Poll

Is gun control an effective means of reducing violent crime

Yes.  People cannot be trusted with guns for any reason.  If the population is not armed, then there are less guns in the hands of criminals.  As a result there will be less violent crime
Yes.  But only for gun crimes, it will have no effect on other types of violent crimes
Yes and no.  It may reduce crimes commited with guns, but criminal will then resort to other weapons such as knives.  Other violent crimes will increase
No.  Criminals will get guns despite the law, it will have no effect on crime
No.  Not only will criminals ignore this law and get guns illegally, but such laws will make for easier victims since they will not be armed.  Crime rates will increase

Gun Control

  • 1998 Replies
  • 470182 Views
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2008, 04:32:55 PM »
Love this:



Seriously, what good is it creating a gun free zone if criminals will ignore it anyhow.  All you have done is ensure the victims will not be able to shoot back.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2008, 04:45:21 PM »
By that logic, what's the point in laws against murder if criminals will still kill people?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2008, 04:47:45 PM »
By that logic, what's the point in laws against murder if criminals will still kill people?
There is a difference, gun control takes away our ability to protect ourselves which is a fundamental righ
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2008, 04:48:18 PM »
OMFG!!

Recent studies have found people die in car crashes!


OUTLAW cars immediately!!

most cars aren't designed to kill people.

With the exception of cars with 'baby on board' stickers on them.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2008, 04:52:22 PM »
By that logic, what's the point in laws against murder if criminals will still kill people?
There is a difference, gun control takes away our ability to protect ourselves which is a fundamental righ

No, it doesn't. It takes away the ability to shoot somebody else.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2008, 04:57:59 PM »
By that logic, what's the point in laws against murder if criminals will still kill people?

Laws against murder do not prevent a murderer from killing somebody, they prevent them from doing it again.  Hopefully because they are put in prison for the rest of their life.

Same with guns, I think if you are a law abiding citizen, you should be able to carry them.  If you abuse this, then you should not be able to carry them, and depending on the crime, you should also be in prison for the rest of your life.

We already have laws against going on shooting sprees, having gun free zones will not prevent that further, it only makes it easier on the person going on the shooting spree.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2008, 05:05:38 PM »
Off topic, to the mod.  My bad for putting this in the wrong forum. 

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2008, 06:23:17 PM »
I know about the training thing, I can handle a rifle better than many military I've seen. In the UK you can own a gun with a license, you just can't carry it around. Would you let your cousin carry this Glock in his pocket?

I'll take that bet.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2008, 07:29:40 PM »
By that logic, what's the point in laws against murder if criminals will still kill people?
There is a difference, gun control takes away our ability to protect ourselves which is a fundamental righ

No, it doesn't. It takes away the ability to shoot somebody else.
So someone is 25 feet away from me in my living room pointing a gun at me. What am I supposed to do, wish it away?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2008, 07:53:17 PM »
don't worry, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7071
  • +0/-0
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2008, 07:59:07 PM »
I believe that gun control is pointless, because the criminals will always get the guns. Also, many people have guns for fun; hunting, going to the shooting range etc. I personally believe that instead of making the gun illegal, make the punishment for gun related crimes worse. Like instead of sending them to prison, just shoot them in the knees, make them retarded and take all of their money.
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2008, 08:11:21 PM »
I have a great idea.  Drugs are pretty bad.  Lets outlaw drugs.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2008, 08:40:24 PM »
Rather than proposing a law on gun control, which removes the right to defend ourselves, the government should focus on the distribution of the firearms: the government should pose strict laws on shipments so that the firearms, rather than getting into the black market to be sold to criminals, will be distributed to the licensed owners. Only the stores that are watched by the government should be selling guns. Also, the stores should not be selling any destructive devices (USAS-12, Barrett M82, grenades, etc.)  or ammunition (.50 BMG, .50 AE or .50 S&W, hollow points, etc). Once that is accomplished, customers will have to be checked for mental illnesses, past activities, and criminal records before they can own a gun. Of course, this will never eliminate all possible spree killers, but at least the chance of illegal gun ownership will be reduced. There are hidden guns stores in the U.S., and that's the problem.

