Jump to content
Banhammer Forums

Gun control


N

Recommended Posts

You would think that rifles can do much against tanks and fighter jets, but look at how well they are working in Syria and such. I don't think any country in the world would be dumb enough to nuke itself. Mind you I hope the military would never carry out orders to attack their own people, but hope is the first step on the path to disappointment.

Yeah, still not convinced that the US government is kept in line by people owning guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You would think that rifles can do much against tanks and fighter jets, but look at how well they are working in Syria and such. I don't think any country in the world would be dumb enough to nuke itself. Mind you I hope the military would never carry out orders to attack their own people, but hope is the first step on the path to disappointment.

Yeah, still not convinced that the US government is kept in line by people owning guns.

I don't want to find out the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I used to use this thread as an example of how conservative and liberal people could kind of actually have a dialogue about these issues without it devolving into some kind of contest to see who could misinterpret the other into oblivion first.

While @Omni obviously used some hyperbole, I think the response was disappointing, to say the least. Interpreting what Omni actually meant doesn't seem that difficult, and none of the responses regarding tyranny actually addressed his challenge to name a democracy that needed to overthrow its government through force. Note that I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I'm just saying no one addressed it. As this is a serious point of contention, I'd at least like to bring facts to bear (I'm curious about Syria, and don't know much about it, for example).

I actually think the point made by @aetherswift via rudimentary infographic is an interesting one, though I think the points brought up by Sam Harris in his article (that school and other mass shootings are very rare, and yet we freak the hell out about them every time they happen) should be taken into consideration when thinking about this obviously emotionally volatile issue. As he says, it might be so worth protecting our kids and ourselves from the psychological damage that these shootings do that we should focus the huge amount of resources it would take to put armed guards at every school, but we would have to do so at the cost of not saving lives somewhere else, such as drowning accidents.

There are two problems that have to be simultaneously solved: what is right to do from an absolute control perspective (ie if you had infinite resources), and then how to balance that against the fact that we do not in fact have infinite resources.

Again, I thought we were having a productive discussion, and I hope we can continue to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... we should focus the huge amount of resources it would take to put armed guards at every school, but we would have to do so at the cost of not saving lives somewhere else, such as drowning accidents.

Just another problem with the government raising our kids.

This problem is easily solved by homeschooling. Or it could be something offered by private schools and paid for via tuition. I'd pay extra to know my kids were safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are for protection from the govt. and other citizens. Who here has been a victim of violent crime? Who here has known someone that has been a victim of violent crime? The govt. cant protect us from everything. Some people might say theres no need for large cap mags or assualt style weapons but what do you do if you get attacked by a group of people? Self denfense is up individual. If you had a sister, wife, gf or grandma would you want them to be the victim of violent crime? You could call the cops and wait for them to come but you could be dead by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... we should focus the huge amount of resources it would take to put armed guards at every school, but we would have to do so at the cost of not saving lives somewhere else, such as drowning accidents.

Just another problem with the government raising our kids.

This problem is easily solved by homeschooling. Or it could be something offered by private schools and paid for via tuition. I'd pay extra to know my kids were safe.

I don't want to get into why homeschooling is an even worse idea than locally controlled school districts if you want to actually educate people (I'm happy to get into this in another thread that's not about guns).

The issue with the position that this can be solved by private schools or homeschooling is that both of those things are luxuries that (for example), many single mothers cannot afford. Many families in inner cities cannot afford them, either, where both parents have to work to make ends meet (so they can't home school their kids). Furthermore, while this would save money used by the government, freeing it up for use in, say, an education program to teach parents how to not let their kids drown, I doubt this solution would be acceptable to you, and I don't see any other way of the government helping to reduce drowning deaths.

Note: I'm assuming that you meant for the contrast to be the problem, and not just the cost, because you quoted the whole thing, but I realize that might have just been for completeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are for protection from the govt. and other citizens. Who here has been a victim of violent crime? Who here has known someone that has been a victim of violent crime? The govt. cant protect us from everything. Some people might say theres no need for large cap mags or assualt style weapons but what do you do if you get attacked by a group of people? Self denfense is up individual. If you had a sister, wife, gf or grandma would you want them to be the victim of violent crime? You could call the cops and wait for them to come but you could be dead by then.

