|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 20 30 40 ... 41 42 43 44 45 ... 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 14, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Never answer to Tsar before one hour pass. He will spend this hour to edit, so you will look fool. 
A Black Dragon is not immune to the Efreet Sultan's fire shield, cause it reflects might not magic. (Consis)
A bright hero discovered that by pressing the space bar, you revisit your location! (Consis)
A catapult can deal 0-2 damage. All walls do have 2 hitpoints.Only Ballistics will improve the chance of doing the most damage. (Xarfax)
A hot type of moat will deal 90 points of damage, while others will deal 70. (Xarfax)
"A good tactician always remembers that pressing the ""autocombat"" key during the tactic phase will move his 2-hex monster one step further! (Xarfax)"
A knight once told me his badge of courage gave all his troops mind spell immunity. (Mike)
A lonely hero who has lost all his creatures, will disappear as soon as he gets attacked! (Angelito)
A mage informed me he always knows which creatures his area spells will affect, as they only works on blue outlined creatures. (Xarfax)
A mage tried casting spells on Thorgrim's creatures with 100% magic resistance, and dispel was the only one that worked. (Commando)
A seer will always ask you for a unique artifact. There will be no copies anywhere! (Angelito)
A Silver Pegasi placed in front of a berserked Green Dragon can confuse it so much that it does nothing. (Xarfax)
A strange dark magic causes arrow towers to do more damage to creatures, if they have armourer or airshield. (Russ)
Snow, I'm drunk tonight.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 05:43 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 05:49, 18 Apr 2013.
|
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-17/gun-control-setback-senate-blocks-background-check-plan
Quote:
President Obama got his vote on gun control, but not the vote—or the results—he wanted. On April 17, the White House campaign to tighten federal restrictions on firearms ran into a wall of Republican opposition and Democratic ambivalence.
Quote:
More comprehensive screening of gun buyers is supported by 91 percent of U.S. voters, including 88 percent of gun-owning households, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted March 27-April 1. The politics, however, just didn’t work for gun-control advocates. Republicans including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who agreed not to filibuster a gun-control debate, refused to go along with the Manchin-Toomey screening provision, even though it would have carved out an exception for transactions between neighbors and family members. And Democratic senators facing tough 2014 reelection fights in pro-gun states—such as Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Max Baucus of Montana—declined to risk the wrath of the National Rifle Association and its vigorous local affiliates
Quote:
The fizzling of gun control, at least for now, underscores how drastically the debate has moved toward the libertarian, anti-regulation pole. The NRA backed comprehensive background checks as recently as 1999. Today, the NRA and most Republicans in Congress oppose screening all commercial gun sales for criminals, fugitives, and the severely mentally ill because they claim doing so will lead to national firearm registration. A registry, this slippery-slope argument goes, will then facilitate gun confiscation.
Quote:
For perspective, recall that 20 years ago, Congress was busy debating—and approving—the precursor to the existing background-check system, curbs on military-style semiautomatic rifles (“assault weapons,” in the political argot), and a 10-round limit on ammo capacity. The latter two provisions expired nine years ago.
Two factors inhibited influential Democrats from engaging in a real brawl on guns: First, they fear losing their tenuous 55-45 hold on the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections. Second, there’s a palpable sense in Washington that Obama’s other major social-issue priority, immigration reform, has a better chance than gun control in the House of Representatives. Speaker John Boehner, contending with the rambunctious Tea Party wing of his party, had refused to commit to allowing a House floor vote on firearm limits. In the end, Democrats calculated that, even after Newtown, expanding immigration is a better bet than restricting guns.
The bottom line: Stricter screening of gun purchases had little chance in Congress, even though polls show 91 percent of Americans want it.
I just love gun lover logic. Opposing medical screening just screams of idiocy.
But as Eric Schmidt said, if you have something to hide, dont do in in the first place.
