth depended on the high theft rate of mobiles.. and handset makers and networks resisted putting in place measures to block stolen phones.
I agree that mobile phone-related companies should do more to fight phone-thieves, but as far as the analogy goes, it's clear that gun-manufacturers can't do the same things to fight thieves that mobile networks can. You can't prevent a gun from being used after it's been stolen. You can attempt to block a stolen phone, however.

You seem to forget that legally owned firearms in the US must indeed be registered. But just like in the good old United Kingdom, that won't stop illegally obtained firearms from being used in crimes.

Perhaps cutting the total number of legally obtainable guns in circulation would decrease gun crime... But once again, here in the UK we have NO legally obtainable handguns. Period. And yet, our handgun crime spirals upwards each year.

Quote:
All weapons and ammo are embedded with registration numbers linked to the seller and the owner.
Guns already have serial numbers and their sales are indeed registered. As for a unique customer ID number engraved onto each bullet and casing at the time of sale... Too expensive. Sci-fi expensive, in fact. Totally not going to happen. Unworkable. Insane, in fact.

As for compulsory gun ownership, don't you think that people have the right NOT to own a weapon if they so wish? lol.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 12:51 PM   #15
Datheus
Whosawhatnow?
 
Datheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Adrift
Posts: 1,425
Just thought I'd point this out.

http://youthviolence.edschool.virgin...shootings.html
Datheus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 02:18 PM   #16
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
b: That increasing controlling legislation will cut gun crime if combined with some other measure(s), (please specify what other measure(s).)
Exactly.

What other measures? To be honest, I'd be damned if I know.

Quote:
Its like the way cellphone sales growth depended on the high theft rate of mobiles.. and handset makers and networks resisted putting in place measures to block stolen phones.
Not to mention other electronic gadgets. Foolish me lost my $300 digital camera on the street, and no one ever returned it to the police or to anywhere else. Why does my camera not have a PIN code?

Quote:
You can't prevent a gun from being used after it's been stolen.
PIN codes for handguns!

Quote:
Call me brutal (...)
As if you needed to ask.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 03:57 PM   #17
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
You can't prevent a gun from being used after it's been stolen. You can attempt to block a stolen phone, however.
I can't see why not. With today's technology it should be simple to integrate some form of locking mechanism into new guns.

Quote:
Perhaps cutting the total number of legally obtainable guns in circulation would decrease gun crime... But once again, here in the UK we have NO legally obtainable handguns. Period. And yet, our handgun crime spirals upwards each year.
Spirals upward from "very little" to "just a bit more".

Quote:
Guns already have serial numbers and their sales are indeed registered. As for a unique customer ID number engraved onto each bullet and casing at the time of sale... Too expensive. Sci-fi expensive, in fact. Totally not going to happen. Unworkable. Insane, in fact.
True. We wouldn't want to make guns and bullets more expensive... that would be terrible.

Quote:
As for compulsory gun ownership, don't you think that people have the right NOT to own a weapon if they so wish? lol.
No. Its in the constitution. If they don't have a gun they are encoraging violent criminals to enter everyone's homes. If they want to not have a gun then they can move abroad.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 04:07 PM   #18
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Guns are a neccesity in my house, as my dad has been in Law Enforcement for 20 years. He's had literally hundreds of people threaten to kill him, many apologize after they sober up mind you.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 05:07 PM   #19
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
I don't think guns should be outright banned. If they were, the noncriminals would be screwed, and the criminals (who are already illegally getting guns) would be even better off.

Now, I am for some restrictions. There is no freaking reason why anyone but the military {and possibly law enforcement) should need assault rifles or combat shotguns. Even if people are just "putting them on display." If they want to display a gun, can't they just buy a cheaper, realistic fake gun?
swphreak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 09:42 PM   #20
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,403
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Datheus
Something else to think about: Lawmaker wants more guns in school.... not less. (I.E.: Arm the faculty and staff.)
Could work, I guess... but the idea doesn't exactly leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling...

