Gun control

opiate82 · Jan 3, 2013

Zhaun_sl said:
I still don't think our society would benefit from everyone walking around with a handgun. Maybe after a decade of us shooting each other for stupid shit we'd straighten out some though.

There isn't a full amount of data available on this front, but what data we do have shows that the crimes prevented by law abiding citizens using handguns has prevented far more crime than criminals using handguns have caused. These statistics generally do not take into account for the fact that a handgun is not given credit for preventing a crime when it is simply brandished, but not discharged. An example is Australia, where they got rid of all their handguns in the 90's and now a woman is 3x more likely to be a victim of rape down there than she is here in the U.S.

I guess I should clarify that every single person walking around with a gun at all times is an extreme example and we can only speculate as to the results. But I just want to reiterate that handguns and CCW can be shown to be a positive thing for society. (Depending on your view of the weighted value of different violent crimes).

khalid · Jan 3, 2013

Zhaun_sl said:
I still don't think our society would benefit from everyone walking around with a handgun. Maybe after a decade of us shooting each other for stupid shit we'd straighten out some though.

Well, I don't think anyone is really advocating that position. Certainly many people wouldn't feel comfortable with it and forcing people to do so would be a bad idea.

However, states with concealed carry laws have not shown any increase in violence after passing those laws. So I don't think it would lead to abunch of crazy shootouts either.

Zhaun_sl · Jan 3, 2013

I think Fanaskin was suggesting it.

My point is they shouldn't be handed out like walkmans or somthing (walkmans? how old am I? fuck), so any idiot can have a handgun legally stashed in his shorts. That probably leads to a bad path.

But then again, I'm not anti-gun at all. I just don't think law abiding citizens shouldn't object to a reasonable level of controls to prevent us from turning into the Wild West.

fanaskin · Jan 3, 2013

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

chaos · Jan 3, 2013

khalid_sl said:
I don't know if you watched the video or just hate Fanaskin or what, but the video makes a perfectly valid point. If all you care about is the life of humans, then you end up advocating extreme positions like wanting to ban all automobiles or wanting to ban swimming pools. After all, they arent strictly "necessary" and lots of people die with them.

Same if they were to utterly ban all guns and remove them from the entire US. Yes that would probably result in a fewer number of murders and suicides. However, I happen to believe that my 2nd amendment rights and the rights of everyone else in the US is worth more than that.

Of course I hate fanaskin, he is utterly retarded. So it follows that I didn't watch his video. Taking extreme positions like banning cars or whatever is nonsensical, to inhibit society from using technology when technology is exactly what has allowed our species to thrive is a ludicrous idea. So is the idea that humanity serves ideologies or principles rather than the other way around. We develop these ideas and concepts for us, for life. We are not born to serve them, they are to serve us. So if a school employs armed guards even if it only provides the illusion of security, that is working as intended. No ones rights are being threatened, other than my fundamental right not to have to poison my eyes with fanaskin's delusional bullshit.

Zombie Thorne_sl · Jan 3, 2013

Zhaun_sl said:
This is America and we have the second amendment in our Constitution and so we're stuck with guns until we get rid of it. I get that. Agree with it or not, it is there and we have it, deal with it.

However, do people really feel that their "Right to have guns to form a militia" is really a key human right, like free speech, freedom from slavery, freedom to not be raped and murdered by other people, stuff like that?

100% yes.

A lot of it is where you live though. I don't know a single person around here that does not own a gun. Hell, I'm sitting in my car right now and have 3 in the trunk and 1 on my hip. I don't carry often though, was just doing some work late in a shady area of town.

Gavinmad · Jan 3, 2013

opiate82_sl said:
An example is Australia, where they got rid of all their handguns in the 90's and now a woman is 3x more likely to be a victim of rape down there than she is here in the U.S.

I'd love to see a study showing causation between these two facts.

fanaskin · Jan 3, 2013

chaos_sl said:
other than my fundamental right not to have to poison my eyes with fanaskin's delusional bullshit.

That's not a right, in fact the opposite. You have NO right to not be offended by anything.

I'm not surprised since you seem to hold the value of a human life so absurdly high as to distort reality, that you would suggest the impossible and immoral suggestion that hearing another point of view is threatening a non-existing right.

Because this person was persecuted by viable death threats made by people who claimed there is a right to "not be offended" I trust this guys words on the subject.

"There is no right in the world not to be offended.That right simply doesn't exist.In a free society, an open society, people have strong opinions, and these opinions very often clash. In a democracy, we have to learn to deal with this. And this is true about novels, it's true about cartoons, it's true about all these products." Salman Rushdie

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/inte...cle3969404.ece

Gavinmad · Jan 3, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
That's not a right, in fact the opposite. You have NO right to not be offended by anything.

