Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on July 12, 2006, 04:40:27 pm
-
See what happens when you disarm law abiding citizens.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/12/D8IQH9P05.html
-
It's funny, the death rate via shooting is higher in Washington D.C. than it is for U.S. troops in Iraq.
Of course, that's reading the statistics in a certain way.
-
Where did it say they disarmed or called for citizens to be disarmed, to which the crime crisis started?
-
No private ownership of firearms in DC according to law.
-
Let me get this straight, the guys name is Fear. o.O :lol:
I hardly think more ****ing guns would solve the problem. The crimes were in public anyway. Do people carry guns around usually?
People and guns, ffs. >..>
-
The point is that all you do is you take firearms away from people that obey the law firearms. Regaurdless of whether or nor they had a firearm; ultimatly, they were precluded from doing so. And the DC Police arn't worth ****. ****ing Ramsees
-
Why do they need guns in the firstplace though?
Though the banning of all guns in the household is a surprise to me, especially coming from the US.
-
Well, if you're going to ask why, then surely I can ask "why not?"
-
Hence the title God Damn Washington, DC
It is like a mecha of incopetence there, including the completely enept city council. An example would be the whole DC baseball ****. It just amazes me. Also they recieve so much in subsidies from the federal Gov't and yet they still have budget problems. And they want to raise payroll taxes there as well and charge people to enter the city. The place is completely isane. Ultimatly it shows what a bunch of extremists will do when they get to power. Ultimatly, I am saying DC is completely backwards.
-
Well yeah, it's the capital of the US.
-
Well, if you're going to ask why, then surely I can ask "why not?"
Guns are bad mmkay?
Guns are made for killing. If everyone has the mentality that they have the ability to kill, and the mentality to do it, it is just begging for trouble. Plus having a gun at home will not save you from being mugged at gunpoint in the street. It will just allow the neighbours to do it to you as well. >..>
-
Well, if you're going to ask why, then surely I can ask "why not?"
Guns are bad mmkay?
Guns are made for killing. If everyone has the mentality that they have the ability to kill, and the mentality to do it, it is just begging for trouble. Plus having a gun at home will not save you from being mugged at gunpoint in the street. It will just allow the neighbours to do it to you as well. >..>
Guns are bad, yes, but taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens just exposes their families to this kind of violence. Criminals who really want guns are going to be able to get one anyway, illegally or purchasing one in a state with less strict gun control laws, but when the people who need to defend themselves can't get one, then it's a problem.
-
Guns are bad, yes, but taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens just exposes their families to this kind of violence. Criminals who really want guns are going to be able to get one anyway, illegally or purchasing one in a state with less strict gun control laws, but when the people who need to defend themselves can't get one, then it's a problem.
Guns are very rarely used in self-defense, and more often used to accidentally or intentionally kill someone. If you want to make blanket statements about crime like this, then it's very easy to say x and y; but correlation does not mean causality. For example, you could say Japan makes a very good arguement against any guns, and also that one way to make a country happier is abolishing religion (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html).
This is an obviously biased source, but i'll mention it anyways; http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
Table 1 - International Firearms Regulation, Access and Death Country Licensing of gun owners? Registration of firearms? Other Households with firearms (%) Gun Homicide (per 100,000) Gun Suicide (per 100,000) Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan Yes Yes Prohibits handguns with few exceptions 0.6 0.03 0.04 0.07
Singapore Yes Yes Most handguns and rifles prohibited 0.01 (795 in the country) 0.07 0.17 0.24
Taiwan N/A N/A N/A 0.15 0.12 0.27
Kuwait N/A N/A N/A 0.34 0.03 0.37
England/ Wales Yes Yes Prohibits handguns 4.0 0.07 0.33 0.4
Scotland Yes Yes Same as England and Wales 4.0 0.19 0.30 0.49
Netherlands Yes Yes 1.9 0.27 0.28 0.55
Spain Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 13.1 0.19 0.55 0.74
Ireland Yes Yes N/A 0.30 0.94 1.24
Germany Yes Yes 8.9 0.21 1.23 1.44
Italy Yes Yes N/A 1.16 1.11 2.27
Sweden Yes Yes Restrictions in some regions 20 0.18 2.09 2.27
Denmark Yes Long guns only 8 0.23 2.25 2.48
Israel Yes Yes N/A 0.72 1.84 2.56
New Zealand Yes Handguns. Proposed for long guns 20 0.22 2.45 2.67
Australia Yes Yes Banned semiautomatics unless good reason 16.0 0.56 2.38 2.94
Belgium Some Yes Some rifles are prohibited 16.6 0.87 2.45 3.32
Canada by 2001 All guns by 2003 Assault weapons and some handguns 26 0.60 3.35 3.95
Norway Yes Unknown 32 0.36 3.87 4.23
Austria Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 16-18% 0.42 4.06 4.48
Northern Ireland Yes Yes UK legislation applies 8.4 3.55 1.18 4.72
France Yes Yes, except sporting rifles 22.6 0.55 4.93 5.48
Switzerland Yes Yes 27.2 0.46 5.74 6.2
Finland Yes Yes No prohibitions 50 0.87 5.78 6.65
USA in some states Handguns in some states Some weapons in some states 41 6.24 7.23 13.47
(note; I can't preserve the table formatting, so look at the link if you want to avoid a headache :D)
-
On Tuesday night, two women from Texas were robbed at gunpoint by two men dressed in all black,
SOC Strikes again?
