AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-07-25, 13:56   Link #41
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Also, Guns won't help a damn if you're asleep!
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 14:00   Link #42
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
A tool only works when used. Any tool can be misused or handled improperly.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 14:14   Link #43
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 29
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Also, Guns won't help a damn if you're asleep!
Yeah, but how often do people just get shot in their sleep by someone creeping around the house late at night? Not too many, usually in home invasions they want to steal stuff, not kill anyone. You'd probably have time to call 911 if you started hearing someone trying to bust in.

Not to mention a security system would also help prevent that sort of thing.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 14:26   Link #44
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
Do the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs? Sadly, this question has become more difficult to objectively answer. On every front actual national research into whether or not guns are actually helpful has been blocked, destroyed, or otherwise forced into hiding (and any research that is released is instantly attacked as partisan even if the basic facts of the research are sound).
Just like global warming eh? it's the unfortunately fact that politics usually trumps and distorts any issues they touch, though I have to say that the anti-gun crowd is hardly any less disingenuous when it comes to their propaganda efforts than the NRA.

It is however my experience that even in countries where there is a total ban on civilian gun ownership there is still no end of violent crimes, or for that matter, gun crimes. Naturally, while there is less of the latter, do you really care if you get your head blown off by a gun or have it chopped off by a machete?

Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
I do currently believe in gun ownership, and I do believe in the right for the citizens of America to protect themselves (both from their neighbors, strangers, and if they have to their own government), but I do not know if guns are actually a good tool for protection (Consequently, gun ownership could actually be doing more harm than good).
barring the invention of a personal energy shield, I'd say yes. Though I don't think it's so much a specific issue pertaining to guns - if technology levels reverted back to the early 1700s, we'd be having the same debate, just now with melee weapons - guns are simply the latest weapon of choice for mankind.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 14:38   Link #45
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
The 2nd Amendment has to do with the creation of a well regulated militia (too many commentators focus on the second half of the 2nd amendment, which eliminates all context for the amendment within the bill of rights/constitution). Consequently, any and all gun laws should always be focused on how to create such a militia. I'm of the opinion that only members of a militia (that has been approved by the people of the state (hopefully with certain regulations and guidelines also put in place)) should be allowed to stockpile ammunition and firearms (any and all firearms and ammunitions...save for tools of large scale destruction (explosives, etc)), otherwise I do believe that an individual citizen should be limited in their firearm capacity (I'm also of the opinion that anyone wishing to own any type of firearm should be forced to undergo training in the use of said type of firearm, and additionally training should be given for 'advanced' firearms (similarly to a car license and testing)).

That being said, if a person really wants to kill someone, they will kill them (or at least try to kill them). The presence of guns may make the possibility of murder easier, but the underlying motivation is not created by the culture of guns that America possesses.

Truthfully, I think the underlying question of this thread should be: Do Guns really protect people?
I've *always* thought gun ownership should go hand in hand with being a member of the community Civil Defense group. Few here probably remember the Civil Defense teams that were made up of community members as well as "first responders". They were all the rage during the Cold War and also useful during natural disasters. The disconnection of "Citizen Joe and Jane" from duties of being part of a community seems to be an integral part of the problem here.

------------------------------

The most recent thing I learned from this incident is that one can purchase ammo over the Internet? I thought I knew all the pertinent gun laws and I thought that was illegal. In all the states I've lived in, when I purchase ammunition I have to provide identification and my name/address is logged by the store. When I ship a gun (like, say, to a relative) I cannot ship it myself. I have to take it to a licensed gun dealer who ships it to another licensed gun dealer near my relative who has to come pick it up. In fact, in this example my gun dealer wouldn't ship ammo for me (it was a .38spcl and I had no further use for the ammo since the gun was going hither). He said it was because of rules of shipping explosive materials.

Soooooo, someone know off the top of their head what the hell here?

