BF2S Forums Gun control logic

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

It's like a fucking yeast infection though, give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Hi I'm the government, you aren't eating properly, you aren't watching the right media, you aren't doing things right, now go to prison.

Bit far fetched, but ya know what i mean.

I only agree with this (with the government)  "Government is becoming more controlling every single day." when gun related. Our personal life on the other hand (tapping phones as a legal action)...

Theres gotta be control to guns. But it's how much control is the question. Best way by doing so isn't taxing the bullets, since most people who buy a shitload of bullets shoot guns for a hobby, but to tax the guns itself and continue to pay tax for them like owning a car.

That works but not for those who buy them on the black market (and most crocks buy them there)

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Theres gotta be control to guns. But it's how much control is the question. Best way by doing so isn't taxing the bullets, since most people who buy a shitload of bullets shoot guns for a hobby, but to tax the guns itself and continue to pay tax for them like owning a car.

That works but not for those who buy them on the black market (and most crocks buy them there)

Where'd you think they got their guns in the first place? Were talking about US here, not Africa though.

From the shops legally!

Cybargs wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Where'd you think they got their guns in the first place? Were talking about US here, not Africa though.

From the shops legally!

Tax that shit yo, paying $2000 for a hand gun isn't something that someone from the ghetto could usually afford.

I think that will only encourage people who own and fire guns for a hobby to obtain them illegally thus making more profit for those who illegally import guns.

Vilham wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

In a perfect justice system then yes, the police are your best defense against criminals. However no system can be perfect, why can't people realize this yet. If i am a criminal and i break into a home with a gun, or i mug someone with a gun with the knowledge that no one is carrying a firearm or owns one then what is stopping me. If i attempt to commit the same crimes with the knowledge that the people i am mugging/robbing are carrying or own a firearm then i would probably second guess it. Another thing is, controlling guns probably won't work. If you pass a law saying that guns are pretty much banned outside of law enforcement and military personnel, criminals can still get the guns, it may not be legally but they still can get them and use them. This completely defeats the purpose of the law, law abiding citizens who don't own firearms can't defend themselves against the gun toting criminals. tried to explain it the best i could.

According to the Bureau of Justice statistics and the UK home office:

Percentage of violent crimes in which a gun was used.
US - 9% (only includes non-fatal incidents)
UK - 1% (includes fatal and non-fatal incidents)

Crimes comitted using a firearm
US - ~ 400,000
UK - ~ 10,000 multiply this by the difference in populace gives 58,000 crimes if England and Wales had the same populace as the USA. Around 35% of these involved replica or paintball guns. Only 15% involved any serious injury.

Firearm homicides

US - 10,100  (2005)
England & Wales - 52  (2007)

42% of robberies in the US were comitted with a firearm.
1% of robberies in the UK were comitted with a firearm.

An armed populace forces the criminals to arm themselves. The notion that criminals will arm themselves regardless of the laws is not true.

thats great, now explain it instead of re quoting some text. the old adage of 86.5% of statistics are made up can be put into play here. that and the population and the cultural differences between the UK and the US are different.

Mitch wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Mitch wrote:

1. Guns are the best tools for protection, and for crime.
2. As said in number 1, guns are good for crime. Criminals commit crimes.
3. Criminals commit crimes by breaking the law. That is why they are criminals. So, a law that bans guns will not be followed by said criminal.
4. Now, criminal has a gun, and he is going to commit a crime because he knows innocent people do not have guns.
5. Innocent person gets raped, shot, robbed, and has no tool more powerful or effeciant than the gun the criminal has.

Thus crime is easier for the criminal.

However, if the criminal knew there was a chance he could get shot back, the criminal would not be so inclined to rob you.

It's a god damn proven fact that gun laws do not stop the use of guns by criminals.

And finally, guns were protected by the 2nd amendment for one main reason.

Protection against an over powering government.

Whats happening in the world?


Gun laws are getting more restrictive.
Government is becoming more controlling every single day.

1-Law, a good Justice system and the police are the best protection against criminals.

2-Criminals commit crimes, they are used to guns, they probably know how to use them better than Joe the plumber.  So, if Joe has a gun he still gets shot.  If Joe doesn't have one, he could be safe.

3-Yes, criminals break the law, and therefore they are criminals.  If they use a gun they would be breaking another law.

4-Wrong.  Criminal will try to commit a crime regardless of what innocent people have.  Maybe, if he knows that a person doesn't have a gun, he'll treat the said person better.

5-See point 1 again.

