• Harvard concludes gun bans are ineffective/useless
    77 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40248552]the crack epidemic went through the 90s... the rise in crime went through 95. even then, the point is that the increased focus on the punitive system is what drove down crime, not more guns.[/QUOTE] yea and the awb also had a negligible impact on violent crime or gun violence anyways.
Counterpoint: When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Australia? Fun Fact, We used to have the record for the biggest massacre until Anders Breving or w/e the crazy european dude who shot up that island with the kids on it was called
[QUOTE=McGii;40248789]Counterpoint: When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Australia? Fun Fact, We used to have the record for the biggest massacre until Anders Breving or w/e the crazy european dude who shot up that island with the kids on it was called[/QUOTE] Wait? The Bath School House murders was not the biggest massacre?
[QUOTE=McGii;40248789]Counterpoint: When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Australia? Fun Fact, We used to have the record for the biggest massacre until Anders Breving or w/e the crazy european dude who shot up that island with the kids on it was called[/QUOTE] are mass shootings a big enough portion of gun crime to warrant legislative action to fight it? is it worth disenfranchising people to try and eliminate what might be a very small portion of gun deaths?
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;40242087]Gun laws worked in Australia? Sure there's ways of getting a firearm but its harder and very punishable[/QUOTE] Gun laws didnt "work" in australia, literally every thread someone uses this example and someone shoots its down explaining why its a huge misconception, yet it keeps being brought up as an example of gun control "working". If someone were to actually examine the statistics, you would notice two things: 1. Australia never had large amounts of firearm homicide/assault to begin with 2. It was already on a downward trend BEFORE the buybacks and restrictions, and continued at a similar rate after. Effectively the only thing the handgun buyback did was reduce the amount of suicides by firearm - which isnt really notable in and of itself, it just mean you are going to choose a different method of suicide because you don't have a firearm on hand - which is arguably an easy, efficient and painless method of suicide. You know why Australia doesn't have significant problems with firearm homicide? The same reason it doesn't have significant violent crime problems in general: good quality of life and standard of living and services. This is the same reason countries like Switzerland can have a (literal, rather than just using scary terms) assault rifle in the home of almost every male of age to serve in the military, yet next to no notable amount of firearm homicide. People get so caught up on the "gun" part and fail (or choose not) to address the "crime" part. Crime largely stems from socioeconomic issues - but nope lets not talk about that because that would involve addressing complex issues rather than laying the blame at the feet of an inanimate object - which is easy and allows politicians to do lip service and make it look like they are actually doing something instead of rerunning the same tread.
Ah what do a bunch of highly-educated professionals, grad students with degrees, and professors with PhDs in relevant subjects know anyways?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40248827]are mass shootings a big enough portion of gun crime to warrant legislative action to fight it? is it worth disenfranchising people to try and eliminate what might be a very small portion of gun deaths?[/QUOTE] who's being disenfranchised over guns
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40252336]who's being disenfranchised over guns[/QUOTE] people who own guns, silly. you are taking someone's right to personal belongings for the sake of stopping mass shootings.
The numbers have been there for quite a while to show that gun control really does little to nothing to prevent mass shootings. I think the most difficult part of this issue is that no one wants to admit that we can't realistically do anything to stem it.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;40252895]The numbers have been there for quite a while to show that gun control really does little to nothing to prevent mass shootings. I think the most difficult part of this issue is that no one wants to admit that we can't realistically do anything to stem it.[/QUOTE] This thread isn't about gun control it's about gun bans read the title.
They both work on the same principle... I was using gun control to broaden my statement
[QUOTE=scout1;40243111]FP gun threads: Take a shot everytime someone mentions a black market without saying how this mystical force works[/QUOTE] Not sure about America, but go to just about any native reserve here in Canada and you get guns. Sometimes you don't even need to do that: I knew a few guys who could get their hands on guns in high school. It's not hard to get them, even though we have far more restrictions on aquisition and possession than you yanks do. [QUOTE=yawmwen;40252349]people who own guns, silly. you are taking someone's right to personal belongings for the sake of stopping mass shootings.[/QUOTE] Not even just people who own guns. I don't own a single gun, not even a bb-gun/air rifle/whatever. Never did. Probably never will. Doesn't change the fact that I support gun owners though. People should be combating the socioeconomic factors that lead to violence in all its forms, not wasting their time on gun legislation that has been shown to be ineffective in the past.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;40255941]Not sure about America, but go to just about any native reserve here in Canada and you get guns. Sometimes you don't even need to do that: I knew a few guys who could get their hands on guns in high school. It's not hard to get them, even though we have far more restrictions on aquisition and possession than you yanks do. [/QUOTE] You also have a huge porous land border with the state that produces the most firearms in the world That may have something to do with it
I think the OP should address the criticisms of his title
After letting guns legally circulate for so long banning them at this point is just futile, if they really want to get rid of guns in America there going to have to start taking them off citizens, and I don't think we'll be seeing that any time soon.
gun laws worked in Canada, aaaaaaaaaaasuckadick
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;40256668]gun laws worked in Canada, aaaaaaaaaaasuckadick[/QUOTE] Your well thought out and eloquent post with its sound reasoning and good points has made me rethink everything I ever even thought I knew about gun Laws.
