Gun politics

[rellikki 7]

Decided to start a thread of its own. This thread is for gun politics including gun laws, regulations, gun related social issues, etc. For general gun discussion and to show off your own stuff, use the following thread:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=39341

Edited September 23, 2011 by Rellikki

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Hello,

When I lived in africa I had a .45 m1911 (a beast) and a little s&w .38 snubnose. I seem to remember the revolver was only 5 rounds rather than six. (a common misapprehension is that all revolvers are "6 shooters".

Now, I'm back in Blighty, I'm happily unarmed, i'd rather keep my gunplay in Sims.

rgds

LoK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Uh, happily? ....No thanks.

[Baff1 0]

Violent crimes per capita in the U.K. for 2009 were only 2/3 of Indiana's.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/incrime.htm

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Almost all of Indiana's violent crime comes from Gary. AKA little Chicago. It's literally a suburb of Chicago, and carries the same crime rate, and prior to July 1st, also carried the same gun laws. (Gun laws in Chicago equate to only criminals carrying guns).

After July 1st, the state mandated that all local ordinances concerning gun laws match the states. Since then, Gary's violent crime rate has steadily declined.

[Baff1 0]

Are you attempting to correlate low violent crime rates with high gun ownership rates?

I'm sure you like your guns as much as I like mine, but there is no need to lose the plot.

Guns and violence go together like hands and gloves.

Hammers and nails.

Birds and the bees.

The fear of violence is a major reason for people to purchase a gun. The more they fear it, the more likely they are to own one.

The more likely they are to own one, the more likely they are to use one.

There is no smoke without fire.

Gun ownership is a symptom of a violent society, if not a direct instigator.

When you shoot your wife for cheating on you, you are a criminal.

Almost all gun crime is domestic in nature. Not "The Chicago Mafia".

It's about regular people losing their rags in a domestic enviroment. The guns they use are their own legally owned ones.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Baff1

[DaVca 0]

Can you back that up with some data from country thats not in civil war/war?

[Baff1 0]

I can, yes.

But then so can you.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Baff1

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Are you attempting to correlate low violent crime rates with high gun ownership rates?

I'm sure you like your guns as much as I like mine, but there is no need to lose the plot.

Guns and violence go together like hands and gloves.

Hammers and nails.

Birds and the bees.

The fear of violence is a major reason for people to purchase a gun. The more they fear it, the more likely they are to own one.

There is no smoke without fire.

Gun ownership is a symptom of a violent society, if not a direct instigator.

When you shoot your wife for cheating on you, you are a criminal.

Almost all gun crime is domestic in nature. Not the chicago mafia.

Actually, it's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. High gun ownership directly translates into lower violent crime rates. Here are a few quick citations ;)

http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm (4th bullet point)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/2/learning-from-the-dc-handgun-ban/

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

I wrote a paper for college a few years back about this topic, and the numbers support this without a doubt. "An armed society is a polite society."

[Baff1 0]

Sorry, the numbers don't support this. You live in a high gun ownership area with 50% more violent crime than my low gun ownership area.

Not to mention about 10 times as many killings.

Is Japan really such a violent society? Or Poland? No. They are not. T

hey are amongst the most civil in the world.

By your logic they should be the most violent places on earth. As should my own country. And yet they are not. They are all far more peaceful places than even where you live.

Guns are fun, but there is a social price to pay for us having them.

Please don't mistake me for someone who is anti guns or not an active campaigner for shooters rights in his own country.

I feel the argument you present is one commonly used to support shooters rights in America.

It's a well documented argument and a well meaning one, but ultimately not a valid one.

Guns and violence go together. They are synonimous with each other.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Baff1

[HyperU2 11]

It's not the guns it's the people, and primarily ones from a well known violent continent.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Sorry the numbers don't support this. You live in a high gun ownership area with 50% more violent crime than my low gun ownership area.

Not to mention about 10 times as many killings.

Hardly a valid point when we don't know 1. Where your from. or 2. What the population rate is there. And 3. What the gun laws are like there.

Violent crime has a ton of variables to factor, and comparing a state that has one intense hotspot of crime that puts it high among the list of violent crime rates against an entire country is hardly valid. By that same methodology, we could compare Maine vs the UK, at a whopping 116 instances per 100k vs the UK's 2034.

It's also pretty strange that your reference has drastically different statistics than the 'Official' statistical reference. http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s0297.pdf

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

Hardly a valid point when we don't know 1. Where your from. or 2. What the population rate is there. And 3. What the gun laws are like there.

Violent crime has a ton of variables to factor, and comparing a state that has one intense hotspot of crime that puts it high among the list of violent crime rates against an entire country is hardly valid. By that same methodology, we could compare Maine vs the UK, at a whopping 116 instances per 100k vs the UK's 2034.

