Print

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

[Phmcw]

Sometimes things are simple. God doesn't exist, gun for defense doesn't work in a civilized country, those policies reduce crime.

There is other reason why politics don't do this : they must primarily feed the poeple that gave them money for their campaign (including guns lobby, corporations, African dictatorship and rich sponsors), the mafia would do anything to avoid legalization of pot and prostitution, money has gone to the banks and/or the war, reducing social inequalities would mean taxing the richest, and they do everything in their power to avoid that.

[Andir]

Sometimes things are simple. God doesn't exist, gun for defense doesn't work in a civilized country, those policies reduce crime.

There is other reason why politics don't do this : they must primarily feed the poeple that gave them money for their campaign (including guns lobby, corporations, African dictatorship and rich sponsors), the mafia would do anything to avoid legalization of pot and prostitution, money has gone to the banks and/or the war, reducing social inequalities would mean taxing the richest, and they do everything in their power to avoid that.

I'd actually counter your argument that guns have no effect on crime in a civilized society.  (eg: Vermont, Maine...)

[Phmcw]

But those have higher gun mortality than Belgium and less density of population while being richer. Can't you see that their relatively low gun crime have sociological causes?

[Leafsnail]

Police aren't meant for protection of citizens. Not in America at least.

I've never really got this statement.  I mean, yeah, that clearly isn't their only or possibly even their primary aim, but does it mean that if the police arrive on a scene and see someone being attacked they'll just sit and wait until it's finished?

[Andir]

Police aren't meant for protection of citizens. Not in America at least.

I've never really got this statement.  I mean, yeah, that clearly isn't their only or possibly even their primary aim, but does it mean that if the police arrive on a scene and see someone being attacked they'll just sit and wait until it's finished?

Technically I have a problem saying they are not there to "Protect and Serve"  (Motto for most Police I know) but if you think about them as simple law enforcement... and it's illegal to attempt homicide (Attempted homicide) then they have to act to uphold the law and stop said shootout.

"The Law" is a very large part of what makes our society (our Republic) tick.  The Constitution doesn't "give" us Rights or state than anyone should be provided the tools to practice those, it only guarantees that no law shall be written to impede said rights.

[Phmcw]

Ho, andir I hope you don't think that the difference in the way of reporting crime explain the gap by itself.
... If so we'll need to find a lot more sources. Do you believe it?

[Urist is dead tome]

Police aren't meant for protection of citizens. Not in America at least.

I've never really got this statement.  I mean, yeah, that clearly isn't their only or possibly even their primary aim, but does it mean that if the police arrive on a scene and see someone being attacked they'll just sit and wait until it's finished?

They are there to enforce law. If they see someone trying to rob a liquor store the objective isn't to protect that cashier but to enforce the law..

[LoSboccacc]

sadly each and every statistic is blatantly useless for crossing data because each country, each state, each province, each city has it's own way to record crimes for statistical analysis.

and the actual data is already scarce and meaningless as it is.

the only way to be sure is to compare crime rate and gun kills to see if the ratio is greater in gun heavy states; still, the fact that speeding may or may not be a crime alone could skew the dataset enough to make direct comparison and extrapolation useless.

I remain on the opinion that social culture affect murder rate greatly than weapon or guns accessibility. There is no data to back it up, one way or the another, so I'm inferring it basing upon the effect culture has on suicide rate which at least demonstrate that culture alone can extremely influence people willingness and resolve even on the extremest act.

[Leafsnail]

They are there to enforce law. If they see someone trying to rob a liquor store the objective isn't to protect that cashier but to enforce the law..

Oh, so it's a wordplay.  Right.

[Lord Shonus]

There is a huge difference between "enforcing the law" and "protecting me because I think protecting myself is EVIL!!!!!" At the very least, unless you call the police for every scritch at your window or thump at the side of the house (if you do, they're unlikely to make rushing to your house a priority), They are unlikely to get there until the situation's already done with. If there is a confrontation between a homeowner and an intruder, it will be over in less than five minutes, unless they decide to tie you up before beating you to death (this actually happened last year here.) Police are primarily good for tracking criminals down after the fact, but until someone develops portal technology, they are of limited use for interrupting crimes in progress.


As for murder rates, they are useless without the raw data, which I've never seen anti-gun propaganda even attempt to provide.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, but enforcing the law means doing all that is reasonable to protect you too.  I guess it depends on your area, but there have been crimes here interrupted.

As for raw data... what??  You can find for the UK easily on, say, the Office of National Statistics website.  Might be some US equivalent.

[Lord Shonus]

It's available, certainly. My point was that people usually just throw in a murder rate without, for example,  breaking it down by weapon, perpetrator, or even year in some cases. I don't expect a detailed case study, but I do expect them to at least mention what percentage of that rate involved a gun if they're trying to correlate gun ownership and gun crime.


I don't argue that crimes are never interrupted, but I do argue that it's an unreasonable expectation to count on it to such a degree that making any preparation in case they don't get there fast enough is "paranoid."

[Phmcw]

It's available, certainly. My point was that people usually just throw in a murder rate without, for example,  breaking it down by weapon, perpetrator, or even year in some cases. I don't expect a detailed case study, but I do expect them to at least mention what percentage of that rate involved a gun if they're trying to correlate gun ownership and gun crime.

Too bad I did a few post ago.

I don't argue that crimes are never interrupted, but I do argue that it's an unreasonable expectation to count on it to such a degree that making any preparation in case they don't get there fast enough is "paranoid."

Packing a gun is paranoid. The disabled shotgun trick is awesome.

[chewie]

I just read the thread title and wanted to inform you that the swiss people (includes me) are going to vote for or against the right to have your own gun at home, or if it is correct to even own one. Discussion on an english forum

I'm not sure, what I'll vote, since I don't know, what would happen to people that are in gun clubs and shoot in tournaments and do it for the sport. It's important to me because you could forget shooting as a sport, which is very popular (40'000 people at the national gun festival last year).

also, sorry for my english

[Sergius]

They are there to enforce law. If they see someone trying to rob a liquor store the objective isn't to protect that cashier but to enforce the law..

1: SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST
2: PROTECT THE INNOCENT
3: UPHOLD THE LAW

DIRECTIVE 4: [CLASSIFIED]