I can say that Gun lovers are sick and need their petty guns removed because nobody with a right mind would refuse Medical background check. I bet that they are affraid that they can be classified as mentaly insane and rightfully so, because they are.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 08:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, I'm not cherry picking. I gave the stats in the first post of the thread. But the anti-gun people kept insisting, "Nuh uh, having a gun makes you no safer. And besides you should be an expert at 18 kinds of marial arts, block knives with your bare hands, and catch bullets in your teeth." They watch too many cartoons. I live in the real world where having a gun on your person means you have a chance to fight back when human predators try to make you their prey and where the only place anyone "catches bullets in their teeth" is a Hollywood flick.
Martial arts are even worse than a gun. Didn't I make a thread about this? Nobody is Chuck Norris, but nobody is Rambo, either. Against three people, gun or no gun, you'll die either way if they are armed and motivated. You pick those "one in a thousand" cases and post them here as some sort of proof, which is as pointless as posting people with two heads as an example of how humans are bi-headed.
Sure, those things happen, because most of the things in nature follow gaussian distribution. Getting spectacular Rambo-like defense is as probable as getting absolutely mauled by a anemic 10-yo. And the most probable scenario is "getting your butt handed to you in your sleep/absence/geting surprised/getting outnumbered", and that's what usually happens if you read Police records.
What I'm trying to tell you is that you invested quite a bit of money and training (shooting, etc.) to protect yourself from... what, a 1% probability scenario ? Maybe less? I can understand all kinds of deterrents like dogs, alarms - they are a good idea in general, but guns? what for? again, what are the chances of a head-on assault on your home and you killing them all with your shotgun without getting a throat slit in your sleep?
Of course you may want to be prepared for "everything", like the guy that wore pneumatic pants in case of a flood (which exploded in the subway, hurting him and a few passengers as well), but that's pretty paranoic, you know. You can't foresee everything. And the things you advocate defense against are such a low probability event that they are not really worth the trouble, money and time. Like the pneumatic pants: what are the odds?
By the way, the press really isn't interested in posting about another guy getting beaten or robbed, so you may get a feeling that people are "defending their homes" left and right. nah. It's just the press that writes about those that do. Like a novelty, you know. Something worth writing about, proving it's a quite a task and nothing to depend at, or even hope of achieving. If it was a common thing, the press wouldn't write about it. Like getting mugged. Are there articles "guy mugged on the street" ? no? that's because it's such a common event that nobody even cares of writing about it. But, get a guy that defends himself, and bam, an article gets written right away. Why? because it's a very uncommon and quite epic task. You get the drift.
And you gave no statistics. As Zenofex said, it's just pro-gun propaganda with zero credibility.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 11:39 AM |
|
|
The pro-gun side is conveniently ignoring that it's not about prohibiting gun-ownership. The fact that you must have a driving license to own a car isn't actually shocking anyone - in fact everyone seems to be quite comfortable with the notion that it makes sense not to allow everyone to just buy a car and drive it, so what's strange is, that people seem to be comfortable with the notion that every idiot can get an assault rifle, which, in my opinion, is a weapon of mass destruction - or would have been called one in the time when the founding fathers decided to allow owning and wearing of guns.
There must be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be allowed to buy a machine gun, a tank, an anti-tank-gun or two to protect my home against attacking tanks, a couple of shoulder launchers for flechette ammo as anti-personal weapons and maybe a tactical nuke for good measure, since that would considerable better my chances to resist against a government going rogue.
I don't have a problem with "gun culture" and weapon magazines, and I can understand how people simply have an interest in weapon statistics like muzzle velocity, rate of fire, penetrating power and whatnot, but even with simple handguns there is some really nasty ammunition out there that will make even simple handguns brutal killers, so I don't understand the bloody problem the bloody legislative in the US of A has.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 04:25 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:28, 18 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
You pick those "one in a thousand" cases and post them here as some sort of proof, which is as pointless as posting people with two heads as an example of how humans are bi-headed.
