Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 32

Author Topic: Gun rights discussion  (Read 18660 times)

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #210 on: January 13, 2011, 03:43:41 am »

Quote
side question:
how do you plan to ban guns?

criminals gets ton of them even in countries where those are banned/forbidden/licensed, and domestic violence rate is the same only with knifes.

are we sure that school shootouts are linked to gun only and not also to social conditions? would school shootout be actually prevented by a gun ban, considering that forbidding guns only raises the bar so much of obtaining them? wouldn't school violence simply turn into knife fights?

Very good question : long story short, in America, you don't. It's useless to ban gun if there is a ton of guns in the black market.
You'd have to educate the population first. Then you'd have to strengthen the regulation (no concealed carry without permit, obligation to have a safe for your guns...). The next step is to crack down on illegal guns. Then you may begin to try to reduce a bit the amount of guns.

(the part on the same domestic violence rate is false, at leas in term of death)
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

LoSboccacc

  • Bay Watcher
  • Σὺν Ἀθηνᾷ καὶ χεῖρα κίνει
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #211 on: January 13, 2011, 03:58:42 am »

(the part on the same domestic violence rate is false, at leas in term of death)

do you have some data for backing that up? in italy there are plenty of strangulations, beating to death and knifing going on even with gun restricted.

population 60M, yearly death from violence acts: 564 (incuding domestic and crime)
Logged

thobal

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #212 on: January 13, 2011, 04:17:29 am »

And we Americans are well known for our insatiable love for burgers, reliveing old glory from wars, hotdogs, and just being generaly uninformed overly prideful twats who think anything other than English(which some Americans call 'American') isn't a real language, and our way of trying to make people who DON'T speak english understand us is just saying it slower.

You dont sound very patriotic.

I'm joking though.
Logged
Signature goes here.

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #213 on: January 13, 2011, 04:22:25 am »

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Here, only third world country have a death by homicide as hight as the US. Good job on the low suicide rate thought. I was expecting it to be high in America, and it's quite low instead.
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #214 on: January 13, 2011, 04:26:30 am »

Did you actually read that link?
Logged
Shoes...

LoSboccacc

  • Bay Watcher
  • Σὺν Ἀθηνᾷ καὶ χεῖρα κίνει
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #215 on: January 13, 2011, 04:40:27 am »

found some american data on death by assault:
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

toal homicide: 18361 deaths. us population: 308M, index: 59 homicide per million

italian index: 9 homicide per million

still, even this data proves nothing; because doesn't factor in social and cultural aspect of the american society or the italian one.

data is from 2007
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 04:42:42 am by LoSboccacc »
Logged

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #216 on: January 13, 2011, 04:40:47 am »

Yes, yes, and that's why I've given it : you can't actually call them in favor of gun control.
Still, on their own statistic, death by homicide :
Estonia 28.21
Brazil 19.04    
Mexico 17.58    
Taiwan 8.12    
N. Ireland 6.09    
United States 5.70
Canada 2.16
Belgium 1.41
France 1.12
Ireland 0.62    ...

Country abouve the US have all rampant criminality problem, and are in state of civil unrest (it's mostly 1993-1994 statistics)
Us have usually from 2* to 4* more death by homicide than European countries.
They can say whatever they want, they nothing they can do against this fact.

Edit : just to be clear : Less gun mean less tentative of homicide successful and nothing else. Maybe a few more assault and less literal tentative of homicide (since you wife hitting you with a frying pan isn't likely to pass as a tentative of murder if you aren't actually dead).


A more relaxed climate too. Maybe... less paranoia, ... not a sudden end of criminality and peace on earth anyway.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 04:48:49 am by Phmcw »
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

OperatorPants

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #217 on: January 13, 2011, 05:08:27 am »

Just three things I'd like to throw into the mix...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6906554.stm

Depending on which part of the government you ask in the UK, crime has either escelated or not changed at all since the 1997 ban of nearly all private firearms ownership. Gun control =/= crime control. You're just changing the rules.

