Gun Control - Page 7

Firefly · 2012-07-23, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Superbus

I think most of you southerns are backwards fucking yokels

Presumption is the motherfucker of all motherfuckers, ain't it?

gufftroad · 2012-07-23, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Superbus

I think most of you southerns are backwards fucking yokels

thanks for presuming so much about a broad spectrum of people. locationist!!

CutterJohn · 2012-07-24, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah! Look at the homicide rates for knifes in the UK!

1,28 / 100.000

And the homicide rate in Iowa for guns is 0.74. In Vermont its 0.51, despite having some of the most lax laws in the country.

Both of these states have upwards of 40% of households with a gun.

Louisiana also has 40% gun ownership per household, and has a gun homicide rate of 10.5.

The problem is not guns. The problem is poverty and drug crimes.

**Malorn** · 2012-07-24, 01:40 AM

Meh.

Minigun · 2012-07-24, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

And the homicide rate in Iowa for guns is 0.74. In Vermont its 0.51, despite having some of the most lax laws in the country.

Both of these states have upwards of 40% of households with a gun.

Louisiana also has 40% gun ownership per household, and has a gun homicide rate of 10.5.

The problem is not guns. The problem is poverty and drug crimes.

New Orleans is the homicide capitol of the United States, only 2 hours away from where I live. I can say that city is rampant with drugs and crime, every time i've been to Bourbon Street there has been at least 1 homicide while I was there.

Many if not most come from illegally obtained, unregistered handguns, and fully automatic sub-machine guns and assault rifles (AK-47s). Some of the criminals even have body armor capable of stopping 7.62x39's.

If the law abiding citizens of that city didn't carry firearms the rate would be much higher I can promise you that.

BuzzCutPsycho · 2012-07-24, 02:21 AM

I can't be assed to read this entire thread because a good margin of the people in it are far below me in every way possible but I will leave this here for those who are interested (or capable) of reading.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/au...on-theater-had

Vash02 · 2012-07-24, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Oh hey, and then there was that guy in Norway last year who killed 77 people (many times more than the Colorado shooter) in a bomb & shooting spree. Norway has some strict gun control. Lot of good it did them.

It was a childrens camp, how many children are armed even in the US?

Figment · 2012-07-24, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

And the homicide rate in Iowa for guns is 0.74. In Vermont its 0.51, despite having some of the most lax laws in the country.

Both of these states have upwards of 40% of households with a gun.

Louisiana also has 40% gun ownership per household, and has a gun homicide rate of 10.5.

The problem is not guns. The problem is poverty and drug crimes.

Iowa and Vermont have next to no populace. Chances of crime are far lower than in the UK with the amount of huge city centers, including massive immigrant areas with higher unemployment rates.

So tbh, it's a bit weak to compare demographics like those with the UK.

You are allowed to give credit for that you know.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

"In one example, 21-year-old survivor Dana Barzingi described how several victims wounded by Breivik pretended to be dead to survive; but he later came back and shot them again. [...] A 22-year-old male begged for his life."

You realise you're just being a prick right? A very small island where they can't escape (many drowned trying to escape!), the fast majority of people being of very young age and you're now basically making the few adolescents and adults there responsible for the actions of a madman - even though you could also look at the police who took a very long time to act.

Plus you don't consider the way Breivik acted, by pretending to BE a cop by using a false uniform, people who only knew there was a killer came TOWARDS him at some points or didn't flee.

Lastly, he was single handedly responsible for DOUBLING the annual murderrate in the total of Norway in that year. So really? In 2010 there were 33 murders on 4.9 million people. I mean really, you're going to name one example of a guy who did get weapons he shouldn't have and used them to say the entire policy doesn't work to lower overal crimes and homicides? While the amount of nuts that go on a killing spree are significantly higher (almost 20 times higher) in the US? Really?

Originally Posted by Minigun

New Orleans is the homicide capitol of the United States, only 2 hours away from where I live. I can say that city is rampant with drugs and crime, every time i've been to Bourbon Street there has been at least 1 homicide while I was there.

Many if not most come from illegally obtained, unregistered handguns, and fully automatic sub-machine guns and assault rifles (AK-47s). Some of the criminals even have body armor capable of stopping 7.62x39's.

If the law abiding citizens of that city didn't carry firearms the rate would be much higher I can promise you that.

I can promise you that if those criminals did not have access to guns, the rates would be a lot lower.

Sabot · 2012-07-24, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

"In one example, 21-year-old survivor Dana Barzingi described how several victims wounded by Breivik pretended to be dead to survive; but he later came back and shot them again. [...] A 22-year-old male begged for his life."

I don't get your point... are you questioning the malnyhood of someone begging for his life at gun point? If so... GTFO, you disgust me. If I missunderstood, I'm sorry. But please explain.