Poppycock. The statistics in the initial thread post indicate you are wrong. Merely brandishing a gun when your home is invaded is enough to make the burglar flee most of the time.
Quote:
The researchers found that six percent of the sample population had used a firearm in a burglary situation in the last twelve months. [FN32] Extrapolating the polling sample to the national population, the researchers estimated that in the last twelve months, there were approximately 1,896,842 incidents in which a householder retrieved a firearm but did not see an intruder. [FN33] There were an estimated 503,481 incidents in which the armed householder did see the burglar, [FN34] and 497,646 incidents in which the burglar was scared away by the firearm. [FN35] In other words, half a million times every year, burglars were likely forced to flee a home because they encountered an armed victim.
Quote:
The most thorough survey of citizen defensive gun use in general (not just in burglaries) found that in well over ninety percent of incidents, a shot is never fired; the mere display of the gun suffices to end the confrontation. [FN43] The CDC study did not specifically ask whether a gun was fired. [FN44] Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that burglary DGU is similar to DGU in general, and that most incidents end with the burglar fleeing at the sight of the armed victim, rather than the victim shooting at the burglar.
Quote:
What happens if a burglar does confront a family, and the family is armed? Gun prohibition advocates warn that the burglar will probably take the gun away and use it against the family. [FN98] But "take-aways" occur in no more than one percent of defensive gun uses and are only possible if the gun owner is so *359 indecisive that he holds the gun far away from his body and fails to act as the burglar comes near. [FN99]
Quote:
When burglars do encounter victims who cannot protect themselves, the results can be tragic. In thirty percent of these cases, the victim is assaulted or threatened. [FN101] In ten percent of these cases, the burglaries turn into rapes. [FN102] Over the ten-year period of 1973-82, this meant 623,000 aggravated (felony) assaults and 281,000 rapes. [FN103] Overall, the victim rate of death from "hot" burglaries is six times the death rate from street muggings. [FN104]
Quote:
And you gave no statistics. As Zenofex said, it's just pro-gun propaganda with zero credibility.
Again, poppycock. There are statistics and anti-gun lobbyists continuing to stuff their fingers in their ears and yell, "Having a gun makes you no safer!!" is just really bizarre and ignoring the facts as well as common sense. If you don't want to protect yourself or your loved ones, fine. But don't demand that I not be able to do so.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 04:47 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:48, 18 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
The pro-gun side is conveniently ignoring that it's not about prohibiting gun-ownership. The fact that you must have a driving license to own a car isn't actually shocking anyone - in fact everyone seems to be quite comfortable with the notion that it makes sense not to allow everyone to just buy a car and drive it, so what's strange is, that people seem to be comfortable with the notion that every idiot can get an assault rifle, which, in my opinion, is a weapon of mass destruction - or would have been called one in the time when the founding fathers decided to allow owning and wearing of guns.
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution says the right to keep and bear [carry] arms is a RIGHT. That means citizens are allowed by the Constitution to carry a gun with them as they go about their daily affairs.
Indeed, the founding fathers said each person should be AT ALL TIMES armed.
Quote:
The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; .... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of
the press.
The founding fathers gave one of the reasons for gun ownership as keeping the government in check, so, no, the founding fathers would not be in favor of an "assault weapons ban."
Quote:
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 05:15 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:17, 18 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution says the right to keep and bear [carry] arms is a RIGHT. That means citizens are allowed by the Constitution to carry a gun with them as they go about their daily affairs.
Indeed, the founding fathers said each person should be AT ALL TIMES armed.
If in your hierarchy, driving is a privilege that should be restricted to some people (for whatever reason, being unstable, having bad eyesight etc etc) yet carrying an AK 47 isn't, I suggest you seriously stop and ask yourself if you're brainwashed by gun industry or not.
