Originally Posted by RayA75
Found a neat little study published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. It seems to corroborate with my claims that there's more to the situation than "less guns makes for less crime."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
This is reaching tricky ground now. There's virtually no other country in the world that allows gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense on a large scale other than the United States. Gun ownership is mainly permitted for hunting and sport shooting in other countries, self-defense will get shot down if it's your stated reason. In addition, guns aren't viewed as a right, but as a privilege.
Americans do not share this mentality. Arguably, such a mentality could be fostered by increasing gun control and regulation. By increasing the hurdles you have to jump through, a gun becomes a precious possession, not a toy that you can buy at the local Walmart. It promotes intelligent use of the weapon, to preserve the privilege to use the weapon. Since firearms are so readily available, coupled with the belief that guns are a protected right in the country, it promotes an immature and irresponsible mentality surrounding gun ownership.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
To an extent, I agree. I think there should be better training and higher pricing to get a gun as to make it second guess whoever is buying if they really want to make the commitment of owning a gun.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
Originally Posted by kball
i agree with this guy and nd gumSome kids should just stop posting (
torienko-oracle)
-----
if they make murder legal i wanna see how long it takes u to purchase a firearm
Congratulations on agreeing with one of the worst post in the thread then, surpassing it!
Originally Posted by Gum
Im going to assume that you're an idiot and you don't know where the shooting that caused this whole discussion was.
Just to inform you, it was in the US. You know, not Australia. So no, I haven't spoken to Australian cops because they wouldn't know how crime works in THE UNITED STATES.
It doesn't make sense to talk about gun control in places where this didn't happen.
Are you trolling right now? My post that you replied to initially was specifically and explicitly in the context of Australia.
Looks like you talked shit then tried to cover it up with "Oh not in this specific context".
Originally Posted by RayA75
Found a neat little study published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. It seems to corroborate with my claims that there's more to the situation than "less guns makes for less crime."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
Firstly, no one said banning guns was a magic bullet. I actually explicitly stated it...
However banning commercial ownership of guns in the biggest gun-exporter country in the world can be nothing but a good thing.
I don't think you would argue that removing gun ownership restrictions in any country can only be a good thing - so what you are arguing is that banning gun ownership makes little or positive change - which is what we said in the first place.
Also comparing USA to any of the countries covered in the study is laughable. For example Finland is by far an outlier, at 411.2 guns per 100,000 population. USA however is at 88,800 per 100,000 population. That is 200 times more than the greatest outlier. Can you really even make a comparison based on that?
Also if you compare any country on that list you will see that the murder with gun / murder percent is less than 25% for any country. In USA it is greater than 50%. Obviously judging USA by a dataset that it is WAY outside of is not valid at all.
We don't have any data even close to USA.
Originally Posted by Oracle
It's an over-generalization when I say the gun is more likely to kill the owner. Basically, I'm saying your legally owned gun is more likely to be used in a violent crime, or even an accident, than being used to prevent a crime.
And we aren't controlling guns with intelligence. As I said before, I can purchase a fully automatic rifle right now, and as much ammunition as I want, from a local store, and I only need to prove I've been a resident in the States for 3 months. That's not controlling with intelligence, that's practically giving them away.
I'm not saying you are, hence my first post. But removing them altogether won't make criminality decrease.
Originally Posted by Oracle
No he won't. It's not rational to plan something like this over a 2 month period, dye your hair red for the occasion, booby trap your house, then go into a movie theater in full bullet proof armor, shoot up the place, then stand outside the backdoor waiting for police to arrest you, and tell them you're the Joker when they do. Some criminals ARE suicidal, or they just plain don't fear death, or they think the risk is worth it. And then there's the fact that if they ARE scared of being shot, they will shoot you first regardless if you have a gun or not because they don't want to risk it. You also then can't figure out who's carrying a gun for malicious purposes, and who is carrying it for self-defense. Literally walking into a public area carrying a gun becomes significantly easier when EVERYBODY is carrying one, and is allowed to carry one.
Some criminals ARE suicidal, and these ones will kill with guns or not. Make it illegal and they'll buy it illegal, they have nothing to lose, they know it is the end anyway. Even if there was no gun at all they'd use knives. If there were no knives they'd use rocks. Some of China's worst massacres were caused by a single man using a knife and going in a killing spree.
When a man wants to kill he will do it. These are exceptional cases, not regular burglars. Maniacs exist since we are a race, they'll always be here. A single maniac can't be the sole base of a big scale change. "Some people in a theater would be alive if there were no guns." No, they wouldn't. He'd find other ways, he'd be creative, would use home-made explosives, blades, illegal weapons.
"It would at least make harder for him. Maybe he would kill less." And in other places around the country there would be a shitload of murders going on, except it wasn't in the TV so it's ok.
Originally Posted by Oracle
And again, the majority of guns being used for illegal purposes were of legal origin. Remove those guns from circulation, or at least heavily restrict them, and the supply of guns for illegal purposes goes down. This is such a simple direct relationship that I'm surprised the majority of the population is reluctant to acknowledge it.
That's your theory, it might happen in the US, who knows, but based on all the other countries with weapon restriction that's not the case. Countries with prohibition of the sale of firearms and ammunition have the biggest number of firearms traffic.
How can a country with anti-firearms laws have 47,6% of it's weapons being illegal? Criminals have almost more weapons than the entire military force. That's the situation several anti-firearms' countries are into today.
Control doesn't mean remove. You can have a smart country with smart usage of guns. A very severe psych profile and criminal record analisys when selling guns. Control ammunitions per owner. Require obligatory lessons with an intructor, like when starting to drive.
Americans have their security taken for granted for so long that they think they don't need weapons. They think they are safe because they never knew what real civilian violence is like. Then, when they become so safe that they have the time to fixate on more specific problems, they can look at some problems with guns and blame them for occasional occurences. I assure you, there would be more than double of murder rates if you had no guns at all.
The problem is not the guns but rather the ridiculous availability of them and their ammo.
Ok, so by the last posts we're going less with banning everything and more with controlling it like inteligent people, good, that was my point.
Guns can do great good in the hands of instructed civilians.
Last edited by PlagueDoc_old; Jul 24, 2012 at 05:27 PM.
-The Doctor is in-
24/7
PRETTY GOOD WITH RIDDLES
24/7
PRETTY GOOD WITH RIDDLES
Originally Posted by Oracle
Despite the fact a large amount of the guns in Mexico are smuggled across the border from the US.
Oops, did you not know we produce more guns than any other country in the world? It's no shit that Mexico has a metric fuck ton of guns at their disposal. They have the largest, easiest, LEGAL stockpile of weapons right on their freaking doorstep.
Read HEre the guns are legal but they are being bought on a scale that has little to do with residential sales.
CBS~The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico - then diverted to violent cartels - is becoming more urgent. That's because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through "direct commercial sales." It's a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.
Here's how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.
And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn't give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.
[TA]¤[Clan]¤[bncy]¤[eVo]¤[Fish]
¤Team Wushu Tier 5 ¤
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
¤Team Wushu Tier 5 ¤
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Roses are red, violets are blue, faces like yours belong in the zoo. Don't be mad, I'll be there too. Not in the cage but laughing at you.".
