Mr. Incognito Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 what i'm suggesting is that your idea of more guns in the scenario historically has done NOTHING to stop mass shooters, perhaps someday that routine will break, but it hasn't yet. and like typical gun rhetoric your entire argument is based in hypotheticals, not in history or reality. I wonder if you or bullshit overly-liberal mother jones have ever considered how many armed civilians have taken out would-be mass shooters? I guess it only counts though once the killer has piled up at least 10 bodies. here's a few for the hell of it.. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911219/posts http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446 http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few (golden food market shooter) http://www.ktxs.com/news/RV-PARK-KILLINGS-Witness-shooter-recounts-shootout-with-gunman-who-killed-two-in-Early/-/14769632/15933066/-/30wo2o/-/index.html and nevermind the thousands of other instances of armed citizens defending themselves or preventing crimes. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2969594/posts "Definitions and precise numbers vary by researcher, but it is clear that at least 10 percent of mass shootings are stopped by armed citizens. I believe this is the minimum number, the actual number may be much higher, because when a citizen stops an intended mass shooting early, it never becomes a successful mass shooting and may never become a news story of note. " something else mother jones forgot to mention is that practically all of those places they listed in their article were gun free zones. hence the point of reducing those zones. the right to carry concealed has done more than a "gun free zone" has and will ever do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 mass killings are counted at 4 dead, not ten. most mass killings are not byproducts of robberies i'll respond to the rest in a bit, busy holiday drinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 10 was sarcasm. To the actual thread topic, again, i cannot believe Lapiere called for an armed guard in every school. Some real facepalm shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morton Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 The put good guys with guns everywhere argument is revolting. Somehow making a dent in the existing surpluss of firearms is impossible but puttting a armed policee or parapolice in every school is a doable and reasonable thing? For one, life is not a guy vs bad guy proposition, can you invission a police or vollunteer guard blowing away Tyrone in momnent of stress? I know two people that were killed with illegal handguns and one who was killed in a hunting accident. I do not know anyone who succesfully used a gun to thwart a atacker except in the case of folks that were already up to some dirt. My home has been broken into, with me in it twice and both times no firearms were needed. Once I confronted dude verbally and he left and once my stepdad slammed the window shut on the intruders fingers as he tried to lift himself up. These "thousands" you speak of, got a good source for that? Of them what percent needed assault weapons? Jeez, I thought I would give your source the benefit of the doubt and check it out, the 10 percent stat you cite was posted by "marktwain" on what apears to be a forum, you do realize that he is dead right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morton Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Oh fuck, did I just put all that time to respond to a sarcasitc post? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I do not know anyone who succesfully used a gun to thwart a atacker except in the case of folks that were already up to some dirt. Jeez, I thought I would give your source the benefit of the doubt and check it out, the 10 percent stat you cite was posted by "marktwain" on what apears to be a forum, you do realize that he is dead right? i gotta be honest and say i have no idea what the fuck you're talking about in these two lines. as for a source, skim through this: http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm look for other sources if you feel the need to. I don't know what percentage "needed" assault weapons because im not too sure what actually defines an assault weapon, are you? some say full auto, some say semi auto, which puts handguns into the assault weapon category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. We already have those, they´re called ¨Cops¨ and as it turns out they aren´t exactly infallible....I´m not sure if I would want another 100,000 of them running around. I´m sorry to hear about your friend....unfortunately, I don´t think we´re going to learn what we need to learn this time around, or the next time this happens. The US as a society is too good at avoidance to confront the real issues, like ¨what are we doing that causes people to snap and start shooting into groups of other people more than anywhere else in the civilized world?¨ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I´m sorry to hear about your friend....unfortunately, I don´t think we´re going to learn what we need to learn this time around, or the next time this happens. The US as a society is too good at avoidance to confront the real issues, like ¨what are we doing that causes people to snap and start shooting into groups of other people more than anywhere else in the civilized world?