2 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyI believe that to be true.
it was kinda you who said that in response to Granny at one point ...
"Well, perhaps if there weren't so many guns available, less violent crimes would have been committed? "
There would definitely be less violent crime, IMO - No-one said zero guns would mean the end of violent crime, though.
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyOK, fair enough. No one said exactly that. But if you believe that fewer guns means fewer crimes, then it is an inescapable conclusion that at some level, conscious or otherwise, you also believe that guns, in and of themselves, CAUSE CRIME. And therein lies the crux of our disagreement, because I know that is simply not true.
I believe that to be true.
There would definitely be less violent crime, IMO - No-one said zero guns would mean the end of violent crime, though.
I have quite a few guns. They are not going to commit crimes by themselves, and I'm sure as hell not going to commit crimes with them. I'm also pretty confident that if there was a gun sitting on the table in front of you right now, you would not feel the slightest urge to go out and commit a crime with it. Surely you can agree with me on that one.
Well, there is a vast sea of of guns in the US, the overwhelming majority of which are in the possession of law-abiding non-violent people, just like you and I, who are likewise not going to go out and commit crimes with their guns.
You know what all those millions of law-abiding gun owners do with their vast sea of guns most of the time? Nothing. Those guns just sit in their holsters or gun bags or whatever, and they don't commit any crimes at all. And when those guns do see use its in hunting, or target practice at a range, or competing in a shooting sport etc. You know, things that are LAWFUL, and maybe even FUN. Think of a father and son down at the range engaging in and passing on a tradition in much the same way as if they were fishing. There is a cultural element to it, and a significant part of that culture is comprised of rules and customs that strengthen their commitment to gun safety and responsibility in general, not to mention making them better marksmen.
These people make up the vast majority of the people you would like to disarm.
There are a whole hell of a lot more of these law-abiding gun owners than there are the violent evil idiots who go around robbing, raping and murdering. Yet you want to disarm them all because your gut tells you that the guns are going to CAUSE violence and crime, even though they are in the hands of decent people. It is simply not so. But, if you do disarm them, you will take away the best deterrent they have against the evil idiots, our rates of violent crime will go back up, the criminals will still have guns, and the decent people won't.
EDIT: And you're right. I have absolutely no sense of humor about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguySeems we've been disagreeing about different things then...
OK, fair enough. No one said exactly that. But if you believe that fewer guns means fewer crimes, then it is an inescapable conclusion that at some level, conscious or otherwise, you also believe that guns, in and of themselves, CAUSE CRIME. And therein lies the crux of our disagreement, because I know that is simply not true.
I have quite a few guns nt people won't.
EDIT: And you're right. I have absolutely no sense of humor about it.
I'm not sure where I may have phrased something wrong (English isn't my first language) to let you believe that I believe guns are the cause of violent crime.
Many criminal elements use guns to assist in criminal acts. This is indisputable fact.
A firearm is many times a 'vehicle' for crime, in that said criminal could not have considered the crime had he no access to a gun. Taking this even further, where a criminal without a gun will still participate in criminal acts, he won't be able to just storm into a convenience store waving a Glock around.
Crime won't ever be 'stopped', but at least we remove the twitchy scum who out of desperation gets a 9mm and shoots his way through a clerk and a family of 5 to 50 bucks in a cash register to pay for his next fix.
This is the crux of what I'm saying.
Let's stop the bullets flying around. Sure, some hobbyists and hunters won't like it, but I'm afraid it's the only solution I see, as we can't seem to disarm the criminal element.
Originally posted by Crowley*sigh*
Seems we've been disagreeing about different things then...
I'm not sure where I may have phrased something wrong (English isn't my first language) to let you believe that I believe guns are the cause of violent crime.
Many criminal elements use guns to assist in criminal acts. This is indisputable fact.
A firearm is many times a 'vehicle' for crime, i ...[text shortened]... id it's the only solution I see, as we can't seem to disarm the criminal element.
Man, you fail to the see the point as stubbornly as anybody. I really wish you would go and read that study Plab linked to. And I mean read the whole damned thing. It really is excellent.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html
It proves that your assumptions are all wrong, and that if you succeed in banning all guns with your Utopian vision and totalitarian arrogance, YOU will be causing a lot more innocent people to die at the hands of criminals than if you had left the vast sea of defensive guns in the hands of decent people. Here is another snippet from the conclusion of that study (Note that DGU = Defensive Gun Use).