Second thing, the areas with the most gun control in the US (California, Illinois, New York) also have the highest violent crime and homicide rates.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html

Lastly the "assault weapons ban" which banned several "assault weapons" which a lot of people claim are criminals weapons, since they're the scariest looking ones. "good for nothing but killing" was instituted in 1994, and expired in 2004. Crime rates decline from around 13 million to 11 million total in that time frame, however they have continued to decline since the bill expired in 2004. All in all our crime rates have decreased about 30% per capita since the 70s.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


It's all just food for thought. Everyones knee jerk reaction is that guns are bad, therefor if we remove them from our society we will improve our society. Proven time and time again, this simply isn't the case. There are far more factors than the weapons themselves, and to assume people who kill other people will no longer do so simply because you take away his legal ability to purchase a gun is a foolish assumption.

Not to mention that rougly 2/3rds of American households have at least one firearm. That's a whole lot of guns. If you draft an assault weapons ban, what will change? Those guns will still be there. All you've done is taken away the ability to legally purchase a firearm. Where will a criminal turn to? Surely the new ban has thwarted his attempts to purchase a gun. Democracy has won, America is a better place. But wait a minute, he says. His buddy Jim has a bunch of guns he had since before the ban. He can buy one from him.

Now you've just banned guns into the hands of criminals, and you've lost all the ability to keep track of them.

I once heard a member of the BATFE say "We will do to guns what we did to drugs in this country."

A few weeks later I saw a witty little demotivational which held the quote, and said below it, "What? You'll turn it into a multi-billion dollar criminal racket that the government has absolutely no control over?"

I think that sums it up very nicely.
Logged

LoSboccacc

  • Bay Watcher
  • Σὺν Ἀθηνᾷ καὶ χεῖρα κίνει
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #218 on: January 13, 2011, 05:18:26 am »

Quote
the areas with the most gun control in the US (California, Illinois, New York) also have the highest violent crime and homicide rates.

was that the effect or the cause?

disclaimer: I'm all for gun control, as it allegedly gives an edges on police over criminals (albeit very small) but I've not seen any conclusive research as yet. only data mixed and messed up by pro/against group, each own tuned to their own agenda.
Logged

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #219 on: January 13, 2011, 06:23:17 am »

Quote
crime

Crime have nothing to do with gun control. Violence have everything to do with gun control.
There won't be more or less dealer, fraud and other mobster in a country with gun control, and they will usually have gun available if they need them. However the quality, quantity and accessibility of these weapons can be adjusted.
In domestic violence, the effect will be much greater : a gun is the most efficient weapon, and an ordinary citizen will have to settle for a less lethal weapon if guns are "banned".
Ultra violent home invasion will be more frequent if everybody have a firearm (they have to be violent if they want to succeed). The rate of home invasion will only be affected by sociological factor however (you could expect less violent criminal to be dissuaded by the presence of firearm though).

The high rate of assassination in the US (because even if it's rising in England, it's about 3 time lower than in the US) is caused by both the lax gun control regulation and the high social inequalities cause by right wing policies.
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

Andir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #220 on: January 13, 2011, 09:13:34 am »

Andir : Please, let's do an experiment, you with the gun of your choice, will have to stop the next slaughter that will eventually happen in America due to incontrollable guns access.

When that work out, I will be convinced that gun are a good way to improve security.

What do I try to say with this crude argument? Guns can be a lot of things : hunting implement, signalization tool, emergency lock-pick, room decoration... but a glock with an extended loader is only one thing : a weapon designed to kill poeple quickly and easily, and very good at that. There is other way to do it, but there is few that are as efficients than a good old gun.

It's extremely difficult to protect oneself in a gunfight. Having a gun, as showed by the recent events isn't enough. It may eventually help you fight back, but only if you have it handy, and have the opportunity to use it. The next "logic" (because it mostly provide a good laugh on the expense of these "silly Americans" for everyone else) step is to allow every one to conceal a gun on him. Which will eventually result in a major bloodbath , when some poeple will shoot each other because they are all shooting to protect themselves in a total confusion.
You don't keep up with current events do you?

