I really don't want to shoot at or kill anybody. As someone who has lived in shitty poor places and in luxury, the hard truth is that its not always black and white with purpatrators of crime either. Mental issues, desperation etc. Who knows? People make mistakes and do horrible things in testing times. Whilst I'm all for punishment and not condoning such criminal behaviour, I'm also not going to be so quick to justify retribution by shooting someone up and likely taking their life.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons they fear will soon be outlawed
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I really don't want to shoot at or kill anybody. As someone who has lived in shitty poor places and in luxury, the hard truth is that its not always black and white with purpatrators of crime either. Mental issues, desperation etc. Who knows? People make mistakes and do horrible things in testing times. Whilst I'm all for punishment and not condoning such criminal behaviour, I'm also not going to be so quick to justify retribution by shooting someone up and likely taking their life.
Yea, I'm not saying to just look at gun law in general, but just start to see how other countires work in general. We're such an inward looking country.Of course the perspective of other countries is necessary but it's done in such a simplistic fashion. It's not just guns that have tighter control, there are better systems of primary education, social welfare, health care and ways in which they deal with economic disparity.
YES.Personally I'd like to see something done about handguns more than anything since they're the biggest issue.
I think the assault weapon thing, however you want to define it, is such a red herring. Those sorts of guns should be banned, no doubt, but that isn't a final solution sort of thing. As a first step, sure, but I think some groups will say, "Ok, we've compromised and done that, now lets move on." And that would be tragic. A handgun with an 18 round capacity isn't much less dangerous than an assault weapon in any sort of non-combat situation.
See, that is a pretty meaningless statement. What do you mean by assault weapons? It is such a horribly loaded term these days, it means a hundred things to different people.
My understanding was that there is already a clear definition of the term and that there was actually already an assault weapons ban too?
Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons are only good for murdering several people at one time. Single shot/bolt action are sufficient for hunting.
That would be my ideal end goal. A complete ban on semi-automatic weapons. There's no good justification for having them around.
CrunchyFrog
Member
I actually own a .38 for home defense. I go to the range a couple times a year to shoot and I have a concealed carry license (even though I don't take it outside my home unless I'm going to the range). My personal opinion is if I need more than that revolver for self-defense, I'm probably dead anyway.
This is the most ideal situation in our current climate, IMO, especially the bolded, however morbid that may seem.
I think what a lot of blanket anti-gun people seem to ignore is that in the ideal situation the gun would never have to be fired. The gun is meant to represent the threat of force and act as a deterrent by virtue of its very presence, think MAD doctrine on a small scale. Heat of the moment and panic aside, the idea is to only fire when is absolutely necessary and threat to life or serious harm is imminent. Non-lethal defense isn't always viable or effective.
Devolution
Member
Yea, I'm not saying to just look at gun law in general, but just start to see how other countires work in general. We're such an inward looking country.
The far right is pretty much holding any sort of beneficial things to our society hostage and the left is dead since the democrats moved center right.
YES.
I think the assault weapon thing, however you want to define it, is such a red herring. Those sorts of guns should be banned, no doubt, but that isn't a final solution sort of thing. As a first step, sure, but I think some groups will say, "Ok, we've compromised and done that, now lets move on." And that would be tragic. A handgun with an 18 round capacity isn't much less dangerous than an assault weapon in any sort of non-combat situation.
This much is true. Congress can look like they did something while the real issues that lead to such gun violence and the weapons most used remain untouched.
I really don't want to shoot at or kill anybody. As someone who has lived in shitty poor places and in luxury, the hard truth is that its not always black and white with purpatrators of crime either. Mental issues, desperation etc. Who knows? People make mistakes and do horrible things in testing times. Whilst I'm all for punishment and not condoning such criminal behaviour, I'm also not going to be so quick to justify retribution by shooting someone up and likely taking their life.
I'm sorry I wasn't being serious. I'm of the opinion if a criminal is coming into your house armed adding a second gun would only make the situation worse, even if that criminal is solely there to kill everyone in the house. Everyone's best chance at survival would have to be to get out of the house, rather than trying to survive a shootout and the aftermath of it.
metalslimer
Member
No I'm pretty sure they're a manifestation of fighting an 18th century war of independence.
And a good chunk of why that war started was American selfishness and invidualism.
Devolution
Member
I'm sorry I wasn't being serious. I'm of the opinion if a criminal is coming into your house armed adding a second gun would only make the situation worse, even if that criminal is solely their to just kill everyone in the house. Everyone's best chance at survival would have to be to get out of the house, rather than trying to survive a shootout.