Thanks for weighing in, Danda. I haven't ever been a victim of a violent crime, and though I personally know several people who have been threatened with violence during the commission of a crime, I'm not sure if this actually counts as a violent crime (I think it does). The government definitely cannot protect us from everything (as my favorite person on this topic says "this is a problem of physics").

I'm not sure I've ever heard of someone being attacked by a group of people where 30 bullets would have been better to defend themselves with than 10, but I'm again pretty ignorant on the topic as far as having paid attention to it in the news for the past forever. Even so, I think that there could be scenarios where this could be useful, and I just haven't thought of any yet.

I actually think you've hit on an important difference between most liberals (perhaps excluding people like Omni and Sam Harris) and most conservatives with your last point. No gun law is going to make it less likely for my mother, cousins, or aunts to carry weapons to defend themselves. No one that I know in the physical world would ever carry a gun for protection. Thus, these gun laws are not going to affect their chances of being a victim of violent crime, except in the negative direction. I had not thought about this problem until you brought it up just now, but I really think that is a big underling issue in this entire discussion, which seems relatively difficult to solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are for protection from the govt. and other citizens. Who here has been a victim of violent crime? Who here has known someone that has been a victim of violent crime? The govt. cant protect us from everything. Some people might say theres no need for large cap mags or assualt style weapons but what do you do if you get attacked by a group of people? Self denfense is up individual. If you had a sister, wife, gf or grandma would you want them to be the victim of violent crime? You could call the cops and wait for them to come but you could be dead by then.

Pull out your M4 and open up a clip on those fools.

8-}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are for protection from the govt. and other citizens. Who here has been a victim of violent crime? Who here has known someone that has been a victim of violent crime? The govt. cant protect us from everything. Some people might say theres no need for large cap mags or assualt style weapons but what do you do if you get attacked by a group of people? Self denfense is up individual. If you had a sister, wife, gf or grandma would you want them to be the victim of violent crime? You could call the cops and wait for them to come but you could be dead by then.

Pull out your M4 and open up a clip on those fools.

8-}

The average citizen can't get an M4 in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average citizen can't get an M4 in America.

I know, but he's talking about 'large cap mags or assault style weapons' and implying that if attacked by a group of people, one needs such a weapon to protect oneself.

Ooh, that sounded posh.

What is an assault style weapon? My AR-15 and M1 garand function the exact same, but nobody has ever called my M1 an assault style weapon. Still confused as the difference between a 30-round mag and three 10-round mags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average citizen can't get an M4 in America.

I know, but he's talking about 'large cap mags or assault style weapons' and implying that if attacked by a group of people, one needs such a weapon to protect oneself.

Ooh, that sounded posh.

What is an assault style weapon? My AR-15 and M1 garand function the exact same, but nobody has ever called my M1 an assault style weapon. Still confused as the difference between a 30-round mag and three 10-round mags.

I think the difference is supposed to be at what interval an armed (or unarmed) person can take out a mass-shooter, given that it takes at least some time to get a magazine out and keep firing, and these people usually aren't using cover or anything. That's the argument I've heard, at least. I also don't really understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presence of offender's weapon

Violent crime | Rape/sexual assault | Robbery | Simple/aggravated assault

Total 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

No weapon 73 % 85 % 48 % 76 %

Weapon 22 % 10 %* 47 % 19 %

Firearm 8 -- * 28 5

Knife 6 8 * 9 5

Other 7 2 * 8 7

Not ascertained 2 -- * 2 * 1

Don't know 6 % 5 %* 6 %* 6 %

Note: Percentage may not total to 100% because of rounding. If the offender was armed with more than one weapon, the crime is classified based on the most serious weapon present.

*Based up 10 or fewer sample cases.

--Less than 0.5%.

According to this, hands are used more often to commit crimes than any other weapon. Knives are used in as many assaults as guns and in almost as many violent crimes and in most of the rapes. "Other" which would include things like bats, pipes, rocks, chains, etc...hold the #2 spot in assaults and are #3 in violent crime.

Maybe they should take my hands away so I can't punch people or hold pipes. Then the world would be a much safer place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presence of offender's weapon

Violent crime | Rape/sexual assault | Robbery | Simple/aggravated assault

Total 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

No weapon 73 % 85 % 48 % 76 %

Weapon 22 % 10 %* 47 % 19 %

Firearm 8 -- * 28 5

Knife 6 8 * 9 5

Other 7 2 * 8 7

Not ascertained 2 -- * 2 * 1

Don't know 6 % 5 %* 6 %* 6 %

Note: Percentage may not total to 100% because of rounding. If the offender was armed with more than one weapon, the crime is classified based on the most serious weapon present.

*Based up 10 or fewer sample cases.

--Less than 0.5%.

According to this, hands are used more often to commit crimes than any other weapon. Knives are used in as many assaults as guns and in almost as many violent crimes and in most of the rapes. "Other" which would include things like bats, pipes, rocks, chains, etc...hold the #2 spot in assaults and are #3 in violent crime.

Maybe they should take my hands away so I can't punch people or hold pipes. Then the world would be a much safer place.

Yeah, not sure that's quite the point that people are making, at least not me. I couldn't give a hoot about whether you guys can carry guns, or what sort. However, having firearms used as often as knives in an assault is quite a worrying statistic, at least for me as a UK resident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any weapon being used is a problem. But my point is really that a persons hands are used more than anything else and unarmed attacks are responsible for more deaths, worldwide, than all of the others combined.

So when they take away guns and someone gets strangled, what's next? They cut our hands off at birth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with this entire situation is that it's far less black and white than either side is willing to admit. There is a lot of odd shit going on here, and some very interesting statistics that the media isn't talking about.

First off, according to the FBI's own data, over the past 20 years from 1992 to 2012, violent crime which includes but is not limited to gun violence has gone down over 50% per 100,000 people. No one is talking about it.

What is the statistic for where these violent offenders obtained their guns? I'm willing to bet that either 1) most were obtained illegally (theft, black market, etc.) or 2) the weapon was obtained from a friend or family member who did not utilize any number of weapon safeguards available on the market. Believe it or not, hiding a rifle under a bed or a pistol under that shirt in your closet is NOT legitimate safeguard.

How about the fact that the speed at which information is shared in today's society makes it seem like we have more crime than we actually do? And people have difficulty disassociating themselves from that and judging situations objectively. The above violent crime scenario is only one example...child kidnapping is actually the same.

The Department of Justice has their data on child kidnappings available on their site. And when you look at reported kidnappings of children aged 0-18 years-old, you'll find that a vast majority of kidnappings are by family members, followed closely by non-family members yet known to the family. The sort of kidnapping everyone is afraid of? The stereotypical, your child will be taken to the woods and mutilated...that sort of kidnapping only happened to about 160 kids back in 2011. I have yet to check the 2012 stats.

But if you go to the Census Bureau and find out how many people live within the United States that are under the age of 18. I can't get to the site now because I'm at work...but I seem to remember the stat was above 50 million. So if we do the basic math...the stereotypical kidnapping that parents are afraid of only has about a 0.00032% chance of happening. The real people who are kidnapping your kids are your friends and family.

But then you hear about all these kids who are kidnapped and found dead and it seems like it's right in your backyard because it only happened hours ago.

My point? The same applies for gun violence and the apparent prevelence of mass killings. They seem like they're everywhere because the media perpetuates that perception. But when you break it out to the raw data, look at the evidence objectively, you find that quite the opposite is true. Violence is on the downswing, and most violence isn't even caused or enacted by guns. In fact, if you jump further into the FBI website you'll find that of all gun violence recorded in 2012, less than 5% involved rifles...so why exactly are we talking about banning something that is a subset of a parent category that doesn't even account for 1/20th of the gun violence across the nation?

...because...

...because...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...