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 2012-07-29, 18:56   Link #81
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Sigh, and it continues...
You don't see me be being disrespectful? Perhaps I am foolish and ignorant, but talking down to me won't help educate me.

Quote:
Which again HAVE NOTHING to do with the nature of police forces, can you deflect and evade some more?
How am I deflecting and evading?

Quote:
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."
You are reading that incorrectly. The article says that only 12% of the arms seized by the government were proven to come from the United States. The rest could not be traced to anywhere, because they lacked Serial numbers etc. The same article then goes on to say that for every weapon type(besides military grade), the most significant source was the United States. I would sum it up as saying "it's wrong to say that 90% of Mexican weapons originate in the United States, as it's difficult to say exactly how many do, it's likely to be the majority for certain classes, but a significant proportion originate in other parts of the world". It said most civilian grade handguns, rifles, shotguns and ammunition originate in the United States.

Quote:
....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.
It's good enough for defending yourself from your average thug.

Quote:
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...
You misread. The government would provide regulations as to how to store your gun (EG you have to keep it locked in a cabinet). If you store it irresponsibly, you can get prosecuted, as a gun owner you should have a responsibility to keep your gun out of the reach of minors and those unlicensed to use a firearm. A lot of gun proliferation occurs due to guns getting stolen. Likewise, if you legally purchased a gun, and willfully sold it on the blackmarket, you should be prosecuted, and this is easily proven if that weapon is found at the scene of a crime. Likewise gun owners would need to report their guns stolen to the law, and in the process they can show they reasonably stored their weapons securely.

It's similiar to dangerous chemicals. If you're licensed to own stores of such chemicals you can be prosecuted if you sell them to unlicensed individuals, or store them insecurely.

Quote:
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
The US is a secure state for other reasons, but I would argue that the number of guns in circulation makes the country more unstable in the long term.

Quote:
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.
I'm arguing for Gun Control, not Gun banning. So long as the civilian population is easily subdued by the police/armed forces, I don't really care. Plenty of people who are against gun control are against all gun regulation, and particularly increasing levels of gun regulation.

If you need a license+insurance to drive a car, why shouldn't you need a license to own a gun? Both are highly dangerous in the wrong hands. Right now, the US has no real licensing regulations. I could go to any gun fair and buy as many guns as I like(so long as it's a private dealer), and I wouldn't even need to have a background check. I could be insane and they wouldn't have to care.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 19:06   Link #82
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
The main objection to that will be from the gun owners that will be immediately thrown in jail just because such regulations are passed. Most would fight rather than follow what would be considered draconian laws.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 19:12   Link #83
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Prohibition worked really well, too.... o wait
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 19:44   Link #84
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
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?
You ask good questions. The answers are available to us now: what happens in societies that have much stricter gun control laws than the United States? I don't have the answer (nor do I have the time to look it up), but the data is available.

What I do know, and what many people do not like to admit, is that restrictions tend to have an adverse affect on activities. It may be impossible to prevent people from acquiring guns, but if you take away all of the low- and mid-hanging fruit, many people will give up their pursuit. That also applies to would-be criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
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.
I don't quite agree that was the intent of the article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Not that banning firearms will prevent criminals from obtaining them, just ask the DEA how that war on drugs is going
There is quite a large difference between drugs and guns. Further:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Prohibition worked really well, too.... o wait
There's a large difference between the control of drugs and alcohol and the control of guns. Substances are generally enjoyed out of the public, and can be enjoyed by anyone who wishes to indulge in them. A drug is a drug: it doesn't exist for a particular purpose, and drug-related deaths generally occur to the users alone (overdose and the like).

Compare that with guns. Unless you live in a rural area, you're not going to be enjoying your gun unless you derive enjoyment from simply looking at it. I don't believe you can find firing ranges in most cities, and perhaps not even around many suburban areas. Further, a gun is a weapon, designed for killing and/or inflicting harm. If gun-related deaths were limited to suicide it might be more comparable to drugs, but we know how this one plays out: many gun-related deaths are cases where one person used a gun to inflict harm on others.

The most damning evidence, though: prohibition was tried across many countries and cultures, and it failed in nearly all of them (those hanging on to it are the highly religious, and I expect it will fail there, too, if you want to argue that it's still successful there at all). Gun control, on the other hand, has been implemented across many countries and cultures, and has remained with no ill consequences.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 21:17   Link #85
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
You ask good questions. The answers are available to us now: what happens in societies that have much stricter gun control laws than the United States? I don't have the answer (nor do I have the time to look it up), but the data is available.

