Gun Control

[venomai]

I love how that hypothetical scenario works out perfectly in your favor. Now let me try: you hear someone breaking into your house and then you go get your gun prepared right away before he even knows you're there.

 

Hell, I'd rather a bazooka, if I could. But I'm not about to go to such an extent to 'protect' myself if the overall effect (of increased availability of bazookas) is an increase in homicide rate (i.e. decreased safety for citizens).

 

 

 

Including their deaths as part of your homicidal statistic argument doesn't work against us.

 

Um... What? :wall:

 

 

 

Are you sure you understand the meaning of 'homicide rate'?

 

 

 

I too am in favour of saving innocent lives... Which is why I would like to see an overall decrease in homicide rate, rather than an increase.

 

 

 

So you're assuming that you would miss and the other person wouldn't? That's pretty convenient.

 

I don't even know where the safety is on a gun. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that the criminal has a much higher chance of hitting me than I do of hitting him. Hell, I'd be surprised if I can even get a shot off before he's unloaded his entire clip.

[ember3579]

So you're assuming that you would miss and the other person wouldn't? That's pretty convenient.

 

I don't even know where the safety is on a gun. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that the criminal has a much higher chance of hitting me than I do of hitting him. Hell, I'd be surprised if I can even get a shot off before he's unloaded his entire clip.

 

 

 

 

 

There IS such thing as a gun safety course. It should tell you everything you'd need or want to know about firearms, and in a way that you'd remember them. One of those, and some practice at a shooting range or something, and you should be able to do fairly well. That is, if you don't factor in the stress of being in a modern version of an Old Western Duel, or having to sneak around to be able to catch him before he draws. As a general rule, if he's already trained on you and you are out of arm's reach, you're screwed. If you are inside of his arm reach, you could disarm his weapon with some rudimentary training and practice. Just remember that the thumb is the weak point of it, and for the love of God do NOT pull forward until his finger's off the trigger!

[Lenticular_J]

The amount of arrogance by some teens here is astonishing; That kind of situation is not an ego issue nor does it have anything to do with the bill of rights or the constitution. It can mean the difference between your life and death. Don't try to be a hero.

 

 

 

God forbid you ever have to face that kind of situation, please use common sense. Forget the fiction and fantasy you see in hollywood movies and concentrate on staying alive in reality

 

Quite. That's why I think concealed weapons are fairly ridiculous. Keeping a weapon is your home makes more sense, since you'll keep it there if you're a hunter or recreational shooter anyways, plus most robbers have more common sense than to not leave if you have a gun in the house.

 

 

 

Not that many are stupid enough to go into your house when it's obvious you're there - just the plausibly dangerous ones.

[Zierro]

Hell, I'd rather a bazooka, if I could. But I'm not about to go to such an extent to 'protect' myself if the overall effect (of increased availability of bazookas) is an increase in homicide rate (i.e. decreased safety for citizens).

 

 

 

If citizens can protect themselves then why would you be worried about this increase in homicide rate? The ones who would be the victims are the ones who try murdering innocent citizens as opposed to the innocent being the victims.

 

 

 

I don't even know where the safety is on a gun. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that the criminal has a much higher chance of hitting me than I do of hitting him. Hell, I'd be surprised if I can even get a shot off before he's unloaded his entire clip.

 

 

 

But is it reasonable to assume that you will have a gun in your house (for the purpose of self-defense!) and not know how to use it? No, it's just another convenient scenario.

 

 

 

I too am in favour of saving innocent lives... Which is why I would like to see an overall decrease in homicide rate, rather than an increase.

 

 

 

Sorry, I thought you meant that "killing criminal = higher homicide rate" not "effect of having guns for defense = higher rate". (which I still disagree with but that's a different argument)

 

 

 

Protesting, lobbying, discourse, prominent figures speaking to the public, changes in education and in the constitution, etc. Culture is always changing (capital punishment, black slavery, woman's rights, etc). Gun culture is a feature that can be changed just like any other.

 

 

 

Theoretically, it sounds nice. But realistically, that's very unlikely. And please don't say something like, "That's only because of people like you." That would really hurt. :(

 

 

 

PS: Oh and about your point about how I shouldn't worry about criminals coming after me and my dog... It can happen to anyone, so I don't quite understand why you're saying I shouldn't be worried but at the same time criminals are killing people.

[venomai]

The ones who would be the victims are the ones who try murdering innocent citizens as opposed to the innocent being the victims.

 

Homicide rate (aka. murder rate) does not include kills that were justified by an act of self-defense. In simpler terms, homicide rate shows the rate of "criminals" killing "innocents," not vice versa.

 

 

 

But is it reasonable to assume that you will have a gun in your house (for the purpose of self-defense!) and not know how to use it? No, it's just another convenient scenario.

 

In the 'convenient scenario' in which I've been trained in gun combat...

 

In the 'convenient scneario' in which I've been trained in martial arts...

 

 

 

This is going nowhere.

