This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Gun Control
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
I think the concept of a president that acquired too much power and was sympathetic to the monarchy was a tangible threat at the inception of the United States. That may be the reason for the necessity of a "well regulated militia"*: if the president decided to disarm the populace it'd be easier for them to ratchet in pro-British policies. That was also probably a motivator for establishing a rigorous system of checks and balances on government... There's even something similar in UK law where a Prime Minister can't be Catholic, for fear that their fealty would lie towards the Vatican and they'd attempt to overthrow the monarchy.
A pro-monarchical president is no longer feasible and the legitimate fears people have of the government are well out of the people's control: COMINTELPRO, CIA cocaine shipping... When people do try and adopt military tactics in opposition to the government or government funded institutions, they're pretty universally despised for it (Fort Hood, Oklahoma bombings, Gabrielle Giffords and other assassinations/attempted assassinations).
* Someone on mmo-champion said all US citizens are counted as militia members... That doesn't seem plausible, or there would be no civilian casualties in the US... Unless he meant metaphorically, as in an "industrial reserve army".
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
In Denmark, we have very strict laws when dealing with guns. A citizen is not allowed to have a shotgun, assault rifle, machine gun or even just a pistol. The only guns allowed here are hunting rifles. And you need a license from the government to have one. And you can only have the specific one you requested, if you want another gun, even if it's the same model and everything, you need another license.
Honestly, I'm ok with this. Crime rate is very low in this country, I don't fear getting robbed when I go out at night. Even if I have nothing to protect myself with.
Thoughts?
Post by
MyTie
In Denmark, we have very strict laws when dealing with guns. A citizen is not allowed to have a shotgun, assault rifle, machine gun or even just a pistol. The only guns allowed here are hunting rifles. And you need a license from the government to have one. And you can only have the specific one you requested, if you want another gun, even if it's the same model and everything, you need another license.
Honestly, I'm ok with this. Crime rate is very low in this country, I don't fear getting robbed when I go out at night. Even if I have nothing to protect myself with.
Thoughts?
I only replied to this because you asked for thoughts.
My thought is that crime rate and gun control are often correlated, but there is not direct causation. I'm glad your society has found something that works for them.
I would say that your fear or lack of fear is subjective. I could walk down the streets of Iran dressed as a cowboy and not feel fear. That isn't to say that there would be no danger. Fear is just not something that is indicative to me.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I would say that your fear or lack of fear is subjective. I could walk down the streets of Iran dressed as a cowboy and not feel fear. That isn't to say that there would be no danger. Fear is just not something that is indicative to me.
Your cowboy example is a poor one. Crime rate (for just about every crime) is low in Denmark. It follows logically for him to accept that the likelihood of him being a victim of crime is low. If he's not likely to be a victim of such a crime, not being afraid is rational.
Compared to the US, Denmark has a much lower crime rate. Compared to other "rich" nations, Denmark has a moderate to high crime rate (
source
). Regardless of the overall US crime rate, I still feel very much at ease walking down the street in my local town. Fear is an emotion. I am not saying that his/her feeling of fear is not based on something. I am saying that "a feeling of fear" or lack thereof, cannot be used as an argument toward the safety of a situation. Many times, fear is not a rational emotion anyway.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I feel safe without weapons. Because if I'm intimidated/mugged by someone who does have a weapon, I know that they're far less likely to
use
it knowing that I don't have one. And if they use it anyway, they were going to do so whether I also had a weapon or not.
Cool. I feel much safer with a gun, because if I get mugged by someone, I'm going shoot them to death before they know what hit them.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
And what about several someones?That's what clips are for. With the military grade small arms training I have, coupled with my own personal practice, professional training, and general familiarity with my weapons, I stand an excellent chance against the random Jo and his piece... or a small crowd of random Jo's and their pieces. Better than I would with a sheepish look on my face and a safe warm feeling knowing that I don't have a gun (which incidentally boggles my mind as to how that works). And what of objective morality, come to that?Not really sure. I'll have years of life left to ponder that while I am not dead, because I was able to defend myself.
Bottom line is that I don't believe gun control correlation with crime rate has anything to do with causation. In fact, I've seen negative and positive correlation between the two. I think that the culture of the area is more of a causation for crime than the sale and ownership of weapons. I think weapons is the scapegoat for the real problem, which is the people.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Here's the numbers on how guns are used in the US:
Self Defense
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in:
1.3 unintentional deaths
4.6 criminal homicides
37 suicides
In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.
Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns.
Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.
Costs
For every firearm death, there are nearly three gun injuries requiring emergency medical treatment.
By conservative estimates, gunshot injuries cost about $4 billion a year in medical expenses.
Also, here's a comparison of homicide rates in the US vs. other countries:
Per Wikipedia
I can't cut and paste the table, but the US has homicide rates (based in numbers of murders per thousand people) between 3 and 6 times higher than many European countries, and while the average number for an industrialized country is below 2.5, we were at 4.8 in 2010.
Just wanted to throw some numbers into the debate, and see what people think. "Crime Rates" is a very generic term, and based on differences in what is illegal, and to what extent, includes everything from spitting to smoking weed to vandalism to rape and murder. I wanted to narrow it down to the crimes specifically involving guns, or at least homicide and other violence-related crimes.
Post by
MyTie
Better than I would with a sheepish look on my face and a safe warm feeling knowing that I don't have a gun (which incidentally boggles my mind as to how that works).
You go on about fear just being an emotion, and yet as soon as someone else points out how, logically, there is no reason to fear someone holding a gun even if you, yourself, are unarmed, you insist they should be scared?
Another question, though -- while I'm at it. Why is killing them the necessary response? If you're so well-trained, how difficult would it be instead to incapacitate them?
In fact, no, let's go further. Disarm them. No shooting.
I'm not submitting my lack of fear as an argument, but my incredible capacity to send metal to their intended recipients.
To answer the rest of your (ridiculous) question: because I live in the real world, not the world of Walker: Texas Ranger, in which all fights can be settled with a 10 gallon hat and a roundhouse kick.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Gun control does one thing, and one thing only...it takes the right to own guns away from responsible, law abiding citizens. The criminals are already breaking the law, and already have their guns, and I doubt that they will bring them to the police station and turn them in. So that leaves only the lawful individual that would be affected by gun control.
In 2009, the Texas Department of Public Safety reported 65,516 Felony convictions. Of those, only 101 were committed by Concealed Carry permit holders....thats less than 0.2%. Only 1 murder, and 4 Assault with a Deadly Weapon convictions were from CCW holders. The national average for felony convictions by CCW permit holders is less than 0.3%. The national average for all CCW revocations is only around 4%, with the vast majority of those being revoked due to DUI offences. (I am not condoning or trivializing DUI, just ponting out that the majority of crimes committed by CCW owners are not related to a firearm)
***I had all the statistics sourced, and my original post vanished. I don't feel the need to redo all the links...it's out there...Google it if you must***
Post by
Alkony
(Statistics comparing self-defense homicides to other uses of guns.)
One problem with this comparison is the "self-defense
homicide
" part. It would be difficult to collect this information, but in my experience guns are more often used in self-defense non-lethally.
Anecdote: My dad has a CCW permit and I have experienced first hand at least two instances of the mere presence of his handgun (he has a specially designed fanny-pack) dissuaded someone from approaching because they recognized the fact that he was armed. There are stories all the time about similar things happening for other armed individuals, but there's no official statistics because there's nothing to report.
One way to look at this is to look at the chosen prey populations for violent crimes in areas where not everyone has equal ability to be armed. Ex. In Florida after the policy was changed to a "will issue" stance, the crime rate against locals fell significantly for several years, but the crime rate against foreign tourists (who were much less likely to be armed) stayed the same or increased. Ex. All the successful mass shootings in the US have occurred in areas with zero or near-zero carry rates: schools, colleges, military base.
Every society is different. In the US, there has been a need for arms since the beginning, largely due to the frontier nature of the land. The only way to eliminate gun violence entirely would be to eliminate all guns, and that cat is way out of the bag. Even physically restricted locations such as England cannot keep out all guns, in the US it's a truly impossible task. Laws only affect those willing to abide by them. If you pass a law banning guns, it will only disarm the law-abiding, the criminals will still have guns, and now the law-abiding are easier prey.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
frontier nature of the land
Manifest Destiny
?
it will only disarm the law-abiding, the criminals will still have guns, and now the law-abiding are easier prey.
Oft repeated aphorisms
...
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lombax
If you need a permit for a gun lawful citizens couldstill own them. I also think that pikeyboys resoning is good, I feel like there's no reason to have a gun unless you're hunting.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.