What I do know, and what many people do not like to admit, is that restrictions tend to have an adverse affect on activities. It may be impossible to prevent people from acquiring guns, but if you take away all of the low- and mid-hanging fruit, many people will give up their pursuit. That also applies to would-be criminals.


I don't quite agree that was the intent of the article.


There is quite a large difference between drugs and guns. Further:


There's a large difference between the control of drugs and alcohol and the control of guns. Substances are generally enjoyed out of the public, and can be enjoyed by anyone who wishes to indulge in them. A drug is a drug: it doesn't exist for a particular purpose, and drug-related deaths generally occur to the users alone (overdose and the like).

Compare that with guns. Unless you live in a rural area, you're not going to be enjoying your gun unless you derive enjoyment from simply looking at it. I don't believe you can find firing ranges in most cities, and perhaps not even around many suburban areas. Further, a gun is a weapon, designed for killing and/or inflicting harm. If gun-related deaths were limited to suicide it might be more comparable to drugs, but we know how this one plays out: many gun-related deaths are cases where one person used a gun to inflict harm on others.

The most damning evidence, though: prohibition was tried across many countries and cultures, and it failed in nearly all of them (those hanging on to it are the highly religious, and I expect it will fail there, too, if you want to argue that it's still successful there at all). Gun control, on the other hand, has been implemented across many countries and cultures, and has remained with no ill consequences.
You might be surprised with how many indoor gun ranges exist in some cities. And there has been a effort in Austrailia to do away with the gun control there!
And if you bothered to look it is extremely difficult and expensive to get a transferable machine gun.
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 21:24   Link #86
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
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.
And what's the point if those gun-related crimes simply shifted into knife-related crimes instead? Would you feel better about getting multiple stabs to the gut or your throat slashed instead of getting shot?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
You ask good questions. The answers are available to us now: what happens in societies that have much stricter gun control laws than the United States? I don't have the answer (nor do I have the time to look it up), but the data is available.
Some are more violent, some are less violent; some have less gun related crimes, some have more. There's no clear indicator, because there are far more factors affecting crime than availability of firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
What I do know, and what many people do not like to admit, is that restrictions tend to have an adverse affect on activities. It may be impossible to prevent people from acquiring guns, but if you take away all of the low- and mid-hanging fruit, many people will give up their pursuit. That also applies to would-be criminals.
How's that working out for marijuana? or any drugs in general? The vast majority of people that would be forced to give up their weapons would be law-abiding civilians, the criminals who already have possession of firearms couldn't care less. Remember, you're not working in a vacuum here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Compare that with guns. Unless you live in a rural area, you're not going to be enjoying your gun unless you derive enjoyment from simply looking at it. I don't believe you can find firing ranges in most cities, and perhaps not even around many suburban areas.
Actually, you can pretty much find gun shops and indoor/outdoor range just about everywhere, even in areas with very tight gun control laws like Illinois and DC. A quick look on google map would've told you that.

F
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
but we know how this one plays out: many gun-related deaths are cases where one person used a gun to inflict harm on others.
And why would that person suddenly not inflict harm on his/her intended target without a gun? If someone has already formed the intent to kill another, you really believe that a lack of firearm will change their mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Gun control, on the other hand, has been implemented across many countries and cultures, and has remained with no ill consequences.
Without defining what "ill consequences" are(or any data to back up that claim), that statement is pretty much worthless. So is the continued attempt to treat gun as a cause of crime, rather than instrumentation used in crimes.
kyp275 is online now  
Old 2012-07-29, 21:37   Link #87
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
The most damning evidence, though: prohibition was tried across many countries and cultures, and it failed in nearly all of them (those hanging on to it are the highly religious, and I expect it will fail there, too, if you want to argue that it's still successful there at all). Gun control, on the other hand, has been implemented across many countries and cultures, and has remained with no ill consequences.
Violent crime in most of the Western world has been in general decline since the 1980s, with a few major spikes in between.
Take the UK for example, independent of their gun policies, violent crimes have been decreasing since 1980.

According to the CDC, gangs are the main reason for gun violence in the US.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 22:08   Link #88
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Well... indoor and outdoor firing ranges are quite common in cities... at least off the East Coast (can't speak for that). Generally, any city I've lived or spent time in for work purposes has had a range within a reasonable distance. In 'progressive Portland', there are a half dozen indoor ranges and at least three outdoor ranges I know of.

At the end of the day... if someone could show me a path wherein we had effective preventative law enforcement, an integrated check system for gun ownership that involved community service (civil defense, etc) and required training. Well, I'd be a-ok with that and perhaps I'd just sharpen up my alternative martial arts and tools of defense.

