RE: A safer world with or without guns?

RE: A safer world with or without guns? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

A safer world with or without guns?

safer with no guns at all

32% (16)

safer with everyone having a gun

42% (21)

keep the status quo

26% (13)

Total Votes : 50

(last vote on : 10/8/2012 5:19:29 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Phoenixpower -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 1:18:52 AM)
I am not looking into official figures as right now I have only internet via phone and its tiring to search that way. Anyhow, whilst I was living in the UK I stumbled over some articles which I just thought to add some newspaper links to comments about crime in the US and some parts of Europe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-crime-capital-of-europe.html http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/06/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation?cat=uk&type=article http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/26/ukcrime.scotland?cat=uk&type=article

Kirata -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 1:34:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster article in the guardian today........... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/16/americas-deadly-devotion-guns Article in the Guardian from 2003: Gun crimes soar by 35% Gun crime in England and Wales increase by 35% last year and criminals used handguns in nearly 50% more offences, Home Office figures revealed today... The figures also show the number of crimes involving handguns has *more than doubled since the ban* on the weapons imposed after the Dunblane massacre from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871 in the 12 months to April last year. The number of homicide victims killed by firearms increased 32% Sorry, please continue. K.

Musicmystery -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 3:21:31 AM)
quote: built some unforgettable memories while hunting. Mostly by being in nature. I hear this over and over. I always wonder if people realize being in nature doesn't require firearms.

hardcybermaster -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 5:28:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster article in the guardian today........... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/16/americas-deadly-devotion-guns Article in the Guardian from 2003: Gun crimes soar by 35% Gun crime in England and Wales increase by 35% last year and criminals used handguns in nearly 50% more offences, Home Office figures revealed today... The figures also show the number of crimes involving handguns has *more than doubled since the ban* on the weapons imposed after the Dunblane massacre from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871 in the 12 months to April last year. The number of homicide victims killed by firearms increased 32% Sorry, please continue. K. ok will do, thanks. I was wondering if you were going to enter the thread K, obviously it took you a couple of weeks to dig up that stat from 10 years ago. So lets see.... Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. The United Kingdom has had one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world since before gun control legislation became stricter from the late twentieth century. In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher, and for Germany 0.2[ and Home Office figures, published on Thursday, also show continuing sharp falls in gun crime, down 13%, and drops in domestic burglary, car crime, vandalism and violence against the person and The police figures show a 19% fall in gun crime offences, down from 7,749 to 6,285 offences These are from 2011 and 2012. Also Gun Deaths - International Comparisons Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident) USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36 Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07 Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10 Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04 Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10 Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10 France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49 England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03 Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02 Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0 this hasn't come out too well 1st figure is homicide, 2nd suicide, 3rd other This has become a stat throwing contest and I am just as guilty as anyone. Basically pro gun people type in what they want into google and anti gun type in what they want to and loads of contrasting statistics pop up that people use fit their own needs. It was supposed to be a hypothetical question about whether the world would be safer with or without guns. The poll tells us nothing as it's basically evens. Conclusion.....neither side is going to change its views no matter what the other side says but I am right, ner ner[:D]

thishereboi -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 6:17:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: built some unforgettable memories while hunting. Mostly by being in nature. I hear this over and over. I always wonder if people realize being in nature doesn't require firearms. I am not against people owning guns, but I have to admit I have thought the same thing. My old boss used to go hunting every year, but never caught anything. One time he came back and was talking about how pretty everything was. I suggested that next time he take a camera instead of a gun and that way when he came back he would actually have something to show us.

hardcybermaster -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 10:18:47 AM)
lets get back to hypotheticals lets say there's this guy called winnerman, he's in a neighbourhood watch group. He sees a young man in a hoodie called Marvin walking through his area. What happens next? Lets say Winnerman hasn't got a gun. Does he confront Marvin? Probably not, Marvin looks fairly fit and athletic, possibly not a man to fuck around with. So Winnerman keeps his distance, maybe phones the police although Marvin has not done anything, maybe he calls a friend in the neighbourhood watch scheme to say that he is following a guy in the area. I think there is a fair chance that Marvin gets to carry on minding his own business and gets to eat his snack and go about his day. I am guessing I don't need to tell you what the outcome might be if Winnerman does have a gun. With a gun you end up in a situation where one guy is possibly/probably going to spend a long time in jail and the other guy is dead, forever, no coming back, no recovering, he is plain old dead. Without a gun everyone gets to carry on alive, free and happy. One simple situation, two very different outcomes depending on whether one person has a gun or not.