Who thinks this is a good idea?


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 09:44 PM   #21
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by edlib
Something else to think about: Lawmaker wants more guns in school.... not less. (I.E.: Arm the faculty and staff.)
Could work, I guess... but the idea doesn't exactly leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling...

Who thinks this is a good idea?
That's ****ing insane. Even the most pro-gun people are freaked out at such an idea.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 11:08 PM   #22
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
You see, it looks as though StarWarsPhreak has actually considered the pros and cons of the issue before making any conclusions as to what opinion to espouse. More people should follow suit.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

I can't see why not. With today's technology it should be simple to integrate some form of locking mechanism into new guns.
Are you seriously suggesting that a mechanism that can be remotely activated and will in some way reliably render a specific firearm unusable would be an EASY thing to invent, manufacture and install into all new guns?

What would this device do to lock the gun up that couldn't be easily reversed with a screwdriver, a lump of chewing gum and a can of WD-40? It's hard enough to get a reception with your mobile phone, what if the police send the locking signal to the serial killer's 9mm (The one he happened to legally obtain and register just before he began his killing spree) and he's going under a bridge at the time?

I wish it were feasible. I really do. Maybe in twenty years' time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

Spirals upward from "very little" to "just a bit more".
Nobody said we were a warring African state. But despite your scoffing even you have seemingly accepted that there has been a rise since the tighter controls were brought in. QED, I think.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

True. We wouldn't want to make guns and bullets more expensive... that would be terrible.
We're not talking "more expensive". We're talking "Only Richard Branson can buy ammunition".

The casings already have identifying marks on them, mark you. Now you want to put a machine that can separate a cartridge into its component parts, engrave a long customer serial number into both the casing and the base of the bullet itself, put the bullet back together in a workable form and spit it out the other end. Then you want to make this machine quick and reliable enough to perform these functions on say... a hundred rounds for each customer (If a customer wants to do minimal practice with their snazzy new handgun AND have a few rounds left over afterwards, a hundred is no great number) in under a decade.

Then you want to make every store that sells ammunition in the US buy one of these machines and use it for every customer who needs a bullet.

Even if this were possible, the cost would be large. LARGE. And that cost would have to be transferred to the customer. Do you want people who don't have the money to move out of a danger area to be the only people who can't afford legal ammunition?

Like I said, insane.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

No. Its in the constitution. If they don't have a gun they are encoraging violent criminals to enter everyone's homes. If they want to not have a gun then they can move abroad.
Now you're just being a silly billy.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-05-2006, 11:34 PM   #23
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by edlib
Something else to think about: Lawmaker wants more guns in school.... not less. (I.E.: Arm the faculty and staff.)
Could work, I guess... but the idea doesn't exactly leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling...

Who thinks this is a good idea?
That ludicrous idea, Lawmakers have will turn schools into prisons.
Which, today is almost close to that reality.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-06-2006, 04:44 PM   #24
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Now you're just being a silly billy.
Not really, he's just taking your arguments and turning them upside-down. A parody, as it were.

Unless I'm mistaken, of course.

Quote:
The casings already have identifying marks on them, mark you. Now you want to put a machine that can separate a cartridge into its component parts, engrave a long customer serial number into both the casing and the base of the bullet itself, put the bullet back together in a workable form and spit it out the other end. Then you want to make this machine quick and reliable enough to perform these functions on say... a hundred rounds for each customer (If a customer wants to do minimal practice with their snazzy new handgun AND have a few rounds left over afterwards, a hundred is no great number) in under a decade.

Then you want to make every store that sells ammunition in the US buy one of these machines and use it for every customer who needs a bullet.
Yeah, 'cause of course they can't add numbers to the components as they assemble them.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-06-2006, 07:35 PM   #25
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
I'm for gun control. The postive effects of stopping the sale of guns are much better than the negative ones. You can find stories everywhere about people who killed themselves or caused accidents with firearms they have at home.