Unfortunately, most gun control advocates or anti-gunners don't really understand the topics, the technology, or the situation. What I hear are far too often what I call "soccer mom" solutions. They don't make practical sense and often simply illuminate how little the speaker has researched the issues or understands firearm technology -- which is vital to proposing constructive regulations.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 22:53   Link #89
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
The gun issue is very much a divisive issue between those living in the USA, and those living outside of it. Personally, I don't understand the attachment to such devices who sole purpose is to deal death to another human being.

Most lethal things with no other uses are banned, we don't protest at how poisons or lethal chemicals are restricted, how you're not allowed to carry swords or knives in public.

And in terms of self-defense, I question the overall utility of a gun. A big stick is usually enough, and the average home invader once discovered will never stick around. Most property related crimes will occur when you're not there, or fast asleep!

As for street crime, the mugger(if he's smart) will always ambush you, how useful is a gun when he has a knife at your throat?

And crime isn't even that frequent. There are only 403 violent crimes in the United States per 100,000 people per year, that means that the average person has only about a 1 in 4 chance of ever experiencing a violent crime in their lifetime. Now averages are deceptive, some people will live in violent areas, and might in that case need some degree of protection, and others will live in very peaceful areas, where the crime rate is nigh non-existent.

Not only that, but most of those violent crimes are assaults and rapes, which are all highly likely to be caused by someone known to the victim, or as a result of domestic abuse, and not due to the actions of a random home invader. Robbery only accounts for about a quarter of violent crimes. And of course, many of those violent crimes would not require a gun to defend yourself.

Your average paranoid gun lover will fantasize about the opportunity to finally use his guns to defend his turf and nail the perps, but it will likely never ever happen. Given the infrequency of such crimes, why tolerate the safety risks posed by unregulated arms possession?
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 23:08   Link #90
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Many use guns for recreation. It is a decent stress relief device on a gun range or shooting random targets in the wilderness. There are many skeet and clay shooting clubs around the United States. Sporting weapons that generally aren't all that good for home defense.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 23:49   Link #91
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
You might be surprised with how many indoor gun ranges exist in some cities. And there has been a effort in Austrailia to do away with the gun control there!
And if you bothered to look it is extremely difficult and expensive to get a transferable machine gun.
None of this addresses the points that I raised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
And what's the point if those gun-related crimes simply shifted into knife-related crimes instead? Would you feel better about getting multiple stabs to the gut or your throat slashed instead of getting shot?
Yes, I would feel better about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Some are more violent, some are less violent; some have less gun related crimes, some have more. There's no clear indicator, because there are far more factors affecting crime than availability of firearms.
Given what you just wrote here, I take it you didn't bother to look up the data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
How's that working out for marijuana? or any drugs in general? The vast majority of people that would be forced to give up their weapons would be law-abiding civilians, the criminals who already have possession of firearms couldn't care less. Remember, you're not working in a vacuum here.
Totally ignored what I wrote about the differences between drug control and guns, didn't you? Please re-read it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
And why would that person suddenly not inflict harm on his/her intended target without a gun? If someone has already formed the intent to kill another, you really believe that a lack of firearm will change their mind?
Yes, I do. Do you know why? Because people tend to act in a fit of rage. If they're forced to spend more time trying to accomplish their goal, that's also more time that they're left to ponder what they're doing, and to simmer down.

Would this stop all murders? No, and I've been saying that all along. But I think it's pretty silly to think that it wouldn't stop any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Without defining what "ill consequences" are(or any data to back up that claim), that statement is pretty much worthless. So is the continued attempt to treat gun as a cause of crime, rather than instrumentation used in crimes.
Worthless, huh? OK then, why don't you tell me what some of the ill consequences are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Violent crime in most of the Western world has been in general decline since the 1980s, with a few major spikes in between.
Take the UK for example, independent of their gun policies, violent crimes have been decreasing since 1980.

According to the CDC, gangs are the main reason for gun violence in the US.
None of that has to do with what you quoted from me. Was this an unfinished thought?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Well... indoor and outdoor firing ranges are quite common in cities... at least off the East Coast (can't speak for that).
You know where I'm from Although I don't recall seeing any in Los Angeles, either... Pittsburgh, being on the border between the East Coast and the Midwest, is a bit different. Google Maps reveals a few gun shops on the edges of the city, but I haven't run into any here. In the rural town that I lived in before moving here, we had two gun shops. But that was a rural area.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 23:54   Link #92
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The gun issue is very much a divisive issue between those living in the USA, and those living outside of it. Personally, I don't understand the attachment to such devices who sole purpose is to deal death to another human being.
No, they don't have a "sole purpose."
If they did, then why do the police have them?
They are multi-purpose and can be used for a variety of things.
From pest control of Bubonic Plague carrying prarie dogs, to stress relief by shooting paper targets, to competition shooting in the Olympics, to crime control, self-defense, and as a deterence to Elitists who think they're going to erect a totalitarian system.
Firearms have many uses that are legitimate.

