quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns.

There's a corollary to that which is less popular with second amendment fundamentalists, though: how many of these shootists would be competent, or even have the balls to try, to kill somebody without a gun?

However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Because, despite the rest of the world proving that less guns is better and safer, they believe it is their god-given right to bear arms.

If the conditions in any other country are not the same as in the US, with only the allowing of gun ownership being the difference, then any claim that the US's violence rates will drop with guns being out of the equation are, at the very least, conjecture, and little more than a shitty hypothesis at the very best.
https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE
I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns.

Most of us 'anti-gun' people aren't arguing the violence rates - just the easy deaths caused by guns, or more precisely, the prolific ownership and use of such.
Even if the level of violence were identical, the country with a gun ownership culture will have many more deaths than the one without such an in-grained culture.
And whilst gun nuts seem to think we advocate banning guns, actually we don't.
Many so-called 'gun free' countries still have guns, but the laws aren't quite so liberal and lax.
That's where the difference lies, not the banning of guns per se.

You don't give a shit about the level of violence, only whether or not a gun was involved. That's about the most myopic line of thinking I've ever heard (in the gun debate realm). You are blaming a tool, and not what's driving the decision to use the tool. Absolutely fucking stupid.

If we got rid of all the guns in the US (and I understand that's not what most anti-gun nuts are trying to do), of course there would be fewer acts of violence (including homicides) committed where a gun was involved. But, the amount of violence committed (including homicides) with other "tools" would increase, and there just might be the same amount of violence overall.

However, you reduce the things that are causing people to choose violence, and you'll have a reduction of violence (including homicide), regardless of the tool chosen.

You are missing the label, as usual, Desi.

The problem with a gun, as opposed to any other 'tool', is that you can kill someone from quite a distance.
You can't do that with other tools.

Even if the level of violence were the same, you'd have far less killings without the prolification of guns than you have in your current gun culture.
There's the difference - and it's a huge one.
It's not myopic at all.
It's simple statistics of survival rates of violence when a gun is used and when one isn't.

I'm not saying that there would be fewer acts of violence (as you seem to posit) but the number of deaths would drop significantly.
And that's the point we anti-gun people are putting forward.
It really is as simple as that.
All the stats everywhere show the difference.


ETA:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun.

It doesn't matter if it's 5 out of every 100 or 5,000 out of every 100,000 - it's still 5% although there's a big difference between 5 and 5,000 numerically.

The stats most of us quote are normalised (per 100,000 capita), not actual physical numbers.
So your premise here doesn't hold true.

I would also pose this: how much easier is it to pull a gun and shoot than to assess the opponent to see if you could tackle them without a gun?
I'd wager that easy access to guns is certainly a big contribution to the number of deaths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Because, despite the rest of the world proving that less guns is better and safer, they believe it is their god-given right to bear arms.

If the conditions in any other country are not the same as in the US, with only the allowing of gun ownership being the difference, then any claim that the US's violence rates will drop with guns being out of the equation are, at the very least, conjecture, and little more than a shitty hypothesis at the very best.
https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE
I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns.

Most of us 'anti-gun' people aren't arguing the violence rates - just the easy deaths caused by guns, or more precisely, the prolific ownership and use of such.
Even if the level of violence were identical, the country with a gun ownership culture will have many more deaths than the one without such an in-grained culture.
And whilst gun nuts seem to think we advocate banning guns, actually we don't.
Many so-called 'gun free' countries still have guns, but the laws aren't quite so liberal and lax.
That's where the difference lies, not the banning of guns per se.

You don't give a shit about the level of violence, only whether or not a gun was involved. That's about the most myopic line of thinking I've ever heard (in the gun debate realm). You are blaming a tool, and not what's driving the decision to use the tool. Absolutely fucking stupid.

If we got rid of all the guns in the US (and I understand that's not what most anti-gun nuts are trying to do), of course there would be fewer acts of violence (including homicides) committed where a gun was involved. But, the amount of violence committed (including homicides) with other "tools" would increase, and there just might be the same amount of violence overall.

However, you reduce the things that are causing people to choose violence, and you'll have a reduction of violence (including homicide), regardless of the tool chosen.

You are missing the label, as usual, Desi.

The problem with a gun, as opposed to any other 'tool', is that you can kill someone from quite a distance.
You can't do that with other tools.

Even if the level of violence were the same, you'd have far less killings without the prolification of guns than you have in your current gun culture.
There's the difference - and it's a huge one.
It's not myopic at all.
It's simple statistics of survival rates of violence when a gun is used and when one isn't.

I'm not saying that there would be fewer acts of violence (as you seem to posit) but the number of deaths would drop significantly.
And that's the point we anti-gun people are putting forward.
It really is as simple as that.
All the stats everywhere show the difference.


ETA:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun.

It doesn't matter if it's 5 out of every 100 or 5,000 out of every 100,000 - it's still 5% although there's a big difference between 5 and 5,000 numerically.

