You obviously don't know much about this subject friend, you're just spewing really weak talking points. The common criminal?? Tell that to all the people that have defended themselves against GUN WIELDING criminals and knife wielding rapists. You need to do some actual research on this Spark. When you just spout your ideology you sound very unintelligent. So if someone is trying to kill me, I don't have the right to STOP THEM?Spark wrote:
As I said earlier you don't need a gun to protect yourself. The common criminal would be easily frightened by someone running at them with a baseball bat screaming. These are the criminals who pick locks, break windows etc. The uncommon criminal wouldn't even be noticed, if they're good enough to get into the house silently then they're good enough not to be heard.
Plus, ninety-nine-and-a-half times out of 100 what you thought was a burglar was just your wife going to the toilet. At least with some kind of melee weapon (or ball) it's non-lethal and you can be very sure who you're whacking.
On the 'rights' thing - yes, I'm ALLOWED to have a gun, but does that mean I HAVE to have one? I have a right to drive (well, not really. not yet, anyway) but does that mean I HAVE to drive?
Once again I note that I have not yet advocated any changes to laws. I merely state that you don't need to excercise the rights granted in those laws.
I refer you to:
There I did the research for you.NCPA wrote:
If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).
An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21
* When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
* After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
* 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
* New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
International Evidence.
Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.23 (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.24
Why Gun Control Laws May Benefit Criminals.
An increase in violent crime that appears to follow a tightening of controls on gun ownership and use is consistent with economic reasoning. Gun control laws are most likely to be obeyed by people who are otherwise law-abiding if, indeed, they are obeyed by anybody. Thus measures that apply equally to criminals and noncriminals, if they affect behavior at all, are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among noncriminals. As the popular slogan puts it: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun control laws. But if there is an effect, it is likely to benefit criminals in two ways: fewer armed victims to worry about and fewer criminal justice resources to devote to prosecuting real criminals. If fewer potential victims have guns for defense, the balance of power tilts slightly toward criminals. The overall crime rate tends to increase, although guns may not be used in any more crimes because, on average, victim resistance is lowered.
Because more police resources are spent on gun registration, gun law enforcement and gun law convictions, fewer resources are available to deter real criminals. Arrests for weapons violations already exceed 220,000 per year,25 a nontrivial load on the criminal justice system. A Chicago judge from one of the two courtrooms exclusively dedicated to trying gun law offenses in that city testified a few years ago:26
The most striking experience I can take away from the Gun Court . . . is . . . the kinds of people that appear there as defendants. . . . This is their very first arrest of any kind. Many of them are old people, many of them are shopkeepers, persons who have been previous victims of violent crime.
Although many of these "criminals" get probation, the advocates of stricter gun laws press for mandatory sentencing. Meanwhile, punishments meted out for gun law violations not connected with real crimes tend to depress citizens' respect for law and the criminal justice system. As attorney David B. Kopel puts it, "In a world where first-time muggers often receive probation, it is morally outrageous to imprison . . . everyone who carries a firearm for self-defense."27
That is hardly stringent academic research, and you whole heartedly obscure the other side of the picture, as should be addressed in an academic argument such as this - but seeing as there are numerous topics on this already, all I wanted to say is that this type of argument is an oversimplification of the factors contributing to high crime rates in the US. Let me point out though that equal and opposite statistics could easily be found to "prove" a point, but that is not academic research that supports a case, that is called bastardizing science to mine data for what you want to say. This is why we have blind and double blind drug trials performed by independent reviewers. This is not true in the USA for the FDA (the drug companies pay a large portion of the FDA budget to approve their own drugs! LOL), but in Canada at least. My point is that in a system so complex as social life in a huge country and related crime rates, a single variable, e.g. gun control, cannot determine all outputs of the system. Hence, when you look all across the board, you will have many statistics that don't agree with what you posted above (e.g. I could dig up a bunch of stats saying oh look the introduced gun control here, and crime fell in years x through y blah - but thats not research and thats not proof). Moving on though...AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I refer you to:There I did the research for you.NCPA wrote:
If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).
An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21
* When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
* After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
* 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
* New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
International Evidence.
Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.23 (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.24
Why Gun Control Laws May Benefit Criminals.