So I guess I learned something new... :P

----------------------------------
Anecdotally, I've used a gun exactly four times in my life to stop/prevent a crime. Three times on my home property and once while out and about. I've only had to *fire* one once (my shotgun) and that was to shoot in the ground to make a statement to the attacker. In every case, the mere presence of the gun short-circuited the situation (they ran like hell, etc).

Another example is a female friend of mine who had a home intruder scamper when she chambered a shell in her shotgun in her bedroom. That rather distinctive noise has stopped more than a few potential bad ends for many.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 14:50   Link #46
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
The most recent thing I learned from this incident is that one can purchase ammo over the Internet? I thought I knew all the pertinent gun laws and I thought that was illegal.
The federal statute regarding ammo purchase requires only you meet the age requirement, and that the ammo be shipped via ground, or marked as hazard material if shipped by air.

Anything on top of that would be local laws and regulations (ie. no ammo can be shipped to APO/FPO, NYC and D.C. etc).
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 15:24   Link #47
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
I recall just after the end of the Cold War getting a case (or maybe it was two cases) of Russian .22 cal ammunition. It was cheap so it sounded like a deal.

Those rounds were mostly lead with no coating aside from some gummy sealer that we assume was made for Siberian climates. Nice hot California weather? Things gummed up about every gun we used them in. They also were very dirty even handling. The only gun that could use them without too much trouble was an old Remington Nylon 66 which as a 14 bullet tube type magazine in the stock. I run through those thing as fast as possible....just to get rid of them.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-07-26, 00:12   Link #48
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
@ GundamFan0083: Again, this is all anecdotal evidence. I can easily find lots of stories about people using their guns to defend themselves. Heck, go to any of the NRA websites and they'll hundreds of such stories. I'm asking for statistical proof that guns are more beneficial than harmful.
That's the best evidence you're going to find I'm afraid.
The national media in this country isn't interested in gun stories that save lives, they're not sensational enough nor do they fit the narrative that has been woven over the last forty years.

Quote:
Sadly, this is a fool's errand since such research is hard to come by, especially considering that the NRA and the current Republican party (since the mid-90s) have gone out of their way to make it impossible for the government to properly fund any research that questions the use of firearms in modern society (to be a bit more specific, the CDC used to fund research into the deaths of all Americans (of which guns were a contributing factor), but the NRA forced the Republican majority at the time to either eliminate the program responsible for researching such data, or simply underfund the entire CDC (they went with underfunding the CDC, and would have continued to underfund the CDC unless they dropped their research (which they did)) all under the the belief that any research into any gun crimes is always partisan for gun control.
That's not true.
The NRA doesn't force anything.
It was the American people who lobbied congress not to pass any new gun bans to prevent further erosion of their rights.In fact, the NRA's membership rosters have declined as more and more gun owners join GOA.
I left the NRA when they supported the 1998 expansion of the Brady Law, and I then joined GOA.
JAMA did a fine job in their study BTW, but their findings were inconclusive, in short they found that gun laws do not increase nor prevent crime.

As for the CDC, they actually began shifting focus from guns to gangs in the 1990s because guns were a peripheral factor and not a primary cause of homicides in the USA.
The use of guns by gangs is not the reason they're killing each other, it's the gang itself that is the problem.

Quote:
And it doesn't end with the CDC. Any real national research into guns, even if it simply research on how to make them safer, is often blocked by the NRA and the Republican Party on the national level. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has been neutered for over a decade by being forced to keep gun statistics secret, and just recently the Republican congress has tried to force the National Institutes for Health (NIH) from doing any research into gun related deaths (which is still the 2nd most prevalent cause of death for young Americans).
BATFE is a piss poor agency that needs to be abolished.
They were formed from the Bureau of Prohibition after it separated from the IRS in the 1920s and have engaged in questionable behavior from the "Good Ol Boy" roundup of the 1990s, to entrapment of gun dealers, and now the Gunwalker/Fast & Furious fiasco.
They need to go.

