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 2012-12-22, 13:24   Link #921
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
The number-one factor in predicting crime is not guns -- or lack of guns. It is concentrated urban poverty. Because of Chicago’s history as a segregated city, we have a lot of that.
With regard to normal, non-insane acts (mass shooters, serial killers, etc), they are probably correct.
If you compare the states with the highest poverty (almost all Southern States), you see higher violent crime rates.
Which is why a state like Vermont has people walking around with guns on their hips, yet low crime compared to a state like Kentucky which forbids such action.

Quote:
Isn't everything you said based on statistics?
Not everything, much of it is based on the history of which gun laws have passed, and whether or not they achieved the results promised.
Also, I don't put as much weight on the statistics for this issue as I would others due to the politically charged nature of it.
Everyone is manipulating data to "win" the argument, so getting raw, unadulterated data, is difficult.
When such data has been made available, it generally shows that gun bans and other gun control measures do little to nothing to curb crime.
That indicates that these laws are an infringement on people's rights that should not exist.
My position doesn't require detailed statistics to support.
The burden lay with the group that wishes to convince me that I should give up my right to own a specific item for what they percieve as the greater good.
Clearly they haven't proven this poinit since crime has gone down, as has the freqency of mass shootings.
Repeating the same laws expecting a different result is not good public policy.
That's my poiint.
Gun control laws that ban firearms to lower crime aren't working the way they were intended, if at all.

Quote:
And how do you explain the results with the West and Midwest compared to the Northeast?
The same, most of the wealth in the United States is on the coastal regions. The interior has considerably higher poverty rates, high numbers of illegal aliens, and higher drug related crime.

Poverty in US:


Then we can take the issue of drug gangs in the US and apply that as well.
(Map from the FBI's website):


Compare that to murder rates:


Compared to concentration of minorites:


As you can see, there is a commonality to all of these maps, and firearms has little to do with it.
What it does show is that we need to provide better education, put an end to the drug war to bankrupt the drug gangs, and have a cultural discussion about the violent image our youth find so appealing.
Especially in the "gangska" cultures of our minority communities.
Mindset plays a role in whether or not a person chooses to engage in criminal activity, it isn't always about lack of money and/or poverty (though I would imagine those play a factor).

Quote:
This cuts both ways. Every time someone wants to commit a crime with a gun and yet is denied a purchase, doesn't try to make a purchase because of the regulations, or has their gun confiscated by the police, we don't hear about it. Crimes that are preemptively prevented before a person can acquire or use a gun won't make it into the statistics or the news, because it's only interesting if some action happens.
Of course it cuts both ways, but we also don't know how many times a criminal simply gets a gun from a mule coming up from Mexico (and it happens).
That's my point, we have so little data on this as to make it laughable to set policy based on these kinds of assumptive statistics.

Quote:
No, the source is fine. They pull their data from government databases which, while subject to the same imperfections as any database, is likely to be as legitimate as you can find. The issue that they're talking about is the statistics aspect, and they are absolutely correct to have a disclaimer about that.
Your source is a joke site Legem, it's like Wikipedia, it's there for nerds like me and you to have fun.
And it s a fun site, thanks for introducing me to it.

That's going to have to be it for now.
I've got errands to run today.
I know you must be crushed, since you LOOOOVE talking to me so much.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 13:47   Link #922
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
I'd say the "gangster" bit isn't exactly unique to minority communities, both in adoration by the youths or actual gangs.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 13:52   Link #923
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
I think it's a bit too easy to only focus on the weapons and wether to ban, what models to ban, and so on...
Both sides of this discussion can provide examples that support their argument. On one hand countries with a high distribution of weapon but low homicide rate do exist.
On the other hand there are some examples of homicide rates dropping after enforcing weapon control.

What this tells me, is that there must be more to it, than just the single variable "number of weapons per capita".

Here is one factor I think may be important:
The culture and society of the USA, as opposed to many other western nations, actively promotes (deadly) violence as a valid method for solving problems.

