NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of anti-gun people I know are anti-gun because they feel it will lower the crime rate. There's a couple things I don't get about this. First of all, how are you going to prevent criminals from tgetting guns on the black market and preying on law-abiding citizens who have no means by which to defend themselves? Secondly, why are most of you opposed to increased surveillance? It would help prevent crimes and catch criminals without leaving innocent citizens to pay. Are you too worried that the police might see you picking your nose to worry about someone's life, but you would rather see them defenseless in the face of a criminal bent on killing them by taking away their weapons?

The word is fewer.

A lot of anti-gun people I know are anti-gun because they feel it will lower the crime rate. There's a couple things I don't get about this. First of all, how are you going to prevent criminals from tgetting guns on the black market and preying on law-abiding citizens who have no means by which to defend themselves? Secondly, why are most of you opposed to increased surveillance? It would help prevent crimes and catch criminals without leaving innocent citizens to pay. Are you too worried that the police might see you picking your nose to worry about someone's life, but you would rather see them defenseless in the face of a criminal bent on killing them by taking away their weapons?
Their belief, as they have led me to believe, is that if there are no guns what-so-ever, then there would be no black market for the criminals to obtain guns from. They forget, or don't realize, that it is extremely easy to fashion a gun from household supplies.

Their belief, as they have led me to believe, is that if there are no guns what-so-ever, then there would be no black market for the criminals to obtain guns from. They forget, or don't realize, that it is extremely easy to fashion a gun from household supplies.

Or, in some more extreme cases, severe hoplophobia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

The word is fewer.

The word for what?

Their belief, as they have led me to believe, is that if there are no guns what-so-ever, then there would be no black market for the criminals to obtain guns from. They forget, or don't realize, that it is extremely easy to fashion a gun from household supplies.
Its easy to make bombs from hosehold supplies as well ... I dont support making them freely accessable either

Liberals think banning guns will work for the same reason they think any of their dumbass programs will work: if you throw enough money at something, it'll work. Where do we get the money? TAXES! Let's disarm the citizens and tax em' till they bleed to pay for more law enforcement to keep guns out of criminal hands, that way they can't fight back like during the Whiskey rebellion! No matter how hard a government tries to limit access to an item, it will still be available to those who want it badly enough. Liberals haven't learned this lesson because they to them, Government is god. It is capable of doing anything with enough of your money! Even the impossibly stupid. I keep a small armory at home and if guns were banned, I would go into outright rebellion. If I can't keep my firearms, then this isn't truly the U.S. anymore. Although this isn't the first time politicians have creatively interpreted the consititution to limit our rights, it's been going on for a long long time.

Their belief, as they have led me to believe, is that if there are no guns what-so-ever, then there would be no black market for the criminals to obtain guns from. They forget, or don't realize, that it is extremely easy to fashion a gun from household supplies.

You make the idea of being anti-weapon sound niave and foolish. Perhaps it's idealistic, but it's not foolish. Part of my platform as an aspiring politician is to remove all guns (or as many as possible), with the exception of hunting rifles. However, I don't think that's going to solve all the nations problems. Their are more steps to be taken. Better education and less poverty should all but eliminate the desire for people to shoot eachother. If the citizens of a country are satisfied with the country, they won't just walk around shooting eachother. Believe it or not, people commit crimes for a reason, not just because they can.

Its easy to make bombs from hosehold supplies as well ... I dont support making them freely accessable either

You're not about to pick up a gun along with your prescription you know.

The word for what?

The word he should have used in the poll, in the place of "less."

The word for what?
As in, 'fewer guns,' not 'less guns.' It's proper grammar you know.

You make the idea of being anti-weapon sound niave and foolish. Perhaps it's idealistic, but it's not foolish. Part of my platform as an aspiring politician is to remove all guns (or as many as possible), with the exception of hunting rifles. However, I don't think that's going to solve all the nations problems. Their are more steps to be taken. Better education and less poverty should all but eliminate the desire for people to shoot eachother. If the citizens of a country are satisfied with the country, they won't just walk around shooting eachother. Believe it or not, people commit crimes for a reason, not just because they can.

Well, until you put into action your probably useful ideas to reduce crime, let the people defend themselves. When we've less danger to worry about, guns wont seem so necessary.

The word he should have used in the poll, in the place of "less."

Ah, that. *shrug* Sure.

The word is fewer.

Have a little pity for non-native English speakers. :(

Questions though, if having more guns makes people safer, how is it that the US has the largest crime rate of developed nations?

How is it that Japan, which has levels of gun control that would cause syniks to have an conniption fit, has a far lower murder rate than the US?

Questions though, if having more guns makes people safer, how is it that the US has the largest crime rate of developed nations?

How is it that Japan, which has levels of gun control that would cause syniks to have an conniption fit, has a far lower murder rate than the US?

How is it that the UK, with it's tighter gun control, has a continuously rising rate, as the rate of the US falls?

Well, until you put into action your probably useful ideas to reduce crime, let the people defend themselves. When we've less danger to worry about, guns wont seem so necessary.

How will we have less danger when there are more guns? Moreover, how can I put my plans into action when I can't legally run for PM or even MP?
People don't need guns to stay safe! Ever heard of pepper spray, or tasers? Or, how about the police? In my opinion, people shouldn't be allowed guns except for those who rely on hunting as a source of income. Of course there will be people who don't follow those rules. But should Cocaine and Crystal Meth be legal just because people can buy them illegally?

Have a little pity for non-native English speakers. :(

Sorry. I was just trying to help out.

How is it that the UK, with it's tighter gun control, has a continuously rising rate, as the rate of the US falls?
It tells that there a lot more factors involved than just gun-availability and legality and a society has to decide for itself which it finds preferrable.

How will we have less danger when there are more guns? Moreover, how can I put my plans into action when I can't legally run for PM or even MP?
People don't need guns to stay safe! Ever heard of pepper spray, or tasers? Or, how about the police? In my opinion, people shouldn't be allowed guns except for those who rely on hunting as a source of income. Of course there will be people who don't follow those rules. But should Cocaine and Crystal Meth be legal just because people can buy them illegally?

It may boggle your mind, but you don't actually have to shoot to defend yourself. A large majority of the time, the criminal flees after seeing the weapon. The police are not everywhere, nor are they obligated to help you. Coke and Meth shouldn't be legal, but the point is that you're not going to get rid of them just by making them illegal.

It tells that there a lot more factors involved than just gun-availability and legality and a society has to decide for itself which it finds preferrable.

Exactly. The statment assumes the only difference between the country compared and the US is gun control. Find a way to pin that crime rate on guns first.

It may boggle your mind, but you don't actually have to shoot to defend yourself. A large majority of the time, the criminal flees after seeing the weapon. The police are not everywhere, nor are they obligated to help you. Coke and Meth shouldn't be legal, but the point is that you're not going to get rid of them just by making them illegal.