 

 

 

But realistically, that's very unlikely.

 

Aside from the minor obstacle of 'people like you,' I see no reason to suspect that this is any more unrealistic than others changes in culture that have occurred throughout history. Unrealistic in the next couple of years? Sure. Unrealistic over the course of many years? Not at all.

 

 

 

It can happen to anyone, so I don't quite understand why you're saying I shouldn't be worried but at the same time criminals are killing people.

 

How many times do I need to repeat myself?

 

 

 

"And I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about defense."

 

 

 

"Homicide is uncommon in the sense that most people aren't directly affected by it. Along the same vein, it's likely that you're not going to die from a drunk driver, but this obviously doesn't mean we 'shouldn't worry about drunk drivers.'"

 

 

 

"I'm not suggesting that we don't have a need for self-defense. I'm suggesting that we don't need to go to the extent of equipping civilians with weapons, particularly if doing so results in an increase of overall homicide rates."

[Zierro]

Homicide rate (aka. murder rate) does not include kills that were justified by an act of self-defense. In simpler terms, homicide rate shows the rate of "criminals" killing "innocents," not vice versa.

 

 

 

Yes, we all know that. How is this relevant? My point was that if potential victims had the opportunity to defend themselves then you wouldn't have to worry about the killing sprees against the innocent that guns "cause".

 

 

 

In the 'convenient scenario' in which I've been trained in gun combat...

 

In the 'convenient scneario' in which I've been trained in martial arts...

 

 

 

This is going nowhere.

 

 

 

I know it's a two-way street. When did I say it wasn't? It doesn't help anyone's argument.

 

 

 

Aside from the minor obstacle of 'people like you,' I see no reason to suspect that this is any more unrealistic than others changes in culture that have occurred throughout history. Unrealistic in the next couple of years? Sure. Unrealistic over the course of many years? Not at all.

 

 

 

Well, since forever ago we have been trying to fix problems like world hunger, stealing, violence in general, etc. etc. So far, no good. How is gun control any different from these?

 

 

 

"I'm not suggesting that we don't have a need for self-defense. I'm suggesting that we don't need to go to the extent of equipping civilians with weapons, particularly if doing so results in an increase of overall homicide rates."

 

 

 

Are you sure it increases homicide rates? You're suggesting that:

 

 

 

Having guns --> Wanting to commit a crime

 

 

 

Instead of:

 

 

 

Wanting to commit a crime --> Getting guns

 

 

 

Is this not anyone's guess? What makes you so sure that it is the first one that's true? What you're saying is along the lines of, "People look for a reason to use their guns." I think it's the other way around. (People look for guns to commit a crime.) I can just bring up the fact that crime has been around for as long as humanity has existed. People have always wanted to and have succeeded in committing crimes.

 

 

 

Think of guns as par - they are the best weapon that anyone can get so that's why they are used the most. Guns aren't the reason of murder - bad intentions of human nature is the reason, and nothing will change that unless humanity as a whole makes a lot of morale progress.

 

 

 

Also, you say self-defense is necessary but guns aren't. What alternatives do we have for gun self-defense?

[venomai]

Well, since forever ago we have been trying to fix problems like world hunger, stealing, violence in general, etc. etc. So far, no good. How is gun control any different from these?

 

Gun crime, just like any other feature of a particular culture, is something that we certainly can influence. We know this because we have observed changes in other cultures (e.g. Norway) as well as our own (i.e. the West).

 

 

 

You're suggesting that:

 

 

 

Having guns --> Wanting to commit a crime

 

Once again, you've missed my point entirely.

 

 

 

Assuming that a decrease in gun crime results in the increase of other (less lethal) weapon crime, I'm arguing that, "even if attempted homicide rates remain the same, overall homicide rates will generally decline due to the substituted weapons being 'less lethal.'" The opposite would also be true: an increase in (more lethal) gun crime would result in an increase in homicide rates.

 

 

 

they are the best weapon that anyone can get so that's why they are used the most.

 

Guns are the most prevalent weapon of choice in America because of their availability. In countries where the demand (and subsequent availability) is relatively low, guns are used far less often in violent crime.

 

 

 

Also, you say self-defense is necessary but guns aren't. What alternatives do we have for gun self-defense?

 

We already went over this.

 

 

 

My point was that if potential victims had the opportunity to defend themselves then you wouldn't have to worry about the killing sprees against the innocent that guns "cause".

 

First; potential victims do have the opportunity to defend themselves without a firearm. We've already discussed a number of different methods of self-defense that do not rely on firearms. These methods are -- in average violent crime scenarios -- often equally as effective if not more effective than using one's own firearm.

 

 

 

Second; in America, victims can and do defend themselves with a firearm: about 0.83% of violent crimes involve firearm as a means of self-defense.[1] Guns are used in crime far more often than they are used in self-defense[2], but even if the opposite were true, gun crime would still be an important issue. Unless you think that an increase in gun crime is acceptable so long as everybody has the 'opportunity' to defend themself... :|

 

 

 

Lastly, and most importantly, I'm arguing that, regardless of the efficacy of firearm self-defense, higher rates of gun crime result in higher overall homicide rates (due to the mere lethality of the weapon).