Hunting isn't entirely safe. People can sign all sorts of contracts, but accidents or poor usage of such weapons is something that's unavoidable.

If stopping the sale of lethal weapons and saving lives means you can't go out and shoot rabbits, boo hoo.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-06-2006, 08:09 PM   #26
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

Not really, he's just taking your arguments and turning them upside-down. A parody, as it were.

Unless I'm mistaken, of course.
Since his statement was unapplicable to any of my arguments upside-down or right-side-up, I guess you're mistaken. I've never referred to the US constitution in the entire thread.

And frankly, I think that the constitution doesn't HAVE to be mentioned in any debate over gun-control. There are things called "logic" and "reasoning" that we can apply to legal questions, without referring to a mouldy old bit of paper all the time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

Yeah, 'cause of course they can't add numbers to the components as they assemble them.
I think you misunderstood, Toms is talking about a unique customer ID being engraved onto the bullets and firearm. Now... how will the manufacturer know who the ammunition will eventually be sold on to during the assembly process? They can't predict the end-user.

Quote:
Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

I'm for gun control. The postive effects of stopping the sale of guns are much better than the negative ones.
Not that I disagree, mind you... but do you actually have any hard facts or numbers to base this assertion on, or is it merely an impression you've formed?


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-06-2006, 09:17 PM   #27
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Not that I disagree, mind you... but do you actually have any hard facts or numbers to base this assertion on, or is it merely an impression you've formed?
You can't really give numbers for for that. It's just my opinion that there are more positive effects to banning the sale of firearms over allowing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-07-2006, 02:27 PM   #28
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
You can't really give numbers for for that. It's just my opinion that there are more positive effects to banning the sale of firearms over allowing it.
Actually you could give at least some numbers, as the firearms-related statistics for the US are quite accessible. But at the very least, you could give some examples of what you're talking about.

Come now, why do you think the positive effects of banning guns altogether are more numerous than the positive effects of allowing people to arm themselves?


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 12:56 AM   #29
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
I live in a rural kind of state where outdoor sports are big. There'd be rioting here if someone even mentioned 'total gun-control'. Hunting is huge here. There are some people who can feed their families for quite awhile on what they kill, so in that sense taking guns away would take away someone's ability to feed his/her family. You could argue that most hunting is for sports, but a lot of the venison from the sport kills gets donated to homeless shelters, so it's not like the meat is going to waste, thank goodness.

I'm also a big believer in not messing around with the Constitution and Amendments and Bill of Rights. I know there was no way for them to anticipate students using assault weapons to gun down classmates, but they did a pretty good job of anticipating a lot of things and putting down laws to avoid the excesses and abuses they experienced under English rule.

However, I also realize that you don't need assault weapons to take out a deer to feed your family (and preferably it won't get tried unless you just like venison hash). So I'm OK with limits on types of weapons. I'm also OK with some kind of national database to prevent people from buying weapons unlawfully. You could have registration or lot numbers on all bullets/rounds for purposes of tracing, but I think you can make your own bullets for some weapons, so that might render it less effective. It's also not effective if someone picks up all their casings or if the bullet itself gets destroyed.

Our pediatrician, believe it or not, actually addresses gun safety with our kids at yearly check-ups--'what do you do if you see a gun? Don't touch it and get an adult.'. Of course, he deals with bike helmets, proper/improper touch, teeth brushing, and so forth, all while he's looking my kids over. It's never a dull moment in his office, believe me.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 01:51 AM   #30
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
But at the very least, you could give some examples of what you're talking about.
Fine. In 2002, 875 known people in the U.S. were shot by an abusive intimate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Come now, why do you think the positive effects of banning guns altogether are more numerous than the positive effects of allowing people to arm themselves?
Forgive me, not giving people an effective tool of suicide, abuse, murder, and accidents is definitely secondary compared to letting animals be shot for fun and keeping a ridiculously outdated view on liberty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 03:00 AM   #31
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Fine. In 2002, 875 known people in the U.S. were shot by an abusive intimate.
Could you cite the source for this? it would help.