An increase in violent crime that appears to follow a tightening of controls on gun ownership and use is consistent with economic reasoning. Gun control laws are most likely to be obeyed by people who are otherwise law-abiding if, indeed, they are obeyed by anybody. Thus measures that apply equally to criminals and noncriminals, if they affect behavior at all, are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among noncriminals. As the popular slogan puts it: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun control laws. But if there is an effect, it is likely to benefit criminals in two ways: fewer armed victims to worry about and fewer criminal justice resources to devote to prosecuting real criminals. If fewer potential victims have guns for defense, the balance of power tilts slightly toward criminals. The overall crime rate tends to increase, although guns may not be used in any more crimes because, on average, victim resistance is lowered.
Because more police resources are spent on gun registration, gun law enforcement and gun law convictions, fewer resources are available to deter real criminals. Arrests for weapons violations already exceed 220,000 per year,25 a nontrivial load on the criminal justice system. A Chicago judge from one of the two courtrooms exclusively dedicated to trying gun law offenses in that city testified a few years ago:26
The most striking experience I can take away from the Gun Court . . . is . . . the kinds of people that appear there as defendants. . . . This is their very first arrest of any kind. Many of them are old people, many of them are shopkeepers, persons who have been previous victims of violent crime.
Although many of these "criminals" get probation, the advocates of stricter gun laws press for mandatory sentencing. Meanwhile, punishments meted out for gun law violations not connected with real crimes tend to depress citizens' respect for law and the criminal justice system. As attorney David B. Kopel puts it, "In a world where first-time muggers often receive probation, it is morally outrageous to imprison . . . everyone who carries a firearm for self-defense."27
Guns with or without gun control laws are not the solution to your underlying economic and social problems causing crime. I concur gun control laws are pretty much useless in the USA - anyone who needs a gun legally/illegally has easy access to numerous sources.
What people ought to be addressing is your entire american society and the policy behind it, because frankly it sucks. Why is crime so high in a first world country like the USA whereas it isn't in pretty much every other first world country? This is an obvious question, but one that nobody wants to deal with, because your political machine is run by a very small group of people who have a different agenda and who always will, because the America people continually fail to make an issue come election day of any kind of social/economic/environmental policy. Further to the point, your two party system destroys any kind of functional democracy - instead people pick sides and argue like school children rather then actually accomplishing any kind of reform at all.
Canada may have gun control laws, but because our population is low and the population density is also low we don't have much violent crime - also Canada isn't exactly a hotbed for criminals. But this crime isn't low because we have gun control laws (thats an oversimplification like the above argument from the previous poster) - the point is society up here is not only different, but population density is much lower which as anyone who understands things like disease and social stresses, population density is a huge factor.
In Canada, where there is a dense population, like Toronto or Edmonton spring to mind lately in the news, there has been gun conflict as well as knifings pretty regularly as gangs of teenagers who are pretty much left to cruise the streets unparented are bored and find gangs to join. It would be false to assume though that gun control laws have anything to do with say, preventing or causing this crime - if the kids couldn't find a gun to feel powerful with, they would find something else (e.g. a Knife like Edmonton) and its obvious you can't legislate out every effective weapon.
The reality in the cases above is that its down to social issues such as bad parenting/nothing for the kids to do (or want to do)/dense population/no attempt to address the gang issues until too late etc. Do you remember your highschool years (directed at anyone reading) - do you remember how boring it could be? I played soccer, basketball, and piano through all of highschool, and was a straight A student. Yet I was still hella bored at times and would go to parties every few weekends with friends, especially in Grade 11 and 12. Now take some of those things away, or take interest away in them (eg by bad parenting - kids become apathetic and don't care about anything) and what are kids left with? Pretty much they are left with only drinking, drugs and causing trouble. We all did a little of this, but when it becomes gangs and other such great activities, well violence results, not a big suprise. The question is what to do about the social problems, as opposed to trying to legislate out guns and knives. I personally don't agree that people need to be packing guns all over (obvious) but that is beside the point - society needs to address its issues if stopping crime is a priority. If it's not (which it isn't for US given the last 6 years) then people need to understand why and where crime happens, and then decide if they really want to live in that environment and raise kids there. There are certainly many crime free places in the USA and many nice places with a little crime, but concentrated in the bad neighborhoods. What makes those neighboorhoods bad? Why is there concentrated violence in some areas and not others? Those are the real questions, but we rather argue about gun control in bf2s all the time... lol I've been party to arguing too, but honestly its useless, the real issues need to be talked about a whole lot more...