[QUOTE=Retardation;40256232]the study wasn't done by harvard and OP is an extremely opinionated gun advocate which probably means he intentionally overlooked the fact that it's written by a bunch of batshit conspiracy theorists.[/QUOTE] So it is okay for people who are biased against guns to post such threads, but not pro gunners?
People can get a hold of a gun, ban or not. The same thing applies to drugs. Furthermore, if somebody wanted to kill an individual, a lack of gun wouldn't stop them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;40256786]So it is okay for people who are biased against guns to post such threads, but not pro gunners?[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter who's posting the thread, but he is right, these people who wrote the piece are neither professors nor students at Harvard, so saying 'Harvard concludes' anything based on this is a bit disingenuous at best. That's the sort of thing you would only say as a way to lend some credibility to an argument, but in this case just isn't true. Somehow I doubt the OP read the entire 46 pages, because if he had, he would have noticed it does not say the same thing that the title of his thread does. The argument about suicide, for example: [quote]Guns are just one among numerous available deadly instruments. Thus, banning guns cannot reduce the amount of suicides. Such measures only reduce the number of suicides by firearms. Suicides committed in other ways increase to make up the difference. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. They kill themselves for reasons they deem sufficient, and in the absence of firearms they just kill themselves in some other way.[/quote] The conclusion of 'just as many suicides will happen even if firearms are more restricted' does not follow from 'people kill themselves with tools other than firearms'. Such other means are not always as immediate, take more planning, and thus are in certain cases more difficult to use as a method of suicide than a gun. Not only that, but despite having provided numerous previous citations for other methods that people commit suicide by, they provide no such support for this claim about 'making up the difference'. The only thing their arguments show is that there is no strict correlation between the level of gun ownership and suicide, not that there is [I]no relationship at all.[/I] The fact that they use the island of Fiji (a place where guns are mostly not available) as an example to prove this is frankly embarrassing, because again all that proves is that suicide itself still goes on. But that does not show that it goes on at the same rate without guns, because there were little to none of them to restrict in the first place. What I'm saying is, it's flimsy and the title is disingenuous. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=W00tbeer1;40256926]People can get a hold of a gun, ban or not. The same thing applies to drugs. Furthermore, if somebody wanted to kill an individual, a lack of gun wouldn't stop them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the vague platitudes but I think the ease of access changes somewhat when you have to get products from an illegal market rather than a legal one. That and you can't just hand-wave firearms' relationship to gun violence and suicide/homicide by firearms.
If only Americans gave as much of a fuck about solving the countless problems their country has as they give about protecting their precious guns.
[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;40256926]People can get a hold of a gun, ban or not. The same thing applies to drugs. Furthermore, if somebody wanted to kill an individual, a lack of gun wouldn't stop them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.[/QUOTE] At least a lack of a gun would level the playing field or even stop mass killings. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;40257100]At least a lack of a gun would level the playing field or even stop mass killings. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?[/QUOTE] I'd probably protest it.
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;40257100]At least a lack of a gun would level the playing field or even stop mass killings. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?[/QUOTE] I would probably react very harshly to say the least.
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;40257100]Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?[/QUOTE] Don't own any, probably would keep up with any news on the issue though, since it is quite topical.
Here's the point I reiterate every time there's a gun related thread. Mass murder deaths only represent a tiny fraction of overall gun death in the U.S. Now I'm not trying to say that this means the kids who died at Sandy Hook are a non-issue. I'm saying people should take a step back and see where the problem lies, and I'll tell you know, the problem is not: assault weapons, 30 round magazines or mass shootings. The gun violence problem consists mostly of one-on-one crime, and the majority of guns used in gun violence are handguns. I will concede that guns make it easier to kill people. I'm also not one of those people who owns guns for self-defense purposes, and I don't think the government is out to get my gun. (Of which I only own a Mosin Nagant, so I'm not particularly dangerous.) But please, I'm asking you not as an American, but as a person to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Sandy Hook was, indeed, a tragedy, but Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater shootings are not where our biggest problems lie.
[QUOTE=scout1;40255949]You also have a huge porous land border with the state that produces the most firearms in the world That may have something to do with it[/QUOTE] So lets use your logic here for a moment. You are saying that any form of gun control in the United States would be ineffective because we have a porous border with Mexico.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;40257760]So lets use your logic here for a moment. You are saying that any form of gun control in the United States would be ineffective because we have a porous border with Mexico.[/QUOTE] The United States produces many times more guns than Mexico but if Mexico produced as many, [B]maybe[/B] as the Canadian border is especially unregulated.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40252349]people who own guns, silly. you are taking someone's right to personal belongings for the sake of stopping mass shootings.[/QUOTE] that's not what disenfranchisement is [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] just an fyi
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;40257100]At least a lack of a gun would level the playing field or even stop mass killings. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?[/QUOTE] i'd gladly give them up as long as there was a reparations system
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.