Figment · 2012-07-24, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Sabot

I don't get your point... are you questioning the malnyhood of someone begging for his life at gun point? If so... GTFO, you disgust me. If I missunderstood, I'm sorry. But please explain.

He's suggesting that those few people - not being kids - could have had a gun and made a stand.

Sabot · 2012-07-24, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

He's suggesting that those few people - not being kids - could have had a gun and made a stand.

Ah.... I'm afraid not though.

Untrained and inexperienced kids with guns are going to stop a madman on a mission?

"Hello, is this Hollywood...?"

Accuser · 2012-07-24, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Sabot

Ah.... I'm afraid not though.

Untrained and inexperienced kids with guns are going to stop a madman on a mission?

"Hello, is this Hollywood...?"

Why couldn't a 22 year old Norwegian be trained and armed? Hell, in the U.S. we have combat veterans younger than that. You can enter the police academy at 20 if you'll hit 21 by the time you graduate.

Sabot · 2012-07-24, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

I was pointing out there were adults on the island capable of being armed.

Psychos are not trained to be Delta Force. They go for soft targets. And when met with equal force they either kill themselves, get killed, or surrender

So your solution is: Train everybody to handle a gun properly, train them to aim and hit what they're aiming at, and give them combat experience so not to fall into the fetal position and pee themselves when (if, lol) they come under fire? And preferably they should know this under the age of 20. I thought kids today had it tough enough learning math and history and socal studies and so on.... students and plumbers aren't exactly Delta Force either you know.

Or, we have a dedicated profession always active to deal with these situations... wait we have that! It's called the police. Why not spend all that money on training them properly?

Originally Posted by Accuser

Why couldn't a 22 year old Norwegian be trained and armed? Hell, in the U.S. we have combat veterans younger than that. You can enter the police academy at 20 if you'll hit 21 by the time you graduate.

Yeah, but arming civilians and expect them to deal with horrible situiations like that in not realistic... I'm not saying that had there been a kid there, armed (illegaly or legaly), with experience, that he/she couldn't have dealt with it. But to make that scenario the solution is straight up idiotic and irresponsible.
You already said the magic word... police. It's them you should spend money on and train them to deal with it more effectively.

Edit: "Unresponsible" Herp derp.

Baneblade · 2012-07-24, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sabot

So your solution is: Train everybody to handle a gun properly, train them to aim and hit what they're aiming at, and give them combat experience so not to fall into the fetal position and pee themselves when (if, lol) they come under fire? And preferably they should know this under the age of 20. I thought kids today had it tough enough learning math and history and socal studies and so on.... students and plumbers aren't exactly Delta Force either you know.

Or, we have a dedicated profession always active to deal with these situations... wait we have that! It's called the police. Why not spend all that money on training them properly?

Yeah, but arming civilians and expect them to deal with horrible situiations like that in not realistic... I'm not saying that had there been a kid there, armed (illegaly or legaly), with experience, that he/she couldn't have dealt with it. But to make that scenario the solution is straight up idiotic and unresponsible.
You already said the magic word... police. It's them you should spend money on and train them to deal with it more effectively.

If the police would respond in time to actually do something, you might have a point.

It is not the responsibility of the police to protect individuals. That is the responsibility of the individuals.

Sabot · 2012-07-24, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

If the police would respond in time to actually do something, you might have a point.

It is not the responsibility of the police to protect individuals. That is the responsibility of the individuals.

Hence, spend money to better train them, not to arm civilians.

It's their job to stop a madman on a killing spree... but why not just use the military to patrol every street then, if we want a weapon-presence around us at all times? Because it is not nice, it is not fun, it something dicators do to control people.

Serisouly.. listen to what you're saying. Essentially you want everyone to have the tools to instantly kill another human being at will. Sure, the majority might only use them in self defense. And the gangs and criminals can get a gun anyway if they want to. But what about school children? Will parents have to arm their children when they go to school? What if a bus driver had a really bad day, possibly accompanied by mental health issues, gets annoyed at some drunk kids singing a little too loud on the bus? Might shoot instead of just yell at them and throw them off the bus.
Some kids WILL be tempted at using their gun... it's like giving a lolly to a child and say "you can have that and look at it, but you can't taste it!". With no proper training it will go wrong sooner rather than later. Gun threats will become so common we eventually consider it not dangerous, forgetting what a gun shot wound actually does to a human.

No thank you... as someone that has seen what guns do to people, I'd rather restrict them as much as possible. Military personel and law enforcement... that is it. And by that I mean people allowed to carry firearms in public. If you want to own a gun for use at a range or as home defense... fine, just don't bring your weapon out in public.