Of course, but you're definately not going to get rid of them by making them legal. Like I said, there are a lot of steps to take before Canada (or the US) is a gun-free nation. But I'm not going to let that discourage me. The harder the race, the sweeter the victory.

Of course, but you're definately not going to get rid of them by making them legal. Like I said, there are a lot of steps to take before Canada (or the US) is a gun-free nation. But I'm not going to let that discourage me. The harder the race, the sweeter the victory.

Who said they need to be gotten rid of at all? The way things are, they do more good than harm. If you can fix that, I could understand trying to get rid of them.

Who said they need to be gotten rid of at all? The way things are, they do more good than harm. If you can fix that, I could understand trying to get rid of them.

How does a deadly weapon do more good than harm? If guns had never been invented, do you think westerners would live in a violent and harmful state of fear?

A lot of anti-gun people I know are anti-gun because they feel it will lower the crime rate. There's a couple things I don't get about this. First of all, how are you going to prevent criminals from tgetting guns on the black market and preying on law-abiding citizens who have no means by which to defend themselves? Secondly, why are most of you opposed to increased surveillance? It would help prevent crimes and catch criminals without leaving innocent citizens to pay. Are you too worried that the police might see you picking your nose to worry about someone's life, but you would rather see them defenseless in the face of a criminal bent on killing them by taking away their weapons?

To be honest, it isn't the rise or decline in crime rates that concerns me; to be honest, I expect the number of people who need to steal for a living or are compelled to out of mental disturbance to remain about the same with or without guns. What concerns me is the fact that for every person who successfully uses a gun to defend himself/herself from attack, 40 people die from being shot with their own weapon, usually because of accident or because an argument with the significant other that might have ended up with some broken crockery instead ends up as a fatality. Now, I don't mind guns in and of themselves: I grew up in hunting country, and in fact, when I do get a house, I plan to get a pump-action shotgun for home defense. But by the same token, I don't see anything wrong with banning or regulating weapons that are specifically designed to kill large numbers of people, like handguns or civilian-equivalent military-issue guns like the Armalite AR-15. By removing those weapons, we remove the threat of escalation of violence, and we also reduce the chance that people get killed with their own weapon.

To be honest, it isn't the rise or decline in crime rates that concerns me; to be honest, I expect the number of people who need to steal for a living or are compelled to out of mental disturbance to remain about the same with or without guns. What concerns me is the fact that for every person who successfully uses a gun to defend himself/herself from attack, 40 people die from being shot with their own weapon, usually because of accident or because an argument with the significant other that might have ended up with some broken crockery instead ends up as a fatality. Now, I don't mind guns in and of themselves: I grew up in hunting country, and in fact, when I do get a house, I plan to get a pump-action shotgun for home defense. But by the same token, I don't see anything wrong with banning or regulating weapons that are specifically designed to kill large numbers of people, like handguns or civilian-equivalent military-issue guns like the Armalite AR-15. By removing those weapons, we remove the threat of escalation of violence, and we also reduce the chance that people get killed with their own weapon.


1 to 40? Where'd that come from? I'm genuinely curious.

How is it that Japan, which has levels of gun control that would cause syniks to have an conniption fit, has a far lower murder rate than the US?

Umm...Japanese people are nicer? By the same token, how do you explain Switzerland's low crime rate when practically every adult male own a gun? Most of it is probably due to the US's violent culture rather than the guns themselves.

Umm...Japanese people are nicer? By the same token, how do you explain Switzerland's low crime rate when practically every adult male own a gun? Most of it is probably due to the US's violent culture rather than the guns themselves.

Oh, look, it's Sweeping Generalization Man!

Oh, look, it's Sweeping Generalization Man!

*shrug* If you're going to talk about millions of people at once, some concessions have to be made. Regardless, the point remains that there's a lot more to do with it than the guns.

Umm...Japanese people are nicer? By the same token, how do you explain Switzerland's low crime rate when practically every adult male own a gun? Most of it is probably due to the US's violent culture rather than the guns themselves.
Possibly, but then that also shows that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer, nor that arming everyone will dop the crime rate either.

Possibly, but then that also shows that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer, nor that arming everyone will dop the crime rate either.

There are a number of people who succesfully use guns to defend themselves, mostly without a shot fired.

And that the crime rates aren't going to support gun control, so you might be in need of something else. It looks like a fizzle for this topic. *sigh*

How is it that the UK, with it's tighter gun control, has a continuously rising rate, as the rate of the US falls?
Let me see here, the UK had, what, 19 murders last year? The US was less than a 1,000, but far more than 500.

Hmm...

Let me see here, the UK had, what, 19 murders last year? The US was less than a 1,000, but far more than 500.

Hmm...

I said "rising" and "falling". As in, look at the trends over time. Ever think maybe the UK and the US are really different countries? Try comparing stats within the same country.

1 to 40? Where'd that come from? I'm genuinely curious.

To be fair, it's an older statistic. It was cited out of a Time Magazine issued sometime around '98 or '99 (I'm leaning towards the latter). I was pretty shocked to read it, but when you think about it, it makes sense. There are thousands of gun-related fatalities in this country, and most are accidental deaths or escalated homocides. It's actually kind of rare to hear about someone driving off a home intruder with a gun, because usually in cases where guns are needed, the intruders usually have control of you before you can get your gun loaded and ready.

And that the crime rates aren't going to support gun control, so you might be in need of something else. It looks like a fizzle for this topic. *sigh*
On the contrary, I believe it is very important because many gun nuts on this board and elsewhere seem to have it set in stone that if only we could arm everyone, if only there was a gun in every house, THEN the crime rates would drop. If we took away the guns, why, we'd all be murdered in our beds!

I'm just pointing out that while the point of removing guns isn't going to magically clear things up, neither will all criminals suddenly go on a rampage that could only be stopped by the NRA (or the government will become tyranical) should they be removed.

To be fair, it's an older statistic. It was cited out of a Time Magazine issued sometime around '98 or '99 (I'm leaning towards the latter). I was pretty shocked to read it, but when you think about it, it makes sense. There are thousands of gun-related fatalities in this country, and most are accidental deaths or escalated homocides. It's actually kind of rare to hear about someone driving off a home intruder with a gun, because usually in cases where guns are needed, the intruders usually have control of you before you can get your gun loaded and ready.

Well, would something like "Man defends his home and everything is okay" make a lot of news? No, it's things like "Four year old finds gun and shoots self in face", because that gets a reaction.

I said "rising" and "falling". As in, look at the trends over time. Ever think maybe the UK and the US are really different countries? Try comparing stats within the same country.
Of course they are different! But the question is, what makes the US unique amoung devlopped nations that its rates are so high. They may have been falling, but when New York alone posts more homocides than all of the UK, there's something go on.

On the contrary, I believe it is very important because many gun nuts on this board and elsewhere seem to have it set in stone that if only we could arm everyone, if only there was a gun in every house, THEN the crime rates would drop. If we took away the guns, why, we'd all be murdered in our beds!

I'm just pointing out that while the point of removing guns isn't going to magically clear things up, neither will all criminals suddenly go on a rampage that could only be stopped by the NRA (or the government will become tyranical) should they be removed.

Yeah, my point is that most every anti-gun person here has in some way said "The US's rate is ten times higher, because of guns". And they show me the numbers, but never link it to guns. How do you know it's not because of violent movies? Or allergies causing irritability in people? Unemployment?

Well, would something like "Man defends his home and everything is okay" make a lot of news? No, it's things like "Four year old finds gun and shoots self in face", because that gets a reaction.

And four-year-olds having access to guns is a good thing?

Of course they are different! But the question is, what makes the US unique amoung devlopped nations that its rates are so high. They may have been falling, but when New York alone posts more homocides than all of the UK, there's something go on.

Well then, what do you think is gonna fix that? Tell me what makes it so high, support that, and develop a plan to remove that factor.

And four-year-olds having access to guns is a good thing?

No, but that's what you hear from the media more. It's why I also voted for more surveliance. The news basically made it a minor detail that the gun was loaded, unlocked, and under a matress. Oh, and that the kid survived. I want an increase in responsible and legal gun ownership

Well then, what do you think is gonna fix that? Tell me what makes it so high, support that, and develop a plan to remove that factor.
Dunno, there's a lot of factors that need to be studied more.

But the blade cuts both ways, which is what I am trying to point out.

Dunno, there's a lot of factors that need to be studied more.

But the blade cuts both ways, which is what I am trying to point out.

Good. That's exactly what we should be working on. Like some of TC's ideas. Up with education, down with poverty and unemployment, educate in gun safety, etc.

Possibly, but then that also shows that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer

Yes it does. In many cases, a criminal will flee at the sight of a gun without any shots being fired. There are millions of cases of this per year in the US. And anyway, the much higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland corresponds to a lower murder rate, so it's hard to draw conclusions when comparing the US to other countries. There are many external factors to be considered.

No, but that's what you hear from the media more. It's why I also voted for more surveliance. The news basically made it a minor detail that the gun was loaded, unlocked, and under a matress. Oh, and that the kid survived. I want an increase in responsible and legal gun ownership
Wouldn't the chances of this occurring increase if there were an increase of guns in family households? I believe that an increase in guns would lead to an increase in accidental homicides, suicides, and murders simply to the availibility of the weapon.

Wouldn't the chances of this occurring increase if there were an increase of guns in family households? I believe that an increase in guns would lead to an increase in accidental homicides, suicides, and murders simply to the availibility of the weapon.

Only if every gun is kept in the manner of this gun, that is "loaded, unlocked and under a mattress". Not only should the owners know something about the guns, but I figure by four years old you can teach a kid "Guns can be dangerous, if you find one, don't touch it and get an adult." *ahem* But there's better ways to reduce those things with fewer detrimental side effects.

Yes it does. In many cases, a criminal will flee at the sight of a gun without any shots being fired. There are millions of cases of this per year in the US. And anyway, the much higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland corresponds to a lower murder rate, so it's hard to draw conclusions when comparing the US to other countries. There are many external factors to be considered.
*sighs and once again trots out Japan, low gun ownership, one of the lowest crime rates in the world*
Or maybe gun ownership does nothing at all.

On the contrary, I believe it is very important because many gun nuts on this board and elsewhere seem to have it set in stone that if only we could arm everyone, if only there was a gun in every house, THEN the crime rates would drop. If we took away the guns, why, we'd all be murdered in our beds!

I'm just pointing out that while the point of removing guns isn't going to magically clear things up, neither will all criminals suddenly go on a rampage that could only be stopped by the NRA (or the government will become tyranical) should they be removed.

I have a better way to reduce crime than to arm everyone or to ban guns. How about the government starts leaning on the police to serve some of the hundreds of thousands of outstanding arrest warrants that we currently have? IIRC, there was somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 outstanding warrants in the state of CT (with many being for violent repeat offenders).

Also (as an added bit of misc. info), it is illegal in CT to leave a firearm loaded and unsecured (the firearm must be unloaded and have either a suitable trigger lock or be in a gun safe).

Questions though, if having more guns makes people safer, how is it that the US has the largest crime rate of developed nations?

How is it that Japan, which has levels of gun control that would cause syniks to have an conniption fit, has a far lower murder rate than the US?

-snip-

On the contrary, I believe it is very important because many gun nuts on this board and elsewhere seem to have it set in stone that if only we could arm everyone, if only there was a gun in every house, THEN the crime rates would drop. If we took away the guns, why, we'd all be murdered in our beds!

I'm just pointing out that while the point of removing guns isn't going to magically clear things up, neither will all criminals suddenly go on a rampage that could only be stopped by the NRA (or the government will become tyranical) should they be removed.

The question is more complicated that usually presented? Fancy that! ;)

I do think Japan is an excellent contrast to the US on this question. The difference in the levels of government and societal intrusion into the private lives of citizens is fairly significant. I'd find it hard to believe that the various forms of registration we have to undergo here in Japan would be accepted in the US, for example. And then there's the whole police "home visit" system. Funnily enough, I only seem to be able to find anything on that from gun sites. I know it takes place because the first time I had a home visit from the local police was a bit of a shock. I came home and there was a note on my door with a form to fill out. I took it to a friend for a translation (this having been many years ago when I struggled to read anything at all in Japanese). , and was quite surprised to be informed that the local police had dropped by and left a dossier for me to fill out. I luckily have managed to avoid filling out the police dossier for some 15 years now. :)

Or, in some more extreme cases, severe hoplophobia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

I personally disagree with Freud about this. But I disagree with him about a lot of things, so this isn't odd.

I personally disagree with Freud about this. But I disagree with him about a lot of things, so this isn't odd.

Eh, I can't say much for Freud. But some opposition does seem to be based on nothing more than irrational fear of weapons...Like that thread about the kirpans...

Eh, I can't say much for Freud. But some opposition does seem to be based on nothing more than irrational fear of weapons...Like that thread about the kirpans...

I'd say an irrational LOVE of weapons is a sign of immaturity.

Actually, irrational ANYTHING might be a sign of immaturity, or a symptom of a larger problem like acute anxiety or severe phobia, in which case it isn't a problem with reason, but just another fear that people exhibit.

I'd say an irrational LOVE of weapons is a sign of immaturity.

Actually, irrational ANYTHING might be a sign of immaturity, or a symptom of a larger problem like acute anxiety or severe phobia, in which case it isn't a problem with reason, but just another fear that people exhibit.

*shrug* Okay.

Questions though, if having more guns makes people safer, how is it that the US has the largest crime rate of developed nations?

How is it that Japan, which has levels of gun control that would cause syniks to have an conniption fit, has a far lower murder rate than the US?
How is it that Japan, with it's oh so enlightened stance on gun control, has a suicide rate almost double that of the US? Answer, it has nothing to do with the gun control itself and EVERYTHING to do with the culture and homogenization.

How does a deadly weapon do more good than harm? If guns had never been invented, do you think westerners would live in a violent and harmful state of fear?
Because the rwanda genocide was perpetrated with firearms. Oh wait, it wasn't silly me. It was done with a bunch of machetes, about the cheapest blade you can make.

To be fair, it's an older statistic. It was cited out of a Time Magazine issued sometime around '98 or '99 (I'm leaning towards the latter). I was pretty shocked to read it, but when you think about it, it makes sense. There are thousands of gun-related fatalities in this country, and most are accidental deaths or escalated homocides. It's actually kind of rare to hear about someone driving off a home intruder with a gun, because usually in cases where guns are needed, the intruders usually have control of you before you can get your gun loaded and ready.
Actually, the real number from that particular study was 1 in 43. It's also a bunch of Grade A bullshit.

http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?

Introduction

Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner's gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios "nonsensical." (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)

Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.

Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let's see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk. (Art. Cont.)

*sighs and once again trots out Japan, low gun ownership, one of the lowest crime rates in the world*
Or maybe gun ownership does nothing at all.
Or maybe the japanese have one of the strictest, most regulated societies on the face of the planet, with a very, very strong submission to authority component and in among all but the youngest set an ostracization of all elements alien to said society, which might just have something to do with the correspondingly high suicide rate.

The question is more complicated that usually presented? Fancy that! ;)
I know, ain't it the darnest thing? ;)

I luckily have managed to avoid filling out the police dossier for some 15 years now. :)
*LOL* The NPA at work. :D

I challange anyone who is anti-gun to go out and target shoot. Go ahead, go to your local (presuming you are in the US) Gun Ownership Action League or NRA and see if you can't fire off one of these tools. You might find it fun. Now, in states that are disarmed, the crime rate is much higher (excluding texas... they got their own thing down there). Every time there is a chain of home robberies in my town, the criminal is only stopped when held at gun point. Seriously: safe, educated gun use for non-criminals is a good thing. And education extends to children too.

I would like to defend the AR-15: it is a reasonably accurate semiautomatic rifle with low recoil. It is also expensive: a good AR-15 can cost between 1200 and 1500. However, through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a person without a history of crime can purchase a gun with a bigger barrel that is more accurate shot-for-shot for under 1,000 (i think the cheapest is around 500). The concent of a semiautomatic "assault weapon" is a social construction futhered by ignorance.

How is it that Japan, with it's oh so enlightened stance on gun control, has a suicide rate almost double that of the US? Answer, it has nothing to do with the gun control itself and EVERYTHING to do with the culture and homogenization.
Well, if this was a thread about suicide rates, you may have a point, but as this is talking about murder rates and gun control... (Unless you lable suicide as self-murder, but even then it's a bit off as even in the US, guns are not the ender of choice).

Or maybe the japanese have one of the strictest, most regulated societies on the face of the planet, with a very, very strong submission to authority component and in among all but the youngest set an ostracization of all elements alien to said society, which might just have something to do with the correspondingly high suicide rate.
Hello Mr. Generalization!

And a very wrong one at that.

But I am not talking suicide, I'm talking homicide, bit of a difference, ne?

Except you are assuming causal links between societally accepted gun ownership and violence rates that just aren't there and NO ONE has been able to prove. Israel and Switzerland come to mind, and hey look, Switzerland's homogenization level is on par with Japan's. What an interesting coincidence. Not to mention the illegality of guns in various other places that are as well wracked with violence. Or the fact New Hampshire, Vermont, South Dakota, and Maine have very, very lax gun laws and yet their violence levels are pretty damn low. Oh look, those areas are relatively homogenized as well. Damn there seems to be a common thread.

Except you are assuming causal links between societally accepted gun ownership and violence rates that just aren't there and NO ONE has been able to prove. Israel and Switzerland come to mind, and hey look, Switzerland's homogenization level is on par with Japan's. What an interesting coincidence. Not to mention the illegality of guns in various other places that are as well wracked with violence. Or the fact New Hampshire, Vermont, South Dakota, and Maine have very, very lax gun laws and yet their violence levels are pretty damn low. Oh look, those areas are relatively homogenized as well. Damn there seems to be a common thread.
Go re-read the thread as you are accusing me of something I have not stated.

*LOL* The NPA at work. :D

The local Koban Keystone Kops at "work".

*sighs and once again trots out Japan, low gun ownership, one of the lowest crime rates in the world*
Or maybe gun ownership does nothing at all.

Except you are assuming causal links between societally accepted gun ownership and violence rates that just aren't there and NO ONE has been able to prove.

As was trying to point out, it's a lot more complicated than just that.

Or maybe the japanese have one of the strictest, most regulated societies on the face of the planet, with a very, very strong submission to authority component and in among all but the youngest set an ostracization of all elements alien to said society, which might just have something to do with the correspondingly high suicide rate.

Not true, partially true, highly exaggerated, entierly untrue, complex.

Questions though, if having more guns makes people safer, how is it that the US has the largest crime rate of developed nations?

How is it that Japan, which has levels of gun control that would cause syniks to have an conniption fit, has a far lower murder rate than the US?

They do not need a murder rate they commit suicide at twenty times the average. :p

at any rate does Japan even have a crime rate ? they seem very well behaved when they are not killing themselves .
A very unique and subservient nation .

Go re-read the thread as you are accusing me of something I have not stated.You've essentially stated that societally accepted gun ownership does nothing at all. Ownership by black market sources does not count unless you are willing to establish a totalitarian government in order to attempt to eradicate it, and in that case it could well be argued that said government is just one giant organized crime entity. I can tell you right now that if gun ownership were legalized, it was instituted as a mandatory course in high school, and that semi-auto and single shot weapons were completely legalized as well as concealed carry, that the death rate would see a increase for a couple of years, and then there would be a sharp plummet in the murder and overall violent crime rates. Especially rape since that category of crime has the lowest occurance to report ratio of all violent crime.

Not true, partially true, highly exaggerated, entierly untrue, complex.
Let me rephrase that. The ostracization of elements only tends to occur if they pop up in general society. Not behind closed doors. And you can't sit there and tell me that there isn't an enormous bulllying problem in Japanese schools.

Actually, as long as the police have better weapons, they will be able (to a degree) to maintain law and order. However, this would not equal tyrany, since any popular uprising would have the greater numbers. Then again, who would rob a store where all 6 patrons and the shopkeep will shoot at you?

I would like to defend the AR-15: it is a reasonably accurate semiautomatic rifle with low recoil. It is also expensive: a good AR-15 can cost between 1200 and 1500. However, through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a person without a history of crime can purchase a gun with a bigger barrel that is more accurate shot-for-shot for under 1,000 (i think the cheapest is around 500). The concent of a semiautomatic "assault weapon" is a social construction futhered by ignorance.

That's part of the problem I have with the AR-15: it's ineffective for home use, at least compared to a pump-action shotgun. It requires significantly more training to use, it lacks stopping power, and using it in hand-to-hand is only slightly better than beating off an intruder with a whiffle bat. By contrast, I don't have to be well-trained to put a home intruder down with a single shot from a standard twelve-guage, but by the same token, a twelve-guage is also much more difficult to use in a bank robbery because of it's short range. The AR-15 is not good for home-defense, it lacks the one-shot kill power required for hunting, and it lacks the compactness and portability for personal defense; its only real purpose is mangle and kill unarmored targets. If we ban it, we really lose nothing in the bargain.

I'm all for civilians owning and using firearms, but I do think that there should be a licensing system. Just a bare-bones test to get a gun license, as they already have for motor vehicles. Something to weed out the bottom-of-the-barrel incompetents and whackos. And, of course, the license could be revoked under certain circumstances (comission of a violent crime, for example).

You've essentially stated that societally accepted gun ownership does nothing at all. Ownership by black market sources does not count unless you are willing to establish a totalitarian government in order to attempt to eradicate it, and in that case it could well be argued that said government is just one giant organized crime entity. I can tell you right now that if gun ownership were legalized, it was instituted as a mandatory course in high school, and that semi-auto and single shot weapons were completely legalized as well as concealed carry, that the death rate would see a increase for a couple of years, and then there would be a sharp plummet in the murder and overall violent crime rates. Especially rape since that category of crime has the lowest occurance to report ratio of all violent crime.
Prove it. Show me how that arming everyone will cause the crime rate to plumet.

What I HAVE stated is that the problem is not black and white like the supporters of guns and gun control would have us believe. Japan doesn't work, how about the UK? Or Canada? Or just about every other developed nation with strict gun control laws that has a much better rate than the US.

And yes, yes, I am sure you'll trot out countries every where one is armed and has a better rate and away we will go again, missing my bloody point that obviously removing guns doesn't cause a magical fall in the rate and arming everyone ALSO doesn't cause a magical fall in the rate!

They do not need a murder rate they commit suicide at twenty times the average. :p

at any rate does Japan even have a crime rate ? they seem very well behaved when they are not killing themselves .
A very unique and subservient nation .
Japan does have a crime and murder rate. Right now Japan is very worried because the murder rate has climbed. They had 10 murders last year so obviously the society is starting to break down.

That's part of the problem I have with the AR-15: it's ineffective for home use, at least compared to a pump-action shotgun. It requires significantly more training to use, it lacks stopping power, and using it in hand-to-hand is only slightly better than beating off an intruder with a whiffle bat. By contrast, I don't have to be well-trained to put a home intruder down with a single shot from a standard twelve-guage, but by the same token, a twelve-guage is also much more difficult to use in a bank robbery because of it's short range. The AR-15 is not good for home-defense, it lacks the one-shot kill power required for hunting, and it lacks the compactness and portability for personal defense; its only real purpose is mangle and kill unarmored targets. If we ban it, we really lose nothing in the bargain.

you see thats just the problem . In your opinion if you ban it we lose nothing...but then you impose your tyranny over those who have a different opinion of the weapon and by what right do you do this ?

BTW you can buy the carbine version with the short stock and short barrell and kill a whole bunch of home invaders much easier than with a shot gun .
And the AR 15 is a very good varmint hunting rifle . So what type of hunting are you talking about ? The AR -15 is a very accurate target rifle for those that like that sport . its only real purpose is to be an inert lump of machinery until someone comes along to give it a purpose .

I say we just ban murdering fools and be done with it .That should work just as well as just banning guns right ? it should work better in fact because then you wouldnt have to worry about getting beat to death with a rock ..because all murdering fools or just plain old murder would be BANNED ...how is it no one ever thought of such a simple thing ???

After all banning if banning an object that can do nothing on its own can work ...imagine how great it would be to ban the actual PERSON who is gioing to have to actually do the deed !

I solved everything ...see that ..write your congress person and tell him .
remember wgere you saw the idea though..make sure I get credit .

I challange anyone who is anti-gun to go out and target shoot. Go ahead, go to your local (presuming you are in the US) Gun Ownership Action League or NRA and see if you can't fire off one of these tools. You might find it fun. Now, in states that are disarmed, the crime rate is much higher (excluding texas... they got their own thing down there). Every time there is a chain of home robberies in my town, the criminal is only stopped when held at gun point. Seriously: safe, educated gun use for non-criminals is a good thing. And education extends to children too.

I would like to defend the AR-15: it is a reasonably accurate semiautomatic rifle with low recoil. It is also expensive: a good AR-15 can cost between 1200 and 1500. However, through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a person without a history of crime can purchase a gun with a bigger barrel that is more accurate shot-for-shot for under 1,000 (i think the cheapest is around 500). The concent of a semiautomatic "assault weapon" is a social construction futhered by ignorance.

If you're talking about the Garand (30-06), you can actually pick up a woodless rack grade for $295 at: http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/m1garand.htm

That's part of the problem I have with the AR-15: it's ineffective for home use, at least compared to a pump-action shotgun. It requires significantly more training to use, it lacks stopping power, and using it in hand-to-hand is only slightly better than beating off an intruder with a whiffle bat. By contrast, I don't have to be well-trained to put a home intruder down with a single shot from a standard twelve-guage, but by the same token, a twelve-guage is also much more difficult to use in a bank robbery because of it's short range. The AR-15 is not good for home-defense, it lacks the one-shot kill power required for hunting, and it lacks the compactness and portability for personal defense; its only real purpose is mangle and kill unarmored targets. If we ban it, we really lose nothing in the bargain.

Actually, you can get the AR platform in numerous calibers, ranging from .22 to .50 beowolf (most popular seems to be 9mm, 5.56/223, 7.62x39mm, and .308 though). Also, ARs are used for more than home defense. People use them for target shooting all the time. Specifically, there's a competition called the service rifle match that the AR meets the qualifications to be used in.

BTW, how can you say this isn't compact? http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/Carbon15/az-c15p21s.asp Or this? http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/Carbon15/az9-c15p21s.asp

Just move to Canada :P

Japan does have a crime and murder rate. Right now Japan is very worried because the murder rate has climbed. They had 10 murders last year so obviously the society is starting to break down.

