[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39714032]Yes, but the risk is still so small that people think that spending all that money and time on a firearm and knowing to properly use one isn't worth the effort.
Gun ownership for self-defence is only going to decline as violent crime rates drop (something that's been well recorded for the past few decades).[/QUOTE]
There are other merits to owning a firearm, it's quite fun hitting targets with pieces of metal launched from tiny explosions in your hands. It's therapeutic and fun with friends or family. If you have a problem with that we might as well ban archery or any other activity involving hitting a target.
[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39714638]There are other merits to owning a firearm, it's quite fun hitting targets with pieces of metal launched from tiny explosions in your hands. It's therapeutic and fun with friends or family. If you have a problem with that we might as well ban archery or any other activity involving hitting a target.[/QUOTE]
Except you missed my point.
My point is that people are using firearms for self-defense less, simply because violence is on a decline.
[QUOTE=download;39708065]"Guns in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Prove it[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States]Wikipedia[/url] cites a 2000 paper titled [url=http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf]Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000:[/url]
Total Firearm deaths: 28,663
Suicide: 16,586
Homicide: 10,801
Accident: 776
Unknown cause: 230
Legal intervention: 270
Let's throw out unknown causes and legal intervention, which is a situation where an altercation with police at an incident results in a law enforcement official, suspect, or bystander being killed. Immediately, we have death from firearms resulting in 16,586 suicides and 776 accidental deaths each year, together outweighing homicides 17,362 to 10,801. These statistics don't take into account how many of those ten thousand homicides are the result of a household gun being used against another family member, but I'll ignore that, because homicides still made up ~6,500 less firearm deaths that year.
According to [url=http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full]a study[/url] by the Oxford Journals, storing your guns doesn't even have an effect; people with all their guns locked up were just as at risk of homicide or suicide as people with one or more unlocked guns. And both groups were at "significantly greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide and firearm suicide than those without guns in the home."
I also came across [url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_3]this article[/url] which talks about data on the use of guns in self-defense, which comes from (a) police reports, (b) surveys that ask directly about self-defense gun use, and (c) surveys that ask about self-defense gun use only after respondents report that someone attempted to commit a crime against them. I thought it was interesting (admittedly with a small sample size) that over a 4-month period in Atlanta, there were 198 cases of unwanted entry into a single-family dwelling [I]when someone was at home.[/I] In 6 of the 198 cases, an invader obtained the victim's gun. In only 3 cases was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense. According to private surveys that the article cites, more people report a self-defense gun use against an animal than against a human. Also, criminal court judges from across the U.S. read the 35 descriptions of the reported self-defense firearm uses in those two national surveys and found that, even if description of the event was accurate, in most of the cases, the self-defense gun use was probably illegal. Many were arguments that escalated into gun use.
The article goes on to say that "overall, the limited data on self-defense gun use suggest that (a) genuine self-defense gun use is rare, (b) there are many ways that people defend themselves without a gun, and (c) many of these other methods may be as effective as self-defense gun use in preventing injury." It's actually a very interesting article, and I recommend at least reading the concluding paragraphs, because there's a lot of good insight into the matter of using firearms in self-defense.
[url=http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home]Another article[/url] talks about various aspects of guns in the home, but on suicides says "an average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns each day between 2003 and 2007. In fact, more Americans killed themselves with guns during those years than with all other methods combined. Gun owners and their families are not more suicidal than non-gun-owners, research shows. Nor are they more likely to have a history of depression or other mental health problems. But they — and their families — are at significantly increased risk of successfully taking their lives with a gun. The reason: Guns are more lethal than other methods."
I truly don't think having firearms in the home has a net positive effect. It's at least very, very debatable; debatable enough that calling someone who chooses not to own a firearm irresponsible is totally unfair.
[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39708158]Because the majority of America can afford to live in a posh gated community? Gated communities likely have guards at the gates or on the ready, they'd probably get there faster than police if there was an unlikely break in. Whether there is an armed guard nearby or an armed homeowner, there's still a weapon nearby, if not a gun a tazer or baton, some sort of weapon.[/quote]
Thank you for agreeing with me about context then? That's why someone who lives in a nice community with low crime is less at risk of home invasion and probably has less need for a firearm because of it. And those people that can't afford to live somewhere that doesn't have a bad crime problem, they probably can't afford a gun, either.
[quote]Also this just in, "guns shoot things"? Obviously if your gun is being used in a shooting it wasn't stored properly, which is a part of being responsible.[/quote]
I addressed this above.
[quote]If you can't afford it then you're not ready at that time, just like owning a vehicle, don't buy a car if you can't pay for insurance and service. Don't buy a gun if you can't store and lock it, and train your family.[/quote]
Once again, thank you for agreeing with me about context, and repeating exactly what I said. I was trying to point out to you that it is unfair to label everyone who doesn't own a firearm irresponsible, because there are people who can't afford these things. Whether or not they need them, and whether storing and locking it actually helps, is still questionable.
[quote]As for depressed or suicidal folk, they may not be themselves obviously and not in control of their actions. I've been there myself and It certainly would not have been responsible for me to go buy a gun to look at while I contemplated dark things![/quote]
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Accessibility of firearms to depressed/suicidal people is a problem whether or not they were suicidal when they bought it. They can still become depressed down the road, and it's still dangerous.
[quote]Anyone who needs to swear in a debate has no say in MY LIFE.[/quote]
I'm one of the level-headed debaters here, and I wasn't swearing at you, I dropped one F-bomb for emphasis on the obvious crime rate in downtown Baltimore versus elsewhere.
[quote]Obviously you won't die without a gun but it would be foolish to go around your life without some sort of protection.[/quote]
Except when the odds are low enough, perhaps dropping a few hundred dollars on a firearm when weighing all the factors isn't worth it. Buying flood insurance when you live in Arizona is protection, but it might not be necessary.
[quote]And to me, if used appropriately and safely a gun is efficient. My argument still stands. Thank you.[/QUOTE]
Anything used appropriately and safely is going to be used appropriately and safely. The problem is that firearms are far too often used inappropriately and unsafely.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39708695]Doesn't matter if its low. Precaution.[/QUOTE]
It does matter when you might not have a lot of money and you're introducing new potential risks by having one.
