Question for anti-gun:

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Blablahb said:
spartan231490 said:
There is no evidence to suggest that stricter gun control reduces the crime rate, violent crime rate, murder rate, or even suicide rate.
If you put your fingers in your ears, close yours ears and scream "Nanana can't hear you, lalala!" then indeed there's no evidence for that.
spartan231490 said:
On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that legalizing the concealed carry of handguns, may actually reduce the rates of several crimes. One study found that:
"States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent"
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
And you believe the words of a rabid group of ultra-right wing conservatives who are known for not being able to utter a single sensible word on political issues?

Why don't we next consult Karl Marx on how to build a complex modern economy eh?

Same story for all your other 'sources'. You claim you tried to avoid bias, yet found the worst biased nonsense the entire internet has to offer.
farson135 said:
Can you show a single instance where that has happened? Here is another incident in Aurora- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/suspect-in-colo-church-sh_n_1450313.html
Thank you for highlighting another case that's made possible only by legal firearms. If the US had had a decent gun ban, a mental case like him could never ever have gotten his hands on firearms, there would've been no shooting, and the headline would've been "Police arrest man in funny costume who caused minor nuisance in theatre"
I have listed half a dozen primary sources that all agree, and can't find a single piece of scientific evidence that refutes it. Show me one legitimate study that concluded more gun control means less crime. Link it. Show me one.

Yeah, cuz the nut in that Norweigen shooter was legally allowed to buy that gun, oh wait, those guns are banned in that country.

Stop trying to bully and argue with me. I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to educate you, but you refuse to learn. Show me one source, one
 

Tsukuyomi

New member
May 28, 2011
308
0
0
Buretsu said:
Tsukuyomi said:
Apparently the normal ammunition was deemed 'inhumane'. I don't see how a tumbling bullet ripping up someone's internal organs isn't just as inhumane.)/quote]

More fatal = more humane. You want them to die, you don't want them to suffer any more than possible.
Good point. Although from an anti-gun standpoint, I think you could make the argument that they're both terrible ways to die and are unnecessary, regardless if one is more lethal than the other.



TehCookie said:
After reading this on The Onion it's the only thing I can think about when talking about gun control.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nra-sets-1000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount,28352/

"National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre said Monday that somewhere around 1,000 kids would have to die in a school shooting in order for the organization to reconsider their longstanding opposition to gun control."
...
"If we're talking about one of those big high schools with 4,000 students then 1,000 dead ones aren't really even a drop in the bucket, you know?" LaPierre said, explaining that if an uzi-carrying 16-year-old only kills 45 percent of a school's total population, the NRA would still be more inclined to blame the shooting on poor parenting, and wouldn't consider soft gun laws to be part of the problem."
The scary part is that despite it being the Onion and all, there's people who would indeed try to explain it away like that. In a sense it's like the gaming community, in that there are some people in the shooting world that are just....embarrassing. Every time they open their mouths you just want to put duct-tape over it so they don't say something stupid and paint everyone with a tarred brush. The difference of course is that gaming has considerably LESS of these people, while the gun community has very, very many people who are quite willing to put their feet in their mouths and try to talk for everyone when not everyone shares their opinion.

For example: Me? I'm not worried about crazy people breaking into my house all that much. I acknowledge it as a possibility, but that's part of the reason why I try to live in the places I have, and go into the areas I do. I try to AVOID trouble. I'm not so stubborn as to sit around while things crumble around me and then scream about my guns and shoot everything when I could have vacated before the proverbial shit hit the fan. I don't conceal-carry, despite multiple people suggesting I do so. I'm not a nut over the second amendment. I'm not a republican. I'm not a redneck.

I just...like shooting targets. I like blowing the hell out of them and making big holes and loud sounds. I like continuing to train myself to try and get groupings the size of a quarter. I kinda like the smell of powder on a range and the smell of Hoppe's #9. It's just something I enjoy. Am I crazy? I don't think so. Do I agree with everything the NRA says? Hell no. I'm just a guy who likes shooting targets, same as I like playing Skyrim or Arkham City or reading books or listening to music. It's what I enjoy, what I do for recreation. I refuse to let some morons who wanna speak for everyone cover up my opinion.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Hagi said:
Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?
What studies? Show me one. I couldn't find any, and I spent 2 or 3 hours looking. I found dozens of studies showing conclusively no relation between increased gun control and lower gun crime, I couldn't find a single one that showed that increased gun control reduced crime.
Show me one.
 