But trusting that your number is accurate, how many were inflicted with legally owned firearms, how many were fatal injuries, and how many of those injuries that WERE inflicted by legally owned firearms, do you think a ban on firearms would have negated? If you're an abusive husband or wife, a knife is always handy.

I'm not making some sort of a statement here, for all I know they could ALL have been murdered, and all with legal firearms.

No, I'm not making a statement. I'm posing questions of the type that you have to ask yourself on this topic. As an Englishman I was brought up in an anti-weapon society. I looked down on countries like the US for being more lax about legal ownership of all sorts of weapons. But when I grew older and did my own research on the topic, I discovered there is little or no correllation between gun control or lack of it, and gun crime. I learned that gun crime can flourish in both a tightly controlled country, and in a loosely controlled country. This is just the observable fact. A society's relative level of safety is determined by national culture and quality of policing. Not by what weapons can legally be bought.

People who register their ownership of an expensive weapon are less likely to use it for nefarious purposes than someone who buys a cheap illegal weapon. It's axiomatic.

Quote:
Forgive me, not giving people an effective tool of suicide, abuse, murder, and accidents is definitely secondary compared to letting animals be shot for fun and keeping a ridiculously outdated view on liberty.
I don't agree with hunting for sport, personally. But hunting is done with rifles, and legally speaking handguns are of more concern to me as crime (and suicide to a lesser extent) is a handgun-related sport.

Guns are for one purpose only: To kill. Now that doesn't make them "bad". They're a tool. A tool for killing. I believe that law-abiding citizens should INDEED be allowed under the law to own and carry a weapon- such as a gun- with which they can defend their lives with lethal force, if necessary. Thus, the tool for killing can be placed into the right hands, for the right purpose.

Why do the police carry guns? To defend the public. Why should the law-abiding section of the public carry guns? To defend themselves.

Your constitution? Frankly I don't know it, I don't care about it. As I've said before, I'd rather apply logic to this debate than constantly reference a mouldy old document.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 03:45 AM   #32
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Your constitution? Frankly I don't know it, I don't care about it. As I've said before, I'd rather apply logic to this debate than constantly reference a mouldy old document.
I agreed with everything in your above post - with the exception of this one part.

Use that kind of thinking and you end up like Bush and his buddies!
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 01:44 PM   #33
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Could you cite the source for this? it would help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
But trusting that your number is accurate, how many were inflicted with legally owned firearms, how many were fatal injuries, and how many of those injuries that WERE inflicted by legally owned firearms, do you think a ban on firearms would have negated?
And what is the probability that at least some were? High, I'd think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
If you're an abusive husband or wife, a knife is always handy.
And it's not as dangerous a weapon as a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Why do the police carry guns? To defend the public. Why should the law-abiding section of the public carry guns? To defend themselves.
You're saying that every person who owns a gun legally can be trusted with it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 02:31 PM   #34
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Nobody said we were a warring African state. But despite your scoffing even you have seemingly accepted that there has been a rise since the tighter controls were brought in. QED, I think.
But it was also rising before they brought in tighter gun controls. And in the UK so few people even owned guns that they were hardly a factor in crime prevention statistics. While its true that there has been a rise in gun crime, its still miniscule in relation to the amount of gun crime in the USA.. and knife crime has risen by a much higher amount (with no coresponding ban to blame that upon).

As for gun statistics, i tend to find they are useless, as they never prove cause and effect, and can be used to prove both sides of the argument at once.
And comparissons between countries tend to be equally meaningless as the society and culture has as much to do with anything as the guns. (eg: japan has no gns, but very low crime. canada has as manyguns as the USA but low gun crime.. though the odd school shooting).

I did a short study of violent crime rates VS levels of gun ownership in the various states of the USA. In general the states with the highest gun ownership also had the highest violent crime. But one or two had very LOW violent crime, and one or two of the one with low gun ownership had high violent crime.