Quote:
Do the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs? Sadly, this question has become more difficult to objectively answer. On every front actual national research into whether or not guns are actually helpful has been blocked, destroyed, or otherwise forced into hiding (and any research that is released is instantly attacked as partisan even if the basic facts of the research are sound).
I'll answer it for you even though you meant it as a rhetorical question.
Yes, the benefits of gun ownership do in fact outweigh the costs when you consider how few guns (compared to the total number that are in private hands) are actually used in crime.
I've yet to see any credible evidence that shows research being blocked and quite honestly it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Quote:
I do currently believe in gun ownership, and I do believe in the right for the citizens of America to protect themselves (both from their neighbors, strangers, and if they have to their own government), but I do not know if guns are actually a good tool for protection (Consequently, gun ownership could actually be doing more harm than good).
If that were the case there would be far more deaths via firearms then there are now.
It is estimated that 30,000 guns are used in crime every year.
That represents 1/10,000th the total number of guns in the US (300,000,000 guns, low end of the scale estimate, some studies show it as high as 500mil).

Quote:
edit: Here's one of the few decent studies that shows the lack of protection that guns provide (for various reasons described in the study)...
Ah yes Doctor Charles Branas' junk science "study" of 677 people randomly called on the phone and asked about whether they owned a gun for protection.
Doctor Eugene Volokh ripped that nonsense into confetti.

As he put it:
And all this is in addition to the possible confounding factors discussed in item 1 above. If there were no such confounders, then perhaps even a low odds ratio might be telling, or perhaps even a statistically insignificant odds ratio above 1 might in some measure undermine the “guns as protective” theory. But these two problems put together — the possibility that the result stems from the existence of a high-risk group whose members are especially likely both to carry guns and be the targets of attack, and the possibility of even slight misreporting dramatically affecting the results — make the study highly uninformative.

I'm not as charitable as Dr. Volokh is and I'll call Dr. Branas' "study" what it is--bullshit intended to mislead.

Here's why.
From Dr. Branas' own study:
As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

Six percent of 677 cases is only 41 cases from 2003-2006, that is such an infinitesimal amount compared to the number of news media stories found online that show successful defense with a firearm, that Dr. Branas' "study" is laughable in comparison.
If the same study was done in Texas, I'll bet the result would be quite different.

You yourself stated that you can find hundreds of cases of guns saving lives listed on the NRA website, well that's not quite accurate, a different website covers that.
Here it is, and there are hundreds of stories (526 to be exact from the 2011-2012 period).
http://gunssavelives.net/

So once again a pseudo-scientist tries and fails to push the propaganda of "your gun is deadlier to you than your assailant" which is complete rubbish and should be treated as such.

As Larry Pratt likes to say "Gun control is not about guns, or crime. It's about control."
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-26, 22:20   Link #49
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 36
Has anyone bothered to look at the various states, cities and countries that do enforce some sort of gun control? No? Ok then explain this to me: Chicago Il. has has in effect a very draconian gun control policy of no handguns in the city, and a waiting period (although now it a no-no too) on long guns. And yet this summer alone has been one of the windy cities worst?
California; Extremly anti-gun, so much so that you cannot purchase a civilian legal (semi-automatic) clone of and AK-47 or AR-15. And yet gang violence has been on an upsurge!
New York city: Get caught with an unregistered gun and it's a year in prison! Still the crime flows!
United Kingdom: Once our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic enjoyed firearms. Nit any more! They were banned outright and rumor has it you have to have a permit to use a hammer? And crime has ballooned over there!
Austrailia: Same thing!
So please explain too me how gun control is really working for those places!
I too was raised in the south and guns were present every day if my life. I'm currently licensed through the state of Virginia to carry concealed and do so!
Does gun control work? It does for the criminals who care not one wit about the law!
As to the shotgun for home defense: wouldnt want a weapon whose very sound instilled fear in a bad guy? They know how devastating it can be, and do not relish the idea of facing this fearsome weapon. That's called a deterent!
And besides, I enjoy Hickok .45s videos on YouTube.
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-07-26, 22:47   Link #50
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
The usual argument is that the guns come in from "outside" and if we could just expand the control all over "outside" it would get all better. Apparently it requires rocket science to understand what a load of bullshit that is

When it comes down to it, the drug cartels could easily become their own creators of arms and design an entire black market to arm both defenseless citizens ($$$) and their own troops.