FEichinger

Senior Member
Aug 7, 2011
534
0
21
Knowing that the US citizens will never change and rather shoot each other during such a shooting than making sure it isn't as bloody easy for the shooter to get his guns, I'll just laugh my ass off here.

Next up, I'd like to point a nice thing out:
Why don't you get one thing into that thick skull: Giving everyone a gun just asks for someone using it in a fit. Brawls in bars? Nope: Shootings!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not correlating guns and crime at all. However ...

agression + firearm = high probability of said firearm being used

Any violence was fueled by agression. Be it hatred towards the government, random people, friends, family, superiors, WHATEVER. There is always someone, who just flipped off for whatever reason. Giving the other people a gun to stop him is blatantly stupid and just keeps it going ... Crime committed - more guns - another crime committed - MOAR GUUUUUUNS!

Ends with Wild West? First one to draw the Colt and gets the trigger pulled survives? Are you fucking kidding me?

/endrant
 

Gavmando

New member
Feb 3, 2009
342
0
0
Sigh.

Oh America. The problem isnt so much the guns. The problem is that you guys just want to kill each other. Your murder rates are insane. If you take away guns, it will make it harder for you to kill each other. Which, i'm 99.9% sure, will reduce your murder rates.

It's simple. Less guns = less gun related death.
As for why you guys want to kill each other? I'm too tired right now to touch that one...
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Hagi said:
Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?
What studies? Show me one. I couldn't find any, and I spent 2 or 3 hours looking. I found dozens of studies showing conclusively no relation between increased gun control and lower gun crime, I couldn't find a single one that showed that increased gun control reduced crime.
Show me one.
Just look through all the gun-control thread already here, plenty of posters putting up decent arguments for either side.

There's also this very human tendency of confirmation bias.

farson135 said:
Hagi said:
It's simple arrogance to believe you have the answers and know exactly how things work in matters as complicated as this. Not to mention incredibly close-minded because you believe the matter closed with yourself in the right.

This whole thing isn't nearly so simple as you make it out to be, matters like this almost never are.
First of all, since when does the phrase ?socio-economic cultural elements? imply exactness or simplicity?

Anyway, the matter is complicated, but the matter has nothing to do with firearms.
That's a bit of a contradiction...

If it's complicated you can't just say that firearms have nothing to do with it. It being complicated means there's many contributing factors, even if they're not apparent.

And you can't say that America's history of little gun-control won't have any effect on the the socio-economic cultural elements of that country. Likewise Europe's stricter gun laws will have some effect on the socio-economic cultural elements of those countries.
 

teknoarcanist

New member
Jun 9, 2008
916
0
0
Every time there's a shooting like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, I see people casting blame at videogames, the doctors, the failure of the movie theater to put a security system on their exit door -- but somehow suggesting the fact that these people were sold devices capable of pointing at someone and ending their life is totally off-limits. That just seems so contrary to logic that I can't even wrap my head around it.

My little sister was watching news coverage of the Aurora shooting with me, and they talked about how he had a flack jacket, tear gas, handgun, shotgun, rifle -- she asked "How did he even GET all that stuff?" She was completely flabbergasted. I said, "He bought them at the store," like it was the most natural thing in the world.

Maybe we need to correlate gun-purchasing data better -- perhaps within the law enforcement database. Like maybe if you buy more than one gun, you go on a list somewhere. And if you buy another, you get points and go up on that list. And if you buy a few more, or a bullet-proof jacket, or if cops respond to a domestic situation at your home, you get even more points. Maybe past a certain number of points, you raise a red flag in a database somewhere. Maybe somebody who owns four hand-guns, has a history of spousal abuse, and was arrested for drunk and disorderly a year ago, maybe that guy goes on a watch-list. Maybe somebody who stockpiles guns and ammo over a short time-frame of six months, like James Holmes did, trips an alarm somewhere, and local police are asked to knock on his door and just see if everything is on the level.

I don't know.

But the idea that asking what role easy access to guns plays in a MASS SHOOTING is somehow off-limits? I can't understand that. It's the elephant in the room. If a 2-year-old stabbed some kid at his preschool with a steak knife over an argument concerning legos, your first question wouldn't be "what the fuck is wrong with this kid" or "do legos cause violence" -- it would be, "who the fuck gave this two year old a knife?"
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Nikolaz72 said:
spartan231490 said:
Nikolaz72 said:
spartan231490 said:
MASTACHIEFPWN said:
spartan231490 said:
MASTACHIEFPWN said:
On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.
You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.
Oh, you're one of those people.

