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...
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.
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
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?
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 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?
Last edited by blisteringsilence (2007-04-25 13:23:56)
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
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!