The Congresswoman who was recently shot along with her guards?

You know who helped stop that?

Four armed citizens.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c4e24098-1504-5767-901e-6c832300b961.html

Edit: Sorry, four citizens helped stop it, only one was armed...  but let's say those people were armed.  With the gunmen firing off automatic rounds into the crowd, left unchecked, they could have caused much more damage and who knows.  Those guys that tackled the gunman... what if they could have put him down before he had a chance to hit all the bodyguards and the Congresswoman?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 09:53:31 am by Andir »
Logged
"Having faith" that the bridge will not fall, implies that the bridge itself isn't that trustworthy. It's not that different from "I pray that the bridge will hold my weight."

Andir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #221 on: January 13, 2011, 09:58:45 am »

Here's another case where placing guns in the hands of every day citizens has helped stop crime:
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2010/05/04/armed-citizen-stops-2-walgreens-robbers/

Edit:
More recounts: http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/04/17/mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens/  (one of which was someone assaulting people with a knife...)

A challenge for you...

Find me a story of a case you describe.  Arizona, Vermont, and several other states have no restrictions on carry, but I cannot find one instance where gunfire started and people were mercilessly slaughtered in a way you describe.

I can find more instances where armed citizens helped stop crime and violence against innocent citizens, but nothing you describe.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 10:02:02 am by Andir »
Logged
"Having faith" that the bridge will not fall, implies that the bridge itself isn't that trustworthy. It's not that different from "I pray that the bridge will hold my weight."

Sir Finkus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #222 on: January 13, 2011, 10:00:02 am »

As a gun owner, I have a few things to say.

First off, I'd like to clarify my position on what the laws should be.  Overall, I'm pretty happy with the current laws in Washington state.  You have to pass a background check if you want to buy anything from a dealer, and pistols have a 5 day waiting period.  The waiting period seems foolish to me after you already have one or more pistol, but I can live with it. 

With that out of the way, here are some of my reasons for owning firearms:
1) Excellent means of self defense. 
Guns are equalisers.  I'm not a big guy, I don't know any martial arts, and without a weapon I'd probably be at the mercy of someone who entered my home until the police arrived.  I live in a fairly rural area, so that's probably 10 minutes, not including the time I'd need to get on the phone with the police and explain the situation.  With a gun I have the means of fending off an attacker.  No, I don't sit up at night fantasising about fighting off home invaders with my 1911, in fact the very thought of taking another person's life is repugnant to me.  I've read stories of people who have used their gun to defend themselves and the person defending themselves or their family never seemed to have enjoyed the experience, in fact, most were quite shaken up.  In general, people don't want to kill other people.
2) I love guns. 
I like to shoot guns, I like to collect guns and I like to clean guns.  Marksmanship is a fun skill to learn, and arguably a valuable one.  "Fun" may seem like a poor reason in light of the rather sombre nature of the discussions thus far, but it is still a valid reason.  Shooting for sport has been around for ages (there are even Olympic events centered on it) and millions of people engage safely in shooting sports every day.
3) Collecting.
 Guns have been the tools we have used to fight wars for generations, and if firearms could speak, many of them would have an unique story to tell.  My friend has a Mosin Nagant that could have been used by a Russian soldier taking Berlin, or perhaps it was used in the streets of Stalingrad, or maybe it sat in a crate for 80 years.  We don't really know, but it's cool that we get to use the tools that have had such a great effect on most of our lives.

