-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The new GA thread of polarizing controversy! (gun debate)
- Thread starter Zaptruder
- Start date
- Status
I personally think the world would be a much more interesting place if we replaced all Guns with Swords. Broadswords, Claymores, Katanas, I don't give a shit. See what happens. Shits and giggles. Drive by shootings? Gone. Replaced with fuckin duels or something. Guns going on by accident? You slice your finger open with the blade. How quick will you be to pull that sword knowing the person has one too?
For real people. Melt down the guns, pick up some swords, and see how big your balls really are. Guns are for pussies. Always have been, from the beginning to now. Only reason you need guns, is because other pussies have guns so you need a gun to protect yourself from other pussies. Discuss. =)
</random late night derailing of DOOM>
For real people. Melt down the guns, pick up some swords, and see how big your balls really are. Guns are for pussies. Always have been, from the beginning to now. Only reason you need guns, is because other pussies have guns so you need a gun to protect yourself from other pussies. Discuss. =)
</random late night derailing of DOOM>
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
Guns don't kill people, Rappers do!
(I saw it on a documentary on BBC2)
(I saw it on a documentary on BBC2)
MrPing1000
Member
for america guns are always going to be about. Its rediculous for anyone to suggest banning them. Simply not going to happen. But they do need more safety checks etc.
Its funny how thing are so much different in the UK, we are a very antigun society, probably pretty liberal by American standards
Its funny how thing are so much different in the UK, we are a very antigun society, probably pretty liberal by American standards
karasu
Member
belgurdo said:
Because everyone in the middle ages didn't have swords, and if you pulled one you better know how to use it because your opponent would probably know how to use his. With guns, all it takes is desire. With melee weapons it's about skill. Even archers were looked down on back in the day.
I think you sword advocates are a bit fucking loopy as well.
It would be cool in an alternate fictional universe type deal...
but the main point is the disparity of weapons available to people.
Not everyone has the intent or the economic viability to possess a weapon.
As long as disparity in weapon use exists, you'll see many forms of weapon violence... the gun is a tool that increases the disparity between gun users and non gun users too greatly.
While, you could arm all of america with weapons and give them training (like Switzerland I think), it would probably be safer to not have any of those people with guns at all.
It would be cool in an alternate fictional universe type deal...
but the main point is the disparity of weapons available to people.
Not everyone has the intent or the economic viability to possess a weapon.
As long as disparity in weapon use exists, you'll see many forms of weapon violence... the gun is a tool that increases the disparity between gun users and non gun users too greatly.
While, you could arm all of america with weapons and give them training (like Switzerland I think), it would probably be safer to not have any of those people with guns at all.
captainbiotch
Banned
People think they can just legislate their safety. Ban guns and problems will go away. It just doesn't work that way in reality (that place we should all be). All those rapists, robbers, murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, and gang members will still be there the next day. Sure, guns are for people who can't kill people with their karate chop or pocket knife. Guns are for little old ladies whom armed home invaders love to target. Guns are for shop clerks when armed thugs wave weapons in their face and ask for the money in the register. Guns are for people in cabins in Alaska that have a bear knock on their door at 3 am. Guns in the hands of citizens made the United States what it is, although doubtful many people care to understand any of the values the country was founded upon. Personal responsibility is on the way out. People want government to be their tool in creating their utopias. Those people are bound for disappointment, and its sad that probably the only way they will realize it is trial and error. People being responsible for their own safety, the safety of their family, and the safety of their own property only does good, the facts point to it, whether it be the crime statistics in areas that have enacted conceal carry laws, or the crime statistics in countries that have banned guns. Every dictator and despot knows the only way to control their population is by disarming them.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19563.html As the article says, gun control is the way for armed oppressors to control an unarmed population.
Guns should be outlawed for the general population. Hunting guns are OK for farmers etc. but for a regular person's "personal protection" it should not be an option.
I mean, where I live, gun ownership is so low. Not even "normal" police carry guns (some detectives do, anti-gang units etc. but that's it), so it's not a matter of armed people controlling unarmed people.
I mean, where I live, gun ownership is so low. Not even "normal" police carry guns (some detectives do, anti-gang units etc. but that's it), so it's not a matter of armed people controlling unarmed people.
I've been wondering vaguely about gun control ever since the Dean campaign.
I don't like guns. If it was up to me, there would be fewer guns. I don't think gun proliferation makes people safer, and I don't like the macho fantasies that develop around them, where men start hoping someone invades their home so they can deal out some righteous wrath in the name of self-defense.