So gun ownership doesn't seem to have as big an effect as poverty or other social issues.. but on the other hand gun ownership almost certainly DOESNT reduce crime.. and it does lead to a lot more gun accidents and potential for crazy people to get guns and go on shooting sprees. (isn't there a statistic that a gun in a home is as likely to be used against its owners (in an accident or arguement) as it is to be used in defence?)

So i don't see that banning guns would do much harm.. and it might potentially do some good in limited cases. (While crazy people trying to shoot up the school could probably still get hold of an illegal gun, it would be an extra step for them to go through. And its not as easy as it sounds for people without criminal contacts to get an illegal gun).

-

I think that everyone in schools and planes should be allowed to carry guns, as that would give them the chance to defend themselves if needed.

Its just a natural extension of the same argument that is used for gun ownership in the USA.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 05:20 PM   #35
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally posted by TK-8252:

I agreed with everything in your above post - with the exception of this one part.

Use that kind of thinking and you end up like Bush and his buddies!
Ack! Not like Bush!

Seriously though I think that the problem with Bush and his handlers is not that they ignore the constitution, but that they ignore good sense and logic. If the constitution is in any way positive, it's because of the good sense and logic that it contains.

--

Quote:
Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
Ah, wikipedia. Wiki is very useful for quick info, but I wouldn't go to any publically editable website for hard facts, if I were you. One must go to the source of the person who edited the wiki article to find the truth.

The phrase you quoted (In 2002, 875 known people in the U.S. were shot by an abusive intimate) seems to come from a page on the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign website, and THEY say that they got their numbers from the department of justice website. ALL of these shootings were fatal shootings, by the way.

And the DOJ figures in question do NOT say how many of these shootings were committed with legally obtained firearms, and how many with unregistered guns. Without this important indicator, it is not possible to apply this statistic to the question of whether banning guns is a good idea!

Quote:
Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

And what is the probability that at least some were? High, I'd think.
Well, y'know, as much as you seem like a decent fellow, I'm not inclined to take your guesswork as fact. "Some" could mean three to seven-hundred-and-three. We need the number to find the truth. If the number is extremely low, then they are abberations and should be given less weight. If the number is extremely high, more weight. Etcetera.

I'm not saying that these numbers support MY argument, or yours. I'm saying without this extra data, the numbers are an unknown quantity. Meaningless. But I would LIKE to know the truth of these particular numbers. I'm still doing research.

It is SO IMPORTANT to find the real facts associated with an issue before you formulate and espouse an opinion. This issue is one of the more obtuse of the major issues today, because campaigners on both sides are well known for skewing statistics, conveniently forgetting important details, and doing similar sneaky things. It's our responsibility to cut through the bollcrap associated with the pro-gun-control and anti-gun-control lobbies, and make an informed choice.

Here are some interesting numbers from the DOJ, justifiable homicides by citizens average out to (very very roughly) 250 a year for the past thirty years. Of these, most occurred when the citizen was defending themselves or a fellow citizen, or had disturbed a felon in the progress of committing a crime.

The FBI uniform crime reports state that the vast majority of justifiable homicides that are committed by civilians, are committed using a firearm:

In 2000, 138 out of 164 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 84%.
In 2001, 183 out of 222 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 82%.
In 2002, 189 out of 233 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 81%.
In 2003, 203 out of 247 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 82%.
In 2004, 170 out of 229 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 74%.

Eight out of ten self-defence kills are with a gun, and this doesn't even count all the self-defence excusable homicides, nor those justifiable homicides that were only determined as being self-defence after a lengthy trial, nor does it include non-lethal self defence shootings. Or just drawing the gun and scaring the scum away.

Add to this the fact that many violent criminals will offend time and time again, harming many many people, and the positive impact on society of killing them in self-defence can no longer be calculated.