It's also pretty strange that your reference has drastically different statistics than the 'Official' statistical reference. http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s0297.pdf

Actually, just realized your statistics are the same as mine... I think both of us were reading the wrong collumn. Instead of "index" look at "violent". And then compare Indiana (314.5) vs the UK (2034). So what we're looking at is that the UK's violent crime rate isn't far off from Indiana's ENTIRE crime rate.

Edited September 22, 2011 by TheCapulet

[st_dux 26]

Sorry the numbers don't support this. You live in a high gun ownership area with 50% more violent crime than my low gun ownership area.

Actually, if you do a little research, you will find that much of the numbers do. Violent crime rates on a national level (this goes for any country) are generally lower in areas or eras with less restrictive gun laws. In the United States, for example, this is made evident by the fact that the places with the most homicide and other violent crime per capita are generally the places with the most restrictive gun laws (New York City, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, etc.). In the United Kingdom, this is demonstrated by the sharp rise in homicide and violent crime that came after the 1997 handgun ban. Other examples abound.

On a global scale, many more factors such as a economic conditions and cultural attitudes come into play, so the correlation between violent crime and gun availability is far less consistent; however, it's quite clear that gun availability, in and of itself, never raises violent crime levels.

Is Japan really such a violent society? Or Poland? No. They are not. They are amongst the most civil in the world.

What about Switzerland? Is that a violent society? Because you will find a fully-functioning assault rifle in just about every household there (military service is compulsory for males and they may keep their service weapon after being discharged), and by and large, their gun restrictions are even more lax than those of the United States. On the other end of the spectrum, look at Mexico. They have extremely restrictive gun laws and a very high violent crime rate. There is no positive correlation you can draw, on any scale, between gun restrictiveness and lower violent crime rates.

[froggyluv 2136]

It's not the guns it's the people, and primarily ones from a well known violent continent.

Agreed. Europe has quite a violent past ;)

[Smurf 12]

Kind of Offtopic, but I should share cause its kind of shocking:

Today a 10 years old brought a gun to the school, shot the teacher around the hip and then shot himself in the head. The teacher is alive and stable, the kid is gone.

He used his father´s .38, who is a police officer (the gun is his, not from the police). Guns laws here are very restrictive, lots of burocratics and money involved to get a legal firearm, even small calibers. But for law officers and military personel is easier.

@Topic: Its about the people\culture\education, not laws. If you wanna a gun, you can get it...

[solidsnake2384 10]

Kind of Offtopic, but I should share cause its kind of shocking:

Today a 10 years old brought a gun to the school, shot the teacher around the hip and then shot himself in the head. The teacher is alive and stable, the kid is gone.

He used his father´s .38, who is a police officer (the gun is his, not from the police). Guns laws here are very restrictive, lots of burocratics and money involved to get a legal firearm, even small calibers. But for law officers and military personel is easier.

@Topic: Its about the people\culture\education, not laws. If you wanna a gun, you can get it...

Wtf?! Motive?

[Smurf 12]

Seems unclear by now, but looks like it was a simple discussion.

Last year a 23 old invaded his ex-school (2 .38 + fast reloaders) and killed 11 children and hurt more 13, all between 12 and 14 years old. An officer that was passing by shoot him down.

Reason? Bullying. What don´t make sense is that all those kids had nothing to do with him, except they used to study in the same school.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Is Japan really such a violent society?

Japan is peaceful because they are too busy engaging in Kansai Enko - underage prostitution.

Please refrain from calling one country more "civilized" than another country, because one can easily pull a nasty skeleton from said county's closet.

Gun Control: Lessons from European Violence

The recent outbreaks of indiscriminate violence in Europe highlight a disturbing trend of decivilization throughout Western society. Pundits and "experts" weave countless theories to try to explain what's happening. Some sound plausible enough, but only those of us who understand sound economic theory have the tools to decipher the meaning of these current events. Those who use these tools will discover that the state has not only caused this turmoil directly in various ways (via welfarism, militarism, inflation, state schooling, and more), but it is also preventing people from defending themselves and their property. I am referring, of course, to gun-control laws.

England

First we'll consider the riots that erupted across England last week. Vandals and looters were wantonly destroying property, committing arson, stealing goods from stores, and mugging passersby. Innocent people were rightfully scared for their well-being, especially since the police are evidently too inept to stop any of this. One reporter, after being mugged and beaten, called the authorities only to be told to "go home."