I live in Philadelphia ...we get ten a week sometimes ..I never thought the Japanese were slackers. They have alot of catching up to do...maybe if I send some rap music over ??? some violent video games ?? or some bad TV shows ...give them some incentive . I always wondered why we like to shoot each other...here the new fad is to shoot someone in the ass ..no joke ..no shit...and way too true ....It happened on a cable TV show and now its a fad here ...just pop someone in the ass with your gat and laugh your silly ass off .

Now you tell me how you solve the murder problem when the new idea of fun is to just walk around shooting people in the ass for fun ?


let me know when they ban morons and I'll think about giving up my right to carry a firearm...wonder when bullet proof ass vest go on sale ?

Prove it. Show me how that arming everyone will cause the crime rate to plumet.

What I HAVE stated is that the problem is not black and white like the supporters of guns and gun control would have us believe. Japan doesn't work, how about the UK? Or Canada? Or just about every other developed nation with strict gun control laws that has a much better rate than the US.

And yes, yes, I am sure you'll trot out countries every where one is armed and has a better rate and away we will go again, missing my bloody point that obviously removing guns doesn't cause a magical fall in the rate and arming everyone ALSO doesn't cause a magical fall in the rate!
Actually, the arming and training everyone bit hasn't been tried outside of Switzerland and Israel. Interesting how the only two areas to go that route have amazingly low violence rates. As for evidence of it working, well before the paleostinians started suicide bombing they tried just going in and shooting israeli civilians. That didn't work so well. Almost all of the countries that have more gun control than the US had lower crime rates before they implemented said gun control laws. Britain has ALWAYS had a lower rate even before they started to limit guns. The same with any other comparison you'd care to make.

For the record, other than my stance on firearms controls - my leanings are generally can be considered Liberal.

Firearms, in the wrong (i.e. criminal) hands are deadly weapons. So are knifes and motor vehicles. You saying those two items should be regulated and limited like firearms too?

For the record, other than my stance on firearms controls - my leanings are generally can be considered Liberal.

Firearms, in the wrong (i.e. criminal) hands are deadly weapons. So are knifes and motor vehicles. You saying those two items should be regulated and limited like firearms too?

just regulate criminals ....by nature a criminal will not follow a regulation anyway...thats why he's a criminal . so regulating criminals should do just as well as regulating anything else .

in among all but the youngest set an ostracization of all elements alien to said society

Let me rephrase that. The ostracization of elements only tends to occur if they pop up in general society. Not behind closed doors. And you can't sit there and tell me that there isn't an enormous bulllying problem in Japanese schools.

If by alien you mean foreign, which is what I originally understood you to mean, that is still untrue. Japan has a long history of absorbing foreign culture and mimicry of foreign culture. If you mean outside of Japanese society's norms, you have a better case, but it still does not hold for "all elements alien" for "all but the youngest set". And bullying is a complex issue, only part of which can be explained by said ostracization.


They do not need a murder rate they commit suicide at twenty times the average.

at any rate does Japan even have a crime rate ? they seem very well behaved when they are not killing themselves .
A very unique and subservient nation .

Not only do they have a crime rate, they have a rapidly rising one.

And, just to throw a wrench in the cog, this article looks quite interesting...
http://ssjj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jyi044v1

They have alot of catching up to do...maybe if I send some rap music over ??? some violent video games ?? or some bad TV shows ...give them some incentive.
NO! They already have rap, violent video games, and really bad TV. Don't encourage them!

Actually, the arming and training everyone bit hasn't been tried outside of Switzerland and Israel. Interesting how the only two areas to go that route have amazingly low violence rates. As for evidence of it working, well before the paleostinians started suicide bombing they tried just going in and shooting israeli civilians. That didn't work so well. Almost all of the countries that have more gun control than the US had lower crime rates before they implemented said gun control laws. Britain has ALWAYS had a lower rate even before they started to limit guns. The same with any other comparison you'd care to make.
I'll ask the obvious, how were the rates in your two example countries before they started arming everyone?

BTW, you didn't show proof that it would cause a massive fall.

And, just to throw a wrench in the cog, this article looks quite interesting...
http://ssjj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jyi044v1
I'll have to check later if I can get a hold of that. I am interested in how they explain the drop, especially as post-war there was a lot of crime due to, well, the war. Pre-war also saw a lot, but how much of that was Japan's internal situation and how much was crime is hard to say.

And bullying is a complex issue, only part of which can be explained by said ostracization.

Never said it wasn't. There are many aspects to it. One of them is what is defined as acceptable by the system itself. If I remember correctly, isn't there a saying about the non flush nail getting hammered down? That's not what the saying is of course, but it's something similar. The problem isn't that bullying itself occurs. The problem is that the bullying is directed at alien(oddball) elements within the school system itself by the school administrators and faculty which reinforces it's legitimacy.

I'll ask the obvious, how were the rates in your two example countries before they started arming everyone?

BTW, you didn't show proof that it would cause a massive fall.
Since there are no other examples, one would have to do a widespread empirical test in order to confirm/deny the idea. Although there is that one town. I'll get back to you.

Aha got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

The only way that people are able to dispute the drop in burglary rate claim is by using the UCR only w/o other sources. The problem with doing that is if a more serious crime is commited at the same 'time' the UCR only registers the more serious crime. What this means is if theoretically someone were to steal a car, rob several jewelry stores, burn down an empty warehouse, rape 2 women, and then maim one and kill the other, all that would show up on the UCR would be the murder of the woman. As such it is less reliable on it's own the less serious the crime gets. If I remember correctly, burglary is the least serious of the crimes possible that the UCR tracks.

Not to mention that a small town of less than 50,000 isn't the best testing ground either. To truly test the idea one would have to use a major city.

Japan does have a crime and murder rate. Right now Japan is very worried because the murder rate has climbed. They had 10 murders last year so obviously the society is starting to break down.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure it's higher than that...


Boom. Here we go. The NPA's last available stats in English say 1,419 murders in 2004.
http://www.npa.go.jp/english/seisaku2/20060126.pdf

Also interesting is the crime rate appears to have slightly decreased.


They have alot of catching up to do...maybe if I send some rap music over ??? some violent video games ?? or some bad TV shows ...give them some incentive.
NO! They already have rap, violent video games, and really bad TV. Don't encourage them!

Some of the worst wanna-be-gangsta rap I've ever heard. There's only J-Rapper I know who could possibly have a legit claim to being all ghetto - an MC Shingo Nishinari (who takes his name from the real live Osaka slum he grew up in).

Since there are no other examples, one would have to do a widespread empirical test in order to confirm/deny the idea. Although there is that one town. I'll get back to you.
I'll be waiting.

i like my shotgun. i like my rifle. i like my pistol. my friend likes his 3 m16s. my friend likes his 9mm and .45 pistols. my friend likes his frag grenade. (no, i am not kidding about the last one. he just needs to put the powder back in, and it works)

i like my shotgun. i like my rifle. i like my pistol. my friend likes his 3 m16s. my friend likes his 9mm and .45 pistols. my friend likes his frag grenade. (no, i am not kidding about the last one. he just needs to put the powder back in, and it works)Why don't you and your friends go play with your toys someplace quiet.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure it's higher than that...


Boom. Here we go. The NPA's last available stats in English say 1,419 murders in 2004.
http://www.npa.go.jp/english/seisaku2/20060126.pdf

Also interesting is the crime rate appears to have slightly decreased.
Sorry, I was being silly, I should have marked that.

Of course for 2002, the US reported over 16,000.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm

Some of the worst wanna-be-gangsta rap I've ever heard. There's only J-Rapper I know who could possibly have a legit claim to being all ghetto - an MC Shingo Nishinari (who takes his name from the real live Osaka slum he grew up in).
I KNOW! Jesh, I listen to these guys and I want to shake them and scream, "Don't tell me about growing up in the hood. You're 5,000 miles away from the nearest hood!"

Between that and my boy students attempting to make their school uniform pants baggy... :rolleyes:

Never said it wasn't. There are many aspects to it. One of them is what is defined as acceptable by the system itself. If I remember correctly, isn't there a saying about the non flush nail getting hammered down? That's not what the saying is of course, but it's something similar. The problem isn't that bullying itself occurs. The problem is that the bullying is directed at alien(oddball) elements within the school system itself by the school administrators and faculty which reinforces it's legitimacy.

Deru kugi wa utareru. It's translated differently, but the one I prefer (simply because it's the first version I learned) is "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down".

As for bullying being directed at oddballs, that's nowhere near a unique Japanese phenomenon. See tall poppy syndrome, Janteloven (http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/faq26.html), and so on.

Since there are no other examples, one would have to do a widespread empirical test in order to confirm/deny the idea. Although there is that one town. I'll get back to you.

Aha got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

The only way that people are able to dispute the drop in burglary rate claim is by using the UCR only w/o other sources. The problem with doing that is if a more serious crime is commited at the same 'time' the UCR only registers the more serious crime. What this means is if theoretically someone were to steal a car, rob several jewelry stores, burn down an empty warehouse, rape 2 women, and then maim one and kill the other, all that would show up on the UCR would be the murder of the woman. As such it is less reliable on it's own the less serious the crime gets. If I remember correctly, burglary is the least serious of the crimes possible that the UCR tracks.

Not to mention that a small town of less than 50,000 isn't the best testing ground either. To truly test the idea one would have to use a major city.


Moreover, if you go here (http://timlambert.org/2003/11/kennesaw/) and peruse the comments, NOT the post, then some very interesting information comes to light.

Moreover, if you go here (http://timlambert.org/2003/11/kennesaw/) and peruse the comments, NOT the post, then some very interesting information comes to light.
Er... yes, if you read the postings it states that there wasn't a significant drop in the rates, the orginal author also manged to defend himself quite well against the charges brought forth by "Kevin".

So we're back to square one where it seems arming everyone won't begat a huge drop in crime.

Which is what I was saying in the first place.

Er... yes, if you read the postings it states that there wasn't a significant drop in the rates, the orginal author also manged to defend himself quite well against the charges brought forth by "Kevin".

So we're back to square one where it seems arming everyone won't begat a huge drop in crime.

Which is what I was saying in the first place.
Comprehend much? It says there wasn't a drop in the NUMBERS. The rate fell quite a lot. There's a reason I told you not to read the post. In Kennesaw, Georgia the number of crimes each year stayed the same while the population expanded. This means that the crime rate went DOWN.

Not to mention that he argues the nonexistence of significant drop in rates by comparing with Kennesaw the crime rate of a single other town. And that for some reason he doesn't consider a 25% difference to be significant. The only proof for his claim is a single year. Yet every other year Kennesaw is lower, ergo, it is statistically significant. Especially when Acworth is the second lowest crime rate town in the area and that it has a little over half the population that Kennesaw does. Against all the other towns in the area it, surprise surprise, has a much lower crime rate.

A lot of anti-gun people I know are anti-gun because they feel it will lower the crime rate. There's a couple things I don't get about this. First of all, how are you going to prevent criminals from tgetting guns on the black market and preying on law-abiding citizens who have no means by which to defend themselves?

Some people believe we need to decrease the number of guns that exist. If there are no guns for criminals to buy, then, logically, the number of criminals with guns would be expected to decrease.


Secondly, why are most of you opposed to increased surveillance? It would help prevent crimes and catch criminals without leaving innocent citizens to pay. Are you too worried that the police might see you picking your nose to worry about someone's life, but you would rather see them defenseless in the face of a criminal bent on killing them by taking away their weapons?
This is the standard canad of, "If you've got nothing to hide, why should you want privacy?" If you don't want privacy, that's nice for you. Personally, if it is a choice between me getting privacy and other people getting guns, I will choose my privacy without question. Of course, I don't think there is any such choice required, but that's just me.

A lot of anti-gun people I know are anti-gun because they feel it will lower the crime rate. There's a couple things I don't get about this. First of all, how are you going to prevent criminals from tgetting guns on the black market and preying on law-abiding citizens who have no means by which to defend themselves? Secondly, why are most of you opposed to increased surveillance? It would help prevent crimes and catch criminals without leaving innocent citizens to pay. Are you too worried that the police might see you picking your nose to worry about someone's life, but you would rather see them defenseless in the face of a criminal bent on killing them by taking away their weapons?
Two things:

1. This ( "... how are you going to prevent criminals from tgetting guns on the black market and preying on law-abiding citizens who have no means by which to defend themselves?" ) is actually one of the best arguments AGAINST gun control.

2. Surviellence =/= empowered

Personally, if it is a choice between me getting privacy and other people getting guns, I will choose my privacy without question.

What if the choice was between your privacy and somebody getting murdered? Do you place your "right" to privacy over someone else's "right" to live?

AGAINST gun control

Yeah, I am against it.

Some people believe we need to decrease the number of guns that exist. If there are no guns for criminals to buy, then, logically, the number of criminals with guns would be expected to decrease.

Until a criminal realizes he basically needs a bit of scrap metal to make a new gun. And the law-abiding citzen, knowing guns are illegal, does not make a new gun. Can ya figure how things work from there? There are millions upon millions of guns here. It's hardly as simply as saying "No guns", and *poof* They disapear.

All I know is, that I live in a place with an unarmed police force- with tight gun control (i.e. there are hardly any guns)- and in a population of 4 million, people get shocked if there is one death every two weeks from gun related incidents.

I'm happy with it like that :)

All I know is, that I live in a place with an unarmed police force- with tight gun control (i.e. there are hardly any guns)- and in a population of 4 million, people get shocked if there is one death every two weeks from gun related incidents.

I'm happy with it like that :)

T'would be more helpful if I had any idea where you're talking about.

