The chances of getting shot are relatively nil. But your chances of getting shot if you have a gun probably triples, or three times nil.
People never seem to realize the odds...
People never seem to realize the odds...
Poll
What do you think about guns in the US?
| They should be allowed freely in the US. (2nd amm.) | 28% | 28% - 51 | ||||
| They should be controlled.(registered) | 31% | 31% - 56 | ||||
| They should be controlled like automatic weapons are. | 12% | 12% - 23 | ||||
| They should be banned. | 11% | 11% - 20 | ||||
| I don't give a shit, I don't live there. | 15% | 15% - 27 | ||||
| Total: 177 | ||||||
How about this:Vilham wrote:
I can see both sides of the story. America cant do anything about guns as its too deep in its culture. But please for the love of god STOP SAYING GUNS STOP CRIME! THEY DONT!hate&discontent wrote:
i really don't like anti-gun asshats. atleast the one's that can't see both sides of the story.
I'll quit saying that guns stop crime the same time you prove to me that the presence of a legally owned firearm has never kept a crime from happening.
And if guns don't stop crime, why do the police carry them?
some links to start you out:
“Crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns.”
John Lott “Gun Laws Can Be Dangerous, Too” Wall Street Journal, May 12, 1999
http://www.tsra.com/Lott22.htm
“Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual
reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry
law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced
crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.” Lott, John R., Plassmann,
Florenz and Whitley, John E., Confirming More Guns, Less Crime, December 9, 2002
http://ssrn.com/abstract=372361
A gun is the most effective defense against rape. When women are armed with a gun or knife an
attempted rape is 10 times less likely to be completed. U.S. Department of Justice, Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm and see also Guns Effective Defense Against Rape by
Robert J. Wooley, MD http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend … _rape1.htm
“The reality is that criminals commit nearly 10 million violent crimes a year in the United States.
And nationwide, with only 75,000 to 80,000 police officers on duty at any one time, police are
simply unable to prevent most of the crimes that occur. This means that citizens are ultimately
responsible for their own defense. Fortunately, research shows that they are often up to the task.
Victims use firearms approximately 2.5 million times each year in self-defense, according to Florida
State University criminologist Gary Kleck.” H. Sterling Burnett, No Smoking Guns
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/sterling/mar899.html
Last edited by blisteringsilence (2007-04-25 11:26:53)
Do you not understand this? Of course the laws of probabilty dictates that in a country where everybody has a gun, a percentage of crimes will be prevented or stopped early due to a citizen using a firearm on a criminal. No one is denying that, but the key point is that if no one has a gun (and they are very hard to get illegally unless you have serious underground contacts) then the amount of innocent people who die or are involved in gun crime is less overall than the first scenario.blisteringsilence wrote:
How about this:Vilham wrote:
I can see both sides of the story. America cant do anything about guns as its too deep in its culture. But please for the love of god STOP SAYING GUNS STOP CRIME! THEY DONT!hate&discontent wrote:
i really don't like anti-gun asshats. atleast the one's that can't see both sides of the story.
I'll quit saying that guns stop crime the same time you prove to me that the presence of a legally owned firearm has never kept a crime from happening.
And if guns don't stop crime, why do the police carry them?
some links to start you out:
“Crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns.”
John Lott “Gun Laws Can Be Dangerous, Too” Wall Street Journal, May 12, 1999
http://www.tsra.com/Lott22.htm
“Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual
reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry
law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced
crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.” Lott, John R., Plassmann,
Florenz and Whitley, John E., Confirming More Guns, Less Crime, December 9, 2002
http://ssrn.com/abstract=372361
A gun is the most effective defense against rape. When women are armed with a gun or knife an
attempted rape is 10 times less likely to be completed. U.S. Department of Justice, Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm and see also Guns Effective Defense Against Rape by
Robert J. Wooley, MD http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend … _rape1.htm
“The reality is that criminals commit nearly 10 million violent crimes a year in the United States.
