Lets talk about firearms- guns...

[Specineff]

Sure, the gun ban has worked; but people were resorting to other means to hurt or kill other people.

Note: Less effective.

And then people will resort to pipes, or other things to commit crimes [boards with nails in them? I will get a board with the biggest nail of all!]. Even if that reduces gun crimes, I doubt it will reduce crime at all since it can be commited by other means.

We need to be worried about a statistic, rather than the fatalities caused by dangerous implements?

Reducing gun and sword crimes = reducing crimes.

If you mean "there will still be thefts," that's certainly reasonable, but reducing the potential for bodily harm in a theft seems like a positive to me.

"Oh, gee. I guess I should be grateful grampa only got stabbed in the stomach seventeen times instead of shot in the face once when they tried to rob our store."



You obviously haven't seen a body beaten to a bloody pulp with a pipe, have you? I have. And get this... it was in a country and state with zero tolerance for gun ownership. And government-backed gun control. An only one provider of firearms in the whole country. Sorry, man. But that image of the badly mashed body weighs too much against your arguments.

[Michaelm]

If citizens shouldn't have a right to bear arms, then military,police or any other form of Government agency should not have the right either. It's only fair.

People can't have tanks, apache's, nuclear weapons and so on either.
Damned the world is unfair !

[Ed Oscuro]

"Oh, gee. I guess I should be grateful grampa only got stabbed in the stomach seventeen times instead of shot in the face once when they tried to rob our store."

Let's cool it with the nonsense fake anecdotes.

Consider this: Stab wounds are far less dangerous than firearm wounds - this study shows 85% of gunshot wounds to the heart are fatal, while only 30% of stab wounds to the heart are.

By the way, a mugger isn't likely to stab somebody they don't know seventeen times. If grandma needs to protect against her own family, she should get on the horn with 911.

But that image of the badly mashed body weighs too much against your arguments.

COME IN WITH THE MILK & ASSUMPTIONS

If citizens shouldn't have a right to bear arms, then military,police or any other form of Government agency should not have the right either. It's only fair.

People can't have tanks, apache's, nuclear weapons and so on either.
Damned the world is unfair !

I'm weeping at the thought of all those tanks that'll never tear up the pavement on the way to the grocery store... :'(

[Specineff]

Listen, sweetheart. My dad died. In the street. We went to pick up the body, and while waiting outside the morgue I saw (SAW, okay?) a body being brought with the upper part smashed beyond recognition. I did ask and the agents said he was beat into puree with pipes. You wouldn't believe the frequency this happens with.

So much for your theory of no guns=Wonderland.

Consider this: Stab wounds are far less dangerous than firearm wounds - this study shows 85% of gunshot wounds to the heart are fatal, while only 30% of stab wounds to the heart are.

Let me ask you the same question you asked before. Do we need to be concerned with a statistic, rather than the fatalities caused by dangerous iimplements? A robber is a robber is a robber is a robber. And lack of guns will not deter anyone with a will or purpose.

By the way, a mugger isn't likely to stab somebody they don't know seventeen times. If grandma needs to protect against her own family, she should get on the horn with 911.

Gee, I wonder why all the victims of stabbings or shootings in gas stations here in Arizona haven't thought of that.

[Damocles]

...and this is why I don't get into this discussion any more, despite my family owning a gun shop.

[Nuke]

Listen, sweetheart. I make up stories or use tragedies tastelessly to further my agenda.

So much for my theory of guns=Wonderland.

And I used to somewhat respect you Specineff. I'd never take you for the raving lunatic type before....

[Michaelm]

A robber is a robber is a robber is a robber. And lack of guns will not deter anyone with a will or purpose.

Script kiddies...

[t0yrobo]

You guys do realize that in the US there's more privately owned guns than ever and crime has been consistently been going down right?
I do agree that there should be much more training involved in people being able to buy guns though, especially pistols. In the case of pistols I think everyone should have to take something similar to the concealed carry classes so that they understand the implications of shooting someone. I used to shoot in a self defense pistol league and I'm constantly surprised and worried by how much more familiar with guns I am than many people I know who claim to own them for protection.

[Ed Oscuro]

Listen, sweetheart. My dad died.