The Korean guy in the Virginia Tech Massacre was able to buy two pistols loaded with hollow points, along with 200 more rounds according to some sources. Hollow points deal more damage to unarmored targets; that's why the casualties were very high (32 deaths excluded himself). He wasn't checked for mental illnesses, which he obviously had.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2008, 08:49:44 PM »
I believe that gun control is pointless, because the criminals will always get the guns. Also, many people have guns for fun; hunting, going to the shooting range etc. I personally believe that instead of making the gun illegal, make the punishment for gun related crimes worse. Like instead of sending them to prison, just shoot them in the knees, make them retarded and take all of their money.

I somewhat agree, one of the biggest problems with crime in the US is not guns, it the revolving door policy we have with criminals.  The average rapist gets 5 years in prison, the average murderer gets 7.  The fact is the majority of murders are committed by prior felons.  You wanna prevent murders, start there.

Virginia has done an exceptional job of this, they have enacted mandatory sentencing for gun related crimes.  The way it works is this, if you are found guilty of a felony involving a firearm, the judge is required by law to add 20 years to whatever your sentence would have been if it did not involve a firearm.  If you mug somebody in DC with a gun, you get 1 -3 years before your out on probation.  In Virginia, you get 25.  They take the people who have proven to be dangerous with firearms off the street for a very long time, often for good.  Their crime rates have lowered significantly and there is strong evidence that this is the reason why.  Take Arlington for example, it is still part of DC, just over the river.  The difference is Arlington is Virginia's jurisdiction, where everybody is allowed to carry a gun openly in a public area without any license.  Crime rates are far lower there then just over the river in DC, where it is nearly impossible to legally get a firearm.  Virginia must be doing something right, and it's not gun control.

1993 murder rate City: Washington D.C..................................78.5 per 100,000

Arlington, VA ...................................2.2 per 100,000

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2008, 09:06:26 PM »
Rather than proposing a law on gun control, which removes the right to defend ourselves, the government should focus on the distribution of the firearms: the government should pose strict laws on shipments so that the firearms, rather than getting into the black market to be sold to criminals, will be distributed to the licensed owners. Only the stores that are watched by the government should be selling guns. Also, the stores should not be selling any destructive devices (USAS-12, Barrett M82, grenades, etc.)  or ammunition (.50 BMG, .50 AE or .50 S&W, hollow points, etc). Once that is accomplished, customers will have to be checked for mental illnesses, past activities, and criminal records before they can own a gun. Of course, this will never eliminate all possible spree killers, but at least the chance of illegal gun ownership will be reduced. There are hidden guns stores in the U.S., and that's the problem.

The Korean guy in the Virginia Tech Massacre was able to buy two pistols loaded with hollow points, along with 200 more rounds according to some sources. Hollow points deal more damage to unarmored targets; that's why the casualties were very high (32 deaths excluded himself). He wasn't checked for mental illnesses, which he obviously had.

I think the supreme court came up with a fair compromise on the issue of what can be banned, and what can't.  Basically they ruled that the second ammendment protects such weapons that are commonly used by the people for lawful purposes such as sporting, hunting, and self defense.  Under that ruling handguns could not be banned (this decision was to decide whether D.C. 30 year handgun ban was constitutional).  However assault weapons such as M16 or AK47, which are not commonly used by the people for any of the above lawful purposes (collection maybe), could be banned by a particular state.  Personally I am willing to accept this compromise.

As for the ammunition you mentioned, .50 cal ammunition is still widely used for big game or large predators.  It would be pretty hard to take down a large bear with anything less than a .44 mag.  As for hollow point, these bullets cause terrible damage when they go into the body(suck against armor), however one advantage to them is they do not go through the victim, there may be less of a chance for collateral damage.  Some police use a version of a hollow point that is specifically designed to not go completely through the body.  It effectively breaks up as soon as it hits (causing massive damage as a result), however if there are civilians behind the target, there is less of a chance of the officers bullet going through the target and striking another person.  I agree with the first ammunition you mentioned, no legitimate use for that I can think of.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2008, 06:29:23 AM »
In La they passed a law that made it a justifiable homicide to shhot someone who tries to carjack you. Just by passing the law carjackings dropped by something like 80%. then after someone shot a carjacker and the law was upheld carjackings dropped a whole bunch more(forget the percentage) and also some of the cities with the highest crime rates in the country have the most restrictive gun laws around and states with the lowest crime rates in the state have the most lax laws.

