Gun Control is ridiculous

[The Painter]

Why would gangs go from handguns to automatic weapons,

Upgrade

 

[Darat]

And here's the article the above is referring to:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/266umtwb.asp


(Of course, they miss the biggest reason for the drop in crime in the US, explained in Freakonomics, but again that's a different subject)

Taken from Wikipedia (the statistics quoted are referenced so should be able to be verified) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Homicide


2004 - New York murder rate per 100,000 = 5.5
2004- London murder rate per 100,000 (excluding 7/7 terrorist murders) = 1.7

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Remove the guns, and most of these killings would happen by some other means.

That is a very large assumption.

I have already suggested to you a specific circumstance where I believe that removing the guns would have led to a significantly reduced death toll and asked for your view on what would have happened had the murderer not had access to guns.

Thomas Hamilton could not, IMO, have killed 16 children without guns. Therefore a significant percentage of those killings would NOT happen if he had no access to guns.

 

[Skibum]

Taken from Wikipedia (the statistics quoted are referenced so should be able to be verified) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Homicide


2004 - New York murder rate per 100,000 = 5.5
2004- London murder rate per 100,000 (excluding 7/7 terrorist murders) = 1.7

Okay, I'll throw DC into the mix as well.

2004- Washington D.C. per 100,000 = 35.8

 

[Darat]

Okay, I'll throw DC into the mix as well.

2004- Washington D.C. per 100,000 = 35.8

I was responding to one of Shane's links that was making a comparison between London & New York murder rates so whatever Washington D.C.'s may be is not very relevant.

 

[CFLarsen]

Upgrade

And they need a gun ban as a reason?

Right.

 

[Lothian]

I was responding to one of Shane's links that was making a comparison between London & New York murder rates so whatever Washington D.C.'s may be is not very relevant.

I recall it was in his link which also said "gun ownership levels are about the same as they were when crime hit its all-time highs in America 30 years ago". I can't think why he never highlighted that bit. Perhaps it is not relevent to the question of whether gun ownership keeps crime rates down.

 

[Lonewulf]

I didn't ask if you thought it was likely or not.

Are you seriously saying that you will never, ever be so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do? No matter what happens?

Just yes or no.

I gave you an answer.

If you do not like that answer, then stop asking the question.

 

[shanek]

That is a very large assumption.

Not anywhere near as big as claiming they wouldn't happen at all, which is what he said.

Thomas Hamilton could not, IMO, have killed 16 children without guns. Therefore a significant percentage of those killings would NOT happen if he had no access to guns.

And how representative is that of most murders? Are most murderers mass murders? Or single murders?

 

[baron]

That is just a LIE!!!

Tantrum tantrum.

Remove the guns, and most of these killings would happen by some other means. And that's even assuming you can remove the guns in the first place, which you can't.

I honestly do not know how to explain this without either re-writing what I've posted or accepting that you are unable to understand a basic logical argument. The best option all round is if I simply repost what you wrote, followed by what I wrote, and colour code the bits that are related. If after that you cannot grasp it, or opt to throw another tantrum, then I have no option than to give up.

The red section shows you are simply wrong. The blue shows I have addressed the issue already.

That is just a LIE!!! Remove the guns, and most of these killings would happen by some other means. And that's even assuming you can remove the guns in the first place, which you can't.

The data shows how many people, and children, are killed by guns. If you remove guns, these particular stats reduce to zero. That is the correlation. Why do you pretend to fail to understand this? The issue of could any of these killings have been achieved by any other means can certainly then be discussed, but only after the basic problem has been quantified and accepted.

Do colours help? I hope so, because I'm f***ed if I'm going to represent the concept in Lego bricks.

You are worthless. You don't listen to a thing anyone else says, you don't respond to criticisms of your data, and the only thing you ever come back with are childish attempts like this one to insist that you're right when you aren't!

How old are you?

How do you think this does anything towards furthering anything resembling a rational discussion?

Like this, you mean?

That is just a LIE!!!

You are worthless

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not anywhere near as big as claiming they wouldn't happen at all, which is what he said.

You previously argued that the ONLY question was how easily the attacked person could defend themselves. I disagree, I think an extremely important factor is how easy and how risk free it is for the attacker to carry out the attack. Guns change both of those factors (easier to kill and, arguably, less risk to attacker).

And how representative is that of most murders? Are most murderers mass murders? Or single murders?

Single murders I would expect. What does that have to do with whether the ABILITY of the attacker to kill is relevant to the issue of gun control?

Your previous post suggested that you believed if the teachers in the school had been armed the death toll would be lower. Do you still believe that to be the case?

 

[Lonewulf]

Alright, let me just summarize some viewpoints on this:

First, there's the arguments over whether or not to regulate firearms, and to what degree. Let me make a quickie chart (it's just a quickie, so it's not gonna be perfect):

1) Total control -- No firearms in society whatsoever, and what firearms there are are under close supervision by society.

2) Only For Sports -- Firearms allowed, but only for sports, hunting, etc.; while you can own the firearm in your house, they must be stored in a condition that makes them difficult to get to (which can become an issue for defending against a burglary). Reduce the number of firearms available.

3) For Defense -- As 2, only the firearms are not stored in such strict conditions, and the owners are allowed ready access if they so desire. (This is, as I understand it, more or less the status quo; and if not, what most of the "Anti-Gun Control" people in this thread are aiming for).

4) Total Lack of Control -- Everything goes, except for military-grade weapons.

5) Total Lack of Control and Military Weapons -- For the absolutely insane out there. Bring Your Own Bombs.

Then there's implemented strategies, to get to various points on the chart:

The Fool's Strategy (you just gotta trust a strategy with that name behind it!) -- Tighten up regulations, try to get to stage 2 from 3. Destroy firearms that are confiscated from criminals and those that are unwilling to store their firearms under the strict rules.

Baron's Strategy (Once more, you gotta trust a strategy with the name of a villain behind it... ) -- Ban firearms from being sold in stores, eventually get to the point where you confiscate or disarm weapons owned by the general populace; attempt to get to Stage 1 from any stage higher.

CFLarson's Strategy -- ?? I'm assuming you want to get to Stage 1.

My Strategy -- Keep at Stage 3 for the U.S., or modify restrictions to Stage 3 for the U.S. I do not comment at this time on other countries.

Shanek -- Stay at, or get to stage 3 (I'm assuming) for the United States... and possibly other countries (?).

The various arguments as for why and why not do not matter for this summarization. I just want to clear up people's position on this issue.

 

[baron]

Baron's Strategy (Once more, you gotta trust a strategy with the name of a villain behind it... ) -- Ban firearms from being sold in stores, eventually get to the point where you confiscate or disarm weapons owned by the general populace; attempt to get to Stage 5 from any stage lower.

Don't you mean stage 1 from any stage higher?

 

[Lonewulf]

Don't you mean stage 1 from any stage higher?

I hope you'll forgive my editing in this instance.

Edit edit...

 

[Ranb]

If you want to point to legality, then that is another discussion. We were talking about usage of weapons.

Can I use a hand grenade for hunting, yes or no?

Good! Who are not trustworthy, and why?

Cars are not guns. I am much more likely to trust a person with a car than a nuke.

See how ridiculous such comparisons are? Let's stick to comparing guns with no guns.

It is simply incomprehensible to you that I could have misunderstood you? No, I have to be a "liar".

I’ve already said no, that they were not legal or suitable for hunting; do I need to say it another way? If you are going to ask me for permission, then my answer is no. Am I going to stop you? The answer is also no. Think of this as friendly advice, hunting with grenades is a stupid idea. If you have any good ideas on how to hunt game with them, then let me know.

Why don’t you tell me who you think is trustworthy and why.

If you do not want to compare guns cars and nukes, then you should not use them in an analogy, again. This is when you should follow your own advice.

I told you twice that I was not telling you what to use to hunt, and you told me twice that I was. This is not a mistake. When I post quotes, it should be obvious what you and I are saying. Are you saying you made a mistake and I am not trying to tell you what to hunt with?