And nationwide, with only 75,000 to 80,000 police officers on duty at any one time, police are
simply unable to prevent most of the crimes that occur. This means that citizens are ultimately
responsible for their own defense. Fortunately, research shows that they are often up to the task.
Victims use firearms approximately 2.5 million times each year in self-defense, according to Florida
State University criminologist Gary Kleck.” H. Sterling Burnett, No Smoking Guns
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/sterling/mar899.html
It's simple mathematics and a couple of accurate statistics could swing the debate. You'd just need to know the figures for this formula:
Number of serious crimes* prevented by civilians with handguns minus Number of innocent people killed by guns that were obtained through current legal means or indirectly because of a legal purchase (i.e an illegal purchase of a previously legally bought firearm)= ?
If you are left with a positive then you have a point but if you are left with a minus (which I suspect) then you should see our point.
*serious crimes - a little subjective really because it depends on what you deam suitable for the use of the gun. For example I don't think an unarmed mugger deserves to die for a petty crime.
Looking inward I'm afraid, the UK police don't carry guns. Horribly for you, this can prove exactly the oppsite to how you meant it because I can now ask,blisteringsilence wrote:
And if guns don't stop crime, why do the police carry them?
"If guns stop crime, why don't the British police have them?"
See the circular argument?
I understand this perfectly. Utopia was a good read. That being said, there is NO WAY to make what you say possible. It's not even possible in your own country, and you don't have borders to worry about.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Do you not understand this? Of course the laws of probabilty dictates that in a country where everybody has a gun, a percentage of crimes will be prevented or stopped early due to a citizen using a firearm on a criminal. No one is denying that, but the key point is that if no one has a gun (and they are very hard to get illegally unless you have serious underground contacts) then the amount of innocent people who die or are involved in gun crime is less overall than the first scenario.blisteringsilence wrote:
How about this:Vilham wrote:
I can see both sides of the story. America cant do anything about guns as its too deep in its culture. But please for the love of god STOP SAYING GUNS STOP CRIME! THEY DONT!
I'll quit saying that guns stop crime the same time you prove to me that the presence of a legally owned firearm has never kept a crime from happening.
And if guns don't stop crime, why do the police carry them?
some links to start you out:
“Crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns.”
John Lott “Gun Laws Can Be Dangerous, Too” Wall Street Journal, May 12, 1999
http://www.tsra.com/Lott22.htm
“Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual
reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry
law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced
crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.” Lott, John R., Plassmann,
Florenz and Whitley, John E., Confirming More Guns, Less Crime, December 9, 2002
http://ssrn.com/abstract=372361
A gun is the most effective defense against rape. When women are armed with a gun or knife an
attempted rape is 10 times less likely to be completed. U.S. Department of Justice, Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm and see also Guns Effective Defense Against Rape by
Robert J. Wooley, MD http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend … _rape1.htm
“The reality is that criminals commit nearly 10 million violent crimes a year in the United States.
And nationwide, with only 75,000 to 80,000 police officers on duty at any one time, police are
simply unable to prevent most of the crimes that occur. This means that citizens are ultimately
responsible for their own defense. Fortunately, research shows that they are often up to the task.
Victims use firearms approximately 2.5 million times each year in self-defense, according to Florida
State University criminologist Gary Kleck.” H. Sterling Burnett, No Smoking Guns
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/sterling/mar899.html
I think part of the problem is that you assume, wrongly, that the majority of people who die via firearm are innocent. I'm a paramedic. I know better. You should ask ANYONE in the EMS profession, from firefighter to trauma surgeon. Everyone that gets shot in the ghetto was sitting on their porch, minding their own damn bidness, and some mothaf*cka shot them!
Are there innocents that die in the US because someone shoots them? Undoubtedly. The shooting in Blacksburg is the ultimate of visible examples. And there are innocent bystanders, especially in drive-by's.