As much as it pains me to say it, that doesn't give you any increased moral authority on the matter. I know these things happen, and I'm sorry for them. But they're rare.

Shmups Forum has regularly been messing over edits for me, so here's what I had meant to add last night:

Speaking of which, let's not assume that I think gun regulation is a cure-all for violence. On the contrary, firearms are treated differently in different societies (see the BBC link up above). What arguably doesn't work in the U.S. may be fine elsewhere.

Onto your next point - we don't need to be concerned with statistics? Are you kidding me? Statistics show general trends. Something else to think of is that guns are not magic wands - if he was surprised a gun might not have been likely to save him, although certainly I would have rather he been able to defend himself from some murderers.

Of course, stories like this one from Texas are demonstrate that it's proper for states to determine their own firearms laws, even if they complicate attempts in any given state to restrict firearms.

[Twiddle]

You guys do realize that in the US there's more privately owned guns than ever and crime has been consistently been going down right?

There are also more violent video games than ever and crime has been consistently going down.

I blame gun control and media censorship activists for sudden spikes in violence.

[jp]

If citizens shouldn't have a right to bear arms, then military,police or any other form of Government agency should not have the right either. It's only fair.

People can't have tanks

Master P and the dude from Aphex Twin both own tanks. Well, Master P might not own one anymore, but the guy from Aphex Twin still does.

[Specineff]

Listen, sweetheart. My dad died.

As much as it pains me to say it, that doesn't give you any increased moral authority on the matter. I know these things happen, and I'm sorry for them. But they're rare.

Look. I didn't say it because it gives me any authority. Did you read my post or only skimmed it for three seconds? I only said that while waiting for my dad's body (because you'd have to wonder what was I doing in front of a morgue) when I saw a body beaten beyond recognition with a pipe. And that it happens more often than you would think.

Which just proves your theory of Gun Ban=Wonderland to be wrong.

Likewise, just because gun bans have worked where you live (if they have), doesn't give you any moral authority to condemn those who believe in responsible gun ownership. Please read the posts you are replying to beforehand.

[Ed Oscuro]

Did you read my post or only skimmed it for three seconds?

I should levy (edit: LEVEL, dear god i r tarded) the same charge at you because you've used your "how dare you call me Batman" attitude to ignore all I've stated. Are you going to discuss things like an adult or just throw around more false accusations?

Particularly this statement:

Which just proves your theory of Gun Ban=Wonderland to be wrong.

Of course, stories like this one from Texas are demonstrate that it's proper for states to determine their own firearms laws, even if they complicate attempts in any given state to restrict firearms.

You didn't read a thing I wrote.

The bottom line is this: We can't decide public policy because of one sad happening. We use statistics so that we can determine a best overall policy and so that we don't act on our worst impulses towards vigiantism.

I also bring up statistics because I believe in evidence. Yes, your story is evidence, but consider that it is one of many such crimes. I'd be more interested to see how many times that happened - and (more to the point) how a gun could've helped if he was surprised. If somebody is killed and they didn't know it was coming, the bad guys might walk away with a free handgun.

[Specineff]

Listen, sweetheart. I make up stories or use tragedies tastelessly to further my agenda.

So much for my theory of guns=Wonderland.

And I used to somewhat respect you Specineff. I'd never take you for the raving lunatic type before....

Jesus man. Do I need to post a scan of the death certificate? Did you even read the post? I only posted that because we were waiting for my dad's body to be ID'd and released to us. What would you think if I had said I was in the morgue, just like that? Use your head before hitting "submit".

This was in Mexico, please understand it's a very different world over there. My dad died of a heart attack, nothing related to gun causes. The badly beaten body belonged to someone else who was, and I repeat, turned into a bloody irrecognizable pulp by blunt force. You don't need to go calling people names just because you misread a reply and disagree with a counterpoint I'm trying to make. Tasteless, huh? Bite your tongue.

[Ed Oscuro]

Listen, sweetheart. I make up stories or use tragedies tastelessly to further my agenda.

So much for my theory of guns=Wonderland.

And I used to somewhat respect you Specineff. I'd never take you for the raving lunatic type before....

Jesus man. Do I need to post a scan of the death certificate?