But I do like guns. Shooting things is cool, and I've probably fired hundreds of thousands of imaginary rounds of bullets and lasers and stuff.
I don't have an urge to hunt, but I have no problem with other people hunting. If I don't object to something that involves guns, I can't very well object to the people who do that owning guns.
Guns really are different from swords. Guns are small, and can be instantly deadly from a distance. When guns are involved, a brief moment of anger can have permanent consequences.
The pro-gun lobby says more enforcement is needed, rather than more laws. I think that statement's right, even though I don't think they want more enforcement either. "More guns, less crime" isn't true, but if "more guns, same crime" is true, then taking guns away from non-felons shouldn't be a high priority. Ineffective gun laws that only alienate gun owners are counterproductive for gun-control advocates and progressives in general. This whole paragraph was stolen from Mark Kleiman.
Guns as a defense of individual liberties in the United States today is bogus. The idea is adopted by militia types on the right wing, and wannabe guerillas on the left wing. Both equate violence with freedom. This is a bad thing to do.
I don't like guns. If it was up to me, there would be fewer guns. I don't think gun proliferation makes people safer, and I don't like the macho fantasies that develop around them, where men start hoping someone invades their home so they can deal out some righteous wrath in the name of self-defense.
But I do like guns. Shooting things is cool, and I've probably fired hundreds of thousands of imaginary rounds of bullets and lasers and stuff.
I don't have an urge to hunt, but I have no problem with other people hunting. If I don't object to something that involves guns, I can't very well object to the people who do that owning guns.
Guns really are different from swords. Guns are small, and can be instantly deadly from a distance. When guns are involved, a brief moment of anger can have permanent consequences.
The pro-gun lobby says more enforcement is needed, rather than more laws. I think that statement's right, even though I don't think they want more enforcement either. "More guns, less crime" isn't true, but if "more guns, same crime" is true, then taking guns away from non-felons shouldn't be a high priority. Ineffective gun laws that only alienate gun owners are counterproductive for gun-control advocates and progressives in general. This whole paragraph was stolen from Mark Kleiman.
Guns as a defense of individual liberties in the United States today is bogus. The idea is adopted by militia types on the right wing, and wannabe guerillas on the left wing. Both equate violence with freedom. This is a bad thing to do.
captainbiotch said:
The reality is
1. Guns make it that much easier for people to kill others. Makes it that much more likely.
Just like hot weather has a real affect on homicide rate, so does gun availability.
2. Many other non-dictator non-evil governments have advocated gun control.
3. In all honesty, in an actual war where civilians were trying to use their guns to stop the government from whatever... the government would use the media as its primary tool of oppression; labelling those people as far out extremist rebels (just as many governments all across the world has done) and confusing the issue for the general person, and generally using their far superior military force to crush the hell outta the 'rebels'.
The high availability of guns in poorly trained civilian hands has the REAL effect of killing tens of thousands of civilians and wounding/maiming hundreds of thousands every year.
It also means that it's that much easier for people to create and access a black market for weapons.
Personal responsibility is all good and well, but let's be realistic here. Not all people will be as responsible as you wish... nor can it create a paradise by itself.
captainbiotch
Banned
Mandark said:
That is your problem. If you haven't put any meaningful thought into it you haven't gotten anywhere. And no, the 5 minutes it took to read this thread and type an answer doesn't cut it.
So what? If it were up to me, people would float on candy rainbows. Deal with reality. What is gun proliferation? Illegal guns on the streets? Or people who legally purchase weapons? Do you think you should be judging other peoples fantasies? Should we base laws on fantasies? Should we put people in jail over fantasies? Some people have misplaced anger. Read any thread on this forum and you'll find people with misplaced anger. It is a fact of life.
I like guns too. I'd rather hit my hand with a hammer than accidently point one of my guns at a person. I don't want to ever kill someone. If I had to though for a very good reason, I would. If someone doesn't respect the sanctity of your life, they don't deserve that sanctity themselves. People kill each other. There are a lot of bad people in the world. It is a FACT. If you don't believe this you are absolutely stupid ass crazy.
Logic is an amazing thing.
When knives/fists/staplers/cars/gasoline/airplanes/rocks/spears are involved. Violence is a crime you know, laws are designed(they should be anyway) to take people that commit crimes out of society for the safety of all.
Take away guns and you still have poverty and drugs and criminals they breed. Just no way for anyone to protect themselves from them. Just because you personally haven't defended yourself with a gun doesn't mean millions of others haven't.