Here's another one.  Kenneshaw GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to a modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

The fact is criminals prefer victims that will not fight back.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2008, 07:14:37 AM »
The fact is criminals prefer victims that will not fight back.

Fact is, victims don't fight back, criminals do.

Ah trolling.

Not in the U.S. our government decided we are allowed to fight back.

Criminals are pussies, that is why they come in your house late at night, or grab you on the street with a gun. I have a knife clipped by my wallet for self defense. Mainly because the town I go to school in has some odd people in it.

There are no real reasons for gun control, it's not like the millions of unreported guns will just be handed in, or the countless rednecks that reported their guns missing just as they bought them will turn theirs in. Or any gun bought before the 80's or 90's has a record. I own several guns that were bought before the whole government approval thing.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2008, 07:20:07 AM »
The fact is criminals prefer victims that will not fight back.

Fact is, victims don't fight back, criminals do.

Victims do fight back.  Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year in the U.S.  Of the 2.4 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, in 92% of these defensive uses, the mere sight of a gun or a warning shot scares off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Looks like most criminals tend to avoid armed citizens.  92% of the time they give up without a fight.

Maybe in the U.K. victims don't fight back.  They rely on the police to come several minutes later when your already dead.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 07:22:01 AM by ragnarr »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2008, 07:24:43 AM »
My state banned butterfly knives. I've seen hundreds in my life pulled on people.

My state banned switchblades, I witnessed someone stabbed by one.

My state banned knives over a certain length, I've seen lots, and saw one used in a fight.

So what about if my state outlaws guns?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2008, 07:27:41 AM »
My state banned butterfly knives. I've seen hundreds in my life pulled on people.

My state banned switchblades, I witnessed someone stabbed by one.

My state banned knives over a certain length, I've seen lots, and saw one used in a fight.

So what about if my state outlaws guns?

It will ensure that law abiding citizens will not have guns for lawful purposes such as self defense.  You might as well ring the dinner bell for thieves, rapists, carjackers, etc.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2008, 07:33:27 AM »
Looks like most criminals tend to avoid armed citizens.  

I'm not sure how burglars can check if a house has a gun owner living there. Is there a national database they can check?



Wow, so if guns become completely legal, and gun owning rates went up, they would have to assume everyone is armed?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2008, 07:41:02 AM »
Looks like most criminals tend to avoid armed citizens.  

I'm not sure how burglars can check if a house has a gun owner living there. Is there a national database they can check?

I was referring to the tendency of criminals abandoning their intended crime once they realize that their victims are armed, this usually happens during the crime, not before.  As for burglaries, I mentioned earlier a Atlanta suburb that passed an ordinance requiring all homeowners to keep a gun in their house.  Even though burglars cannot check a database for individual houses, it is a good bet that if you rob a house in Kenneshaw GA with the owner still inside that you will have a gun pointed right back at you.  Burglary dropped 89 percent the following year and their overall burglary rate has remained far lower than the state as a whole ever since.  Lesson, if the intended victim is likely to be armed, most criminals avoid the confrontation and prefer less risky crimes.

Maybe in the U.K. victims don't fight back.  They rely on the police to come several minutes later when your already dead.

Has Wardogg cracked your account?

No, though I probably share some of his views.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2008, 08:14:38 AM »
Well that magical cops that know how to magically stop all crimes using their guns can catch him. I thought using a gun required special training, something a heroin addict would not have. A cop should be able to stop him.


New slogan, "guns, so easy a heroin addict can use one, so difficult, women can't"


I love gun control advocates.


Edit: I reread your post, and I've realized all you are saying is criminals will be deterred, so they'll get better? Is this like pokemon? If they fight a stronger enemy they level up? Most likely they'll give up the middle man and rob the heroin dealers. If everyone has a gun, it just means your dealer has more potential heroin now.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 08:26:52 AM by Raist »

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2008, 08:23:15 AM »
I was referring to the tendency of criminals abandoning their intended crime once they realize that their victims are armed, this usually happens during the crime, not before.  As for burglaries, I mentioned earlier a Atlanta suburb that passed an ordinance requiring all homeowners to keep a gun in their house.

You just shift the crime from one area to another. Burglaries and robbies are most often commited to feed drugs habits, those habits need to be fed no matter what. If it means avoiding your town and moving to the next, fair enough, that'll work for a short while.