¨ ^this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Sounds great... dont hold your breath... what do we do in the mean time? This piece of trash wouldnt have said "awwww shit... i dont have a gun... looks like I cant flip out and cause harm to anyone... I'll just stay in my basement." A person intent to harm will harm... Watch the footage of the responders... hundreds of guns on the scene in the hands of police... not a single one was fired or harmed anyone... because of the person holding it. the PERSON kills... more people are killed by drunk drivers every week than by guns... where is the car-control? the alcohol - control? Banning guns is the window dressing... This is about as simplistic and incredible as it gets. A person intent to harm will harm... YEah, I hear people say this but it means diddly squat. The same day as Connecticut there was a looney in a school with a knife in China. Quite reasonable to believe if he had access to firearms - legally or illegally - he would have used one. The guy with a knife in China injured 22 kids, the guy with the gun in the US killed 28. So, 1. if people are intent to harm, why on earth would we make it easier for them to get a hold of tools that make them better at killing? 2. In countries like Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc. where there is stong gun control loonies DO NOT go around with poison, explosives and other shit committing mass murder. This - A person intent to harm will harm...- really is a ridiculous assumption that really adds up to nothing. It's just a hollow convenient line for the pro-gunners to throw around to support their biases. more people are killed by drunk drivers every week than by guns... where is the car-control? the alcohol - control? Again, silly throw away lines that are silly when looked at closely. Car control, um, yep: can't drive a car under certain ages, can't drive one if you've used one dangerously in the past, have to have a license and pass tests before you can use one, etc. etc. I mean really, did you even think about that before you said it? Same goes for booze. The gun crowd always remind me of kids that stick their fingers in their ears, screw their eyes up and go "LA LA LA, not listening, not listening". People in absolute denial of reality, preferring to not look past the surface and with and exceedingly loose grasp of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 preferring to not look past the surface and with and exceedingly loose grasp of history. I'm not exactly sure what you're basing this on, but probably not the annual number of crimes prevented every year by legal/private guns which is in the millions apparently. comparing guns to alcohol, cigarettes and car accidents is stupid because those three make up a landslide number of deaths comparatively, and like walid already said, there is a level of control for each. look how well those warning labels, drinking ages, and driver's licenses work out to keep people safe and alive. laws don't necessarily equate to "better" safety. in fact, im pretty sure laws are just made for stupid people. I also get annoyed knowing that politicians or hollywood slime blabbering on about gun control probably have an easy time doing so, knowing their personal armed guards will take care of them whenever they need it. must make it a little easier for them to sleep at night anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injury Posted December 26, 2012 Author Share Posted December 26, 2012 ¨what are we doing that causes people to snap and start shooting into groups of other people more than anywhere else in the civilized world?¨ this is what i am trying to get at. i tried in the OG thread and am trying now in this thread of my own creation. i dont hate gun owners. i know quite a few that own semi's and other "killing machines" that are often criticized by the media as being "the problem," in terms of guns. these people are awesome. in fact, these people sometimes exercise better lives and judgement than i do. i know a lotta terrible people who i'm glad don't/can't own guns too. shai is on the right track IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPS Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 There is a street with a lot of jewellery , watches shops ... before (15 years ago) there was no security guards, no security doors , you could enter without ringing. Then a lot of armed robbery happened and the shops owners had no other choice than upgrade their security, first because insurances weren't willing to continue to pay but most important the clients were scared to come to this street. Now you have armed security guards inside (and for some of them also outside) . They are not dressed like swat members but everybody know that they are armed. Now there is hardly not a single armed robbery per year and the clients feel safer. The most important effect is deterrence. The idea would be that in each school there is somebody or some people , not necessarily a cop that would be prepared and equipped in case a lanza came. And to advertise a lot about that. Most of those people are complete cowards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 People who are intending to die at the end of their rampage will not be deterred by armed guards. Plus, schools are large, I reckon I could pretty easily fire on a good number of people before the guard responded. Secondly, all it takes is for the shooter to ambush the guard. Really doesn't seem like much of a deterrent for an angry, suicidal fool with an AR15. Incognito, of course laws will be broken, but that does not mean that they do not serve a purpose or matters would not be worse without them. Pretty sure you'll also find that smoking