Your founding fathers lived in a different age, there were no automobiles or assault rifles of this magnitude. Besides, they had just been out of a war of independence. They had just fought their own government they declared illegitimate. You are, on the other hand, quoting your states' constitution.
And you better make up your mind, is bearing arms a right or a duty? Claiming that an ordinary guy not only should be able to, but should feel that it is his duty to own a chain-gun or an assault rifle because of some law written in 18th century context is beyond ridiculous.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 05:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Again, poppycock. There are statistics and anti-gun lobbyists continuing to stuff their fingers in their ears and yell, "Having a gun makes you no safer!!" is just really bizarre and ignoring the facts as well as common sense. If you don't want to protect yourself or your loved ones, fine. But don't demand that I not be able to do so.
Wow, you really need statistics as "proof" for something as dead-obvious as "if you point a gun at someone, he'll flee or die" ?
How hard for you is to understand that your "arguments" are truisms? They are so obvious that pointing them out is like saying "the grass is green".
Your arguments completely ignore some very simple facts that don't even need statistics to be aware of:
1. In a gun-totting country, everyone expects a gun
2. Since your country swims in guns, you can expect the criminals to adapt
3. The crime rate is still ridiculously high, so your "deterrent" doesn't really work
4. You can have a minigun with you, doesn't matter. If you're surprised, you'll do whatever the mugger demands if you even if he simply places a piece of bent metal at your back.
5. Guess how people get mugged, usually? by getting surprised.
6. Guess how people get robbed, usually? When they are sleeping or away.
Counter that, mr. I-quote-brain-dead-statistics-and-claim-proof.
I see no point in arguing over and over that pointing a gun at someone unarmed in your house (or even armed, but taking him by surprise) means you can kill him. It's as obvious as stating, as I formerly said, that the grass is green. Your arguments have pretty much zero value - it's common knowledge. Hence, their substantial value is very low: it's nothing new. Everybody knows that lol.
But, how about answering for once, what are the odds of all the variables needed for your "heroic shotgun action" clicking together?
1. You have to be at the place that is robbed, or near your family if endangered.
2. You have to be awake.
3. You mustn't be surprised.
4. You have to surprise the attacker or make a 50/50 coin toss of "who shoots faster" and win
5. The opponent must be alone or have cowardly mates who don't just kill you the second he drops
Now that's a VERY specific situation, don't you agree? The odds are pretty much in your favor. If you managed all five, yes, a shotgun is priceless.
But let me ask for the 9001th time: what are the odds?
Making a proper statistic (which would solve the issue) would be extremely hard since nobody really does that and to my knowledge there is no research on it.
So we have to use common sense.
My common sense tells me that the "perfect scenario" for your shotgun is at best 1-2% of all confrontations with criminals.
Unless criminals in your country are really retarded to charge head on, alone, and unarmed in broad daylight so you can shoot them from a mile away. In that case, you have my 101% support for a shotgun in every house.
So, how about we drop the truisms, stop quoting some bull like "if you shoot somebody, he may die" and pretend it helps the discussion? Answer my direct question above: what are the odds, and isn't it paranoic to prepare yourself for something that seems EXTREMELY unlikely?
Wouldn't it be better to focus on stuff that prevents homebreaks in the first place?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 07:48 PM |
|
|
MOBLAAAAND!
YESSSSSSSS!
So, If the US can't police their own bloody country, so that honest hard-working people are forced to buy M16s to survive the unrelenting onslaught of all the evil wrongdoers - what makes them think they can police the whole bloody world?
Get your troops the hell out of all foreign countries and free your own people from the slavery of being forced to live in constant fear of being assaulted!
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But, how about answering for once, what are the odds of all the variables needed for your "heroic shotgun action" clicking together?
if that is true :
Quote:
In other words, half a million times every year, burglars were likely forced to flee a home because they encountered an armed victim.
not so low.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 08:32 PM |
|
|
It would only make any substantial sense if you compared it to the amount of times people were robbed and/or mugged despite having a gun.