 

 

 

PS: Why persist in using irregular and unrealistic scenarios (killing sprees) if we've already established that there is little to be gained from discussing them?

[Zierro]

Gun crime, just like any other feature of a particular culture, is something that we certainly can influence. We know this because we have observed changes in other cultures (e.g. Norway) as well as our own (i.e. the West).

 

 

 

America isn't Norway though. Who's to say what works there will definitely work here? For lack of a better term, I see that as a strawman.

 

 

 

Once again, you've missed my point entirely.

 

 

 

Assuming that a decrease in gun crime results in the increase of other (less lethal) weapon crime, I'm arguing that, "even if attempted homicide rates remain the same, overall homicide rates will generally decline due to the substituted weapons being 'less lethal.'" The opposite would also be true: an increase in (more lethal) gun crime would result in an increase in homicide rates.

 

 

 

Once again, so have you. You're assuming that having weapons that aren't as lethal means the criminals are going to fail to commit the crimes. Let me ask you something. How peaceful were things a few hundred years ago before guns existed? If you have a gun, it only takes one shot to get the job done - that's what is meant by it being more lethal. Knives take a little more effort but are we going to assume that the criminal isn't going to try harder? I mean that's pretty much commonsense to me. If you are given a less lethal weapon, and you still want to commit a crime, it will just take more effort. Look at the people hundreds of years ago who pulled it off when guns were unheard of.

 

 

 

First; potential victims do have the opportunity to defend themselves without a firearm. We've already discussed a number of different methods of self-defense that do not rely on firearms. These methods are -- in average violent crime scenarios -- often equally as effective if not more effective than using one's own firearm.

 

 

 

Wait a sec... I thought guns were supposed to be the most lethal weapon out there? Now you're saying that there are more effective things than guns? Oh and please don't just say you only meant running away by that. :lol:

 

 

 

Second; in America, victims can and do defend themselves with a firearm: about 0.83% of violent crimes involve firearm as a means of self-defense.[1] Guns are used in crime far more often than they are used in self-defense[2], but even if the opposite were true, gun crime would still be an important issue. Unless you think that an increase in gun crime is acceptable so long as everybody has the 'opportunity' to defend themself... :|

 

 

 

And your point is...? Lemme guess - the ones seeking self-defense are ironically responsible for an increase of guns in the first place. No. Two words: black market. The self-defense seekers have little to do with it, if that is indeed what you are saying.

 

 

 

Lastly, and most importantly, I'm arguing that, regardless of the efficacy of firearm self-defense, higher rates of gun crime result in higher overall homicide rates (due to the mere lethality of the weapon)

 

 

 

One factor you forgot is criminal intent.

 

 

 

PS: Why persist in using irregular and unrealistic scenarios (killing sprees) if we've already established that there is little to be gained from discussing them?

 

 

 

Whoa, so you're allowed to say you would probably miss because you probably wouldn't have training (although you have a gun as means for self-defense which is kinda contradictory) and you would probably get shot - but I can't say anything about killing sprees? And wait just a minute... If you're saying killing sprees are unrealistic scenarios then your whole argument about guns causing more violent crime falls flat too. We need to go over this two-way street thing again.

[Lateralus]

Once again, so have you. You're assuming that having weapons that aren't as lethal means the criminals are going to fail to commit the crimes. Let me ask you something. How peaceful were things a few hundred years ago before guns existed? If you have a gun, it only takes one shot to get the job done - that's what is meant by it being more lethal. Knives take a little more effort but are we going to assume that the criminal isn't going to try harder? I mean that's pretty much commonsense to me. If you are given a less lethal weapon, and you still want to commit a crime, it will just take more effort. Look at the people hundreds of years ago who pulled it off when guns were unheard of.

 

 

 

I think you're misinterpreting. There's a definite correlation between lethality of available weapons and homicide rates. If the crime is burglary, and you catch a criminal red handed in your house and he's armed only with a knife then there's a much higher chance that he's going to run away because his weapon is less efficient than a gun. If the crime is (attempted) murder then it's much more difficult for someone to kill you with a knife; you have much more opportunity to defend yourself. The fact that crimes were committed before guns doesn't mean it was as common or easy.

 

 

 

And your point is...? Lemme guess - the ones seeking self-defense are ironically responsible for an increase of guns in the first place. No. Two words: black market. The self-defense seekers have little to do with it, if that is indeed what you are saying.

 

 

 

Are you saying there's no correlation between legality of guns and number of gun crimes?

[venomai]

America isn't Norway though. Who's to say what works there will definitely work here? For lack of a better term, I see that as a strawman.

 

Your misunderstanding of straw man aside...