I'd also like to clear up some misconceptions.
1) Automatic Weapons are readily available in the United States.
This is generally false.  Anyone wishing to obtain an automatic weapon (for those of you unfamiliar with the terminology, an automatic weapon is a weapon that will fire as long as you hold the trigger down) has to pay a $200 tax, and submit to an extensive background check before they are able to purchase the weapon.  The check is much more extensive than what you get when you buy a non-NFA firearm, and has the fee and check must be repeated for every automatic weapon you purchase.  Many states (such as my own, Washington) outright ban them.  These weapons are also prohibitively expensive due to some rather "creative" lawmaking that made it impossible to register any automatic weapon after 1986.  This pisses me off more than a little bit, not because it means I won't be able to own an automatic weapon unless I'm rich, but because of the circumstances in which it was passed.  It should upset anyone, even if you support the legislation.  More in the spoiler if you're interested.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
2) Regarding Assault Weapons
There seems to be a common misunderstanding about what an "Assault weapon" is.  I don't think it has come up specifically in this thread, but I'll address it anyway because it is relevant to the discussion.  The term "assault weapon" is basically a term coined by anti gun politicians to describe guns that look scary.  The definition varies, but usually it includes weapons that have one or more "military" features such as barrel shrouds (shoulder thing that goes up), pistol grips, and bayonet lugs.  Most of these criteria have nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the weapon and all assault weapon bans tend to do is create ugly, but functionally identical guns.  Often the politicians proposing these bans don't even know what they're banning.  Here's a rather famous video of one such politician confusing a barrel shroud and a folding stock .  Many of the mistakes anti gun people make would almost be comical if they weren't misleading people into banning a hobby that I love.  I'm not cynical enough to believe that these mistakes are being made intentionally, I believe they are innocent mistakes, but they have the same effect.
3) Guns cause crime
I'm not going to come out and say that guns prevent crimes or that they have no effect.  My main objection to this line of thought is we simply don't know.  Certainly guns are used to commit horrible acts of violence every day and can, in some cases, escalate situations.  Then again, guns can also be an excellent detterant to crime, and can save lives.  Nothing says "get out of my house" to a criminal like pumping a Remington 870.  The fact is, we simply don't know.  We could spend all day throwing statistics back and forth at each other trying to prove our point of view, but due to the cultural and demographic differences between countries, and even states in the US, comparing statistics isn't the way to gain meaningful results.  My personal view on the matter are that the vast majority of people are good, and can be trusted with the responsibility of owning a firearm.  I always err on the side of liberty when things are uncertain. 

To sum up, I'll like to make a comparison of firearms legislation with a subject we are all familiar with: the Internet.  The internet is an amazing tool for information exchange, and many people use it for work and pleasure every day.  The internet can also be used for evil too, and in some cases, it has destroyed people's lives.  Should we require the government to approve the content of anything we post online? After all, if you're afraid of the government knowing what you are posting, you must be up to something sinister.  Should we limit the speed of uploads and downloads or cap information usage?  Nobody needs to use more than 5gb a month, they must be infringing copyrights or hosting an unapproved webserver.  Should we require every person who wants to use the internet pass a test and register with the government so that they can track your activities? 

I'm sure many of these scenarios are disturbing to you, indeed the reaction from the technically minded to any regulation of the internet (such as government blacklists and isp caps) can be counted on.  It's a similar feeling among firearms enthusiasts when ever a new regulation is imposed upon us.  Even if you don't believe that the general public should have access to firearms, please try to look at it from our perspective.

If anyone has any questions on firearms terminology, firearms in general, or if you would like me to clarify anything, feel free to ask.  It may be a while before I respond because I have work in an hour.

:edit: holy wall of text, did I really write all that?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 10:10:12 am by Sir Finkus »
Logged

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #223 on: January 13, 2011, 10:22:57 am »

The Assault Weapons Ban died in 2004 and congress hasn't voted anything in so its been up to the states now.

Urist is dead tome

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights discussion
« Reply #224 on: January 13, 2011, 10:39:18 am »

The state that I live in is fairly pro-gun and is right next to Illinois. I hear a lot of crap about how bad Illinois is. And lemme tell ya. It's bad. The crime is outta control. And ya know what, they pretty much can't have guns. The problem isn't guns it's violence. Instead of shooting each other gangs use anything they can. Even railroad ties (a true event).

Sure there's the occasional gun but they're aren't enough of them to be a government crackdown target.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 32