Serious note> Whats up with DC man, its meant to be your capital?
-
And the DC Police arn't worth ****.
Ever stopped to think that this might be the cause of the problem rather than lack of guns?
-
And the DC Police arn't worth ****.
Ever stopped to think that this might be the cause of the problem rather than lack of guns?
Pff. Who needs police, just shoot them all and let God sort them out!
etc.
-
Amen......... :nod:
-
Guns don't kill people.
Chuck Norris kills people.
-
And the DC Police arn't worth ****.
Ever stopped to think that this might be the cause of the problem rather than lack of guns?
Yes and the fact that people can't defend themselves as such. Even if the people had a descent police force which they don't, people should still be allowed to defend themselves and not rely on police that can't be everywhere.
And yes this is the US capital and the peope that live there are bottum feeders and morons that elect bottum feeders and morons to their DC council. Thats not all, the DC public school system is the best funded in the country and yet the worst and the most inneficient. BAsically people shouldn't be expected to rely on police for their own safety.
-
It's strange how so many other countries manage to get along without their citizens needing the cheap and easy ability to unleash Slightly Inaccurate Hot Metal Death at the flick of a finger.
-
Amsterdam for instance *lights a bifta* :pimp:
-
Problem is, Washington DC is a little island of Gun Control in an Ocean of firearms. I suspect guns were banned because the US Senate were worried about a city full of armed people right outside their front door, which shows precisely what the Senates opinion of Us Citizens with guns is. i.e. 'Yeah, you can shoot each other, just not in our back-yard.'.
-
Guns are bad, yes, but taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens just exposes their families to this kind of violence. Criminals who really want guns are going to be able to get one anyway, illegally or purchasing one in a state with less strict gun control laws, but when the people who need to defend themselves can't get one, then it's a problem.
Guns are very rarely used in self-defense, and more often used to accidentally or intentionally kill someone. If you want to make blanket statements about crime like this, then it's very easy to say x and y; but correlation does not mean causality. For example, you could say Japan makes a very good arguement against any guns, and also that one way to make a country happier is abolishing religion (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html).