On the 'official' side we have:
- routinely starting wars, participating in armed conflict and using military force on the international level
- huge military expenses
- assassination of enemies of the state ('terrorists') by use of weapon force
- legal torture of enemies
- death penalty
- a variety of 'stand your ground'-like laws (ie quite liberal use, not only ownership of weapons, written into law)

This is important because to many people the world is quite simple: legal == good.
If it is legal to kill somone (ie the person trespassed on your yard) then it is also good and rightful.
It's their main moral compass.
The 'authorites' are a role model for what is proper behavior, because of their high status in society.

On the cultural side there is the general acceptance of violence in media as opposed to other socially unwanted behavior, such as obscenity, swearing, or political incorrectness.
This is apparent for example when looking at what gets you a high PG rating and what does not.
I wont go on about all the countless movies and games, in which you achieve Happy End, by killing off the bad guys. This is a dead horse by now and I wont beat it any further.

This is not meant to be a USA rant btw. This is a honest view from an outside observant. All these points are grossly different to place I live, so it might help you understand why there may be a different mindset towards weapons in general in another population of a western country.

I do believe, that this has a great impact on the actual use of the weapons, no matter the distribution levels.

However I do not think, that this is very much relevant to special cases, like the school shootings. These seem to be a very different problem.
It's more about the overall homicide rate involving firearms.
You're right to point out that the problem has more to do with things particular to the United States than in other countries, but your assessment about what those things ARE is just way too generalized and...well to be frank, not a very accurate outside view of the problems this country has.

Violent media? This is ludicrous. The rest of the world produces plenty of their own violent media, and more importantly, the rest of the world are some of the BIGGEST consumers for violent American media. American movie Blockbusters that feature violence and killing gross very well overseas, even in countries which have very little violence.

While there are lots of possible inquiries you could make between the connection between American foreign policy and US culture, I think this is a bit too hypothetical, and doesn't consider what the majority of all these homicides are connected with. In America, the greatest participants in homicides (as well as the most common victims) tend to be economically/socially disenfranchised ethnic minorities, or other economically disadvantaged groups. The politicians who control US foreign policy tend to overwhelmingly to be White Anglo Saxon Protestant social elite. I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time trying to find a connection between disenfranchised minorities who turn to crime because of social/economic situations and between extremely powerful White guys in suits.


Even American obsession with the death penalty and self defense laws are only the most superficial way to examine the problem. Because when you come down to it, these kind of measures are reactions to American concerns about crime. They're a sign of dysfunction that ALREADY exists. The death penalty is only issued allot because there ARE significant numbers of crimes committed that warrant the death penalty, out of some unrealistic idea that they'll deter future crimes.



The reason America has a high homicide rate is much simpler than what you're talking about. We have a high homicide rate because there is a large wealth gap in this country, and no comprehensive and well organized social safety net like European countries have. When you combine that with a war on drugs that punitively punishes non violent offenders by throwing them into jail with violent offenders, forcing them to learn to be more violent criminals, and then coming out of prison for even worse job prospects thanks to their criminal record...we're basically training people for criminal behavior. The War on Drugs is a much bigger issue than the death penalty.


Social and economic deprivation and lack of social safety net are parts of America are close to developing countries in terms of violence than they are to Europe. People who talk about stricter gun control being able to reduce this violence are SERIOUSLY underestimating how deep the core problems are. It's poverty and deprivation that cause violence, not weapons. Reducing the numbers of guns won't help as long as this poverty and deprivation remains. Look at the Philippines. They don't even have a tenth as many guns per capita as the United States does, but still only trail somewhat behind in terms of the overall firearms homicide rate. What does that tell you? When poverty and social disorder is widespread enough, you don't need THAT many guns to have significant gun homicides. This intuitively makes sense, considering that not THAT many people are murderers.


