• Lenient gun control leads to greater homicide rates.
    400 replies, posted
Making guns illegal doesn't stop people from killing each other. Better social conditions stop people from killing each other. If a kid is beating up kids at school, do you tie him up so he can't hit anyone anymore? You might initially, but the second he's untied he's gonna go back to beating kids up. You gotta fix the root problem.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38401926]The knowledge that every able bodied man age 18-35 has a gun, ammo, and knows how to use it is one hell of a deterrent of crime. No criminal is stupid enough to rob a house where he knows there is an assault rifle and someone trained to use it.[/QUOTE] There's also the possibility that every if every able bodied man aged 18 to 35 owns a gun, some of them are going to be criminals. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38401926]Source?[/QUOTE] Was given at the start of the thread. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38401926]You can make a gun and ammo in your garage with parts you can buy at a hardware store, if someone wants a gun, no law will stop them getting one.[/QUOTE] It becomes more difficult to get one however, and will deter people from getting one.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402041]It becomes more difficult to get one however, and will deter people from getting one.[/QUOTE] Yeah. It stops people who are significantly less likely to murder others from getting guns.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38402025]Making guns illegal doesn't stop people from killing each other. Better social conditions stop people from killing each other. If a kid is beating up kids at school, do you tie him up so he can't hit anyone anymore? You might initially, but the second he's untied he's gonna go back to beating kids up. You gotta fix the root problem.[/QUOTE] This. Switzerland is a very educated and a civilized country whilst many states in the US (the ones with the highest crime rates) are well.. I'd not want to live there. The problems with crime lie with social, economical and educational problems. If you want someone to protect you from crime then sure, go ahead but I want to be able to protect my self and I'm a fairly stable individual so I am not going to start robbing or shooting people so why restrict me of my liberties just because you can't handle individual liberties that well? Your laws only affect law abiding citizens. Just like I like my fair share of psychoactive substances but they remain illegal but that's not going to stop me. A criminal who likes using guns is not going to be stopped by the fact that they are illegal.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38401927]What cases? You are just running in circles.[/QUOTE] Well, in that if you reduce the number of firearms, you make it more difficult to kill people with. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401927]They are allowed to use their guns for personal protection. Nobody is going to break into a home where they have a chance of being shot with an assault rifle, and many do have pistols too.[/QUOTE] Except they keep their guns for military service, and not for personal protection. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401927]Source?[/QUOTE] Given at start. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401927]Sigh, why would the manufacturers just disappear? There is always a market for guns wether it be civilian or military. Nobody makes guns ONLY for civilians.[/QUOTE] Yes, but making it less easy to get guns means that not as many people are before will not own guns. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401927]Not to mention even I know how to make a crude gun and a bullet. If I really wanted to I could just buy the parts and assemble one.[/QUOTE] Need to be determined for that, plus to make sure it doesn't explode due to poor manufacturing. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401927]So? Their [B]VERY[/B] strict gun laws didn't stop them arming in anyway. It's illegal for Mexicans to own any type of gun but they still got them, armed to the teeth. Same for IRA and other factions.[/QUOTE] That's because of poor enforcement of the law. You could legislate against murder, and then everybody gets freely murdered because the police can't be arsed to do anything about it. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401927]The post above just destroyed this entire thread anyways, your argument is very weak here.[/QUOTE] No it didn't.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402041]There's also the possibility that every if every able bodied man aged 18 to 35 owns a gun, some of them are going to be criminals.[/QUOTE] Nobody turns criminal because they own a gun. That person is going to turn to crime either way. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402041]It becomes more difficult to get one however, and will deter people from getting one.[/QUOTE] No, it wont. Does the fact that internet piracy is illegal deter you from downloading TV shows? No, it doesn't.