It isn't about equating violence with freedom. It is about freedom being imposed upon by politicians and mobs and their laws and their police. There have been many points in history where violence or the surrendering of your rights have been the last two options. It has happened in dozens of countries this century. There will be again. Just because your mind cannot imagine such a situation does not make it reality. Get used to that. Freedom is always there, there are just different lengths people will go to ensure what they want.
captainbiotch
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Take them away and you still have people that want to kill others. Just no guns to do it, they'll find another way.
How much more likely exactly?
Thankfully a lot of people don't base their decisions on logic such as this.
and they have the rising crime rates to prove just how effective those laws were!
Oh yes, this surely happens EVERY time. The Revolutionary War must've been my imagination. And the Civil War. Or countless other civil wars.
The high availability of CARS in poorly trained civilian hands has the real effect of killing many more. Or the high availability of cigarettes and fatty foods. Doesn't prove why guns should be banned outright, or laws made to curtail the supply.
Nope, the education of society is a constant process. I never expect a paradise, I just know a USA without a gun ban would be better than one with.
captainbiotch said:
Gun proliferation... deals with how easy it is to get guns and even assault weapons.
Wrong. Sanctity of life applies to all people regardless of their views.
You seem to think that the people that have and will kill, are fated or destined to do so. That if they didn't have a gun, they'd use a knife. That if they didn't have a knife, they'd use their hands.
Of course, stated in such a manner, it's blatantly obvious how wrong that seems.
The ideal of the gun is that it can protect you and your loved ones from other gun toting (or even non gun toting) sonsofbitches.
The reality is that more guns bought for the purposes of protecting loved ones are used against them in a fit of rage... in the height of emotion, then they have ever been for saving lives against malicious intruders.
The reality is, guns make killing all too easy and that their decreased quantity would have a direct correlation in the fall of the number of homicides (caused by anything) in the country.
But I'll give you a qualifier. Guns + stupid people = bad combination.
if guns were none transferable (fingerprint recognition on trigger?) and required a large amount of training before one was given certification to own a gun... then it would be very fair and safe. And probably do more good then harm.
captainbiotch said:
1. Shames me to say it, but go do your own damn research. I'll be extremely suprised to see you prove me wrong tho. Like finding out the world is actually flat suprised.
2. Logic or not, the data shows that higher tempratures increase homicide rate. Just as data shows weapon availability increases homicide rates. No logic. Pure fact.
The logic is that should be derived is that, increased gun availability leads to REAL INCREASES IN HOMICIDE RATES, just as other factors have real increases in homicide rates. Some things can be controlled/mitigated. Other things can't.
3. This time I'll have to ask you to show me the facts and figures.
4. Last I checked those wars occured before the advent of the television and the general effective spread of communications. Occured before the invention and rise of aircrafts and tanks. Times change, what was once effective and true is no longer the reality.
5. Civilians get more training using cars then people are required for guns. More over, the use of cars is much higher than that of guns. And most importantly, their primary functions are far far removed from actually maiming or stopping people from doing stuff (i.e. by killing them).
That said, there are MANY laws governing the use of vehicles, designed to stop them from been as deadly a weapon as they could be... including but not restricted to traffic rules, speed limits, etc, etc.
Why aren't they just removed entirely then in that case? Because again, their primary purpose is for the quick and efficient traversal of distance... that is balanced with the need to stop them from been deadly weapons. Ultimately its a system that works.
But guns... for the killing/maiming of people, aren't subject to as rigorous a set of laws as vehicles?
Guns are cool. The last, and still unposted, Tale of Depravity has a gun in it, at one bit.
I'm as liberal as they come, but I came of age in a part of the country where firearms of all sorts were ubiquitous. They're fun for things like target practice, but I do think permits for things like assault rifles and handguns should come with an IQ test.
This reminds me I miss paintball.
I'm avoiding making certain cracks because then people would know what to watch out for in the story.
I'm as liberal as they come, but I came of age in a part of the country where firearms of all sorts were ubiquitous. They're fun for things like target practice, but I do think permits for things like assault rifles and handguns should come with an IQ test.
This reminds me I miss paintball.
I'm avoiding making certain cracks because then people would know what to watch out for in the story.
captainbiotch
Banned
If it is kill or be killed, what is the sanctity of your killers life then? Or kill or be raped? Or kill or be beaten to a pulp?Zaptruder said:
Ah yes, before guns, no one killed each other.
It can. You aim and fire.
Oh really? I missed that study.
I see.
Yup.