This is an obviously biased source, but i'll mention it anyways; http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
Table 1 - International Firearms Regulation, Access and Death Country Licensing of gun owners? Registration of firearms? Other Households with firearms (%) Gun Homicide (per 100,000) Gun Suicide (per 100,000) Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan Yes Yes Prohibits handguns with few exceptions 0.6 0.03 0.04 0.07
Singapore Yes Yes Most handguns and rifles prohibited 0.01 (795 in the country) 0.07 0.17 0.24
Taiwan N/A N/A N/A 0.15 0.12 0.27
Kuwait N/A N/A N/A 0.34 0.03 0.37
England/ Wales Yes Yes Prohibits handguns 4.0 0.07 0.33 0.4
Scotland Yes Yes Same as England and Wales 4.0 0.19 0.30 0.49
Netherlands Yes Yes 1.9 0.27 0.28 0.55
Spain Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 13.1 0.19 0.55 0.74
Ireland Yes Yes N/A 0.30 0.94 1.24
Germany Yes Yes 8.9 0.21 1.23 1.44
Italy Yes Yes N/A 1.16 1.11 2.27
Sweden Yes Yes Restrictions in some regions 20 0.18 2.09 2.27
Denmark Yes Long guns only 8 0.23 2.25 2.48
Israel Yes Yes N/A 0.72 1.84 2.56
New Zealand Yes Handguns. Proposed for long guns 20 0.22 2.45 2.67
Australia Yes Yes Banned semiautomatics unless good reason 16.0 0.56 2.38 2.94
Belgium Some Yes Some rifles are prohibited 16.6 0.87 2.45 3.32
Canada by 2001 All guns by 2003 Assault weapons and some handguns 26 0.60 3.35 3.95
Norway Yes Unknown 32 0.36 3.87 4.23
Austria Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 16-18% 0.42 4.06 4.48
Northern Ireland Yes Yes UK legislation applies 8.4 3.55 1.18 4.72
France Yes Yes, except sporting rifles 22.6 0.55 4.93 5.48
Switzerland Yes Yes 27.2 0.46 5.74 6.2
Finland Yes Yes No prohibitions 50 0.87 5.78 6.65
USA in some states Handguns in some states Some weapons in some states 41 6.24 7.23 13.47
(note; I can't preserve the table formatting, so look at the link if you want to avoid a headache :D)
It's interesting that in that table you provided, Finland has a higher gun ownership per household than the US yet almost half the intentional death rate by guns!??
On a side note - Australia bans semi-automatics unless you have a good reason?? What good reason would need a semi-auomatic??
-
LOTS of Cane-Toads ;)
-
It's interesting that in that table you provided, Finland has a higher gun ownership per household than the US yet almost half the intentional death rate by guns!??
Mmm-hmm; it's an interesting cultural illustration, too, I think; I'm pretty sure the finns have more need of things like rifles to hunt (I remember Janos, I think, talking about it), for example. Unfortunately there's not a breakdown per-weapon-type, but what I'd think you would find would be that things like handgun ownership equates to more death, due to their 'ease of use' factor; easy to fire, easy to carry, and multiple shots without a reload.
I'm pretty sure, incidentally, that there are statistics indicating a lot of gun-deaths are caused by either accidental use (i.e. kid plays with gun, or someone gets nervous and shoots their mate knocking at the door, etc) or intruders taking the gun from them. Certainly, I remember one study citing frequency of use in self-defense to be totally bogus; it was using logic that would have - if applied to the topic - meant about 15% of the US had been abducted by aliens.
On a side note - Australia bans semi-automatics unless you have a good reason?? What good reason would need a semi-auomatic??
Must get pretty wild in the outback :D
-
On a side note - Australia bans semi-automatics unless you have a good reason?? What good reason would need a semi-auomatic??
This (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,40954.0.html) is a very good reason. :D
-
Its funny you should mention guns, only this morning did two armed bandits hold up a petrol station in Applecross (WA, Aus) and when they fled, the police started chasing them, very soon after an officer had fired his weapon at one of the bandits escaping only to miss. Anyway this sparked an investigation into the reasoning of why that police officer used his gun. Sometimes I wonder whether the gun is only carried to enforce the law and not to be used at all.
Nevertheless guns are still bad :no:
And the Australian outback isn't Africa! Most people couldn't hit a snake if they tried, probably run of bullets :lol:
-
On a side note - Australia bans semi-automatics unless you have a good reason?? What good reason would need a semi-auomatic??
Semi automatic handguns you can get if you're a registered member of a pistol club I think, but that might have been a transitional thing and since been outlawed, and semi-automatic rifles can still be used by certain liscenced farmers, professional hunters/cullers etc. but that's it.
-
Its funny you should mention guns, only this morning did two armed bandits hold up a petrol station in Applecross (WA, Aus) and when they fled, the police started chasing them, very soon after an officer had fired his weapon at one of the bandits escaping only to miss. Anyway this sparked an investigation into the reasoning of why that police officer used his gun. Sometimes I wonder whether the gun is only carried to enforce the law and not to be used at all.
Nevertheless guns are still bad :no:
And the Australian outback isn't Africa! Most people couldn't hit a snake if they tried, probably run of bullets :lol:
I was thinking of all those mass-murdering bushmen, actually :D
-
Pre-Crime, FTW
-
To be honest, civilians have absolutely no need for pistols. Rifles on the other hand are usually more expensive (making them harder to acquire), safer, and in some cases, require training to use properly.
All in my own opinion of course. :p
-
Guns are very rarely used in self-defense, and more often used to accidentally or intentionally kill someone. If you want to make blanket statements about crime like this, then it's very easy to say x and y; but correlation does not mean causality. For example, you could say Japan makes a very good arguement against any guns, and also that one way to make a country happier is abolishing religion (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html).
That's true of your own statement as well. For example, in the minds of most people higher taxes mean more revenue for the government, but as places like the US and Ireland have shown, the economic growth from tax cuts actually means the government gets more from a lower tax rate. The same is probably true of guns used in self-defence as well - if a criminal knows his victim has or could have a gun, then they would never attack them in the first place and thus the gun would not be used in self-defence.
-
Guns are very rarely used in self-defense, and more often used to accidentally or intentionally kill someone. If you want to make blanket statements about crime like this, then it's very easy to say x and y; but correlation does not mean causality. For example, you could say Japan makes a very good arguement against any guns, and also that one way to make a country happier is abolishing religion (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html).
That's true of your own statement as well. For example, in the minds of most people higher taxes mean more revenue for the government, but as places like the US and Ireland have shown, the economic growth from tax cuts actually means the government gets more from a lower tax rate. The same is probably true of guns used in self-defence as well - if a criminal knows his victim has or could have a gun, then they would never attack them in the first place and thus the gun would not be used in self-defence.
Except;
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
And it's not always a good or better defense; http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt (note; apparently this includes police use of weapons as well)
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes.
Plus it makes it easier for criminals to get guns; (same source)
Theft of firearms
*Although most thefts of firearms (64%) occurred during household burglaries, a significant percentage (32%) occurred during larcenies. Loss of firearms through larceny was as likely to occur away from the victim's home as at or near the home. In 53% of the firearm thefts, handguns were stolen.
...and we're still talking about the US as having one of the highest firearm murder/crime rates in the world. I would say that all-in-all the 'criminal arms race' strategy can be fairly reasonably regarded as not a good idea.
-
Well, that depends. The vast majority of people do not own guns, hence the odds of someone being shot are much lower. (I'd be curious about those statistics as to how many of the crimes were committed with a legally purchased firearm, even one later stolen.) This has not always been the case. We have an image of the lawless West in our heads that isn't very realistic, because it was not lawless. Petty crime was practically nonexistant. Serious crime (excepting saloon shootings, guns+drunks=bad) was extremely rare. The reason for this was that very nearly everyone had a gun and you were very likely to end up getting shot during the comission of a crime, medical care was nearly nonexistant so you'd probably lose a limb or die if you got shot, and hence there was no profit in criminal activities and the recividivism rate was just about zero.
This probably would not work with the society of the modern US or UK; the simple truth is that the average person does not take firearms seriously enough and is apt to use them needlessly. But there are other countries out there where pretty much everyone owns a gun and they have low crime and low gun violence. Sweden makes a good example. They have compulsory military enrollment, and since you are subject to callup at any time even after your term is up, they let you keep basic kit, such as a fully automatic rifle and some ammunition. There are no Swiss home-invasion robbers when every adult male has an assault rifle in the house. And they take their weapons seriously.
It comes down to training, I think. Anyone who has taken any kind of military or civilian firearms training has had it etched into their skulls that "Hey, this thing is dangerous you idiot!" in a way that somehow countless scenes of people killed by firearms on the TV doesn't. Trained shooters who use their weapons on others (outside of the military) are a very small minority. Everyone remembers the D.C. sniper, but for him there are thousands of others whose training was nonexistant; if nothing else demonstrates that their average accuracy ought to.
-
Well, that depends. The vast majority of people do not own guns, hence the odds of someone being shot are much lower. (I'd be curious about those statistics as to how many of the crimes were committed with a legally purchased firearm, even one later stolen.) This has not always been the case. We have an image of the lawless West in our heads that isn't very realistic, because it was not lawless. Petty crime was practically nonexistant. Serious crime (excepting saloon shootings, guns+drunks=bad) was extremely rare. The reason for this was that very nearly everyone had a gun and you were very likely to end up getting shot during the comission of a crime, medical care was nearly nonexistant so you'd probably lose a limb or die if you got shot, and hence there was no profit in criminal activities and the recividivism rate was just about zero.
Albeit, there are a large number of places in the world with similarly easy access to firearms, similar lack of medicine, and they are incredibly violent. The likes of Somalia spring to mind, which I guess could be viewed as the ultimate example of what happens with no government as much as what happens with piss-easy access to weaponry.
This probably would not work with the society of the modern US or UK; the simple truth is that the average person does not take firearms seriously enough and is apt to use them needlessly. But there are other countries out there where pretty much everyone owns a gun and they have low crime and low gun violence. Sweden makes a good example. They have compulsory military enrollment, and since you are subject to callup at any time even after your term is up, they let you keep basic kit, such as a fully automatic rifle and some ammunition. There are no Swiss home-invasion robbers when every adult male has an assault rifle in the house. And they take their weapons seriously.
It comes down to training, I think. Anyone who has taken any kind of military or civilian firearms training has had it etched into their skulls that "Hey, this thing is dangerous you idiot!" in a way that somehow countless scenes of people killed by firearms on the TV doesn't. Trained shooters who use their weapons on others (outside of the military) are a very small minority. Everyone remembers the D.C. sniper, but for him there are thousands of others whose training was nonexistant; if nothing else demonstrates that their average accuracy ought to.
Except an automatic weapon itself has its own differences to 'casual' handgun ownership ala the US; for one thing it's not as easily concealed, carried, or used as a loaded pistol. I'm also pretty sure there are - in the specific Swiss example - restrictions and social factors upon gun ownership; such as the need to register all bullet purchases, state the need to own a gun for a specific self-defense purpose to get a weapons permit, required specific permits for carrying outside/in public, and strong military discipline vis-a-vis handling weapons as well as compulsary tests. I'd suggest the Swiss example; a well regulated and trained militia, is rather closer to what the US Constitution envisaged than a 'lets buy M-16s to shoot burglars' type free-for all. And it's also worth noting that Switzerland is one of the worlds richest countries, without the same sort of social problems arising from, say, deprivation as in other countries.
Although Swedish crime rates aren't all that different to the rest of western europe, may I note. (I've not had too much time to go searching, natch, beyond that). But my suspicion is that you'd find you could remove guns from these places, and the crime rate would not increase atall (actually, one strange article I found stated that Swedish medical students were queuing up to study in Pennsylvania - because of the sheer number of handgun shooting victims there).
One offhand aside, though, is that (US) studies have indicated that accidental gun deaths were higher in households with some form of firearms training (police, gun club, or military).
In any case, I still can't see how giving people easy access to a device built for the express purpose of killing and maiming people makes society safer.
-
Most of the time lack of gun control = trouble. People in the US say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". While that might be true, guns are the means in which people kill people. If firearms were heavily restricted, and police force was adequete (ala Japan), then I some how think crime rates (for things like murder) would not be as high.
For example, in the minds of most people higher taxes mean more revenue for the government, but as places like the US and Ireland have shown, the economic growth from tax cuts actually means the government gets more from a lower tax rate.
Off topic but the Laffer Curve is a fraud.
-
Well, as Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I need to dig them up, but I found some pretty persuasive statistics that argued the opposite of what aldo found.
Naturally both sides can manipulate the statistics to promote their POV, but the ones I found looked pretty bulletproof. Remind me; I don't want to forget to post them. :)
-
After the invention of the crossbow it all went downhill... =/
When an untrained peasant could kill a veteran soldier with ease, things just went to ****.
-
An untrained peasant was more likely to kill a passing bird using a crossbow than actually hit anyone.
-
You know you've got crime problems when...
Two groups of terrorists were robbed at gunpoint on the National Mall...
I think I need to read more carefully.
-
Well, as Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I need to dig them up, but I found some pretty persuasive statistics that argued the opposite of what aldo found.
Naturally both sides can manipulate the statistics to promote their POV, but the ones I found looked pretty bulletproof. Remind me; I don't want to forget to post them. :)
Well, consider this a reminder then. :)
-
I already searched at the site where I thought I found it from, but I wasn't able to re-find it. :( I'll keep looking.