It should hardly be surprising people are so defenseless. As of 2007, England, Wales, and Scotland ranked below nearly every other developed country in terms of private firearm possession.Download PDF British gun-control laws can only be described as draconian. The 1997 Firearms Act all but banned handguns from private ownership. (Interestingly, this legislation was not applied to Northern Ireland, where gun ownership is far more widespread.) All "legal" firearms require a state-issued license to possess. License holders must report their firearms purchases to the police and renew their licenses every few years. Local police precincts can impose additional restrictions on gun ownership within their turf. Police have the power to revoke the license if they suspect the license holder has violated their rules.

Continued

http://mises.org/daily/5553/Gun-Control-Lessons-from-European-Violence

Edited September 23, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[GRS 10]

Too many factors to claim one way or another. From what I gather more guns has actually been safer and that's how it is around here. People can cite one or two specific instances all they want, doesn't mean much.

I own many and carry. Don't like that? Tough. I don't like smoking, which kills far more people.

[Dead3yez 0]

He used his father´s .38, who is a police officer (the gun is his, not from the police).

That man is an idiot.

[hellfire257 3]

First we'll consider the riots that erupted across England last week. Vandals and looters were wantonly destroying property, committing arson, stealing goods from stores, and mugging passersby. Innocent people were rightfully scared for their well-being, especially since the police are evidently too inept to stop any of this. One reporter, after being mugged and beaten, called the authorities only to be told to "go home."

Last week!? Where have you been!?

Besides, that isn't really a good example. The riots could easily have been put down if the police force could've done something other than stand in a line and watch. The police were not inept - the powers that be were too soft.

You're also looking at a minority of people who don't have the support of the public and live in an area where crime is rife in itself. You're basing your opinion upon an insignificant sample.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I own many and carry. Don't like that? Tough. I don't like smoking, which kills far more people.

That man is an idiot.

That's the problem. An idiot cannot kill me with a cigarette.

Last week!? Where have you been!?

Besides, that isn't really a good example. The riots could easily have been put down if the police force could've done something other than stand in a line and watch. The police were not inept - the powers that be were too soft.

You're also looking at a minority of people who don't have the support of the public and live in an area where crime is rife in itself. You're basing your opinion upon an insignificant sample.

That's because watching Fox News may distort one's vision of what's happening oustide US borders.

Edited September 23, 2011 by ProfTournesol

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

That's the problem. An idiot cannot kill me with a cigarette.

True. But an idiot can certainly kill you with a knife. Or kill you with various blunt objects. Or break into your house, beat you senseless, and steal your crap, rape your wife, kick your kids, etc. Or even more realistically, kill you with a weapon that's illegally obtained.

When possessing a weapon is a crime, only criminals have guns.

[ProfTournesol 956]

True. But an idiot can certainly kill you with a knife. Or kill you with various blunt objects. Or break into your house, beat you senseless, and steal your crap, rape your wife, kick your kids, etc. Or even more realistically, kill you with a weapon that's illegally obtained.

When possessing a weapon is a crime, only criminals have guns.

The point is that when it's ridiculously easy to get a gun, more criminals have guns than when it isn't. And people with guns are more dangerous than people without.

[HyperU2 11]

It comes down to more than just guns, you have to look at victims. My chances of being a gun homicide victim are astronomically small because I'm a white male, despite being surrounded by guns all my life. I know it's fun to be cliche and blame redneck culture but they don't do the killing. I think the same holds true for the knife crime in recent years in the UK.

Edited September 23, 2011 by HyperU2

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Criminals will aquire guns whether you want them to or not. But they're far less likely to use them if there's a chance that they may be facing off with someone that also has a gun. Criminals want job security too, after all. And gun restrictions against law abiding citizens = job security for criminals.

As far as the second part... that's true at a face value sense, but misleading in the sense that I think you mean. By that methodology, we should ban motor vehicles before we even consider gun control. For instance in 1999 (the latest year I could find for gun violence statistics in this case), there were 6,500 homicide cases involving a firearm in the US. But 41,717 fatalities involving a motor vehicle. Yet getting a driving license in many states is far easier than buying a gun, and sometimes even has a lower cost of entry. A man has every right to be 'dangerous', simply because being dangerous isn't a crime, but instead it's often a deterrent to crime.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

It comes down to more than just guns, you have to look at victims. My chances of being a gun homicide victim are astronomically small because I'm a white male, despite being surrounded by guns all my life. I know it's fun to be cliche and blame redneck culture but they don't do the killing. I think the same holds true for the knife crime in recent years in the UK.

I was going to make that point earlier, but couldn't remember where I seen that statistic. :P If this board had the rep module installed, I'd give you some. lol

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

Also, for my point above, before it raises numbers questions:

There are roughly 190,625,023 licensed drivers in the United States.

There are roughly 192,000,000 legally owned firearms in the United States.