The idea that everyone is in a situation where they can simply run out the back door is preposterous.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I don't think it's realistic to think people are always going to make the right choices in high pressure situations. And hell, the chances that you'll have to defend yourself with a gun are extremely slim...This is the most ideal situation in our current climate, IMO, especially the bolded, however morbid that may seem.
I think what a lot of blanket anti-gun people seem to ignore is that in the ideal situation the gun would never have to be fired. The gun is meant to represent the threat of force and act as a deterrent by virtue of its very presence, think MAD doctrine on a small scale. Heat of the moment and panic aside, the idea is to only fire when is absolutely necessary and threat to life or serious harm is imminent. Non-lethal defense isn't always viable or effective.
And a good chunk of why that war started was American selfishness and invidualism.
Wow
The truth is, a lot more innocent people will have to die in order for Americans to wake up to common sense and put aside their selfish desires or fears. Only when the majority of the public supports such out right bans will further progress take place. Fact that we're all discussing this so passionately is progress in itself. Just such a shame it takes such a heavy loss of life to get the mass populace active about it.
The idea that everyone is in a situation where they can simply run out the back door is preposterous.
Can't argue with that, haha.
The idea that everyone is in a situation where they can simply run out the back door is preposterous.
Yeah. I do kind of worry about my current place. If someone were to break in while I was asleep or something, they'd likely be breaking in by my door, and we don't have any other way out. The two exits/entrances are right next to each other, and we live on the 2nd floor of the house, so we can't get out of a window or anything.
I don't think it's realistic to think people are always going to make the right choices in high pressure situations. And hell, the chances that you'll have to defend yourself with a gun are extremely slim...
Both my Grandma and Mom were saved by a shotgun so I think it's more likely. Also keep in mind how many people live in apartments and are not on the ground floor and generally can only leave out their main door.
metalslimer
Member
You don't really think the fairy tale version told in high school history books is how it exactly happened right?
The idea that everyone is in a situation where they can simply run out the back door is preposterous.
yeah.. i live in a tiny little room with one door. i'm not sure what i'd do if somebody was trying to smash my door down. either pull out my machete and prepare for what the fuck ever, or jump out of my 2nd story window.
I hope no one ever kicks your door in god damn....I'm sorry I wasn't being serious. I'm of the opinion if a criminal is coming into your house armed adding a second gun would only make the situation worse, even if that criminal is solely there to kill everyone in the house. Everyone's best chance at survival would have to be to get out of the house, rather than trying to survive a shootout and the aftermath of it.
Devolution
Member
The truth is, a lot more innocent people will have to die in order for Americans to wake up to common sense and put aside their selfish desires or fears. Only when the majority of the public supports such out right bans will further progress take place. Fact that we're all discussing this so passionately is progress in itself. Just such a shame it takes such a heavy loss of life to get the mass populace active about it.
You're underestimating the lobbies in place to make sure that any roads towards progress are blocked. When people got blown up in OKC they put regulations on the amounts of fertilizer you could buy. When people got attacked by vicious dogs they made it so you had to register your dog every year. It's more complicated than doing the right thing, there are forces in place that will impede progress on this issue over and over again.
Yeah. I do kind of worry about my current place. If someone were to break in while I was asleep or something, they'd likely be breaking in by my door, and we don't have any other way out. The two exits/entrances are right next to each other, and we live on the 2nd floor of the house, so we can't get out of a window or anything.
The chances of someone coming in to kill you and all your family are monumentally slim. Don't let such improbable fear dictate your life. If you do get robbed chances are it's because the thieves need the cash. Let em have it if they're armed and just claim on insurance afterwards. Gold prices are sky high at the moment and if you do claim and have gold cover, chances are you're going to get handsomely covered anyway.
Sorry, that's not how it works. The amendment has two parts, the law (right to bear arms will not be infringed) and its justification (well-regulated militia).
The amendment says the right of the people to bear arms cannot be infringed, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
It doesn't say that as long as the militia is necessary, the people can bear arms, and once it's not necessary, they can't. The fact that you don't believe the justification has no impact on the law part.
Even if it did, the militia as currently defined by US law includes all males from the ages of 17 to 45 anyway, so even if the Supreme Court (illegally) decided that the law part of the amendment was invalid because the justification was no longer important, those people would still be able to own weapons.
There are 2 US militias
The unorganized militia and the organized militia.