I agree, public demand for locks, keypad entry, or thumbprint identification would help a lot to prevent accidental deaths, and the stealing of guns for use in crimes. I don't agree with certification to own a gun. The last thing the government needs is a stranglehold on the one right that prevents them from getting too much of a stranglehold.
The Faceless Master
Member
it would be great if we couild go back in time and prevent people from having guns, then i'd be all for gun control... but it's just too easy for a criminal to get a gun, so it should be fairly easy for legal minded people to get guns to protect themselves from criminal elements...
captainbiotch said:
when facing life threatening circumstances, the sanctity of your life is still precious; if that means having to disable them with a gun, then as unfortunate as that is, then that's what needs to be done.
What it doesn't mean is a free license for some gun owner (or anyone really) to kill someone that doesn't share their view on the sanctity of life.
And yes, people killed people before guns. They just didn't kill people that efficiently, and there weren't as many pussies killing other people before... the gun is a great enabler... gives people that wouldn't otherwise have the ability, even with the intent, the ability AND intent to kill. Hell, it does more than that, it makes it to easy and to quick for them to do it... so that intent to kill becomes like a hair trigger... the threshold is too easily crossed resulting in easily regretable actions.
Get it through your thick head, the government doesn't have some sort of fucked up conspiracy plot to turn America into a totalitarian state, as soon as it wrests those handguns and the occasional shotty from the hands of some of the people. It could if it wanted now, willfully kick the crap out of civilian asses if it so desired.
But it goes one better and it would be all too easy for them to isolate and preemptively label the people that threaten the security of the government... I mean the nation as terrorists.
Like it already seems to be doing. But you probably won't know it until it's too late, gun or not.
And faceless...
where do you think the guns that criminals have originate from? They're not importing AK-47s... most of the homicide weapons are the simplest weapons to acquire... most of the crims weapons are the simplest weapons to acquire.
I should keep this quote on my hard drive so I don't have to go and find it every time there's a gun debate thread:
"Like, I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.
(Angry tourist voice) You call this a sandwich? BANG! BANG! You don't boil pizza! BANG! BANG!
(Scared English voice) That's the way we eat here, that's the way we eat here! BANG!
(Tourist voice) This food sucks! BANG!"
Interesting to note that the latest big news story in the UK about a shooting (in which a man shot down a policeman and then shot him in the head at point blank range) the criminal was an American.
"Like, I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.
(Angry tourist voice) You call this a sandwich? BANG! BANG! You don't boil pizza! BANG! BANG!
(Scared English voice) That's the way we eat here, that's the way we eat here! BANG!
(Tourist voice) This food sucks! BANG!"
Interesting to note that the latest big news story in the UK about a shooting (in which a man shot down a policeman and then shot him in the head at point blank range) the criminal was an American.
captainbiotch
Banned
Data doesn't speak for itself. It is all in how you interprete it. There are many different layers to society and how it works, it can't be broken down into A leads to B. So warmer places have more murders? What other factors could be present besides just temperature? More social interaction? Different demographies? Larger average populations? What could be wrong about a study about how increased gun availability affects murder rates? Perhaps there is more gun availability because there is a subpar police force in the area, and more felons walking the streets. You shouldn't take surveys in as scientific fact to prove such cloudy equations.Zaptruder said:
Later I promise.
Look at what a small insurgent force with AK47's and homemade bombs is doing to the most advanced military the world has ever seen in Iraq. Imagine if Iraq was even 50% behind those rebels. Look at how easily Hilter rolled through Europe. Imagine if the people in Paris were armed like the people in America are. German forces wouldn't have marched so proudly and easily down the streets.
Target shooting, hunting, and the such are a lot less dangerous than driving down the freeway. I don't wish to argue it further because it's silly.
captainbiotch said:
Indeed. That's why whenever the pro-gun lobby (and to a lesser extent the anti-gun lobby, or any other organisation with a point to prove and statistics to prove it with) pulls out their figures, I reach for my copy of Darrell Huff's "How to lie with statistics". Great book. You should read it.
captainbiotch said:
Of course not. They'd have bombed the crap out of the place from the air, then driven through the streets in tanks shooting anything that moved.
I think if you removed all legal firearms from civilians, criminals would still find a way to kill people or buy guns illegally. People who worry about guns completely miss the big picture about those who misuse them. It's sad when Little Tommy kills himself or another tyke because he accidentally fired Daddy's firearm, but those incidents aren't the reason why guns have become such a problem.
