Gun control

Alkorin_sl said:

Uh, no, I live in a country where pretty much no one is armed, certainly not to protect their home anyway, and we do just fine. If you want to protect your country up here, you enlist.

Click to expand...

You mean except for the 31% of your population that is armed?

Lithose_sl said:

The actual murder rate in the UK is about 30% of the U.S. (I forget the exact amount), but once again, distorting numbers to attempt to make an argument. Really, you can just go ahead and make non-bullshit arguments. The "three times as many" figure is still a powerful figure. I have no idea why you try to twist bullshit to make your numbers appear larger.

Or are you saying that death by a hammer is less gruesome than death by a gun? Because otherwise, I can't imagine why you'd jump through these hoops.

Also, once more--The main difference in actual murder rates stem more from our lack of social services and the situation our cities are in, in terms of poverty vs population density. But that's, you know, actually complicated. And we wouldn't want to confuse people in an attempt to start another useless crusade that will further sap the economy and destroy civic society. Got to get all those victimless criminals in prison! Like those damn crack users or pot smokers.

Click to expand...

How am I distorting numbers? I quoted exact figures from the chart you linked.

Alkorin_sl said:

First of all, It's a figure of speech. I don't mean possessing so many weapons that they're drowning in them. I mean armed with the latest in weaponry, which you suggested by using the word "modern". Also, you seem to be suggesting that because I don't understand the apparent need to arm myself with modern weaponry, I have an issue understanding history/psychology. In point of fact, no, I just don't agree with you. You seem to have a problem understanding that my viewpoint doesn't have to match your viewpoint. I don't agree thateveryoneshould be permitted to arm themselves with anything. Some people have absolutely no business owning a firearm as they're more likely (due to their aggressive nature, for example) to become a threat to innocents than they are to save anyone, including themselves. Who defines who these people are? Probably the same people that define what weapons are appropriate in the first place, and that scares me a fair amount, since a lot of people seem to believe that it's okay for Joe Average to walk around with a semi-automatic weapon on his back.

Yes, people have always been arming themselves. I'm wondering how, in your mind, the escalation works here, though. If every responsible gun/home owner were to go out and arm themselves with (let's just say) an AR-15, since that's the current pariah of weaponry, what would the response be from those that wish to do those people harm? I'm not a gun afficionado, so I don't honestly know. I'm curious as to why the average homeowner would ever need such a thing, or any gun for that matter, because I live in a place where it's mostly unheard of.

Click to expand...

Semantic arguments aren't that enjoyable to have.

I don't have a problem with Average Joe walking around with a semi-auto handgun strapped to his back if he is liscensed to do so. CCL holders aren't trigger happy gun freaks; they are regular people. Your understanding of this issue is short-sighted.

Your second paragraph is silly and nonsensical. If I have and ar-15, burglers might want one too. Or they might think twice before breaking into my house. There is no military style escalation of arms. That's some serious liberal propaganda up there with Himmler.

splorge_sl said:

How am I distorting numbers? I quoted exact figures from the chart you linked.

Click to expand...

Because you're not comparing murder rates. If people are still killing people with knives, than it's part of the argument in terms of why gun owners should be allowed to own gun. However, you can truthfully make the argument that with strict gun laws, despite having similar (Or more) violent crime, only about 1/3 of those felony altercations end in death by comparison. THAT would be a reasonable, honest statistical argument. Rather though, you're attempting to show the difference in JUST guns, between a population without and with them--which doesn't mean anything, except showing a big number. Because yes, if you have a gun, you're going to use it, rather than in England where you'll attempt to slowly and painfully gut the person.

If you want to convince gun ownership is bad. Then the proper comparison is actually showing the murder rate with and without guns.

Unfortunately though, both Sweden and Finland have about 50% ownership rates and they both have lower murder rates than you do. Which, again goes to prove that powerful social programs, a strong civic society and wealth mean a lot more than draconian laws. Personally, I would rather spend resources (Like your 100 billion) on tackling the actual causes of violence, rather than simply help people survive by having them "only" be stabbed, bludgeoned and beaten--and hoping that said wounds aren't quite enough to kill them.

Araysar_sl said:

"My neighbor got an AR-15 and the next month, the burglars broke in with a machine gun and a bazooka!"

Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Araysar again.

Araysar_sl said:

how is that a knee jerk reaction?

it is in the bill of rights. as a matter of fact, it was a right that was written before your right to privacy against illegal search and seizure (4th amendment) or your right to a trial and due process (5th amendment)





Sure.



arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.

Considering that 2nd amendment was written to prevent government tyranny, military grade weapons (whatever the fuck that means, i'm assuming something black and scary with a bayonet or a grenade launcher mount) are covered

Click to expand...

It is kneejerk because the statement is designed to shut down any discussion on regulation, when in fact most if not all of the bill of rights is heavily regulated. For example, we have the right to free speech, but not to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre. There is an interpretation how to regulate these rights and justify the pros/cons of each regulation for society and people in general.

Araysar_sl said:

Considering that 2nd amendment was written to prevent government tyranny, military grade weapons (whatever the fuck that means, i'm assuming something black and scary with a bayonet or a grenade launcher mount) are covered

Click to expand...

Word, repeal Hughes amendment - make it so.

Alkorin_sl said:

No, it's not propaganda, it was... a question. I'll never understand, for the life of me, why you guys have such issues answering a simple question. Of course my understanding is short-sighted. I don't know what it's like to feel the need to own a gun. This is why I'm asking questions. They may be simple questions to you, but since I don't live in a place where we're allowed to carry concealed (or carry at all, for that matter), I really haven't looked into any of this much. I have no need to do so.