Trying to completely disarm the American populace is just plain unproductive compared to actually addressing systematic poverty in this country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
As you can see, there is a commonality to all of these maps, and firearms has little to do with it.
What it does show is that we need to provide better education, put an end to the drug war to bankrupt the drug gangs, and have a cultural discussion about the violent image our youth find so appealing.
Especially in the "gangska" cultures of our minority communities.
Mindset plays a role in whether or not a person chooses to engage in criminal activity, it isn't always about lack of money and/or poverty (though I would imagine those play a factor).
The thing is, admiration of violence, and powerful figures capable of inflicting violence aren't unique to minority groups in America. Think about it. Some of the most beloved national icons even among respectable law abiding citizens are powerful characters. Action Stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis. Even our fascination with our moralistic super hero characters is based on their strength and capacity for violence. (Who would read Batman/Superman if they didn't punch anyone?)

What separates some black/mexican kid in the ghetto, or some Alabama redneck getting involved in a meth gang from all those nice middle class kids, is the white middle class kids have been afforded the economic/social opportunity to more easily do productive things. For the latter, indulgence in violent media is a pass time. For those who have nothing, know they have nothing, and have no other productive things to do, carrying out empowerment fantasies in a gang, and looking up to a powerful male figure comes much more naturally.
Roger Rambo is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 13:53   Link #924
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
Friday's NRA statement has to be the epitome of American stupidity and delusional thinking. Seriously, I don't think anyone with a shred of logic in his brain would agree to having armed people at all schools.

In a nutshell, NRA wants to fight guns with guns. Of course, this is great for them because more guns for everybody means more money in their pockets. After all, arms trade is the 2nd most profitable business in the world. I am sure they got plenty of incentive to come up with such a load of BS.

Honestly, the solution to preventing mass murdering in the US is to limit the availability of guns and the amount of shots that can be fired per round. In that way, victims of an attack have time to react and possibly save themselves. This is just very logical thinking that I believe no one in this forum can disagree with? Right?.... Right?....

So If I can think of something so elementary I am sure the rest of the American people have thought of similar ideas. All they need to do now is act and stop beating around the bush.
In regards to the possible magazine capacity restrictions, if one is limited to fewer shots they could as Vexx stated carry more magazines, or go to a larger caliber weapon!
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 14:05   Link #925
Dhomochevsky
temporary safeguard
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 33
kyp275, you are justifying a lot of points, but that is beside the topic here.
I am not reasoning for or against things. I am talking about how these things form a public opinion.
In this case the general stance towards violence.
Quote:
This I have an issue with. Does pop culture these days glorify violence? yes, is that something unique to the US? not really, though by virtue of being one of the largest producer of said type of entertainment, the US certain produces more of it, it's what sells, and not just in the US.

My biggest issue is with the implication that in the US deadly force is somehow actively encouraged as a method to solve problems. It's not as if we teach our kids that if someone pisses them off, it's ok to stab them in the eye. The use of deadly force by civilians is restricted to situations where imminent thread of death or serious bodily harm is present, it's not a free-for-all that seem to be implying.
You teach kids by example. No need to spell it out to them.
I am not sure myself, if pop culture is part of the cause here, or simply mirroring the already established opinion.

Quote:
This is veering more into international politics rather than gun control, but:

- Not going to claim everything the US do is just, but that's the reality when you're the superpower, you're going to have your hands in most things. This goes for just about every nation in position of power. Frankly, it's somewhat amusing to hear complains about wars from Europeans, whom pretty much have the worst record when it comes to starting wars.

- Again, this is what happens when you're the lone superpower, and are in effect subsidizing the defense budget of basically every one of your allies. While I don't subscribe to the isolationist's views, sometimes I do wonder what kind of tunes some would sing if the US withdraws all of its overseas presence and let everyone handle their own problems on their own.
The reason this is important, is because it shows the 'official' use of violence and the acceptance thereof. There is not much protest against the wars in the public in the U.S.
Most of the unrest that is there, is more about 'bringing our boys home', your own casualities, or the high costs of war.
Not much about the fact that there is war at all and how that might be a bad thing.. maybe?
And because you bring up Europe: Yes, this is actually a lot how people thought like here back when we started wars within Europe.

Quote:
- What's the problem with this? are we supposed to ask the terrorists nicely to come out to fight us on the open with water guns?

- Legal torture? where? Not saying it hasn't been done, but it's certainly not legal (nor all that effective). That said, I'd say it's probably naive for anyone whose country has an active intelligence agency to think that no questionable methods were used by their people.
You see nothing problematic with the assassination of civillians?
They are bad guys -> we kill the bad guys -> problem solved.
When it is the government of the country doing this, don't you think this sends certain signals?
Quote:
- I also don't understand the bit about the death penalty. Is the system perfect? no, and more improvements needs to be made. But are there criminals that deserves nothing less, and for whom guilt is beyond doubt? hell yes. I don't understand the fascination with giving them free food, housing etc. for the rest of their life on the dime of the society that they have so egregiously wronged, with money that can be much better used elsewhere.
Same thing here: The criminal is a problem -> kill him.

Remember, this is all about wether in the general public opinion, lethal violence is a viable solution to problems.

And so far, the gov is sending a clear YES sign.

Quote:
German gamers don't play CoD or Battlefield, or watch Hollywood movies?

I do believe, that this has a great impact on the actual use of the weapons, no matter the distribution levels.
They do, however:
1.) Most of it originates from the U.S. and as I said, I am not sure myself if this is part of the problem, or really just a symptom. I can tell you at least, that local productions usually are much more tame in that respect.
2.) The PG ratings for violent material come out different, are usually more strict

Maybe all of these are just symptoms, rather than causes. But if they are, they point to something really problematic.

Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2012-12-22 at 14:21.
Dhomochevsky is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 14:38   Link #926
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post

They do, however:
1.) Most of it originates from the U.S. and as I said, I am not sure myself if this is part of the problem, or really just a symptom. I can tell you at least, that local productions usually are much more tame in that respect.
2.) The PG ratings for violent material come out different, are usually more strict
Keep in mind Dhomochevsky. Germany has particularly draconian censorship laws about violence in media. France has a similar murder rate to Germany, and as far as I know, they don't have nearly the kind of censorship of violent media the same way Germany has.



There's another thing you REALLY need to stop and consider...Hollywood really isn't an entire American institution creatively wise. Think about some of the biggest names in Hollywood.

James Cameron? A Canadian.

Del Toro? Mexican.

Peter Jackson? New Zealand.

Pierre Morel (he did Taken with Liam Neeson)? He's French.



Really...when so many of Hollywoods top actors, directors and producers are international, and the international market makes such a overwhelming part of Hollywood's profits, is it really accurate to characterize everything Hollywood makes as entirely American products?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
Maybe all of these are just symptoms, rather than causes. But if they are, they point to something really problematic.
I think you're focusing too much on the idea that there's a correlation between violent media and violence in society.

Look at Hong Kong. Hong Kong is lower than Japan when it comes to homicides. But look at the kind of media that Hong Kong produces.

YouTube
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

A Chow Yun Fat Herioc blood shed movie sees more people violently killed in 5 minutes than are killed in all of Hong Kong annually (300 people get killed over the course of the movie. A violent crime spree that would probably make international headlines even in a violent developing country). Is this kind of movie a symptom of some innate and pervasive problems with extreme violence in Hong Kong?

Last edited by Roger Rambo; 2012-12-22 at 14:52.
Roger Rambo is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 14:52   Link #927
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
The reason this is important, is because it shows the 'official' use of violence and the acceptance thereof. There is not much protest against the wars in the public in the U.S.
That has far more to do with how these wars started than anything else. Plenty of people protested against war in Vietnam, but it becomes hard to argue against when they crashed a few planes and killed thousands.

Quote:
You see nothing problematic with the assassination of civillians?
They are bad guys -> we kill the bad guys -> problem solved.
When it is the government of the country doing this, don't you think this sends certain signals?
Uh, they are not civilians, they're enemy combatants - remember, this is a war. It's one thing if you were talking about actual civilians that gets caught up in the cross fire, but that doesn't apply to enemy fighters. Civilians don't setup IEDs or fire mortars and RPGs.

Quote:
Same thing here: The criminal is a problem -> kill him.
It's not about "solving" problem, at that point it's about justice, holding people accountable for their actions, and to a lesser degree deterrence. This is a deeply controversial topic all by itself, and is by no means settled in the US, where many states have abolished capital punishment, and some others have suspended them. Even in those that have them, for the most part there are so many mandatory reviews and appeals that it would be decades before someone sentenced to death actually gets executed.

Quote:
Remember, this is all about wether in the general public opinion, lethal violence is a viable solution to problems.
All the time? no. In specific cases? yes, and in some cases, the only viable solution. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't, but that's reality.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 14:53   Link #928
Dhomochevsky
temporary safeguard
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 33
This is not about me liking it, or not.
The fact is, all of these points are at least somewhat different in other countries. These are all choices made by someone. It should serve as another hint when looking for the reason of different homicide rates.

Quote:
I think you're focusing too much on the idea that there's a correlation between violent media and violence in society.
No, I am focusing a lot on the lawful violence and the role model effect this would have.
Media was only a minor point and I said I am not even sure if it not only a symptom.
In fact I still believe it's BS that consuming violent media would somehow make you a killer, provided you are in an otherwise healthy environment.


So about the link to poverty and crime rates:
Are crime rates (violent/crimes involving arms in general, not only homicides) also that much higher? Or is it only the homicide rate, that is out of proportion in international comparison?

Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2012-12-22 at 15:14.
Dhomochevsky is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 15:07   Link #929
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
I guess I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make, are you suggesting that if the US turns itself into a completely pacifist nation and bans any use of force by any and everyone, it'll fix everything?
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 15:28   Link #930
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
In regards to the possible magazine capacity restrictions, if one is limited to fewer shots they could as Vexx stated carry more magazines, or go to a larger caliber weapon!
You're missing the point. Sure, they could carry more magazines, but it takes time to reload. Every single person committing a massacre, who didn't kill themselves... was stopped by other people when they were forced to pause and reload.

So... killer fires off 10 shots, maybe hitting some people. When he pauses to reload, the rest swarm him and take him down.

- or -

The killer fires of 30+ shots making sure everyone is dead, and thus no one can stop him when he reloads.

Which would you prefer?

I've made my answer clear. I'd go for giving everyone blinding weapons and sonic weapons. Non-lethal, and guaranteed to stop anyone in their tracks. You wanna defend yourself? Fine, here's a Dazzler. Use it at will against any attacker, secure in the knowledge that you can stop him without killing him.

But the kind of people who advocate against gun control because of precious self-defense reasons, don't actually do so for self-defense reasons. They do it because they love guns. They love the power of holding a gun in their hands. They do it for the rush of adrenaline and ego boost.

And limiting guns to 10 bullets max, will have NO effect on self-defense, hunting, or sports reasons. So none of those are a reason.

I'd go further and outlaw all ammo, except for rubber bullets. Less lethal.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 16:45   Link #931
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Every single person committing a massacre, who didn't kill themselves... was stopped by other people when they were forced to pause and reload.
Not quite, there were those who were stopped when confronted by others with guns because they didn't want to die, and others still that were stopped after they themselves were hit during their shooting spree. What's more likely is entirely dependent on the specific scenario, but either way your assertion is not only overly broad, but also incorrect.

Quote:
So... killer fires off 10 shots, maybe hitting some people. When he pauses to reload, the rest swarm him and take him down.

- or -

The killer fires of 30+ shots making sure everyone is dead, and thus no one can stop him when he reloads.
Oversimplification. What's the layout? is it outdoor? or indoor? in a school or a mall? is it in a room or a corridor? how big is the room? how many people are present? What''s the mix of people present - children? teen? adult?

More importantly, how many weapons does the shooter have? how is his proficiency at reloading his weapons?

