Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Andir, it's not to upset you, but the only thing your table show is that the three states the less violent are                                       

• Maine   118.00   ÷   1.80   
• New Hampshire   137.30   ÷   2.80   
• Vermont          124.30   ÷   3.20

Three states with comparatively few firearm by household.

Maine: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_me.htm  ( conceal carry permit needed)
New Hampshire: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_nh.htm ( conceal carry license needed)
Vermont: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_vt.htm (no restrictions)

So, with these very relaxed laws concerning guns, why then do you think they don't have firearms?  Probably because crime isn't a problem?  Using some of the arguments here, since these states don't have restrictions on purchase, and very little on carry... they should be crime havens.  They are not.  So how can you say that gun ban laws reduce crime?  Do you think that banning guns in these states will cause the crime to go down or up?

Also unemployment is obviously linked with criminality. Even more so than gun possession, of course.
Fight unemployment, reduce social inequalities, and there will be few need for gun control.

...I have no problem with guns, people owning guns, or the use of guns except for self defense. hey are simply tools in my eyes and I do support some regulation (as in, I think you should be required to take training and present a purchase license to say you took this training, as well as a thorough background check) but I do not support the wholesale banning of guns as proposed by some people as a solution to crime.

Funny of these little modification are all the difference between our propositions.

Now you lost me.  First you hold a staunch stand that guns are causing crime (ie: take away guns = less crime) and now you say that it won't matter if we fix the social issue of crime (which is what I've been saying all along.)

Gun bans are not the solution to crime.  That's plain and simple.  The only thing that gun bans will do is reduce gun related crime, but it's statistically shown to increase violent crime.

[Sir Finkus]

...I have no problem with guns, people owning guns, or the use of guns except for self defense. hey are simply tools in my eyes and I do support some regulation (as in, I think you should be required to take training and present a purchase license to say you took this training, as well as a thorough background check) but I do not support the wholesale banning of guns as proposed by some people as a solution to crime.

Funny of these little modification are all the difference between our propositions.

What's wrong with defending yourself with a gun?

[Andir]

...I have no problem with guns, people owning guns, or the use of guns except for self defense. hey are simply tools in my eyes and I do support some regulation (as in, I think you should be required to take training and present a purchase license to say you took this training, as well as a thorough background check) but I do not support the wholesale banning of guns as proposed by some people as a solution to crime.

Funny of these little modification are all the difference between our propositions.

What's wrong with defending yourself with a gun?

The same thing that is wrong with defending yourself with a trained guard dog or a pillow with a swastika on it:  Someone will be upset by it's mere existence.

[Phmcw]

The same thing that is wrong with defending yourself with a trained guard dog or a pillow with a swastika on it:  Someone will be upset by it's mere existence.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaannnnd Strawman.

So, with these very relaxed laws concerning guns, why then do you think they don't have firearms?  Probably because crime isn't a problem?  Using some of the arguments here, since these states don't have restrictions on purchase, and very little on carry... they should be crime havens.  They are not.  So how can you say that gun ban laws reduce crime?  Do you think that banning guns in these states will cause the crime to go down or up?

Gun ownage is low, and those are rich, low population, hight education state anyway.
But their "fantastically low " crime rate are among European AVERAGE.
I'll explain later what I suggest.

Now you lost me.  First you hold a staunch stand that guns are causing crime (ie: take away guns = less crime) and now you say that it won't matter if we fix the social issue of crime (which is what I've been saying all along.)

Gun don't cause crime, but in a developed country, they worsen it. However, reducing crime will be more efficient than banning gun, or reducing gun ownership. Appeasing social tension would help too.

That's plain and simple.  The only thing that gun bans will do is reduce gun related crime, but it's statistically shown to increase violent crime.

And you have actually both more gun related crime AND violent crime.

Now what is the problem? It's violence.
The discourse that it's ok to shoot an intruder, or that concealed guns are an acceptable way to defend oneself is wrong, morally wrong. And that shows. Your society is more violent because of it.

Having a gun is not a problem in any European country. You could probably buy a glock in France, provided you have more than six month at the shooting range, and no antecedent.
But the discourse that gun are an "equalizer", that they are a "right", that a men must have a gun to defend his property... That is American.
Requiring a license for guns in the state would probably no, I don't know what it would do, and in the current political climate, it may lead to disaster. What it should do, what we should aim to, is make poeple understand that violence is not an acceptable answer. That killing someone, even in self defense, is the sign of a failure.
Society should not rely on arming everyone to impose order. if you are at that stage, then your society is a failure.

[Andir]

Perhaps you skipped over the part of threat... (you also lack a sense of humor with the pillow post...)

If someone is in your home and they intend to kill you, you'd rather die than use a weapon to defend yourself and possibly kill that person?  I'd rather defend myself than let someone walk all over me.  Maybe that's where we vary.

There's threat in having a gun for self defense even if you don't kill a person.  Ask most gun owners in America and the last thing they want to do is use that force unless absolutely needed. Police and citizens usually do not have to actually fire a weapon to "use" it to stop crime or defend oneself.  People are well aware of the effect of a weapon and in most cases will flee from the scene than confront an armed civilian.

