AnimeSuki Forums

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

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-07-28, 16:33   Link #61
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
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.
Money is an imaginary thing, and in the world of crime, it's value is not easily quantifiable. The strength of a mafia or cartel is the quality of it's members, the number of members, and how well armed those members are, much like an army. Strength tends to beget more strength. A strong cartel will use it's strength to dominate the trade in illicit goods, that trade would occur regardless of the presence of a cartel, the cartel simply serves as a leech, using monopolistic practices to push the prices of the illicit goods up, and earning money on the profits, and using that money to increase their physical strength.

Now I don't think you can ever fully stop gangs getting their hands on weapons, but by using gun control you can restrict the supply and up the prices so much that the gangs can never hope to be able to stand up to the police forces of the country, and so can never be too blatant in their criminal activities. They're restricted to more difficult ways to earn money like illicit goods.
Quote:
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?
If I earn $60,000 a year, the cartel can easily seize $20,000 from me without lifting a finger by just turning up at my door and saying "It would be a pity if your house burnt down..." If I can turn to the Police, I no longer need to be afraid of such threats, but if the mafia are stronger then the police, then I need to pony up the money, and the Mafia gets money for nothing. They don't even need to go to the effort of shipping me drugs.

Quote:
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.
If the Mafia are physically stronger then the government, then yes, every city is a gotham in the making. They no longer need to bother shipping drugs for money, they can just use outright intimidation, which is a much easier way to earn money.

The reason they use drugs (and other illicit items) to make money is that they're not strong enough to get people to part with their money unwillingly. The Mexican drug cartels don't bother to sell drugs in Mexico, because they know they can just get everyone's money by simply waving a gun in front of them. In the USA, they know that won't fly, so they have to get people to part with their money voluntarily, by selling them something irresistible (drugs), and they can maintain obscenely high returns on that by ensuring they're the only supplier in an area, and so don't have to compete on price. It so happens that drugs are a particularly easy good to get a monopoly over (because it's illegal, and highly desirable). If your drug supplier jacks up the prices (due to a monopoly), you can't exactly go to the consumer watchdog the way you can with laundromats.

Quote:
Thank you for shooting your own argument down, much appreciated.
What I meant is that what's needed is enforced gun control. Mexico is not a good example to point to on the failings of gun control because those laws were never enforced. You could use the same analogy to say that Food regulation(to prevent unhygienic cooking) is an inherently flawed idea because Mexico has food regulation, but all of it's restaurants are unhygienic anyway. The problem is, again, that Mexico's law enforcement is so corrupt, that it cannot even try to enforce these laws, so restaurants are unafraid to flout the law. Why go to the trouble of ensuring your kitchen is cheap when you can just give $50 to the inspector when he comes around...
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-28, 18:43   Link #62
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The strength of a mafia or cartel is the quality of it's members, the number of members, and how well armed those members are, much like an army.
All of which is dependent, again, on money. It's the same thing with armies, you don't get anywhere without it, it's at the core of everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Now I don't think you can ever fully stop gangs getting their hands on weapons, but by using gun control you can restrict the supply and up the prices so much that the gangs can never hope to be able to stand up to the police forces of the country, and so can never be too blatant in their criminal activities. They're restricted to more difficult ways to earn money like illicit goods.
Yea, just like drugs and alcohol during the Prohibition right? You vastly underestimate the ability of arms traffickers, and the existence of the rest of the planet - since when are criminal organizations forced to source their weapons from the country they're in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If I earn $60,000 a year, the cartel can easily seize $20,000 from me without lifting a finger by just turning up at my door and saying "It would be a pity if your house burnt down..." If I can turn to the Police, I no longer need to be afraid of such threats, but if the mafia are stronger then the police, then I need to pony up the money, and the Mafia gets money for nothing. They don't even need to go to the effort of shipping me drugs.
Not really, it's not like the police will put up a 24/7 watch around your house for the rest of your life

By the time organized crimes have that much influence, you (and the country you're in) is already fk'd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If the Mafia are physically stronger then the government, then yes, every city is a gotham in the making. They no longer need to bother shipping drugs for money, they can just use outright intimidation, which is a much easier way to earn money.
...You don't really have much grasp on modern military either do you? you think the kind of small arms you'd be regulating with gun control laws are that powerful? Even in Mexico the government have far more military capability than the cartels.