Thanks for the replies. I'll consider myself enlightened by them and move along now.

By the way, the burglar doesn't know you're armed unless you have a sign up saying "hi, I'm armed". So... I don't really buy that, but whichever.

Click to expand...

You are conflating "need to own a gun" with the right to own one. I have never "felt" the need to own a gun. I own guns because the likelihood of needing one exists. I educated myself about them. I trained with them. They sit in my safe. I don't need them. I should have the right to own them in the event that I actually do "need" them.

Having guns isn't a panacea for what ails society. Nor are they the reason for what ails society. They are a thing. The thing is a weapon. Human beings and weapons have a long history together.

Araysar_sl said:

you're conflating small arms and small caliber here.

while its true that small arms is anything under .50 cal

that does not mean that a .45 would be considered a small caliber handgun which was implied under your phrasing of "small caliber sidearm, rifle or shotgun."

Click to expand...

I'll buy that.

Alkorin_sl said:

Armed with what, exactly? Hunting rifles?

And where do you get 31%, anyway? I'm open to the likelihood that I'm wrong here, but... show me.

Click to expand...

Here...Canada is actually really high up there in gun ownership. As far as I know, it's mostly shotguns and rifles, but some of those rifles would be considered "assault weapons" per the definitions tossed around here. The fact is, "rifles" in most populations usually aren't used as much in crime, even if they are more easily available. I'd imagine it's because it's a lot easier to be caught with it. Which is why 90% of all gun crime in the U.S. is done with handguns. (Which is why most people roll their eyes when people talk about banning "assault weapons", because they are literally the least used type of gun in gun crimes.)

Canada's crime rate is lower due to a number of factors. I'd say the biggest though is simply your poverty rate.

An example in the U.S. would be Chicago and New York. Chicago has a horrible murder rate, New York has a very low one (Historic lows last year...even by comparison world wide it's low)...Both have absolutely draconian gun laws. So what's the difference? Check out the property values in most of New York. Compare it with crime rates. New York simply has less poverty because the poor can't afford to live there, they destroyed most of their ghettos and all the poor moved to places like Trenton. (If you don't know where that is, it's because it's on the doorstep of hell).

Wealth and access to services does more to limit homicides than any law will. Which is why it's silly to spend political capital on this, when we don't even have real healthcare yet. But its even SILLIER to think assault weapons are the problem, when they are probably the least used weapons in crime. (The biggest factor in any felony is being caught--whatever weapon helps you avoid that, is the one you will logically use. And guess what? It's hard to hide a rifle from passing cops.)

Scary looking guns are scary:

From the guy that brought you Shovel AK47, here comes RPG-7 Shotgun.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbu...lypse-warning)

Lithose_sl said:

Here...Canada is actually really high up there in gun ownership. As far as I know, it's mostly shotguns and rifles, but some of those rifles would be considered "assault weapons" per the definitions tossed around here. The fact is, "rifles" in most populations usually aren't used as much in crime, even if they are more easily available. I'd imagine it's because it's a lot easier to be caught with it. Which is why 90% of all gun crime in the U.S. is done with handguns. (Which is why most people roll their eyes when people talk about banning "assault weapons", because they are literally the least used type of gun in gun crimes.)

Canada's crime rate is lower due to a number of factors. I'd say the biggest though is simply your poverty rate.

An example in the U.S. would be Chicago and New York. Chicago has a horrible murder rate, New York has a very low one (Historic lows last year...even by comparison world wide it's low)...Both have absolutely draconian gun laws. So what's the difference? Check out the property values in most of New York. Compare it with crime rates.

Wealth and access to services does more to limit homicides than any law will. Which is why it's silly to spend political capital on this, when we don't even have real healthcare yet.

Click to expand...

Actually a bit surprising to see those central European countries so high. If you had asked me to name the top 5 countries of gun ownership per capita I would have never guessed Switzerland or Finland.

Lithose_sl said:

Because you're not comparing murder rates. If people are still killing people with knives, than it's part of the argument in terms of why gun owners should be allowed to own gun. However, you can truthfully make the argument that with strict gun laws, despite having similar (Or more) violent crime, only about 1/3 of those felony altercations end in death by comparison. THAT would be a reasonable, honest statistical argument. Rather though, you're attempting to show the difference in JUST guns, between a population without and with them--which doesn't mean anything, except showing a big number. Because yes, if you have a gun, you're going to use it, rather than in England where you'll attempt to slowly and painfully gut the person.

If you want to convince gun ownership is bad. Then the proper comparison is actually showing the murder rate with and without guns.

Unfortunately though, both Sweden and Finland have about 50% ownership rates and they both have lower murder rates than you do. Which, again goes to prove that powerful social programs, a strong civic society and wealth mean a lot more than draconian laws. Personally, I would rather spend resources (Like your 100 billion) on tackling the actual causes of violence, rather than simply help people survive by having them "only" be stabbed, bludgeoned and beaten--and hoping that said wounds aren't quite enough to kill them.

Click to expand...

Yes i get it. There are many confounding factors that contribute to violence other than the presence of guns. Both the U.S. and the U.K. have seen huge drops in violent crime over the last few decades, which is evidence enough of the effect of these confounding factors.

In the case of Australia, which also implemented buyback programs and heavy regulation, suicide rates were found to decline over time with no appreciable rise in suicide by alternative methods. Once again, is this due to the removal of fire arms, or other social factors? There was also a corresponding drop in fire arm homicide, but the difference wasn't as stark as with suicide.