Are you packing heat?

[General Zod]

@ General Zod: Yes, obviously, people who desperately want to own a gun will get one if they try hard enough, even if owning guns was illegal, but do you think the average Mr. Smith-type of guy would risk making himself a criminal in order to get a weapon for his own protection? I doubt it.

I think you'd reduce certain crimes. However, there's two things to keep in mind:

1. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. This would seem to indicate, that by making guns illegal, the only people who would be left with guns are the criminals.

2. Gun ownership lowers crime. Evidence shows, that when states allow conceal carry, crime goes down across the board. A criminal is simply less likely to rob or rape you if he thinks you may have a gun.

I think it's important to recognize that we live in a violent culture. Probably because we're sexually repressed as a nation. I'm not sure that could be legislated away, even if there was support to do so. I think if you took guns away from law abiding citizens, home burglarly (for instance) would sky rocket.

Zod

 

[skeptik]

Do you have any statistical evidence about the majority of gun crimes being committed with illegal guns? And what exactly qualifies as an 'illegal gun?' Is it just somebody using a gun that is not authorized to use it, or is it restricted to guns that are illegally purchased on a black market or something, unregistered? And does gun ownership really lower crime?

 

[MajestikMøøse]

I love though how the same Americans are practicing reverse logic to their gun-control laws when reapplied to the international proliferation of nuclear technology.

 

[NAD]

I think it's important to recognize that we live in a violent culture. Probably because we're sexually repressed as a nation.

Olivia comic from this month's Playboy:

"The civilization on our planet isn't nearly as advanced as yours. We actually celebrate sex and consider violence obscene."

Fookin' ace.

I love though how the same Americans are practicing reverse logic to their gun-control laws when reapplied to the international proliferation of nuclear technology.

Zing!

 

[General Zod]

Do you have any statistical evidence about the majority of gun crimes being committed with illegal guns? And what exactly qualifies as an 'illegal gun?' Is it just somebody using a gun that is not authorized to use it, or is it restricted to guns that are illegally purchased on a black market or something, unregistered? And does gun ownership really lower crime?

The book I mentioned earlier goes into all of the stats in detail. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't give any examples at the moment.

Zod

 

[Susperia]

2. Gun ownership lowers crime. Evidence shows, that when states allow conceal carry, crime goes down across the board. A criminal is simply less likely to rob or rape you if he thinks you may have a gun.

Zod

But how many criminals really think women (especially if they're very feminine) or the elderly would have a gun? Or would be able to use it. Most criminals wouldn't expect that. I dont' think even most men would expect that. So would they be the ones to be then focused upon, moreso than they already are?

 

[General Zod]

"The civilization on our planet isn't nearly as advanced as yours. We actually celebrate sex and consider violence obscene."

That's exactly it. It's amazing the level of violence we're comfortable exposing our kids to... even the Christian right. But sex? Sex is completely tabboo. Nudity is to be abhored. Abstinence is critical. Etc. etc. etc.

Zod

 

[NAD]

The fallacy of more guns equates more safety due to deterrence is that it assumes all crimes contain rational thought. That simply is not always the case.

I actually do agree with deterrence in a lot of ways, but this is a giant flaw in the logic.

Stupid imperfect world.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

if somebody armed breaks into your house to steal your tv and you draw a gun on them, it seems pretty likely that somebody's getting shot. i can see how many of you would want to protect your shit, but only an asshole gets shot for a tv.

also i'm curious, in households with kids it's generally safe practice to store the weapon and the ammo in different places; wouldn't that affect its usefulness as protection in most cases?

i'm not trying to yank anybody's chain, i definitely believe in gun ownership in theory

 

[MajestikMøøse]

I love though how the same Americans are practicing reverse logic to their gun-control laws when reapplied to the international proliferation of nuclear technology.

SOMEONE REBUKE ME GOD DAMMIT!

 

[NAD]

Good luck, yo. You speaka da TROOF.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

 

[NAD]

Oh yeah thanks to you my house is full of Death in June every night now.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

Oh yeah thanks to you my house is full of Death in June every night now.

you're welcome.

 

[skeptik]

Well I largely agree with the sentiment, but I suppose I can counter with the idea that the main goal behind anti-proliferation of nuclear technology is not to keep the knowledge out of everybody's hands, but to keep the technology out of the hands of those liable to use that knowledge to build weapons. Countries are free to share knowledge as long as they don't share knowledge of nuclear weapons are express the intent to build nuclear weapons. Whereas with gun control, the goal is merely to keep the weapons out of the hands of nutjobs, and has nothing to do with knowledge about...gun powder? I don't know.

Though gun control is obviously on a microscopic level in comparison to nuclear weapons, where you're trying to keep the weapons away from a certain type of individual rather than a state/country.

 

[dill_the_devil]

It's amazing the level of violence we're comfortable exposing our kids to... Even the Christian Right.

Look at what happened when Mel 'Sugartits' Gibson's Jesus-snuff movie came out, for example.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

But what's the difference between keeping weapons out of the hands of a nutjob state and the hands of say... your nutjob neighbour?

An individual person can learn gunsmithing and how to make their own ammunition if they desire. The knowledge is out there. Likewise, making nuclear weapons for a state is also entirely possible. Knowledge and resources are readily available for that also. Either condition exists independently of the case that someone will use them in a sane manner.

 

[skeptik]

Who the hell is going to make a gun though?

 

[General Zod]

if somebody armed breaks into your house to steal your tv and you draw a gun on them, it seems pretty likely that somebody's getting shot. i can see how many of you would want to protect your shit, but only an asshole gets shot for a tv.

If someone came into my house I would follow the drill layed out in the gun saftey classes I took, not engage them:

• Grab my gun
• Head for the bathroom, in my bedroom, and lock the door
• Call the police and let them know where I am in the house and that I'm armed
• Put my wife between the back wall and I, with my gun fixed on the bathroom door
• Of course, the intuder would first need to kick in my bedroom door and deal with my rottweiler.

also i'm curious, in households with kids it's generally safe practice to store the weapon and the ammo in different places; wouldn't that affect its usefulness as protection in most cases?

I would think so.

Zod

 

[Hell Mike]

dont european countries have bans on guns in some manner? police arent even allowed to carry them, correct? and dont european countries have less gun-related murders?

Good dodging of this one in this thread, eh?
Police do carry guns pretty much everywhere though except for some britons unless I'm mistaken.

Actually, it does work in real life. Read Professor John R. Lott, Jr.'s book, More Guns, Less Crime.

...and still, in America you have more guns and more crime. Weird, huh?
Compare to Canada if Sweden feels too alien.