Obama has largely steered clear of gun debate; For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36904411] Only one US state has a homicide rate lower than Sweden, New Hampshire, whose homicide rate is 0.8.[/QUOTE] You mean the State with the laxest gun laws out of the entire US? [QUOTE=Ond kaja;36904411]Even Czech Republic has a higher homicide rate than Sweden, despite their lax gun regulations.[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia's page on Czech gun laws]Number of murders committed by legally owned guns reached its peak in 2000, when 20 people were murdered. There were 16 murders committed with legally owned gun in 2003, 17 in 2007 and 2 in 2010. [/quote] And even in the US, only about 30% of the firearms used in crimes are purchased legally. The rest comes from black markets. Plus there's one statistic you have missed: while every year in the US, firearms are used in about 500'000 crimes, they're also used 2-2.5 MILLION times in self-defense. Were the gun laws stricter, most criminals would still obtain weapons, while a lot of people would be defenseless. And here in Italy, laws are a bit laxer than Sweden: you can go sport shooting with a hunting license, you can keep your guns unlocked and loaded for home defense if they're outside the reach of children, there are CCW permits available (although hard to get) etc. Yet guess what? Most crimes are committed with weapons acquired and carried illegally anyway.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36904702]Except no one is going to let you take an AK into a movie theater, that's just overkill Sure it would get the job done, (If you could hit them through all the panicking people, screaming children, clouds of tear gas and the pants you just shit in) but to the police, if they see two men holding rifles, they're probably going to assume they're BOTH there to cause harm. [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] Two different cultures. Surely Sweden's poverty rate is less than that of the US, which can have a direct effect of the homicide rate.[/QUOTE] That isn't an AK cartridge, that's 7.62x39. 7.62x25 is a pistol cartridge. That said, why not a rifle? Because it's big? If someone wants to burden themselves with carrying a rifle instead of a pistol, who cares?

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36907066] If someone wants to burden themselves with carrying a rifle instead of a pistol, who cares?[/QUOTE] because its big and scary and think of the children :c

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36898618]You did say, or at least imply that giving out more guns is the best way of stopping crimes.[/QUOTE] Best =/= only

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36906321]You mean the State with the laxest gun laws out of the entire US? [/quote]No, the state with the lowest poverty rate. New Hampshire has the least poverty and that is the reason why they also have the lowest homicide rate in the US. [quote] And even in the US, only about 30% of the firearms used in crimes are purchased legally. The rest comes from black markets. Plus there's one statistic you have missed: while every year in the US, firearms are used in about 500'000 crimes, they're also used 2-2.5 MILLION times in self-defense. Were the gun laws stricter, most criminals would still obtain weapons, while a lot of people would be defenseless. And here in Italy, laws are a bit laxer than Sweden: you can go sport shooting with a hunting license, you can keep your guns unlocked and loaded for home defense if they're outside the reach of children, there are CCW permits available (although hard to get) etc. Yet guess what? Most crimes are committed with weapons acquired and carried illegally anyway.[/QUOTE] It doesn't really matter if a crime is committed by a legally purchased weapon or not. The supply of legal weapons directly affect the supply of illegal weapon. Weapons stolen from others, gun shops doing backroom deals and increased demand for weapons by criminals. [QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36904702]Surely Sweden's poverty rate is less than that of the US, which can have a direct effect of the homicide rate.[/QUOTE] Exactly my point, Sweden has been more efficient combatting crimes than the U.S. by attacking the causes (poverty, mental care, education etc.). The lax gun laws in the U.S. might help a bit but looking at the actual statistics makes it clear that lax gun laws fails to adress the issues that cause crime. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36907389]Best =/= only[/QUOTE] But do you think lax gun laws is the best way of preventing crimes? If yes, then why are the homicide rates so high in the U.S, and why are some countries with strict gun laws more successful than countries that have lax gun laws?

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36908734] But do you think lax gun laws is the best way of preventing crimes? If yes, then why are the homicide rates so high in the U.S, and why are some countries with strict gun laws so successful than countries that have lax gun laws?[/QUOTE] There's two ways to combat crimes - preventive and reactive. Your way is preventive, trying to stop a crime before one is even necessary. Mine is reactive, reacting to the crime when it happens. Both are great, but I believe mine is better simply by this - you wish to stop crime by improving the economics of a region, something governments have been trying and failing to figure out for decades and decades. Trying to improve the economy so people won't resort to crime is a great idea, but hardly a simple one. My solution, even as a temporary solution, can be more effective I believe. Not to mention that the shooting in Colorado that sparked this thread had [B]absolutely nothing[/B] to do with economics. He wasn't trying to rob anyone. He went to kill and nothing further. An awesome economy won't protect the populace from the nuts like him. Plus, economies rise and fall. Eventually, the economy of anywhere will sink again. And then what? As for homicide rates differing, correlation does not equal causation. Some countries, like Britain, grew around a culture completely without guns. Others, like the US, grew up surrounded with them. Guns are a tool to an end. In America, growing up with guns as a took, obviously will be used in the worse of means as much as the best.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36904702] Two different cultures. Surely Sweden's poverty rate is less than that of the US, which can have a direct effect of the homicide rate.[/QUOTE] Gee who knew, murder rates have a relation to poverty rates? But never argue in favor of fixing that problem, just keep on supporting more wars and endless expensive legislation. Guns have nothing to do with murder, keep on thinking that and I'll keep on thinking you're a psychopath who constantly thinks about killing people. A normal person doesn't grab a loaded gun and start killing people. The types who would do this are in an unmeasurably small minority. [B]In any case, stop pretending my rights are your political football game.[/B]

