-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Janenmori
- Start date
Dude...
I wouldn't remove firearms from the law forces ;(
Them having guns is one of the reason I believe mrs and mr anybody shouldn't have them. They are trained for this.
It is an "idealistic pipe dream" in effect in most western world countries and I would say that in all of them, people aren't this paranoid about their government.
If you actually looked up what you were arguing before posting you would realize that the American public (the part that owns firearms, anyways) are generally much better shots then the police. You'd also know that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police is not responsible for protecting individual citizens.
Sorry, but your link is patently false. Figures never lie, but liars figure. This is a classic case of people presenting impressive-sounding numbers but not actually having the substance to stand up to objective observation.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
And besides, you linked me to a website that links no sources other than other sourceless pages written by the same author. I dont blame you though, especially after reading the misleading media thread.
I have never insisted that. Its fine that your opinion disagrees with my sources, but please don't put words in my mouth. The proposal is simple: if you find a gun, it is illegal, so do what the law requires.
You seem to underestimate the amount of violent crime in America compared to other countries. Japan's gun laws are quite strict:
Yet they have a homicide rate of 1.1 murder per 100,000 people. The United States has a homicide rate of 8.7 per 100,000. Japanese authorities also solve a high percentage of robbery cases (75.9 percent, compared with 43.8 percent for West Germany, 26.5 percent for Britain, and 26.0 percent for the United States) and homicide cases (95.9 percent, compared with 94.4 percent for Germany, 78.0 percent for Britain, and 68.3 percent for the United States). <source: wikipedia, crime in japan>
If you don't have a gun, your incentive to commit a crime is drastically reduced. If others dont have guns, the chances of you being shot both intentionally and accidentally are significantly reduced. It's not too difficult to understand.
It's not about the guns, its about the lives that are lost every single day because of them. Our belief that guns are an inalienable right has a direct correlation with a murder rate 8 times higher than countries with gun bans. What were you saying about personal safety?
First of all, I don't believe this one bit and it to me borders impossibility. I'm interested to know where you could possibly dig up this sort of information. How was that ever tested? Instead of telling me I should have looked for something I didn't feel I needed to, you could at the very least have shown me where you get this from. While I'm sure there are many Americans shooting as a sport, I will assume most of them don't.
Secondly, this isn't hunting deers and police training is more than simply being an 'accurate shot'. They are taught and trained to react properly to situations. Their training goes much beyond the use of firearms... which I still btw argue they are generally much better with!
You stand here telling me Joe Random-with-a-gun is better qualified to deal with criminals than policemen.
I agree here. Those who do shoot for sport are the only ones that would have good accuracy with a firearm.
And speaking generally, of course a trained professional is better. But those who practice a lot on a recreational basis, like myself, could parallel a police officer. Reaction is not really an issue, because if a criminal draws a concealed weapon on a policeman, the training he has barely gives him a greater reaction time to the standard amatuer shooter, especially when he has to unclip the holdster, turn off the safety and then fire the weapon before he is shot himself.
I do not think that his point was that amatuer gun owners are more qualified to deal with criminals, I think that he is stating that people have a right to own a gun in case of a situtation where they are required to defend themselves with the gun where a police officer is not present. For your argument to be a solid one, Vineon, there would have to be an officer to a small number of people, and those officers would have to be on a constant rotation to keep the people safe. Yes, officers are better qualified to handle criminals, but there are hardly enough of them to go around to warrant restriction of ownership of firearms.
On the issue of homicides per 100,000: In this statistic, did the homicides include guns obtained legally or illegally or both and did they singularly include guns as the murder weapon? Guns are not the only means of murdering someone. Knives, blunt objects like crowbars, rope and even pillows or bare hands are much easier means to murder someone than a gun.
If an untrained person needs to immediately defend themself, giving that panicked person a gun is just asking for trouble. If it isn't obvious already, giving a scared person the power to kill someone is quite prone to backfiring. Having a gun does not make you safe if you do not take the time to train. Most people, obviously, don't train themselves and are actually just endangering themselves, their neighbors and their families by owning a gun. I think that's what he's getting at.
Does it matter? Are legal guns that are used to kill someone any better than illegal guns? A gun ban would obviously include provisions to restrict the trafficking of illegal weapons as well, I mean, I know people think politicians are stupid but I'm pretty sure they would think of that one. Gun control laws wouldn't just focus on banning legal weapons, they would obviously also work on cutting out illegal weapons trade too.
Ya, actually, I am telling you that.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.
You cannot compare this by using percentages. There are much more police officers in the streets than armed citizens. Also police officers have more chances to get involved into shooting situations.
Police task isn't to kill criminals, but to arrest them.
America's non-gun murder rate is still 3 times higher then Japan's - this leads me to believe it has to do with the culture, not the guns.
The figure is 3.2 / 100,000. (Or was several years ago)
Also, I said nothing about Australia, I was talking about Britain.
I notice you ignored the fact that police are much more inaccurate then private citizens.
Police shoot to kill. Always. That is the rule. So in the cases where police are forced to shoot, they tend to kill (obviously). Civilians are not, in general, as good at shooting as police are. Most have never been to a shooting range. Most have never operated a firearm. Stop being ignorant and making educated gun owners/users look bad. You base your opinion on the idea that because civilians kill more criminals, they are better shots. What the fuck does that come from? You can shoot someone in the foot with a .22 and it can and probably will kill them. Police operate as a standard, a 9 mm Baretta or Glock. Those require greater accuracy to be deadly than a shotgun or .22 caliber which are the brunt of civilian firearms due to easy accesibitly. So learn a little bit before you open your mouth and disrepect who you are trying to defend by being an idiot.