Nothing like a home invasion when the bad guys *know* no one inside has any deterrent.... :P
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-27, 06:15   Link #51
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
New York city: Get caught with an unregistered gun and it's a year in prison! Still the crime flows!
United Kingdom: Once our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic enjoyed firearms. Nit any more! They were banned outright and rumor has it you have to have a permit to use a hammer? And crime has ballooned over there!
Austrailia: Same thing!
So please explain too me how gun control is really working for those places!
I too was raised in the south and guns were present every day if my life. I'm currently licensed through the state of Virginia to carry concealed and do so!
Does gun control work? It does for the criminals who care not one wit about the law!
Depends, I doubt guns affect crime rates, they only increase the level of violence. The amount of crimes committed is inherently linked to societal problems.

That said, for countries without a gun culture it can be very worthwhile to keep guns out. The UK have been effective in controlling guns and gun violence. Crime rates surging has a lot to do with increased reporting of small offenses rather than a decrease of gun-ownership, which has always been low.

Gun bans in the US simply won't work without resorting to draconian measures as there are millions of fire-arms in circulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Nothing like a home invasion when the bad guys *know* no one inside has any deterrent.... :P
True, but there is a difference between not owning a gun, and not having a deterrent. Don't forget man's best friend protecting our homes for the last 15,000 years.

Last edited by Bri; 2012-07-27 at 06:35.
Bri is offline  
Old 2012-07-27, 11:36   Link #52
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-27, 11:44   Link #53
JokerD
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Sorry if this has been said before, but I personally think the gun control is looking at the wrong things.

Control the flow of guns to the criminals (as in gangs and such) before you go after law bidding ones. Once guns become rare(er) then citizen will feel safer and be more willing listen to gun control for the general public.

There will most likely be a role for gun clubs and such, since USA has such a long romance with guns, but I think that is a good thing since they can teach gunsmenship and responsible usage of guns...
JokerD is offline  
Old 2012-07-27, 15:28   Link #54
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx
Of course there will be news stories of people defending themselves (and winning) against 'bad' people. Such stories are great for ratings because they are so simplistically optimistic and make people feel safe. Again, this is anecdotal evidence that doesn't mean much since there is no real context.

To put it in perspective, do you really think the media would report on incidents in which an armed victim wasn't able to defend them self? At best, such an incident would get a blurb in which no mention of the victim having a firearm would be mentioned (I know this from anecdotal personal experience (not my own, but a friend's)). There are plenty of people that are armed, know how to use their firearms, yet they still fall victim to criminals (for various reasons).

Overemphasizing citizens fighting back (which you are doing) is great for publicity and constructing a narrative, but it does nothing for an actual discussion of what is going on in the country. (Note, I am not trying to discredit or in anyway slight such positive stories. Striving and defending against adversity is a powerful and respectable story, but only focusing on these positive stories does nothing for an actual discussion of the issues at hand.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure
This is a disgusting use of power...but then again this is CISPA, easily one of the worst breaches of civil liberties currently on Congresses roster, so adding more shit to the pile doesn't surprise me in the slightest. (Personally, I expect Schumer is purposely trying to add the amendment so that the Republican reject the new bill completely, because as it stands it is likely that CISPA will pass.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JokerD View Post
Control the flow of guns to the criminals (as in gangs and such) before you go after law bidding ones.
Agreed. This is the core solution that should be focused on. Outright gun control will not necessarily do anything to prevent many criminals from still getting firearms (this will prevent some crime, just not the significant offenses (e.g. organized crime, etc)), but will potentially harm more citizens. Sadly, there is no easy solution to this dilemma.

