Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 43

Thread: Gun laws

  1. #33
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Meiwaku
    I understand what everyone is saying, so instead of trying to make a point on something I only support one side on I just want to ask a question.

    Why is there more deaths by guns in the USA than any other 1st world country?
    From what I have read if you take population density into account the percentages tend to be pretty consistent no matter what country you're in (European, Uk, and the US). Except for the countries who have banned guns and they have seen a rise in gun crimes like Australia. When you consider that the US has 200 million more people, according to the statistics you quoted earlier, it is not really that hard to make the numbers apear squewed against the US if you use straight numbers instead of percentages. Show me the statistics of gun crimes with the coresponding population of where the crime occured and you just may be surprised. Or in other words, the larger the population density the higher the chance of being killed with a gun. The important part of that is that the chances of the gun being illegally owned go up with a higher population desity as well. Or to break it into simple terms; the bigger the city, the more crime/criminals there tends to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefblackhammer
    (Of the guns currently used to commit crimes in the US 89% of them are illegally acquired)
    I don't think this can be stressed enough.



    So, why not make cities above a certain population density illegal instead. Impractical it is true but it would have a measurable affect on crime in general and not just gun crimes.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  2. #34
    I'm all ears. Hassun has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pretiacruento
    Posts
    7,700
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 124 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefblackhammer

    I still believe it is not the weapon but the bearer that is the problem.
    But is it possible to have a good control on who should and who shouldn't posess a gun?
    I don't think so, so the next best thing is limiting the guns themselves or make people who want to buy a gun undergo extensive testing but that would cost quite alot...

    Quote Originally Posted by Arianna
    If a violent man owns a gun is it him or the gun that commit's the crime?
    If that violent man did not have a gun the chances of him using lethal violence would be much lower. A gun is just so easy to use. The violent man shouldn't be able to get a gun anyway. But that's where the problems begin (again), maybe he wasn't that voilent when he bought the gun or maybe he acted as if he wouldn't hurt a fly...

    That's where it boils down to, of course the guns don't kill the people themselves but how are we going to control who should be able to get a gun and who shouldn't, it's almost impossible. The next best thing is minimizing the amounts of firearms that are available.

    You both say that most of the crimes are comitted with illegal weapons?
    If there were very few of those weapons people wouldn't be able to get their hands on them so easily.

    And I think you can agree with me that making alot of people move out of the city because there are just too many people in it is also very difficult to accomplish...

    I do agree with you that the guns themselves are not at the base of the violence. many studies have proven that the connection is limited at best.

    But on to the deeper problem:
    The total amount of guns and the total amount of gun violence may not have alot to do with eachother by themselves but coupling the total amount of guns to the way the US media feeds anger, fear and sensation to the citizens is not to be underestimated.

    For someone who sees american television for the first time the experience is unreal, so loud, flashy and -more importantly- hypocrite! Going into a riot over a bit of nudity or censoring every potentially dangerous violence from films and at the same time showing 'reality' shows about cops shooting some robbers with a rocktune in the background or documentaries about how everyone and your neighbour is a potential psycho or terrorist

    I have never experienced such an assault of fear to the senses like when I watched some American tv shows and news reports.
    Last edited by Hassun; Apr 15, 2005 at 07:24 AM.

  3. #35
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassun
    You both say that most of the crimes are comitted with illegal weapons?
    If there were very few of those weapons people wouldn't be able to get their hands on them so easily.
    So instead you increase the blackmarket for guns. I say increase because with the majority of crimes being committed with illegal arms they didn't buy them from a storefront. Again, all you end up doing is punishing lawabiding citizens and giving criminals more control over an unarmed public. We can't keep drugs out of this country what makes you think banning gun ownership wil do anything for decreasing illegal firearms? In fact anytime something is banned in the US the blackmarket supply usually triples. I doubt that only holds true for the US considering what banning guns has done for other countries crime rates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassun
    And I think you can agree with me that making alot of people move out of the city because there are just too many people in it is also very difficult to accomplish...