Bro, thats completely flawed. Unless we're under a complete martial law police state theres no way a cop is gunna be able to do shit.

Your walking down the street and 2 dudes walk up behind you, throw you in the nearest alley and start beating you up and taking your shit.

Police? Yah, if someone calls 911 and you have 5-10 minutes to wait.

Basically, you are saying that you can't walk safely without a gun.  It must be awful living that way.

Last edited by sergeriver (2009-04-01 11:46:07)

Guns are cool but they only belong in the range and war.

Pug wrote:

As in all gun control debates, you can't compare the cultures.

Do you feel safer here versus there?  Depends on your culture.

Are the statistics comparable?  Not unless you have the full picture - for instance, socio-economics plays a role, the type of government, immigration, drug laws, the prowess of the groups collecting the data, religious background, population density, the average diet, and the average position of the population versus where the moon is located.

In other words, soccer sucks.

So the fact that everyone and their dog has pretty much unlimited access to guns have nothing to do with it? But lets compare your list of things anyway between the US and UK.

Type of government: Same (or at least similar enough to not matter)
Immigration: Both have lots of legal and illegal immigration as well as very multicultural urban centres.
Drug laws: As far as I know, pretty much the same. Except legal drinking age is lower in the UK.
Prowess of the groups collecting the data: As far as I can tell its the governments official figures.
religious background: Very similar, majority Christian but with all other religions present in small percentages.
Population density: UK-246/km² US-31/km² Much higher in the UK.
Average diet: Reasonably similar with westernised variations of global cuisine.
The average position of the population versus where the moon is located: Down.

So a densely populated Drunk population = much fewer gun related crimes. Shit I could have sworn it was the other way around.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-04-01 12:14:26)

Criminals for gun control:

http://splodetv.com/video/criminals-gun-control

RAIMIUS wrote:

"More guns = more violence"
...runs into this problem: http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

Gary Kleck wrote:

About half of the time gun stock increases have been accompanied by violence decreases, and about half the time accompanied by violence increases, just what one would expect if gun levels had no net impact on violence rates. The rate of gun suicide is correlated with trends in the size of the gun or handgun stock, but the rate of total suicide is not, supporting a substitution argument--when guns are scarce, suicide attempters substitute other methods, with no effect on the total number who die. Trends in the size of the cumulated gun or handgun stock have no consistent correlation with crime rates.

The US pretty well hit the firearms saturation point. As firearms are so widely available changes in gun stocks make little difference to their availability. If a gun owner had 4 guns instead of 2 guns it makes no difference to how much access to a gun they have so the number of guns and homicides/suicides etc are expected to have no correlation.

seymorebutts443 wrote:

thats great, now explain it instead of re quoting some text. the old adage of 86.5% of statistics are made up can be put into play here. that and the population and the cultural differences between the UK and the US are different.

They are the official government stats form the US and UK.

If you want it explained, fair enough. If the populace is armed, then it WILL discourage some criminals from comiting crimes. This is probably a major reason for the lower burglary rates in the US vs. the UK. On the other hand, a lot of the criminals, instead of deciding not to commit the crime, will choose to do it anyway. Knowing that the populace tends to be armed, the criminals will get a gun to defend themself from the armed populace. This is easier in the US as the large number of firearms owners leads to large numbers of stolen firearms being on the black market (if very few people have a gun, there are very few guns to steal in the UK.) This leads to the much higher percentage of crimes being comitted with a firearm in the US vs. the UK.

Its hilarious watching these debates....euros:we have no guns and less gun crimes. no shit asshats, your country is as big as my state, and your populace has been unarmed for many years, and most of you are of the same race, religion, etc. You just cannot compare your stats with ours, its like comparing electricity usage in africa vs. usa. we get it, you dont like guns. we do. The stats for citizens with concealed weapons permits says it all. If a person goes through the trouble of legally obtaining a firearm, and legally getting a permit to carry it, that person does not commit crimes. when i was at the range last month (in Florida) honest to allah i heard this come from a black man that was there..."shit man, now i know not to rob nobody in da souf."

kylef wrote:

No, see. Here's the thing. You guys have one of the highest gun crime rates in the world. Reducing the number of guns is a good thing.

sure, it's "good" but will it reduce crime? or will it merely reduce gun crimes?

getting shot while youre getting car jacked

Pug wrote:

kylef wrote:

No, see. Here's the thing. You guys have one of the highest gun crime rates in the world. Reducing the number of guns is a good thing.

sure, it's "good" but will it reduce crime? or will it merely reduce gun crimes?

Guns do tend to make crime easier.