all i got to say is more guns= more noobs cant aim right= more stupidity = more innocent people dead.
Poll
Legalize/Ban gun ownership
| I'm in Europe and i think it should be legalised | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| I'm in Europe and i think it should stay banned | 20% | 20% - 24 | ||||
| I'm in NA and i think we should keep our guns | 60% | 60% - 71 | ||||
| I'm in NA and i think guns should be banned | 4% | 4% - 5 | ||||
| Other- outline below | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 118 | ||||||
Technically, these are desirable evolutionary processes in practice.specialistx2324 wrote:
all i got to say is more guns= more noobs cant aim right= more stupidity = more innocent people dead.
I'm all for the proliferation of arms!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
What it does is stop the process - Dealer sells gun to legit purchaser, sells on to friend, sells on to friend, sells on to slightly dodgy but OK friend, sells on to dodgy friend, sells on to scumbag, sells on to scum.Raimius wrote:
The problem is it is not likely to work, and would cost millions. Do you really think drug dealers/gang members care if their firearm transactions are required to go through an FFL? They will ignore the law (just like they do now).
Instead dealer sells on to legit buyer, sells on to legit buyer, sells on to legit buyer....
Obviously guns get stolen now and then, not sure which is the biggest problem here.
If guns are registered and you won't get another if your gun gets stolen and you were slack in your security then it encourages you not to be slack.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … amp;s_pos=
States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors.
Yeah...the article compares DC and Virginia...DC with ONE FFL and no stores compared to the entire state of Virginia...hmmm, I have no clue what that result is going to look like.../sarcasmPureFodder wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … amp;s_pos=States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors.
EDIT:
Gun-rights researcher John Lott makes a good point about the study.
John Lott wrote:
Let me give you a simple example of the problems with using purely cross-sectional data as used in this study. Suppose that high crime rate cities are the ones that adopt the strictest gun controls (which is generally true) and that crime rates fell ((just for the sake of argument assume that is the case), but the drop is not enough so that the crime rate in these cities is still higher than the low crime rate cities that didn't adopt the laws. Looking across the cities it would appear that the cities with the gun control laws had the higher crime rates, but does that mean that gun control caused higher crime? No. Obviously in the example that we gave the opposite really happened, but looking at simple averages gave a very misleading result. The only way that you can figure out what happened is to follow those cities over time and see how their crime rates changed relative to what they were in the past and to see how they changed over time ralative to the places that didn't chnage their laws.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-12-07 01:11:09)
I guess the next step in this debate would be for you to go and read the article.RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah...the article compares DC and Virginia...DC with ONE FFL and no stores compared to the entire state of Virginia...hmmm, I have no clue what that result is going to look like.../sarcasmPureFodder wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … amp;s_pos=States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors.
EDIT:
Gun-rights researcher John Lott makes a good point about the study.John Lott wrote:
Let me give you a simple example of the problems with using purely cross-sectional data as used in this study. Suppose that high crime rate cities are the ones that adopt the strictest gun controls (which is generally true) and that crime rates fell ((just for the sake of argument assume that is the case), but the drop is not enough so that the crime rate in these cities is still higher than the low crime rate cities that didn't adopt the laws. Looking across the cities it would appear that the cities with the gun control laws had the higher crime rates, but does that mean that gun control caused higher crime? No. Obviously in the example that we gave the opposite really happened, but looking at simple averages gave a very misleading result. The only way that you can figure out what happened is to follow those cities over time and see how their crime rates changed relative to what they were in the past and to see how they changed over time ralative to the places that didn't chnage their laws.
It looks at the rate at which guns end up in the hands of criminals outside of the state that they were purchased in and finds that the states with the laxer gun control laws end up supplying most of the illegal arms trade in the country.
Tighter laws regarding the purchasing of firearms do reduce the numbers of illegal weapons.
Tighter laws are only observed by law-abiding people.