As people get older though and through their unbalanced teenage years, you have to ask what makes people resort to gun violence? A number of reasons, violent behaviour, bad childhoods with no support in anything, poverty, social conflict in a dense population, etc. But do these reasons have anything to do with gun control laws? Gun control laws attempt to restrict access, they have nothing to do with social behaviours that cause violence, and gun controls fail at restricting access because its so damn easy to get a gun in the US. Its not that easy in Canada, but in a place like Toronto it would be a whole lot easier then out in the buckbrush in the rest of the country. Don't forget that organized crime operates in Canada too, who obviously have guns, mostly a bunch of motorcycle gangs, but they have gotten much smarter and are into buying property ($$$) rather then having bloody battles like the 1950s USA.
Anyway to sum up this rambling post, gun control isn't an answer to stopping or causing crime. That is not the crime related issue. Gun control will simply fail as proven in the US. A population that large with that many criminal contacts and people selling anything for cash, well its a given that it will fail. The real issues that need to be address related to crime are social and financial problems causing the crime in the first place.
Plase note that doesn't mean that I condone just any clown being allowed to carry guns around in public, that is a different debate covered in another thread by the previous poster.
Last edited by [CANADA]_Zenmaster (2006-11-14 13:28:43)
Pot. Kettle. Black.[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
What people ought to be addressing is your entire american society and the policy behind it, because frankly it sucks.
Elizabeth Anne Elaine ftw.
You are exactly what I'm talking about - you dismiss your own societies problems by trying to deface mine? Give me a break, this topic is about America, and has turned into gun control and related crime. You proved my exact point - people fail to address the issues in front of them. You made an excellent mental contribution to this topic!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
What people ought to be addressing is your entire american society and the policy behind it, because frankly it sucks.
Elizabeth Anne Elaine ftw.
You think I'm a hypocrite? Did you even read my post? I clearly talked about Canada in there as well and it's problems even though this thread isn't about Canada. If it was, we would be talking about Canadian issues.
You sir, are an idiot.
Today 13:34:04 +1 Ok Dems, you got it, now what!? +1 in the hopes you will learn to read. http://secure.hop.com/[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
You are exactly what I'm talking about - you dismiss your own societies problems by trying to deface mine? Give me a break, this topic is about America, and has turned into gun control and related crime. You proved my exact point - people fail to address the issues in front of them. You made an excellent mental contribution to this topic!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
What people ought to be addressing is your entire american society and the policy behind it, because frankly it sucks.
Elizabeth Anne Elaine ftw.
You think I'm a hypocrite? Did you even read my post? I clearly talked about Canada in there as well and it's problems even though this thread isn't about Canada. If it was, we would be talking about Canadian issues.
You sir, are an idiot.
That's right. Counter an insult's response with more insults; even those directed at one's education. More respect for Canadians, thanks to you. In your battle with AlbertWesker, you completely forgot about the fact that other Americans might be slightly offended at being told that their society sucks.
(edit: As to your mentioning Canada throughout your post, it does not negate that particular comment about US society; thus my reply. As to the quality of your post, even you called it a rambling one.)
ftw.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-14 13:58:44)
Ok, I really can't believe you don't get that the places in the US with the strictest gun laws have these laws as a result of the gun crime that was already there and not the result of the laws being introduced.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
You obviously don't know much about this subject friend, you're just spewing really weak talking points. The common criminal?? Tell that to all the people that have defended themselves against GUN WIELDING criminals and knife wielding rapists. You need to do some actual research on this Spark. When you just spout your ideology you sound very unintelligent. So if someone is trying to kill me, I don't have the right to STOP THEM?Spark wrote:
As I said earlier you don't need a gun to protect yourself. The common criminal would be easily frightened by someone running at them with a baseball bat screaming. These are the criminals who pick locks, break windows etc. The uncommon criminal wouldn't even be noticed, if they're good enough to get into the house silently then they're good enough not to be heard.
Plus, ninety-nine-and-a-half times out of 100 what you thought was a burglar was just your wife going to the toilet. At least with some kind of melee weapon (or ball) it's non-lethal and you can be very sure who you're whacking.
On the 'rights' thing - yes, I'm ALLOWED to have a gun, but does that mean I HAVE to have one? I have a right to drive (well, not really. not yet, anyway) but does that mean I HAVE to drive?
Once again I note that I have not yet advocated any changes to laws. I merely state that you don't need to excercise the rights granted in those laws.
I refer you to:There I did the research for you.NCPA wrote:
If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).
An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21
* When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
* After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
* 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
* New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
International Evidence.
Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.23 (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.24
Why Gun Control Laws May Benefit Criminals.
An increase in violent crime that appears to follow a tightening of controls on gun ownership and use is consistent with economic reasoning. Gun control laws are most likely to be obeyed by people who are otherwise law-abiding if, indeed, they are obeyed by anybody. Thus measures that apply equally to criminals and noncriminals, if they affect behavior at all, are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among noncriminals. As the popular slogan puts it: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun control laws. But if there is an effect, it is likely to benefit criminals in two ways: fewer armed victims to worry about and fewer criminal justice resources to devote to prosecuting real criminals. If fewer potential victims have guns for defense, the balance of power tilts slightly toward criminals. The overall crime rate tends to increase, although guns may not be used in any more crimes because, on average, victim resistance is lowered.
Because more police resources are spent on gun registration, gun law enforcement and gun law convictions, fewer resources are available to deter real criminals. Arrests for weapons violations already exceed 220,000 per year,25 a nontrivial load on the criminal justice system. A Chicago judge from one of the two courtrooms exclusively dedicated to trying gun law offenses in that city testified a few years ago:26
The most striking experience I can take away from the Gun Court . . . is . . . the kinds of people that appear there as defendants. . . . This is their very first arrest of any kind. Many of them are old people, many of them are shopkeepers, persons who have been previous victims of violent crime.
Although many of these "criminals" get probation, the advocates of stricter gun laws press for mandatory sentencing. Meanwhile, punishments meted out for gun law violations not connected with real crimes tend to depress citizens' respect for law and the criminal justice system. As attorney David B. Kopel puts it, "In a world where first-time muggers often receive probation, it is morally outrageous to imprison . . . everyone who carries a firearm for self-defense."27
Do you really believe that if some tiny quiet peaceful little US town decided to introduce a ban on handguns the next day there'd be old folks doing drive-bys and farmers murdering and raping their way to the bank they're going stick up?
As far as wasting police resources goes, if the guns are banned, the police can arrest people for having a gun on their way to commit the crime. Thusly preventing the crime. If guns are legal they can't do that.
You say there are 220,000 weapons violations every year and this wastes police time. If nobody has any guns, there won't be anywhere near 220,000 weapons violations to prosecute, hence banning guns frees up police time to go stop crime.
Your international evidence consists of 3 countries. far more countries have successfully banned guns without the troubles mentioned in these examples.
The Arlington vs. Washington argument doesn't work. If a criminal in Washington wants to kill some gang member in Washington, they will go to Arlington, get a gun there, return to Washington and kill them. Hence why the gun ban in Washington isn't the reason for the gun crime in Washington, it's the lack of gun laws in the rest of the country that's to blame.
looks like you need to re-read, especially on that last point
Fortunately for them, they can read what I said and make up their own minds. As for you, your second response is sufficient to demonstrate exactly what I said to you.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Today 13:34:04 +1 Ok Dems, you got it, now what!? +1 in the hopes you will learn to read. http://secure.hop.com/[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
You are exactly what I'm talking about - you dismiss your own societies problems by trying to deface mine? Give me a break, this topic is about America, and has turned into gun control and related crime. You proved my exact point - people fail to address the issues in front of them. You made an excellent mental contribution to this topic!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Elizabeth Anne Elaine ftw.
You think I'm a hypocrite? Did you even read my post? I clearly talked about Canada in there as well and it's problems even though this thread isn't about Canada. If it was, we would be talking about Canadian issues.
You sir, are an idiot.
That's right. Counter an insult's response with more insults; even those directed at one's education. More respect for Canadians, thanks to you. In your battle with AlbertWesker, you completely forgot about the fact that other Americans might be slightly offended at being told that their society sucks.
(edit: As to your mentioning Canada throughout your post, it does not negate that particular comment about US society; thus my reply. As to the quality of your post, even you called it a rambling one.)
http://secure.hop.com/images/home/promo_8up.jpg
ftw.
I see you managed to look at the link to get that picture, its a pity though you could take it to heart
I don't care what they do, I will continue life as normal, wasting time in front of the TV & computer while reaping all the benefits of being an American, not caring what my government does because in the end they do what they want anyways.
I promise to consume more than I produce, waste what I don't want & to be fiscally irresponsible for the rest of my days. After all isn't that what it's all about?
I promise to consume more than I produce, waste what I don't want & to be fiscally irresponsible for the rest of my days. After all isn't that what it's all about?