cactoblasta Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Washington DC is an example of a society with strict gun control, not an example of a gun-free society. Yes, Washington DC has plenty of guns available if you don't care about breaking the law. That's the entire point, gun control doesn't work. Even a complete ban on all gun ownership isn't enough, and you can't get any stricter than that. You missed my point. It's nearly impossible to police the borders of a city. A country is much easier because you have the advantage of border control. Cities don't have checkpoints, so there's nothing to stop anyone from buying a gun in the neighbouring state and then driving it in. Try bringing a gun into the UK, and then see how easy it is to get guns into a controlled society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam en france Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Washington DC is an example of a society with strict gun control, not an example of a gun-free society. Yes, Washington DC has plenty of guns available if you don't care about breaking the law. That's the entire point, gun control doesn't work. Even a complete ban on all gun ownership isn't enough, and you can't get any stricter than that. You missed my point. It's nearly impossible to police the borders of a city. A country is much easier because you have the advantage of border control. Cities don't have checkpoints, so there's nothing to stop anyone from buying a gun in the neighbouring state and then driving it in. Try bringing a gun into the UK, and then see how easy it is to get guns into a controlled society. Hey im sorry but it'd be easy to smuggle guns into the uk i have been travelling backwards and forwards between the uk for many years with my parents and we havent been stopped once, and even if they did all you have to say is you have nothing to declare, and even then you can easily conceal weapons in a car if you were serious about getting them in. Therefore, in this case, gun control does,t work, unless you look particularly shifty. And we can't deny we don't have gun crime in the UK. We can't deny it's not easy to get hold of guns. Last year my mates brother (at the age of 16) got convicted of possessing a gun. However he won't be inside long, and he'll soon be back on the streets, but that's a different issue. Now, i don't live in America, and have never visitied the country, therefore feel free to correct me, but from what i can gather it is a country where guns are readily available. Whoever you are. There lies the problem. Now it'll seem like i'm going to contradict myself but bear with me. OK so you bring in gun control laws. How are you going to stop people buying them? Like drug dealers, you have gun dealers. Therefore it would be impossible. Close the borders? Implausible. Check every vehicule which comes into the country? Unpolicable. Therefore you have a problem. Which has no real answer. IMO America has passed the point of no return. All you can hope to do is have better armed police marksmen, who, especially in the UK, are not made to feel guilty after a split second decision Yes if they shoot the wrong person, it's sad, but imagine they don't shoot and people die? Surely thats worse? My uncle is in the police special unit, London, UK The normal police don't want to carry guns. Therefore you must have trained marksman. Expensive, no? But better pay money to have good marksmen and armed response units, than throw money at border control. Therefore, yes tighter restrictions would be a) unpolicable and b) wastes of public money and c) the criminals will know the police are on to them. And they will get smart. So instead bring in legislations which involve more armed marskmen, who are better trained and better equiped, and although that won't solve the problem, it'll be a darnsite better than bringing in tighter restrictions. Well, there you go. Feel free to shout and chastise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Would it work to equip the police with tranquilizer guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cactoblasta Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tasers seem to work all right. But if someone's pointing a gun at another person it's better not to take the chance. I mean, if you decide to carry a gun you're basically asking to get killed, so it's entirely your fault if the police shoot you. It's that whole escalation of weaponry/commensurate force thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam en france Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tasers seem to work all right. But if someone's pointing a gun at another person it's better not to take the chance. I mean, if you decide to carry a gun you're basically asking to get killed, so it's entirely your fault if the police shoot you. It's that whole escalation of weaponry/commensurate force thing. OK bit of info here. Tasers are one-shot weapons, therefore the margin for error is very small, and as long as the criminals know the officer in front of them could miss and then have know way of stopping the criminal, or know the police don't have a shoot to kill policy... why would they be worried about carrying a gun? I mean, whos going to stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike milly Posted November 24, 2006 Author Share Posted November 24, 2006 Thank you all for your contribution. I