| |
|
11-22-2007, 01:06 AM
|
#31 | |
|
Argus Agony
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gotta go fishing!
Posts: 10,483
|
Quote:
The owner of the house you're planning to rob might be in illegal possession of a gun. Or he might just come up behind you and stab you in the neck. Or his hypothetical pit bull could maul you. Or countless other scenarios. It's like arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent for murder when there's no evidence to support this assertion. If somebody's gonna rob a place, they'll do it. If somebody's willing to kill another person, they're probably going to give it a solid effort. Yes, having a gun could prevent you from being robbed and/or murdered in the unlikely event that someone tries to rob and/or murder you. However, having a gun also greatly increases the chance that you or someone you love will be killed by that very gun, and the odds of this happening are far greater than the odds of it saving you from the bad guys. That said, once again, I don't have a problem with people owning guns. But let's not pretend like there isn't a clear danger involved in having one around.
__________________
Either you're dead or my watch has stopped. |
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 03:18 AM
|
#32 | |
|
.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,435
|
I've never OWNED (used, but not owned) a gun, and I don't intend to start anytime soon, but if you break into my house, know right now that you're going to get knifed (or knocked out, my choice). Guns aren't the be-all end-all of violence, but I wish they were. That would make world disarmament and possibly peace a lot easier.
EDIT: Quote:
B: That's immoral and killing in cold blood. Then your lawsuit becomes a homicide case. EDIT2: Well, according to my arguments above, I have no clue where I stand on this, but to clarify: I think we could definitely use some harsher gun laws, but changing the constitution isn't the place to start. Last edited by russianreversal; 11-22-2007 at 03:37 AM. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 03:56 AM
|
#33 | |
|
Argus Agony
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gotta go fishing!
Posts: 10,483
|
Quote:
__________________
Either you're dead or my watch has stopped. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 04:50 AM
|
#34 | |
|
Tenacious C
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
B: Yeah, but it's what any lawyer worth half a shaker of salt will tell you to say if you kill somebody. It's not homicide if it was self defense, and if they're in your home and the only witness says the dead guy threatened to kill you, you're pretty much home free. Honestly this is probably the one single case that makes me glad we have conservative judges sitting on the bench. I think a better solution to lower non-criminal gun problems would be arms education, not arms control. Fund classes to teach people responsible and safe firearm storage and usage. Basically promote a healthy gun culture, like we try to do with cars and driver's ed.
__________________
Dangerous, mute lunatic. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 05:25 AM
|
#35 | ||
|
Everfree
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Mythical Frontier
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
Although, on the other side, there is some evidence that gun liberalization leads to some increase in crime. Although, on the other other side, there is some evidence that gun liberalization leads to a twelve thousand percent increase in the wrongful deaths of innocent people and babies, and that this is probably true of gun control too. Seriously, though, I suspect gun control and liberalization has different effects on different populations. Furthermore, I would go on to suspect that most of the problems associated with gun liberalization will afflict poor populations more strongly; and that the problems associated with gun control will afflict poor populations more strongly; this is because they experience the brunt of every problem in every statistical study since even before sociologists first learned that they could suck for a living (which is to say, the invention of sociology), but that would be digression. In any case, my point is that no, there is not any clear evidence from an unbiased source that gun control or liberalization does anything consistent across populations. Nor is it clear how the crime rate in a population affects gun control. OR how other, external factors, might affect both the crime rate and propensity for gun control within a population. And, based on this assumption that I have no idea what will happen, I'm not going to go around saying what the laws should be. The only thing I do know is that I own a gun, and that I doubt something as trivial as illegality would make me give it up. Because I know better than every government about everything ever. No, really. Quote:
The second is a bit more complicated, and it may be immoral, but it is also probably self-defense and justifiable homicide. The simplest way to determine is to look up the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine type laws, for those who don't want to read that, are laws that provide for a person's right to protect their places of residence (and the people legally residing within) with necessary (often lethal) force in the face of an unlawful intruder whom they reasonably believe may be a threat. As it stands, it's approximately half of the US and growing that holds Castle Doctrine laws. The rest have more complex laws relating to justifiable homicide, but armed intrusion and armed robbery are common criteria, and if you can demonstrate belief that the subject was armed and a threat, you can probably get a ruling of justifiable homicide. Though, as I understand it, in other countries they like to check whether the intruder was armed, or other crazy criteria like that. In any case, if it were up to me, I'd prefer some kind of nongovernmental militia with wide rights to weapon ownership as the satisfaction of the second amendment, but I don't know how well it would work in the real world.
__________________
FAILURE IS
LEARNING TO ACCEPT THOSE THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE Last edited by The Kneumatic Pnight; 11-22-2007 at 06:13 AM. |
||
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 06:03 AM
|
#36 | |
|
Oi went ta Orksford, Oi did.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,911
|
I'm all for gun control. We should have guns- there should be a strict guideline for owning them, though! There are a few things why gun control is a good thing, namely lower murder rates, knowing who currently owns a gun, the psychology of using a weapon, and the prevention of guns getting to dangerous individuals.
There is a correlation between how gun control works and murder rates. Yes, many of the countries that do have tougher gun laws this have lower populations. Yes, they are different cultures. However, when people do these studies they look at it proportionally, adjusting the populations so that they get a usable result. However way you look at it, seeing that the murder rates by firearm (and overall murder rates) go down when there is more control over weapons, firearms included. Something that many people ignore is that most guns obtained illegally were obtained legally at some point. People sell guns to family or friends all the time without going through the legal channels, which means people who would get turned down for guns normally- not saying they are bad people, but the biggest category is ex-convicts- get them from people who often don't know what they do use it for, usually because their impression of a person is from him being friendly with them. Maintaining a database of what firearm is owned by a specific person allows a better control from guns going to people who do not qualify for a firearm, and what's usually suggested is an annual check- renew your gun license/hunting license, bring your guns to prove that you still own all of them, get your license back. Have firearms regulated to be disposed of in a way there's proof you no longer own it. Guns are easier to use as a weapon because it's not a personal weapon. Most people who've used both a close quarters weapon (such as a knife) that is lethal and a ranged weapon that is lethal will tell you going up to stab/cut someone is far more difficult than going through the stages of cocking a pistol, for example, and firing it. Violence, while not taboo, is seen as an invasion of personal space which is a very ingrained Western custom. Having participated in many martial arts, working with weapons and hand to hand, and talking with my teachers and fellow students, I've gained a personal experience of this- it's harder to get close to someone and engage them. I've also spoken to a few family members about their war experiences, and while they had apprehensions about pulling the trigger, most recounted that only a few soldiers in their experience froze with a rifle or submachine gun, and more suffered injuries from the hand to hand combat as a result of freezing (although that may be simply because if you're shooting at someone, they may get away or miss, while in hand to hand they rarely ran and often fought to the death.) I'm going to do something questionable here and invoke Virginia Tech. The shooter was clearly mentally unstable and should in no way have been allowed access to a firearm. There should be a psychological exam for owning a gun- someone with schizophrenia, even if they are on treatment and doing well, should never own a gun for example. I don't like revoking bits of the constitution. Taking guns away or giving everyone guns isn't going to do anything, really- we need to find a system that allows guns, controls them for the balance of public safety versus public freedom, and doesn't turn into something Orwellian where they can round everyone up who has a gun. It may be impossible. We haven't yet tried it, though.
__________________
MFIDFMMF: I love how the story of every ancient culture ends with "Hey look at those pale guys in boats." Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 07:01 AM
|
#37 | |
|
Everfree
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Mythical Frontier
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
And also that car ownership is more closely correlated to rates firearm homicide than rates of firearm ownership are. And also, Brady background checks are probably not responsible for much of a decrease in gun crime. This may be a problem with the law itself, not gun control in general. And also, Gun control laws (including the Brady Bill) DO reduce the murder rate. Except that, Harvard says that gun control doesn't help. This university says gun ownership increases overall homicide rates and felony gun use, but doesn't alter general violence rates. Well, gun control seems to work in Canada. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON! DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!
__________________
FAILURE IS
LEARNING TO ACCEPT THOSE THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE Last edited by The Kneumatic Pnight; 11-22-2007 at 07:10 AM. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 08:24 AM
|
#38 | |
|
Tenacious C
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
__________________
Dangerous, mute lunatic. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 02:03 PM
|
#39 |
|
Super stressed!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 8,081
|
What's the crime rate in high populated places like japan, Canada and whatnot compared to America?
|
|
|
|
11-22-2007, 02:17 PM
|
#40 | |
|
YYYEEEEEAAAAAAHHH
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,034
|
Quote:
Generally, the statistics show that if you have gun control laws, homicides tend to angle downwards. |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