But we bitter paramedics, we see shootings that we and the police often classify as NHI - No Humans Involved. If two drug dealers want to shoot and kill each other over a street corner, I say let them. Hell, give them some marksmanship training, so all they hit is each other.
I would see the circular argument, if the UK police agencies didn't carry guns. But they do. The average bobby on the street might not be armed, but you'd better believe there's a cruiser within 10 minutes of his position that has at least two armed officers in it. I've met some of the London Metro police. AT A SHOOTING TOURNAMENT. They were great guys. Loved the hell out of them.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
It's simple mathematics and a couple of accurate statistics could swing the debate. You'd just need to know the figures for this formula:
Number of serious crimes* prevented by civilians with handguns minus Number of innocent people killed by guns that were obtained through current legal means or indirectly because of a legal purchase (i.e an illegal purchase of a previously legally bought firearm)= ?
If you are left with a positive then you have a point but if you are left with a minus (which I suspect) then you should see our point.
*serious crimes - a little subjective really because it depends on what you deam suitable for the use of the gun. For example I don't think an unarmed mugger deserves to die for a petty crime.Looking inward I'm afraid, the UK police don't carry guns. Horribly for you, this can prove exactly the oppsite to how you meant it because I can now ask,blisteringsilence wrote:
And if guns don't stop crime, why do the police carry them?
"If guns stop crime, why don't the British police have them?"
See the circular argument?
http://www.met.police.uk/co19/armed_response.htm
Really, what it comes down to is politics. There is no political way to pass a ban on firearms. Even if it passed, the supreme court would strike it down as an unreasonable infringement of the 2nd amendment.
Not to mention, if it passed, everytime a criminal shot someone that used to have a legal firearm, the outcry would be tremendous. And politicians would get voted out of office. And they don't want that.
Last edited by blisteringsilence (2007-04-25 13:23:56)
When you have individual like these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE tainting the World collective conscience, I say give them all guns and do the rest of us a favour.
Oh god, You cant be serious, can you?Rogue_granny wrote:
When you have individual like these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE tainting the World collective conscience, I say give them all guns and do the rest of us a favour.
Obviously there are dumb people here.
Hey, I wish they had more guns everywhere. Population control is a good thing.lavadisk wrote:
Oh god, You cant be serious, can you?Rogue_granny wrote:
When you have individual like these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE tainting the World collective conscience, I say give them all guns and do the rest of us a favour.
Obviously there are dumb people here.
Unsubscribing now.
You know what the most ironic thing is. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation. Yet, it is the MURDER CAPITAL OF THE NATION!!! Go figure.... BTW handguns will never be permited in D.C. NEVER..............................................................................................
Guns are not that hard to obtain illegally in the U.S.. Ihave an AK47 bought after the ban. Full auto and paid $450 for it. My H&K cost more, but I don't have to worry there......
Last edited by nlsme (2007-04-28 11:21:38)
The federal appeals court has ruled within the last month or so that D.C.'s Handgun ban is unconstitutional and it violates the second amendment. The court also ruled that D.C.'s law requiring all guns to be locked up with triggerlocks and stored seperate from the ammunition is also unconstitutional since even removing the lock to prevent a violent crime would constitute a criminal act. The court ruled that D.C.'s law were unconstitutionl since they violated a persons right to self defense.nlsme wrote:
You know what the most ironic thing is. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation. Yet, it is the MURDER CAPITAL OF THE NATION!!! Go figure.... BTW handguns will never be permited in D.C. NEVER..............................................................................................
The city of Washington D.C. is sure to appeal but it looks like the Residents of D.C. may have their second amendment rights restored after almost 30 years of being defensless to armed criminals.
Link to an article about D.C. gun ban being overturned.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/
The odds are zero for both, according to you. Nil = zero. Anything times zero is zero.Pug wrote:
The chances of getting shot are relatively nil. But your chances of getting shot if you have a gun probably triples, or three times nil.
