Ugh this is so dumb.
The 'Gun-debate' has turned into a debate much akin to the 'Atheism vs. Christianity' debate. People just can't be "won over". So actually, it's not a debate.
I want guns myself but I don't want everyone to have guns.
To the people that don't want ANY guns: GROW THE FUCK UP.
We have extremely strict weapon laws in Denmark, but are the fucking muslim gangs still shooting at each other with guns? Yep.
Stricter weapon law will not deter another school shooting. Only the proper care and psychological screening can help prevent it even a little bit.
gun control has seemed to have stopped mass shootings down here in nz :v
if you or anyone in your immediate family has a history of violence or mental issues you can be denied the privilege to even own a bolt action rifle or weapon of the sort, let alone pistols and semi-auto rifles (automatics and any semi auto with a bigger clip than 10rds or a pistol grip are banned full stop)
it's a reasonable method of gun control and I like it :v:
if people are going to kill people they're gonna fucking do it regardless of law.
[QUOTE=Corewarp3;40451010]Ugh this is so dumb.
The 'Gun-debate' has turned into a debate much akin to the 'Atheism vs. Christianity' debate. People just can't be "won over". So actually, it's not a debate.
I want guns myself but I don't want everyone to have guns.
To the people that don't want ANY guns: GROW THE FUCK UP.
We have extremely strict weapon laws in Denmark, but are the fucking muslim gangs still shooting at each other with guns? Yep.
Stricter weapon law will not deter another school shooting. Only the proper care and psychological screening can help prevent it even a little bit.[/QUOTE]
Did you watch the first video, its actually pretty factual despite making fun of people like you. It worked extremely well in Australia, there was hella resistance to it and guess what? 15 years later no one gives a fuck. If you want to shoot you can shoot. If you want to hunt, you can hunt. If you need to kill kangaroos because they are destroying your farm and punching your stupid redneck kids, you can shoot some fucking kangaroos.
0 Massacres since 96.
I like how one argument against gun control is that it takes a long time to implement!! If something takes a long time to do, even if it might be very important, just don't do it... they might as well say "We should have never gone to the moon"...
[QUOTE=Laferio;40451046]if people are going to kill people they're gonna fucking do it regardless of law.[/QUOTE]
so why should we make it as easy as possible
Seeing this actually gave me more of an opinion about it. I used to think it didn't really matter either way because criminals would get guns regardless, but seeing that it worked well in Aus made me more pro-gun control.
What a great video, very true, guns kill people, they were designed for that. Why would we need to own mass murder tools ?
Just like slavery, civil rights and homophobia America will eventually get past its gun culture. The only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good politicians doing what's best for society.
For my stance on this issue, Gun Control only works for me if its handled the right way, though I can pretty safely say just banning every single gun dosent solve the whole thing, mainly because people will find ways to get around it, and the problem just gets worse. A good way to treat gun control right now would be fair psych evaluation to make sure he isnt crazy.
Though, to be honest, I can imagine a future where there will be failsafes in civilian-issued guns that will activate when someone tries to shoot a person, cause the gun to jam, and maybe even alert police, and will probably be hard to remove.
[QUOTE=Deep;40452769]Australia had very little gun homicide in the first place, it was steadily going down and what they did changed absolutely nothing except maybe for reduced suicides by gun.
It's a terrible example of "gun control working".[/QUOTE]
You know what'd be useful for gun control? Mandatory background checks when buying weapons.
america is the only country where someone can kill huge amounts of people with a tool specifically designed for that purpose and after the fact discussing banning or regulating the use of said tool is a taboo subject
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;40453031]america is the only country where someone can kill huge amounts of people with a tool specifically designed for that purpose and after the fact discussing banning or regulating the use of said tool is a taboo subject[/QUOTE]
It's disturbing that owning an actual gun is considered less "dangerous" by politicans than just playing a game with a gun in it.
America is weird.
Yes we are. I do have to say though there is a difference between the two as they are a waterlocked country. If weapons are illegal, the criminals will most likely still get them.
On the other hand, it will be much harder for those who wish to go on a homicidal rampage to do it as well.
I don't get why facepunch is so pro guns. In every thread about this everyone is all "Fuck that man, guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's absurd, even if a gun ban "wouldn't change anything, and everyone would still have guns" it would still be a step in the right direction. Nobody needs guns, guns were made for one reason, to kill.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;40452671]so why should we make it as easy as possible[/QUOTE]
Everyone should just get a kill button installed on the back of their head.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;40453031]america is the only country where someone can kill huge amounts of people with a tool specifically designed for that purpose and after the fact discussing banning or regulating the use of said tool is a taboo subject[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of this:
[video=youtube;zEVPSfJIQ84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEVPSfJIQ84[/video]
Even IF it's horribly biased.
[QUOTE=Gump;40453545]I don't get why facepunch is so pro guns. In every thread about this everyone is all "Fuck that man, guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's absurd, even if a gun ban "wouldn't change anything, and everyone would still have guns" it would still be a step in the right direction. Nobody needs guns, guns were made for one reason, to kill.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever considered the fact that one can use a firearm for reasons other than assaulting innocents, for example protecting innocents from assaults?
[QUOTE=Fhux;40453770]Have you ever considered the fact that one can use a firearm for reasons other than assaulting innocents, for example protecting innocents from assaults?[/QUOTE]
That's a poor argument in favour of gun ownership. [URL="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html"]Especially considering there is very little evidence to support the suggestion that firearms have prevented more innocent deaths than they have caused them.[/URL] Pest control would be a better one to mention.
[editline]29th April 2013[/editline]
Additionally, the notion that gun violence was already falling in Australia is misguided. There is a clear change in the rate of decay of violence after the introduction of the strict control laws.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40453830]That's a poor argument in favour of gun ownership. [URL="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html"]Especially considering there is very little evidence to support the suggestion that firearms have prevented more innocent deaths than they have caused them.[/URL] Pest control would be a better one to mention.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to see a better study on this, as the least reported annual DGUs that I can find is from the National Crime Victimization Survey, reporting about 65,000 of them. As for how many lives those saved, the only number I can find is 15.6%. That would be about 10,000 lives, not counting the deterring factor that civilians with guns carry with them.
Another thing to consider is that around 95% of homicides by firearms are gang related. How about taking a closer look at that problem, before you go about disarming the victims?
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/gangs.png[/img]
Taken from [url=http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf]Homicide trends in the United States[/url].
I've already learned there's no point in debating gun control here at all.
Since 90% of the people for it are from other countries that have never allowed guns and think people in the US just go around shooting each other for fun, it's a pointless debate.
They have no understanding of the situation just like I wouldn't with any affairs specific to any European countries.
[editline]28th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40453830]That's a poor argument in favour of gun ownership. [URL="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html"]Especially considering there is very little evidence to support the suggestion that firearms have prevented more innocent deaths than they have caused them.[/URL] Pest control would be a better one to mention.
[editline]29th April 2013[/editline]
Additionally, the notion that gun violence was already falling in Australia is misguided. There is a clear change in the rate of decay of violence after the introduction of the strict control laws.[/QUOTE]
Most people defending themselves with guns don't right away start shooting to kill. Most times if a criminal just knows it's in your possession, that's enough.
I've driven away people intruding on my own property before with warning shots. So who knows, I could have saved my own life and not even known it.
[QUOTE=Fhux;40454079]I'd love to see a better study on this, as the least reported annual DGUs that I can find is from the National Crime Victimization Survey, reporting about 65,000 of them. As for how many lives those saved, the only number I can find is 15.6%. That would be about 10,000 lives, not counting the deterring factor that civilians with guns carry with them.
Another thing to consider is that around 95% of homicides by firearms are gang related. How about taking a closer look at that problem, before you go about disarming the victims?[url=http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf]Homicide trends in the United States[/url].[/QUOTE]
Firstly I'd point out that the 65,000 are all reports of a deterring factor from civilians carrying guns with them, so it is counting the deterring factor. Those ~10 000 are therefore less lives saved than those lost in that year ([URL="http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck"]which I believe was 1992?[/URL] obviously the bit from the National survey is the applicable part, not the stuff about Kleck).
As for addressing the problem of gang violence, stricter gun laws [I]is[/I] a step in reducing gang violence. There are already policies out there to help reduce gang violence and stricter gun control would only compliment it. You can do both at once.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;40454171]I've already learned there's no point in debating gun control here at all.
Since 90% of the people for it are from other countries that have never allowed guns and think people in the US just go around shooting each other for fun, it's a pointless debate.
They have no understanding of the situation just like I wouldn't with any affairs specific to any European countries.
[editline]28th April 2013[/editline]
Most people defending themselves with guns don't right away start shooting to kill. Most times if a criminal just knows it's in your possession, that's enough.
I've driven away people intruding on my own property before with warning shots. So who knows, I could have saved my own life and not even known it.[/QUOTE]
I'm from Australia, we used to allow guns, now we don't. I don't believe Americans shoot each other for fun. There is a serious gun violence problem in the USA, however, and when there are relatively straight forward solutions to the matter it is confusing to see them rejected.
I never suggested that that is what people who own firearms do, shoot to kill straight away. Of course knowing someone has a gun can be a deterrence. However it can also escalate the matter, if the potential criminal interprets the brandishing of a firearm as an aggressive act and acts aggressively in response.
Your anecdote I can't comment on. You are right, I don't know the situation first hand. I can only comment on numbers. However in my experience numbers often tell a better picture than personal stories.
[QUOTE=Fhux;40454079]I'd love to see a better study on this, as the least reported annual DGUs that I can find is from the National Crime Victimization Survey, reporting about 65,000 of them. As for how many lives those saved, the only number I can find is 15.6%. That would be about 10,000 lives, not counting the deterring factor that civilians with guns carry with them.
Another thing to consider is that around 95% of homicides by firearms are gang related. How about taking a closer look at that problem, before you go about disarming the victims?
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/gangs.png[/img]
Taken from [url=http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf]Homicide trends in the United States[/url].[/QUOTE]
Only with gang related violence it usually takes two to tango. Yes guns can be used to protect innocents, but in making it less likely for the offenders to have a fire are you diminish the need for the victims to carry firearms. The effect of a ban would be gradual, but it would send the right message, and it would do no harm.
I also rated your last post dumb because you only supported my initial statement which was guns were made to kill/inflict damage on others.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40454301]Firstly I'd point out that the 65,000 are all reports of a deterring factor from civilians carrying guns with them, so it is counting the deterring factor. Those ~10 000 are therefore less lives saved than those lost in that year ([URL="http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck"]which I believe was 1992?[/URL] obviously the bit from the National survey is the applicable part, not the stuff about Kleck).
As for addressing the problem of gang violence, stricter gun laws [I]is[/I] a step in reducing gang violence. There are already policies out there to help reduce gang violence and stricter gun control would only compliment it. You can do both at once.[/QUOTE]
Yes, if the lowest numbers found possible are correct, then murders with firearms, including illegally obtained ones, would be higher than lives saved by legally obtained weapons. I don't know about you, but saving billions in property and thousands upon thousands of civilians from rape, robbery and other kinds of violent crime, sound like it's worth it to me.
There is no proven correlation between the amount of firearms and suicide, violent crime and homicide in the US. While the number of firearms has been steadily increasing, those three things have been steadily falling.
[QUOTE=Gump;40454381]
I also rated your last post dumb because you only supported my initial statement which was guns were made to kill/inflict damage on others.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but what something originally was made for does not have anything to do with what we use it for today.
By the way, isn't this what the [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1232950]mass debate thread[/url] should be used for?
[QUOTE=Fhux;40453770]Have you ever considered the fact that one can use a firearm for reasons other than assaulting innocents, for example protecting innocents from assaults?[/QUOTE]
whoa
dude I've been doing it all the wrong way
[QUOTE=Fhux;40455117]Yes, if the lowest numbers found possible are correct, then murders with firearms, including illegally obtained ones, would be higher than lives saved by legally obtained weapons. I don't know about you, but saving billions in property and thousands upon thousands of civilians from rape, robbery and other kinds of violent crime, sound like it's worth it to me.
There is no proven correlation between the amount of firearms and suicide, violent crime and homicide in the US. While the number of firearms has been steadily increasing, those three things have been steadily falling.
By the way, isn't this what the [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1232950]mass debate thread[/url] should be used for?[/QUOTE]
On the lowest numbers alone there are about 3x more lives lost. We'd need more statistics to clarify if that hasn't changed, considering those numbers were from 1992.
What I have seen on graphs for firearm related death is little to no change over 20 or more years. The biggest change occuring in the wake of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban where gun deaths started to drop (barely significantly). They began to increase when the ban expired (barely significantly). The overall rates of rape, robbery and violent crime shouldn't be what you are looking at, it should be gun related.
I think Australia, which is culturally very similar to the USA, is a good example that you can remove large amounts of firearms and not increase levels of rape, robbery and violent crime.
The debate thread is there, but I suppose this is sparked from the video. So to bring back to topic, how can you watch those videos and think gun control doesn't work? Maybe they're comedic, but they aren't making things up.
[editline]29th April 2013[/editline]
Oh, pardon, when I said gun deaths started to drop barely significantly, I take that back, they dropped by 5000 over four years. Then increased by around 2000 after the ban was lifted.
I don't know why I said barely significantly.
It's hilarious how a thread that has a video that makes fun of these little debates on FP and the thread quickly turns into one.
Facepunch never changes
[QUOTE=avon43;40455275]It's hilarious how a thread that has a video that makes fun of these little debates on FP and the thread quickly turns into one.
Facepunch never changes[/QUOTE]
This was actually my fault I believe...
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40455303]This was actually my fault I believe...[/QUOTE]
Not really, I would say it was this wonderful poster
[QUOTE=Corewarp3;40451010]Ugh this is so dumb.
The 'Gun-debate' has turned into a debate much akin to the 'Atheism vs. Christianity' debate. People just can't be "won over". So actually, it's not a debate.
I want guns myself but I don't want everyone to have guns.
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know why this shit isnt staying in the mass debate thread.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