By the way, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish, Zaptruder. You're not going really going to polarize the forum or anything because gun-toting, Bible-wielding conservatives are grossly outnumbered by liberals in this place. You should see that now since half the replies are jokingly saying that we should replace guns with swords.
By the way, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish, Zaptruder. You're not going really going to polarize the forum or anything because gun-toting, Bible-wielding conservatives are grossly outnumbered by liberals in this place. You should see that now since half the replies are jokingly saying that we should replace guns with swords.
Guzim said:
THE ROYAL VISITOR
When Prince Charles came to our house, his staff told us that he had decided to have a typical home-cooked American meal. My mom hadnt counted on this, so each of us had to whip up one all-American dish, quick-like. I chose an easy one pork n beans. But as I tossed the can in the trash, I started to feel a little guilty. After all, baked beans were pretty dull, even for us. I figured I should class them up a bit, so I removed the usual blob of pork fat and replaced it with a nice lean chunk of pork tenderloin, grilled to perfection.
We all huddled in the kitchen as the Prince dined alone. When he had finished the meal, and two cups of Yuban, his reaction was relayed to us by his personal secretary. He found the food delightful. His only complaint was that the pork in the pork n beans was a bit greasy.
I was furious. Ignoring everyones pleas, I stormed into the dining room and confronted our royal visitor. I really let him have it.
Youve got a helluva nerve, buddy! You come into our house and start giving orders like youre the Queen of England or something. Who died and made you king? Awwwwwwwww, so the pork wasnt up to your royal standards Boo-hoo! Thats the saddest story ever told!
Ive got news for you, pal. Most people never even see any pork in their pork n beans! The most they can hope for is a hunk of pork fat! So if Your Majesty didnt find it acceptable thats just too damn bad. Because thats the best we have to offer, and we arent about to apologize for it!
The Prince was stunned. Clearly, no one had ever dared speak to him in this manner. For a moment, his jaw worked soundlessly in his crimson face. Then he sprang out of his chair and got me in a headlock. I tried to bend his fingers back, but he was much stronger than Id imagined. He tightened the grip on my windpipe until my head swam and I passed out.
When I came to, I was still in the headlock, only now the Prince was kneeing me in the face. Desperately, I grabbed at his hair, only to feel a stab of pain as his teeth sank into my thumb. I could feel myself starting to black out again. Why wasnt my family helping me? As I began to lose consciousness, the awful truth finally hit me.
He had bought them off with his enormous wealth!
------From Army Man, written by some dude that went on to be one of the more important Simpsons writers.
reggieandTFE
Member
captainbiotch said:
Are there any statistics showing that "little old ladies" have actually defended themselves with guns? For that matter, are there any statistics showing how many robberies, assaults, etc. have been foiled by guns? Or is that wishful vigelante bullshit that the "pull yourself up by the bootstrap"ers rely upon?
edit: You are right about the fact that armed oppressors use gun control as a substitute for social control; that's why gun control laws in the United States were enacted after the Black Panthers and other militant civil rights groups scared the fuck out of middle America.
Although I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea that hunting in some way is a "sport," I advocate a complete ban on firearm ownership by ANY private citizen. iapetus nailed it -- our gun death statistics are completely insane, and there's no excuse for it. If you want to preserve hunter's rights, then just have a short-term firearm rental facility in which people with valid hunting licenses stop by, get a gun for a couple of days, and return it when they're done shooting Bambi, or whatever they do.
captainbiotch, your argument that an armed populace serves as a balance against dictatorship hasn't held water for a long time. If you think you can take out an Apache helicopter with your handgun, let me know...I'll see if I can arrange some range time and film it for the amusement of the forum. Round 2, if you make it that far, will be the handgun-versus-tank fight. Back when the "army" was essentially a civilian militia, keeping a balance between national troops and state- or locally-controlled troops (militias) might have made sense. Now, it's not even close.
captainbiotch, your argument that an armed populace serves as a balance against dictatorship hasn't held water for a long time. If you think you can take out an Apache helicopter with your handgun, let me know...I'll see if I can arrange some range time and film it for the amusement of the forum. Round 2, if you make it that far, will be the handgun-versus-tank fight. Back when the "army" was essentially a civilian militia, keeping a balance between national troops and state- or locally-controlled troops (militias) might have made sense. Now, it's not even close.
darkiguana
Member
If I am a burglar(or rapist or serial killer) where would I rather commit my crimes? In the UK where virtually nobody is armed, or the US where there is a pretty good chane that my victim will be armed and be willing to shoot me.