You're treating organized crime as some sort of insurgency with the goal of supplanting and usurping the government, which is fundamentally flawed. And even if we entertain your notion and assume it's true, your method of fighting them is local civilian gun control laws? That's trying to fight a forest fire with a toy water gun.

Crime is a social-economic issue, and that's where it'll need to be addressed. Gun is not what caused the cartels to spiral out of control in Mexico, nor would any gun control law solve those problems.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-28, 20:11   Link #63
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
All of which is dependent, again, on money. It's the same thing with armies, you don't get anywhere without it, it's at the core of everything.
The money flows from the cartel's strength. Not the other way around. A cartel without loyal members and weapons is a dead cartel, no amount of money can save it.
Quote:
Yea, just like drugs and alcohol during the Prohibition right? You vastly underestimate the ability of arms traffickers, and the existence of the rest of the planet - since when are criminal organizations forced to source their weapons from the country they're in?
It's a matter of cost. Also, it's a lot easier to block weapons then drugs or alcohol. They're a lot heavier, and can't be made in bathtubs in your basement. Whereas you can easily transport drugs using small speedboats, weapons require large containers to transport in any large numbers. Britain's gun control works well enough that the average policeman only needs to carry a baton. An illegal gun in Britain is a very expensive prospect, due to the low supply.

Quote:
Not really, it's not like the police will put up a 24/7 watch around your house for the rest of your life
You conduct a sting operation. When you're openly intimidating people, you leave a very obvious trail. Drugs work because the buyer is just as complicit as the seller.

Quote:
...You don't really have much grasp on modern military either do you? you think the kind of small arms you'd be regulating with gun control laws are that powerful? Even in Mexico the government have far more military capability than the cartels.
You do not need to be more powerful then the military to challenge the government's authority, so long as you're more powerful then the police force (which is comparitively easy), you can operate fairly easily.

Quote:
You're treating organized crime as some sort of insurgency with the goal of supplanting and usurping the government, which is fundamentally flawed. And even if we entertain your notion and assume it's true, your method of fighting them is local civilian gun control laws? That's trying to fight a forest fire with a toy water gun.
Insurgencies and Organized Crime are often more similiar then you realise (the Taliban are both an insurgency and heavily involved in the drug trade, the IRA's primary business is now bank robberies, money laundering, and drugs).

The reason gun control is important is that it reduces the number of guns in circulation, and consequently increases their price in the black market, making it much more difficult for crime syndicates to gain the power necessary to conduct their illicit businesses. With a functioning gun control regime they may have enough weapons for limited engagements, but nowhere near enough to conduct full on Mexico-style wars.

Quote:
Crime is a social-economic issue, and that's where it'll need to be addressed. Gun is not what caused the cartels to spiral out of control in Mexico, nor would any gun control law solve those problems.
So long as an opportunity exists, organized crime will always take place. You can never eliminate your run of the mill homicides and thuggish attacks. But the level of organized crime is directly related to the degree of control a government can exert. The less it has, the less focused it is, the more opportunities exist for enterprising individuals to take advantage of the situation. If the police force is weak, or corrupt, then it's easy for organized to conduct their rackets.

Furthermore, with guns added to the equation the cost of law enforcement goes way up. If your average criminal does not have a gun (as in the UK), then they can usually be subdued by two policemen with batons. Give him a handgun, and suddenly you need multiple officers with expensive equipment to subdue him. You'll also have a lot less people volunteering for the police force if getting shot by criminals is a frequent occurence, and cops will be a lot less willing to confront criminals, after all no one wants to be a hero.

Britain has a well functioning gun control regime. Consider the London Riots last year, imagine how much worse it would have been if all those thugs had had guns? The roving gangs of them would have easily overwhelmed any honest citizen trying to defend his property, and the police would have experienced significant casualties trying to subdue them, in fact the army might have been ultimately required.

If such a riot were to occur in the US, I shudder to think what the casualties and expense to subdue it would be.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-28, 23:13   Link #64
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
We can go around in circles forever, suffice to say that we're never going to see eye to eye on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The reason gun control is important is that it reduces the number of guns in circulation, and consequently increases their price in the black market
Local circulation has little to do with global prices. Take the Mexican cartel for example, they already source the majority of their weapons from south america. Also, it's not very difficult to manufacture your own weapon, especially stuff like AKs

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
But the level of organized crime is directly related to the degree of control a government can exert. The less it has, the less focused it is, the more opportunities exist for enterprising individuals to take advantage of the situation. If the police force is weak, or corrupt, then it's easy for organized to conduct their rackets.
I completely disagree on the government control idea. Government is not a single monolithic entity, and the lower levels are often very corruptible regardless of the level of control the government has as a whole. China has a very restrictive government, and they would be hard-pressed to get more corrupted if they tried.

Oh yea, and the gangs and mafias are doing just fine in China, and they have little problem smuggling and producing their own weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Furthermore, with guns added to the equation the cost of law enforcement goes way up. If your average criminal does not have a gun (as in the UK), then they can usually be subdued by two policemen with batons. Give him a handgun, and suddenly you need multiple officers with expensive equipment to subdue him. You'll also have a lot less people volunteering for the police force if getting shot by criminals is a frequent occurence, and cops will be a lot less willing to confront criminals, after all no one wants to be a hero.
Not sure if you realize this, in the U.S. guns were part of the equation from before day 1 of the nation. Also, the vast majority of crimes occur outside the purview of LE officers, especially in the U.S. The police does not have a magic 8 ball that tells them what crime is about to occur where, making them a reactionary force that actually isn't capable of protecting civilians in most cases - they're primarily there for deterrence, and when that fails, to clean up and try to punish the bad guys.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Consider the London Riots last year, imagine how much worse it would have been if all those thugs had had guns? The roving gangs of them would have easily overwhelmed any honest citizen trying to defend his property, and the police would have experienced significant casualties trying to subdue them, in fact the army might have been ultimately required.

If such a riot were to occur in the US, I shudder to think what the casualties and expense to subdue it would be.
And why would "all those thugs" have guns? most riots starts with peaceful protests that devolves into rioting, they don't start out as private armies marching down the street. And we've had much worse riots than that, and guess what? neighborhood banded together to protect themselves for the rioters with their weapons.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 05:49   Link #65
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Local circulation has little to do with global prices. Take the Mexican cartel for example, they already source the majority of their weapons from south america. Also, it's not very difficult to manufacture your own weapon, especially stuff like AKs
Global prices have nothing to do with it. It's local prices. It doesn't matter if you can buy an AK for 100$ in Colombia, if the process to transport it to the US is 500$.

Also, local circulation of weapons is very important in determining weapon prices. If everyone and his mother owns a gun, you don't need to go to Colombia to get a gun. The black market price for a gun will approach the real market value of a gun, as they'll be extremely easy to obtain.

It's the difference between a criminal organisation being able to get 2 guns, and being able to get 200 guns.

Quote:
I completely disagree on the government control idea. Government is not a single monolithic entity, and the lower levels are often very corruptible regardless of the level of control the government has as a whole. China has a very restrictive government, and they would be hard-pressed to get more corrupted if they tried.
Government corruption is a metric of government control. A corrupt government is a weak government. Corruption reduces the ability of the government to project it's power. Corruption is rife in Mexico or China, making it easy for organised crime to do business. In the US, corruption exists on a much smaller scale, and is not systemic.
Quote:
Oh yea, and the gangs and mafias are doing just fine in China, and they have little problem smuggling and producing their own weapons.
Because, contrary to what most people think, the control of the Chinese government is not solid, and in most of the country has been compromised by corruption, allowing extenive opportunities for organised criminals. Compare that to Northern Europe.