People never seem to realize the odds...
Wow, this needs it's own thread.......Rogue_granny wrote:
When you have individual like these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE tainting the World collective conscience, I say give them all guns and do the rest of us a favour.
P>S Lowing will say they were all asked different questions and it was edited or something.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-28 12:47:37)
I think he realised that and was being sarcastic....k30dxedle wrote:
The odds are zero for both, according to you. Nil = zero. Anything times zero is zero.Pug wrote:
The chances of getting shot are relatively nil. But your chances of getting shot if you have a gun probably triples, or three times nil.
People never seem to realize the odds...
The more I've read and thought about the US gun ownership issue the more I've begun to realise what the real problem seems to be. Initially I was a completly anti-gun. The more I find out about it the more I think the problem isn't the pro-gun advocates and the problem also isn't the anti-gun advocates. The problem is that both of them are trying to push Americas gun issue in opposite directions, resulting in a middle ground that's worse than either of the two ends of the spectrum.
The anti-gun side want to phase out gun ownership, which I support, the idea that by slowly removing the weapons from society it will be increasingly difficult for criminals to get guns as it limits supply and assists police in that they can arrest potential criminals before they commit violent crimes for possesion of the weapon that they are going to use. As it stands the crazy nutter can be entirely within the law until the moment they walk through the school gates and start shooting people. It also assists police in that holding a gun = bad guy. It discourages criminals from obtaining a weapon in the first place if they don't think they'll need it. It stops the escallation of violence.
The pro-gun side want everyone to have a weapon with them and to be able to take it anywhere. This discourages criminals from even attempting to commit crime as it puts their lives at extreme risk. If everyone is armed then a potential massacre should be far less likely as the victims are able to fight back effectively. The bloke going on a killing spree doesn't give a shit if it's a gun free zone or not. The overthrowing the government thing I personally think is horse crap as the modern millitary should be more than capable of stopping citizens armed with small arms, but there is some reason in that it will certainly make an aggressive govenrment think twice about the possibility of getting into a prolonged guerilla conflict. It's worse than no guns, but significantly better than the current situation
The problem arrises because when you get the middle ground of these two ie. the current situation. That is widespread firearm ownership and therefore a very well supplied firearms black market and so very well armed criminals, but restriction upon the legal gun owners so that the possitive aspects of guns cannot be exploited properly. Unfortunately with both sides trying their hardest to pull the issue to their side and their ideals it looks as if the worst of both sides will be the resultant stalemate. With politics being as it is, the most important factor being to beat the other side and get more votes, it seems unlikely that either side will be willing to back down and accept that it'd be better to give up on their ideal and let the other side 'win' even though it would probably be in the best interest of the country do so. At the moment the criminals are the only ones winning and it's the law abiding people that are loosing.
The anti-gun side want to phase out gun ownership, which I support, the idea that by slowly removing the weapons from society it will be increasingly difficult for criminals to get guns as it limits supply and assists police in that they can arrest potential criminals before they commit violent crimes for possesion of the weapon that they are going to use. As it stands the crazy nutter can be entirely within the law until the moment they walk through the school gates and start shooting people. It also assists police in that holding a gun = bad guy. It discourages criminals from obtaining a weapon in the first place if they don't think they'll need it. It stops the escallation of violence.