But anyway- perhaps I should have clarified, that statistic didn't include all gun deaths, just homicides.
But, the only point I was attempting to make is if you don't give an idiot a gun, they won't be able to shoot it.
I was mostly joking when I said that. and it's still incorrect. It's about 12,000 gun homicides in 2010, and more than that in years previous.

Also, while idiots can't shoot guns if guns are banned, the evidence doesn't bear out that fewer guns means less crime.
Like was said earlier in this thread, comparing state to state doesnt really work because its so easy to take a gun from one state into another. You 'can' argue that guncontrol wouldnt work for the US. But you 'cant' argue that guncontrol wont work for anyone. Because as far as the rest of the west is concerned, its pretty much worked for everyone.
For example, the murder rate of the UK, despite being increasingly under-reported, "the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban"
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here's some on Australia:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

Russia has a higher murder rate than the US and stricter gun control.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Further, China and Japan have extremely
So we are in agreement then. Culture has more of an effect than Guns and Americans should keep being able to shoot eachother and Europeans shant, I am glad we had this discussion. That being said, it probably rose from other factors than the disapperance from guns, because if we hae to compare the US to the UK instead of the UK to the UK. The ammount of homocide victims is still way lower. So I accept the Culture-defense from the american rightwing extreme far more often than the pointing-fingers one.
I guess. Gun control has no impact on crime regardless of where it is enacted though. UK could remove it's stringent gun control and be crime rates wouldn't rise. I don't care if you do, but that's what the evidence says.
Actually no, A lot more people would get shot. What I was saying is that readding guns to European countries would mean our Homocide would jump up one thousand times to the level of the US. But that the US cant remove their because, well.. Theres so many of them in the US that if they removed them now they would have a large black market for years to come. Despite your false misconceptions about Europe, getting a gun here isnt easy. Even illigaly. Getting a gun in America is very easy. And if guns were banned, even more easy to get one illegaly.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Kalikin said:
I'm not American, nor particularly gun-anything, but I thought I'd add my seldom-heard voice to the din that is the Escapist's new favourite topic.

I think it would take a really special kind of gun fanatic to claim guns don't facilitate, or even empower people to commit, violent crime. And what could be more common-sense than the idea that if you remove the main instrument in those crimes, those crimes would decrease?
It's that very thing that I think is the problem, though - and it may even be reflected in the statistics in the OP (although it doesn't specify an increase in GUN related crime, so it's hard to tell).

The point is that when, "between 70 and 80 million Americans" own guns, restricting the sale of guns isn't going to do much when the gun population is already so huge - and any attempt to take guns away from people who purchased them before the new laws came into place would be somewhere between completely useless to extremely inefficient, and of debatable legality in any event.

Then there's the issue of the right to carry a weapon. Frankly, if that many people own weapons, then there are bound to be some owners with the disposition to go and commit a crime with it, so restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying a weapon really is depriving them of protection.

TL/DR: With the gun population is America being as large as it is, sales restrictions would probably be of limited use; restricting the right to carry would be counterproductive for the same reason.
Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.
elvor0 said:
The one that gets me is "It's to stop the government taking over!" That would've made sense when the constitution was written, when people had muskets and there was an even chance that if they wanted to, the people could've overthrown the Government. It is now 2012, your handgun isn't going to amount to shit if the government (for some insane reason) decides it's going to become 1984, the government has Predator Drones, Tanks, Airstrikes, an Airforce, a Navy, Nukes and whatever other Heavy Artillery it has available, if they wanted to take over, they could do it and no amount of NRA members is going to be able to stop them.

The thing is, people are legally and easily able to buy guns, for example The Joker guy, bought all of his ammunition and stuff off of the frikkin internet. Were it not that easy for him to get his equipment, it most likely wouldn't have happened, and although there are criminal means for people to acquire guns, you have to have contacts, likely pay more and have to deal with shady characters to do so.

Criminals are always going to be able to get hold of stuff, but they would have to rob an army supply centre or what not in order to get stuff beyond handguns and hunting rifles. Not only that, some middle class dude with a hand gun is not going to be able to face down a gang packing mac-10s, he might get a potshot off and kill one of them, then he's just going to get riddled with bullets.

Guns don't just magically come into existence, they have to come from somewhere, you can at least impose some difficulty on things by limiting what civilians are allowed to buy, in the UK you can get a .22 rifle after extensive checking and tests, no ones massacaring anything with that, one shot and then he's got to reload, works okay-ish for hunting and shooting ranges and that's about it. Beyond that Farmers may apply for a shotgun license to defend their livestock.

You barely ever get stories of gun massacres in the UK, because no one gets any access to them, so it fucks me right off when people say "Oh well you get knife crime!!11!" Yeah, which may lead to one person getting stabbed, not a massacare where loads of people get killed and horribly injured. Not only that, it's utter hyperbole, you can't take away knives, it's an integral tool to so many things, fishermen, chefs, cooking, etc etc. Guns primary purpose is that of a weapon, a knife is on the other hand a tool.

I agree that you should be able to defend your house, but how likely /are/ you to do that? Most of the time you're going to just have it sitting there, not doing anything, unless you've been trained and are a very calm individual, you're unlikely to be much of a threat to someone willing to rob your house. A gun is not like having a bat, it's a very powerful and scary weapon to be pointing at another human, and you better be sure you're prepared to pull the trigger, or any knowledgeable criminal is going to just going take it away from you.

Cartels and organized crime rings are going to be able to get guns, but your average gas station robber, would likely not be able to get hold of a decent gun if it wern't so easy to just walk into Ammu-nation and buy one.

However on the flip side, there's just so /many/ guns in America at this point, that it's gone beyond just clamping down on selling them, there needs to be a massive overhaul, and I'm not sure what that would be.

And just to add, I'm in a bit of an awkward position, I -like- playing with guns, there's something I dunno... sexy about them. In the same way people like cars, and tinkering with the engines, there's just something about them as technology, the sleakness and that mechanical click, so it's not like I hate guns and want them all destroyed, but as we can plainly see, people are cunts and can't be trusted.
Read even one of the links in the OP. Guns are used in self defense millions of times each year in the US alone.
 

Tsukuyomi

New member
May 28, 2011
308
0
0
Gavmando said:
Sigh.

Oh America. The problem isnt so much the guns. The problem is that you guys just want to kill each other. Your murder rates are insane. If you take away guns, it will make it harder for you to kill each other. Which, i'm 99.9% sure, will reduce your murder rates.

It's simple. Less guns = less gun related death.
As for why you guys want to kill each other? I'm too tired right now to touch that one...
While I see the logic and somewhat agree, isn't that more like attacking a symptom instead of the cause of the problem?

Yes, as other people have said, aggression is the key-factor. Many males here in America have this big thing relating to respect and making sure they get it and god help you if you disrespect them because you CANNOT disrespect them! Don't you insult them! They're the best thing since sliced bread, goddammit! Their mommas told them so! TV tells them so! They won't stand by lethargically as you insult their dignity and honor! Dad said don't let anyone push him around and he's certainly not gonna let anyone push him around! FISTICUFFS! FISTICUFFS I SAY! QUEENSBURY RULES! Put 'em up! Let's go!

Yes. The above is stupid, childish, sad, and all-too-common. It needs to stop. The mentality of America needs to shift, and sometimes I think it's in the process of doing so, which is why so many people are whining and flailing and gnashing their teeth about morals and values and whatnot. If two kids won't play nice? Yes, taking away toys can be an effective form of punishment. But in a sense it's giving a man a fish. They learn nothing from it short of 'if we argue in front of mommy/daddy we get our toys taken away.'

Changing the way they think, teaching kids to share as opposed to automatically dividing between 'mine' and 'theirs', takes longer. Yes, some people never do understand it. But in the long run it produces greater results. You're teaching the man to fish and he can feed himself.

Taking away guns is a short-term fix. I've no doubt we'd find a way to kill eachother with anything we have around. (Ask any prison-guard who's ever been shanked.) If you want to fix the problem of violence, you have to change the way people think to get the best results.
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
Kragg said:
look im not even going to try and debate a guy who has "Explosives can solve any problem" as a motto, so just drop it
It's because it helped out Tom Cruise sooo much.


EDIT: Not to mention explosives (TNT I'm looking at you) is that amazing little thing designed for peace that turned into a terrible thing used for war and your excuse for not arguing with me just seems petty.
 

FEichinger

Senior Member
Aug 7, 2011
534
0
21
Constantly the same bullshit. "There are much more cases of legitimate gun use!" "If they fear a gun in that house/room/whatever, they won't attack!" "Less guns = more crime!"

I wonder ... How about ... a) relying on your fucking police force for once? b) Having less of the country governed by bloody fear?

It does not matter how many times a gun is used in self-defense rather than agressively (and even the stats on that can be doubted - after all, "stand your ground" allows a headshot for trespassing, amirite? ;) ).
It doesn't matter whether or not guns and crime are in direct correlation.

But you can't tell me with a straight face that you need more guns to "defend yourself", when the easy access to guns caused the issue in the first place.