|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Perhaps you kids need to stop worrying about your 4 year old grabbing a handgun that's bigger than his arm and more about how natural selection will help him pull the trigger.
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
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.
Last edited by LZ; Jun 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM.
|
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
They lifted a ban...they didn't make gun ownership mandatory. I was speaking idiomatically. |
The problem with the "it's a personal preference" argument is that people who "prefer" to have an object in their home that is statistically more likely to blow their hand off than to do them any good are kind of nutty — and obviously we don't want nutty people to have guns so it's a bit open-and-shut.
How ya doing, buddy? |
FELIPE NO |
Pang... so based on some unreferenced hypothetical statistical data that you have yet to present, is it your argument that the legislature should abandon the idea that citizens just might be able to engage in safe practice with dangerous tools on the basis of idiot-proofing life for all the "nutty people" who are accident prone?
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Nobody needs a gun in the same way that nobody needs a power drill. If I felt like my life was in danger, though, I'd feel much more certain of myself if I had a gun and not a baseball bat. This is especially true for women.
It's also nice that you're such a criminal expert but criminal culture isn't the same in the US. You're right, the average home invader won't be carrying a gun because that could suggest intent to kill, but some of them do and even the ones that don't have assaulted residents. The problem is that nobody is omnipresent and when somebody invades your residence you have no clue concerning their intent. Many of us would rather possess piece of mind instead of taking the extreme risks involved in confronting an invader physically. In a lot of ways a shotgun is the best weapon for home defense because the sound of the action will scare off just about anybody before you even have to confront them. We also don't have the same kind of gangster element. Street gangs operate actively in people's neighborhoods, so accidental killings from stray bullets aren't uncommon. The emphasis on being hard also means that a lot of people become victimized when gang members try to prove themselves. This is especially true for Mexico and along the Mexican border, since Hispanic gangs and cartels have had to be hideously brutal to carve out a place for themselves. A guy was just recently assassinated by 6 men hired by a drug cartel, some of which were active members of the Mexican army. That's obviously a one in a million case, but it's indicative of how far these people are willing to go. As for how many crimes are averted by an armed citizen, that's unquantifiable. An averted crime isn't newsworthy, and many go unreported. The same is also true of gun control and bans. Causal links between policy and resulting crime rates are difficult to prove if at all, and in cases where a link can be established (like DC assuming Mush is right) crime has also rebounded and in many cases become much worse (again, like DC). So once again it comes back to piece of mind. There's also protection from THE GUBMINT, which is actually a terrible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. No amount of firepower is going to protect an individual from the state, despite how many communes and mountain men think they will. Firearms support revolution, and it's impossible to engage in asymmetric warfare without firearms. Private ownership of firearms can protect the free state, assuming that people are willing to defend it. also at least we have a constitution booya Jam it back in, in the dark. |
How ya doing, buddy? |
Plus guns are fun as fuck, stop trying to take away our fun you fags.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I agree that crime in the US is far diferent and more hardcore than it is here. I just don't think owning a gun is a really practical way to stop it is all. If you own a gun, you're not going to carry it around the house are you? It'll be stashed somewhere, most likely near the bed. In order to be able to use your gun to stave off wouldbe home invaders, you need to be in your bedroom when they home invade. This would suggest that it's likely to be night time which again would suggest that you'll be tired, whereas they'l be wide awake and buzzing off their crime spree. You're coming downstairs, not knowing where in the house the crims are, they're hiding downstairs (Unless you're some kind of stealth ninja, everyone makes some noise getting out of bed and if you're a ninja you don't need a gun) knowing exactly where you're coming from. If they're going to run, they'll do so before you appear, gun or no gun. If they're gonna kill you, they're gonna kill you or disarm you long before you get a shot off. Having a gun to defend yourself at home doesn't save you from a ganster's stray bullets in a drive-by, it doesn't stop people breaking into your house when you're out (Which is when the vast majority of burglarys happen) and I'd suggest, using the example I just made, that they achieve fuck all when it comes to getting people out of your house when you're there. Yes, I can see how they might provide peace of mind to paranoid fucks who've not thought it through properly living in lawless townships but I chalenge anyone to give a reasonable, realistic, theoretical situation where having a gun at home in America will in any way help you prevent loss of property or injury. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
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
Last edited by LZ; Jun 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
You're right, gun possession isn't going to stop crime, that's not the point. The point is that a gun will still provide a modicum of protection, especially if you have a security system which activates on a break-in. Conjecturing on how things can go wrong for the home invader and the victim is ultimately pointless because all cases can occur. The point about accidental killings that I didn't get across is that yes, criminals will still have guns, and yes homicide and accidental death will still be a significant problem with strict gun control or gun bans. FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
I would hardly consider a slight three-year dip proof that gun bans are a lasting solution. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Don't mess with Paine.
Since the Constitution is mostly a agreement between the States and the Federal Government. (To form a more perfect Union) The Bill of Rights does not give legal rights to the People. Nor is it suppose to. Rather it's meant to recognize the natural rights of the People. Which is why the US Constitution is considered a social contract. Gun ownership being one of those natural rights. Tom Paine on why the Bill of Rights doesn't give you any legal rights.
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Hitting a kid at 30mph apparently kills something like 35% less kids than hitting them at 35mph. Given how rarely people actually run over kids, does that mean they ought to increase the speed limits in urban areas by 5mph so people who like driving faster can do so? 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. Except, as Brady said, guns are fun, even if the laws that are there only permit you to have it at home and look at it, until such time as a gang of uzi toting crack heads kicks your front door in and starts raping your daughter. Additional Spam:
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Last edited by Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss; Jun 27, 2008 at 01:07 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
*This does not apply to teenagers, frat rats, or Watts. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
"Noah was a drunk. Look what HE accomplished."
Right, I can see how that works. I was speaking idiomatically. |
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? |
FELIPE NO |
The notion that background checks keep guns away from anyone is a laughable one for the same reason that checking IDs for booze/tobacco is laughably ineffective. If a teenager can bribe someone to purchase something in his stead, I'm fairly sure a lunatic can.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by The unmovable stubborn; Jun 27, 2008 at 01:41 PM.
|
How ya doing, buddy? |
Traffic accidents occur frequently so their danger in regards to minor mortality justifies the legislation. Hell, the 9/11 hijacking caused the total collapse of an entire city block and killed thousands, so even if airport security is shitty new mandates are still justified. Not enough people are killed accidentally by firearms for people to give a shit. The presence of firearms do not present a sufficient danger to the public to warrant a ban. We shouldn't be treating millions of adults like children because a statistically insignificant number of people don't use or store their firearms safely. You know what I would be willing to support, though? Ceilings on gun ownership. 2-3 guns per home, and more allowed if stored in a secure facility. This is because gun collections are paradoxically more likely to make one a target for home invasion, and guns stolen from private collections are a significant source of illegally circulated weapons. There's nowhere I can't reach. |