Gun Control - Page 21

Figment · 2012-09-13, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Making something illegal prevents criminals from doing it? No one really thinks that, do they?

Yes they do, again I point you to Exhibit A: Europe. Gun crime, murder rates and other forms of violent crime are extremely low in Europe due to people in general and therefore criminals as well, not having easy access to guns. Is there a 100% solution? No. Does it reduce violent crime to about a quarter or less in comparison to the USA? Easily.

FFS man, for once look at a statistic without going "NANANANANANAANAAAA I'M ILLITERATE".

Figment · 2012-09-13, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by Vecha

No, I'm not for a gun ban. If you read my comments, clearly, then you would see that I'm not a gun zealot, nor am I a gun-ban nut.

I know, but your position is nowhere near a solution either. It's basically a support of the status quo, which leads nowhere but to more guns in your society and thus more guns in the hands of criminals, because eventually guns "trickle down" to criminals or people that didn't have any checks before they obtained them.

I am not for the government to, somehow, go into everyone's homes and take their guns.

How much will that cost?

That is one extreme position.

Consider that you won't have to go into everyone's houses. First of all, you know the legal ones. You can confiscate those and have the people bring them to you. Next, you can have anonymous delivery and pardons for dropping off any gun at a police station, whether owned illegally, or not, whether functional or not.

I think you'd be surprised how many guns would be delivered.

Stricter laws that punish those who sell to criminals, sure, I'll be for that.

That's not a pro-active move. By the time you punish the guns are already in the hands of criminals. If you even find out or if you can even provide evidence that the salesmen were responsible for the "loss" of these guns. Maybe if it happens on a regular basis, but even that isn't appropriately punished today (which I think we all agree is a basic minimum - unless if one would be a nutter that doesn't want any gun registration at all). So that won't really help. Plus it appears the local governments aren't that good at handing out punishment to those known to regularly "lose" guns anyway.

In contrast, not allowing to sell stops any legal loophole appropriation by criminals fundamentally and completely.

Creating a branch of the government(or I suppose charging the ATF to take care of it) in going into millions of homes...and taking their guns. No.

Unless you want to create a law that makes it illegal to have a gun in your home...and expect people to just give them up.

In by far most circumstances, I do expect people to give most of them up. Yes, even the NRA supportists under loud protest and yes even a large portion of petty criminals. Organized crime is a different thing, but organized crime is typically not interested in petty crime which is what most people have their guns for to protect themselves at home.

Guns would go the way of the swords: when you don't really need them anymore, people give them up. Hence why gun enthusiasts tend to come up with functional scenarios that are increasingly insane. Hence also the argument I made regarding the own government.

You could however create a law that in areas with high gun crime, you could do preventive searches. This would significantly reduce the amount of houses to search, target predominantly criminals and would therefore reduce further the need and feeling of need for other people. This would allow you to target gang areas in specific and allow you to do a preventive search on people on the street. Currently, law enforcement has few means to combat gang crime or act preventively. Note that in such searches, there wouldn't be that many shoot-outs since people would soon realise they're not going to prevail anyway against a large dedicated police force.

Most people will ultimately choose to live and avoid injury.

" and it's still not useful against own governments since your own forces by your own claims wouldn't fight you if you'd rise up."

When did I make any such claims?

Stop bunching me up with others who have argued with you.

Last I checked, "you" is a general term in the English language. I wasn't talking about you, nor argueing ONLY against you, but "you". Get a proper language that can deal with nuances between a multiple and singular version of "you", don't blame me for your language not having been refined over the centuries.

Also,

Here is a nice little article.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...nd-irrelevant/

I don't think that's relevant to anything I've said, is it? Don't believe I've ever compared car and gun fatalities, instead, I've compared crime statistics between the EU, Canada, Japan and the US. In all cases, the US came out as four times worse, at minimum. So I'm comparing gun acquisition rules.

If I would look at car fatalities, I'd simply point at lack of safety regulation in the USA lagging decades behind other nations, causing your cars to be generally more unsafe. Similarly, I would point at your fuel costs and distribution and point out that other nations produce more fuel efficient cars simply because our fuel has always been far more expensive, making any fuel crisis felt harsher in the USA, since not only do the cars your people already own become far more costly and inefficient, people stop purchasing US made vehicles en mass.

What I'm saying is, most of your populace is too self-centered to understand what is going on in the outside world and that on many, MANY levels, you're heavily lagging behind in refining your products and (government) systems, laws, etc.