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting that America is Norway, or that whatever happens in Norway will "definitely work here." I'm suggesting that, unlike the idealistic notions of removing all hunger and violence, a change in gun culture is something that has been demonstrated in both our own culture as well as other cultures. And so it's reasonable to suggest that it is something that can be changed.

 

 

 

You're assuming that having weapons that aren't as lethal means the criminals are going to fail to commit the crimes. ...

 

My argument assumes nothing about the relative 'success' of their crime (except perhaps in the case of premeditated murder).

 

 

 

The "job" or intent of most criminals is not to kill their victims. Murder is far and wide the least prevalent type of violent crime in the United States[1]. If all criminals intended to kill their victims, I may agree with you in that they would probably 'try harder' when using less lethal weapons. But, since the vast majority of criminals do not intend to kill their victims, your argument is moot.

 

 

 

... your whole argument about guns causing more violent crime falls flat too.

 

My argument is that more guns leads to higher homicide rates -- not that more guns creates more violent crime.

 

 

 

I thought guns were supposed to be the most lethal weapon out there? Now you're saying that there are more effective things than guns?

 

Effective self-defense isn't reliant on increased lethal force.

 

 

 

And your point is...?

 

That, in response to your post, victims already can and do defend themselves with firearms, and that, even if the majority of citizens used firearms for self-defense, gun crime would still be "something to worry about."

 

 

 

Lemme guess - the ones seeking self-defense are ironically responsible for an increase of guns in the first place.

 

As I've explained above, this is not my point.

 

 

 

But since you bring it up; yes, those seeking firearms for lawful pruposes (sport, collection and self-defense) are primarily responsible for the increase in the abundance of firearms in the United States.

 

 

 

Whoa, so you're allowed to say you would probably miss because you probably wouldn't have training (although you have a gun as means for self-defense which is kinda contradictory) and you would probably get shot

 

Right... and we've since established that using these atypical hypothetical situations doesn't help either of our arguments. Why you continue to use them is beyond me.

[Zierro]

I think you're misinterpreting. There's a definite correlation between lethality of available weapons and homicide rates. If the crime is burglary, and you catch a criminal red handed in your house and he's armed only with a knife then there's a much higher chance that he's going to run away because his weapon is less efficient than a gun. If the crime is (attempted) murder then it's much more difficult for someone to kill you with a knife; you have much more opportunity to defend yourself. The fact that crimes were committed before guns doesn't mean it was as common or easy.

 

 

 

Like I asked before, what's up with saying guns are ineffective as means for self-defense but that they are the most lethal offense?

 

 

 

Are you saying there's no correlation between legality of guns and number of gun crimes?

 

 

 

Well, there is the black market. People buy guns from other people illegally all the time. Are you saying there's no correlation between having guns as self-defense and succeeding in saving potential victims? Ahem *Castle Law*.

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting that America is Norway, or that whatever happens in Norway will "definitely work here." I'm suggesting that, unlike the idealistic notions of removing all hunger and violence, a change in gun culture is something that has been demonstrated in both our own culture as well as other cultures. And so it's reasonable to suggest that it is something that can be changed.

 

 

 

Yeah, and in some places lots of things turned out for the better but that doesn't mean every place on earth has the ability to copycat their systems effectively. It's like ignoring the fact that people live different lives in different areas.

 

 

 

My argument assumes nothing about the relative 'success' of their crime (except perhaps in the case of premeditated murder).

 

 

 

The "job" or intent of most criminals is not to kill their victims. Murder is far and wide the least prevalent type of violent crime in the United States[1]. If all criminals intended to kill their victims, I may agree with you in that they would probably 'try harder' when using less lethal weapons. But, since the vast majority of criminals do not intend to kill their victims, your argument is moot.

 

 

 

So they go as far as obtaining a gun and taking innocent lives... for no reason? That doesn't make sense. If they "didn't care about killing their victims" then why would they go that far - doesn't it make more sense to obtain an easier weapon to get like a knife?

 

 

 

My argument is that more guns leads to higher homicide rates -- not that more guns creates more violent crime.

 

 

 

Okay, replace "higher homicide rate" with "violent crime". My point is still the same. You can't argue about killing sprees (which equates to homicide) as being unrealistic and then turning around and saying that guns make them happen.

 

 

 

Effective self-defense isn't reliant on increased lethal force.

 

 

 

In a lot of cases it is. I'll say it again: the best defense is a good offense.

 

 

 

But since you bring it up; yes, those seeking firearms for lawful pruposes (sport, collection and self-defense) are primarily responsible for the increase in the abundance of firearms in the United States.

 

 

 

The black market exists. If someone wants a gun, and they have money and connections, they will get a gun. Selling them legally just makes it less of a hassle - but then again when it comes to criminals (people who go to far measures to get something done, like killing when they don't have the intent to kill as you yourself said above) do you really think they'll give up that easily? Are criminals really going to follow the law? :roll: I think it's silly to say that a criminal who wants to commit a crime will go as far as killing, even though that wasn't their original plan in the first place, but if they can't get a gun legally, even though they can get one illegally, that they will stop in their tracks and not try to commit it.