ResidentSadist -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 11:44:20 AM)
Hmmm... I saw that happening differently. Winnerman turns out to be an idiot who's assholism is bolstered by carrying a gun. Winnerman stereotypes Marvin, abuses his authority by harassing him while brandishing his firearm and Marvin shoots him dead. Result: one less idiot in the gene pool. As I said before... 1. Give everyone a gun. 2. Take away everyone's clothes. 3. Peace on Earth. All the assholes will be soon be dead and there will be nothing left to fight about because everyone can see who has the biggest dick.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 12:08:43 PM)
I have the biggest dick, RS. Just saying... [;)]

hardcybermaster -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 2:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Hmmm... I saw that happening differently. Winnerman turns out to be an idiot who's assholism is bolstered by carrying a gun. Winnerman stereotypes Marvin, abuses his authority by harassing him while brandishing his firearm and Marvin shoots him dead. Result: one less idiot in the gene pool. As I said before... 1. Give everyone a gun. 2. Take away everyone's clothes. 3. Peace on Earth. All the assholes will be soon be dead and there will be nothing left to fight about because everyone can see who has the biggest dick. ok, if we are painting Marvin as the good guy, or at least the better part of the two people, whose to say Winnerman doesn't kill him first, assholes 1, good guys 0 Much as we would like to we don't get to decide who is or isn't an asshole. Maybe Winnerman was having a really bad day, lost his job, got dumped, whatever and didn't deserve to die. There are 4 possibilities none dead both dead Winnerman dead Marvin dead Only in one of those is nobody dead. But as I stated,if Winnerman had no gun,probably no controntation, probably no one dead. And even if he was drunk or stoned or just an asshole and went up to Marvin and gave him shit if Marvin had any sense he wouldn' t kill or try to kill Winnerman

tj444 -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 2:54:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster There are 4 possibilities none dead both dead Winnerman dead Marvin dead Only in one of those is nobody dead. But as I stated,if Winnerman had no gun,probably no controntation, probably no one dead. And even if he was drunk or stoned or just an asshole and went up to Marvin and gave him shit if Marvin had any sense he wouldn' t kill or try to kill Winnerman there is another possibility.. someone innocent passing by or (since bullets can go thru walls) in their home laying on their sofa watching tv dies due to a bullet from either gun toters trying to shoot each other

ResidentSadist -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 9:09:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus I have the biggest dick, RS. Just saying... [;)] If you have a dick, I'm gay.