Unlike some of your populace, we've moved on from the days of the Wild West and realise the context has changed, knowledge has increased and more options available, making a lot of the old laws completely obsolete.

Baneblade · 2012-09-13, 05:47 AM

You assume that the guns are the reason crime rates are higher here. It's easy to blame the guns because that is the most obvious conclusion. But guns don't create it, they don't even incite it, they just make it more effective.

Figment · 2012-09-13, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

You assume that the guns are the reason crime rates are higher here. It's easy to blame the guns because that is the most obvious conclusion. But guns don't create it, they don't even incite it, they just make it more effective.

Oh no, no no no no. I'm not assuming that at all.

It's a fact violent crime is encouraged if you have the tools for it, because it makes it easier. They do incite more lethal violence and it's more than a proven catalyst for crime. It empowers criminals to go that step further and take the next leap and escalate whatever crimes they had in mind. Why? It makes them feel more powerful and capable of committing a crime. After all, if you only have a knife, you're far more prone to fleeing than standing your ground. Being less empowered reduces the chance of threats turning into violence (a psychological stance between violence and flight).

Want evidence? As a victim, not even a purpetrator, would you try to shoot back if you had a gun, or would you flee in every situation if you had a gun or if you would not have a gun? I'm quite sure having a gun available influences your judgement and assesment of the situation and therefore your actions. The same is true for the purpetrator. In fact, isn't it your side of the argument that argues that having a gun creates a 'feeling of safety and security', regardless of if it's true safety or not?

Gang crime for instance is not caused by guns, but it is escalated to the next level by guns.

Of course the cause of gang crime is a poor socio-economic situation that can lead to reasons to turn to crime in the first place. Of course there are bad role play models etc etc etc etc etc.

But you can't just go "oh crime is down to gangs and such and you don't have that sort of thing so you don't know what you're talking about". We have youth gangs. Small time criminals and wannabee tough guys and macho type figures (largely immigrants or from poor social-economic backgrounds and cultural identity crisis as well), who as kids are just as prone to bad influence as those that end up in your gangs.

However. There's one big difference.

We never allowed them to get easy access to guns, unlike you. Meaning here, they use fists and knifes, maybe those knuckle thingies. With you? Hey... why risk personal injuries if you can just shoot the guy from a distance? And then what happens? The other guy wants a gun as well. So then... the first guy wants a bigger gun and you got a competitive arms race out of paranoia that the other gang probably feels more powerful than you and if they dothey might try and take over your territory. It's all about (relative) empowerment. Take away guns and they're on rather equal footing. They're not really as... "interested" to taking each other out because it's high risk of getting beat up as the odds are a bit more fair and not rigged in the favour of the guy with the most firepower.

Gun crime enables more cowardice types of crime. Guns impersonalise a crime as well. It's typically less close up and personal and that is a major psychological difference that again, facilitates committing a crime.

Guns are an enabler. I don't understand why people are stupid enough to hand out such strong enablers for pretty much free and without any communal control over which elements of the community can be trusted with them, out of the weird principal that every **** should have the "right". I don't believe it says anywhere in the universal laws of men that one should have tools that enable them to harm another being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...Categorization

I don't believe the 2nd amendment as interpreted by gun enthusiasts is recognised as a basic human right in there.

Having a gun is not a right, it's a privilege. Priviliges and rights are two considerably different things and that concept and the responsibility that goes with the privilege is rather lost on most Americans, to be quite honest, because they're too preoccupied with personal interest and shifting blame.

Vecha · 2012-09-13, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Last I checked, "you" is a general term in the English language. I wasn't talking about you, nor argueing ONLY against you, but "you". Get a proper language that can deal with nuances between a multiple and singular version of "you", don't blame me for your language not having been refined over the centuries.

Others. One.

Those are general terms.

You is not.

Vecha · 2012-09-13, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

I don't believe the 2nd amendment as interpreted by gun enthusiasts is recognised as a basic human right in there.

Having a gun is not a right, it's a privilege. Priviliges and rights are two considerably different things and that concept and the responsibility that goes with the privilege is rather lost on most Americans, to be quite honest, because they're too preoccupied with personal interest and shifting blame.

I will agree with this. Despite other differences.

It is a privilege, and should be treated as such.

Which is why I'm for stricter laws...not outright bans.

Traak · 2012-09-15, 09:50 PM

Different countries have different ethnic makeups than the USA, and can't be compared to the USA.

http://www.columbia.edu/~rs328/Homicide.pdf

And, mankind is imbued with certain inalienable rights by God. The constitution serves to protect the rights that are given by God. Man didn't hand out these rights, and he can't revoke them.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Second Amendment to the constitution will always bar those who would disarm women and turn them into relatively defenseless targets, from doing so.