You can't said private citizens are more accurate than police based in a percentage statistic. Police officers are much more involved in shooting situations than private citizens.
Also, you ignore the fact that police job is to arrest, not to kill.
There are non-lethal weapons for private citizens self-defense that are safer than firearms.
If a private citizen is shooting in self-defense, he'd better damn well be shooting to kill. Civilians who actually bother to go to a shooting range are significantly better shots then police, who generally don't bother practicing.
Your arguments make no sense - trained civilians, are, by definition, trained. How have they never been to a shooting range?
You should also realize that 90% of handgun wounds are non-lethal.
I'm not being an idiot, you're completely misrepresenting what I'm trying to say.
Edit: I just realized that you were trying to convince me that a .22 pistol was more deadly then a 9mm?
Was that an accident or are you really that stupid?
Pirika, non-lethal self defense weapons are generally much less effective at both deterring and preventing crime (in progress).
Also, just to head off the previous posts claiming without backup that resistance to robbery/mugging is more likely to get you hurt/killed, refer to:
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gun_facts.pdf
You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In
episodes where there was an injury to a robbery victim, the injury/defense rates were:63
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gun_facts.pdf
You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In
episodes where there was an injury to a robbery victim, the injury/defense rates were:63
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
But they are effective for self-defense purposes. They are cheaper, safer and doesn't require much skill to be used. Of course they can't be used against an armed criminal, but even carrying a firearm people will be shot before having time to shoot. Preventing crime is police's task.
Read my last post.
I've already mentioned that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police has no obligation to protect us.
Those percentages don't add up.
45 + 40 + 25 + 6 = 116.
I refuse to buy into statistics from people who can't handle basic mathematics.
P.s. Injury to a robbery victim probably doesn't mean death (seeing as this would be "death to victim" not injury), and it also seems hard to believe that there is no Resisting unarmed category, this stat is bogus.
It is definitely badly presented but those are all seperate rates I believe.
As in 25% of the people that did nothing to defend themselves were hurt.
Otherwise, there would be no credence to those numbers whatsoever considering they come from the British Home Office, a country in which few people have guns.
Your initial statement was that the average joe with a gun, thus more than likely untrained, is a better shot. You just now added 'trained' to it, changing the comparison.
The average policeman will always remain more trained than the average civilian.
first of all, the police have no legal duty to protect, but one would hope that people who become police officers do so in order to help others.
second, they have no obligation to protect an individual, but rather they have a duty to enforce the law in general. so, if someone is breaking the law, it is their duty to stop that person.
one thing im wondering, how many of these would have stayed as simple robberies had you not pulled a gun?
Bah, you are probably correct.
That said, seeing as it's from Britain, you've got to wonder how many people are defending *against* guns and the circumstances, last I checked you don't walk down the street carrying your gun.
This said, it's still a bogus statistic
1. Doesn't cover deaths
2. Doesn't account for who is doing the defending and where - for example, if someone opens a door and is being robbed at knife point when someone else levels a gun at the crook.
3. No unarmed resistance category.
4. No running the hell away from the criminal category (because lets face it, if you can pull a gun and aim it before getting killed/badly injured, you can run away unless you're fat and suck at running).
Edit: 5. What the fuck is Non-violent resistance.
Additionally it doesn't cover some other things like the following:
1. Robbery weapon used.
2. Is the victim alone or in a group.
Luduan had already taken care of your statistics. I just didn't want that little tidbit to fall by the wayside.
Ever heard of Project Ceasefire in Boston? They went around to urban youths all over the city and asked them to turn in their guns without any legal repercussion; get rid of your guns, no questions asked. They recovered HUNDREDS. Nobody WANTS to kill another person, they do it because they feel they HAVE to. It's the only way of life they know.
How many civilians who own firearms actually bother to shoot at ranges? I suspect the number is lower than in your idealistic NRA paradise. You are also equating a range with a self-defense situation. Shooting at a target is a far cry from shooting at another human being in a high-stress situation, who -- let us not forget -- is trying to kill you as well, and may be moving erratically. I have been raised around guns my entire life and have a fair deal of experience with shooting, but I certainly would not trust myself above a police officer under such circumstances.
You are also assuming that most people who own guns are law-abiding civilians and will remain as such. To take only certain incidents, the Brady Campaign lists 27 pages of shootings and threatening behavior by concealed-carry permit holders (yes, I am aware that this is far from a neutral source, but the document provides abundant relevant citations).
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/2009-ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
Right, we have a much higher non-weapon murder rate....and your solution to that is giving people guns to increase the murder rate? You are right about this: Culture is part of the problem. Gun culture, that is.
I honestly can't believe that you posted this. "We have a murder problem in our society, but I think guns are great."
If it's not really a gun problem- should we send our children to school with guns? It's for their own safety, you know. If you really believe that guns don't directly instigate shooting people, you would stand up and support arming our children.
If you had bothered to read any of the sources I gave you, you would have seen that they addressed your British claims too.
What the fuck? Why?