Facts for the anti-gun faggots

[Mago]

Theres always going to be statistical variants , different cultures with their different gun policies react differently , trying to justify pros or cons based on these kinds of comparisons is not the best way to look at gun crime in their own country . Its besides the point really ...do people want to reduce gun crime in their own country or not ? I suspect they do but theres too many freedom obsessed people that regard their gun as a simbol of that freedom , Its the same freedom for legal gun owners as it is for people who intend to use it for criminal activity but it really pisses me off that no one wants to take responsibilty for extreme examples of gun crime like school shootings where the majority of victims are not even old enough to vote on gun policy .
People have to take responsible steps sooner or later .

What I ment to point out is, that if you look at the statistic that way then "more guns = more crime" isn't valid, at least by definition. Cause the sheer number of guns isn't the only factor contributing to gun relating crimes, as others pointed out already. That's why that statistic is faulty to look at that way.

Personally I don't have anything against guns, I think they are pretty interesting, but not interesting enough for me to make an hobby out of it.

Let "sane" people own guns if they want, but annoy the fuck out of them with security measures. Aka mandatory controlling, making sure that the guns are locked up in a secure gun safe with a digit lock, so only the owner has access to it, mandatory hours/year at the shooting range etc..

And for people being so scared of being robbed at home: If you're that worried about it then getting a good solid secure door and even window bars or security windows is a far saver idea than having a gun at home.

That "tyranny government" argument also gives me a nice chuckle..as if you could defend yourself with a handgun/rifle against a tank.

 

[Full_Tilt]

Sorry guys you caught me in the middle of editing my post's .
Ive been editing them for a while and didnt check for reply's .
They make more sense now .

 

[Full_Tilt]

What I ment to point out is, that if you look at the statistic that way then "more guns = more crime" isn't valid, at least by definition. Cause the sheer number of guns isn't the only factor contributing to gun relating crimes, as others pointed out already. That's why that statistic is faulty to look at that way.

Personally I don't have anything against guns, I think they are pretty interesting, but not interesting enough for me to make an hobby out of it.

Let "sane" people own guns if they want, but annoy the fuck out of them with security measures. Aka mandatory controlling, making sure that the guns are locked up in a secure gun safe with a digit lock, so only the owner has access to it, mandatory hours/year at the shooting range etc..

And for people being so scared of being robbed at home: If you're that worried about it then getting a good solid secure door and even window bars or security windows is a far saver idea than having a gun at home.

That "tyranny government" argument also gives me a nice chuckle..as if you could defend yourself against a tank with a handgun.

What about stolen guns ?
Less of those the better I would have thought .

 

[Full_Tilt]

How exactly would you reduce the number of guns circulating on the black market without making good citizens defenseless, forcing hunters to hunt only with a bow ? (which will not pass because of the constitution and some powerful lobbies who would do anything to prevent that) ?
How exactly would you make it impossible to illegally bring in firearms from other countries ?
How exactly would you make it impossible to make a simple gun out of two gas pipes, a cap nut and a nail ?
How exactly would you make it impossible to kill a police officer with that improvised gun, or with a knife, or with a crossbow and then steal his weapon?

That is why i said that it is impossible to disarm criminals, so it must be possible for the good citizen to properly arm himself if he lives in a bad neighborhood or in some very remote place.

A Nobel peace prize for the one who will propose a solution to reducing the number of these 300M guns that would actually work.

Its more about not making it as easy as possible lets face it .
What would get the job done quicker ?
Home support ?
Or ............things that require extra effort ?
man! a few bits of pipe sounds cheap why dont every man do this lol ?
Er I know because they have real guns FFS
I'd rather face a d.i.y fanatic that might blow his own face off or miss than a burglar of a fire arm. The border control is more than able to detect a penknife let alone a gun .
Whare do you people come from ?
you dont want to acknowledge shit .

 

[TheWinterSnow]

@He's Dead, Jim: I want to touch on your posts but don't want to quote everything.

I have been noticing that a lot of people in this discussions are talking as if the US has massively more violence and homicides that most of Europe or that Europe has next to zero guns. The European countries' gun ownership ranges from 10 to 30 per 100, with Switzerland being at 45 per 100, that includes countries with a homicide rate of .07 per 100, so a much smaller homicide rate even though the density of guns isn't drastic. To top it of the US ranks 25th in homicide by firearm, while again having the highest ownership and other than Switzerland and Italy all the countries that rank above the US are mostly in South America and Africa where those countries have a no tolerance policy on civilian gun ownership, including handguns, period.

Those countries in South America and Africa also have really high homicide rates and violent crime rates. At about 4 homicides per 100, the US comes at the tail end of the least violent crime/homicide countries. Everywhere else starts getting really bad, really fast, the rates quickly go up into the 20 per 100 all the way to 90 per 100.

In hindsight the US isn't so bad. What also manages to bug me more is that even though the violent crime rate and homicide rate has dropped in half over the past 20 years and has continued to decline yet all of the sudden guns are a big problem when they weren't that long ago. Keep in mind to that these rates have not changed regardless as to which laws are passed or repealed, the biggest reason for the surge came in the 1960s during the war on drugs and since it has been stagnated has settled down, prior to that there was a surge in violence and homicide to to prohibition which died down. Prior to any gun regulations or any other social regulations where anyone could have a gun and carry it on them, the homicide in the US during the "Wild West" was 0.5 per 100, increases in these statistics have sharply risen as government placed more restrictions on either guns, alcohol, drugs, started to war on poverty etc. As of now the US is only a few years away from having a homicide rate the lowest it has ever been since 1900, and like I said before, in the grand scheme of things the rate still isn't that high to be concerned about, especially considering it is dropping.

As for culture having an effect, yeah absolutely right, but thinking that you are less safe because more guns are around is a slippery slope too. If a lot of people are violent criminals and have guns, yeah you are less safe, but the problem it is nearly impossible to dry up a black market, look at marijuana, its been illegal forever now in the US and it is still extremely easy to get, no matter how much money the fed pumps in to stop it. It comes down to self preservation, if there is no feasible way to get guns out of the hands of violent people, would you rather not have the legal right to have one in that rare case that you may need to use it in an attempt to save your live or have the right to one? Statistically people who legally purchase guns virtually kill 0 people per year.

On the topic of self preservation I know a lot of people scoff at the idea of US citizens having guns to protect themselves against tyrannical government, remember this, farmers and common citizens took down the biggest military in the world, that was the US in 1775-1776. We actually had better rifles than the British. Even if you may not have a chance, if any government became tyrannical and started going Hitler on its people, would you rather have some sort of weapon to equalize and at least make an attempt to save your own life or just surrender. Most people would rather die trying.

And a vast majority of pro-gun advocates never want to have to go to civil war, to ever have to use their gun on a robber or home intruder, most like to go out to the range and have a good time or go hunting. Its nice knowing, the government and military have weapons/guns, criminals the same, if they ever become threatening, you have something the even the playing field.

 

[JeffTD]

The notion that we as civilians could ever even come close to an 'even playing field' when it comes to our arms vs. the US military is laughable at best. Some military personnel might side with the rebelling people, sure, but the thought that we stand even the remotest chance of beating the Gov't in an armed conflict is just ludicrous.

 

[Mago]

What about stolen guns ?
Less of those the better I would have thought .

yeah of course. Not sure how much stolen/illegal weapons are even in the statistics, though.

But yeah, also logic tells you that less weapons=less chance of getting harmed by a weapon.
Same with less rain=less chance of getting wet outside.

But as I wrote, you can look at statistics in other ways and expect other outcomes.

I edited my post btw, cause I didn't mean to write about a tank armed with a handgun lol

 

[TheWinterSnow]

The notion that we as civilians could ever even come close to an 'even playing field' when it comes to our arms vs. the US military is laughable at best. Some military personnel might side with the rebelling people, sure, but the thought that we stand even the remotest chance of beating the Gov't in an armed conflict is just ludicrous.

There have been many wars including the US revolution where civilians or very small military have taken down the world's most powerful Armies/Empires. In 2012, the US had 1,369,532 active armed forces and 120,022,084 adults from the ages of 18-49 (active duty capable) not counting retired military over the age of 49 that are still capable. I think what possible difference in skill and tanks/fighter jets/bombers would most likely even things out considering the fact that there are almost 100 times more military capable people than all the active duty. If the ratio of active participants on both sides stayed similar (because not everyone on both sides would be involved), not accounting for a few entire military bases that would side with civilians and police departments that would do the same, the government would have severe difficulty, to say the least, it wouldn't be an absolute one sided slaughter. I don't think out military has the resources to go to war with upwards of 313 million people, almost have of which are military capable.

That's not counting as to which countries would get involved. If something of the sort would happen, it would most likely end up WWIII. You would have opportunistic countries trying to take over (Korea, Iran, Russia etc.), the UN would most probably be contested but most likely would aid the rebellion similar to how Great Britain passively aided the South during the Civil war, the level of involvement is mere speculation, but I would have a hard time believing that they wouldn't do a thing as something if that sort would ever happened. My justification that the UN or other EU military would side with the rebellion is because I think they would justify it with humanitarian reasons that no government should use its military to attack it citizens.

Still I am speculating here, like I said before most of the pro-gun people don't want another civil war to happen, it would be nasty as hell and there is nothing great about war in any way. The "gun-toting" group for the most part other than some wacko Alex Jones kool-aid drinking conspiracy theorists would prefer solving the shit we deal with in more productive and peaceful ways if it ever came to that.

 

[egan.]

I have been noticing that a lot of people in this discussions are talking as if the US has massively more violence and homicides that most of Europe or that Europe has next to zero guns. The European countries' gun ownership ranges from 10 to 30 per 100, with Switzerland being at 45 per 100, that includes countries with a homicide rate of .07 per 100, so a much smaller homicide rate even though the density of guns isn't drastic. To top it of the US ranks 25th in homicide by firearm, while again having the highest ownership and other than Switzerland and Italy all the countries that rank above the US are mostly in South America and Africa where those countries have a no tolerance policy on civilian gun ownership, including handguns, period.

Those countries in South America and Africa also have really high homicide rates and violent crime rates. At about 4 homicides per 100, the US comes at the tail end of the least violent crime/homicide countries. Everywhere else starts getting really bad, really fast, the rates quickly go up into the 20 per 100 all the way to 90 per 100.

In hindsight the US isn't so bad...

People compare the US to it's perceived peers (stable, wealthy, democratic, countries) because it's logical. It is assumed that our violence and crime statistics should be vastly superior to countries with unstable governments or recent histories of genocide, apartheid or civil wars.
Our homicide rate is double that of Afghanistan. It's higher than nearly every country in Northern, Southern and Western Europe.
I'm not saying that supports a position one way or the other but there is a reason why the statistics are discussed the way they are.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

TLDR

Yup me too. TL/DR

So glad we can all agree to disagree on this subject again.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

We should do the exact same thing Oz did here. It cost them around 500 million bucks to get rid of less than 700,000 long guns.

Americans only have 200 million long guns so if we do the exact same thing and institute a buyback we should be good to go at $142,857,142,857 give or take. Seems totally reasonable.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I don't even....

To the original poster:

Living in what is called (depending on the day) either one of the most violent cities in the country, or in the world (lawls for many reasons at both of those terms, which I won't get into, but a rudimentary understanding of how numbers work would explain), passing a conceal and carry law has done...well. Nothing.

Zero.

Zip.

The problem with statements like "doing x did y or the opposite doing x didn't do anything" is that correlation does not imply causation. Music piracy has gone up while crime has gone down and gun ownership has gone up in the USA while crime rates have gone down.

They said the murder rate in Chicago went down 10% after they lifted the ban. Do I think it's most likely they are linked? Yeah I do. Do I think Chicago has a gang problem and not a gun problem? Yeah I do.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I have read the OP article before. Still posting it as a block of text was not the greatest idea.

Also in other news an estimated 90% of those who were supposed to register their guns did not in NYS. Good to know these laws are doing so much good.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

So what I wish pro-gun people would do is admit simultaneously, (a) yep, guns make us less safe on average, BUT (b) we value the second amendment on a normative level above the deaths caused by gun violence in this country. It would go a long way toward advancing the dialogue and not having stupid threads like this, because nobody wants to argue with the guy who refuses to accept that reality/statistics don't support half his ideas.

I don't agree with you though. Guns do not make us less safe on average. There is no way to know how many lives are saved with guns every year so there is no way to know if they make us less safe on average.

I disagree with gun control not because criminals won't fallow the law (duh that is why they are criminals). I disagree with gun control because it's not behavior I want to be apart of. I disagree with gun control because telling people not to commit homicide should be enough. We don't pass laws because of criminals, we pass laws because of expectations on society and I don't agree with those silly expectations.

How does slapping John Doe with a speeding ticket and felony for having a standard capacity magazine in the back seat make anyone safer?

You want to pass laws that up the min sentence for those who use guns in a crime, I'm all for it. You want to up the penalty for being in possession of an illegal firearm I'm all for it.

You want to pass laws that make owning a firearm more difficult for those who fallow the law then that's fucking stupid.
You want to redefine what a legal firearm is based on how it looks and not how it functions then that is fucking stupid (just in case you did not know, this is the case with most gun control laws).

 

[updog]

Here in Finland all we need is a butterknife. We don't give guns just to anybody. I've never even had to consider getting one for my safety. And actually I've never met one finn who has felt the need to get a gun for that reason.

Same.

I've lived in the worse parts of the city most of my life and it has never even crossed my mind. At most, I've considered carrying a knife to ensure my safety, but never resorted to that either.

I believe it's true: packing a weapon may open a whole different can of shit. Maybe the other guy pulls out a bigger knife... Or a gun.

 

[Line666]

I can't believe this actually spawned a real debate...

 

[Terminus]

Not only that, and I'm too lazy to go looking for it, but iirc there was already a gun-control thread from a while back.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Not only that, and I'm too lazy to go looking for it, but iirc there was already a gun-control thread from a while back.

There was. I was pointing out CT's fail of a gun control law. I don't even think it's more than 2 weeks old.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Gah nm. Hate posting from a phone

 

[AllanD]