is dropping in Australia where we have strong restrictions on sale and supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 And again, the idea that a person intent to harm will harm. This guy tried to use a car and explosives. So far not one person has died. Now, ask yourself 2 questions; could this guy have been more successful in killing people if he had a gun? And could a person armed with a concealed weapon have stopped him from running the students down? Chinese man hits students with car, 13 hospitalized (Xinhua) 15:31, December 25, 2012 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8070190.html SHIJIAZHUANG, Dec. 25 (Xinhua) -- A man allegedly disgruntled with society drove a car into a group of students during their lunch break in north China, leaving 13 hospitalized, local officials said Tuesday. The man ran down 23 students of Fengning No. 1 Middle School, located in the county seat of the Manchu Autonomous County of Fengning, Hebei Province, at noon on Monday, police said. His identity has not been made public. Of the 13 students in hospital, one has a skull fracture, the bones in another's feet are crushed and one is suffering from broken blood vessels in his eyeballs. The ten others incurred only minor injuries, Fengning officials said, citing sources with the hospital. An initial probe cleared the man of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, the police probe found that the man had a gas tank and firecrackers stored in the car and he attempted to set off an explosion after hitting the students. According to police records, the man has a history of lodging complaints. Three years ago he encountered tragedy when his daughter was murdered. The motive behind the attack remains unclear, as the man has not yet opened up to investigators, police officials said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 The motive behind the attack remains unclear If someone can clear that up, we'll be a lot better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 What walid said regarding a suicidal person vs a robber. robbery takes place so that the individual can profit from whatever is pilfered from the place AFTER the crime. suicidal murderers don't seek that profit... a posted guard is a fucking easy target, any of you game players should know that. your side gets butt hurt when guns are compared to anything else, so stop comparing robberies to mass murders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I thought that the point was to compare guns to completely arbitrary things, like cars and malfunctioning electrical outlets, in order to prove how innocuous they are. By the way--would someone on the pro-gun side of things like to address Columbine? There was an armed guard there if I remember correctly. Was he just not "advertised" enough, or was he outgunned so he should have been given an AR15 to level the playing field? I'd find it hard to believe Klebold and Harris weren't aware of him. I'm being a dick, but that's a serious question I'd be interested in hearing a response to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPS Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 By the way--would someone on the pro-gun side of things like to address Columbine? There was an armed guard there if I remember correctly. Was he just not "advertised" enough, or was he outgunned so he should have been given an AR15 to level the playing field? I'd find it hard to believe Klebold and Harris weren't aware of him. I'm being a dick, but that's a serious question I'd be interested in hearing a response to. I dunno about Klebold but Harris was definitely aware of the cop since they got into a shootout... I don't know a lot about Columbine but the argument is that the cop who patrolled the school and got into the gunfight with Harris in the parking lot bought time for the victims, regardless of him not necessarily stopping Harris. I'll also point out again from the pro gun side that I don't advocate putting an armed guard in every school in the country instead of getting rid of "gun free zone" nonsense at schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Haven't read it yet but figured it might be interesting. U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons Author: Jonathan Masters, Online Editor/Writer December 21, 2012 http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735 Introduction The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by a series of incidents involving mass killings by gunmen in civilian settings. The killing of twenty schoolchildren in Newtown, Ct. in December 2012 prompted a national discussion over gun laws and initial calls by the Obama administration to limit the availability of military-style assault weapons. Gun ownership in the United States far surpasses other countries, and the recent mass shootings, in particular, have raised comparisons with policies abroad. Democracies that have experienced similar traumatic shooting incidents, for instance, have taken significant steps to regulate gun ownership and restrict assault weapons. They generally experience far fewer incidents of gun violence than the United States. Share The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Supreme Court rulings, citing this amendment, have upheld the right of states to regulate firearms. However, in a 2008 decision confirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, the court struck down Washington DC laws that banned handguns and required those in the home to be locked or disassembled. A number of gun ownership advocates consider it a birthright and an essential part of the nation's heritage. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about 35-50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, according to a 2007 report by the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey. It ranks number one in firearms per capita. The U.S. also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world's most developed nations (OECD), though some analysts say these statistics do not necessarily have a cause-and-effect relationship. Federal law sets the minimum standards for firearm regulation in the United States; however individual states have their own laws, some of which provide further restrictions, others which have more lenient guidelines. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to several categories of individuals, including persons under eighteen-years of age, those with criminal records, the mentally disabled, unlawful aliens, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others. In 1993, the law was amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for all unlicensed persons purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. However, critics maintain that a so-called "gun show loophole," codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check. As of December 2012, there were no federal laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large capacity ammunition magazines, which can increase the potential lethality of a given firearm. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire. Canada Many analysts characterize Canada's gun laws as strict in comparison to the United States, while others say recent developments have eroded safeguards. Ottawa, like Washington, sets federal gun restrictions that the provinces, territories, and municipalities can supplement. Federal regulations require all gun owners, who must be at least eighteen-years of age, to obtain a license that includes a background check and a public safety course. There are three classes of weapons: non-restricted (ordinary rifles and shotguns), restricted (handguns, semi-auto rifles/shotguns, sawed-offs), and prohibited (fully automatics, etc.). A person wishing to acquire a restricted firearm must obtain a federal registration certificate, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Modern Canadian gun laws have also been driven by prior gun violence. In December 1989, a disgruntled student walked into a Montreal engineering school with a semi-automatic rifle and killed fourteen students and injured over a dozen others. The incident is widely credited with driving subsequent gun legislation, including the 1995 Firearms Act, which required owner licensing, the registration of all long-guns (rifles and shotguns), while banning more than half of all registered guns. However, in 2012, the government abandoned the long-gun registry, citing cost concerns. Australia The inflection point for modern gun control in Australia was the Port Arthur massacre of April 1996, when a young man killed thirty-five people and wounded twenty-three others. The rampage, perpetrated with a semi-automatic rifle, was the worst mass shooting in the nation's history. Less than two weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the country's gun laws in cooperation with the various states, which regulate firearms. The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 (or about one-sixth of the national stock) assault weapons out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a particular type of gun, and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting in Melbourne in 2002, Australia's handgun laws were tightened as well. Many analysts say these measures have been highly effective, citing declining gun-death rates, and the fact that there have been no mass killings in Australia since 1996. Many also suggest the policy response in the wake of Port Arthur could serve as a model for the United States. Israel Military service is compulsory in Israel and guns are very much a part of everyday life. By law, most eighteen-year olds are drafted, psychologically screened, and receive at least some weapons training after high school. After serving typically two or three years in the armed forces, however, most Israelis are discharged and must abide by civilian gun laws. The country has relatively strict gun regulations, including an assault weapons ban and a requirement to register ownership with the government. To become licensed, an applicant must be an Israeli citizen or a permanent resident, be at least twenty-one-years-old, and speak at least some Hebrew, among other qualifications. Notably, a person must also show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as for self-defense or hunting. However, some critics question the efficacy of these measures. "It doesn't take much of an expert to realize that these restrictions, in and of themselves, do not constitute much by the way of gun control," writes Liel Leibovitz for the Jewish magazine Tablet. He notes the relative ease with which someone can justify owning a gun, including residing in an Israeli settlement, employment as a security guard, or working with valuables or large sums of money. Furthermore, he explains that, in at least one respect, almost the entire population has indirect access to an assault weapon by either being a soldier, a reservist, or a relative. Israel's relatively low gun-related homicide rate is a product of the country's unique "gun culture," he says. United Kingdom Modern gun control efforts in the United Kingdom have been precipitated by extraordinary acts of violence that