That "well-regulated" part doesn't apply to the unorganized militia (all able-bodied males 17-45), only the organized militia.
Devolution
Member
The chances of someone coming in to kill you and all your family are monumentally slim. Don't let such improbable fear dictate your life. If you do get robbed chances are it's because the thieves need the cash. Let em have it if they're armed abd just claim on insurance. Gold prices are sky high and if you do claim and have gold cover, chances are you're going to get handsomely covered anyway.
A lot of robberies here don't just end with the person getting what they initially came for and leaving.
The chances of someone coming in to kill you and all your family are monumentally slim. Don't let such improbable fear dictate your life. If you do get robbed chances are it's because the thieves need the cash. Let em have it if they're armed and just claim on insurance afterwards. Gold prices are sky high at the moment and if you do claim and have gold cover, chances are you're going to get handsomely covered anyway.
I realize that. Especially in the town I'm in now I probably have a greater chance to win the lottery than to have something like that happen. And as you said, they'd probably be after stuff, not people, so I'd probably just hide in a closet or something. Who knows. It ain't going to happen anyway. Thus, why I don't have a gun. I guess if fear dictated my life I'd already have one. Or if I lived in a worse neighborhood, I suppose I'd be a bit more fearful.
Might get a gun eventually, though. My wife wants to eventually raise meat rabbits, so she'll probably have something for that. And at my work I feel like I'm the odd man out because I'm the only one without a gun, and they go down and shoot targets and stuff sometimes. But, I dunno, I don't really see the appeal in that for as much as you pay for a gun.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons are only good for murdering several people at one time. Single shot/bolt action are sufficient for hunting.
That's simply factually false. Ignoring the fact that automatic weapons are already restricted and are super-expensive and that handgun crime FAR outstrips "long" gun (shotgun/rifle) crime....Sem-automatics have legitimate functions regardless of if you approve of that or not. AR-15 style rifles *are* used by many hunters. They're lighter, weather resistant, easier to clean, better for customization, replacement parts are cheaper (and standardized in many cases), and serve more than one purpose. Hunting, recreational shooting, competition, and yes....home defense. It’s a multi-purpose, all weather, terrain variable, firearm.
But we should ignore its legitimate use when a criminal abuses it? I'm not willing to trade my rights away for the illusion of security. And make no mistake, that's what it is. Because NOTHING in a semi-auto ban would have stopped what happened in CT. Dude had a pistol and a shotgun as well. He wouldn't have turned back and went home. He would have used the shotgun and pistol. And then I'm supposed to vilify the shotgun and pistol instead of the murderer misusing it? Gun control? I want maniac control. As well as reasonable legislation. Banning a firearm isn't legal. It's feel-good nonsense that accomplishes nothing. And when it doesn't work and another shooting happens we'll want even more laws because we didn't even begin to deal with the real reasons for this type of psychotic violence.
A lot of robberies here don't just end with the person getting what they initially came for and leaving.
Most probably because of the violence that ensues. I.e both parties getting in to a violent altercation, using weapons, guns etc. Beyond that you're talking about shit that is incredibly rare. You have more chance dying a million different other ways than someone coming in to your house and killing you in cold blood. Hell, crossing the road outside your house is probably order of magnitude more likely to end tragically than what some of you are suggesting. Using such scenarios to justify gun use and violence only adds to the problem imo.
Watch ID or first 48 a lot if criminals don't care and won't leave any witness its not rare at all.Most probably because of the violence that ensues. I.e both parties getting in to a violent altercation, using weapons, guns etc. Beyond that you're talking about shit that is incredibly rare. You have more chance dying a million different other ways than someone coming in to your house and killing you in cold blood. Hell, crossing the road outside your house is probably more likely to end tragically than what some of you are suggesting. Using such scenarios to justify gun use and violence only adds to the problem imo.
So what you're saying is that all those qualities bolded are impossible to design into a single-shot variant?That's simply factually false. Ignoring the fact that automatic weapons are already restricted and are super-expensive and that handgun crime FAR outstrips "long" gun (shotgun/rifle) crime....Sem-automatics have legitimate functions regardless of if you approve of that or not. AR-15 style rifles *are* used by many hunters. They're lighter, weather resistant, easier to clean, better for customization, replacement parts are cheaper (and standardized in many cases), and serve more than one purpose. Hunting, recreational shooting, competition, and yes....home defense. Its a multi-purpose, all weather, terrain variable, firearm.