    I do agree with you that the guns themselves are not at the base of the violence. many studies have proven that the connection is limited at best.
    If studies you have read have proven that the "connection is limited at best" why do you still believe it would be a solution. Do you think that treating someone for cancer would solve gallstones? Why treat the problem that doesn't exist instead of the one that does?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassun
    But on to the deeper problem:
    The total amount of guns and the total amount of gun violence may not have alot to do with eachother by themselves but coupling the total amount of guns to the way the US media feeds anger, fear and sensation to the citizens is not to be underestimated.

    For someone who sees american television for the first time the experience is unreal, so loud, flashy and -more importantly- hypocrite! Going into a riot over a bit of nudity or censoring every potentially dangerous violence from films and at the same time showing 'reality' shows about cops shooting some robbers with a rocktune in the background or documentaries about how everyone and your neighbour is a potential psycho or terrorist

    I have never experienced such an assault of fear to the senses like when I watched some American tv shows and news reports.
    So change the channel, that's what we do. You don't have to watch the tv to find out what is going on, in fact, sometimes it is counterproductive. The news is just trying to get you to watch by being more sensational then the competition. So is the entertainment industry. If they weren't the exception it wouldn't be news or new. Turn it off, go on with your life, don't desend to Hollywoods level. Life is much nicer without them. That's why I watch anime.


    Incidently, according to studies I have read in England and Wales the "serious crime" rate is actually the worst of 18 industrial countries surveyed by the UN. Even more ironically, since banning guns in the Uk gun crimes (which had been dropping) are on the rise, and gun crimes in the US (with an increase in states with concealed weapons permits) is dropping.

    Something to think about.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  4. #36
    I'm all ears. Hassun has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pretiacruento
    Posts
    7,700
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 124 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    So instead you increase the blackmarket for guns. I say increase because with the majority of crimes being committed with illegal arms they didn't buy them from a storefront. Again, all you end up doing is punishing lawabiding citizens and giving criminals more control over an unarmed public. We can't keep drugs out of this country what makes you think banning gun ownership wil do anything for decreasing illegal firearms? In fact anytime something is banned in the US the blackmarket supply usually triples. I doubt that only holds true for the US considering what banning guns has done for other countries crime rates.
    When guns are simply not allowed it is much easier to fight the blackmarket for them because just about any gun you see that doesn't belong to the police/military/... is illegal. It iliminates alot of problems with false licenses too.
    I think it'll also help when the punishments for having illegal arms are very severe.
    (e.g. very high fines)

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    If studies you have read have proven that the "connection is limited at best" why do you still believe it would be a solution. Do you think that treating someone for cancer would solve gallstones? Why treat the problem that doesn't exist instead of the one that does?
    The problem does exist.
    The same reports also say "it's pretty logical that a place with alot of firearms is more prone to have gun related crimes like homocide."
    What I've written in my previous posts is that the problem may not be the guns themselves but that it's almost impossible to solve the problem at it's roots.
    See the example of who should be allowed to get guns and who shouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    So change the channel, that's what we do. You don't have to watch the tv to find out what is going on, in fact, sometimes it is counterproductive. The news is just trying to get you to watch by being more sensational then the competition. So is the entertainment industry. If they weren't the exception it wouldn't be news or new. Turn it off, go on with your life, don't desend to Hollywoods level. Life is much nicer without them. That's why I watch anime.
    But not everyone changes the channel, especially people with a low education or teenagers...and the number of channels spewing this crap is pretty high (at least based on my experience). I think alot of people do watch those shows/programs and can become very influenced by them. Couple that with an overstressed population which posesses a copious amount of guns and you're bound to have more than a few problems. Again, an example of how the guns aren't the root of the problem but getting rid of them is the most practical solution.
    And it's not like TV alone is the source of these problems, the internet is becoming more and more like it with the added danger that it's world wide, maybe alot of Americans know how to deal with sensation assaulting them from every direction when you visit a website but alot of other people from other countries and cultures aren't.
    But yeah, we can always watch some nice anime that doesn't try to make us buy a certain product or forces us to follow a specific mindset.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    Incidently, according to studies I have read in England and Wales the "serious crime" rate is actually the worst of 18 industrial countries surveyed by the UN. Even more ironically, since banning guns in the Uk gun crimes (which had been dropping) are on the rise, and gun crimes in the US (with an increase in states with concealed weapons permits) is dropping.

    Something to think about.
    Well, imagine if those people all had guns... Crime also includes thievery and petty crimes. I think that the violent, casualty producing crimes have gone down.
    I do understand that crime rates can decrease if the criminals are affraid that the people they're assaulting are carrying a concealed gun. But is arming everyone the solution to your crime problems? I highly doubt it...
    (That sounds a bit like how WWI was staged )
    Also, I must say I find that very dangerous, images of people taking the law in their own hands or people randomly shooting other people before killing themselves (suicide is peaking in almost every industrialised country) come to mind.

  5. #37
    Otaku esthered may be famous one day esthered may be famous one day esthered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Get rid of those guns. Even with totally sane and honest people around with gun licenses and stuff, they might go loopy one day and kill someone. It's so not funny when someone's life is taken away so carelessly.

    GET RID OF THOSE GUNS! > !

    -ROAR!

  6. #38
    I'm all ears. Hassun has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pretiacruento
    Posts
    7,700
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 124 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by esthered
    Get rid of those guns. Even with totally sane and honest people around with gun licenses and stuff, they might go loopy one day and kill someone. It's so not funny when someone's life is taken away so carelessly.

    GET RID OF THOSE GUNS! > !

    -ROAR!
    That would work if you wish that guns were never invented.
    The reality is that they were invented and they are here to stay (untill we find something more effective to kill eachother of course).

  7. #39
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts
    Ok, here is a new angle on the topic since we have talked statistics to death.

    The Right To Bear Arms.

    In the US it is a Constitutional right. There are those who try to claim that the founders didn't actually mean that citizens have the right to own guns but historians who have studied it, and government officials who have looked at documentation from the time, tell us that according to the founders own wrightings and court documents within the first 5 years that is exactly what they did mean.

    So the question is why?

    Why did the men who wrote the US Consitution feel it necessary to make it a part of the basics of the law that citizens have the right to own "arms".

    There are two thought's on that. One that the "militia", a citizens military, is an important defense of the country. At any time, if an officer of the law feels it to be necessary, they may call upon and "deputise" citizens to support them. That would include invasion. The second thought is that the men who created the US government did not trust governments. An armed citisenry could be considered a deterent from tyrany. A concept that is easy to believe since historically one of the first things that happens when a government is being corupted and overcome from within is that those taking power remove the right of common citisens to own or use weapons. (Hitler did it in Germany and it was a tactic used for centeries in many parts of Asia and the Orient, for just a few examples.)

    So, what do you think?

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  8. #40
    Grouchy Old Anime Otaku LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    5,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 172 Times in 147 Posts
    Grumble Grumble Grumble
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    Ok, here is a new angle on the topic since we have talked statistics to death.

    The Right To Bear Arms.

    In the US it is a Constitutional right. There are those who try to claim that the founders didn't actually mean that citizens have the right to own guns but historians who have studied it, and government officials who have looked at documentation from the time, tell us that according to the founders own wrightings and court documents within the first 5 years that is exactly what they did mean.
    Actually, this statement is debatable, as it was the position of the US Justice Dept. (that is, up until the current administration) that the constitution only refers to the state rights to form their own militia/national guard and not for individual gun ownership rights.. The incident with the midnight ride of Paul Revere was to warn about the British attempt to seize the state militia armory, not the seizer of rifles from individual gun owners. Personal guns were kept seperated from the militia armory because of the issues over the misuse/theft of militia property. And that there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent a state from controlling/restricting gun ownership for the citizens within it's borders. State and local laws restricting the ownership of guns have been declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court....

    The same thinking also applied to the constitutional right for 'Freedom of Movement'. Federal car registration programs are not allowed on constitutional grounds because of the potential of the Federal Goverment to control/restrict the citizens right to travel. But there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent the formation of fifty different car registration programs, each controlled by an individual state....
    FAVOURITE THREADS EXPLAIN why, or risk an infraction.
    Rantings of a Grouchy Old Anime Otaku

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts