Another Gun Control Thread

Post Reply New Topic

Faulty argument there. Australia AND the UK have less homicides, as does Japan. All have gun control, especially Japan.



You can restrain them if necessary. Surely you have bungee cords or ropes in the house?

wish i could take all the anti-gun people on vacation with me to new orleans. can show everyone the sht that really causes crime and problems. guns are symptom, not the problem. treat just the symptom and make the patient feel better, you can still end up killing the patient.

Less than what? Less than the US? Less than they had before gun control? If your just comparing nations that do with nations that don't have gun control that's also a faulty argument as you can't rule out sociological or economic influences as the cause.



Actually I don't have any rope and bungee cords stretch, remember? Unless you know what your doing its actually quite hard to effectively bind someone (contrary to what movies may lead you to believe).

I agree. But gun control is one of the few methods that could be used. Anything else would require a major paradigm shift I fear the US is ill-prepared for.

How likely is it that your government will give big business a boot up the arse? How likely is it that you can stop husbands from beating their wives to a pulp? How likely is it that you can convince every racist redneck to give blacks, Asians and Latinos a chance?

I'll show you how likely it is. Look at the title of this book.

Your argument is faulty, as the US has more GDP per capita than Australia, Japan, or the UK.



A bungee cord, if stretched tight, would be a very effective restraint, IMO. I've had to use the buggers on stuff my father had to put in his ute. And if you're feeling that strongly, why don't you hamstring the bugger?

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 30 Nov 2008, 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And what does that prove?



Or you could just point and click and save yourself the trouble of worrying about all that.

Dead men don't normally pose much of a threat afterward and when they do they tend to move slowly and incessantly request brains.

You hold life very cheaply, don't you? I shouldn't be attacking you, but your insistence on killing when there are alternatives is astounding. If it was a murderer, I can sympathise, but a burglar?

What people don't realize about gun control is that it really isn't "gun control". All gun control would do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. The mafia will still have guns, the gangsters will still have guns, and the crime syndacates will still have guns. Not only that, but they will make a lot more money as they can now sell guns on the black market. Guns are bad, yes, but you can't make something illegal just because it is bad. That is why the war on drugs is such a failure. Gun control would make the criminals more powerful and the law abiding citizens more vulnerable.

why cure it? work with it and minimize problems. making guns illegal just disarms the honest population.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 30 Nov 2008, 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That wiki was interesting it showed in western countries suicide was the largest statistic. If you look at Switzerland, in which the firearms are not only a right but a requirement because their army is made entirely out of reserves and they need to carry a guns in their houses. Of course it is true that suicide, they might choose something other then gun. Though using a gun is assumed to be relatively quick way to die if you do it correctly.

It is interesting that US is not that dissimilar in its gun related deaths to some counties with low GNI. Estonia, which is next door to Finland, has a firearm related death of twice Finland. The Estonians are culturally related to Finns, but also there is a sizable Russian population. I knew that South Africa was going to be high for homicide and places like Columbia, Mexico and South East Asian countries.

So it seems like if a country has guns if it is developing or underdeveloped there will be more homicides, if it is developed the suicides tend to take precedent (Allowing for the reluctance of some countries to record suicides).

I have lived in Luanda Angola during the civil war, Johannesburg South Africa (which has since got more violent), Kingston Jamaica (which is violent but in a relatively small number of consistencies known as the ‘don consistencies’). I lived in Brazil but not in Rio or Sao Paulo.

Angola had the highest deaths at the time. In fact it was one of not the highest death rate in the world back then despite being largely a forgotten war. Civil wars are not counted as homicides. However quite a lot of deaths were in fact crime related. Crime was rife. One of the problems was when there was a ceasefire for an election and Unita was allowed into Luanda. Dos Santos knew that if Savimbi had a problem with the election there would be a massive fire fight and hostages been taken left right and centre. So the handed out arms to the general population no questions asked. Of course there was a firefight and hostages in the withdrawal. Bu the most of the population hadn’t fired a shot. Instead this caused subsequent crime serge.

When a country such as the UK is working with restrictions on guns, then I see no need to change that. Despite some gun related crime I do believe for the UK it does work. The actual homicide rate is low compared to other countries. Not low enough maybe, but it is simplistic to say bringing guns into the equation may help. I don’t think it will help. I do think our police should be prepared to tackle our gun crime problem.

I don’t see the need for a right to bare arms. People don’t have a ‘right’ to drive a car it is a privilege. Ideally guns should not be necessary for most people.

he's right but it's not addressing the problem but rather addressing only a result of the actual problems at hand. and considering the culture here in general...making guns illegal wouldn't help here.

the streets are only paved with gold here for people who earn over 100k.


and most major cities are more like mini third world nations. like many areas in los angeles, new orleans, detroit, washington DC (the DC part)...a ton of places like that.


that's one thing that most of the foreigners who talk about gun control here don't comprehend.

yeah, i don't even own a gun. dunno if i will or not. i'd be pretty let down if i couldn't, though.

The point is that if many people are armed, the advantage a criminal gains by being armed is diminished, so they not in as strong of a position. It's riskier to try to rob a store whose owner is armed, even if you also have a gun.


Weak strawman argument, barely worth responding to. The right of self-defense is above the right to be protected from your own bad decisions.


Even so, when every redneck and hillbilly in the country is armed to the tooth (and in some cases have more gun than teeth) it's not going to be easy to put down a rebellion.


You have proved neither a causal relationship nor even a decent correlation. Comparing different countries is not as good as observing the change in gun-related homicides in the same nation before and after a change in gun control laws, and those numbers do not favor your argument.


Because the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow an armed citizenry that could conceivably become an impromptu military force to be reckoned with. No matter what happens to our military, a nation with such a citizenry will always be impregnable to foreign invasion and conquest. And also, as you yourself said, to ward off tyranny if necessary.


Yes.