To my mind this is a strong indicator that guns are indeed an effective method of self-defence, if users train themselves properly. But that's their responsibility. Any debate concerning gun control must include the fact that guns can be used effectively to defend oneself and others, guns HAVE been used effectively in this manner, and guns will continue to be used effectively to defend law abiding members of society, in the future.

And no, I'm not saying that these lifesaving incidents outweigh all the shooting accidents. How can one weigh one life against another? But once again, the numbers associated with shooting accidents must be examined for context. Was the accident victim a drugged up felon cleaning his illegal uzi? Or was it a child who found a loaded gun which should have been locked away? Without these important details, all context is lost and no judgement can be made using the data.

Quote:
Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

And it's not as dangerous a weapon as a gun.
I'm afraid that this oversimplified statement betrays a certain lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject of the effectiveness of knives. No offence, but a lot of people don't realise that knives can be, depending on the circumstances, just as dangerous as firearms. Sometimes MORE dangerous.

Law enforcement officers are taught that a knife-man can close a distance of twenty feet or more and fatally stab or slash a policeman before he or she has a chance to draw and fire their weapon in self-defence.

The range factor is an important one. In close, a knife is deadly. At long distance, it ain't. And no, knives cannot reliably be thrown. Even professional knife throwers only have a one-in-two chance of hitting a closing or retreating target with the point of a specialist throwing knife. At long range, guns rule the day. But in urban environments, attackers routinely get in close WHATEVER weapon they're using.

Some special forces men and police instructors claim that they'd rather face a gunman than a knife man, on principle. Because while one can grab any part of a gun safely except the tip of the barrel, one cannot grab a knife without getting cut, probably losing some dexterity in your hand in the process. And then you get cut to ribbons. But you can often safely grab a gun while striking the gunman with your free hand. It's not much of a chance frankly, but it's MORE of a chance.

Knives are more likely to be used by experienced assassins, as they are silent and so do not attract immediate attention, are more easily concealed, more easily disposed of, and easier to come by. There are no ballistic tests one can run on a knife. There is no gunshot residue imbedded in the hand of someone who used a knife. A knife has "infinite ammunition", and takes little or no skill to deploy effectively. Give a ten year old child a gun, and they'll have to figure out how to cock it/unsafety it/load it/aim it or all of the above before it can be used. Give a ten year old child a knife, and they're instantly dangerous.

In areas where guns are more prevalent, guns are the killing tool of choice. In areas where guns are less common, knives are the killing tool of choice. But knives make a great killing tool, mistake ye not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

You're saying that every person who owns a gun legally can be trusted with it?
Don't start with the straw men, I did not say nor did I imply anything of the sort.

What I DID say was that people who go through the trouble of registering a legal firearm and spending quite a bit of cash on it are less likely to use it for illegal things than someone who buys an illegal cheap firearm is. You can't argue with that, it's simple logic.

Secondly, I said that I believe people have the right to arm themselves so that they may effectively defend themselves. That's an ideological stance that really can't be debated. Some people genuinely believe that we as law abiding citizens should be totally defenceless. I have no time for them.

--

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

But it was also rising before they brought in tighter gun controls.
Irrelevant, Toms. The idea was to institute even tighter controls over handguns, and far from reversing the trend in handgun crime, it didn't even stop the rise. BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONNECTION. Legal ownership of weapons is unconnected with the bulk of weapons-related crime. People who collect expensive knives as a rule don't go out stabbing people with their collection. People who want to stab other people use cheap kitchen knives and slash people with cheap, untraceable box-cutters.

People who buy expensive handguns and register their ownership of these guns won't as a rule use said guns in a planned crime. Instead, those who want to commit a crime and need a gun to do so will acquire an illegal one. It's axiomatic.

There is no correlation between tighter and tigher controls and bans on weapons that are legally acquired and registered, and the rise or fall of general weapons-crime.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

and knife crime has risen by a much higher amount (with no coresponding ban to blame that upon).
Guh! I didn't "blame" the rise in handgun crime on the ban, I proved that the ban had no positive effect. Two different things.

Secondly, there IS a ban on the carrying of bladed tools in the UK. Or do you wander round England with a machete stuck down your trousers?

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

I did a short study of violent crime rates VS levels of gun ownership in the various states of the USA. In general the states with the highest gun ownership also had the highest violent crime. But one or two had very LOW violent crime, and one or two of the one with low gun ownership had high violent crime.
QED.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

(isn't there a statistic that a gun in a home is as likely to be used against its owners (in an accident or arguement) as it is to be used in defence?)
You're referring to the oft-cited, eternally discussed and much maligned study by Kellerman. Look here for critique and links to more critique of this study: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

The conclusions drawn by Kellerman are, in my opinion, not correct.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

So i don't see that banning guns would do much harm..
By doing so you are effectively penalising the law abiding, and giving armed criminals an advantage over them. Make no mistake Toms, in THIS country, the UK, we are effectively UNABLE to defend ourselves against criminals. We cannot have the weapons they have. We cannot carry knives. We cannot own guns. They will have weapons we will not have.

Don't believe the Bruce Lee crap. If you're outnumbered and outgunned, chances are you'll lose. They're not standing still so that you can run away, they're not standing still so that you can punch them. They're stabbing, they're slashing. They're beating, they're firing.

If you DO manage to win against a better-armed foe...

It's luck. End of story, sadly.

Quote:
Originally posted by Toms:

I think that everyone in schools and planes should be allowed to carry guns, as that would give them the chance to defend themselves if needed.

Its just a natural extension of the same argument that is used for gun ownership in the USA.
No Toms, it's you being ludicrous. Having the right to arm yourself if you're a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean "Ummm, everyone should get teh gunz0rz."


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 05:58 PM   #36
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
What I DID say was that people who go through the trouble of registering a legal firearm and spending quite a bit of cash on it are less likely to use it for illegal things than someone who buys an illegal cheap firearm is. You can't argue with that, it's simple logic.
But not unlikely. There are rotten apples in every barrel. And just because they technically own the gun doesn't stop it from being misused. What about family members, or simple poor care of the weapon?

All of this aside, you can't deny that stopping guns from being sold to the public would result in fewer deaths, however small a percentage. It's simple logic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 06:14 PM   #37
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
But not unlikely.
Yes, unlikely. Unlikely, in that the majority of people who legally own firearms are fine, law abiding citizens. Unlikely in that of those few people who bother to register guns and then decide to commit a crime requiring a gun, even FEWER will be stupid enough to use the gun they've registered to commit the crime, instead of buying a cheap new illegal gun. And if you instituted a ban on legal firearms, a portion of the very stupid ones would aquire an illegal weapon. It's simple logic.

Of the few people that remain, those idiots who DO elect to commit a crime of passion with their easily traceable legally acquired firearm... They'll be few. And the right to hold the means of defending oneself is, in my view, sufficiently vital that such abberant occurrances- while regrettable- would not be numerous enough to warrant an outright ban on legally obtainable firearms.

You'll find my answers to your second paragraph back in my first post in this thread. This is ground we've trodden before, Devon. I went into the possible reduction in suicides and the definite reduction in accidental deaths.

But I'll take the fact that you've ignored all the rest of the points I made in my last post, as meaning that you agree with all of them.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-08-2006, 06:36 PM   #38
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
To reuse our simple logic statement again, it's simple logic that giving another source for guns to purchased from will inevitably result in more accidents or deaths. To reuse an overused example, look at Cheny's little accident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
But I'll take the fact that you've ignored all the rest of the points I made in my last post, as meaning that you agree with all of them.
No, I was just too lazy to reply. It's Sunday and I've had nothing to do all day.

On the subject of knives: lethal weapons too. But it's much harder to live without them than it is to live without guns.

On the subject of sources: blame it on my laziness. Wikipedia's easy to get info from.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > You should've seen this coming with all the recent shootings

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.