Quote:
The police does not have a magic 8 ball that tells them what crime is about to occur where, making them a reactionary force that actually isn't capable of protecting civilians in most cases - they're primarily there for deterrence, and when that fails, to clean up and try to punish the bad guys.
No, they don't have an "8 ball", but if a particular gang is illegally practicing some kind of racket, it doesn't take them long to find out and bust them.

If you decided to get some friends together and hold your neighbour's property to ransom, would you get away with it? Or would you get busted by the police? You might manage it once, or maybe even twice, but it wouldn't take long for you to be reported and for the police to come down on you. The same doesn't occur in the less controlled parts of Mexico.

Quote:
And why would "all those thugs" have guns? most riots starts with peaceful protests that devolves into rioting, they don't start out as private armies marching down the street. And we've had much worse riots than that, and guess what? neighborhood banded together to protect themselves for the rioters with their weapons.
If you remove all gun controls, the logical end point is that everyone and their mother will own a gun, logically that means every rioter will also have a gun. What riots have occured on American soil that were on the scale of the London riots?

Of course rioters won't be a private army, but they can still kill a lot of policemen (and each other) before getting subdued.

If everyone has a gun, and there's no law and order, what would logically happen?
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 06:59   Link #66
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Sigh, your red herrings are starting to get pretty old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
No, they don't have an "8 ball", but if a particular gang is illegally practicing some kind of racket, it doesn't take them long to find out and bust them.

If you decided to get some friends together and hold your neighbour's property to ransom, would you get away with it? Or would you get busted by the police? You might manage it once, or maybe even twice, but it wouldn't take long for you to be reported and for the police to come down on you. The same doesn't occur in the less controlled parts of Mexico.
Red Herring 1. How does a couple guy stupidly deciding to hold their neighbor's property hostage (lol?) have anything to do with the nature of police work in general? since when did gang racketeering becomes the only crime you have to worry about? Home invasions, robbery, rape and other regular violent crimes are what most people would ever have the misfortune of having to defend themselves from.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Global prices have nothing to do with it. It's local prices. It doesn't matter if you can buy an AK for 100$ in Colombia, if the process to transport it to the US is 500$.
Yea, that's why the Mexican cartels are totally not sourcing the majority of their weapons from south america! oh wait...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Also, local circulation of weapons is very important in determining weapon prices. If everyone and his mother owns a gun, you don't need to go to Colombia to get a gun. The black market price for a gun will approach the real market value of a gun, as they'll be extremely easy to obtain.
I suggest you read this:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110...0-percent-myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Government corruption is a metric of government control. A corrupt government is a weak government. Corruption reduces the ability of the government to project it's power. Corruption is rife in Mexico or China, making it easy for organised crime to do business. In the US, corruption exists on a much smaller scale, and is not systemic.
Red herring 2. This is fine and dandy, but has little to do with the discussion at hand, which is supposed to be gun control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If you remove all gun controls, the logical end point is that everyone and their mother will own a gun, logically that means every rioter will also have a gun.
False logic, you're assuming that everyone will want a gun, and that they will all have the money to purchase the gun, and that all the rioters will also want to use their gun in said riot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
What riots have occured on American soil that were on the scale of the London riots?
A few seconds on google would've given you the answers:

http://www.forensiccolleges.net/blog...rican-history/

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Of course rioters won't be a private army, but they can still kill a lot of policemen (and each other) before getting subdued.
Neither of which requires firearms. As a matter of fact, they tend not to be caused by firearms, but rather melee weapons or other items such as molotov cocktails, or just your plain 'ol fists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If everyone has a gun, and there's no law and order, what would logically happen?
Red herring 3, irrelevant scenario. Unless you're trying to imply that civilian gun ownership leads to a loss of societal order, in which case reality would like to slap some sense into you.