The stats most of us quote are normalised (per 100,000 capita), not actual physical numbers.
So your premise here doesn't hold true.

I would also pose this: how much easier is it to pull a gun and shoot than to assess the opponent to see if you could tackle them without a gun?
I'd wager that easy access to guns is certainly a big contribution to the number of deaths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns.

There's a corollary to that which is less popular with second amendment fundamentalists, though: how many of these shootists would be competent, or even have the balls to try, to kill somebody without a gun?

However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You are wrong, see what happened in DC when they enacted their ban.
Huge increase in murders, the murder rate with firearms stayed the same, but due to the increase in murders with other weapons the murder rate doubled.
Did you ever look up Heller?
Did you ever see what the provisions of the DC law were.
Did you ever come to realise that all they did was disarm the law abiding people and make them vulnerable to every thug with a knive.
Apparently you have nicer thugs than we have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns.

There's a corollary to that which is less popular with second amendment fundamentalists, though: how many of these shootists would be competent, or even have the balls to try, to kill somebody without a gun?

However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun.

In Australia, from what I read, there was a massacre at Port Arthur resort in Tasmania in 1996. Thereafter, automatic and semi-automatic weapons ownership was banned. In the decade before the Port Arthur incident there were eleven mass killings. There have been none since. That is pretty informative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You are wrong, see what happened in DC when they enacted their ban.
Huge increase in murders, the murder rate with firearms stayed the same, but due to the increase in murders with other weapons the murder rate doubled.
Did you ever look up Heller?
Did you ever see what the provisions of the DC law were.
Did you ever come to realise that all they did was disarm the law abiding people and make them vulnerable to every thug with a knive.
Apparently you have nicer thugs than we have.

The DC experiment was a guaranteed failure before it started.
I gave you the answer as to why some time ago on how this happens.

The ONLY way any decent gun control is able to work is if it is nationwide, not a piddly tiny spot in a huge country.
Aaand, more to the point, enforce it across the whole country.
Get caught with a gun? Minimum of 6 months incarceration and the gun(s) destroyed.

It's like banning one shop from selling bubble gum when everyone can walk around the corner and buy it from a dozen other shops.
Then pointing to the lack of success in reducing bubble gum on the streets and advocating that banning bubble gum sales doesn't reduce street fouling.

But of course, you and other gun-nuts point to the likes of the DC experiment and spout that because it didn't work there it won't work anywhere.
It was an ill-thought futile exercise in guaranteed failure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You are wrong, see what happened in DC when they enacted their ban.
Huge increase in murders, the murder rate with firearms stayed the same, but due to the increase in murders with other weapons the murder rate doubled.
Did you ever look up Heller?
Did you ever see what the provisions of the DC law were.
Did you ever come to realise that all they did was disarm the law abiding people and make them vulnerable to every thug with a knive.
Apparently you have nicer thugs than we have.

The DC experiment was a guaranteed failure before it started.
I gave you the answer as to why some time ago on how this happens.

The ONLY way any decent gun control is able to work is if it is nationwide, not a piddly tiny spot in a huge country.
Aaand, more to the point, enforce it across the whole country.
Get caught with a gun? Minimum of 6 months incarceration and the gun(s) destroyed.

It's like banning one shop from selling bubble gum when everyone can walk around the corner and buy it from a dozen other shops.
Then pointing to the lack of success in reducing bubble gum on the streets and advocating that banning bubble gum sales doesn't reduce street fouling.

But of course, you and other gun-nuts point to the likes of the DC experiment and spout that because it didn't work there it won't work anywhere.
It was an ill-thought futile exercise in guaranteed failure.

quote:

But you might want to look at current statistics on people suffering those disqualifying conditions.

quote:

If it came to the very situation that would make the gun owners fight against the government, how many of you anti gun people are going to stand back and do nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Can an idividual own a hand gun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Can an idividual keep what guns you allow in their homes and loaded?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Does your law recognize such a thing as dgu?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You say that the law cuts down on firearm ownership, doesn't that mean that you ban them from the majority of people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Don't you have to prove a "need" for a firearm to the satisfaction of someone who's job it is to keep firearm ownership down to "reasonable" levels?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Don't we have a constitutionally garaunteed right to own a firearm unless the government can find a specific reason why a specific individual cannot own one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Don't you understand that when the citizen has to prove a need it is an oppressive government and when it onus is on the government to prove why, not some people, but each individual, cannot exercise an action it is freer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Please explain to me how a nation wide gun ban would have kept all those people (and this is where the crime increase came from) in DC from being beaten and stabbed to death, as opposed to opening people in the rest of the country to the same fate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Not here, no.
They were effectively banned in 1997.
And most people see no need to have one either.

That is a ban.
You have already disproved your claim.
We tried that in DC and all we got was a bunch of people stabbed and beaten to death.