 

 

 

 

That, in response to your post, victims already can and do defend themselves with firearms, and that, even if the majority of citizens used firearms for self-defense, gun crime would still be "something to worry about."

 

 

 

And my point is that even if guns were completely illegal, gun crime would still be "something to worry about" because criminals will get them anyways.

[Lateralus]

I think you're misinterpreting. There's a definite correlation between lethality of available weapons and homicide rates. If the crime is burglary, and you catch a criminal red handed in your house and he's armed only with a knife then there's a much higher chance that he's going to run away because his weapon is less efficient than a gun. If the crime is (attempted) murder then it's much more difficult for someone to kill you with a knife; you have much more opportunity to defend yourself. The fact that crimes were committed before guns doesn't mean it was as common or easy.

 

 

 

Like I asked before, what's up with saying guns are ineffective as means for self-defense but that they are the most lethal offense?

 

 

 

I never said guns were ineffective as a means of self defense, all I said was that the lethality of available weapons has an effect on homicide rates. Most criminals are opportunistic. Ready availability of guns gives them an opportunity they might not have otherwise.

 

 

 

Are you saying there's no correlation between legality of guns and number of gun crimes?

 

 

 

Well, there is the black market. People buy guns from other people illegally all the time. Are you saying there's no correlation between having guns as self-defense and succeeding in saving potential victims? Ahem *Castle Law*.

 

 

 

The black market for weapons exists everywhere, but countries where guns are illegal have significantly lower levels of gun crime. I don't know why you went on to ask about that corollary when I never said anything like that.

[Zierro]

I never said guns were ineffective as a means of self defense, all I said was that the lethality of available weapons has an effect on homicide rates. Most criminals are opportunistic. Ready availability of guns gives them an opportunity they might not have otherwise.

 

 

 

What is the pro gun argument? Guns save potential victim's lives. What is the anti gun argument? Guns cause victim's deaths. You're saying both if you are saying guns are pretty effective at self-defense, so who's side are you on?

 

 

 

The black market for weapons exists everywhere, but countries where guns are illegal have significantly lower levels of gun crime. I don't know why you went on to ask about that corollary when I never said anything like that.

 

 

 

Hopefully we're both talking about the United States. What works elsewhere doesn't always work in the US. I do agree that changing the gun culture can prevent lots of deaths - the thing is, how are we supposed to do that here? The first step would be to eliminate all drugs since a lot of homicides occur just out of that problem alone... that's a little too idealistic if you ask me though. In the perfect world, it would work, but it's not relevant since we're not in a perfect world. That is my reason for wanting the opportunity for self-defense.

 

 

 

Plus, the black market is very effective. Want an example pertaining to the US specifically? Prohibition.

[Lateralus]

I never said guns were ineffective as a means of self defense, all I said was that the lethality of available weapons has an effect on homicide rates. Most criminals are opportunistic. Ready availability of guns gives them an opportunity they might not have otherwise.

 

 

 

What is the pro gun argument? Guns save potential victim's lives. What is the anti gun argument? Guns cause victim's deaths. You're saying both if you are saying guns are pretty effective at self-defense, so who's side are you on?

 

 

 

The black market for weapons exists everywhere, but countries where guns are illegal have significantly lower levels of gun crime. I don't know why you went on to ask about that corollary when I never said anything like that.

 

 

 

Hopefully we're both talking about the United States. What works elsewhere doesn't always work in the US. I do agree that changing the gun culture can prevent lots of deaths - the thing is, how are we supposed to do that here? The first step would be to eliminate all drugs since a lot of homicides occur just out of that problem alone... that's a little too idealistic if you ask me though. In the perfect world, it would work, but it's not relevant since we're not in a perfect world. That is my reason for wanting the opportunity for self-defense.

 

 

 

I'm not on any side, I'm just taking issue with a few points I don't agree with. I'm not suggesting a ban on guns in America because I think you may be too far gone, but I certainly wouldn't like to see them legal here in the UK. When I said guns are an effective means of self defense, I meant that if you point it at an attacker and pull the trigger, he will probably fall down. But as it's been said over and over in this thread, carrying a weapon often causes a situation to escalate.

 

 

 

I think your realism is bordering on pessimism. The ideal is what you should be aiming for.

 

 

 

EDIT: Your point about prohibition is exactly why I would be hesitant to ban guns in America without a massive cultural change. Americans have been raised to believe that it's their right to own a gun, that's what I think the problem is. The black market for guns in Britain would be tiny compared to its American counterpart because people here don't feel like it's their right or requirement to own a gun. None of my arguments are in support of banning guns in America, I'm just taking issue with individual points.

[Roberthree]

Self defense without a gun is safer and easier. Heres how you do it.

 

 

 

Step one: Hand the criminal your wallet or whatever else he requests

 

Step two: ????