Quote:
I've made my answer clear. I'd go for giving everyone blinding weapons and sonic weapons. Non-lethal, and guaranteed to stop anyone in their tracks. You wanna defend yourself? Fine, here's a Dazzler. Use it at will against any attacker, secure in the knowledge that you can stop him without killing him.
Sorry, gonna have to call BS on this. Most of these are not man-portable systems, but are instead ship/vehicular mount devices. As far as i can see, the few "dazzler" weapons that are designed for portable use are DoD prototypes that are likely to stay that way, much less becomes something that will be available to the general public (nor do I even want to imagine the cost if they were).

Quote:
But the kind of people who advocate against gun control because of precious self-defense reasons, don't actually do so for self-defense reasons. They do it because they love guns. They love the power of holding a gun in their hands. They do it for the rush of adrenaline and ego boost.
This is exactly the type of generalizations that are at the same time inflammatory and unhelpful to the discussion. I can make all sorts of generalizing statement about how all pro gun control advocates are this and that, it'd be just as wrong as your statement, and in the end gets us nowhere.

I don't "love" guns, it gives me no adrenaline nor ego boost, and your mystical allure about holding a gun in your hand? now try saying that again after you have to go everywhere with one for months or years - including having to sleep and take shit with them. It only applies to those who don't understand and respect what a firearm is.

For my part, I see them for what they are - a tool. It's a powerful tool to be sure, but a tool nevertheless. I go to the range periodically to maintain my skill because it was part of my job, and it's a useful skill to have. I take pride in my marksmanship and recognize their utility in a home defense scenario, but I don't particularly love shooting, certainly not with the cost of ammo these days. So you'll excuse me if I say I find your statement to be rather insulting.

Quote:
And limiting guns to 10 bullets max, will have NO effect on self-defense, hunting, or sports reasons. So none of those are a reason.
Probably not on hunting no, but I'm not a hunter, so I'll defer that to those who know better. On self-defense it entirely predicates on the number and type of assailants you're facing. For sports, let's just say that shooting sport has went far beyond just static KD range shooting, like the 3-gun competition that's growing more and more popular, where 10 round mags would not suffice.

This is on top of the fact that banning magazines that carry more than 10 rounds would be even more futile than trying to ban guns. You think there are a lot of guns in the US? now try magazines.

Quote:
I'd go further and outlaw all ammo, except for rubber bullets. Less lethal.
Good luck with that one, now you're stomping on the toes and livelihood of hunters too.

Last edited by kyp275; 2012-12-22 at 16:58.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 17:15   Link #932
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
A Chow Yun Fat Herioc blood shed movie sees more people violently killed in 5 minutes than are killed in all of Hong Kong annually (300 people get killed over the course of the movie. A violent crime spree that would probably make international headlines even in a violent developing country). Is this kind of movie a symptom of some innate and pervasive problems with extreme violence in Hong Kong?
Maybe it is not realistic that people are able to distinguish it as entertainment and not a possible course for them act upon (Cmon, since when did an Uzi have more than 32 rounds loaded at once? And the two pistols having more than 20 rounds?)?

I don't know, though I do have some suspicions that it is still the government assistances available that plays a dominant, if not major part on the ills and vices prevalent within the society - I know for sure that over here, the number of hardcore gamblers are increasing despite the casino entry costs due to the shortage of gambling-prevention counsellors. Over in US, the easy availability of firearms, coupled with the lack of funding for mental health treatment, resulted in all these shootings.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 17:21   Link #933
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Maybe it is not realistic that people are able to distinguish it as entertainment and not a possible course for them act upon (Cmon, since when did an Uzi have more than 32 rounds loaded at once? And the two pistols having more than 20 rounds?)?
That's gotta be the most common trope in action flicks everywhere, the never-ending-magazine
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 17:26   Link #934
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
That's gotta be the most common trope in action flicks everywhere, the never-ending-magazine
Well I noticed that in the post-1990s American action movies, reloading sequences are more common - the last pre-1990s American action movie I remember having a magazine hack was Predator.