have one last bit of information for you. I have a link here that I would like you to read and comment on. It is about the swiss. You should be able to figure where I stand in this arguement, this is my two cents about guns and crime as I agree with it wholeheartedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landsknecht Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Tasers seem to work all right. A good amount of people have died from being tased, mainly injured and the sick though. The problem with tasers is that they are called "non-lethal," which causes the cops to over use them. From what I can tell, cops are abusing their authority in general, just watch a couple episodes for Cops objectively. But anyways, back to gun control. I am against gun control, because the criminals will get illegal guns and us civilians are left defenseless because the cops cannot be everywhere. Illegal guns being smuggled into this country is pretty common, we actually caught the Chinese running the port in Long Beach smuggling in AK-47s (If requested, I'll dig up that article). In my opinion, I think we just got lucky there, and those people in that ring did that before. Also, lax gun controls laws can act as a deterrent. A robber might think twice before breaking into a home if he thinks he might be shot themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 What's that, Mr. Data Table? You want in on the action? State & Number of Violent Crimes per 100,000 for Year of 2005 & Gun Control StatusNorth Dakota & 098.2 & May-IssueMaine & 112.2 & Shall-IssueVermont & 119.7 & UnrestrictedNew Hampshire & 132.0 & Shall-IssueSouth Dakota & 175.7 & Shall-IssueUtah & 227.2 & Shall-IssueWyoming & 230.1 & Shall-IssueWisconsin & 241.5 & No-IssueRhode Island & 251.2 & May-IssueHawaii & 255.1 & May-IssueIdaho & 256.8 & Shall-IssueKentucky & 266.8 & Shall-IssueWest Virginia & 272.8 & Shall-IssueConnecticut & 274.5 & May-IssueMississippi & 278.4 & Shall-IssueMontana & 281.5 & Shall-IssueVirginia & 282.8 & Shall-IssueOregon & 286.8 & Shall-IssueNebraska & 287.0 & Shall-IssueIowa & 291.3 & May-IssueMinnesota & 297.0 & Shall-IssueIndiana & 323.7 & Shall-IssueWashington & 345.8 & Shall-IssueOhio & 351.3 & Shall-IssueNew Jersey & 354.7 & May-IssueKansas & 387.4 & Shall-IssueColorado & 396.5 & Shall-IssuePennsylvania & 424.5 & Shall-IssueAlabama & 431.7 & May-IssueNew York & 445.8 & May-IssueGeorgia & 448.9 & Shall-IssueMassachusetts & 456.9 & May-IssueNorth Carolina & 468.1 & Shall-IssueOklahoma & 508.6 & Shall-IssueArizona & 513.2 & Shall-IssueMissouri & 525.4 & Shall-IssueCalifornia & 526.3 & May-IssueArkansas & 527.5 & Shall-IssueTexas & 529.7 & Shall-IssueIllinois & 551.5 & No-IssueMichigan & 552.1 & Shall-IssueLouisiana & 594.4 & Shall-IssueNevada & 606.8 & Shall-IssueAlaska & 631.9 & UnrestrictedDelaware & 632.1 & May-IssueNew Mexico & 702.2 & Shall-IssueMaryland & 703.0 & May-IssueFlorida & 708.0 & Shall-IssueTennessee & 752.8 & Shall-IssueSouth Carolina & 761.1 & Shall-Issue Oh my... Could this possibly mean that people whe commit violent crimes have motivations much more complex than "because nobody's going to stop me"? Could it mean that to reduce crime, we need to institute actual social change instead of just handing out guns to random people in hope that they'll do the government's job for them and put their lives on the line to catch criminals (or, far more likely, kill them without any trial)? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be it. People who commit violent crimes must do so because they're just bad people, and that's what they do. I bet Satan has something to do with it, too! Fetch me a gun and an exorcist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike milly Posted November 29, 2006 Author Share Posted November 29, 2006 First, the question was not about motive, but whether or not having more gun control around did deter crime. Second, only Peregrine advocated killing criminals, and no one said to hand out random guns. Third, bringing Satan into the mix is not constructive, and unless I completly misread the rules I believe that all religious debate is banned on this forum. Now to your data table. It does not say how many guns were sold, nor how many of said guns were used in a crime, so your date is flawed. Thank you for trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landsknecht Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Now to your data table. It does not say how many guns were sold, nor how many of said guns were used in a crime, so your date is flawed. Thank you for trying. May I also add that there are more factors involving what causes crime than just guns. I have also seen a data table involving international victimization rates, and counties with tougher gun control laws (i.e. Britain) had a generally higher rate. This is based on percent of population victimized by crime in other words the Crime Rate. Australia 4.1England and Wales 3.6Scotland 3.4Canada 3.4Finland 3.2Poland 2.8N. Ireland 2.4Denmark 2.3France 2.2Sweden 2.2Switzerland 2.1Netherlands 2.0USA 1.9Belgium 1.8Spain 1.5Portugal 1.4Japan .4 Source: Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001 I guess we all can just through statistics all day, Penn and Teller had a good episode of BullSh*t! (NOTE: name censored to comply with rules) about how numbers can be toyed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.