Quote:
Most lethal things with no other uses are banned, we don't protest at how poisons or lethal chemicals are restricted, how you're not allowed to carry swords or knives in public.
Actually in the US you can carry a knife in public. I carry a 6 inch foldable bowie with me everyday.

Quote:
And in terms of self-defense, I question the overall utility of a gun. A big stick is usually enough, and the average home invader once discovered will never stick around. Most property related crimes will occur when you're not there, or fast asleep!
Okay, my bullshitometer just went off the scale.
Asleep?
Do you think Americans don't have alarm systems, dogs, or locked doors?
Trust me, just the "Cha-Chinck!" sound of a 12 gauge shotgun slide is enough to deter most intruders.
And when that doesn't work, "boom!"

To be fair, the reason that some people are made victims with their own weapons is due to the fact that they live in a state/city/area where they can be charged with a crime if they defend themselves with a gun.
In states with Castle Doctrines that are honored this is rare (still happens occationally) but rare.
Compare that to a city like Philadelphia Penn, where you can be prosecuted for shooting an intruder despite a Castle Doctrine, and the incidence of a criminal turning a person's weapon on them is much higher.

Quote:
As for street crime, the mugger(if he's smart) will always ambush you, how useful is a gun when he has a knife at your throat?
Dude you need to lay off the manga/anime. I don't know of any muggers who can flashstep like Ichigo, or pull a "I Lelouch vi Britannia command you..." before you plug the SOB.
Unless you make a habit of traveling down deserted roads, tight alleys, or walking home in the wee hours of the morning in bad neighborhoods, the scenario you put forward is highly unlikely.

Quote:
And crime isn't even that frequent. There are only 403 violent crimes in the United States per 100,000 people per year, that means that the average person has only about a 1 in 4 chance of ever experiencing a violent crime in their lifetime. Now averages are deceptive, some people will live in violent areas, and might in that case need some degree of protection, and others will live in very peaceful areas, where the crime rate is nigh non-existent.
If it's that infrequent than a gun makes it even less likely to happen.

Quote:
Not only that, but most of those violent crimes are assaults and rapes, which are all highly likely to be caused by someone known to the victim, or as a result of domestic abuse, and not due to the actions of a random home invader. Robbery only accounts for about a quarter of violent crimes. And of course, many of those violent crimes would not require a gun to defend yourself.
This one I agree with somewhat.
Crimes of passion and domestic violence are a serious issue and a problem in the US.
Gun, knife, poison, baseball bat, fists, car, it doesn't matter what kind of weapon is used, what matters is that there are serious issues in the home that need to be addressed and stopped BEFORE it gets violent.
This is a cultural deficiency in the US.
Abusive parents beat children with impunity, and wives just stand by and do nothing. "It's just the way he/she is," is a common excuse. Until we as a society put a STOP to this, and family members start actually turning in the abusers, this type of violence will not cease with or without firearms.

Quote:
Your average paranoid gun lover will fantasize about the opportunity to finally use his guns to defend his turf and nail the perps, but it will likely never ever happen. Given the infrequency of such crimes, why tolerate the safety risks posed by unregulated arms possession?
And your average hoplophobic gun-control freak will dream of firearm-free streets with smiling muggers helping little old ladies across the street, gangbangers trading in gum-drops and skittles, while hosing each down with water balloons and games of tag for turf wars. There's a word for those kinds of people....LOONIES!