But we should ignore its legitimate use when a criminal abuses it? I'm not willing to trade my rights away for the illusion of security. And make no mistake, that's what it is. Because NOTHING in a semi-auto ban would have stopped what happened in CT. Dude had a pistol and a shotgun as well. He wouldn't have turned back and went home. He would have used the shotgun and pistol. And then I'm supposed to vilify the shotgun and pistol instead of the murderer misusing it? Gun control? I want maniac control. As well as reasonable legislation. Banning a firearm isn't legal. It's feel-good nonsense that accomplishes nothing. And when it doesn't work and another shooting happens we'll want even more laws because we didn't even begin to deal with the real reasons for this type of psychotic violence.
I think some of y'all just need to admit that it really comes down to enjoying the extra killing efficiency and nothing more.
Devolution
Member
Most probably because of the violence that ensues. I.e both parties getting in to a violent altercation, using weapons, guns etc. Beyond that you're talking about shit that is incredibly rare. You have more chance dying a million different other ways than someone coming in to your house and killing you in cold blood. Hell, crossing the road outside your house is probably order of magnitude more likely to end tragically than what some of you are suggesting. Using such scenarios to justify gun use and violence only adds to the problem imo.
Killing people in the act of robbing them is not "rare." This is why it's frustrating talking to people outside the US about this issue.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The chances of someone coming in to kill you and all your family are monumentally slim. Don't let such improbable fear dictate your life.
It's not even "fear". It's simply the acceptance of the fact that bad shit sometimes happens and that there are cruel people out there that don't give a fuck. If you want to rationalize that by saying "Oh it could never happen to me" I completely understand how comforting that sentiment can be. But just as I set an alarm despite the "odds" I also keep a firearm in my home. I'd rather have it and never need it than despite the odds need it and simply not have it. Is it a guarantee of safety? Of course not. There is no such thing in like but it's one tiny step to give me the potential tools to defend myself if need be.
Mammoth Jones
Member
So what you're saying is that all those qualities bolded are impossible to design into a single-shot variant?
Does that even matter when the criminals aren't going to use single shot variants? That's unrealistic. America isn't going back to single-shot guns. That's unrealistic and not even worth entertaining.
I think some of y'all just need to admit that it really comes down to enjoying the extra killing efficiency and nothing more.
That's kinda why firearm technology has evolved past muskets....
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Sale will be outlawed, not possession. We have GAF posters who have promised to murder any federal agents who come to collect their weapons if there is a ban.
That position is so normalized in our society that you can express it here without being banned.
it really is what's wrong with America. Only way to fix it is to implement the ban, then wait 50 years for the crazy generation to die off.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
So what you're saying is that all those qualities bolded are impossible to design into a single-shot variant?
I think some of y'all just need to admit that it really comes down to enjoying the extra killing efficiency and nothing more.
Something becomes better for home defense and hunting if you don't have to reload after firing one round. You put it under "killing efficiency", but that's just using loaded language to describe what we already know. Being able to fire a rapid followup shot is not only applicable to homicide. Now, you can go right ahead and say that you think the cost of having this available for crimes outweighs the benefits it confers to people using it as legally intended, but don't be an idiot about this please.
Angelus Errare
Banned
"It doesn't affect me so fuck their rights."
The Republican/Conservative tagline. (Not directed at you, just something I like pointing out).
Watch ID or first 48 a lot if criminals don't care and won't leave any witness its not rare at all.
Its such a shame that American culture is so enshrined in fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of murderors, fear of minorities, fear of muslims, fear of gay marriage, fear of universal health care, fear of change lol. I know all countries and cultures have it do a degree, but amoung the Western developed nations I think fear is more intrinsic to American culture than many or most, and its part of the problem that often breeds such precautionary justifications.
WonkyPanda
Member
Sorry, that's not how it works. The amendment has two parts, the law (right to bear arms will not be infringed) and its justification (well-regulated militia).
The amendment says the right of the people to bear arms cannot be infringed, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
It doesn't say that as long as the militia is necessary, the people can bear arms, and once it's not necessary, they can't. The fact that you don't believe the justification has no impact on the law part.
Even if it did, the militia as currently defined by US law includes all males from the ages of 17 to 45 anyway, so even if the Supreme Court (illegally) decided that the law part of the amendment was invalid because the justification was no longer important, those people would still be able to own weapons.
Again, this logic seriously has very little weight when actually gauged against the State declaration of rights. Things that EXPRESSLY protect the use of civilian arms at the time makes absolutely no sense if it was an "unalienable" right granted by the Const. There's a good reason why states, like PA and NY, felt it necessary to pass their own Declaration of Rights that allow for their citizens to bear arms OUTSIDE of a militia.
