Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Nerowannabe, Mar 3, 2010.
You mean, something like this:
Yes, and we'll forget about the war of 1812, shall we? The point is, it was written for entirely different times.
No, it doesn't: with over 200 countries being in the 'top 25' rather accurately covers what I said.
Potential troublemakers are prone to getting arrested by law enforcers. There's a difference. (Also, there's no such thing as a 'potential law enforcer': either you are, or you aren't. Which, BTW, is the key difference with potential troublemakers, which is everyone with a weapon.)
Which was basically my point. As to 'logic fail': it has been established (through research) that people with a gun tend to get involved with violence related crimes more than people without.
The logic fail is here: "that a gun suddenly transforms normal law abiding people into violent people". That's just the key point; one cannot guarantee that 'law abiding citizens' (in practice meaning 'me, not that guy') will stay law abiding citizens once they're equipped with guns. They become potential troublemakers because of it.*
Indeed. And, in practice, how many law abiding citizens will do that?
I don't think that is a derailment at all: let's just assume these father are law abiding citizens. Yet their children get associated with (in these cases in fact perpretrate) violent crimes - against which these guns are supposed to protect. Now there's a logic fail.
(I also don't see a conflict between culture and having guns: the two are apparently intermingled.)
If you're interested in hard data, I don't think they're difficult to find - as Formaldehyde has shown.
Indeed I'd say it's certain that violent crime figures from various cannot be assembled into a reliable statistic without substantial corrections for those differences.
That was my point.
Obviously guns are tools. But guns, like most tools, hav a purpose. Children that use guns to kill other children use those tools - like they are meant to be used.
* If every law abiding citizen gets a gun (to protect himself against violent crime), in practice the end result will not be a safer society, but a more violent society. The net result is more violent crime, not less. (In practice, ofcourse, it's not law abiding citizens that can acquire a gun, but anyone without a criminal record. Which is no guarantee no violent crimes will be committed once a gun is acquired.
Based on slightly old data, but I see a clear trendline amongst the most developed nations.
Note that homicide rate refers to all homicides, not just ones involving firearms.
Still doesn't mean it's comparable. Within those datapoints:
I know some countries count manslaughter in homocide, some count it separately. (I seem to recall that "negligent homocide" is part of homicide stats done in the US, but that manslaughter is separate in Australian figures)
Some count manslaughter but not vehicular manslaughter (fairly certain Australia does this).
Some may only count confirmed homocides, some may count all suspicious deaths. Some might even count mere disappearances.
Some will have data collected on a consistent national basis, others won't, for example I don't think the US does because of its federal system.
Some data may only count raw reportage figures or raw "cases solved" figures, some will apply an adjustment to account for the crimes that aren't recorded.
In some cases, higher rates will be due to better policing and courts, rather than there being more murders.
And how about the First Amendment - does instantaneous near-global media append a "BUT" to freedom of speech or the press? Where's the "BUT" in the Fourth Amendment in this age of wiretaps, encryption, and a borderless internet?
Actually, I'd say the proof of the technology-based rights violation pudding is in the eating.
People can own all the guns they wish - As long as they don't aim them at me.
In these times with increased threats of terrorism, it only makes sense to let more people carry guns, especially at known terrorist targets like airplanes. It is no coincidence that airplanes are favourite terrorist targets. It is obviously because they know that none of the law abiding people on board are armed. To change this we have to encourage people to bring guns on air planes. Or maybe the airline companies should provide this increased security and place a Kalashnikov under each seat, right next to the life west? That would certainly make air travel safer!
no, the Kalashnikovs would be too hard to get out from under the seat... pistols would make more sense
Most violent gun crimes are commited by people from the ages of 18-20, perhaps the law should state that a citizen must be 21 to purchase a firearm.
Semi automatics and revolvers are most commonly confiscated guns.
The most common caliber handgun confiscated is the 9mm, which I think is popular because of culture and media. A .22 is the best caliber handgun for commuting crime. It is easy to conceal, bullets are less likely to be traced to the gun, and despite the lack of power this gun is more lethal then many higher caliber weapons.
God bless Madison, the constitution was written to protect the rights of men. The 2nd amendment is essential to these, because I have the right to protect my rights from other people and from a Tyrannical oppressor.
I don't think that the Constitution is outdated because of advanced technology. I think it is outdated because people are immoral and unable to see what a true free society is. Not to mention the fact that Liberalism is nothing like what it was during the revolution.
I'd rather see the constitution scrapped and a new system of government installed then to see it gutted and twisted into a new form of government.
Once again that is not what I said or implied. What relevance does your response have to my assertion?
Via the same logic I respond to your post with the assertion that any baker found to have dusted croissants with icing sugar should face summary execution.
Yet there are numerous European countries where handguns are largely prohibited which have even higher violent crime rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your premise seems to be that if Western Europeans owned handguns that the violent crime rate would also skyrocket to match the US. I think that is simply false. There are a number of other similarly developed countries which do allow much less restricted access to handguns where this has not occurred.
If I had a firearm in my possession, and I saw someone kill a person who was not threatening him in any manner and was getting ready to kill another person in cold blood, I may very well intercede. OTOH if I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's house and I knew nobody was there, I would simply call the police and let them handle it. And if I saw someone speeding, I would do nothing.
And I find the premise of "potential troublemakers" being arrested by "law enforcers" when they are not directly suspected of committing a crime to be authoritarian to an extreme. The open possession of a weapon in the vicinity of a suspected crime may very well make an authority figure a bit more interested in that individual than he would be in others. It should certainly make him more wary for his own personal safety and that of others in the vicinity. But that basis alone should not cause the "potential troublemaker" to be arrested.
You DO have to be 21 to legally obtain a handgun. So what does that say? They are breaking the law anyway to get them, so more gun legislation isn't going to stop them.
If it made it much harder to sell guns it would
Not all criminals steal or buy guns in the black market. In the past many people have been able to buy and sale guns at gun shows (I think the laws have changed though).
I honestly don't think that increasing the age limit would decrease gun violence, I due think it is consistent with having a drinking and gambling age of 21. Then again are government is not very consistent.
Law abiding? 100%!
In most states anyone without an FFL can privately sell a gun to anyone at anytime or place without a NCIC check as long as the seller doesn't have any reason to believe they are underage or a prohibited person and as long as the seller doesn't do it regularly as a means of income. In our state of NC (I'm from NC btw) to transfer a handgun the buyer technically needs to purchase a $5 permit and the seller has to see it before the transfer takes place.
There is no special exception for gun shows. Federal laws about selling guns applies everywhere.
I really dont know what the hell you're talking about. I said having a gun doesnt suddenly make you criminal.
You came back with some story about how a guy used a gun and was able to kill 18 people but another guy that went on a rampage only with a knife killed less.
Your story has nothing to do with anything I said.
They are breaking an unconstitutional law. Can you imagine the Framers infringing on a 20 year old's right to bear arms? Well, 20 year old white male, anyway.
you sure about that? It probably varies by state.
Separate names with a comma.