[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39714638]There are other merits to owning a firearm, it's quite fun hitting targets with pieces of metal launched from tiny explosions in your hands. It's therapeutic and fun with friends or family. If you have a problem with that we might as well ban archery or any other activity involving hitting a target.[/QUOTE]
You can enjoy target shooting and hunting without having to own your own firearm.
To address dying of a firearm homicide, the main citation, and indeed it's in that article, is a flawed study done by Arthur Kellermann, who originally posed that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the home than an intruder. Kellermann's study was notorious for not providing appropriate raw data for proper peer-review, but following peer review, it was found that that number was completely bogus, the firearm in the home was inconsequential to the murder, the person was killed in 86% of cases by a firearm brought into the home.
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2320372757/[/url]
Here are several papers and notes that debunk Kellermann, as well as on his wikipedia page it mentions the criticisms:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann[/url]
[url]http://www.crimefree.org.za/Role-players/Lobby/Junk-science/kellerma.htm[/url]
[url]http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html[/url]
Having a gun in the home does not mean it is more likely to be used to kill someone in that home, that is an erroneous claim, and the data about the defensive uses of firearms in many of these studies designed to demonize guns is also erroneous, it ignores the defensive use of firearms outside of the home.
As well, owning a gun for shooting and hunting is magnitudes cheaper than renting one all the time, not to mention the reliability of it all. To say you don't need your own gun for hunting or competitive shooting is to be ignorant completely of the requirements of it. You tune your gun to yourself, you maintain it, you know what ammo it likes and how often it's been used. Renting a gun is expensive, and it's a crapshoot, you may get a lemon and it'll ruin your whole day at the range, not to mention that there aren't many places that rent out guns for hunting due mostly to liability reasons because the person could still take that rented gun on a shooting spree.
There are million of lives saved by the defensive use of firearms every year in America, and many criticisms arise from the questionable methods used to acquire low data numbers, as well as the fact that many of these studies were done in the '90s, and since then concealed-carry has become more widespread, and defensive use of firearms has gone up because they're more readily and legally available for use.
[url]http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html[/url]
I found through my own research that many of the times, they ignore events though could have been lethal in which attackers fled without any shots fired when they discovered their victim was armed
[editline]26th February 2013[/editline]
They also love throwing suicides in the mix, as if owning a gun makes you more likely to commit suicide. Yes, if you own a gun, you're more likely to kill yourself [I]with a gun[/I], but it doesn't affect the overall suicide rate (and why should it?)
[editline]26th February 2013[/editline]
[quote]In 6 of the 198 cases, an invader obtained the victim's gun. In only 3 cases was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense.[/quote]
I imagine by use the gun, they mean fire it. Only the stupidest of criminals will risk their life over some stolen goods, most will flee
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39718295]To address dying of a firearm homicide, the main citation, and indeed it's in that article, is a flawed study done by Arthur Kellermann, who originally posed that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the home than an intruder. Kellermann's study was notorious for not providing appropriate raw data for proper peer-review, but following peer review, it was found that that number was completely bogus, the firearm in the home was inconsequential to the murder, the person was killed in 86% of cases by a firearm brought into the home.[/quote]
Well I quoted several articles, which one(s) cite Kellermann's study? I know his is garbage, I thought I had successfully avoided quoting any articles that used it as a reference. I made sure all of them included many references to various studies.
[quote]Having a gun in the home does not mean it is more likely to be used to kill someone in that home, that is an erroneous claim, and the data about the defensive uses of firearms in many of these studies designed to demonize guns is also erroneous, it ignores the defensive use of firearms outside of the home.[/quote]
A gun in the home may not be used to kill someone in that home, but you have to take into account that it could not only be used by one family member to kill another, but for someone to commit suicide with it, accidentally kill someone with it, or be used in a homicide outside the home against someone unrelated. I don't think it's an erroneous claim, and I don't think it's necessarily fair to say any study is 'designed' to demonize firearms, because that results in studies being thrown out for supporting one side. They should certainly be peer-reviewed and fact-checked. Also, one or more of the articles I linked did mention the defensive use of firearms outside of the home, but it also stated that brandishing a firearm upon being assaulted is much more likely to result in injury to the victim than most other forms of resistance. The only ones ranked worse were yelling and something else I can't remember this second. It did say that firearms were one of the more successful methods of protecting your personal property, but not necessarily your health.
[quote]As well, owning a gun for shooting and hunting is magnitudes cheaper than renting one all the time, not to mention the reliability of it all. To say you don't need your own gun for hunting or competitive shooting is to be ignorant completely of the requirements of it. You tune your gun to yourself, you maintain it, you know what ammo it likes and how often it's been used. Renting a gun is expensive, and it's a crapshoot, you may get a lemon and it'll ruin your whole day at the range, not to mention that there aren't many places that rent out guns for hunting due mostly to liability reasons because the person could still take that rented gun on a shooting spree.[/quote]
We have talked about this before in the thread, but I maintain that if it noticeably increased public safety, I would (and I believe everyone should) be willing to sacrifice some extra bucks to practice shooting as a hobby in return for that increased safety. It is not and I am not completely ignorant of the requirements of hunting and shooting. I am certain that one would be able to customize a rental firearm exactly to their taste, and being such an expensive and dangerous hobby, routine maintenance and cleaning of rental guns should be required. Obviously if your gun is constantly jamming then exchange it, but employees renting out firearms would be required to be knowledgeable and capable of keeping them in good shape. I also mentioned that renting firearms out for hunting wouldn't be a problem because it could easily be required to equip all rental firearms with tracking devices.
[quote]There are million of lives saved by the defensive use of firearms every year in America, and many criticisms arise from the questionable methods used to acquire low data numbers, as well as the fact that many of these studies were done in the '90s, and since then concealed-carry has become more widespread, and defensive use of firearms has gone up because they're more readily and legally available for use.
[URL]http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
Okay, those are both studies being hosted on very pro-gun websites, and one of them was published in 1995, which you said makes it less relevant. I think "millions of lives" being saved by defensive use of firearms is very gross exaggeration. And if we can't go by the NCVS statistics, and raw numbers on firearms deaths aren't deep enough, then what exactly are we supposed to go off of?
[QUOTE=download;39718336]I found through my own research that many of the times, they ignore events though could have been lethal in which attackers fled without any shots fired when they discovered their victim was armed[/quote]
I made sure to specifically quote papers that included those instances in their analyses of the self-defense data.
[quote]They also love throwing suicides in the mix, as if owning a gun makes you more likely to commit suicide. Yes, if you own a gun, you're more likely to kill yourself [I]with a gun[/I], but it doesn't affect the overall suicide rate (and why should it?)[/quote]
It actually does make you more likely to commit suicide though. You are right, of course you're going to be more likely to kill yourself with a gun if you own one, but gun owners are significantly more likely to successfully commit suicide than people without guns in their homes because guns are so much more effective a method of suicide. Homes with guns in them have higher suicide rates in them than those without simply because the guy who tried overdosing has a much better chance of survival than the guy who bites a barrel.
[quote]I imagine by use the gun, they mean fire it. Only the stupidest of criminals will risk their life over some stolen goods, most will flee[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know if that included victims that didn't shoot home invaders. I still presented plenty of other statistics that I think back what I was saying, but I'd be willing to concede that one, it's a small sample anyway.
The Oxford Journal cites Kellermann several times.
The sporting uses of guns are actually some of the safest sports in the world, there are very few deaths when out hunting responsibly, and next to none on a shooting range. It is not a dangerous set of hobbies, the sporting use of guns has nothing to do with the criminal use of guns.
It is completely ridiculous since many of these competitive guns are actually custom fit to the person, which costs thousands of dollars and many hours of work designing, fitting, moulding, and building to fit their needs, it's simply impossible for a gun range to be able to appropriately facilitate Olympic-level shooting. As for a tracking device, that still doesn't prevent the gun from being used in a shooting. And the magnitudes of expense are immense, not a few bucks here or there, but it can be in the order of tens of thousands of dollars per year more expensive for someone who shoots actively to only use rental guns versus their own guns and their own ammo, not to mention the competitive shooters who tune their loads for their particular gun by reloading their ammo, and hunters who do the same. This, of course, has not even touched on collecting guns, which is to preserve an important and incredibly interesting part of the planet's history.
As well, there are many sheriffs who will recommend people take a CCW course and carry a gun, because they know their department cannot respond in time.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/sheriff-chuck-wright-_n_1069432.html[/url]
[url]http://www.whiteville.com/news/gun-permit-applications-increase-here/article_a6d86e44-695d-11e2-9d4c-001a4bcf887a.html[/url]
[url]http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/page/content.detail/id/552610/State-representative-talks-to-local-GOP.html?nav=5005[/url]
Then there's the fact that there is no definitive, substantial evidence to suggest that crime or gun deaths would be lowered by prohibiting the private ownership of firearms or mandating centralized storage, not to mention that then creates a shopping-mall for criminals to steal firearms from. The idea of centralized storage is also in contradiction of the 2nd Amendment, it deprives you of your right to keep and to bear arms, and it's also in contradiction of the 4th amendment to enact such a law. The vast majority of people would outright, and vocally, refuse to surrender their guns to a central storage facility, as they should, because central storage of firearms deprives them of their right to defend themselves with necessary force to protect their life, it deprives them of their right to keep and bear arms, the right to own property, and the relocation of all these guns would inevitably lead to an expensive, wasteful, and useless gun registry and contradict the right against unreasonable search and/or seizure to get them all to the facility. Nobody should have to surrender their guns to central storage, it won't accomplish anything, and violates at least 2 constitutional rights.
Yes, lets put ever gun in one place so they're easier to steal, that will work :downs:
You can't compare people downing a bottle of paracetamol to people who eat their gun. People who overdose are usually crying for attention, rather than outright trying to kill themselves. Where are people who eat their gun generally actually want to die.
[url]http://www.crisis.org.cn/UploadFile/ReadParty/Methods--lethality.pdf[/url]
This study is pretty good at showing the survivability of various methods. Drugs are 98% survivable, guns are 10%, hanging is 17%, drowning 20%, jumping in front of moving vehicles is 22%.
Most people know how lethal each of these are very well. They really aren't comparable. If you truly are that determined to die, you'll easily find another way that is just as lethal.
Furthermore, drugs made up 83% of cases, where as the truly lethal methods; hanging, shooting, downing, and jumping only made up 10%
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39719015]The Oxford Journal cites Kellermann several times.
The sporting uses of guns are actually some of the safest sports in the world, there are very few deaths when out hunting responsibly, and next to none on a shooting range. It is not a dangerous set of hobbies, the sporting use of guns has nothing to do with the criminal use of guns.[/QUOTE]
I see now that it does cite him twice, although the part of the article that I was talking about in my post doesn't use his research as a reference. And I know that recreational use of firearms produces very few deaths, that's why I think that even if it were made more expensive by renting out firearms, it should still be allowed. It's very easy to control that way and the people doing it generally know what they're doing. I don't have any problems of guns for sport.
[quote]It is completely ridiculous since many of these competitive guns are actually custom fit to the person, which costs thousands of dollars and many hours of work designing, fitting, moulding, and building to fit their needs, it's simply impossible for a gun range to be able to appropriately facilitate Olympic-level shooting. As for a tracking device, that still doesn't prevent the gun from being used in a shooting. And the magnitudes of expense are immense, not a few bucks here or there, but it can be in the order of tens of thousands of dollars per year more expensive for someone who shoots actively to only use rental guns versus their own guns and their own ammo, not to mention the competitive shooters who tune their loads for their particular gun by reloading their ammo, and hunters who do the same.[/quote]
I know that it would be a major inconvenience for competitive shooters. In fact, best case scenario, I don't see why someone wouldn't be allowed to "own" their own firearm if it was kept in an armory at a shooting range or hunting park, and that way they would be able to still be comforted with the knowledge that it's theirs, no one else uses it, and it's customized how they like. It would still have to be equipped with a tracker (which you're right, they could use it in a shooting, but they couldn't go on a crazy rampage, because as soon as they leave the hunting area, the authorities would be alerted of their location.) I realize that even with privately-owned firearms being able to be kept at those armories that the hobby as a whole would still be more expensive, but again, it's a trade-off. At least people would still be able to practice the hobby.
[quote]This, of course, has not even touched on collecting guns, which is to preserve an important and incredibly interesting part of the planet's history.[/quote]
Unfortunately, private collectors wouldn't be able to own functional firearms. Museums would, and private collectors could still collect firearms, although they would have to be made to not work, which does suck. I don't dislike guns, I think they're fascinating. I just think that if gun control measures resulted in noticeably reduced violent crime rates, then it would be worth it.
[quote]Then there's the fact that there is no definitive, substantial evidence to suggest that crime or gun deaths would be lowered by prohibiting the private ownership of firearms or mandating centralized storage, not to mention that then creates a shopping-mall for criminals to steal firearms from.[/quote]
If we have a centralized storage such as an armory, not only can it be made extremely hard to break into, but we immediately know it's being broken into. And trust me, with an entire building full of firearms getting busted open, that thing will be under constant watch with a rapid response from authorities.
[quote]The idea of centralized storage is also in contradiction of the 2nd Amendment, it deprives you of your right to keep and to bear arms, and it's also in contradiction of the 4th amendment to enact such a law. The vast majority of people would outright, and vocally, refuse to surrender their guns to a central storage facility, as they should, because central storage of firearms deprives them of their right to defend themselves with necessary force to protect their life, it deprives them of their right to keep and bear arms, the right to own property, and the relocation of all these guns would inevitably lead to an expensive, wasteful, and useless gun registry and contradict the right against unreasonable search and/or seizure to get them all to the facility. Nobody should have to surrender their guns to central storage, it won't accomplish anything, and violates at least 2 constitutional rights.[/quote]
I have stated numerous times in this thread that I don't support an immediate, total confiscation of all privately-owned firearms in the U.S. It's implausible, and no one would respond well to it. I've even stated that I really don't know how much gun control should be enacted in America at all. However, please read [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1232950&p=39422715&viewfull=1#post39422715"]this post,[/URL] just the part about defense against tyranny. That was the first post I made in this thread, and it addresses the issue of the right to bear arms as a Constitutional amendment. You're also wrong in saying that it would violate the 4th amendment, it wouldn't be an illegal search and seizure if you are a registered gun owner and guns are made illegal.
[editline]25th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;39719099]Yes, lets put ever gun in one place so they're easier to steal, that will work :downs:[/QUOTE]
Yes, I was implying just laying some blankets out in a park and having everyone put all their guns on it so we know where they are :downs:
Why does it seem like you deliberately try to find a way to make me sound dumb when that clearly isn't at all what I'm saying?
[quote]You can't compare people downing a bottle of paracetamol to people who eat their gun. People who overdose are usually crying for attention, rather than outright trying to kill themselves. Where are people who eat their gun generally actually want to die.[/quote]
You're actually saying that people who shoot themselves didn't want help? How about we assume everyone wants help and that we try to help everyone, rather than saying "ahhh, if he didn't actually want to die he would have just posted on facebook about how he was gonna slash his wrists or something."
[quote]This study is pretty good at showing the survivability of various methods. Drugs are 98% survivable, guns are 10%, hanging is 17%, drowning 20%, jumping in front of moving vehicles is 22%.
Most people know how lethal each of these are very well. They really aren't comparable. If you truly are that determined to die, you'll easily find another way that is just as lethal.[/quote]
Obviously not, because the statistics show that the people with easy access to guns kill themselves more effectively than the people without access, who would then have to pump themselves up to hang, drown, or throw themselves in front of a car.
[quote]Furthermore, drugs made up 83% of cases, where as the truly lethal methods; hanging, shooting, downing, and jumping only made up 10%[/quote]
What about it?
The 4th protects against [i]unreasonable[/i] seizure, and indeed what you propose is entirely unreasonable, and it would rightly be net with mass non-compliance. The mandated installation of tracking devices on all guns would also be invasive and therefore illegal. As for your first post, neither the revolution in Libya nor Syria would be possible without the existence of firearms, in both cases the pen simply organized the swords.
Taking guns away from the law abiding will not keep them out of the hands of criminals. Raising the cost of the numerous hobbies involved in gun ownership discriminates against the poor, and as I've mentioned since all 50 states will, by the end of this year, allow concealed-carry, the prohibition of private gun ownership, an unconstitutional proposition, would deprive people of their right to defend themselves and their homes with a gun, because your proposition would still do nothi h about the criminal use of firearms because it, like many other ideas of gun control, ignores the criminal use of firearms and instead goes after the law-abiding citizens using firearms responsibly, because it's easier to legislate against people who will obey the law than people who won't, though it will accomplish nothing because it ignores those actually causing the problems.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39719172]
Yes, I was implying just laying some blankets out in a park and having everyone put all their guns on it so we know where they are :downs:
Why does it seem like you deliberately try to find a way to make me sound dumb when that clearly isn't at all what I'm saying?
[/quote]
Because the idea is incredibly silly? People break into military armouries all the time, security systems can be broken or circumnavigated, people can be blackmailed or threatened. What you've done is put every gun in one easy to access place. That's before the logistic and security nightmare or having one of these at every location where guns could be used.
Hows this? I'll use a rather large bank robbery as an example but replace money with guns:
Security guard goes on the night shift, replacing the day guard. As soon as the day guard is gone, he starts unloading the vault into a truck. Why has he done this? because some gang has his family at gunpoint and have demanded he empties the vault for them in exchange for his family. It happened before, and could be done again. Oh look, hundreds, if not thousands of firearms, are now in the hands of criminals, whereas previously they would have had to rob hundreds of houses, with no clue where those firearms are in the house, if the house has any at all, or if the owner is going to shoot at them
[quote]
You're actually saying that people who shoot themselves didn't want help? How about we assume everyone wants help and that we try to help everyone, rather than saying "ahhh, if he didn't actually want to die he would have just posted on facebook about how he was gonna slash his wrists or something."[/quote]
You don't seem to understand. Either you are trying to kill yourself because you actually want to die, or you are doing something incredibly risky because you want help from doctors/psychiatrists/family/whatever.
People who cry for help choose a method that's not likely to kill them (or will take long enough that the ambulance will get there in time), people who actually want to die generally choose a fool proof method (unless they are incredibly stupid) and do their best to stop others from interfering.
[quote]
Obviously not, because the statistics show that the people with easy access to guns kill themselves more effectively than the people without access, who would then have to pump themselves up to hang, drown, or throw themselves in front of a car.
What about it?[/QUOTE]
No, the stats only say people who use guns to kill themselves killed themselves more reliably. It says nothing about gun owners being more likely.
And what? People who cap themselves don't need to pump themselves up? That's ridiculous. You'd need to pump yourself up just as much to shoot yourself than to kick a chair out from underneath youself or jump off a bridge?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39721274]The 4th protects against [I]unreasonable[/I] seizure, and indeed what you propose is entirely unreasonable, and it would rightly be net with mass non-compliance.[/QUOTE]
You think it's unreasonable, but that doesn't mean it is. And you're right, with the gun culture in this country, it would be met with lots of resistance, something I already said I am aware of. I've never claimed to condone confiscating everyone's firearms. But do I think society would benefit more without them? Perhaps.
[quote]The mandated installation of tracking devices on all guns would also be invasive and therefore illegal.[/quote]
It wouldn't be invasive or illegal if they weren't privately owned firearms. Just deciding something is invasive doesn't make it illegal anyway. I'm sure you think the Patriot Act is pretty goddamn invasive.
[quote]As for your first post, neither the revolution in Libya nor Syria would be possible without the existence of firearms, in both cases the pen simply organized the swords.[/quote]
And if you read it again, I never said either happened without the existence of firearms, that doesn't make sense. I did say the pen organized the swords, those swords coming from the well-armed chunk of the military that joined the rebellion, as would happen in any other revolution with the right cause. I said that the initial revolutionaries, the private citizens, wouldn't need firearms because they wouldn't stand a chance against the military, and a large part of that military would join their just cause, giving them a real chance in the revolt.
[quote]Taking guns away from the law abiding will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.[/quote]
This is the one point that nobody can argue either way, because we don't know. You can't claim that as evidence to keep them though.
[quote]Raising the cost of the numerous hobbies involved in gun ownership discriminates against the poor,[/quote]
I want a new Dodge Dart, but unfortunately, money will always be an issue for everyone. Would less people be able to enjoy their firearms hobby? Yes. If it has a noticeable positive impact on violent crime though, then I'm sorry, but you can't argue people's lives are worth it.
[quote]an unconstitutional proposition,[/quote]
The Constitution was designed to be changed to stay relevant.
[quote]would deprive people of their right to defend themselves and their homes with a gun,[/quote]
There's quite a bit of evidence that says otherwise.
I'll get to download's post after work.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39722192]
The Constitution was designed to be changed to stay relevant.
[/QUOTE]
Then change it, before you do anything else
[QUOTE=download;39723655]Then change it, before you do anything else[/QUOTE]
Obviously?
[QUOTE=download;39721420]People break into military armouries all the time, security systems can be broken or circumnavigated, people can be blackmailed or threatened.[/quote]
[quote]It happened before, and could be done again.[/quote]
Examples? Of actual armories with sophisticated security being robbed. Usually law enforcement is more concerned with lethal weapons than with a bank's money, and I would expect response would be ridiculous.
[quote]What you've done is put every gun in one easy to access place.[/quote]
Easy to access, mhm. What I've actually done is put every gun in one highly secure facility and equipped every gun there with tracking devices, so even in the case of a robbery, we know where all the damn things are.
[quote]That's before the logistic and security nightmare or having one of these at every location where guns could be used.[/quote]
If all the thousands of McDonald's can have 3-person night crews, I'm pretty sure we can provide 2-person night crews at armories.
[quote]Hows this? I'll use a rather large bank robbery as an example but replace money with guns:
Security guard goes on the night shift, replacing the day guard. As soon as the day guard is gone, he starts unloading the vault into a truck. Why has he done this? because some gang has his family at gunpoint and have demanded he empties the vault for them in exchange for his family.[/quote]
Two guards per shift, or even if there's just one, all those guns are still equipped with handy-dandy tracking devices. As soon as large quantities of firearms start moving out of an armory when they aren't supposed to, you can expect a swift reaction from authorities, probably the national guard.
[quote]Oh look, hundreds, if not thousands of firearms, are now in the hands of criminals, whereas previously they would have had to rob hundreds of houses, with no clue where those firearms are in the house, if the house has any at all, or if the owner is going to shoot at them[/quote]
Oh look, no they aren't
[quote]You don't seem to understand. Either you are trying to kill yourself because you actually want to die, or you are doing something incredibly risky because you want help from doctors/psychiatrists/family/whatever. People who cry for help choose a method that's not likely to kill them (or will take long enough that the ambulance will get there in time), people who actually want to die generally choose a fool proof method (unless they are incredibly stupid) and do their best to stop others from interfering.[/quote]
You're implying that we shouldn't be trying to help people who actually want to die. A human life is a human life. Why make it easy for depressed people to instantly off themselves rather than try to help them? This is a very simple question with a very easy answer.
[quote]No, the stats only say people who use guns to kill themselves killed themselves more reliably. It says nothing about gun owners being more likely.[/quote]
Read what I said again, because you literally just refuted exactly what I didn't say. I didn't say gun owners are more likely to kill themselves just because they're gun owners and that somehow makes them more suicidal. I said they are more likely to kill themselves because their method of suicide is much more lethal than those who don't attempt suicide with firearms.
Who are you to judge the price of human life?
If someone decides, "Yes sir, I wish to die" let them. If they've come to that point where they'd rather die or lend themselves as a testing subject to science, why reject them the freedom to do what they wish?
And why should this hold any bearing at all on the debate regarding firearms? If someone is considering going suicidal they'll either off themselves... just like that... Or they'll give their firearms to a family member, and put themselves into a clinic.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39729111]Who are you to judge the price of human life?
If someone decides, "Yes sir, I wish to die" let them. If they've come to that point where they'd rather die or lend themselves as a testing subject to science, why reject them the freedom to do what they wish?
And why should this hold any bearing at all on the debate regarding firearms? If someone is considering going suicidal they'll either off themselves... just like that... Or they'll give their firearms to a family member, and put themselves into a clinic.[/QUOTE]
Because the objective of any moral society should be to get help to depressed people, to help them turn their lives around, to show that there is more to live for. Suicide using firearm has quite a bit of bearing on a debate about firearms when about 15,000 people kill themselves a year with firearms.
You're actually suggesting just letting people kill themselves because that's what they want as if it isn't their depression brought on by shitty circumstances that's making themselves think that way. Sure, [I]some[/I] people may actually just desire death, but how you could seriously say we shouldn't try to get help to all of them on the [I]off chance[/I] that they wouldn't be grateful for another chance at living a happy and fulfilling life? That's honestly a pretty messed up defense.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39728040]Examples? Of actual armories with sophisticated security being robbed. Usually law enforcement is more concerned with lethal weapons than with a bank's money, and I would expect response would be ridiculous.
Easy to access, mhm. What I've actually done is put every gun in one highly secure facility and equipped every gun there with tracking devices, so even in the case of a robbery, we know where all the damn things are.
If all the thousands of McDonald's can have 3-person night crews, I'm pretty sure we can provide 2-person night crews at armories.
Two guards per shift, or even if there's just one, all those guns are still equipped with handy-dandy tracking devices. As soon as large quantities of firearms start moving out of an armory when they aren't supposed to, you can expect a swift reaction from authorities, probably the national guard.
Oh look, no they aren't
You're implying that we shouldn't be trying to help people who actually want to die. A human life is a human life. Why make it easy for depressed people to instantly off themselves rather than try to help them? This is a very simple question with a very easy answer.
Read what I said again, because you literally just refuted exactly what I didn't say. I didn't say gun owners are more likely to kill themselves just because they're gun owners and that somehow makes them more suicidal. I said they are more likely to kill themselves because their method of suicide is much more lethal than those who don't attempt suicide with firearms.[/QUOTE]
An armoury break in, you mean like the one that happened in Australia at a naval base?
[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/weapons-stolen-in-darwin-naval-base-break-in/story-e6frg6n6-1226527365035[/url]
Or the one in Denmark?
[url]http://www.icenews.is/2009/01/09/danish-military-base-robbed-of-weapons/[/url]
Or in Suriname?
[url]http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/caribnet/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000005/000588.htm[/url]
Or Israel?
[url]http://www.timesofisrael.com/masked-robbers-penetrate-idf-base-steal-weapons-tie-up-soldier/[/url]
How about the cop cars robbed in Kansas City?
[url]http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/07/thieves-hit-several-unmarked-police-cars-in-kansas-city/[/url]
Or the theft of an OPP Officer's gun and body armour?
[url]http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/12/01/12004681.html[/url]
Or the 100 guns stolen from police in Puerto Rico?
[url]http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=373911&CategoryId=14092[/url]
These are supposed to be some of the most well-guarded places in our society, and even they are targets for burglary, because people know there'll be guns there. If there were a central armoury for civilians, no matter how many guards you place to guard it, it will still be a beacon for robbery, since it doesn't stem the flow of guns being smuggled into the country from South America by drug cartels, and gangs and cartels would use their guns to get more guns by overpowering guards at the armoury, and then they'd have access to thousands of guns. It is safer to have these guns proliferated throughout society, because then it's harder for gangs to steal guns from people, not to mention you wouldn't have a cartel [url=http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/24/son-protects-family-during-home-invasion/]attacking a home in Houston, it'd be a couple of street thugs, who a homeowner could easily overpower.[/url]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39729493]An armoury break in, you mean like the one that happened in Australia at a naval base?
[URL]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/weapons-stolen-in-darwin-naval-base-break-in/story-e6frg6n6-1226527365035[/URL]
Or the one in Denmark?
[URL]http://www.icenews.is/2009/01/09/danish-military-base-robbed-of-weapons/[/URL]
Or in Suriname?
[URL]http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/caribnet/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000005/000588.htm[/URL]
Or Israel?
[URL]http://www.timesofisrael.com/masked-robbers-penetrate-idf-base-steal-weapons-tie-up-soldier/[/URL]
How about the cop cars robbed in Kansas City?
[URL]http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/07/thieves-hit-several-unmarked-police-cars-in-kansas-city/[/URL]
Or the theft of an OPP Officer's gun and body armour?
[URL]http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/12/01/12004681.html[/URL]
Or the 100 guns stolen from police in Puerto Rico?
[URL]http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=373911&CategoryId=14092[/URL]
These are supposed to be some of the most well-guarded places in our society, and even they are targets for burglary, because people know there'll be guns there. If there were a central armoury for civilians, no matter how many guards you place to guard it, it will still be a beacon for robbery, since it doesn't stem the flow of guns being smuggled into the country from South America by drug cartels, and gangs and cartels would use their guns to get more guns by overpowering guards at the armoury, and then they'd have access to thousands of guns. It is safer to have these guns proliferated throughout society, because then it's harder for gangs to steal guns from people, not to mention you wouldn't have a cartel [URL="http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/24/son-protects-family-during-home-invasion/"]attacking a home in Houston, it'd be a couple of street thugs, who a homeowner could easily overpower.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Australia: You can hardly call that an armory break-in, the guns were sitting on a patrol boat with one guy defending them. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Denmark: first time in history of the country an armory break-in has happened. The men "stormed in with guns." Clearly there's some sort of security issue there if they easily got in and forced one of the guards to open the vault. Two of the guards were asleep. The robbers spent half an hour picking out their guns. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Suriname: Likely an inside job, and "to prevent future robberies more lighting has been installed at all army ammunition bunkers. At the site of the incident the vicinity of the bunker was being cleared of obstacles that could obstruct a good view of the facility." I'm going to go ahead and say security there wasn't exactly ideal. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Israel: "The men tied up one soldier, stealing his gun as well as three other weapons." Yikes. Quite the armory break-in there. As well, "the IDF has invested NIS 7 million (roughly $1.8 million) in a new surveillance system, according to Ynet, which is being installed in bases across the country." Sounds like security had some room for improvement. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Kansas City: Cop cars aren't armories. The guns they took also weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Long Sault: One handgun, body armor, and a police uniform. Crazy. For some reason, I can't remember saying that individual police vehicles were fortresses impenetrable by criminals. I can't remember saying that at all. I think I mentioned something about armories, though.
Puerto Rice: Also an inside job, also would have gotten shut down in a matter of minutes if the guns were equipped with tracking devices.
They should be some of the most well-guarded places in our society, but they aren't. Maybe it's because so many guns are already on the streets that adding a few more isn't really the worst problem, so security is poorer than it should be. It's also hard to argue that it's safer to have guns proliferated throughout society, because that proliferation already has criminals well-armed enough to rob and/or kill thousands of people each year.
[editline]26th February 2013[/editline]
You only listed three actual armory robberies there by the way, and two of them had known security issues already, while the third was an inside job that would have been unsuccessful with a faster response.
Well that's still 3 examples of exactly what you asked for, and there's no data that proves the proliferation of guns throughout society in the hands of the law-abiding is necessarily why criminals have easy access to firearms. There are plenty of countries with strict gun control that have massive amounts of gun crime, there are plenty of countries with relatively lax gun control with low amounts of gun crime. This is why people say America's issues are not with its guns, because other gun-rich societies with higher standards of living have less issues with crime, indicating that crime in general in America, not just gun crime, is caused by social issues, not access to guns.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39729913]Well that's still 3 examples of exactly what you asked for, and there's no data that proves the proliferation of guns throughout society in the hands of the law-abiding is necessarily why criminals have easy access to firearms. There are plenty of countries with strict gun control that have massive amounts of gun crime, there are plenty of countries with relatively lax gun control with low amounts of gun crime. This is why people say America's issues are not with its guns, because other gun-rich societies with higher standards of living have less issues with crime, indicating that crime in general in America, not just gun crime, is caused by social issues, not access to guns.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps this might explain:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2937134/[/url]
[quote]Using a scripted telephone interview, we screened a sample of licensed retailers in California to assess their willingness to participate in the surrogate or “straw” purchase of a handgun; such purchases are illegal under federal law. Of 149 retailers who provided a response, 30 (20.1%) agreed to participate.[/quote]
It's easier to get a gun than people realize, especially if 1/5 of gun salesmen are willing to break the law.
[url]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf[/url]
[quote]In 1997 among State inmates
possessing a gun, fewer than 2%
bought their firearm at a flea market
or gun show, about 12% from a retail
store or pawnshop, and 80% from
family, friends, a street buy, or an
illegal source.[/quote]
So essentially at the very least, over 12% of criminals who used firearms, bought them from a legal source. Counting in the fact that a lot of firearms are being sold by people willing to break the law, and that could possibly help explain why there's such a proliferation of such weapons.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39729913]Well that's still 3 examples of exactly what you asked for, and there's no data that proves the proliferation of guns throughout society in the hands of the law-abiding is necessarily why criminals have easy access to firearms. There are plenty of countries with strict gun control that have massive amounts of gun crime, there are plenty of countries with relatively lax gun control with low amounts of gun crime. This is why people say America's issues are not with its guns, because other gun-rich societies with higher standards of living have less issues with crime, indicating that crime in general in America, not just gun crime, is caused by social issues, not access to guns.[/QUOTE]
I do think that violent crime is in indicator of social issues rather than an issue of access to firearms, I agree. I think tackling education, and in turn, poverty, is what will ultimately improve peoples' circumstances. I also think that it's worth considering that restricting access to firearms may help, though. Not that we should ban firearms in the U.S., because that's not feasible. I don't support the AWB either, though.
Those are three examples of armory break-ins, but in the case of a completely centralized firearm storage system, security would definitely be tighter than it was in those cases.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39729960]So essentially at the very least, over 12% of criminals who used firearms, bought them from a legal source. Counting in the fact that a lot of firearms are being sold by people willing to break the law, and that could possibly help explain why there's such a proliferation of such weapons.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, they get most through legal sources. And the "illegal sources" probably got a lot of theirs from legal sources as well. I don't think illegal smuggling puts as many guns in criminals' hands as the system.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39730172]I do think that violent crime is in indicator of social issues rather than an issue of access to firearms, I agree. I think tackling education, and in turn, poverty, is what will ultimately improve peoples' circumstances. I also think that it's worth considering that restricting access to firearms may help, though. Not that we should ban firearms in the U.S., because that's not feasible. I don't support the AWB either, though.
Those are three examples of armory break-ins, but in the case of a completely centralized firearm storage system, security would definitely be tighter than it was in those cases.
Indeed, they get most through legal sources. And the "illegal sources" probably got a lot of theirs from legal sources as well. I don't think illegal smuggling puts as many guns in criminals' hands as the system.[/QUOTE]
Last I checked, 12% is not most, it said most, 80%, were obtained by family, friends, [B]a street buy, or other illegal sources.[/B] The last two are entirely illegal, and the first two are illegal if the person has a felony. So no, most of the guns are obtained illegally. And what "system" is this that is somehow funnelling guns into the hands of criminals? Not to mention there is no direct or substantial evidence to completely trace back any given gun's life to find out when/how it passed into the hands of a criminal, so it is unknown when, where, or how the gun became illegally possessed, so you cannot say it definitely came directly from a legal source.
You also can't definitively say that the security would be tighter or harder to overpower, and you're also ignoring who would pay for the facility and security? It costs nothing to store a gun at home, and that's another reason centralized storage can never be feasibly implemented, people wouldn't pay for something they can do for free themselves, especially when the service would be of a net-detriment to them since they're now no longer able to defend themselves with the gun.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730228]Last I checked, 12% is not most, it said most, 80%, were obtained by family, friends, [B]a street buy, or other illegal sources.[/B] The last two are entirely illegal, and the first two are illegal if the person has a felony. So no, most of the guns are obtained illegally. And what "system" is this that is somehow funnelling guns into the hands of criminals? Not to mention there is no direct or substantial evidence to completely trace back any given gun's life to find out when/how it passed into the hands of a criminal, so it is unknown when, where, or how the gun became illegally possessed, so you cannot say it definitely came directly from a legal source.[/QUOTE]
Except the source I provided, explicitly states that at least 20% of firearms salesmen, are willing to break the law.
Then add in the 12% who bought their guns legally.