Devolution
Member
Its such a shame that American culture is so enshrined in fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of murderors, fear of minorities, fear of muslims, fear of gay marriage, fear of change lol. I know all countries and cultures have it do a degree, but amoung the Western developed nations I think fear is more intrinsic to American culture, and its part of the problem that often breeds such precautionary justifications.
Rape, assaults, robbery and violent home invasions that include homicide aren't as rare as you think and they happen in neighborhoods people think is "above" such crime. Why wouldn't people be scared?
CrunchyFrog
Member
I don't think it's realistic to think people are always going to make the right choices in high pressure situations.
Which is why I'm also for background checks and training to alleviate that as much as possible, though conceding that, yes, people will always be human and no amount of preparation can ever truly prepare you for the real thing.
And hell, the chances that you'll have to defend yourself with a gun are extremely slim...
I'm going to fundamentally disagree with you on that one. Plenty of older/infirmed or just less able-bodied men or women who can't defend themselves with physical force alone, and there are plenty of armed (and not just with guns) crimes in which the perpetrator has ill-intent specifically against the victim and which give the victim no recourse. Violent crime (even those without guns) is a harsh but true reality around here, and non-lethal defense just isn't an effective substitute in the majority of those cases. I'm lucky enough to live in a neighborhood where such a thing is next to non-existent and thus don't feel the need to own a weapon, but my apartment last year sure as hell wasn't in a safe neighborhood and there are still plenty of people in this country who live in such places either out of necessity or circumstance.
I agree that a simple ban on assault weapons won't fix the issue, which is why legislation should also focus on closing the patently stupid gun show loop hole and better regulate the distribution of other firearms through mandatory background checks and training. Those who wish to continue to use assault weapons for the sake of recreation (however asinine I personally believe such a concept to be) I might be willing to consider allowing, but only to be kept and maintained via heavily licensed and overseen recreational facilities and NOT for personal home use. There's no need to have it in your house at all times for the purposes of recreation, and there are plenty of effective and safer alternatives for home defense. Though the notion of a weapon with such overly deadly and destructive force as something used for "recreation" irks me a great deal.
Does that even matter when the criminals aren't going to use single shot variants? That's unrealistic. America isn't going back to single-shot guns. That's unrealistic and not even worth entertaining.
1) Develop a home defense weapon that isn't lethal and can fire multiple rounds.Something becomes better for home defense and hunting if you don't have to reload after firing one round. You put it under "killing efficiency", but that's just using loaded language to describe what we already know. Being able to fire a rapid followup shot is not only applicable to homicide. Now, you can go right ahead and say that you think the cost of having this available for crimes outweighs the benefits it confers to people using it as legally intended, but don't be an idiot about this please.
2) For hunting, oh well. Become a better shot. If we're really going to accept loads and loads of people dying just so hunting is made a little easier, then again - our attitudes are fucked.
I agree Mammoth, that it'll probably never happen. But thats mainly because of people like you who insist on having them. You're the problem, man.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Rape, assaults, robbery and violent home invasions that include homicide aren't as rare as you think and they happen in neighborhoods people think is "above" such crime. Why wouldn't people be scared?
I've never lived in a country with such fearful people as in America. If it's justified, that's even more worrisome. Why is America such a fucking unsafe place to live?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Rape, assaults, robbery and violent home invasions that include homicide aren't as rare as you think and they happen in neighborhoods people think is "above" such crime. Why wouldn't people be scared?
Here's crime where I live (removed actual name to maintain some semblance of privacy):
The crime rate is considerably higher than the national average across all communities in America from the largest to the smallest, although at 37 crimes per one thousand residents, it is not among the communities with the very highest crime rate. The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in XXXXXX is 1 in 27. Based on FBI crime data, it is not one of the safest communities in America. Relative to New York, it has a crime rate that is higher than 91% of the state's cities and towns of all sizes.
Importantly, when you compare XXXXXX to other communities of similar population, then the crime rate (violent and property crimes combined) is quite a bit higher than average. Regardless of how XXXXX does relative to all communities in America of all sizes, when NeighborhoodScout compared it to communities of similar population size, its crime rate per thousand residents stands out as higher than most.
Now let us turn to take a look at how XXXXX does for violent crimes specifically, and then how it does for property crimes. This is important because the overall crime rate can be further illuminated by understanding if violent crime or property crimes (or both) are the major contributors to the general rate of crime in XXXXX.