ResidentSadist -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 9:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Hmmm... I saw that happening differently. Winnerman turns out to be an idiot who's assholism is bolstered by carrying a gun. Winnerman stereotypes Marvin, abuses his authority by harassing him while brandishing his firearm and Marvin shoots him dead. Result: one less idiot in the gene pool. As I said before... 1. Give everyone a gun. 2. Take away everyone's clothes. 3. Peace on Earth. All the assholes will be soon be dead and there will be nothing left to fight about because everyone can see who has the biggest dick. ok, if we are painting Marvin as the good guy, or at least the better part of the two people, whose to say Winnerman doesn't kill him first, assholes 1, good guys 0 Much as we would like to we don't get to decide who is or isn't an asshole. Maybe Winnerman was having a really bad day, lost his job, got dumped, whatever and didn't deserve to die. There are 4 possibilities none dead both dead Winnerman dead Marvin dead Only in one of those is nobody dead. But as I stated,if Winnerman had no gun,probably no controntation, probably no one dead. And even if he was drunk or stoned or just an asshole and went up to Marvin and gave him shit if Marvin had any sense he wouldn' t kill or try to kill Winnerman I find it hard to picture a world where those in authority are the ones w/o weapons. Nonetheless, I agree that there are only 4 outcomes to any imaginary scenario like this and that if no one had guns, "none dead' has a slightly higher percentage as an outcome. However, if you replace guns with knives, the odds skew again. In fact, the gun factor equates to any weapon. So what do you do? After you take away all the guns, then take away our knives? After the knives, do you outlaw martial arts? Personally, I'd rather remove the assholes than go on a never ending quest to remove all weapons to create an unfeasible scenario where it is safe to roam among the idiots without fearing for your life. I grew up in the Detroit area. I moved to the peaceful shores of Florida in in 1997. To this day, I still scan my environment for threats and check the shadows. I have scars on my cheek from a shotgun blast ricochet that was meant to take off my head in a robbery that I intervened because my slave was trapped in the store. I have heard machine gun bullets ripping through the air inches from my head during a gangster turf war. It has been my intellect and situational awareness that allowed me to survive the onslaught of assholes with guns, not my own firepower. A smart man with a knife is far more dangerous than a dunce with a gun. I feel your thinking is errant. It is not the weapons you should fear or control. But wave your flags and have fun trying to remove the weapons instead of the idiots. If your type of thinking finds a way to prevail, I will look forward to the day you come to take granny's iron skillets away because they are dangerous weapons. Don't fuck with granny, she killed a burglar that was armed with a knife using that iron skillet back in 1985. Focusing on the weapons is like cancer research centered on the tumors... the tumors are the symptom not the cause. Your fears and solution are misplaced.

Kirata -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/19/2012 10:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster obviously it took you a couple of weeks to dig up that stat from 10 years ago. Nah. One or two minutes, tops. What's "obvious" is that you are pursuing your own ends instead of truth. K.

hardcybermaster -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/20/2012 1:51:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Hmmm... I saw that happening differently. Winnerman turns out to be an idiot who's assholism is bolstered by carrying a gun. Winnerman stereotypes Marvin, abuses his authority by harassing him while brandishing his firearm and Marvin shoots him dead. Result: one less idiot in the gene pool. As I said before... 1. Give everyone a gun. 2. Take away everyone's clothes. 3. Peace on Earth. All the assholes will be soon be dead and there will be nothing left to fight about because everyone can see who has the biggest dick. ok, if we are painting Marvin as the good guy, or at least the better part of the two people, whose to say Winnerman doesn't kill him first, assholes 1, good guys 0 Much as we would like to we don't get to decide who is or isn't an asshole. Maybe Winnerman was having a really bad day, lost his job, got dumped, whatever and didn't deserve to die. There are 4 possibilities none dead both dead Winnerman dead Marvin dead Only in one of those is nobody dead. But as I stated,if Winnerman had no gun,probably no controntation, probably no one dead. And even if he was drunk or stoned or just an asshole and went up to Marvin and gave him shit if Marvin had any sense he wouldn' t kill or try to kill Winnerman I find it hard to picture a world where those in authority are the ones w/o weapons. Nonetheless, I agree that there are only 4 outcomes to any imaginary scenario like this and that if no one had guns, "none dead' has a slightly higher percentage as an outcome. However, if you replace guns with knives, the odds skew again. In fact, the gun factor equates to any weapon. So what do you do? After you take away all the guns, then take away our knives? After the knives, do you outlaw martial arts? Personally, I'd rather remove the assholes than go on a never ending quest to remove all weapons to create an unfeasible scenario where it is safe to roam among the idiots without fearing for your life. I grew up in the Detroit area. I moved to the peaceful shores of Florida in in 1997. To this day, I still scan my environment for threats and check the shadows. I have scars on my cheek from a shotgun blast ricochet that was meant to take off my head in a robbery that I intervened because my slave was trapped in the store. I have heard machine gun bullets ripping through the air inches from my head during a gangster turf war. It has been my intellect and situational awareness that allowed me to survive the onslaught of assholes with guns, not my own firepower. A smart man with a knife is far more dangerous than a dunce with a gun. I feel your thinking is errant. It is not the weapons you should fear or control. But wave your flags and have fun trying to remove the weapons instead of the idiots. If your type of thinking finds a way to prevail, I will look forward to the day you come to take granny's iron skillets away because they are dangerous weapons. Don't fuck with granny, she killed a burglar that was armed with a knife using that iron skillet back in 1985. Focusing on the weapons is like cancer research centered on the tumors... the tumors are the symptom not the cause. Your fears and solution are misplaced. I don't picture a world where those in authority are without weapons, I never said that and have said on numerous occasions that I am fine with cops carrying guns (not here but over your way, we have specialist gun cops but don't need all cops to be carrying) I don't view a neighbourhood watch scheme as an authority (not that you said that btw) You think my thinking is errant, maybe it's just different. You seem to make the assumption that whatever happens between these two people they want to kill each other, why? My thinking is only that there is greater chance of one of them ending up dead if one of them or both has a gun. You want to remove the idiots, so do I but we can't. Everyone can be killed easily with a gun, the good the bad and the stupid. We seem to be breeding idiots over here, 1000's of the fuckers, hence the UK's poor crime record, the problem with idiots over here, so I guess over there too is that they all know their rights, but few seem aware of their responsibilities. I don't want all those fuckers to have guns but over there they can get them way too easily