[QUOTE=galenmarek;38401966]Surveys? You think every single person that got shot is going to take a survey? I don't know a single person that has done that. Not to mention many times they're downright dead and the dead cannot do anything. Laws HAVE been enforced and still nothing has changed. If you think this city has a problem enforcing laws know that the mayor himself is a fomer gang member and wants nothing more to get rid of them. Everything I speak of is from experience. There was a shootout literally in front of my house and I don't think the strict laws helped. Don't even think about bringing Japan into this as well. There is indeed plenty of violence there unless you think Japans recent increase in efforts on cracking down on the Yakuza are just for show. There is gun violence there as well don't forget. In one instance a Yakuza member just waltzed into a hospital and gunned down a man in a hospital bed. Japan is not the pinnacle of peace. Don't even get me started on Hong Kongs notorious Triad violence either who do just fine without guns.[/QUOTE] This is rather incoherent. [QUOTE=galenmarek;38401966]Also what country or state are you from? Your views sound like that of someone who has not experienced gun violence first hand with no offence intended.[/QUOTE] I live in a country with hardly any leniency in the laws, and homicide rates due to handguns are lower. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbi;38402125]Nobody turns criminal because they own a gun. That person is going to turn to crime either way.[/QUOTE] Yes but a prevalence of guns is going to make gun crime more common. [QUOTE=Robbi;38402125]No, it wont. Does the fact that internet piracy is illegal deter you from downloading TV shows? No, it doesn't.[/QUOTE] Well actually it's difficult to enforce sometimes, some people are caught, and some people are deterred. Plus there's the fact its harder to get a handgun than a pirated movie. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;38402025]Making guns illegal doesn't stop people from killing each other. Better social conditions stop people from killing each other. If a kid is beating up kids at school, do you tie him up so he can't hit anyone anymore? You might initially, but the second he's untied he's gonna go back to beating kids up. You gotta fix the root problem.[/QUOTE] I am not arguing for making guns illegal however.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402104]Well, in that if you reduce the number of firearms, you make it more difficult to kill people with.[/QUOTE] And this still implies that current gun owners today are murderers. What about in cases like that of Jared Loughner and James Holmes? They were both mentally unstable. Their mental instability was what made them go on a shooting spree, and to boot, people knew about their mental instability beforehand. Now, the problem with your approach is that if you really want to try to get guns out of the hands of murders, you either have to go all-or-nothing. Less lenient laws do not make it harder for determined people to get a hold of firearms.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38402083]Yeah. It stops people who are significantly less likely to murder others from getting guns.[/QUOTE] And the total number of people using guns for criminal activities is reduced.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402170]And the total number of people using guns for criminal activities is reduced.[/QUOTE] What are "criminal activities?" Robberies? Plenty of people commit robberies with knives, too.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38402158]And this still implies that current gun owners today are murderers.[/QUOTE] Some of them are. [QUOTE=Protocol7;38402158]Now, the problem with your approach is that if you really want to try to get guns out of the hands of murders, you either have to go all-or-nothing. Less lenient laws do not make it harder for determined people to get a hold of firearms.[/QUOTE] There are varying degrees. It isn't binary. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;38402180]What are "criminal activities?" Robberies? Plenty of people commit robberies with knives, too.[/QUOTE] Yes, but robbing somebody with a knife is more difficult than with a gun.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402104]Well, in that if you reduce the number of firearms, you make it more difficult to kill people with.[/QUOTE] No, you make it more easy for people who wish to shoot people to shoot people. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402104]Except they keep their guns for military service, and not for personal protection.[/QUOTE] They keep their guns in gun lockers in their home. Just like any other responsible gun owner. Just like I have one for my rifle in my closet. Nothing is stopping them, or banning them from using it for personal protection. If anything it is encouraged. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402104]Yes, but making it less easy to get guns means that not as many people are before will not own guns.[/QUOTE] Again, why would it become less easy? No criminal buys legal guns since they can be traced to their owner. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402104]Need to be determined for that, plus to make sure it doesn't explode due to poor manufacturing.[/QUOTE] Yes, many criminals are determined to get a gun. That is why they get guns. Can you explain why pistols and semi automatic assault rifles are highly illegal here in Iceland yet biker gangs still manage to get them? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402104]That's because of poor enforcement of the law. You could legislate against murder, and then everybody gets freely murdered because the police can't be arsed to do anything about it.[/QUOTE] Why do you think the law enforcement is poor? Because if they try anything they got shot with their highly illegal guns. Which have always been illegal, even when it wasn't that bad. Also explain IRA or other factions then. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402104]No it didn't.[/QUOTE] You have not and can not disprove it. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402134] Yes but a prevalence of guns is going to make gun crime more common.[/QUOTE] This is a lie which was I and the other guy showed above. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402134]Well actually it's difficult to enforce sometimes, some people are caught, and some people are deterred.[/QUOTE] Yes, law abiding civilians are deterred and its just as hard to enforce as illegal weaponry. If not easier. You cant monitor everyones movements but you can monitor everyones internet activity. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402134]Plus there's the fact its harder to get a handgun than a pirated movie.[/QUOTE] Not for a connected criminal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402006]Except this guy cherry picked his data and even fabricated some of it: [url]http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/[/url][/QUOTE] You quoted Dr. Caillin Langmann's video as well, he is not John Lott. Dr. Langmann produced Canada's only peer-reviewed scientific study on the effects of gun control in Canada since the 1970s, and more specifically since the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, and found that the 1995 Firearms Act had absolutely no effect on violent crime or suicide in Canada, and the scientific community agreed with him. He used data available from StatsCan, the federal government's statistics bureau, and used as many methods of analysis and comparison as he could. The Coalition for Gun Control, of course, refuses to admit the validity of this, claiming that the decrease in violent crime was not due to an aging society, and as such has been happening since the 1970s, but that because violent crime went down after 1995, that can all be attributed to the 1995 Firearms Act. That idea is completely wrong, but they're so entrenched in their view they will blatantly defy facts to further their view, just as the Liberal Party did enacting the act in 1995.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402185]Yes, but robbing somebody with a knife is more difficult than with a gun.[/QUOTE] Robbing someone who is armed is more difficult than anything. Also an unarmed individual is going to be robbed just as easily with a gun or a knife.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38402192]No, you make it more easy for people who wish to shoot people to shoot people.[/QUOTE] You also make it harder to acquire a gun. [QUOTE=Robbi;38402192]Again, why would it become less easy? No criminal buys legal guns since they can be traced to their owner.[/QUOTE] Illegal guns initially start out as legal guns. [QUOTE=Robbi;38402192]Yes, many criminals are determined to get a gun. That is why they get guns. Can you explain why pistols and semi automatic assault rifles are highly illegal here in Iceland yet biker gangs still manage to get them?[/QUOTE] They may still own them, but less do than if the laws were more lenient. [QUOTE=Robbi;38402192]Why do you think the law enforcement is poor? Because if they try anything they got shot with their highly illegal guns. Which have always been illegal, even when it wasn't that bad. Also explain IRA or other factions then.[/QUOTE] Poor law enforcement is usually due to a weak or corrupted government (from local to national level). [QUOTE=Robbi;38402192]You have not and can not disprove it.[/QUOTE] Except the author is full of crap.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402134]This is rather incoherent. I live in a country with hardly any leniency in the laws, and homicide rates due to handguns are lower.[/QUOTE] As I have said crime isn't just about handguns unless you think everyone just shoots eachother with glocks all day. Also I responded to your Japan statement. If Japan is as safe as you claim it then why is there still gun violence even with its own strict laws. Also do tell why Hong Kong has even more violence then my own city even without the guns. Hong Kong has some of the strictest laws on Earth and yet there it is still filled with violence. Also you seriously think the laws in California aren't enforced? The police and sheriffs do their work just fine and I'm rather insulted you say otherwise without anything to back that up. Have you ever been to this city? Most of the guns are illlegal that are used for crime.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402185]Some of them are. [/QUOTE] That is a slanderous assertion, as it associates gun ownership with criminality, which is a disgustingly ignorant view. If the only reason to own guns was to kill people, there wouldn't be anyone left in America, they'd have all killed each other with their ~1 gun per person that exist in the country. [quote]Yes, but robbing somebody with a knife is more difficult than with a gun. [/quote] Bullshit, it's just as easy, it's about intimidation, and it actually happens more often, especially in Britain.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38402239]Robbing someone who is armed is more difficult than anything. Also an unarmed individual is going to be robbed just as easily with a gun or a knife.[/QUOTE] You can't shoot somebody with a knife however. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38402255]That is a slanderous assertion, as it associates gun ownership with criminality, which is a disgustingly ignorant view. If the only reason to own guns was to kill people, there wouldn't be anyone left in America, they'd have all killed each other with their ~1 gun per person that exist in the country.[/QUOTE] Slanderous yes, but it is true. People who commit crimes with guns tend to be gun owners. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38402255]Bullshit, it's just as easy, it's about intimidation, and it actually happens more often, especially in Britain.[/QUOTE] You can't knife somebody from a considerable distance however.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402244]You also make it harder to acquire a gun.[/quote] No correlation to lower crime rates, already shown. [quote]Illegal guns initially start out as legal guns.[/quote] Not all guns did, especially those from the Khyber Pass. [quote]They may still own them, but less do than if the laws were more lenient.[/quote] Source for this claim? [quote]Except the author is full of crap.[/QUOTE] Not all of that is sourced from one author you ignoramus, as a matter of fact, the mention of John Lott was an aside, rather than a central argument.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402269]You can't shoot somebody with a knife however.[/QUOTE] You can kill. You would not argue with someone with a knife to your throat and don't even think of saying otherwise.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402244]You also make it harder to acquire a gun.[/QUOTE] And once again you repeat your desperate circle. It wont stop a person who wants one to get one. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402244]They may still own them, but less do than if the laws were more lenient.[/QUOTE] No, not less do. Those are pretty much the only active criminals in Iceland and they are all armed. There was a raid a month ago which they confiscated shitloads of illegal firearms. Explain this. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402244]Poor law enforcement is usually due to a weak or corrupted government (from local to national level).[/QUOTE] What? You didn't answer either of my questions. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402244]Except the author is full of crap.[/QUOTE] Because he disagrees with your nanny state laws?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402269]You can't shoot somebody with a knife however.[/quote] Ballistic Knife. Now what? [quote]Slanderous yes, but it is true. People who commit crimes with guns tend to be gun owners.[/quote] In the technical aspect of the term, but not in the cultural aspect of the term. This assertion implies it applies to the cultural aspect as well, which is false and slanderous. [quote]You can't knife somebody from a considerable distance however.[/QUOTE] You can't rob somebody from a considerably distance away either, it's generally done from a distance of a few feet.
[QUOTE=galenmarek;38402253]As I have said crime isn't just about handguns unless you think everyone just shoots eachother with glocks all day. Also I responded to your Japan statement. If Japan is as safe as you claim it then why is there still gun violence even with its own strict laws.[/QUOTE] Because Japan has very low violence rates. Just because it has low rates doesn't mean they are eliminated entirely. [QUOTE=galenmarek;38402253]Most of the guns are illlegal that are used for crime.[/QUOTE] Illegal guns have to come from somewhere however (legitimate manufacturers).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402269]You can't shoot somebody with a knife however.[/QUOTE] Oh right, stabbing someone is so much better.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402269]You can't shoot somebody with a knife however.[/quote] So are knife wounds magically less lethal than guns now or something?
[QUOTE=Robbi;38402311]And once again you repeat your desperate circle. It wont stop a person who wants one to get one.[/QUOTE] But it makes it harder. [QUOTE=Robbi;38402311]No, not less do. Those are pretty much the only active criminals in Iceland and they are all armed. There was a raid a month ago which they confiscated shitloads of illegal firearms. Explain this.[/QUOTE] Except making the laws more lenient wouldn't solve this. [QUOTE=Robbi;38402311]What? You didn't answer either of my questions.[/QUOTE] Yes I did. [QUOTE=Robbi;38402311]Because he disagrees with your nanny state laws?[/QUOTE] No, because he falsified much of his research.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402269]You can't knife somebody from a considerable distance however.[/QUOTE] You also do not rob someone from a considerable distance. This goes against your "pistols are more effective because you can discreetly rob someone". If you were to rob someone at a distance with a pistol then: A) You'd have to shout "Hand me your wallet or I'll shoot B) You'd have to raise your pistol to get a proper aim, making assault rifles more effective anyways C) Not discreet at fucking all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402346]No, because he falsified much of his research.[/QUOTE] [B]FUCK ALL OF THAT POST I MADE CAME FROM JOHN LOTT'S RESEARCH[/B] Now what?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38402285]No correlation to lower crime rates, already shown.[/QUOTE] It reduces homicide rates however. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38402285]Not all guns did, especially those from the Khyber Pass.[/QUOTE] Are all guns from the Khyber Pass? [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38402285]Not all of that is sourced from one author you ignoramus, as a matter of fact, the mention of John Lott was an aside, rather than a central argument.[/QUOTE] John Lott is still a terrible author however.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402346]But it makes it harder.[/QUOTE] Aaand I rest my case. You're desperate now so you do this. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402346]Except making the laws more lenient wouldn't solve this.[/QUOTE] Correct but it would give me the chance to protect my self against them if they decided to invade my home. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38402346]Yes I did.[/QUOTE] Pretty shit answers, mate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.