Where did Nuke say anything about the particulars? I think you meant to quote me but failed.

Yeah, I DID slightly misread your post, but it's tough slogging through that overwrought hyperventilating nonsense. It also fails to impact any of my points whatsoever.

Most importantly, I have thrown concessions to pro-gun stances all over the place, and you just fail to notice them.

[Specineff]

Okay Ed. I don't dislike you (Nor Nuke) and I don't want this to get to a ping-pong game of name calling. (Which it hasn't) Please read how Nuke edited my post. He probably thought or misread my post as if I was making up the "tragedy" of my father dying of a gunshot, which I did NOT write so. (That's why I quoted him quoting my post after he edited it) I only mentioned that while waiting for my father's body I saw someone killed and disfigured by something other than a gun, and that it happens very often in a country where gun ownership has been banned.

Thing is that you come off (and if I read otherwise, I take it back) as saying:

"Just ban the guns and all will be fixed."

Then I tell you that that won't work because there are other ways of hurting people, and I've seen it. And then the statistics, the impossible solutions of calling 911 and such as seen above. Back and forth.

Guns, to me are a necessary evil. (And if you please read my post, you will see that I never said that my father died of a gun shot. K?) And I'd rather take that necessary evil that allows me to responsibly carry a firearm for the purpose defending myself from the type of scum that would beat someone to a bloody pulp with a pipe or another instrument, which I saw happening.

Are we cool with that?

[Ed Oscuro]

Thing is that you come off (and if I read otherwise, I take it back) as saying:

"Just ban the guns and all will be fixed."

No offense, but you're starting to remind me of the usual stubborn 'net pro debater who fails to read something (as I did) and then spends the next three to twenty posts denying that anything is there (as I haven't). Note that I admitted missing your point - you on the other hand still insist on peddling this "gun bans are magic" line which I never stated and which is flatly contradicted in many of the lines I wrote.

I never stated any such thing; you're wrong and I was wrong, let's move on to more useful topics.

Anyhow, what have we learned?

Good gun policy in one country does not translate to good policy in another.

A gun ban isn't a magic crime-killing tool, but neither are guns magic wands.

Anyhow, your next paragraph nicely summarizes some of the points of mine you were confused about, so I'll tackle them here:

Then I tell you that that won't work because there are other ways of hurting people, and I've seen it.

Who hasn't?

And then the statistics,

Because statistics are better than a sample size of one incident. I'm not saying a single incident shouldn't influence your opinion, because they naturally do, but don't think that the set of statistics doesn't cover those incidents as well. It's like you're arguing that arguing without evidence is the best or something.

the impossible solutions of calling 911 and such as seen above.

You missed the context for that one. As I stated before, most of that sort of violence is between people who know each other. If you're in a situation where you know somebody wants to hurt you, you almost always should get some help BEFORE things get bad. This is called common sense, and is part of the reason why women live longer than men on average.

Back and forth.

Indeed. I've only broken down this quote because you nicely laid out these points for me to address again.

[Acid King]

I've explained why it will: guns provoke and also facilitate reactions. If you're facing a gun owner, you don't always go running. If you have a gun for defense, you'll be more likely to use it when the situation doesn't call for it.

What tiny fraction of crime is caused by that? It's a small fraction of a small fraction of violent crime. Even if a ban cut crime involving firearms, and fewer deaths resulted, the crime rate will still remain steady because criminals remain criminals. If 9 out of 10 muggers use knives instead of guns, and that last remaining mugger can't get a gun and switches to a knife, the number of muggings remains the same and the violent crime rate stays steady.

That doesn't apply to the states. This article explains why. Thank you for bringing up the point, however, because it was far from my mind. Cultural context matters.

Cultural context matters, in other words, the mere availability of guns to the general public does not cause increases in death or crime. Your article points out exactly why you are wrong. Switzerland "has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation."

Posting that article was self defeating because it highlights that the causes of crime are not related to gun ownership. As I've said god knows how many times already, a gun ban doesn't address the underlying social problems the are associated with violent crime in the states, thats why any impact on crime will be nominal.

[xorthen]

If citizens shouldn't have a right to bear arms, then military,police or any other form of Government agency should not have the right either. It's only fair.