Then all the towns start imposing mandatory gun laws. Now your heroin addict knows that the house he's going to rob has someone packing a gun. Well, he'd better make sure he's got one too. Easy fill out some paperwork, or get one from a friend. Good to go. Keep turning over houses, get used to handling a gun, get used to pulling the trigger. Hurrah.

Victim vs criminal. Victim loses. You can chose the extent of your injuries by the government you vote for.

Okay, so your saying you are safer from criminals when you are completely helpless against them?  Your last statement is pretty much saying that victims should just bend over and take it from the criminals because they are going to lose anyway.  That's right, remain defenseless, don't fight back, lets them do whatever they want to you, your gonna lose.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2008, 08:29:06 AM »
Well that magical cops that know how to magically stop all crimes using their guns can catch him.

Um. OK.

New slogan, "guns, so easy a heroin addict can use one, so difficult, women can't"

Its not that hard to fire a gun. Heroin addicts can do it, so can women. Heroin addicts get more practice.

Okay, so your saying you are safer from criminals when you are completely helpless against them?

No I'm saying its better when neither side has a gun.

So a heroin addict now can't get a gun? ummmmm ok?

I though guns were readily available to criminals and we had to stop that?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2008, 08:40:06 AM »
Okay, so your saying you are safer from criminals when you are completely helpless against them?

No I'm saying its better when neither side has a gun.

Orly? Far more people are killed with knives, baseball bats and fists than guns, even in the US.  Guess what, if a criminal comes into your house with a knife, and you have a knife, your chances of survival are dependent on who is better with a knife, chances are same if both have a gun as well, who ever is more skillful will usually win.  The problem with Banning all guns is that you will only be banning LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from having guns.  The criminals are going to get them anyway.  Have you heard the expression never bring a knife to a gunfight?  

Cocaine is banned in the US, so is MJ, and heroin, but guess what, everybody gets it anyway.  The only thing you have done with that law is ensure that the law abiding citizens will be unarmed.


*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2008, 08:43:09 AM »
So a heroin addict now can't get a gun? ummmmm ok?

He can't if you impliment proper gun control laws.

He also would not be addicted to heroin if you enforced drug trafficking laws.

...and we had to stop that?

Correct. We're getting there slowly, aren't we?


Don't give up hope, one day we will shoot you.

Not really, gun related crimes in the UK have gone up since their ban on carrying guns.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #57 on: December 30, 2008, 08:48:11 AM »
So a heroin addict now can't get a gun? ummmmm ok?

He can't if you impliment proper gun control laws.

I though guns were readily available to criminals...

Probably the case in the USA.

...and we had to stop that?

Correct. We're getting there slowly, aren't we?


Don't give up hope, one day we will shoot you.

No what I was saying is, if guns are so available currently under the law, and you admit that people having guns deters crime, why haven't criminals already started doing what you said?

No one will willingly walk into a gun fight, talk to any criminal, unless they are a very sick person, the gun is only there to scare people into doing what they wanted. Thieves don't want life sentences. I think tougher laws prosecuting violent crimes are necessary. Also lower prosecution/mandatory sentences for small time drug offenses. If we let out people in jail that are in there for marijuana related offenses there would be tons of room for the new actual criminals. There are an estimated 65,000 people in jail for marijuana. Now if we made it simply a fine, we would free up room for 65,000 violent offenders. Say make it a 10 year stint in prison for a violent crime with a gun.

You have admitted a gun will deter criminals, now all we would need are laws that keep violent criminals off the streets. Regular criminals will now think twice about bringing a gun to a house they plan to rob.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #58 on: December 30, 2008, 11:44:35 AM »
What sort of society is it when everybody needs to have a gun just so they aren't mugged, raped and murdered? We learned how to kick the shit out of an armed person with nothing over here. I overheard this story on a bus, so it's probably not true, but there was the story of someone who was up against an armed burglar and had only a can of Lynx. So they pretended to be trying to reason with them, all the while manoeuvring around to place a lit candle between them and the burglar. Then they sprayed the Lynx past the candle and on to the burglar, then kicked the blazing man out of the window. You may not believe it, but this is Glasgow, and we head butt terrorists here .
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Planar Moderator
  • 52369
  • +97/-95
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #59 on: December 30, 2008, 01:56:53 PM »
I think some guns should be controlled, but I don't think they should take mine away from me, lol.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.