In Sweden, 46 incidents of rape are reported per 100,000 residents. But it has strict gun laws, so violent crime should not exist, right? No, strict gun laws protect rapists.

The USA has about 27.5 rapes per 100,000 people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

Citing gun crime as an accurate statistic measuring the value of guns is highly biased.

The police in England encourage people to not resist criminals, but cooperate. Not so the USA.

I think some of what is considered random murders in the USA is a gun owner defending herself against an assailant, then fleeing the scene rather than be crucified for self-defense.

Self-defense. Against one or as many as come against you is an inalienable human right. Attacking someone is surrendering your right to protection by an act of your will. Banning assault rifles or high-capacity magazines is not constitutional, nor does it make crime stop. They tried a ban like that for decades in the USA. Crime failed to vanish. Shootings failed to vanish. Thus, it is a failed policy, and not worthy of resurrection.

Vecha · 2012-09-16, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Self-defense. Against one or as many as come against you is an inalienable human right. Attacking someone is surrendering your right to protection by an act of your will. Banning assault rifles or high-capacity magazines is not constitutional, nor does it make crime stop. They tried a ban like that for decades in the USA. Crime failed to vanish. Shootings failed to vanish. Thus, it is a failed policy, and not worthy of resurrection.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'll bite anyhow.

There is a difference between having the right to defend yourself...and having the privilege to use certain tools to do so.

While I don't agree with outright banning of certain guns, I think we need some rethinking on how we go about strengthening the way we ban certain people from getting said guns.

Figment · 2012-09-16, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Different countries have different ethnic makeups than the USA, and can't be compared to the USA.

http://www.columbia.edu/~rs328/Homicide.pdf

Yay, blame the blacks... Honestly? You haven't done virtually anything about their socio-economic situation and you're going to argue that's inherently unchangeable?

And, mankind is imbued with certain inalienable rights by God. The constitution serves to protect the rights that are given by God. Man didn't hand out these rights, and he can't revoke them.

[sarcasm]God sells guns? It all makes sense now. [/sarcasm]

You know Traak, in the past people believed rulers (kings, pharaos, emperors) ruled by the grace of a god or multiple gods. There is no such thing as a god given right.

Men claim rights and protect their rights. If you believe they can't revoke them, go to Africa and go see for yourself. Or hey, you can go to Guantanamo Bay, ask around if there's some rights being revoked here and there.

FFS.

Those in power determine your rights. Be glad when it's a democracy, because most democracies will protect your rights because they want to protect their own rights. Right determination and preservation at it's core is about a system to encourage survival of individuals within the species. That's it.

There's no higher plan.

And uhm... No god ever blessed America. That's propaganda too. And definitely didn't interfere with your constitution. Just so you know. Note that it has to be amended frequently, it wasn't perfect then, it's not perfect now. If it wasn't manmade, it wouldn't have to be. So get off the religious nutcase argument Traak.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You do realise this is legal propagandic speechy talk meant to inspire the masses, not divinely inspired talk, right? ô_ó

The Second Amendment to the constitution will always bar those who would disarm women and turn them into relatively defenseless targets, from doing so.

Actually, the 2nd amendment was written to ONLY arm white males within a certain age group and they were forced to buy a gun and some ammo... So uhm... no right and not for women and many other "non-priviliged" groups. So even if it were a right, rather than a discriminating obligation, it wasn't god given, it was government instated...

There's no talk about women in there. You know, the right for women to try and enter the army is rather... new? Oh yeah, wait, that's a locational right drafted by congress. Be men.

In Sweden, 46 incidents of rape are reported per 100,000 residents. But it has strict gun laws, so violent crime should not exist, right? No, strict gun laws protect rapists.

The USA has about 27.5 rapes per 100,000 people.

lol...

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention claims that it is not "possible to evaluate and compare the actual levels of violent crimes... between countries", but that in any case the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definition of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes. It asserts that comparisons based on victim surveys place Sweden at an average level among European nations.[41]

Nice try Traak, but your registration might actually be lower, because your women are not as heavily protected in a legal sense as women in Sweden. Meanwhile, attempted rapes in the USA aren't registered as such.