People can't have tanks, apache's, nuclear weapons and so on either.
Damned the world is unfair !

Well let me rephrase that. When I say arms, I mean firearms. Not nukes, tanks, or heavy artillery or anything which can cause mass destruction. I think a firearm is a fair share. It's not so bad when you compare it to a nuclear weapon or a biological weapon, eh?

[xorthen]

Sure, the gun ban has worked; but people were resorting to other means to hurt or kill other people.

Note: Less effective.

And then people will resort to pipes, or other things to commit crimes [boards with nails in them? I will get a board with the biggest nail of all!]. Even if that reduces gun crimes, I doubt it will reduce crime at all since it can be commited by other means.

We need to be worried about a statistic, rather than the fatalities caused by dangerous implements?

Reducing gun and sword crimes = reducing crimes.

If you mean "there will still be thefts," that's certainly reasonable, but reducing the potential for bodily harm in a theft seems like a positive to me.

If citizens shouldn't have a right to bear arms, then military,police or any other form of Government agency should not have the right either. It's only fair.

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't come down on one side of the argument or other with what I know, although I can come up with better arguments than "omg it's not fare"

- It's a funny sight seeing British cops try to take down motorcars with their batons (sometimes they succeed)!

- In some police departments in the U.S. officers are banned from firing on moving vehicles when on foot because it is thought guns won't stop the cars from moving and the potential for harming bystanders is increased

Are you trying to suggest that there should be some kind of imposed moral authority on this matter?

I think it's fair enough. You have to consider the pros of owning a gun as well, not just trying to be all anti-gun because you've watched a million Michael Moore films and he's corrupted you into thinking like a robot.

[Shatterhand]

I've explained why it will: guns provoke and also facilitate reactions. If you're facing a gun owner, you don't always go running. If you have a gun for defense, you'll be more likely to use it when the situation doesn't call for it.

What tiny fraction of crime is caused by that? It's a small fraction of a small fraction of violent crime. Even if a ban cut crime involving firearms, and fewer deaths resulted, the crime rate will still remain steady because criminals remain criminals. If 9 out of 10 muggers use knives instead of guns, and that last remaining mugger can't get a gun and switches to a knife, the number of muggings remains the same and the violent crime rate stays steady.

I really don't get this argument. Ed Oscuro said it before, and I said it too: Guns aren't the root of all violence and criminal activities, and banning guns wouldn't end with the violence or turn world in "wonderland", yet it's an object whose only purpose is to kill. Someone can kill you with a pipe, that's for sure, but a pipe wasn't made to kill. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a firearm than with a pipe. While banning guns wouldn't make crime rate go down (Neither would go up), I am pretty sure less people would die, and I can't see this as a bad thing.

There are a LOT of stuff that has to be made to diminish violence and criminal acts... banning guns isn't the only one, but IT IS one important step on doing that...

And I don't even want to go into the moral aspect of all this discussion. We could use the money spent on weapons for more important things.

[Acid King]

I really don't get this argument.

What don't you get? Banning guns is an ineffective means of controlling crime. Period. There is no argument to be had about it. Ed suggested it was working as a crime control measure earlier in the thread. Guns don't cause crime, banning them may make certain crimes less deadly, but the overall effect on crime would be nominal. If you really want to lower crime, banning guns is an incredibly ineffective means of doing it.

It's an illusion of safety, like everyone would be saying "Thank god no one can buy guns legally now" and everyone feels fuzzy inside because we did a "good thing" by taking deadly weapons out of regular peoples hands, but what the fuck is the point of doing something like that if it doesn't do what it's supposed to do? Reminds me of the laws limiting where sex offenders can live. Sure, everyone feels good knowing registered sex offenders can't live by schools or playgrounds, but how much safer does it really make children considering the majority of child abductions aren't committed by strangers and it does nothing to stop a sex offender from driving or walking to a playground or school? But god damnit, we do it because we need to do SOMETHING, no matter how idiotic or ineffective it is. People need that illusion of safety and lawmakers need to look like they've done something productive.