 

Step three: Profit!

 

 

 

Seriously, pulling a gun on a mugger will get you shot. Any self defense instructor will tell you that.

[venomai]

So they go as far as obtaining a gun and taking innocent lives... for no reason? That doesn't make sense. If they "didn't care about killing their victims" then why would they go that far - doesn't it make more sense to obtain an easier weapon to get like a knife?

 

In America, guns are easy to acquire. Guns are also more effective for robbing, mugging, etc. somebody than a knife would be.

 

 

 

Okay, replace "higher homicide rate" with "violent crime". My point is still the same. You can't argue about killing sprees (which equates to homicide) as being unrealistic and then turning around and saying that guns make them happen.

 

Homicide (murder, more specifically) is one type of violent crime. Obviously, for this reason, an increase in homicide rate leads to an increase in violent crime; but it doesn't mean that all violent crime is increased.

 

 

 

A killing spree is "unrealistic" in the sense that it is so irregular; as with "crazies" stabbing random people on the streets. These things do happen, and when they do they are considered homicide, but these homicides are in the vast minority.

 

 

 

And, as I've said a million times, I'm not arguing that guns cause more killing sprees to happen. I'm arguing that using a gun (more lethal) would result in more deaths than a knife (less lethal). Not because the criminal "isn't trying hard enough" but because, quite simply, knife wounds are less destructive than gunshot wounds.

 

 

 

If someone wants a gun, and they have money and connections, they will get a gun.

 

In America, maybe... But that's the problem.

 

 

 

And my point is that even if guns were completely illegal, gun crime would still be "something to worry about" because criminals will get them anyways.

 

Hell, even if we were in a situation which you consider as "unrealistic" as Norway, gun crime would still be "something to worry about" -- but there would be far less of it.

[Zierro]

In America, guns are easy to acquire. Guns are also more effective for robbing, mugging, etc. somebody than a knife would be.

 

 

 

Which goes back to my point... Guns are more effective because they can kill people easier. Point: they do have an intent to kill. Oh and before you say, "No I meant they are more effective at intimidation," you are the one who keeps bringing up the fact that we're talking about homicide rates (killing) - not just crime rates.

 

 

 

And, as I've said a million times, I'm not arguing that guns cause more killing sprees to happen. I'm arguing that using a gun (more lethal) would result in more deaths than a knife (less lethal). Not because the criminal "isn't trying hard enough" but because, quite simply, knife wounds are less destructive than gunshot wounds.

 

 

 

I like how you throw that argument to the side. You can say criminals don't try harder if they have less lethal weapons (meaning less success of homicide) all you want, but examples of past say otherwise.

 

 

 

In America, maybe... But that's the problem.

 

 

 

Exact-a-mundo. Changing the gun culture would (hypothetical once again) fix the problem... but we're talking about a fantasy world.

 

 

 

Hell, even if we were in a situation which you consider as "unrealistic" as Norway, gun crime would still be "something to worry about" -- but there would be far less of it.

 

 

 

This contradicts what you just said above.

 

 

 

I bring this up again since you haven't addressed it, besides just saying this is only in America:

 

 

 

"The black market exists. If someone wants a gun, and they have money and connections, they will get a gun. Selling them legally just makes it less of a hassle - but then again when it comes to criminals (people who go to far measures to get something done, like killing when they don't have the intent to kill as you yourself said above) do you really think they'll give up that easily? Are criminals really going to follow the law? :roll: I think it's silly to say that a criminal who wants to commit a crime will go as far as killing, even though that wasn't their original plan in the first place, but if they can't get a gun legally, even though they can get one illegally, that they will stop in their tracks and not try to commit it."

[venomai]

Which goes back to my point... Guns are more effective because they can kill people easier. Point: they do have an intent to kill. Oh and before you say, "No I meant they are more effective at intimidation," you are the one who keeps bringing up the fact that we're talking about homicide rates (killing) - not just crime rates.

 

And because guns are more lethal, they are more intimidating, and thus more effective in robberies, muggings, etc. I thought this much was obvious in my last post.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm talking about homicide rates (killing), but just because a gunshot or stab wound kills a store clerk doesn't mean the robber's mission was to kill the store clerk.

 

 

 

You can say criminals don't try harder if they have less lethal weapons (meaning less success of homicide) all you want, but examples of past say otherwise.

 

And by examples of the past you mean "Before the time of guns, lots of people still managed to pull off crimes"?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

we're talking about a fantasy world.

 

And why, exactly, is America's gun culture is immune to change?

 

 

 

This contradicts what you just said above.

 

Uhh.. No.

 

 

 

My first statement is that guns are easy to acquire in America.

 

 

 

My second statement is that in a situation unlike the high gun availability in America, gun crime is still going to be "something to worry about," but there will be far less of it.

 

 

 

I bring this up again since you haven't addressed it, besides just saying this is only in America

 

I've already addressed this point a number of times throughout the last few pages.