sparked public outrage and, eventually, political action. In August 1987, a lone gunman armed with two legally-owned semi-automatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly seventy miles west of London, killing sixteen people and then himself. In the wake of the incident, known as the Hungerford Massacre, Britain introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semi-automatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons. Another gun-related tragedy in the Scottish town of Dunblane, in 1996, prompted Britain's strictest gun laws yet. In March of that year, a middle-aged man armed with four legally purchased handguns shot and killed sixteen young schoolchildren and one adult, before committing suicide, in the country's worst mass shooting to date. The incident sparked a public campaign known as the Snowdrop Petition, which helped drive legislation banning all handguns with few exceptions. The government also instituted a temporary gun buyback program, which many credit with taking tens of thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply. However, the effectiveness of Britain's gun laws in gun-crime reduction over the last twenty-five years has stirred ongoing debate. Analysts note that the number of such crimes grew heavily in the late 1990's and peaked in 2004, before falling each subsequent year. "While tighter gun control removes risk on an incremental basis," said Peter Squires, a Brighton University criminologist speaking to CNN, "significant numbers of weapons remain in Britain." Norway Gun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway—where gun laws are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high—until right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik killed seventy-seven people in an attack on an island summer camp in July 2011. Though Norway ranked tenth worldwide in gun ownership, according to the Small Arms Survey, it placed near the bottom in gun-homicide rates. (The U.S. rate is roughly sixty-four times higher.) Most Norwegian police (much like the British) do not carry firearms. In the wake of the tragedy, some analysts in the United States have cited Breivik's rampage as proof that strict gun laws—which in Norway include requiring applicants to be at least eighteen-years of age, specify a "valid reason" for gun ownership, and obtain a government license—are ineffective. "Those who are willing to break the laws against murder do not care about the regulation of firearms, and will get a hold of weapons whether doing so is legal or not," wrote Charles C. W. Cooke in the National Review. Other gun control critics have argued that had other Norwegians, including the police, been armed, Breivik might have been stopped earlier and killed fewer victims. An independent commission after the massacre recommended tightening Norway's gun restrictions in a number of ways, including a prohibition of pistols and semi-automatic weapons. Japan Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan's highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun-homicide rate, which is the lowest in the world at 1 in 10 million, according to the latest data available. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite small, reflect this. Under Japan's Firearm and Sword Law, the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns that have research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction, pass a battery of tests (written, mental, and drug), and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how the weapon and ammunition is stored, and provide the firearm for annual inspection. Some analysts link Japan's aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/more-guns-and,-you-guessed-it-less-crime-again.aspx "In 2011, as compared to 2010, the total violent crime rate decreased 4.3 percent, to a 41-year low, down 49 percent since the all-time high in 1991. The murder rate decreased 2.1 percent, to a 48-year low, down 52 percent since 1991. " "Meanwhile during the last 20 years, the number of privately owned guns has risen by about 130 million" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 ^ Surveilance & Technology are reasons for crime decreasing, that and the insane amount of police everywhere has these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injury Posted December 28, 2012 Author Share Posted December 28, 2012 http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/more-guns-and,-you-guessed-it-less-crime-again.aspx "In 2011, as compared to 2010, the total violent crime rate decreased 4.3 percent, to a 41-year low, down 49 percent since the all-time high in 1991. The murder rate decreased 2.1 percent, to a 48-year low, down 52 percent since 1991. " "Meanwhile during the last 20 years, the number of privately owned guns has risen by about 130 million" Correlation doesn't equal causation. In fact, i'll hedge that these are barely related at all. Let's start with the crime stats. To begin, Violent Crime is an enormous category that covers far more than just guns. That being said ... policing, as a whole, has greatly changed since 1991. Take a criminal justice course and witness this. Start with better police tactics in most cities as well as younger (and bigger) police forces, particularly after 9/11. Dramatically different and more extensive use of surveillance and other technology in policing, which is making it easier to catch and convict people after a crime is committed. Also look at the skyrocketing rate of incarceration (for most crimes) since the 70's thanks to private prisons and a prison-industrial complex that