From our analysis, we discovered that violent crime in XXXXX occurs at a rate higher than in most communities of all population sizes in America. The chance that a person will become a victim of a violent crime in XXXXXX; such as armed robbery, aggravated assault, rape or murder; is 1 in 261. This equates to a rate of 4 per one thousand inhabitants.
NeighborhoodScout's analysis also reveals that XXXXXXX's rate for property crime is 33 per one thousand population. This makes XXXXXX a place where there is an above average chance of becoming a victim of a property crime, when compared to all other communities in America of all population sizes. Property crimes are motor vehicle theft, arson, larceny, and burglary. Your chance of becoming a victim of any of these crimes in XXXXXX is one in 30.
Importantly, we found that XXXXXXX has one of the highest rates of motor vehicle theft in the nation according to our analysis of FBI crime data. This is compared to communities of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest. In fact, your chance of getting your car stolen if you live in XXXXXX is one in 310.
You're the problem, man.
But as a gun owner I'm characterized as the problem? Yea, I'm gonna defend myself and my home. Sorry GAF. We don't all live in a utopia. I'd rather my government deal with WHY crime is that high and people aren't out there stealing cars and breaking into home to fuel their gun habit...
Devolution
Member
I've never lived in a country with such fearful people as in America. If it's justified, that's even more worrisome. Why is America such a fucking unsafe place to live?
Poverty. Economic disparity. Awful primary education. You name it.
Rape, assaults, robbery and violent home invasions that include homicide aren't as rare as you think and they happen in neighborhoods people think is "above" such crime. Why wouldn't people be scared?
That's really not all that common, actually
*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.
*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for
36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary.
Rape, assaults, robbery and violent home invasions that include homicide aren't as rare as you think and they happen in neighborhoods people think is "above" such crime. Why wouldn't people be scared?
I believe theres like 700 robberies per 100, 000 people. Of those 20% are home related. Thats like what, 0.0014 chance per person? And then even less of those burglaries result in death, rape or assault. So you get the picture. Is the number far to high? Yes compared to most countries. But its still very low and not a good justification for guns.
CrunchyFrog
Member
I've never lived in a country with such fearful people as in America. If it's justified, that's even more worrisome. Why is America such a fucking unsafe place to live?
Innumerable factors, but it's reality all the same. Thankfully a lot of such crime is mostly confined to those relatively few densely populated areas. It's not like every square mile of the US is a giant blood pool.
Devolution
Member
It's not nearly as rare as he was insinuating and when it happens in an idyllic community which it eventually does, people will be scared. Plus some areas are more prone to crime than others. I happened to live not that far away from two of the worst cities in the nation when I was back in California.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I believe theres like 700 robberies per 100, 000 people. Of those 20% of those are home related. Thats like what, 0.0014 chance per person? And then even less of those burglaries result in death, rape or assault. So you get the picture. Is the number far to high? Yes compared to most countries. But its still very low and not a good justification for guns.
Read my area's stats posted above and get back to me.
These numbers are supposed to put us at peace?
Mammoth Jones
Member
These numbers are supposed to put us at peace?
National gun crimes aren't relevant. Some places in the US are FAR safer than others.
These numbers are supposed to put us at peace?
Devo made it sound like this shit happens all the time all around us and we should be fearful of it because it's so common.
Most robberies target businesses, not homes, anyway. Of the ones that target homes, most happen when absolutely no one's home. Most also come through an unlocked door or window, so you could prevent quite a bit right there. And of those home burglaries someone was victimized only 7% of the time. And of those serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries.
So, realistically, people aren't just breaking in and murdering people all over the country. It's a pretty damned rare thing, actually. I mean, you can still be scared. It's still a number that we should take down a notch, for sure. But let's not act like it's way larger than it really is.
Those stats are also a bit dated. Violent crime is has been on the decline since, then, too.
Devolution
Member
Devo made it sound like this shit happens all the time all around us and we should be fearful of it because it's so common.
Most robberies target businesses, not homes, anyway. Of the ones that target homes, most happen when absolutely no one's home. Most also come through an unlocked door or window, so you could prevent quite a bit right there. And of those home burglaries someone was victimized only 7% of the time. And of those serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries.
So, realistically, people aren't just breaking in and murdering people all over the country. It's a pretty damned rare thing, actually.
How common did I say it really was other than say it's not "rare." Christ.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.