T'would be more helpful if I had any idea where you're talking about.

Why? What difference would it make to your argument?

Why? What difference would it make to your argument?

*shrug* I dunno, but it would explain a lot about these alledged qualities of your location.

A lot of anti-gun people I know are anti-gun because they feel it will lower the crime rate. There's a couple things I don't get about this. First of all, how are you going to prevent criminals from tgetting guns on the black market and preying on law-abiding citizens who have no means by which to defend themselves? ...
The logic goes like this:
more restriction leads to less gun availlable (supply)
less supply brings price up
higher price lowers demand as Joe-gang member cannot afford a 2000$ handgun.

so a lower rate of citizen, law-abidibing and criminals have guns. So a tougher gun restriction might not stop criminals from getting them, but it sure as hell complicates things and lowers the amount of criminals that do have guns.

As for law-abiding citizens, they are far from defenseless, usually. It's not like a gun in the hand means the victim will freeze up. And if he (or she) does, no harm will come to her as the criminal will be able to steal his stuff without complications. You can usually use a distraction to get away, use stuff lying around or knives, cayenne peper, tasers and other stuff to attack. You don't need the gun to counteract a gun. Even if you did have one, odds are the criminal would have his gun pointed at you before you had yours pointed at him anyways.

Will it lower crime rate? I don't know. There seems to be no correlation between gun ownership and crime rate. Since it's all the same anyways, I'd rather live in an area where there are no tools of slaying lying around that can be stolen, mishandled, turned around on me. It makes me feel safer knowing I don't have to be vigilant all the time when I scream at the guy who just cut me off for fear he might draw his gun.

*shrug* I dunno, but it would explain a lot about these alledged qualities of your location.

Alleged?

You don't believe the above State exists?

How narrow minded of you.

Alleged?

You don't believe the above State exists?

How narrow minded of you.

It's harder when I have no idea what the state is.

It's harder when I have no idea what the state is.
http://mike.eire.ca/graphics/ireland.gif

http://mike.eire.ca/graphics/ireland.gif

See, that helps. So we're talking about Ireland, right?

Well, guns are an equilizer, but they kill people. They make the strong have less advantage over the weak, since both have deadly force. They also make the foolish more dangerous.

Let's think it through. You have two groups: Government (G) & Citizens (C). Sometimes, either group will be Bad, other times they will be good. Now if some of one group go up against some of the other group, guns affect how large one group must be before it's obvious to the other that victory is uncertain or hopeless. So this could be how many officers must be sent to disperse a crowd, or how many disgruntled citizens have to protest police corruption before they will be taken seriously.

So there are only four cases to consider, since the government isn't disarming itself.

If you completely disarm the citizens, you get:
1. Gov vs. Bad Citizens = cheaper to enforce laws
2. Bad Gov vs. Citizens = easier to abuse power or oppress people
3. Bad Citizen vs. Citizen = burglary & violent crime easier
4. Citizen vs. Citizen = less accidental death, unhappy hunters

So, you should see an increase in violent crime, but fewer police officers wounded in the line of duty, and fewer officers needed for crowd suppression tasks. You should see fewer accidental shootings, but more casual abuse of police power. Also, while case #2 is rare in my experience, it seems like it would be much harder to recover from - the government has to agree to reform itself.

So I guess I should be pro-gun? What have I missed?

A bit of math. If you give more and more weapons to the citizens, #1 will keep getting more expensive without limit. #2 sees diminishing returns, because violence is just one of the many threats the government can wield. #3 may just about go out of style, but you never get rid of the crazies so I'd expect an asymtotic decline. #4 aught to be a shoulder where everyone is used to handling weapons and accidents are less common, but it probably increases without bound - issue a 'blow-up-the-world' kit to each citizen and you'll regret it.

So, zero is bad. To much is bad. So there has to be an optimality point where the sum of police deaths and accidental shootings balances with violent crime and police brutality and corruption. Or something like that.
Do we issue everybody with a tazer? a handgun? an assault rifle? a tank? where's the sweet spot?

The logic goes like this:
more restriction leads to less gun availlable (supply)
less supply brings price up
higher price lowers demand as Joe-gang member cannot afford a 2000$ handgun.

so a lower rate of citizen, law-abidibing and criminals have guns. So a tougher gun restriction might not stop criminals from getting them, but it sure as hell complicates things and lowers the amount of criminals that do have guns.

As for law-abiding citizens, they are far from defenseless, usually. It's not like a gun in the hand means the victim will freeze up. And if he (or she) does, no harm will come to her as the criminal will be able to steal his stuff without complications. You can usually use a distraction to get away, use stuff lying around or knives, cayenne peper, tasers and other stuff to attack. You don't need the gun to counteract a gun. Even if you did have one, odds are the criminal would have his gun pointed at you before you had yours pointed at him anyways.

Will it lower crime rate? I don't know. There seems to be no correlation between gun ownership and crime rate. Since it's all the same anyways, I'd rather live in an area where there are no tools of slaying lying around that can be stolen, mishandled, turned around on me. It makes me feel safer knowing I don't have to be vigilant all the time when I scream at the guy who just cut me off for fear he might draw his gun.

you would last about 20 minutes in south Philadelphia. Maybe less . At the very least they would just rob you and leave you naked in the street ...maybe even post some video on the internet..another new fad ...but no one ever claimed that the criminal element was a group of rocket scientist . guns are nice but in a city full of them most people are mugged by knife -fist -or -baseball bat ...living in the city is interesting . you definitely need to be aware off your surroundings.... Cops without guns ?
a quaint old custom in england ..oddly enough even with all the tossers and other idiots ..coppers get some respect and men settle things without shooting each other ...wonder when that all went out of style in the US ?

What actually caused it ? I actually remember when people would sit outside at night in the summer and talk to each other..instead of having conversations that go ..." that was a 9 mm I bet six shots " .." No sounded more like a .40 cal..bigger bark ..and it was 5 shots .."... " you think they will end up comming up this way "...no sounded like they were headed away...dammm the helicopters didnt take long this time did they ?...Must have already been in the air close bye..wonder why we didnt hear them ? they got them exhaust shrouds ? " yea right police stealth coptters....wonder if they shot him in the ass ? " I dont know ...the last time one ended up on my porch..rang my bell at 3 am...all shot up in the ass ...WTF man cops came he didnt know shit who popped his ass ...whoa there they go again...dammm that was close ..wtf was that sounded like a shot gun ...cops musta got one .....

so far this year the Cops have shot and killed 12 people in the line of duty...no figures on how many they just shot in the ass . Also no record on how many ass vest have been sold . But I'm looking now on the internet .

Anti gun people are just ignorant. and stupid.

proof = ZipGun.

Anti gun people are just ignorant. and stupid.

proof = ZipGun.
Generalizations are just ignorant. and stupid.

proof = Barbaric Tribes