Also, IMO, the right to defend oneself is as basic as the right to speak, the right to worship(or not worship), and the right to life. As another poster said, one of the first things that Hitler did when he took over Germany was outlaw private gun ownership.
darkiguana
Also, IMO, the right to defend oneself is as basic as the right to speak, the right to worship(or not worship), and the right to life. As another poster said, one of the first things that Hitler did when he took over Germany was outlaw private gun ownership.
darkiguana
videogamer
Banned
Guys this is what pepper spray is for. Just hold a bottle while walking in the dark. You can usually find them at uniform stores or the internet. They cost about $15.
captainbiotch said:
The problem with this comparison - aside from it being stupid - is that cars aren't designed to end a life or destroy something, the same can't be said about guns.
But I tend to agree with Chris Rock on guns. Just make the ammo more expensive. Also, I'll take it a step further and say that unless you can prove that you actually hunt, you can not get anything bigger than a handgun. (So there.)
captainbiotch said:
captainbiotch said:
...
regardless, you throw up all sorts of misdirecting questions...
well, as far as the weather research goes, the data is derived from tempreture fluctuations in the same location. Also the correlation is explainable; the higher temprature puts people at a worse mood, makes them more irritable and thus the increase in homicide rate.
For guns, both you and I know that it's an effective killing tool. You can throw up all kinds of questions... or you could look for or do the studies yourself and find out the bleeding obvious; that guns increase homicide rates for all the reasons I've stated throughout the thread and more.
darkiguana said:
Compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England.
There's 80,000,000 gun owners in the United States so if 23,000 people died from accidents of these gun owners that means that the accidental deaths per gun owner is .0002875. To put that number into perspective accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. And only 776 people were accidentally killed by guns in 2000 so I doubt that 23,000 figure is very accurate.
If you don't want to own a gun then don't. But to think that people won't die and that crime will go down once you remove guns is STUPID. Criminals will just break the law and continue to get guns no matter what. If you want to stop deaths and crime then why don't you go after the ACTUAL criminals better? Stop punishing law biting citizens when you should be going after criminals instead.
BTW 17,448 people were killed last year in alcohol-related traffic crashes and over 1 million more people were injured in them. Maybe we should BAN alcohol since it contributes to more deaths, rapes, and violent crimes then anything else. What positive impact does it serve? People getting drunk at a football game doesn't outweigh the 17,000+ deaths it causes along with the 1 million more injuries. So now that were going to get rid of guns because they kill people are we then going to go after everything dangerous like alcohol, cigarettes, knives, etc.????
darkiguana
Member
NWO said:
Compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England.
There's 80,000,000 gun owners in the United States so if 23,000 people died from accidents of these gun owners that means that the accidental deaths per gun owner is .0002875. To put that number into perspective accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. And only 776 people were accidentally killed by guns in 2000 so I doubt that 23,000 figure is very accurate.
If you don't want to own a gun then don't. But to think that people won't die and that crime will go down once you remove guns is STUPID. Criminals will just break the law and continue to get guns no matter what. If you want to stop deaths and crime then why don't you go after the ACTUAL criminals better? Stop punishing law biting citizens when you should be going after criminals instead.
BTW 17,448 people were killed last year in alcohol-related traffic crashes and over 1 million more people were injured in them. Maybe we should BAN alcohol since it contributes to more deaths, rapes, and violent crimes then anything else. What positive impact does it serve? People getting drunk at a football game doesn't outweigh the 17,000+ deaths it causes along with the 1 million more injuries. So now that were going to get rid of guns because they kill people are we then going to go after everything dangerous like alcohol, cigarettes, knives, etc.????
That was exactly my point. If I am a criminal, I am much more likely to be killed or hurt comitting my crimes in the US than I am in the UK(or any other country that outlawed private gun ownership). That is a good thing, IMO. My argument was against gun control.
Right now drugs like cocaine, crack, and pot are illegal. But if I wanted to do these drugs, I could still go get them and use them, so long as I was careful to avoid the police. The same thing would happen if you outlaw guns. People would still be able to get them. Only then people who wanted to use a gun for a legitamate purpose(self defense) would be punished. That is wrong.
I'm closing this thread. It isn't going to go anywhere new, and it's just going to lead to stupidity. The same tired statistics will come out on both sides of the argument, and nobody's going to even consider changing their mind. This thread is clear trolling (in a literal sense) and isn't going to add anything useful to the world.
Thankyou for your cooperation.
Thankyou for your cooperation.
- Status