Last edited by james0246; 2012-07-27 at 15:54.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-07-27, 15:55   Link #55
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
Of course there will be news stories of people defending themselves (and succeeding) against people. Such stories are great for ratings because they are so simplistically pessimistic and make people feel scared. Again, this is anecdotal evidence that doesn't mean much since there is no real context.
It goes both ways. Dismissing examples of people successfully defending themselves using firearms as meaningless anecdotal evidence means you have to dismiss cases where people successfully attacking others using firearms as the same as well. This includes mass shootings, as they're rare exceptions to the norm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
To put it in perspective, do you really think the media would report on incidents in which an armed victim wasn't able to defend them self? At best, such an incident would get a blurb in which no mention of the victim having a firearm would be mentioned (I know this from anecdotal personal experience (not my own, but a friend's)).
It's the same for cases where people successfully defended themselves. It's rare enough for local news to pick those up, and pretty much something you'll never see covered on national media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
There are plenty of people that are armed, know how to use their firearms, yet they still fall victim to criminals (for various reasons).
firearms are simply a tool, it doesn't magically kill people or magically protects the users from all harms.

That however, should not be a reason to ban them. Saying people shouldn't have guns for self-defense because it doesn't work all the time is like saying I shouldn't have wore body armors in Iraq because it wouldn't protect me from all threats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
Overemphasizing citizens fighting back (which you are doing) is great for publicity and constructing a narrative, but it does nothing for an actual discussion of what is going on in the country.
Not sure what else you expect when the other side does the exact same thing. Gun control has become as polarizing of an issue as they come (like everything else these days tbh), and few are really willing to any sort of meaningful discussions on the subject :/

Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
Agreed. This is the core solution that should be focused on. Outright gun control will not necessarily do anything to prevent many criminals from still getting firearms (this will prevent some crime, just not the significant offenses (e.g. organized crime, etc)), but will potentially harm more citizens. Sadly, there is no easy solution to this dilemma.
Indeed. Strict gun control may lower the number of gun-suicides (which just turns them into suicide-by-other-means) and accidental shootings, but will do little to address actual violent crimes. If Taiwan, a small island nation that effectively has a ban on private ownership of firearms (less than 1000 for self-defense use out of a population of nearly 23 million), no "gun culture" like in the US, yet is still plagued by gun smuggling and gun violence from organized crime, I don't see how people can expect gun control to possibly work in the US, with a far more porous border and far more existing firearms.

Last edited by kyp275; 2012-07-27 at 16:09.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-27, 16:11   Link #56
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure
This (and SOPA and all the other faux "internet security copyright blah" bills) is why the Democrats aren't "better" just that they're second in line behind the GOP for deserving a vicious troutslapping... with a frozen trout.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-27, 21:14   Link #57
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Depends, I doubt guns affect crime rates, they only increase the level of violence. The amount of crimes committed is inherently linked to societal problems.

That said, for countries without a gun culture it can be very worthwhile to keep guns out. The UK have been effective in controlling guns and gun violence. Crime rates surging has a lot to do with increased reporting of small offenses rather than a decrease of gun-ownership, which has always been low.

Gun bans in the US simply won't work without resorting to draconian measures as there are millions of fire-arms in circulation.


True, but there is a difference between not owning a gun, and not having a deterrent. Don't forget man's best friend protecting our homes for the last 15,000 years.
But the UK did/does have a "gun culture". As does Japan and Canada, you just don't hear or see much of it.
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-07-28, 07:39   Link #58
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
But the UK did/does have a "gun culture". As does Japan and Canada, you just don't hear or see much of it.
Ah, sorry for the confusion, I used "gun-culture" in the British context, where the term refers to a society with a widespread use of guns by criminals.
Bri is offline  
Old 2012-07-28, 08:46   Link #59
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Something that I think needs to be born in mind is the effect more guns in wide circulation has on criminal organizations. It makes them much stronger. And, eventually, it gives them power that can be used to defy state law enforcement.

Now you can argue that's why we need to give people the ability to defend themselves, by allowing them gun ownership. But the truth, as I see it, is that it won't really help them much, not at the really decisive moment.

