U.S. Gun Violence

Page 4 of 34 [ 530 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 34 Next

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

18 Jan 2014, 6:03 pm

Living in the UK, we find this whole debate remarkable. No one has a gun over here unless they need it for their job. Police don't carry guns. Petty criminals don't carry guns. No one wants that to change.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jan 2014, 7:52 pm

Ann2011 wrote:

If my choice is between cigarette smoking man, armed civilian and cop, I would want to stand next to them in that order. The presence of a weapon increases the danger to everyone, no matter who is carrying.

Uh, how will you know if a weapon is present when it's most likely concealed? A lot of people (including me) have carry permits and carry a handgun on their person. By your statement the streets here should be running red with blood...................but they're NOT.

superluminary wrote:

Actually you can own a firearm in the UK even though it's not part of your job. You are generally restricted to manually operated rifles and shotguns, though. . Of course, there is more red tape to wade through than in the US. Some cops in the UK are, in fact, armed or armed when the circumstances warrant it. I would never want to stake my life on petty criminals not carrying a firearm.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,584
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2014, 10:08 pm

Ann2011 wrote:

The presence of a weapon increases the danger to everyone, no matter who is carrying.

Prove it. And just to save us all some time, studies that say "if you own a gun you're X times more likely to die from a gunshot" are about as useful as studies proving that owning an alligator means you're more likely to be eaten by one, i.e. not very.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,584
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2014, 10:13 pm

superluminary wrote:

Really?

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3 ... _guns_back

Quote:

Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed.

That's a whole lot of no one...

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Jan 2014, 12:09 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

LKL wrote:

Kurgan wrote:

Strict gun laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.

'Strict assault laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.'

Do you really think you're persuading anyone with a condescending tone and a weak analogy? I got one for you; try strict drug laws.

Are you suggesting that guns are addictive and/or used to reduce the pain of a brutal, poverty-stricken existence?

The point is that 'criminals don't follow laws' is a really bad argument against laws.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Jan 2014, 12:11 am

Dox47 wrote:

Ann2011 wrote:

I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than somene carrying a gun.

Why? Licensed carriers are less likely to murder you than the police are, by a 3 to 1 margin. That's only counting the murders the police are actually convicted of, not all the "justified" shootings they get away with.

What's the ratio of time that licensed carriers are out in public with a gun, vs. the time that cops are out in public with a gun? Without knowing the exposure, you can't really give a meaningful virulence level.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

19 Jan 2014, 1:50 am

I don't see why anyone would focus on the extremely rare massacres -- they'll statistically never be a problem for society.

Other, more tangible violent crimes, are best approached via various means -- with the mindset that you'll never be able to stop them completely, so you should implement things that actually are proven to work, not just feelgood measures.

"Gun crime" is a misnomer, just as "fist crime" is. If firearms are common, they'll be a common occurrence in crimes -- an overrepresentation based purely on abundance. Remove all firearms via magic, and you have another form of, "... crime" taking its place and only affecting that single qualifier.

And besides, it's only ret*d morons that think a firearm will somehow cause crime itself.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

19 Jan 2014, 3:34 am

American wrote:

Ann2011 wrote:

What's the given situation?

The person carrying a gun is not going to use that gun in a way that violates the law while the smoker is polluting the air with nasty cigarette smoke without regards for his fellow human beings. The reason why this is the situation for our exercise is because the debate is over whether people should be able to carry guns, not whether people should be allowed to shoot the person next to them. So, what's physically more harmful to you (i.e., don't take into account irrational mental distress)? The person carrying the gun or the person smoking a cigarette?

The same question begging again. How do you know the person carrying a gun is even a legal carrier? Without magic to distinguish criminals and 'law abiding' citizens, it is logically inevitable that all those 'legal carrying' just enable criminals to carry guns equally unchecked.

American
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

19 Jan 2014, 3:58 am

01001011 wrote:

American wrote:

Ann2011 wrote:

What's the given situation?

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned. When you say you would rather stand next to someone blowing nasty cigarette smoke in your face than someone with a gun, you indicated that such a seemingly ridiculous preference was because of the harm that would result if the person shot you. But I am not saying it should be legal to randomly shoot people standing next to you if you carry a gun and therefore the only relevant conduct is simply carrying a gun. Maybe I'm not explaining this properly but it's really quite simple.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

19 Jan 2014, 4:27 am

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

I don't agree. That definition of 'harm' is too restrictive in this context. For example, Neither owning a few tons of high explosives 'harm' anybody - provided it does not go off.

Even Kurgan mentioned 'selling guns to mentally challenged people'. It is not unreasonable to to take precaution against a known potential danger.

Quote:

When you say you would rather stand next to someone blowing nasty cigarette smoke in your face than someone with a gun, you indicated that such a seemingly ridiculous preference was because of the harm that would result if the person shot you. But I am not saying it should be legal to randomly shoot people standing next to you if you carry a gun and therefore the only relevant conduct is simply carrying a gun. Maybe I'm not explaining this properly but it's really quite simple.

Ironically declaring it illegal to randomly shoot people is just as weak as those gun free zone signs. Criminals don't exactly follow laws - except the law creates such circumstances that it is infeasible for the criminals to do otherwise. So barring magic it is indeed unreasonable (therefore question begging) to assume everything must be legal to begin with.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 Jan 2014, 4:32 am

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

19 Jan 2014, 4:41 am

91 wrote:

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

x2 we finally agree on something, 91

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

19 Jan 2014, 4:47 am

91 wrote:

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

Nerve gas has few other uses beyond killing or injuring people. A gun has several other uses.

If we impose heavy restrictions on guns, we also need to impose them on anything that's equally or more dangerous. I don't think an emotionally unstable teenager with no farming experience would buy fertilizer to grow turnips, for instance. However, he can legally buy as much fertilizer as he want.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

19 Jan 2014, 4:59 am

Kurgan wrote:

If we impose heavy restrictions on guns, we also need to impose them on anything that's equally or more dangerous. I don't think an emotionally unstable teenager with no farming experience would buy fertilizer to grow turnips, for instance. However, he can legally buy as much fertilizer as he want.

AFAIK it is nearly impossible to buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the US.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 Jan 2014, 5:07 am

Kurgan wrote:

91 wrote:

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

That statement makes no sense. If x is bad and y is also bad, the legality of x in no way makes legalising y a good idea. Further, many places do place restrictions on fertiliser.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

19 Jan 2014, 5:12 am

01001011 wrote:

Kurgan wrote:

AFAIK it is nearly impossible to buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the US.

No, it's not. Many agricultural stores will sell to you without asking any questions. If they do, set up a one-man business that "specializes" in farming.

Page 4 of 34 [ 530 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 34 Next

Jump to:

U.S. Gun Violence Post Reply New Topic

U.S. Gun Violence