Lenient gun control leads to greater homicide rates.
400 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405778]Except the privilege to own firearms doesn't assist with the planning and organisation of a nationwide revolution.
Plus unarmoured people with no air/naval/artillery/anything support and varying loyalties would be hard pressed to win a war.[/QUOTE]
First off, it is a [B]Right[/B].
Secondly, if the government was being overthrown for being corrupt and they ordered American soldiers, who's job is to protect the citizens of the country, to go and start killing, 99% would tell the government to fuck off and join the rebels.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;38405794]First off it is a [B]Right[/B], secondly, if the government was being overthrown for being corrupt and they ordered American soldiers, who's job is to protect the citizens of the country, to go and start killing, 99% would tell the government to fuck off and join the rebels.[/QUOTE]
Soldiers are perfectly capable of killing citizens of their own country, privilege to bear arms or not.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405802]Soldiers are perfectly capable of killing citizens of their own country, privilege to bear arms or not.[/QUOTE]
You are missing the point, most of them would not because it is their job to protect these people.
Desertions would be rampant, and they would take all their equipment with them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405802]Soldiers are perfectly capable of killing citizens of their own country, privilege to bear arms or not.[/QUOTE]
You have been told it is a right enough times that by this point your insistence that it's a privilege is trolling.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;38405805]You are missing the point, most of them would not because it is their job to protect these people.
Desertions would be rampant, and they would take all their equipment with them.[/QUOTE]
The number who would desert is variable, and there would still be a number left to protect the government.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38405812]You have been told it is a right enough times that by this point your insistence that it's a privilege is trolling.[/QUOTE]
The semantics is irrelevant.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Purposefully obtuse, arguing needless semantics" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405823]The number who would desert is variable, and there would still be a number left to protect the government.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
The semantics is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but if 99% desert then the government it pretty fucked, because now there are more rebels and a lot more of them have better weapons.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405632]The slaves were freed.[/QUOTE]
the articles of the confederation banned the importation of new slaves, slavery would have been abolished either way.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405823]
The semantics is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit, it's not semantics. You are flat out wrong, man the fuck up and admit it.
[quote=The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [B]the right of the people to keep and bear arms[/B] shall not be infringed.[/quote]
[img]http://www.jerebeasleyreport.com/media/2011/04/Bill-of-Rights.jpg[/img]
It is not semantics, there is no ambiguity, it is a fucking RIGHT, and you are WRONG.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405823]The number who would desert is variable, and there would still be a number left to protect the government.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
The semantics is irrelevant.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Purposefully obtuse, arguing needless semantics" - Megafan))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Good riddence. Anyone here want to be on the gun control side for a [i]rational and on topic[/i] debate?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38401123]gun control laws only take guns out of the hands of people who obey the law.[/QUOTE]
That's the same for [b]any[/b] law. What a ridiculous argument.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;38405794]First off, it is a [B]Right[/B].[/QUOTE]
They're saying your Right is wrong? You do realize that your American "Rights" just come from some writing on a piece of paper some dudes wrote a few hundred years ago. Times change, society changes, and your Rights should adapt to that. Your [i]Human Rights[/i], however, are fundamental and should not be infringed. But owning a gun is not a Human Right.
Either way, it's logical that gun control would lead to less homicides. I don't think that anyone can argue this. If somebody desires to shoot somebody, and can get a gun legally anywhere, they're going to be able to do it. But if they can't just get a gun legally anywhere, they are less likely to be able to do it - I for one, live in the UK, and I wouldn't have a bloody clue where to get a gun.
[QUOTE=Conna;38405914]That's the same for [b]any[/b] law. What a ridiculous argument.[/QUOTE]
wrong. people wouldn't just go out killing willy nilly if murder was made legal.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conna;38405914]That's the same for [b]any[/b] law. What a ridiculous argument.
They're saying your Right is wrong?