In the real world, the streets are dangerous; have always been and will always be so long as humans exist.
We in the US do not tolerate having arms they are embraced.
Our weapons are regulated as much as we see fit to do so as a society.
In fact, there are numerous people who think there are too few requirements for training and too many restrictions on access.
We are a violent and ruthless society in many ways, perhaps it is the price for being a free and individualistic people.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-29, 23:55   Link #93
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Some have indoor, underground ranges. Or they are in the hills, or joint ranges with the local police departments. Some are sporting clubs that do clay and skeet shooting rather than target practise.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-07-30, 00:01   Link #94
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
None of that has to do with what you quoted from me. Was this an unfinished thought?
No, you said there were no ill consequences.
That's not true.
Gangs simply moved from guns to knives and crime with knives (which are silent, easier to conceal, and much cheaper) has risen considerably.
Taking away the means of the law abiding to defend themselves has opened up an opportunity for any would be gang-banger to commit crime with impunity.
Canada is having similar problems.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-30, 00:17   Link #95
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
No, you said there were no ill consequences.
That's not true.
Bear in mind that I said there were no ill consequences that other countries experienced relating to their gun control. I'm happy that you provided two links for me to analyze.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Gangs simply moved from guns to knives and crime with knives (which are silent, easier to conceal, and much cheaper) has risen considerably.
Did you read the article? Do you know why knife crimes rose, according to the article? It isn't because guns were banned, it's because funding to youth programs are being cut. Youth programs are recognized as helping to keep youths out of gangs.

Suppose funding to youth programs were cut, and guns were readily available. Do you think that the gangs wouldn't form? Of course not - instead, we would probably be seeing a headline that said "gun crime and gang violence on the rise as councils reduce youth services."

Suffice it to say, this article had nothing to do with guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Taking away the means of the law abiding to defend themselves has opened up an opportunity for any would be gang-banger to commit crime with impunity.
Canada is having similar problems.
What problems? Here are the money quotes:

"Most crimes in Canada do not involve violence. When they do, most are committed with physical force or threats (76%) rather than a weapon (18%). When a weapon is used, a knife is the most common choice."

"The rate of violent crime committed with a knife has remained stable since 1999. While the number of such crimes is low, they are most often homicides and attempted murders—approximately 1 out of 3 in 2008."

None of these articles do anything to support your point. If guns are harder to acquire, then people will use a different weapon. Is that surprising? I'm not surprised. Who's surprised? The reduction in guns has not increased crime (at least, not according to your linked articles - if you can find an article that says otherwise, I'll have a look at it). Is the shift to knives really worse than people using guns? I don't think so.

Instead of focusing on how guns can be used for nefarious purposes, you're choosing to focus on how guns can be used in self-defense. They can be used for self-defense, but how often does that happen? More to the point, does it happen anywhere near the number of times that guns have been used for assault?

I don't know the answer. If you can find the statistics, I'd be interested to see them. And regardless of what the statistics show, it doesn't indicate an answer: it's up to each individual to decide whether the trade-off is worthwhile.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-07-30, 01:11   Link #96
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Did you read the article? Do you know why knife crimes rose, according to the article? It isn't because guns were banned, it's because funding to youth programs are being cut. Youth programs are recognized as helping to keep youths out of gangs.
Of course I read it, with the knowledge that the UK has very strict gun-control, and that's the point.
The article doesn't need to address the issue because it is already well known.
Thus the point I was making is that gangs will use whatever weapons are available irregardless of whether they are guns or knives.
I agree with you that the focus needs to be to get youths ouf of gangs and again the article points out why the violence is happening.
It isn't the knives that are causing it, any more than guns would, it's the existence of the gangs that are the problem.

Quote:
If guns are harder to acquire, then people will use a different weapon. Is that surprising? I'm not surprised. Who's surprised?
That is my point.
Banning firearms does nothing to curb crime.
All it does is disarm the law abiding.

Quote:
The reduction in guns has not increased crime (at least, not according to your linked articles - if you can find an article that says otherwise, I'll have a look at it). Is the shift to knives really worse than people using guns? I don't think so.
Is this more along the lines of what you're looking for?

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**


Warning PDF FILE.

Quote:
Instead of focusing on how guns can be used for nefarious purposes, you're choosing to focus on how guns can be used in self-defense. They can be used for self-defense, but how often does that happen? More to the point, does it happen anywhere near the number of times that guns have been used for assault?
That's because gun control doesn't effect those that use them for vile purposes.
Criminals don't obey the law.
Therefore, all gun control has ever done is disarm the law abiding.
As for self-defense uses, I already posted here on previous pages a link to some 526 instances over the 2011-2012 time period of when they have been reported to be used for self-defense.

Quote:
I don't know the answer. If you can find the statistics, I'd be interested to see them. And regardless of what the statistics show, it doesn't indicate an answer: it's up to each individual to decide whether the trade-off is worthwhile.
This blog has some nice charts based on Dr. Kleck's findings. The information is about as current as it gets.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-30, 04:41   Link #97
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Is this more along the lines of what you're looking for?