According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.[24] 1 of 6 U.S. women and 1 of 33 U.S. men have experienced an attempted or completed rape. (according to Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault)[25] The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. The statistics for whites include Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites combined. There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006.[26]

Looks like your rape figures might need some work, because they don't seem to correspond with the figures above very well...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

Citing gun crime as an accurate statistic measuring the value of guns is highly biased.

The police in England encourage people to not resist criminals, but cooperate. Not so the USA.

And it gets more of your folks killed, HOORAY. The question the UK police asks, is the damn $10-$100 in your wallet really worth your life? The answer US citizens give (foaming at the mouth) DAMN RIGHT IT IS. Reason vs emotion. You think it is cowardice, while it is actualy a survival strategy and means you live to describe to the police what the robber looked like.

I think some of what is considered random murders in the USA is a gun owner defending herself against an assailant, then fleeing the scene rather than be crucified for self-defense.

Got any evidence for this? Any evidence at all? Or are you just going by your gut feeling here?

Seems to me, the biggest category is domestic or street disputes where someone with a temper had access to a weapon of sorts. How many of the unknown category you figure falls within any of the other groups assigned? Chances are, a lot.

Self-defense. Against one or as many as come against you is an inalienable human right. Attacking someone is surrendering your right to protection by an act of your will.

That we can agree on. But in any case, I'd rather they come at me without access to weapons, then having to try and Rambo style opponents that, (ab)using the same rights as you, are armed to the teeth and probably a bit more just in case.

Banning assault rifles or high-capacity magazines is not constitutional, nor does it make crime stop. They tried a ban like that for decades in the USA. Crime failed to vanish. Shootings failed to vanish. Thus, it is a failed policy, and not worthy of resurrection.

Show me evidence of this attempt where they banned guns throughout the entirety of the USA, collected the weapons and came down hard legally on anyone owning weapons.

I can guarantee you it has been tried in separate states, which simply doesn't work if you can get guns next door. You've never wondered about how interstate travel goes? You see, you take a car, bus or train and travel a few hundred miles till you cross the state border. Then you go and find a weaponshop, buy stuff, and drive back.

No Traak, it's never been tried in the USA, what they tried was regional bans without it being in effect retroactively.

You're right about one thing though. They can't and shouldn't resurrect THAT policy. If they do it, it should account for the entire landmass of the USA in one go. It would have to be federal law that trumps state law and I would gander a constitutional change wouldn't be a bad idea either...

Your turn.

ziegler · 2012-09-18, 10:30 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...427r/?page=all

The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation’s steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

“It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

The report also noted that assault weapons were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

Figment: The FEDERAL assualt weapons ban....was nationwide.

Baneblade · 2012-09-18, 06:08 PM

It should be illegal to gun grab without paying 150% of the MSRP. That would stop it in its tracks.

Figment · 2012-09-18, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by ziegler

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...427r/?page=all

The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation’s steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

“It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

The report also noted that assault weapons were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

Figment: The FEDERAL assualt weapons ban....was nationwide.

Yeah... You don't seem to have read the report or your own text thoroughly:

How can you be surprised that a ban on a type of weapon that was already “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban” didn't have much effect?

I'm talking about firearms in general, you talk about an insignificant fraction. "Oh hey it didn't have much impact, so probably if we'd ban the gun types that are most commonly used like pistols, revolvers, semi-automatics and shotguns, that won't make much of an impact either!".

What did you expect? That most petty thieves use M16s?

Yeah... Token law failed, such evidence that gun laws in general would fail...

Traak · 2012-09-19, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by Vecha

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'll bite anyhow.

There is a difference between having the right to defend yourself...and having the privilege to use certain tools to do so.

While I don't agree with outright banning of certain guns, I think we need some rethinking on how we go about strengthening the way we ban certain people from getting said guns.

Well said.

ziegler · 2012-09-20, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah... You don't seem to have read the report or your own text thoroughly:

..

I did...hell...I lived through it. you stated there wasnt a natiowide gun ban.
There was, you asked for proof, I posted it along with proof that it was ineffectual and did nothing at all.

In order to ban guns nationwide....would take a constitutional amendment.

And even then, it would still take a civil war. Cause you would quite literally have to remove those 60 million registered gun owners weapons by force and then you'd have to worry about those of us who own unregistered weapons and will never give them up....from our cold dead hands as the saying goes. There isnt a police force in the USA that wants that propostion, and there are many that would probably be on the side of the people refusing to disarm. Most americans have been taught, and believe, when the government asks for your guns, it's time to kill the government.

Baneblade · 2012-09-20, 12:04 PM

The first thing a government that has reason to fear the people does is disarm the people.