[QUOTE=DrMortician;36908936] [B]In any case, stop pretending my rights are your political football game.[/B][/QUOTE] eh? in any case i find gun control to be completely circumstantial. in either case of increased or reduced crime there's no evidence to suggest that gun control has any effect at all. i think the biggest problem is the fact that people who sell and produce guns don't give a shit about who gets a gun. we should be targeting the people who sell these weapons, not the citizens who don't commit any crimes with them.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36909023]eh? in any case i find gun control to be completely circumstantial. in either case of increased or reduced crime there's no evidence to suggest that gun control has any effect at all. i think the biggest problem is the fact that people who sell and produce guns don't give a shit about who gets a gun. we should be targeting the people who sell these weapons, not the citizens who don't commit any crimes with them.[/QUOTE] Eh? People attempting to some how polarize parts of my daily life as a political issue I find as entirely insulting.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36908832]There's two ways to combat crimes - preventive and reactive. Your way is preventive, trying to stop a crime before one is even necessary. Mine is reactive, reacting to the crime when it happens. Both are great, but I believe mine is better simply by this - you wish to stop crime by improving the economics of a region, something governments have been trying and failing to figure out for decades and decades. Trying to improve the economy so people won't resort to crime is a great idea, but hardly a simple one. My solution, even as a temporary solution, can be more effective I believe. Not to mention that the shooting in Colorado that sparked this thread had [B]absolutely nothing[/B] to do with economics. He wasn't trying to rob anyone. He went to kill and nothing further. An awesome economy won't protect the populace from the nuts like him. Plus, economies rise and fall. Eventually, the economy of anywhere will sink again. And then what? As for homicide rates differing, correlation does not equal causation. Some countries, like Britain, grew around a culture completely without guns. Others, like the US, grew up surrounded with them. Guns are a tool to an end. In America, growing up with guns as a took, obviously will be used in the worse of means as much as the best.[/QUOTE] Which leads me to the next question; why do you think your way is better when the statistics show that "your way" has six times higher homicide rates where it has been applied? You say that your way requires less time but is that an excuse to never approach the preventive methods or do you genuinely believe that we should actively approach them, along with the reactive measures? And you seem to think that improving the economy is the only way of combatting poverty, which it isn't. Approaching income-equality is another way of reducing poverty and can be used even when the economy is struggling. Progressive taxes, benefits, free healthcare, free education makes a stronger lower class, which is more resistant to criminality. I don't know the motives behind the Colorado shooting, but I'm going to assume he had mental problems. In which case could've been avoided by proper education and mental care. Having a child psychologist at school, having teachers monitor their pupils' psychological progress etc. I'm assuming you would think giving him some pills would be a better since that is a reactive solution, no?

[QUOTE=DrMortician;36909084] People attempting to some how polarize parts of my daily life as a political issue I find as entirely insulting.[/QUOTE] okay so? do you get this insulted when people discuss economics? rest assured that has a larger impact on your life than having a gun.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36909112]okay so? do you get this insulted when people discuss economics? rest assured that has a larger impact on your life than having a gun.[/QUOTE] Discussing economics isn't discussing whether I'm to be called a criminal or not.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;36909129]Discussing economics isn't discussing whether I'm to be called a criminal or not.[/QUOTE] you are being very dramatic if you wanna take that route discussing economics is discussing whether you'll be a slave or a free worker.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36909171]you are being very dramatic if you wanna take that route discussing economics is discussing whether you'll be a slave or a free worker.[/QUOTE] You're being dramatic by calling people free workers or slaves. Free labor isn't that far from slavery you know, they should have a choice! Humor aside the matter still stands, I'm not being dramatic. Politicians say things to the effect of, if you own anything besides grand dad's hunting shotgun, you're obviously a criminal looking to slaughter people. And these are the people who write the laws that affect me, and do so directly. I've lived through the AWB, all of the political fear-mongering prices, and all of the media demonization. I remember what each of these things are and how they end up for me. I'm not exactly happy to see it happening once again.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;36909253]You're being dramatic by calling people free workers or slaves.[/QUOTE] ya that was the point [QUOTE=DrMortician;36909253]I've lived through the AWB, all of the political fear-mongering prices, and all of the media demonization.[/QUOTE] oh your poor dear that must have been awful

[QUOTE=thisispain;36909270] oh your poor dear that must have been awful[/QUOTE] Why yes, I dislike being demonized for no reason other than people's political agendas.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;36909306]Why yes, I dislike being demonized for no reason other than people's political agendas.[/QUOTE] who's demonizing you? in fact how does that even affect your life besides not being able to have a specific feature on your weapon? this is absolute non-sense really, not to mention you're not talking to a politician who passed the AWB, you're talking to a swedish dude from a totally different world who didn't even attempt to demonize you at once. while i understand emotional attachment to objects is a natural human response, you might want to curb it a bit when posting on forums.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36909362]who's demonizing you? in fact how does that even affect your life besides not being able to have a specific feature on your weapon? this is absolute non-sense really, not to mention you're not talking to a politician who passed the AWB, you're talking to a swedish dude from a totally different world who didn't even attempt to demonize you at once. while i understand emotional attachment to objects is a natural human response, you might want to curb it a bit when posting on forums.[/QUOTE] Emotional attachment? How about financial attachment, numbering in the tens of thousands?

[QUOTE=DrMortician;36909396]Emotional attachment? How about financial attachment, numbering in the tens of thousands?[/QUOTE] hey it's your money