I'm not surprised since you seem to hold the value of a human life so absurdly high as to distort reality, that you would suggest the impossible and immoral suggestion that hearing another point of view is threatening a non-existing right.

As someone persecuted by viable death threatsby others who claimed there is a right to "not be offended" I trust this guys words

"There is no right in the world not to be offended That right simply doesn't exist. In a free society, an open society, people have strong opinions, and these opinions very often clash. In a democracy, we have to learn to deal with this. And this is true about novels, it's true about cartoons, it's true about all these products."

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/inte...cle3969404.ece

Shut the fuck up or I will track you down and kill you.

fanaskin · Jan 3, 2013

No you shut the fuck up, read the whole sentence. ( I'll edit it so you don't have an aneurism )

that person, named Salman Rushdie was persecuted by death threats, and I trust his viewpoint because he understands what it means to be persecuted for saying something another person considered "offensive"

People like you are why I would consider carrying a handgun, a mere sentence incited you to say you'd track me down and kill me

Gavinmad · Jan 3, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
No you shut the fuck up, read the whole sentence. ( I'll edit it so you don't have an aneurism )

that person, named Salman Rushdie was persecuted by death threats, and I trust his viewpoint because he understands what it means to be persecuted for saying something another person considered "offensive"

People like you are why I would consider carrying a handgun, a mere sentence incited you to say you'd track me down and kill me

You hard of hearin boy?

Gavinrad_sl said:
Shut the fuck up or I will track you down and kill you.

fanaskin · Jan 3, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
You hard of hearin boy?

Do you honestly expect that internet tough guy act to work? come at me bro.

opiate82 · Jan 3, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
I'd love to see a study showing causation between these two facts.

Quick Google Fu pulled up some stats. You can claim the gun ban wasn't the causation I suppose, but the timing is awfully suspicious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...446855466.html

in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported adecrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/...ies-and-brits/

In 2002 ? five years after enacting its gun ban ? the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia?s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault ? Australia?s equivalent term for rape ? increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia?s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Zombie Thorne_sl · Jan 3, 2013

Good info.

Big Phoenix · Jan 4, 2013

Oh wow?! You ban guns and crime rises? YOU DONT SAY!

Zhaun_sl · Jan 4, 2013

The problem is for those numbers to be really useful you'd have to go ask all those raped women if they were carrying guns up until it was outlawed. Clearly to do this we need someone with lots of tact and sensitivity to do this though, where's Keg?

Big Derg_sl · Jan 4, 2013

Zhaun_sl said:
The problem is for those numbers to be really useful you'd have to go ask all those raped women if they were carrying guns up until it was outlawed. Clearly to do this we need someone with lots of tact and sensitivity to do this though, where's Keg?

I don't understand your point. Clearly, all that needs to be said is that assaults and rape crime rose due to emboldened criminals knowing that it's unlikely their victims were carrying a firearm due to stringent gun control laws.

chaos · Jan 4, 2013

You're making a leap to the conclusion you want to come to. You do not have evidence that suggests that, only some numbers without proper context.

It is surprising that gun violence didn't drop more, to me.

Big Derg_sl · Jan 4, 2013

chaos_sl said:
You're making a leap to the conclusion you want to come to. You do not have evidence that suggests that, only some numbers without proper context.

It is surprising that gun violence didn't drop more, to me.

OK, sure. But it would appear, being an advocate for the second amendment, that I actually have a logical argument in this debate. Those numbers aren't supporting the effectiveness of banning firearms.

Zhaun_sl · Jan 4, 2013

Except without knowing if those women would have been armed and able to use the weapon in the instance, or asking the rapist to honestly answer if the girl had a gun was part of his plan or not. The numbers just kind of say whatever we want.

I'm not sure firearms help in a lot of rape cases due to many of them being someone they know and therefore unlikely to shoot (as they are often unlikely to even press charges in the first place due to fear/peer pressure/etc) or involve an attack of such a nature that so grossly favors the assailant that the victim being able to draw and use a firearm effectivley is unlikely (drugs, overwhelming force, high level of suprise, etc).

But we may be delving into a can of worms we don't want to open here.

Lets just settle on "The numbers are interesting, but aren't really as black and white to the case as either side would like to be."

Gun control

Bronze Squire

Unelected Mod

shitlord

Well known agitator

Buzzfeed Editor

shitlord

Mr. Poopybutthole

Well known agitator

Mr. Poopybutthole

Well known agitator

Mr. Poopybutthole

Well known agitator

Bronze Squire

shitlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

shitlord

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

shitlord

shitlord