I'm getting a vibe that you think guns are commonplace and that walking the streets here is the most dangerous thing you can do.  It's quite the opposite really.  Even though I have a permit to conceal carry, I do so rarely and feel no concern walking down most streets.  A great number of gun crimes occur in very small areas with high population density (and usually in poor neighborhoods with poor education.)  Rolling these numbers up to the state level can skew the image of what it's actually like to live here.  I've felt threatened exactly one time in my life and it's not the reason I own a gun and practice my right to carry.  I generally avoid some neighborhoods though I prefer to keep my home secure.  Politics is the main reason.  With people who think that banning guns will cause crime to decrease I feel it's my civic duty to practice my Second Amendment Right in owning my gun and I followed the laws of my state in order to do so in whatever legal fashion I could.  For me it's more of a stand of rights.  I feel it's my right as a human being to be able to buy and own whatever I can afford to own, irregardless of the danger to myself.  I do not feel it's up to someone else to determine that for me.

Also, morals are subjective.  Trying to enforce your morals on another group of people can only lead to poor relations and misunderstanding.

As a side note, methods of reporting crime can skew the numbers greatly.  Great Britain recently had an event where the methods of reporting violent crime had changed and one method showed a worse number than the other.  Both had shown a decrease, but one was dramatic and was being trumpeted as a great feat.  (When in fact, it was a change in reporting procedure.)  Unfortunately I do not have any specific link to it, but I remember reading about it a few years ago and the police were shrugging it off as a non-event because the lower number made them look better.  There's also the question of reporting.  I'm sure Detroit has crime that goes unreported as I'm sure there are shady parts of Europe where violent crime goes unreported as well.  I'm not saying it's the reason though... just putting that out there.  There is also the very real crime spilling over from Mexico of drug cartels showing up on US crime statistics when it's mostly not in our control (gun ban or not... the guns and the people doing the crime are still a threat and I'll bet that's where most of the automatic weapons come from.)  Building a huge wall is out of the budget.   How do you tell the people of Arizona/New Mexico/Texas/California to just suck it up and deal with it?

Edit: Also, holy crap is it hard to find crime statistics by city for Europe in a nice neat table...  I can surely find those numbers for the US cities everywhere and anywhere I want.  Does anyone have a link?

[Leafsnail]

Well, the US is a country, while Europe is not.  There's no European body collating that kind of stuff.

It would be perfectly possible if you did it for each individual country though.

[Fayrik]

Okay, I've long since gone off this thread, but this one line has forced me into responding.

If someone is in your home and they intend to kill you, you'd rather die than use a weapon to defend yourself and possibly kill that person?

What kind of "right" do you have to kill another man for entering your property.
I mean, christ. Tresspassing isn't a nice crime by any means, and it gets worse when your boundries are smaller.
But seriously. I cannot justify it at any point as being worthy of a capitol punishment.
This really is the point I've never gotten about the whole "I need a gun to keep my house safe" argument.

[Urist is dead tome]

Keyword, "and they intend to kill you,".

[Fayrik]

Keyword, "and they intend to kill you,".

So?
If they intend to kill you, that doesn't really come into context.
That's premature judgement.
What if I arrested you and had you sent to prison for a bank robbery that you where going to plan in ten years?
You can't dish out justice to something that hasn't happened.

[Urist is dead tome]

But what if they are armed? If a man broke into your house then he is a threat. There is no debating this.

[Sergius]

What if their name is Inigo Montoya, and you killed their father.

[Urist is dead tome]

What if their name is Inigo Montoya, and you killed their father.

Then he has a sword and you should shoot him. Despite how much the plot would suffer.

[Fayrik]

What if their name is Inigo Montoya, and you killed their father.

...Hasn't everyone killed his father?

If a man broke into your house then he is a threat.

Yes, he is a threat. However, Murder is a crime.

There is no debating this.

[Max White]

*Starts reading thread*
Ok, first issue I need to address. How is a gun a tool? No really, tell me. In Australia gun ownership isn't very high and even less controversial, so it must be the case that I'm not exposed to the same debates some of you are, because I'm missing how a gun is an effective tool.
Let’s compare it to a knife. A knife can be used to slice and puncture, at close range, with a controlled level of power. A gun can be used to puncture, at any reasonable range, with no control over power. A knife is therefore useful for all sorts of feats as a tool, from butchering meat to consume to cutting rope while sailing. It is a generic tool that can be used for near countless things.
Now, onto the gun. What other purpose could a gun have other than to injure something? Ok, so there is the sports aspect, but a basket ball is hardly a tool, so just because something can be used for sport does not make it a tool.
So tell me, how is a gun a tool?

[Urist is dead tome]

What if their name is Inigo Montoya, and you killed their father.

...Hasn't everyone killed his father?

If a man broke into your house then he is a threat.

Yes, he is a threat. However, Murder is a crime.

There is no debating this.

And there are laws protecting people who defend their homes. At least where I live.