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**


Warning PDF FILE.
That paper is unfortunately a political essay pretending to be research. The problem is that the authors try to do a cross country legal gun ownership to murder/suicide rates comparison, without isolating the ease of acquiring weapons or the political situation, nor taking account of urban versus rural areas.
Bri is offline  
Old 2012-07-30, 08:00   Link #98
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Of course I read it, with the knowledge that the UK has very strict gun-control, and that's the point.
The article doesn't need to address the issue because it is already well known.
Thus the point I was making is that gangs will use whatever weapons are available irregardless of whether they are guns or knives.
I agree with you that the focus needs to be to get youths ouf of gangs and again the article points out why the violence is happening.
It isn't the knives that are causing it, any more than guns would, it's the existence of the gangs that are the problem.
OK, so here's my question: so what?

Are you trying to argue that knives have more destructive potential than guns? I don't think you would do that.

I've been saying the same thing all along, too: simply banning or limiting guns won't have an impact on the crime rates. It means that less people will be using guns. People shifting from using more destructive weapons to less destructive weapons is a good thing, isn't it? Can you imagine what would have happened in in Aurora if the shooter had gone in with knives instead of guns? I'm sure he could have murdered at least one or two people before being taken down, but the destructive potential is much less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**


Warning PDF FILE.
I only had a chance to briefly look through the PDF. I won't write it off as easily as Bri did, as I think there is some good data in there. However, there are quite a few holes, and a number of stretches where data is either presented in a skewed manner or where a point is made on some dubious reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
That's because gun control doesn't effect those that use them for vile purposes.
Criminals don't obey the law.
Therefore, all gun control has ever done is disarm the law abiding.
I'm not just talking about laws, I'm talking about availability (which tends to follow with laws). Case in point: automatic weaponry is banned, is it not? How many American criminals are using automatic weapons, despite their lack of availability to the general public?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
As for self-defense uses, I already posted here on previous pages a link to some 526 instances over the 2011-2012 time period of when they have been reported to be used for self-defense.
526 instances? I'd like to see that link (will look for it when I have the time), but all right. How does that compare to the number of instances where firearms were not used in self-defense (crimes, murders, etc.)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
This blog has some nice charts based on Dr. Kleck's findings. The information is about as current as it gets.
Now we're talking - good source!

There are some good points made in that article that I can't refute directly, but I'd like to point something out to you. You have consistently argued that criminals - by virtue of being criminals - do not follow the laws. Make guns illegal, and we will only have a disarmed populace that is at the mercy of armed criminals. Look at figure 3 on that page ("ways criminals obtain guns"). A mere 2.9% come from the black market. A whopping 32% stole the guns. The next highest statistic is "purchased from a source other than conventional dealer" at 28%. In light of the fact that there's a distinction between that and the black market, we're left to puzzle over what that means. I'd wager you will say that it's criminal sources, but I wonder if it's simply people buying from other people (think Craigslist, but not done so publicly). In any event, it is clear to me from that figure that if you reduce the presence of guns in the population, you will reduce the guns held by criminals. The black market would grow, I'm sure, but how much can a source of 2.9% really grow, especially when law enforcement is more focused on it?

The final table and figure in the article is a distractor that attempts to shift the focus away from guns. I found that disappointing and unnecessary.

Lastly, I want to clarify my personal position: I am not "anti-gun," but I am not "pro-gun" either. Quite honestly, I haven't made up my mind as to which stance to take. Government regulation rarely seems to work the way that it is intended, but it seems there is room to safeguard against gun-related tragedies. I don't feel unsafe, even now that I'm living in an area where gun use is fairly normal, but I also wonder about the utility of having guns in society. I'm largely having fun playing devil's advocate in this thread, but most of the counter-arguments haven't been so hot. I'm practically convincing myself of the position I'm arguing for at this point (although I give GundamFan0083 credit for that last link - that one was fair).
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-07-30, 08:37   Link #99
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
And just to clarify my position, I come from a family with generations of gun ownership and usage. I got marksman and safety training from my dad and from Scouting. I went to a high school where we had a rifle team. Kids routinely kept weapons in their cars for use after school at the range or to go hunting with. This was a high school in a big city. Students didn't shoot each other, there were no gun massacres. It was the same in virtually all the high schools in the region.

In addition, there are other countries where guns are a normal part of life with the same minimal layer of craziness.

So I don't see the guns themselves as the problem, there's something else fundamentally screwed up going on (but I could write pages dissecting current US society). Irrational bubblewrapping just seems to accelerate the problems rather than address them directly.