 

 

 

In short, guns are easy to acquire in America because they are so widely available, and their wide availability is primarily due to their high demand. That "anyone can get a gun" in current America is why so many of us are arguing for a change in gun culture.

[Quoi_Tu]

In short, guns are easy to acquire in America because they are so widely available, and their wide availability is primarily due to their high demand. That "anyone can get a gun" in current America is why so many of us are arguing for a change in gun culture.

 

 

 

I think a system similar to getting a driver's license should be used. That way a person could only buy a gun if they have taken a class and passed a test proving they know how to safely use and own a gun. And the license would have to renewed every 5 or so years to prove the person still knows all the rules. Unfortunately, I could see implication of this turning into a bureaucratic mess.

[Zierro]

And because guns are more lethal, they are more intimidating, and thus more effective in robberies, muggings, etc. I thought this much was obvious in my last post.

 

 

 

No, you either mean they are more effective for intimidation (not killing) or they are more effective for homicide (killing). It's in black and white.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I'm talking about homicide rates (killing), but just because a gunshot or stab wound kills a store clerk doesn't mean the robber's mission was to kill the store clerk.

 

 

 

It doesn't? Why would they go to far measures if they didn't care about killing? You seem to be missing something here. If someone buys a gun, I think they know fully well that they are probably going to be using it to kill someone. If they just meant it as intimidation, why would it even be loaded?

 

 

 

And by examples of the past you mean "Before the time of guns, lots of people still managed to pull off crimes"?

 

 

 

Crimes or homicides. You seem to be picky with that so you can use either one - whatever suits you better. But anyways, yes that is exactly the point I'm making. Murder is/was/and always will be common, guns or not.

 

 

 

And why, exactly, is America's gun culture is immune to change?

 

 

 

Because America isn't like every other country...? Different ideals, different people, different systems. It sounds like banning alcohol would mean there would be less of it, right? It's commonsense and I agree with that. But that's not how it is. Banning alcohol didn't stop the black market from thriving - in fact it made it even worse.

 

 

 

Uhh.. No.

 

 

 

My first statement is that guns are easy to acquire in America.

 

 

 

My second statement is that in a situation unlike the high gun availability in America, gun crime is still going to be "something to worry about," but there will be far less of it.

 

 

 

I meant the second part of that sentence: "but that's the problem". You know, how America isn't Norway.

 

 

 

In short, guns are easy to acquire in America because they are so widely available, and their wide availability is primarily due to their high demand. That "anyone can get a gun" in current America is why so many of us are arguing for a change in gun culture.

 

 

 

Getting rid of the black market is one thing, getting rid of the high demand is another. Like I said, exterminating the high demand sounds like a nice idea but it also sounds like an infeasible one. It almost sounds like something out of a John Lennon song.

 

 

 

Edit: Things have been getting a bit tedious so I'll bring up a new point. One of the biggest reasons of why I am pro gun is because I'd rather live in a world where self-defense is possible than one where it isn't. I don't know about you guys, but to me it is more devastating to hear about incidents where if the victim had means of self-defense then they would have survived than incidents where someone is murdered but they wouldn't even get the chance to fight back even if they did have defense. It's the principality behind it which I don't think you're looking at. I think the idea of self-defense is what motivates me to argue the most.

[Quoi_Tu]

In short, guns are easy to acquire in America because they are so widely available, and their wide availability is primarily due to their high demand. That "anyone can get a gun" in current America is why so many of us are arguing for a change in gun culture.

 

 

 

Getting rid of the black market is one thing, getting rid of the high demand is another. Like I said, exterminating the high demand sounds like a nice idea but it also sounds like an infeasible one. It almost sounds like something out of a John Lennon song.

 

 

 

If the supply is controlled the demand has no other option but to follow along. If there are 1,000 guns and 10,000 people wanting guns, 9,000 people don't get guns. They may still want a gun, but they have no access and will never get one, so it is a waste of their time to continue to want one. That's all assuming supply is controlled. Now putting a black market in there will increase the supply a little, but not enough to give 9,000 people a gun. Also, not all of those 9,000 people are going to want to risk the punishment of being caught with a black market gun. In the end, the control on supply effectively lowered the number of people with a gun. If I grow up knowing I have to go through a lot of work and training and money to get a gun (assuming those factors are used to decide which people get a gun), then my demand for a gun will be less.

[Zierro]

You're right but taking either one of those out of the equation still sounds very unrealistic, especially in America.

[venomai]

No, you either mean they are more effective for intimidation (not killing) or they are more effective for homicide (killing).

 

The more lethal a weapon is, the more effective it will also be for intimidation. This is a very simple concept.

 

 

 

It doesn't? Why would they go to far measures if they didn't care about killing? You seem to be missing something here. If someone buys a gun, I think they know fully well that they are probably going to be using it to kill someone. If they just meant it as intimidation, why would it even be loaded?

 

Many criminals will go to the extent of using their weapon to get what they want, but the vast majority do not approach their victims with the intent to kill them.