Its a significant minority at the least.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730228]Last I checked, 12% is not most, it said most, 80%, were obtained by family, friends, a street buy, or other illegal sources. The last two are entirely illegal, and the first two are illegal if the person has a felony. So no, most of the guns are obtained illegally. And what "system" is this that is somehow funnelling guns into the hands of criminals? Not to mention there is no direct or substantial evidence to completely trace back any given gun's life to find out when/how it passed into the hands of a criminal, so it is unknown when, where, or how the gun became illegally possessed, so you cannot say it definitely came directly from a legal source.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't claiming 12% was a majority. Click the link and look at the statistics. 12% from retail stores and pawnshops. 2% from gun shows and flea markets. 40% from friends or family (presumably these friends/family were able to purchase the gun legally in the first place). That's 54% through legal sources. And, 54% [I]is[/I] most. Only 40% comes from explicitly illegal sources such as a street buy or other illegal source, and who knows how many of those guns were also obtained by the seller in a legal manner.
[quote]You also can't definitively say that the security would be tighter or harder to overpower, and you're also ignoring who would pay for the facility and security? It costs nothing to store a gun at home, and that's another reason centralized storage can never be feasibly implemented, people wouldn't pay for something they can do for free themselves, especially when the service would be of a net-detriment to them since they're now no longer able to defend themselves with the gun.[/quote]
Requiring by law that there are always at least two people on shift, behind bulletproof doors and glass, with a vault containing the firearms, security cameras all over the place, and the firearms are equipped with tracking devices, and yeah, I think the security is pretty tight. The federal government would ultimately have control over the facilities. As I said, gun ownership as a hobby would become more expensive unfortunately, but if it noticeably reduced violent crime, it's a trade-off that I see as worth it. That's not because I don't enjoy firearms; I do.
The key thing is it wouldn't reduce violent crime. You keep saying "if," there's substantial enough evidence about the failures of gun control to suggest that it would fail utterly and completely, it would be sacrificing freedoms for a false sense of security. Not to mention, again, how unconstitutional all of what you're suggesting is.
Not to mention, again, how it wouldn't be unconstitutional if the Constitution was amended. And amendments to the Constitution are expressly Constitutional, even ones that abolish other amendments (See: Prohibition).
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39728040]
Easy to access, mhm. What I've actually done is put every gun in one highly secure facility and equipped every gun there with tracking devices, so even in the case of a robbery, we know where all the damn things are.[/quote]
Please explain how these tracking devices are unbreakable/uremovable/etc
[quote]
If all the thousands of McDonald's can have 3-person night crews, I'm pretty sure we can provide 2-person night crews at armories.
[/quote]
Lets see, Maccas turns a profit?
[quote]
Two guards per shift, or even if there's just one, all those guns are still equipped with handy-dandy tracking devices. As soon as large quantities of firearms start moving out of an armory when they aren't supposed to, you can expect a swift reaction from authorities, probably the national guard.[/quote]
Handy dandy magical tracking devices that don't need battery power and related infustructer to work?
[quote]
You're implying that we shouldn't be trying to help people who actually want to die. A human life is a human life. Why make it easy for depressed people to instantly off themselves rather than try to help them? This is a very simple question with a very easy answer.[/quote]
Please, tell me where I said that? People who want to actually off themselves aren't going to be stopped by not having access to a gun. There are plenty of things about that can kill you very quickly and effectively
[quote]
Read what I said again, because you literally just refuted exactly what I didn't say. I didn't say gun owners are more likely to kill themselves just because they're gun owners and that somehow makes them more suicidal. I said they are more likely to kill themselves because their method of suicide is much more lethal than those who don't attempt suicide with firearms.[/QUOTE]
By a small percentage, whatever
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39729824]Australia: You can hardly call that an armory break-in, the guns were sitting on a patrol boat with one guy defending them. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Denmark: first time in history of the country an armory break-in has happened. The men "stormed in with guns." Clearly there's some sort of security issue there if they easily got in and forced one of the guards to open the vault. Two of the guards were asleep. The robbers spent half an hour picking out their guns. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Suriname: Likely an inside job, and "to prevent future robberies more lighting has been installed at all army ammunition bunkers. At the site of the incident the vicinity of the bunker was being cleared of obstacles that could obstruct a good view of the facility." I'm going to go ahead and say security there wasn't exactly ideal. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Israel: "The men tied up one soldier, stealing his gun as well as three other weapons." Yikes. Quite the armory break-in there. As well, "the IDF has invested NIS 7 million (roughly $1.8 million) in a new surveillance system, according to Ynet, which is being installed in bases across the country." Sounds like security had some room for improvement. The guns they took weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Kansas City: Cop cars aren't armories. The guns they took also weren't equipped with tracking devices.
Long Sault: One handgun, body armor, and a police uniform. Crazy. For some reason, I can't remember saying that individual police vehicles were fortresses impenetrable by criminals. I can't remember saying that at all. I think I mentioned something about armories, though.
Puerto Rice: Also an inside job, also would have gotten shut down in a matter of minutes if the guns were equipped with tracking devices.
They should be some of the most well-guarded places in our society, but they aren't. Maybe it's because so many guns are already on the streets that adding a few more isn't really the worst problem, so security is poorer than it should be. It's also hard to argue that it's safer to have guns proliferated throughout society, because that proliferation already has criminals well-armed enough to rob and/or kill thousands of people each year.
[editline]26th February 2013[/editline]
You only listed three actual armory robberies there by the way, and two of them had known security issues already, while the third was an inside job that would have been unsuccessful with a faster response.[/QUOTE]
A patrol boat, in the middle of one of Australia's largest military bases, with an armed guard, in an armoury, isn't secure? You'll have trouble making them more secure than military bases, and when you do, the criminals will just target military bases instead of civilian armouries
Your tracking device idea is unworkable on so many levels
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730488]The key thing is it wouldn't reduce violent crime. You keep saying "if," there's substantial enough evidence about the failures of gun control to suggest that it would fail utterly and completely, it would be sacrificing freedoms for a false sense of security.[/quote]
There's clearly still a problem when legal guns are being quite freely sold illegally, and nothing is being done to track them.
[quote]Not to mention, again, how unconstitutional all of what you're suggesting is.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't affect the argument itself. It can change, plus whenever something is defined as illegal or not doesn't change reality.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39730508]Not to mention, again, how it wouldn't be unconstitutional if the Constitution was amended. And amendments to the Constitution are expressly Constitutional, even ones that abolish other amendments (See: Prohibition).[/QUOTE]
And you will literally never pass an Amendment abolishing the 2nd, and if America ever did there'd be a civil war, so your propositions will remain unconstitutional.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