Otherwise, it's pointless. 5, 5000 or 5000000 has the same value for comparison: zero, if you don't have anything to compare it to.
Quote:
is THAT clear enough? probably not. you people will still argue, after it's spelled out for you like how i would explain something to my 4-year-old nephew. geez.
Come to Europe. You'll be surprised that you can actually live without guns and have a much lower crime rate than your superarmed US 
It's like arms race. You can't defeat the guy by just getting a gun and going all joyful around, he'll get a bigger one to counter yours. SomeUS citizens didn't learn much from cold war arms race, I see...
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
is THAT clear enough? probably not. you people will still argue, after it's spelled out for you like how i would explain something to my 4-year-old nephew. geez.
Actually, it's rather clear that you're currently in a lose-lose situation. "Good" people won't drop the guns because the "bad" people are even more unlikely to drop the guns and that's serving as some scarecrow. The problem is that no matter how many guns the "good" people have, the "bad" people will have just as many (or even more) guns and you'll have nice killing sprees every once in a while and one can just hope that there'll be more victims among the "bad" guys than among the "good" ones. Right? Sounds a bit like some FPS by the way. So, it's really simple - it's generally considered a good idea to create an environment which spawns far more "good" people than "bad" people, in which case it will not be so important how many weapons the "bad" people have. Of course some "bad" people will always attack some "good" people but the body count will be significantly reduced on both sides. Now, if you believe that the "bad" people are just bad, because the Devil whispers in their ears - like the author of the thread for example - and not that they become "bad" because of the environment, please ignore my post entirely.
Adding a pool of "good" and "bad" for future use:
good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good;
bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 10:21 PM |
|
Edited by fauch at 22:28, 18 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
It would only make any substantial sense if you compared it to the amount of times people were robbed and/or mugged despite having a gun.
Otherwise, it's pointless. 5, 5000 or 5000000 has the same value for comparison: zero, if you don't have anything to compare it to.
and what are worth relative values if absolute ones are low?
and you can compare them, 500,000 in a year, in the USA. well, maybe this isn't a reprensentative year, but it's still quite a high number
zenofex : the problem in that case is that bad guys supposedly already have guns. if they didn't have any, of course, it would be easier to solve.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 10:51 PM |
|
|
|
I'm actually officially confused regarding what you are trying to say and what is your position on the matter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2013 11:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
as for your second paragraph, refer to the pic i posted. i know what you're saying, but, the bad guys here will ALWAYS have guns, just like everyone here will ALWAYS have access to street drugs(just not as easy to attain, because they are ILLEGAL).
Well, that might be the heart of the problem: if your country would be less hysterical about making weapons somewhat more illegal and at the same time less hysterical about making drugs somewhat more legal, your problems might solve.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 19, 2013 07:52 AM |
|
|
|
OK, you ARE clear now, but what you are depicting is some inevitable chaos which can not be prevented and the best thing one can do is arm to the teeth and wait for Armageddon to come. Really now, is this the best which the allegedly most powerful (and rich) country in the world can do? When I said in another topic that people never see the big picture, I was referring to exactly that kind of thing. I guess you DO know, for example, how many social issues can be solved if you redirect even a minor part of your "defense" budget towards internal issues. Why exactly nobody makes such demands? And why do you (seemingly) have so many people like Elodin which will smash their heads in a wall before they admit that your social system is broken and badly needs repair?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2013 08:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
as for your second paragraph, refer to the pic i posted. i know what you're saying, but, the bad guys here will ALWAYS have guns, just like everyone here will ALWAYS have access to street drugs(just not as easy to attain, because they are ILLEGAL).
No. According to Police records, in Poland at least (gun free country), common muggers almost never have guns. I'm tired of this propaganda - guns don't grow on trees. Those who own illegal firearms in Poland are usually mobsters, those who don't "rob houses and mug people" - they are busy with bigger matters.
If you check the records, you'll notice most weapons used in common mug situations are fake/gas pistols, or makeshift "weapons" that don't even shoot. The majority uses a knife.
If you think it's that easy, I dare you to buy an illegal weapon in Poland. Go ahead, prove your theory.
Because I can tell you that at least in my country it's insanely hard for a common low-life. Almost impossible.
Yes, it makes the streets safer. It is also a matter of mentality, of course - but I'd take my streets over yours any time. (just not the payments ;P)
Of course, if you get surprised, it's a moot point - you should do everything the mugger demands at knife point anyway, no difference really if he had a gun or not.
As for the US - I'd probably install a minigun auto-defense system there instead of getting a shotgun, miniguns never sleep and never leave their post  And from what Elodin posts, it's a wild country where you get mugged, robbed or raped around every corner
I'm not sure if I would get a shotgun if I were living in the US... probably not, but perhaps I overestimate the intelligence of your criminals? Judging by Elodin's posts, I do - they really do stupid things like breaking into your place at daylight or trying to mug you in a way that leaves you the time to shoot them?
Because, as I repeatedly pointed out using common logic, you can't really make any use of the gun in unfavorable conditions, and any criminal with 5% of his brain left would rather make the situation work in his favor...
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 19, 2013 09:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No. According to Police records, in Poland at least (gun free country), common muggers almost never have guns. I'm tired of this propaganda - guns don't grow on trees. Those who own illegal firearms in Poland are usually mobsters, those who don't "rob houses and mug people" - they are busy with bigger matters.
America isn't poorland, you cannot apply your country's no gun statistics to a country that has advocated gun use as a civil right since its very foundation. Id est, the 'damage' (if you deem it so) has been done, and it's naive and short-sighted to think that a ban on guns is going to fix things and bring American gun crime in-line with European levels.
Alcohol use for example, there are countries around the world that have a ban on alcohol, they have made it work, and one might consider that this is preferable to unrestricted drinking (related to various crimes). Yet prohibition will show just how a different culture like America deals with a ban on alcohol. Each country is different, period. You cannot apply one country's theorem to another.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 19, 2013 10:08 AM |
|
|
|
It's not about fixing how humans are created because obviously many of the humans created outside the US don't have the same problems as the humans created inside the US. We have poverty in Europe too, you know. In Eastern Europe, we have more poverty than anything else. Yet you won't see mass shootings and even small gunfights (which are very rare) occur between members of organized crime groups (and believe me - there are lots of them around), random "good people" almost never get targeted. Gun-armed burglars are next to non-existent. You see, the local poor people live under the same and even worse conditions than the US poor people but that doesn't result in crime rates with so many fatalities like in the US. So obviously it's not the human nature to blame.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2013 11:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
America isn't poorland, you cannot apply your country's no gun statistics to a country that has advocated gun use as a civil right since its very foundation. Id est, the 'damage' (if you deem it so) has been done, and it's naive and short-sighted to think that a ban on guns is going to fix things and bring American gun crime in-line with European levels.
Please show me where did I say: ban guns in America?
Quote:
Each country is different, period
Very naive.
The countries and the people are roughly the same. The mentality differs, but it can change drastically over as much as a generation.
50 years ago, people considered gays mentally ill.
100 years ago, iirc, there were buses for "colored" people.
300 years ago, there were slaves picking cotton at your country.
All came, all gone, to much dismay of people who couldn't change their thinking.
People can change, and their mentality can change, if there is sufficient effort aiming at changing it. The only obstacle is people like you who consider countries to be set in stone, no offense of course.
I believe Poorland could improve, as a side note, but not until religious nuts, nationalists and other hard-heads give up on their mission to preserve "the dark age".
In other words, when you come here to give me an "argument" like "this is America", I say: who cares? America can change. Everything can change. Absolute values don't change based on what latitude/longitude they are used at.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