 

 

 

Crimes or homicides. You seem to be picky with that so you can use either one - whatever suits you better.

 

In this case I'm using the term "crime" in direct response to your earlier post:

 

 

 

"If you are given a less lethal weapon, and you still want to commit a crime, it will just take more effort. Look at the people hundreds of years ago who pulled it off when guns were unheard of."

 

 

 

Even today, non-firearms (like knives) are used in many robberies and muggings throughout the industrialized world. However, there's nothing to suggest that those using knives to rob somebody will "try harder to kill their victim" than those using firearms.

 

 

 

Pointing out that there were plenty of homicides in the pre-firearm age does nothing to weaken my argument.

 

 

 

It sounds like banning alcohol would mean there would be less of it, right? It's commonsense and I agree with that. But that's not how it is. Banning alcohol didn't stop the black market from thriving - in fact it made it even worse.

 

I'm not talking about a change in legislature. I'm talking about a change in culture. If you can't understand the difference between those two simple statements then I'm afraid this debate will go nowhere.

 

 

 

One of the biggest reasons of why I am pro gun is because I'd rather live in a world where self-defense is possible than one where it isn't.

 

Self-defense is very much possible without owning a firearm.

[Zierro]

The more lethal a weapon is, the more effective it will also be for intimidation. This is a very simple concept.

 

 

 

It's only "more lethal" if it's used though. Some say they are more intimidated by knives (which are less lethal) than guns. I don't think you understand that this is only your opinion.

 

 

 

Many criminals will go to the extent of using their weapon to get what they want, but the vast majority do not approach their victims with the intent to kill them.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I'm a strong believer that people won't kill someone unless they want to or else they wouldn't do it - they would bring an unloaded gun. The only form of killing without the intent to is negligent manslaughter and we're not talking about that.

 

 

 

I'm using the broad term "violent crime" in direct response to your earlier posts:

 

 

 

"If you are given a less lethal weapon, and you still want to commit a crime, it will just take more effort. Look at the people hundreds of years ago who pulled it off when guns were unheard of."

 

 

 

Even today, non-firearms (like knives) are used in many robberies and muggings throughout the industrialized world. However, there's nothing to suggest that those using knives to rob somebody will "try harder to kill their victim" than those using firearms.

 

 

 

Pointing out that there were plenty of homicides in the pre-firearm age does nothing to weaken my argument.

 

 

 

How does that debunk the fact that murder (yes I thought it was plain and clear that that's what I meant - not non-homicidal crime) will always be around? You were the one who kept saying we were talking about homicide instead of crime in general so how does that not 'weaken your argument'?

 

 

 

I'm not talking about a change in legislature. I'm talking about a change in culture. If you can't understand the difference between those two simple statements then I'm afraid this debate will go nowhere.

 

 

 

Fair enough. But don't forget, changing the mind of the government is a lot different than changing the mind of society as a whole. I was more in favor of the legalization - while there is a need for self-defense. Honestly, I have nothing wrong with wanting to influence society to be anti-gun, but until it works completely (everyone agrees) then it is useless. So if you have an idea to stop murder and influence our whole planet (including criminals [hehe]) to make a huge morale advancement, I'd love that.

 

 

 

One question though. How?

 

 

 

Self-defense is very much possible without owning a firearm.

 

 

 

Violent crime is very much possible without owning a firearm.

[venomai]

It's only "more lethal" if it's used though.

 

Right... That's the whole idea.

 

 

 

Mortality rate is far higher when a gun is used than when a knife is used: people are far more likely to survive a stab wound to the heart or chest than a gunshot wound to the heart or chest.[2][3] That, and the fact that guns can be used effectively at a distance, is what makes them "more lethal weapons" than knives and, therefore, more intimidating weapons. This is not "just my opinion," the vast majority would agree that a loaded gun is a "more lethal weapon" than a knife.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I'm a strong believer that people won't kill someone unless they want to or else they wouldn't do it

 

This, on the other hand, is just your own opinion.

 

 

 

How does that debunk the fact that murder will always be around

 

It doesn't. I've been explicitly clear in my posts: murder is not a "new thing."

 

 

 

"I feel like a broken record. Yes, people kill people. Yes, people kill people without using guns."

 

 

 

Violent crime is very much possible without owning a firearm.

 

Again... I'm not arguing otherwise.

 

 

 

But don't forget, changing the mind of the government is a lot different than changing the mind of society as a whole.

 

Change the mind of society and, in time, the government will change as well. Either as a response to society's wishes (i.e. not wanting to lose votes) or as a direct result of new politicians.

 

 

 

Honestly, I have nothing wrong with wanting to influence society to be anti-gun, but until it works completely (everyone agrees) then it is useless.

 

And until everybody agrees on equality to gays, blacks and women, it too must be a useless cause... Cut the crap, please.

 

 

 

So if you have an idea to stop murder and influence our whole planet ... I'd love that.

 

:wall: