GUN DEBATE

Originally Posted by Pangalin

The problem is that the pro-gun ethos views gun crime as not a reason to eliminate guns but a reason to add even more guns because otherwise how will you shoot all the gun-havers

yea you're right, those damn cops should get off their fat lazy ASSES and find and destroy every single gun in dc right fucking now! self-defense is for stupid dumb faggot pussy bitches

Most amazing jew boots

Let me say that I don't own a gun. I've never used one and I don't ever plan on owning one. They simply aren't needed where I live.

But it should be up to the homeowner to decide if the risk of confronting an intruder with a gun is worth it. You assume quite a lot in your one hypothetical situation:

1. We can all have insurance on all of our shit!
2. We can all afford a burglary!
3. You will probably get shot at if you pull out a gun!

Unfortunately there are places where 1 & 2 is just wrong. There are some areas where people really are struggling and they can't afford insurance and they need everything they can get. Letting a burglar rob their shit would be devastating. And it's typically in those areas where burglars are willing to use weapons to get what they want. You're pretty much saying that these people don't really need the choice to protect their property and themselves because it's really dangerous! who gives a fuck if they live in a shithole and they own next to nothing and burglars will have the upper hand

I don't even know how you reached the conclusion that pulling a gun out will make an intruder more likely to shoot at you. The common idea is that pulling a gun out will make someone shit themselves and leave because they don't want to die. Have they run psychological tests or something? Are there stats that show that most people will respond violently to a gun? If not then well that's just something you made up, and not really more valid than the philosophy of guns as a deterrent.

Guns for lawful purposes should be allowed, because the truth is that they are of practical use to some people. The question of whether the Constitution is outdated doesn't apply here, because people still feel a need to defend themselves. (But I am usually on the side of activist judges - the Constitution does need to be adapted to modern times in some cases.)

I do agree however with meeting certain requirements before being able to own a gun, so it's not like I'm a complete gun nut or anything

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shin

If they have got a gun and you pull yours, do you really think that someone who has broken in to your house, knowing that you're in there is going to walk away just because you pulled a gun?

Actually, yeah. Like you said earlier, they are (generally) looking to steal things and leave, not shoot people. I think that if a burglar comes in with a gun, he's the one who's bluffing, not the homeowner. Alternately, if they have a gun, then they present a clear danger and I think you should be able to shoot them outright and not have to try to "scare them away."

Quote:

I just don't see the situation where you're in your house at the same time as a burglar and your very presemce isn't enough to scare them off happening so often you need a lethal weapon to protect yourself. It is my opinion that from a practical point of view, a gun is not a useful or cost effective way of protecting your property and that maintaining a constitutional right to own weapons that can kill people very easily with little or no skill or personal involvement on the basis of needing them to protect your property is silly as the social costs outweigh the individual benefits. I might not be able to kill someone who's sneaking around my house stealing my stuff without getting within arms reach, sure, but kids round here don't have to go through metal detectors on their way into school and the schools don't need early warning systems to let everyone know when a crazed gunman is on a shooting spree because when kids here get all emo and pissed off with life, their parents don't have a load of guns lying around the house.

I agree that some people have no real use for firearms, and all they really want is to own some big damn guns. But it really isn't up to anyone other than the homeowner if guns are practical, because there are certain locations where it really IS practical. My mom, who lived in a seedy town while growing up, told me recently about how she and her mom would have been robbed and murdered by a group of vandals if her older sister hadn't pointed the firearm my grandmother owned. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, and my mom didn't grow up in America, but believe it or not there are similar towns around here where owning a gun is simply smart.

The social costs you listed are probably better attributed to a lack of respect for guns rather than their abundance. If a parent owns a gun, it is pretty fucking important to teach their kids not to fuck around with it. And if a kid just flips his shit one day and is going to go on a crime spree, taking guns away probably won't stop him from causing harm to others (remember the recent Tokyo thing? though I agree that there would be less harm done). I think it's more important in those cases to try to spot a troubled person before he does anything, which is admittedly difficult in some cases, but it shouldn't be if the parents are on their A-game.

edit: the vandals in my mom's story were armed, btw

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006

here are some statistics

they might be helpful

Additional Spam:
The '75 Gun Ban didn't seem to have much of an effect. Burglaries went down around 1990, 15 years after the gun ban, so I doubt that you could establish a strong link between those two things

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Shin

Except for the number of violent crimes, burlaries and murders falling for the next three years, unless I'm reading the chart wrong.

They fell, but not by very much at all and they came back up. So, not much of an effect.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shin

I know you can't foresee every eventuality and I know that people around the world will still get killed in all maner of unfortunate ways every day but surely, putting legislation in place that will probably save some lives and will probably not lead to a wholesale surge in armed robberies is a win-win situation.

You'd have a stronger point if the crime rates following the ban actually stayed down. There WAS a slight decrease in crime, but it came right back up! What I'm trying to say here is that a solution to the crime problem should at least be long-lasting, even if its effect is small. The gun ban had a small, temporary effect, so it has been demonstrated that (in D.C. at least) it isn't a viable solution.

I would focus gun control legislation more towards being able to obtain a gun (background checks, mental stability checks, etc).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

If a teenager can bribe someone to purchase something in his stead, I'm fairly sure a lunatic can.

i'll go ahead and say lunatics will probably have a much harder time

you know

because guns are registered, usually

and taking mental tests is harder than flashing a driver's license

there's probably a lot more paperwork involved than when buying a 12 pack, so yeah, generally harder

Quote:

It only seems "paradoxical" if you buy into the quasi-magical notion that guns emit an anti-crime radiation (as many here seem to).

Do you think it's paradoxical that a gun ban doesn't eliminate all violent crime?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Pangalin

Here, let me lay it out for you. You have a gun. I am a criminal who does not object to killing someone to get what I want.

wait man let me stop you here! this is the part where I shoot you for breaking into my house ok go

Quote:

Now I have a gun am a dead loser!

No, it won't go that way all the time, but paperwork and bureaucracy is sort of necessary to make sure guns make it into capable hands. In the situation you gave, at least the good guy has a chance to protect himself.

Quote:

At any rate gun bans obviously don't eliminate violent crimes. Mostly people just resort to stabbing each other.

If you think "gun bans" keep a determined asshole from getting a gun, then you're the one who needs to watch the news!

Quote:

But the class of crimes you can accomplish with knives is significantly smaller. I can't see anyone holding up a bank with a machete exactly.

No, but how about them breaking into someone's house?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?