Let's try to keep these discussion at least somewhat close to the realm of the plausible. At this point you're pretty much saying that the availability of civilian firearms will lead to the downfall of societies and governments.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 07:58   Link #67
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Red Herring 1. How does a couple guy stupidly deciding to hold their neighbor's property hostage (lol?) have anything to do with the nature of police work in general? since when did gang racketeering becomes the only crime you have to worry about? Home invasions, robbery, rape and other regular violent crimes are what most people would ever have the misfortune of having to defend themselves from.
The reason this scenario does not occur is a combination of guns being restricted by licenses, and the police being suitably powerful to prevent it. These kind of crimes were ubiquitous prior to the modern era (it's what feudalism is based on, I can kill you, you give me money).

Quote:
Yea, that's why the Mexican cartels are totally not sourcing the majority of their weapons from south america! oh wait...
Prove it, every source I've seen points to the majority of Mexican arms originating in the United States..

That article still suggests that most weapons (besides the military grade) are sourced in the United States.

Quote:
Red herring 2. This is fine and dandy, but has little to do with the discussion at hand, which is supposed to be gun control.
I was explaining that government gun control also requires anti-corruption efforts. Laws cease to have any effect when they are not properly enforced.

Quote:
False logic, you're assuming that everyone will want a gun, and that they will all have the money to purchase the gun, and that all the rioters will also want to use their gun in said riot.
1. Most people (in the United States) can afford a gun, you can buy a handgun for as little as $140, well within the reach of all but the poorest.

So if the guns are cheap, and no limits exist on who can buy them, then most people with a criminal disposition will try to obtain one, be it through a licensed dealer, or second hand (just like they manage to get alcohol they technically can't buy). Once the youth has almost ubiquitously armed itself with guns, then most of the rest of the population will get guns as well, for self defense, even those who would otherwise prefer not to own one. Once a riot occurs, with all the opportunities for looting it offers, you'd be a fool not to use your gun, especially in a situation where physical strength is the only law.

Quote:
Neither of which requires firearms. As a matter of fact, they tend not to be caused by firearms, but rather melee weapons or other items such as molotov cocktails, or just your plain 'ol fists.
Yes, but firearms make it worse. Or are firearms completely ineffective as a means to attack another person/defend yourself?

Quote:
Red herring 3, irrelevant scenario. Unless you're trying to imply that civilian gun ownership leads to a loss of societal order, in which case reality would like to slap some sense into you.
I more mean that in a situation where societal order has broken down, it leads to the situation becoming worse. Not only that, but it makes it easier for social order to break down in the first place, as when a criminal element has easy access to weaponry, they can overpower the police.

Quote:
Let's try to keep these discussion at least somewhat close to the realm of the plausible. At this point you're pretty much saying that the availability of civilian firearms will lead to the downfall of societies and governments.
The loss of the government monopoly on force will lead to either a localised or wider downfall of society.

It is possible to have gun ownership and restrict the flow of weapons to organised crime and other extra legal organisations. I would simply do the following:
1. Limit all residents and citizens to 2 weapons, 1 of which is a small arm (pistol, handgun), the other being a rifle or shotgun, with exceptions for those possessing a hunting or sports license.
2. Require all gun sales to be carried out through licensed gun vendors.
3. Require all guns sold to be registered to a single individual, and listed on a government database. You must have a certificate showing you know how to use the gun, and are of sound mind, with no criminal past, or connections.
4. Reselling a gun, or allowing it fall out of your possession will be an prisonable offense.
5. Allowing your gun to be stolen will be a prisonable offense unless you can prove you took adequate precautions to secure it against theft, which are listed by the government.
6. If your gun is used in any kind of felony, unless you can prove you adequately secured the gun, you are also responsible.
7. A gun may only be disposed of by selling it back to a licensed vendor, or selling it to a government armory, or having the transfer of the license approved by the state authority, with the new owner listed on the state's database.