Chow Yun Fat STILL gets his unlimited ammo as of the 1990s.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 17:28   Link #935
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Maybe it is not realistic that people are able to distinguish it as entertainment and not a possible course for them act upon (Cmon, since when did an Uzi have more than 32 rounds loaded at once? And the two pistols having more than 20 rounds?)?
It's not like most American Action movies are any more realistic fundamentally speaking.


(besides, the average person doesn't actually know enough about weapons to be able to recognize what's implausible in most gun fights in movies).
Roger Rambo is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 17:37   Link #936
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
It's not like most American Action movies are any more realistic fundamentally speaking.

(besides, the average person doesn't actually know enough about weapons to be able to recognize what's implausible in most gun fights in movies).
I agree. If anyone watched Killer K the silliest scene is still seeing the guy walking through the smoke grenades dual wielding pistols and landing accurate shots without getting smoked out.

On the contrary, video games may have become -slightly- more realistic than gunfight portrayals in movies, yet there doesn't seem to be any statistic I can find that measures the blame levels between the two forms of entertainment.

Maybe it is because :

Images
big
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 17:47   Link #937
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
I agree. If anyone watched Killer K the silliest scene is still seeing the guy walking through the smoke grenades dual wielding pistols and landing accurate shots without getting smoked out.

On the contrary, video games may have become -slightly- more realistic than gunfight portrayals in movies, yet there doesn't seem to be any statistic I can find that measures the blame levels between the two forms of entertainment.

Maybe it is because :

Images
big
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
Have you ever seen the "A Better Tomorrow" movies? Another one of those "shoot'em ups"

There's a scene where two people in a hallway, pressed up against the walls, only about 2-3 feet apart.. are shooting each other, repeatedly! Like they each get shot like 30 times .. and they're not dead. Their pistols have unlimited ammo in them too.
__________________
Nyaaaan~~
willx is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 18:05   Link #938
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
But the kind of people who advocate against gun control because of precious self-defense reasons, don't actually do so for self-defense reasons. They do it because they love guns. They love the power of holding a gun in their hands. They do it for the rush of adrenaline and ego boost.
And that's the point in the conversation where thinking people write you off. There are certainly SOME people who think like that but your sweeping generalization is not only incorrect but insulting.

I'm starting to wonder if these attitudes say more about the baggage in their own closets.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 18:14   Link #939
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Not quite, there were those who were stopped when confronted by others with guns because they didn't want to die, and others still that were stopped after they themselves were hit during their shooting spree. What's more likely is entirely dependent on the specific scenario, but either way your assertion is not only overly broad, but also incorrect.
Say hello to Patricia Maisch, a 61 year old grandma, who stopped a shooter as he stopped to reload. Oh hey, if only we restricted bullets to a certain size and gave people more chances to stop a shooter as he's reloading, eh? But that's difficult to do, and only elderly people have a chance at doing that. Yes, the shooter was also tackled to the ground by some men, but the point remains: a shooter was stopped by unarmed civilians when he tried to reload.

I guess your assertion is incorrect.

Quote:
Oversimplification. What's the layout? is it outdoor? or indoor? in a school or a mall? is it in a room or a corridor? how big is the room? how many people are present? What''s the mix of people present - children? teen? adult?

More importantly, how many weapons does the shooter have? how is his proficiency at reloading his weapons?
Seriously? You really think a shooting being indoors or outdoors makes a difference? It doesn't fuckin' matter. The question is 30 bullets or 10. Which is safer for the people around? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd feel safer if a shooter had 30 bullets to spend, instead of 10?

Quote:
Sorry, gonna have to call BS on this. Most of these are not man-portable systems, but are instead ship/vehicular mount devices. As far as i can see, the few "dazzler" weapons that are designed for portable use are DoD prototypes that are likely to stay that way, much less becomes something that will be available to the general public (nor do I even want to imagine the cost if they were).
I'm not surprised you aren't aware of the state of technology nowadays; very few people realize how far things have come. But here, have a portable sonic weapon. And Canadians have been buying blinding lasers for quite awhile now. Although that only mentions the military, lasers with the potential to blind people, have been on sale for awhile now. Hell, you can practically do it with a laser pointer. Airline pilots have complained that people are trying to blind them on take off.