Either way, it's logical that gun control would lead to less homicides. I don't think that anyone can argue this. If somebody desires to shoot somebody, and can get a gun legally anywhere, they're going to be able to do it. But if they can't just get a gun legally anywhere, they are less likely to be able to do it - I for one, live in the UK, and I wouldn't have a bloody clue where to get a gun.[/QUOTE]
I know of 2 places locally where I can get an illegal firearm and one international deep web site where I can get an illegal firearm. Any idiot can get an illegal gun anywhere in the world
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38405932]wrong. people wouldn't just go out killing willy nilly if murder was made legal.[/QUOTE]
No but murder is illegal and people still do it. Therefore the only people murder being illegal affects are those who obey the law.
Which is the same as what you said. If guns are illegal then it only prevents people who obey the law from owning a gun.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38405932]I know of 2 places locally where I can get an illegal firearm and one international deep web site where I can get an illegal firearm. Any idiot can get an illegal gun anywhere in the world[/QUOTE]
You are naive to think you can easily purchase and own a firearm in a country where guns are illegal.
Do you not know what the black market is?
[QUOTE=Conna;38405914]That's the same for [b]any[/b] law. What a ridiculous argument.[/quote]
At the point when you're removing a person's ability to defend themselves against violent victimization because the criminal will deliberately disobey the law to acquire greater power over their victims, no, arguing against banning someone from having the tools to defend themselves is perfectly reasonable.
[quote]They're saying your Right is wrong?[/quote]
Doesn't matter if they disagree with it, it's still a right, not a privilege.
[quote]Either way, it's logical that gun control would lead to less homicides. I don't think that anyone can argue this. If somebody desires to shoot somebody, and can get a gun legally anywhere, they're going to be able to do it. But if they can't just get a gun legally anywhere, they are less likely to be able to do it - I for one, live in the UK, and I wouldn't have a bloody clue where to get a gun.[/QUOTE]
Try the streets of Manchester, or East London. Perhaps the Birmingham Gun Quarter? You could also, if you're looking for the legal route, check Webley and Scott's website for local shotgun dealers, or do a quick google search for "UK gun dealerships". The thing is, you'd think that, but there has actually never been a scientific study that has conclusively proven that any gun control has actually lead to any reduction in homicide. As a matter of fact, in much of the developed commonwealth there has been no correlation between gun control and homicide rates, in Canada a lack of correlation has been proven, meaning it was proven gun control did nothing scientifically, and there are a number of nations with very strict gun control but high murder rates, like Mexico, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, Brazil, and Russia, and there are nations with relatively lenient gun control, but low murder rates, like Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and the Czech Republic. There has never actually been a peer-reviewed scientific study done that showed a correlation between gun control and homicide rates, but there have been those that showed a lack of correlation.
[QUOTE=Conna;38405947]No but murder is illegal and people still do it. Therefore the only people murder being illegal affects are those who obey the law.
Which is the same as what you said. If guns are illegal then it only prevents people who obey the law from owning a gun.
You are naive to think you can easily purchase and own a firearm in a country where guns are illegal.[/QUOTE]
[scratch that, I know of 3 illegal firearms that people I know own, not posting that on the internet], I don't think so
[QUOTE=Conna;38405947]
You are naive to think you can easily purchase and own a firearm in a country where guns are illegal.[/QUOTE]
Quite the contrary, you're naive to think you can't. Don't feel like posting specific examples, just suffice in knowing it's not hard to get an illegal gun in Canada. There has only ever been once that a shooting in my city has been committed with a legally owned and registered firearm, and there are approximately 50-100 shootings in a year in the city. I actually know a kid who was a victim of a gang shooting, the other person was not supposed to have been able to get that handgun he had, if gun laws actually worked. Instead, the kid got shot multiple times and died, it was speculated around my high school when it happened that he was planning on buying the gun that shot him that day, illegally of course.