Gun laws in the United States are lax in comparison, if you wanted to you can buy unlimited number of guns (who really needs more then 1 for self defense?), and you don't need to register a gun that's bought at a gun fair. It's not banning guns outright (as that would be anathema to most americans), it's about control.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 08:48   Link #68
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
If I recall, some man in England was sentanced to jail for defending himself with a gun in his own home. He got more time than the thief.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2012-07-29, 09:20   Link #69
csuree
The Most Wanted™
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Romania, Oradea
Age: 26
Send a message via Yahoo to csuree
the thing is everyone blames the guns for causing victims but it is actually the people who handle the guns are the culprits...
my opinion is that every country has its own laws 4 this stuff and i agree perfectly to it. The problem is that you get the document for keeping and using the guns, but it should be regulated by controlled periodical check-ups that the person who has a gun hasn't gotten nuts, or has some psycho issues.

about self defense, or saving your loved ones. ....no bullet will stop me....hell they will need a bazooka to stop me and pray for it to hit me before i get to them cuz if i get to them i tear the guy(s) to pieces with bare hands....and then i will be sentenced for murder of extreme cruelty.
if someone needs a gun they should be prepared to defend themselves without one too. cuz i think murder for self defense is not justified either.

think of the thief too.. it has a family...a kid.. will you be happy if someone killed your relative.. NO... then.think of it this way... murder is not the answer...learn martial arts so you can incapacitate your victim but killing is too much.

we should not carry out death....that is someone else's job(depends on religion).
__________________
Go for your dreams, never give up.Because when you give up your dreams, you die!
csuree is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 11:22   Link #70
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
There have been enough cases of a thief surviving and then *suing* the home owner that most legal analysts say if you are forced to defend yourself in your home you should kill the intruder.

1) If they survive, they are likely to sue.
2) If they are in your home while you're there you can assume they are willing to kill you.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 11:25   Link #71
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Sigh, and it continues...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The reason this scenario does not occur is a combination of guns being restricted by licenses, and the police being suitably powerful to prevent it. These kind of crimes were ubiquitous prior to the modern era (it's what feudalism is based on, I can kill you, you give me money).
Which again HAVE NOTHING to do with the nature of police forces, can you deflect and evade some more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
There are already several articles linked in this thread earlier that debunks that myth, and is rather easily found if you actually put in the effort to search for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
That article still suggests that most weapons (besides the military grade) are sourced in the United States.
Yea, someone didn't read the same article I did, quote "This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
1. Most people (in the United States) can afford a gun, you can buy a handgun for as little as $140, well within the reach of all but the poorest.
....and is a useless POS. You don't get to preach the awfulness of firearms on the back of heavy/military grade equipments, and go around quoting the price of civilian pea-shooters that can barely take out a varmint, and has less effective range than people can throw a basketball.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
It is possible to have gun ownership and restrict the flow of weapons to organised crime and other extra legal organisations. I would simply do the following:
1. Limit all residents and citizens to 2 weapons, 1 of which is a small arm (pistol, handgun), the other being a rifle or shotgun, with exceptions for those possessing a hunting or sports license.
2. Require all gun sales to be carried out through licensed gun vendors.
3. Require all guns sold to be registered to a single individual, and listed on a government database. You must have a certificate showing you know how to use the gun, and are of sound mind, with no criminal past, or connections.
4. Reselling a gun, or allowing it fall out of your possession will be an prisonable offense.
5. Allowing your gun to be stolen will be a prisonable offense unless you can prove you took adequate precautions to secure it against theft, which are listed by the government.
6. If your gun is used in any kind of felony, unless you can prove you adequately secured the gun, you are also responsible.
7. A gun may only be disposed of by selling it back to a licensed vendor, or selling it to a government armory, or having the transfer of the license approved by the state authority, with the new owner listed on the state's database.
Good lord, why don't you take their first-born and their wives while you're at it? Presumption of Guilt instead of Innocence? Wow, just... wow...