As I said before, I think the right of a civilian population to own guns for self defense against criminals, government sponsored violence against citizens (Darfur, Albania, the Holocaust etc), and for emergency situations of social breakdown (LA Riots, Hurricane Katrina) is too important to surrender as a crime control measure when mere gun ownership does not lead to more crime and there are other far more effective means of controlling crime. I'm not against all forms of gun control, but suggesting we should ban guns to reduce crime is idiotic.

And with that I'm done in this thread. I can't explain my position any more clearly and the circular nature of the argument is tiring. It keeps coming back to the emotional argument "But guns kill people". If you think guns should be banned just because they are used to kill people, as you said earlier in the thread, there's no point in engaging in this discussion because nothing can trump that rationale and the argument winds up being something like this.

"Gun bans aren't effective at controlling crime"
"But guns kill people"
"But gun bans aren't effective at controlling crime."
"But guns kill people."
"But gun bans aren't effective at controlling crime."
"But guns kill people."
Repeated ad nauseum.

[Michaelm]

Banning guns is an ineffective means of controlling crime. Period.

The argument is about regulating gun possession.
Not about lowering crime rates.

Those are 2 different things.

I'm not against all forms of gun control, but suggesting we should ban guns to reduce crime is idiotic.

And again.. Script kiddies.

[Super Laydock]

bullets are used for stuff other than us killing each other. They're also used for us killing animals and other fun activities.

yay, FUN!

[Ed Oscuro]

That doesn't apply to the states. This article explains why. Thank you for bringing up the point, however, because it was far from my mind. Cultural context matters.

Cultural context matters, in other words, the mere availability of guns to the general public does not cause increases in death or crime.

Very good! I said this earlier. Glad to see you're following along.

Your article points out exactly why you are wrong. Switzerland "has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation."

Are we talking about Switzerland, where they have a civilian army, or the United States? In the US criminals find guns easily. In Switzerland, a lack of organized crime (on top of the other things) probably means that at most some people kill themselves and their families now and then.

For example. I wrote my last sentence before I went looking for this; too - just Googled "Switzerland gun violence."

So for Switzerland, if you're capable of thinking clearly, the question is:

Do the hunting, recreational, and civil defense aspects of gun ownership outweigh the occasional violent murder?

That's up for Switzerland to decide. It'd probably help if they started keeping statistics - that'd put the situation into its proper context, which could be "people with mental problems need counseling" and possibly gun restrictions.

Are you trying to suggest that there should be some kind of imposed moral authority on this matter?

...no?

I think it's fair enough. You have to consider the pros of owning a gun as well, not just trying to be all anti-gun because you've watched a million Michael Moore films and he's corrupted you into thinking like a robot.

I've despised Moore for quite a while.

[Randorama]

All this basement fear of out and visceral appetite for useless toys makes me wonder:

Why the fuck Richard James has a tank? To shoot at orb's little fluffy clouds? Maybe the Sussex hills in winter are *that* muddy...Right now I have this absolutely freaky image of him going around in a tank with a 'Donkey ruburb' giant plushie on the cannon!

I am all the way for guns btw. We need more Darwin awards to be, well, awarded (increase of cabbages and beans consuption as well, because of said prizes). The flying Spaghetti monster and Elvis approve, they say it's THE way to show cosmic love to thee!

[Neon]

Why the fuck Richard James has a tank?

Aphex Twin Richard James? Seriously?

Maybe eating people's souls got boring

[jp]

Why the fuck Richard James has a tank?

Aphex Twin Richard James? Seriously?

Maybe eating people's souls got boring

Yup. He seriously has a tank. And he seriously drives it around. And it still shoots, but he only has four rounds left, so he doesn't do that.

[Specineff]

No offense, but you're starting to remind me of the usual stubborn 'net pro debater who fails to read something (as I did) and then spends the next three to twenty posts denying that anything is there (as I haven't). Note that I admitted missing your point - you on the other hand still insist on peddling this "gun bans are magic" line which I never stated and which is flatly contradicted in many of the lines I wrote.

Allow me to quote myself.

and if I read otherwise, I take it back.

And

Are we cool with that?

[Acid King]

Very good! I said this earlier. Glad to see you're following along.

I've been saying this the whole time. It was you who earlier suggested guns bans worked to decrease crime.