The policy implications of these results are straightforward. These findings do not imply anything about whether moderate regulatory measures such as background checks or purchase permits would be desirable. Regulatory measures which do not disarm large shares of the general population would not significantly reduce beneficial defensive uses of firearms by noncriminals. On the other hand, prohibitionist measures, whether aimed at all guns or just at handguns, are aimed at disarming criminals and noncriminals alike. They would therefore discourage and presumably decrease the frequency of DGU among noncriminal crime victims because even minimally effective gun bans would disarm at least some noncriminals. The same would be true of laws which ban gun carrying. In sum, measures that effectively reduce gun availability among the noncriminal majority also would reduce DGUs that otherwise would have saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, driven off burglars, and helped victims retain their property.
Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns.
And also, you say yeah sure "some" hobbyists and hunters won't like it as if those people were just a handful of nut jobs on the fringe of society, when in truth those people exponentially out number the violent criminals. Hell, the number of law-abiding decent gun owners in the US are probably double the population of your entire country, not just some fringe group you can arrogantly cast aside. And every one of us has the same inalienable right to self defense that all people everywhere have, but which is also codified in the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution in the right to bear arms. But none of that matters to you because you just don't like guns, and you obviously have no regard for the people who do. Arrogant arrogant arrogant.
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyPlease, I can link just as well as anybody on these forums and if I wanted to I could find a 'study' and 'stats' to prove the inverse.
It proves that your assumptions are all wrong, and that if you succeed in banning all guns with your Utopian vision and totalitarian arrogance, YOU will be causing a lot more innocent people to die at the hands of criminals than if you had left the vast sea of defensive guns in the hands of decent people.
I seriously just can't be bothered because your brain function apparently has been shut down due to sniffing too much gunpowder.
Originally posted by CrowleyBut all your links are to people who say guns are bad. Ours show guns are good.
Please, I can link just as well as anybody on these forums and if I wanted to I could find a 'study' and 'stats' to prove the inverse.
I seriously just can't be bothered because your brain function apparently has been shut down due to sniffing too much gunpowder.
P-
Originally posted by CrowleyWell THAT's weak.
Please, I can link just as well as anybody on these forums and if I wanted to I could find a 'study' and 'stats' to prove the inverse.
I seriously just can't be bothered because your brain function apparently has been shut down due to sniffing too much gunpowder.
OK, I'm really done now. Your closed mind is immune to both fact and logic on this matter. I truly hope you never need that gun you don't have.
Originally posted by CrowleyFat racist? You are truly stupid "Fat Boy". Do you soil your pants everytime a car backfires DOO DOO boy?
Yeah, awesome. Nothing like a fat racist with a sniper rifle that is accurate for miles to instill a sense of security...
Also, a sniper rifle doesn't really fit into your argument about self-defence, now does it?
3 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyI read it, and from a scientific standpoint, I can tell you that it has serious flaws.
*sigh*
Man, you fail to the see the point as stubbornly as anybody. I really wish you would go and read that study Plab linked to. And I mean read the whole damned thing. It really is excellent.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html
It proves that your assumptions are all wrong, and that if you succeed in banning all guns with your U guns, and you obviously have no regard for the people who do. Arrogant arrogant arrogant.
Examples:
"Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds."
--I see no definition of "Defensive Gun Use". Does that mean you have a gun, in a situation where you feel threated? Do I have to show the other person I have a gun, or just tell them? Does it count if I wave it around, or do I have to fire it? Does the bullet have to strike the "attacker"?
"Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed...believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection"
--Isn't this AWFULLY subjective? Also, isn't it in the "gun defender's" best interest to justify the use of a lethal weapon?
"In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first"
--Let's not confuse cause and effect. Maybe the "gun defender" acted cocky, knowing he had a weapon, and provoked his attacker.
"In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker"
--Most gun uses don't result in death, or even wounds. Many criminals get what they want, just by showing a store owner a gun. I really like how you have the "gun defender" and "criminal attacker". Doesn't this seem just a little bit biased? Who's to say who was right and who was wrong? It sounds to me like the gun made that decision. That's not the type of society I want to live in.
"In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim.
--So?
(Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love."
--So if you use a gun, there's a one in ten chance the target will be a family member? That's certainly encouraging. Also, any decent statistician will tell you that the numbers don't "prove" or "disprove" anything.
"In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers"
--Right, I wouldn't take on three people ( "attackers" ) unless I had a gun either. That's just common sense.
"In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home."
--I'm not sure why this information would be considered valuable. Like the rest of these statistics, it seems to be taken out of context to suit the needs of the author.