hardcybermaster -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/20/2012 1:59:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster obviously it took you a couple of weeks to dig up that stat from 10 years ago. Nah. One or two minutes, tops. What's "obvious" is that you are pursuing your own ends instead of truth. K. neither side knows "the truth" K, but you can't have a discussion if there is no one around to take the opposing view. Most people here seem pro gun and I am one of the view anti gun people. P and R would be a very lame section if there was only one religion or only one political view represented

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/20/2012 8:07:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster I don't like guns, any post involving guns will usually get a post or three from me against them but it's clearly a cultural thing ie Americans are generally more pro gun than the UK and most other countries too. So here is an unlikely scenario or two. It can be quite useful to take ideas to extremes sometimes to see how they pan out. Lets imagine that we could live in a world with no guns at all for civilians. Army and cops, fine, I don't have a problem with that but no guns at all for us ordinary joes. Would the world be a safer place or more dangerous? Maybe knife crime would soar, or assaults with bats, crowbars etc would go up. I am fairly sure there would be fewer people actually killed, one small twitch of your finger is a lot easier and quicker than standing over someone battering them with a frying pan. It would make the cops lives a hell of a lot easier too if they knew they were the only people out there with guns, basically when a cop said stop, you would stop pretty damn quick. The other side of the coin, everyone has a gun, it's the law. We would probably exclude people with criminal records and people with mental health problems but every ordinary joe has to have and carry a gun . Safer or more dangerous? The answer seems obvious to me but a friend of mine once said that the safest car you could buy would be one made of glass with a big glass spike sticking out of the steering wheel straight towards your chest. No one would get out of line or speed, everyone would drive really safely. Maybe the same thing would happen if everyone carried, people would be a lot more considerate and careful as they knew the guy or girl they were about to piss off had a gun. What do you think? Good fences make good neighbors.

r1a2y3m4o5n6d7 -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/24/2012 9:04:44 AM)
Did or did not the British come to America with guns to try to take it over???? Did or did not Americans go to Britan with guns in WW1 and WW2 to save their ass. These clowns over here not only want you to give up your guns but fishing poles also because the hook hurts the fish. Michigan has a law to keep these people from harassing you while your hunting and fishing. OP im going fishing and kill the fish I catch and grill them on the BBQ. Turkey season opened up today and Im going to get one of those also after I get off of here.

hardcybermaster -> RE: A safer world with or without guns? (4/24/2012 3:42:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: r1a2y3m4o5n6d7 Did or did not the British come to America with guns to try to take it over???? Did or did not Americans go to Britan with guns in WW1 and WW2 to save their ass. These clowns over here not only want you to give up your guns but fishing poles also because the hook hurts the fish. Michigan has a law to keep these people from harassing you while your hunting and fishing. OP im going fishing and kill the fish I catch and grill them on the BBQ. Turkey season opened up today and Im going to get one of those also after I get off of here. make it a nice long fishing trip dude, you won't be missed

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Spam Policy

0.0625