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Gun laws in the United States are lax in comparison, if you wanted to you can buy unlimited number of guns (who really needs more then 1 for self defense?), and you don't need to register a gun that's bought at a gun fair. It's not banning guns outright (as that would be anathema to most americans), it's about control.
Which by your logic should have already collapsed, after all with THIS MUCH GUN around organized crimes in the US must be IMMENSELY powerful, certainly far more than any piddy local police department can manage. I guess I better call the news station to tell them the US is a failed state, since it seems like nobody has realized it yet

Nobody is arguing that there should not be any regulation, but the regulation you're proposing is just so far out there it's not even funny, nor is your outlandish claims that civilian grade weaponry will allow organized crimes to topple governments (the Syrian rebels would wish it was so easy). Your slipper slope fallacies are so slippery it can probably sling shot you straight to the moon.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 11:58   Link #72
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
If I recall, some man in England was sentanced to jail for defending himself with a gun in his own home. He got more time than the thief.
That was Tony Martin, but he did more than just defend himself. He noticed 2 burglars in his house and chased them with a shotgun. They were unarmed and Martin shot them in the back while they fled, killing one who turned out to be underage.

Martin was convicted for manslaughter and possession of an illegal weapon which resulted in a 5 year conviction. The surviving burglar got convicted for burglary and was sentenced to 3 years.

There was a bit of a mess with early paroles after.

There was no self defense case as Martin used excessive force on a fleeing unarmed opponent. Martin was lucky to get off with a reduced sentence on appeal, due to a psychological condition. He was initially charged with murder and could have received a life sentence.
Bri is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 13:00   Link #73
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
"Yea, that's why the Mexican cartels are totally not sourcing the majority of their weapons from south america! oh wait... "
No your correct, this is courtesy of Operation Fast and Furious, an operation put in use by our own BATFE! And the effects are devastating!
They were attempting to track where the illegal weapons were going, and let them go over the border...guess what they were never recovered and people died! It was a result of what's calmed "straw sales" where a person without legal means of purchasing a firearm, finds a "patsy" and gives then money to buy the guns for them, it is very illegal. And yet the ATF let these guns go south so they could find the cartel bosses.
It's a huge debacle and a senate committee is investigating and has issued subpoenas and arrest warrants for those agents involved as well as Eric Holder!
Government corruption is one thing, but it's stupidity is another.
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 14:11   Link #74
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
You realize the amount of weapons ATF "sold" to the cartels were drops in the bucket in the grand scheme of things right?
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 14:17   Link #75
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Stupidity has always basically defined the BATFE... and it shows how hard it is to eliminate an agency that executes disaster after incompetent disaster and is redundant to the mandates of other agencies.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 15:25   Link #76
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
You realize the amount of weapons ATF "sold" to the cartels were drops in the bucket in the grand scheme of things right?
Of course I do. I was just putting it out there that the ATF is a rather redundant agency looking for a reason to exist! They are more of the problem than the solution!
And besides, I think much of the arms that are showing up in Mexico might have been provided by Colombia, they are or were the drug traffickers of the world at one point, and had millions of dollars to spend on arms.
In any event I do not favor gun control, as it simply doesn't work!
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 18:06   Link #77
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
Of course I do. I was just putting it out there that the ATF is a rather redundant agency looking for a reason to exist! They are more of the problem than the solution!
And besides, I think much of the arms that are showing up in Mexico might have been provided by Colombia, they are or were the drug traffickers of the world at one point, and had millions of dollars to spend on arms.
In any event I do not favor gun control, as it simply doesn't work!
It doesn't? You might find this article interesting: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....ol/?hpt=hp_bn2

Key facts from the article:

1) The United States has roughly 88 guns per 100 people. Most other countries have 10 guns per 100 people. The country with the second highest number of guns per people is Yemen, at 54 per 100.

2) America has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That's 4x more than Switzerland, 10x more than India, and 20x more than England and Australia. (This point is not surprising in light of point #1.)

3) Within America: "In the decade since the year 2000, violent crime rates fell by 20 percent; aggravated assault by 22 percent; motor vehicle theft by 42 percent; murder – by all weapons – by 13 percent.
But guns are the exception. Gun homicide rates haven’t improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000. Meanwhile, serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent, as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier."

These are the facts. How do you explain them? There are two potential explanations. One is that American society is unhealthy and/or houses more deranged individuals than other societies, which seems unlikely. The second is that we're dealing with a reality brought about by having more gun ownership.

I'm not fully convinced that gun laws are the answer, but the facts stand as they are. If American society wants its guns, that's all fine and well - but we need to accept that there are consequences.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 18:18   Link #78
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
I would question the notion that "getting automatic weapons has become easier". Automatic weapons are still illegal outside museums, government/military/police forces, and private historical collections.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2012-07-29, 18:37   Link #79
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
3) Within America: "In the decade since the year 2000, violent crime rates fell by 20 percent; aggravated assault by 22 percent; motor vehicle theft by 42 percent; murder – by all weapons – by 13 percent.
But guns are the exception. Gun homicide rates haven’t improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000. Meanwhile, serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent, as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier."

These are the facts. How do you explain them? There are two potential explanations. One is that American society is unhealthy and/or houses more deranged individuals than other societies, which seems unlikely. The second is that we're dealing with a reality brought about by having more gun ownership.
I bolded the important part. The article is trying to put gun homicide as a separate category in and of itself, which is inherently flawed. Firearms is a very efficient tool at killing, which means it's often the preferred method chosen by people who are out trying to kill others. The key point here is what would happen if you tighten up gun control laws, would the criminals that were plotting to kill suddenly decide to not kill anymore? would they suddenly be unable to acquire a firearm? and if so, will they give up, or simply use an endless multitude of other instruments to achieve their goal?

Articles like that usually tries to paint the presence of gun as the cause of crimes, which completely flies in the face of reality, as crime is a social-economic at its core. If the mere presence of gun causes more crimes, then shouldn't the overall crime rate be increasing instead given the relaxation of gun control laws? The bottom line is, crimes in the US will not go away even if a magical device sudden took away every single firearms in the country. Trust me, a machete will works just well.

Not that banning firearms will prevent criminals from obtaining them, just ask the DEA how that war on drugs is going The only way gun control will work is if you completely ban the sale, manufacturing, and ownership of all firearms, and destroy all current stocks along with all methods of manufacturing them ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET.

which will then just set you back to the medieval age as far as weaponry goes, which as we all know had no problems with violent crimes right?
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 18:42   Link #80
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
I would question the notion that "getting automatic weapons has become easier". Automatic weapons are still illegal outside museums, government/military/police forces, and private historical collections.
I won't argue that point, and couldn't even if I wanted to - the third point was quoted directly from the article. I don't know where the source of their data that lead them to make such a claim.

Regardless, it seems rather obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if you have more guns, you can expect to have more gun-related injuries and deaths. Remove the guns, and you will have less. It is impossible to completely eliminate guns from society (not only because society would throw a fit, but because some criminals will always find a way to get hold of guns). It is also impossible to completely eliminate murder, assault, and theft. But reduce guns, and you reduce gun-related murder, gun-related assault, and gun-related theft.

Again, it's a question of what society wants. The use of cars are responsible for many deaths and injuries, but we can't ban cars; they are deemed too vital to society. Are guns vital enough to society that we'll just have to accept the deaths and injuries related to them? It's society's choice, and the consequences of that choice are society's responsibility.
__________________
Ledgem 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 16:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.