========================== (edit add)
Now there is some discussion floating around concerning high capacity magazines and I (as a gun owner) think they have some merit of consideration.
Quote:
A Democratic senator, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, is one of the few officials courageous enough to propose a better idea: A ban on clips that hold more than 10 bullets, which are not needed to hunt, practice or protect oneself. He first proposed this last year, after a gunman in Tucson used a 33-round magazine to shoot 18 people, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, killing six. The shooter was tackled when he had to reload.
This is something that doesn't bother me so much. I can certainly carry more magazines (just as police officers do). And 10 shots matches my statistics of probable needed shots in a situation. You will probably have 3 perps or less and firearm tactics prescribe 3 shots per assailant. If they aren't running after that, you've got a bullet left and hopefully a moment to slap in the second magazine while they're considering the value of continuing. (yes, when I carry I always have a second magazine thanks)

Six rounds... well, that's questionable in terms of personal safety but otoh, I have a 2-shot magnum derringer whose primary purpose is to make the biggest boom a perp has probably ever heard with a muzzle flash worthy of a rock concert explosion. It is like the "cricket" Will Smith used in MiB... your task is make a speedaway getaway during the "WTF?" moment.

It won't do anything about drug cartel shootouts, etc... but it *will* slow down the "insane"/"passion"/"gasketfailure" people like our most current idiot in Aurora. It is interesting that the facts keep sputtering out about basically everyone noticing this guy was spiraling into doom but no one acting on it or there being a process in place TO act on it.

Last edited by Vexx; 2012-07-30 at 16:35.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-07-30, 18:56   Link #100
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
That paper is unfortunately a political essay pretending to be research. The problem is that the authors try to do a cross country legal gun ownership to murder/suicide rates comparison, without isolating the ease of acquiring weapons or the political situation, nor taking account of urban versus rural areas.
The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a respected publication.
You may not like their findings, or agree with their politics, but they are spot on.
There is no "pretending" in that piece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
OK, so here's my question: so what?

Are you trying to argue that knives have more destructive potential than guns? I don't think you would do that.
In CQB they are more deadly than a handgun or rifle, but a shotgun...not so much.
A cut to the jugular is as dangerous as a shot to the head with a pistol.
However, a gut-shot with a shotgun is fatal, period.

Quote:
Can you imagine what would have happened in in Aurora if the shooter had gone in with knives instead of guns? I'm sure he could have murdered at least one or two people before being taken down, but the destructive potential is much less.
Yes, being the intelligent individual that James Holmes is, he would have prepared his attack differently.
Since we are speculating (imagining if you prefer) I can see him coming back into the theater going to the back of it and then throwing his tear gas grenades while slitting throats in the back row seats as people choke on the fumes.
How many would have died then?
Probably a lot, maybe even as many as he did kill or more.
We'll never know because he used a shotgun instead, and that is deadlier than a knife, pistol, or rifle.

Keep in mind he also had incendiary bombs in his apartment. The Aurora bomb squad said they were well made and lethal. Now, I wonder, in a crowded theater, how many could he have killed with those fire-bombs?

Quote:
However, there are quite a few holes, and a number of stretches where data is either presented in a skewed manner or where a point is made on some dubious reasoning.
That's quite a claim to make considering the research they did in that piece.
Let's see you back up your claim that it stretches data or skews the facts.

Quote:
I'm not just talking about laws, I'm talking about availability (which tends to follow with laws). Case in point: automatic weaponry is banned, is it not? How many American criminals are using automatic weapons, despite their lack of availability to the general public?
Automatic weapons (I assume you mean machine guns) are a red-herring.
They have been prohibitively expensive since the late 1800s and still legal to purchase with a class III license, so their availability has no impact on the gun control debate as they are hardly ever used.

Quote:
526 instances? I'd like to see that link (will look for it when I have the time), but all right. How does that compare to the number of instances where firearms were not used in self-defense (crimes, murders, etc.)?
Actually it has risen to 551 (oops, make that 552 since this morning).

Quote:
There are some good points made in that article that I can't refute directly, but I'd like to point something out to you. You have consistently argued that criminals - by virtue of being criminals - do not follow the laws. Make guns illegal, and we will only have a disarmed populace that is at the mercy of armed criminals. Look at figure 3 on that page ("ways criminals obtain guns"). A mere 2.9% come from the black market.
Black market means the serial numbers were removed, nothing more.

Quote:
A whopping 32% stole the guns. The next highest statistic is "purchased from a source other than conventional dealer" at 28%. In light of the fact that there's a distinction between that and the black market, we're left to puzzle over what that means. I'd wager you will say that it's criminal sources, but I wonder if it's simply people buying from other people.
No, it means illegally across state lines. Conventional dealers can be anything from an FFL holder to someone selling in the paper. Here in Colorado every sale of a gun has to go through CBI's NCIS system, even private sales. If they don't do that, it is an illegal sale.