Yes, it will help in the hypothetical "home invasion" scenario, but that's not actually what I'd be most afraid of. It's organised crime that's the far bigger threat.

The average person cannot stand up to an organised crime group. No matter how you look at it, 1 gun does not beat 6 guns, in an organised formation (no matter how many action movies you watch). This creates the situation where criminals can "tax" civilians at will. Civilians will have to either fork out substantial amounts of cash for "protection" or pay to maintain a private militia, or pay more tax dollars for a larger police force. Ultimately the same outcome -> less safety for everyone, and everyone has to pay an economic cost, paying protection money to criminals is ultimately the same as paying to maintain a militia (or larger police force). And many militias end out morphing into organised crime anyway. Consider, what are those militiamen going to do once civilians feel the criminals are gone and are no longer needed? Will they peacefully put down their arms, or will they use their power to maintain their position? I like to think the former will occur, but greed is a powerful motivator.

And this is not an imaginary hypothetical situation. It's already occuring in Mexico. The people either have to pay the Cartels for protection, or pay to maintain a force of men to protect themselves, all the while the death toll continues to mount.

Now Mexico has tried gun control, but it's always been compromised by the thousands of officials in the pockets of the cartels, who willfully choose not to enforce the law.

I don't think these massacres are the main reason to enforce gun control. The main reason is the continued safety and stability of society at large.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-28, 13:59   Link #60
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Something that I think needs to be born in mind is the effect more guns in wide circulation has on criminal organizations. It makes them much stronger. And, eventually, it gives them power that can be used to defy state law enforcement.
No, money is the source of their power. As long as they have money, they can procure weapons regardless of whatever policy you have in place. Like I mentioned earlier - Taiwan, a country with one of the world's most restrictive gun control laws which practically bans them for all civilians, still have problems with gun-related crimes, especially when it comes to organized crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Yes, it will help in the hypothetical "home invasion" scenario, but that's not actually what I'd be most afraid of. It's organised crime that's the far bigger threat.
Just what exactly are you doing that would have the cartels and mafia coming after you? You say home invasions are "hypothetical" when they actually do happen quite often, yet think the non-existent threat of the mafia going after you to be a far bigger threat?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The average person cannot stand up to an organised crime group. No matter how you look at it, 1 gun does not beat 6 guns, in an organised formation (no matter how many action movies you watch). This creates the situation where criminals can "tax" civilians at will. Civilians will have to either fork out substantial amounts of cash for "protection" or pay to maintain a private militia, or pay more tax dollars for a larger police force. Ultimately the same outcome -> less safety for everyone, and everyone has to pay an economic cost, paying protection money to criminals is ultimately the same as paying to maintain a militia (or larger police force). And many militias end out morphing into organised crime anyway. Consider, what are those militiamen going to do once civilians feel the criminals are gone and are no longer needed? Will they peacefully put down their arms, or will they use their power to maintain their position? I like to think the former will occur, but greed is a powerful motivator.

And this is not an imaginary hypothetical situation. It's already occuring in Mexico. The people either have to pay the Cartels for protection, or pay to maintain a force of men to protect themselves, all the while the death toll continues to mount.
Technically, it's about the training of person using the gun, but I digress.

And I think you're the one that need to stop watching movies. Not every city is a Gotham in the making, organized crimes don't actually want to be out in the open running things, their only interest is continuing to make money. It's only when you have a failed state or semi-failed state that you get into the situation in Mexico. Organized crime thrives on dealing in illegal goods, it's how they make their money. It just boggles my mind that people actually believe banning firearms would hurt organized crimes.

Tell me, has the banning of drugs hurt organized crimes? or human trafficking/slavery/prostitution? or firearms in countries that has banned them?

Nope, they simply become another source of revenue for them. Merely banning stuff isn't gonna do jack to hurt organized crime.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Now Mexico has tried gun control, but it's always been compromised by the thousands of officials in the pockets of the cartels, who willfully choose not to enforce the law.
Thank you for shooting your own argument down, much appreciated.
kyp275 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:44.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.