The pro-gun side want everyone to have a weapon with them and to be able to take it anywhere. This discourages criminals from even attempting to commit crime as it puts their lives at extreme risk. If everyone is armed then a potential massacre should be far less likely as the victims are able to fight back effectively. The bloke going on a killing spree doesn't give a shit if it's a gun free zone or not. The overthrowing the government thing I personally think is horse crap as the modern millitary should be more than capable of stopping citizens armed with small arms, but there is some reason in that it will certainly make an aggressive govenrment think twice about the possibility of getting into a prolonged guerilla conflict. It's worse than no guns, but significantly better than the current situation
The problem arrises because when you get the middle ground of these two ie. the current situation. That is widespread firearm ownership and therefore a very well supplied firearms black market and so very well armed criminals, but restriction upon the legal gun owners so that the possitive aspects of guns cannot be exploited properly. Unfortunately with both sides trying their hardest to pull the issue to their side and their ideals it looks as if the worst of both sides will be the resultant stalemate. With politics being as it is, the most important factor being to beat the other side and get more votes, it seems unlikely that either side will be willing to back down and accept that it'd be better to give up on their ideal and let the other side 'win' even though it would probably be in the best interest of the country do so. At the moment the criminals are the only ones winning and it's the law abiding people that are loosing.
You make some great points, Fodder, but I still prefer the pro-gun situation you mentioned.
Why this topic should be open to debate to non citizens of the USA is a farce.
We have a Bill of Rights here, we know you hate that.
We have a Bill of Rights here, we know you hate that.
As much as logistically and financially it would be quite difficult to severely restrict weapons, new laws could be introduced such as:
You must be over 25 to purchase a gun, you must have a legit licence (showing you are not a known criminal and have been trained on the safe handling of a gun, e.t.c)... If during on routine checks it is discovered people own a gun and dont fit this criteria then the gun should be confiscated.
It wouldnt be so hard....
Plenty of bad guys here in EUROTRASH land (UK) get guns illegally and when they are caught they usually face a much heavier prison sentence. Its also true that there is nothing to stop a schoolkid here obtaining a weapon illegally and killing people. But its less likely as its quite hard to buy a gun on the blackmarket and we have an anti gun culture.
You must be over 25 to purchase a gun, you must have a legit licence (showing you are not a known criminal and have been trained on the safe handling of a gun, e.t.c)... If during on routine checks it is discovered people own a gun and dont fit this criteria then the gun should be confiscated.
It wouldnt be so hard....
Plenty of bad guys here in EUROTRASH land (UK) get guns illegally and when they are caught they usually face a much heavier prison sentence. Its also true that there is nothing to stop a schoolkid here obtaining a weapon illegally and killing people. But its less likely as its quite hard to buy a gun on the blackmarket and we have an anti gun culture.
a) There are plenty of discussions about the internal policies of other countries. Surely with almost all issues you want the largest possible imput of ideas to get to the best decision.theelviscerator wrote:
Why this topic should be open to debate to non citizens of the USA is a farce.
We have a Bill of Rights here, we know you hate that.
b) Nobody hates the Bill of Rights, but as with every country that's ever existed and written down laws, sometimes these things can need updating to fit with modern times. A literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights means the government has absolutely no legal grounds to stop civillians from having thermonuclear warheads. They are arms and the rights to own them shall not be infringed.
it's not the solution I'd want, but I recognise that the pro-gun solution is certainly better than the middle ground that seemd to exist now.Turquoise wrote:
You make some great points, Fodder, but I still prefer the pro-gun situation you mentioned.
There will always be people who just are not "wired" correctly.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
The argument of "they'll always be crazy people" doesn't work unless you make everything legal. You don't, you have controls to minimise the risk. Personally, I would be just as opposed if the UK tried to ban crossing the road because a few people every year get knowcked down; however that is a law in the USA (jaywalking) and Americans seem to think it is logical and works and yet if you make the same point about guns and they start argueing you can't make blanket laws.
"A 16-year-old boy has been charged with the murder of a 12-year-old schoolgirl shot dead in Greater Manchester"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl … 617697.stm
I don't hold the illusion that they stop crime, but mine would most definitely prevent a serious one against me if I happened to shoot first.Vilham wrote:
STOP SAYING GUNS STOP CRIME! THEY DONT!
But the one thing that kills me over here are actors who participate in ultra-violent films speaking out against the very object that their industry glorifies (and that happens to fill their bank accounts).