You were saying?

Quote:
Probably not on hunting no, but I'm not a hunter, so I'll defer that to those who know better. On self-defense it entirely predicates on the number and type of assailants you're facing. For sports, let's just say that shooting sport has went far beyond just static KD range shooting, like the 3-gun competition that's growing more and more popular, where 10 round mags would not suffice.

This is on top of the fact that banning magazines that carry more than 10 rounds would be even more futile than trying to ban guns. You think there are a lot of guns in the US? now try magazines.
On the contrary, regulating bullets is easier. Why? Because it is MUCH more difficult to make a good bullet. Anyone can piece together a gun in their garage, but damn few can make an accurate bullet with any kind of stopping or penetrating power.

Quote:
Good luck with that one, now you're stomping on the toes and livelihood of hunters too.
Because no one was able to hunt before the invention of the gun, hmm? Man, I feel sorry for all those people who hunt with bows and arrows and traps. Someone ought to tell them they aren't supposed to be able to hunt. Seems to be, a true man could easily hunt via traps and a self-made spear... not following in the grand steps of Palin, who shot a high-powered rifle from a helicopter. Helluva hunter, there.

But yes, I'll grant my suggestion was a wee extreme. But I'd be more than willing to regulate small sales of hunting bullets to hunters. But self-defense shooters get rubber bullets only. Better?

And yes, I recognize some of my statements were a bit provocative, but they were intended to highlight a point. That is what the NRA (and more than a few gun nuts) argue from. They aren't arguing from the perspective of self-defense, or hunting, or sports... they are arguing from the standpoint of "dun take ma guns away!" That's what we have to get past. I already proposed middle-of-the-road reasonable suggestions for solving the problem.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2012-12-22, 18:17   Link #940
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Oversimplification. What's the layout? is it outdoor? or indoor? in a school or a mall? is it in a room or a corridor? how big is the room? how many people are present? What''s the mix of people present - children? teen? adult?

More importantly, how many weapons does the shooter have? how is his proficiency at reloading his weapons?
I found this to be a little silly. We do not always create laws for the most specific details imaginable. We often create laws based on generalized bad things that are happening in society as a whole. Consequently, questioning the position of the targets/victims, the layout of different venues, and other overly complicated CSI silliness has absolutely nothing to do with creating laws (and frankly, such over-specification can seldom be used in the creation of basic laws). Instead of actually addressing Kaijo's point, you've completely walked around it.

Here is the basic argument you should use: The fact of the matter is, unless everyone is carrying the exact same guns, ammo/clip size, etc then there will always exist an "unfair" advantage for one side or the other. There are only two ways of making this "fair", both sides have smaller clips or both sides have larger clips. Since there is no perfect 100% successful way to actually prevent a criminal from obtaining the larger clip, the only "fair" option is to make sure the larger clip is available for everyone (you can, of course, argue the percents on this issue, because maybe there would be a significant enough drop in large scale gun violence if larger clips were banned, but there is no real data to support this one way or another, so we have to keep everything at an arm chair level of supposition).

This doesn't validate the use of guns or larger clip sizes, but it does provide a greater degree of potential protection that balances out the potential aggression (of an insane gunmen gunperson ), consequently it creates a degree of less harm than an outright ban would. (edit: Note, laws are not designed to make things "fair", but rather to eliminate the most harm.)

---

@ GundamFan: I find it funny that Missouri and Louisiana have the smaller percentage of gang-related activity, yet they are amongst the worst for murders (based on population), and when you break down the diversity, Missouri has less diversity, yet still lots of murders. Just what is going on In Missouri that it is so bat shit insane? .

Last edited by james0246; 2012-12-22 at 18:30.
james0246 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 00:47.


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