Ranb

 

[Lonewulf]

Personally, I'd trust an individual more with a gun than a car. A car isn't perceived as a dangerous weapon when it can be used in that way, intentionally or not. This makes accidents with cars (which people tend to be a bit more careless with) more likely than accidents with a firearm.

 

[LuxFerum]

No, I am saying that there is a possibility that he will.

Are you saying that there is a possibility that they won't ever fly into rage then? Yes or no please.

Try to read what I say.

No, I will continue to answer without reading, just guessing what you will say, it is very predictable anyway.

Flying into a rage while having a gun is always unjustifiable. You are out of control - and that's a bad situation if you have a gun.

So you are saying that self defence is unjustifiable, if someone is attacking your friends or family, it would be unjustifiable to fly into a rage with a gun and save those people? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Quad4_72]

You see here's what I don't understand. Everyone on here, if put in the situation, would be MORE than happy that they had a gun if someone was threatening to take their life or the life of their family. But they ignorantly respond with things like "Oh thats so unlikely it will never happen to me!" or "Well what if you shot your own family member!"

The GC freaks blindly believe that banning guns would actually stop the gun problems when in reality, it just takes away your ability to defend yourself. You are not going to be able to keep guns out of America, plain and simple. It is best to educate yourself about guns instead of being so against something you have no knowledge about or have never used.

 

[rtalman]

Alright, let me just summarize some viewpoints on this:

First, there's the arguments over whether or not to regulate firearms, and to what degree. Let me make a quickie chart (it's just a quickie, so it's not gonna be perfect):

1) Total control -- No firearms in society whatsoever, and what firearms there are are under close supervision by society.

2) Only For Sports -- Firearms allowed, but only for sports, hunting, etc.; while you can own the firearm in your house, they must be stored in a condition that makes them difficult to get to (which can become an issue for defending against a burglary). Reduce the number of firearms available.

3) For Defense -- As 2, only the firearms are not stored in such strict conditions, and the owners are allowed ready access if they so desire. (This is, as I understand it, more or less the status quo; and if not, what most of the "Anti-Gun Control" people in this thread are aiming for).

4) Total Lack of Control -- Everything goes, except for military-grade weapons.

5) Total Lack of Control and Military Weapons -- For the absolutely insane out there. Bring Your Own Bombs.

Then there's implemented strategies, to get to various points on the chart:

The Fool's Strategy (you just gotta trust a strategy with that name behind it!) -- Tighten up regulations, try to get to stage 2 from 3. Destroy firearms that are confiscated from criminals and those that are unwilling to store their firearms under the strict rules.

Baron's Strategy (Once more, you gotta trust a strategy with the name of a villain behind it... ) -- Ban firearms from being sold in stores, eventually get to the point where you confiscate or disarm weapons owned by the general populace; attempt to get to Stage 1 from any stage higher.

CFLarson's Strategy -- ?? I'm assuming you want to get to Stage 1.

My Strategy -- Keep at Stage 3 for the U.S., or modify restrictions to Stage 3 for the U.S. I do not comment at this time on other countries.

Shanek -- Stay at, or get to stage 3 (I'm assuming) for the United States... and possibly other countries (?).

The various arguments as for why and why not do not matter for this summarization. I just want to clear up people's position on this issue.

My Strategy, get the U.S. to about 2.5-2.75, more responsible gun ownership. Meaning:
-Felony conviction, no gun for you
-DUI/DWI, no gun for you
-Drug offense, no gun for you
-You're caught carrying your piece in a legally mandated no gun zone, no more guns for you.
-You get caught drinking while using your gun, no more guns for you
-A gun is stolen from you because you failed to store it safely, or a kid gets hold of your gun because you failed to store it safely, you bear legal and tort responsibility for any future misuse of said gun. Also no more guns for you, even if said gun is recovered with no harm done.

 

[shanek]

Do colours help?

No, because you're still wrong and you still haven't addressed the issues!