believes longer and harsher sentences are the way to go. Not that these sentences are necessarily deterring crime (they aren't) but that the people who do commit crimes are more likely to get caught and significantly more likely to spend more time in jail. Add to that the fact that drug use as a whole (excluding marijuana) has either plateau'd or decreased since the 1990s. Would you agree that less "hard" drugs = the potential for less crime? I would. I don't think the skyrocketing rates of gun ownership have much, if anything to do with a decrease in crime rates. I say this because the majority of the registered guns in this country belong to a minority of people. The united states is living a weird double-life where the number of people who own guns is diminishing, but of those who do own guns, the average number they own is climbing. Meaning you have gun owners stockpiling weapons and ammunition, not a country arming itself. Many of these people live in states like Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska. Not the most dangerous states in the country. Most guns are going to these states. Meaning that relaxing gun laws won't necessarily start arming the country, but it will appeal to people who spend money on guns because they can buy new toys. Relaxing gun laws isn't going to help this problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/more-guns-and,-you-guessed-it-less-crime-again.aspx "In 2011, as compared to 2010, the total violent crime rate decreased 4.3 percent, to a 41-year low, down 49 percent since the all-time high in 1991. The murder rate decreased 2.1 percent, to a 48-year low, down 52 percent since 1991. " "Meanwhile during the last 20 years, the number of privately owned guns has risen by about 130 million" Oh jesus, you have to be kidding me mate?! Please tell me that you understand that this argument and the article is about as retarded as it gets, please?!!! I'm choking on the bias over here. "There is only one thing that could ever possibly have an effect crime rates. Education? No. Policing? No. Demographics? No. Economics? No. Legislation? No. Awareness? No. The only variable that will ever affect crime rates is gun ownership, nothing else, ever". I've seen news articles from North Korea with more balance than that piece of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morton Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The Caging of America Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik January 30, 2012 http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik The end of this article gets into causation and crime a little, I do not agree with everything the author had to say but am always interested in examining the prison industrial complex in the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Incognito Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Why am I the only one interpreting the article as its meant by pointing out that more guns doesn't mean more crime? The whole point is to dispute other anti gun lobbies like the Brady campaign who have so diligently defended the position that more guns equates to more crime, when its simply not the case, as proven year after year. It's not a suggestion that more equals less crime BECAUSE there is more, it's that as ownership skyrockets, crime also happens to go down, according to FBI. Ownership not necessarily coinciding with a crime decrease, but also not a cause for violent crime increase. Is that redundant enough to understand now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I prefer to read it my way and spit bile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injury Posted December 28, 2012 Author Share Posted December 28, 2012 Why am I the only one interpreting the article as its meant by pointing out that more guns doesn't mean more crime? The whole point is to dispute other anti gun lobbies like the Brady campaign who have so diligently defended the position that more guns equates to more crime, when its simply not the case, as proven year after year. It's not a suggestion that more equals less crime BECAUSE there is more, it's that as ownership skyrockets, crime also happens to go down, according to FBI. Ownership not necessarily coinciding with a crime decrease, but also not a cause for violent crime increase. Is that redundant enough to understand now? so you're saying that because 130 million more guns are now (statistically) owned by ~20% of the US population ... that violent crime has not gone up? and the NRA/gun owners across america deserve a high five for this? sorry... nah. crime stats are complex and multifaceted enough that trying to boil them down to one factor (guns) is childish and does everyone a disservice. For example, pro-gun types like to point out that when DC relaxed its handgun law slightly (allowing one per household that must stay in the house for the purpose of defense only), the crime rate started to fall. Anyone who's spent any time in dc since then could also tell you that the city has been overwhelmingly swept by gentrification since 2008 and long before. the "murder capital" is no longer and hasn't been for a long time; in fact, just recently it was announced that the city is no longer more than half black, benefitting from federal growth and spending post-9/11 that has bucked every major national recession. DC is safer than ever. And handguns don't have a single thing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 so you're saying more WHITES equals less crime? (also must spread injury, good post) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.