[QUOTE=Conna;38405914]
Either way, it's logical that gun control would lead to less homicides. I don't think that anyone can argue this. If somebody desires to shoot somebody, and can get a gun legally anywhere, they're going to be able to do it. But if they can't just get a gun legally anywhere, they are less likely to be able to do it - I for one, live in the UK, and I wouldn't have a bloody clue where to get a gun.[/QUOTE]
The UK has the highest knife crime in the world. Replace guns with knives and people will continue to kill each other. Why aren't you arguing for knife control?
Threads like these never work out on FP for some reason. I'm seeing posts arguing both for and against gun control and I'm not sure which side ridicules themselves most.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404642]Tunisia overthrew their government despite having the lowest number of guns per capita.[/QUOTE]
Yeah not going so well for the Syrians or originally for the Libyans.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;38404534]Any source on this? I've never heard of anyone that doesn't hunt as a past-time, just people who use it to supplement[/QUOTE]
Come visit North Scandinavia
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38404757]Wrong, it's called a right for a reason. I know that the UK doesn't have a constitution, or you don't know what one is, but it's quite obvious that it's under the "bill of rights", meaning that
*gasp*
[B]It's a right[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm on your side in this debate but holy shit. That was the most stupid thing said in this thread. Almost everyone has a constitution you silly American.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404872]The others cited was a falsified study and a crazy guy decrying the huffington post.[/QUOTE]
I cited very good sources and clearly non-Biased in the beginning of this thread which destroyed your OP so you chose to ignore them and run in circles.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;38404947]Australia has proven results from their gun restrictions.[/QUOTE]
And Switzerland has proven results that barely any gun laws = not more murders.
It's all about culture and education.
In fact theres still shoot outs in Australia. Criminals will always get guns.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405298]But it kept declining despite the introduction of less lenient laws.
Surely it should be the opposite according to the gunnuts?[/QUOTE]
It had already been lower at one point in history and it was already declining when they put their laws in effect.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;38405433]To be fair, most of the thread turned into sourceless and inflammitory posts on both sides, 1 guy responding to 6-7 people gets pretty hard once posts come in so fast[/QUOTE]
Why do you think its one guy? Because he is so ill informed about the subject he is just spouting bullshit and ignoring posts.
Also nobody is forcing him to rush.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405436]Still, the idea that a rabble of gun nuts can defeat the most powerful army on earth is laughable.[/QUOTE]
Do you not know what guerilla warfare is or how it works or the fact that its been proven to work hundreds of times?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405477]The chances of 100 million (or even 1 million) gun nuts rising at once to overthrow evil are slim as well. Plus it's doubtful they would manage to set up a stable government too.[/QUOTE]
Why do you keep using the word 'gun nuts'? Am I a gun nut because I own a hunting rifle?
No, not at all.
I'm a computer science geek who spends most of his time listening to music, studying or drinking with my friends but also happen to hunt.
Yeah I'm completely insane.
I should be calling you a baby because you so desperately require a nanny state to protect you from your self.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405632]The slaves were freed.[/QUOTE]
If you think the war was mainly about slaves you are a buffoon.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405660]Diplomatic isolation, and very quickly economic collapse.
And they had little in the way of railways, factories, telegraph systems, etc that the North possessed. The North also had greater economic resources and manpower.[/QUOTE]
They were not diplomatically isolated. They had plenty of means of production, after all they owned all the cash crops so no to a very quick economical collapse.
A country doesn't need a railway. They don't need factories when they are mainly focused on cash crops.
They just lost the war because of that, an illegal war by the way.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38405932]wrong. people wouldn't just go out killing willy nilly if murder was made legal.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck? The only thing stopping me from shooting up my street is the fact its illegal... You honestly don't want to become a spree killer? What the fuck?
hurr..
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38408549]A police force exists for a reason.