Quote:
In any event, it is clear to me from that figure that if you reduce the presence of guns in the population, you will reduce the guns held by criminals. The black market would grow, I'm sure, but how much can a source of 2.9% really grow, especially when law enforcement is more focused on it?
Are you kidding, the Black Market would balloon out to the point of guns becoming completely untracable. You'd have millions of guns with their serial numbers burned or machined off, you'd have underground gun factories, ammo factories, and who knows what else.
Legem, you need to understand that the majority of gun owners are far-right wing in their thinking. They've been training for door-to-door confiscation since the 1970s (after the GCA of 1968).
Any attempt at trying to confiscate firearms or limit them futher will be met will outright violation of the laws passed, or worse, a rise in the level of violence that will not be worth the gun control laws passed.
That IS what happened in the US in the 1990s, you do remember Oaklahoma City don't you?
After that happened ATF (to their credit) rolled back all the restrictions on high capacity magazines (they allowed replacement mags, police surplus, and body extensions), they allowed "post-ban" configurations of semi-autos, and many other roll-backs because they saw what was coming.
Hell, all of us in the gun industry saw it.

Quote:
The final table and figure in the article is a distractor that attempts to shift the focus away from guns. I found that disappointing and unnecessary.
I disagree, the final chart shows how gun violence compares to other deaths in the US and is very relevent since it takes the wind out of the "health hazard" crap that the Brady Bunch (HCI) used to peddle in the early 2000s.

Quote:
Government regulation rarely seems to work the way that it is intended, but it seems there is room to safeguard against gun-related tragedies.
The way to safeguard is to enforce the rules/laws we already have.
In the case of James Holmes, he was a psychiatric patient.
It is already illegal to sell to such a person, so if you want to improve the chances of stopping another Holmes you need to allow NCIS to have access to the psychiatric records of patients deemed to be dangerous.
Holmes was one such patient.
If you wish to protect the public from people like him, then let the FBI have the mental health records.
I have no objection to that, unless it gets abused to stop all gun transfers.

Quote:
I don't feel unsafe, even now that I'm living in an area where gun use is fairly normal, but I also wonder about the utility of having guns in society. I'm largely having fun playing devil's advocate in this thread, but most of the counter-arguments haven't been so hot. I'm practically convincing myself of the position I'm arguing for at this point (although I give GundamFan0083 credit for that last link - that one was fair).
What's the utility of a gun?
We've gone over that, we don't need a post-mordem on it.

I'll recap it very quickly: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post

========================== (edit add)
Now there is some discussion floating around concerning high capacity magazines and I (as a gun owner) think they have some merit of consideration.
This is something that doesn't bother me so much. I can certainly carry more magazines (just as police officers do). And 10 shots matches my statistics of probable needed shots in a situation. You will probably have 3 perps or less and firearm tactics prescribe 3 shots per assailant. If they aren't running after that, you've got a bullet left and hopefully a moment to slap in the second magazine while they're considering the value of continuing. (yes, when I carry I always have a second magazine thanks)
*Not directed at you Vexx, this is me just venting in general*

I oppose it.
It will cause a spike in the cost of magazines for police officers like the first ban did.
They saw their magazine prices go from $5.00 per mag to $55.00/mag in less than four years during the 1994 ban.
Civilian pre-ban mags went clear above $100.00 before ATF got smart and began rolling back the restrictions on their own (too many people started making illegal magazines).
Criminals don't care how many rounds a gun holds, in fact the revolver is the most common pistol used and the shotgun is second.

Here according to TIME magazine are the top 10 guns used in crime in America:

1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz229ThIY7T

Gee, notice something?

Let me point it out for you.
Magazine/cylinder/tube bullet/shell capacity by number:

1) 6
2) 10 (in 2000, year of TIME magazine article)
3) 7
4) 5
5) 5+1 shell in chamber (6 total possible)
6) 10 (in 2000)
7) 6
8) 6
9) 6
10) 5

Only two of those guns have the ability to accept a hi-cap mag, and none of those weapons are "assault-rifles."
So we need a high capacity magazine ban why?

It's a bullshit law being proposed by a piece of shit senator and his cling-on co-sponsors.

Just because the occational wackjob has seen one to many hollywood movies and goes on a spree with a high-cap mag, doesn't mean diddley when it comes to crime in general.
__________________
GundamFan0083 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 17:45.


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