Also, exactly how do you know, for a fact, that [I]all[/I] criminals will get their hands on guns regardless if they are banned or not? This is a statement that I often see made, yet it's never backed up by anything. It's just vague assumptions.[/QUOTE]
The 10 minutes it takes for the police to arrive at your house is more time than needed for a criminal to tie you up, and select which knife from the kitchen to gut you with, and then to be on his way.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38405686]And the south still almost won because most had prior experience with firearms.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
They still tended to do better in the actual warfare part of the war.[/QUOTE]
They never "almost" won, france and the UK threatened to intervene on their side, however russia said they would join our side if they did, so that part is tossed out.
From the very start the south hoped to just defend and hope the north gave up.
And when the north got its stuff together, they ran in and just dominated the south.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38408549]A police force exists for a reason.[/QUOTE]
With an average response time of 10 minutes (with something like 40 minutes or even some hours in places that need them the most, see Detroit and other friendly neighborhoods) they really can't do everything, nor they can be everywhere. I'd rather be allowed to defend myself rather than be rescued when it's too late.
[QUOTE]Also, exactly how do you know, for a fact, that [I]all[/I] criminals will get their hands on guns regardless if they are banned or not? This is a statement that I often see made, yet it's never backed up by anything. It's just vague assumptions.[/QUOTE]
The entirety of New York city is basically supposed to be a gun-free zone. Gun crime is still high, as criminals are still armed. There are several other examples across the USA, but now let's focus on something different:
The UK is the European country with the strictest gun control laws and measures (and anything-sharp-or-somewhat-painful control, really) but at the same time it's also one of the most violent, if not THE most violent.
Despite all the efforts done to remove firearms from the population (especially the part that follows the laws, Queen forbid if a honest, stable man can purchase anything more dangerous than a Ruger 10/22) and convincing them that anything that goes "bang" is a sentient and malevolent tool of mass destruction, to the point that people panic and call the police if a single .22lr round is found somewhere, thinking it may go off on its own and kill everyone ([url=http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/1013959.bullet_found_in_doorway/]yes, this is a thing that happened[/url]), the criminals simply started to use knives, sticks, broken bottles, or even just their hands, while non-criminals can do very little to defend themselves other than calling the rozzers. And crying.
So yeah, assault, robbery, and rape stats are a bit worse than the oh-so-dreaded USA despite the massive gun control effort. Oh and, gun crime still happens every once in a while. [B]Have fun.[/B]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38404955]Australia and America are 2 different countries with 2 different sets of people, with 2 different mindsets.[/QUOTE]
people in backwards australia land..... they need theyre guns to protect aganst kangaroos....
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38408549]A police force exists for a reason.
Also, exactly how do you know, for a fact, that [I]all[/I] criminals will get their hands on guns regardless if they are banned or not? This is a statement that I often see made, yet it's never backed up by anything. It's just vague assumptions.[/QUOTE]
A police force is not good for me if the attacker kills me.
The police force in my country has a horrid response time.
The police force in my country doesn't carry guns.
If someone armed goes and commits a crime then it will take the police at least 15-20 minutes to get there(usually around 30 minutes) and then they have to call in the armed police which can take up to an hour to arrive. So 1 hour and 30 minutes for an armed response. Yeah nope, I'd rather be able to defend my self.
Also are you blind? Look at gangs where guns are pretty much illegal. They are all armed. If an individual wants a gun he can get it, and they do. If its 100% impossible to get it he will just make one, look at Chechnya or various parts in Pakistan.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38408549]A police force exists for a reason.
[/QUOTE]
Police? So they can draw the chalk outline around your body 10 minutes after you call them, if you even have a chance to call them?
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38408549]Also, exactly how do you know, for a fact, that [I]all[/I] criminals will get their hands on guns regardless if they are banned or not? This is a statement that I often see made, yet it's never backed up by anything. It's just vague assumptions.[/QUOTE]
It's not an assumption. Some of the most violent countries have strict gun laws, and it's naive to think laws will prevent anything after seeing the results of the prohibition and the war on drugs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.