tnf wrote:
Yea, highly improbable that someone is the victim of a violent crime where the use of a firearm might get them out of it without harm. Hey numbnuts, this law is based on that highly improbable situation.
That's why I kept emphasizing the fact that we are talking about THAT HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SITUATION. And in that HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SITUATION THAT THIS LAW IS REALLY DEALING WITH the potential victims should not have to prove an attempt to retreat before protecting themselves.
The pacifistic anti-gun side is settled just as much in fantasy land about the whole thing. I notice that not one of you bring up the fact that if some dumbfuck criminal didn't decide to attack someone this wouldn't be an issue...because as long as we can jump on some bandwagon about the streets of the U.S. being the 'wild wild west' we all feel good about ourselves right?
I merely pointed out the type of reasoning you use. You choose to ignore the obvious larger implications of this law (less restrictions = more guns = more shootings, any fool can figure that out) and make your decision on the issue by reducing it to a black and white hypothetical situation that appeals to fear.
Explain to me how this is different from the reasoning that has brought us the Iraq invasion, the the PATRIOT act, or the 'let's torture terrorists if we suspect they know something' line of thinking.
I'd like to see some statistics that bear out your claim that fewer restrictions will cause a run on the gun stores.
I've seen two things cause an immediate rise in gun sales, and these were fairly well localized. One was a serial killer stalking the campus of the University of Florida, and the other was the appearance of "home invasions" in Florida. This was where the thieves would break in early in the evening when people were home and active, instead of late at night.
I never claimed there would be a run on gunstores, i just predict a rise in gunsales if there are fewer restrictions. For instance people who have an assault rifle and two shotguns at home may now be interested in getting a .357 for in the car, that sort of thing. And an increase in overall gun posession will cause more gun related violence.
I fail to see how your specious reasoning that more guns will cause more gun crime is common sense. As has been stated before, that's a HUGE leap of logic to make, and one with which I disagree strongly.
I also think that it's a large assumption on your part that people will want to buy another gun simply because they won't have to fear being jailed if they decide to defend themselves if attacked. Getting a concealed weapons permit, while not difficult, is not something that's done in an afternoon. If you only owned a shotgun, and wanted to carry a pistol, you'd have to go through all the paperwork and the training course before you could do so.
Did you know that it's been legal to have a gun in your glove compartment for years in Florida? I don't see regular reports of massive rush hour gunfights, do you?
arizona would probably scare most of the euros in this thread witless: an open carry state (i.e. not just permissible to carry a piece openly but actually legally required)
btw this is all wrong:
less restrictions = more guns = more shootings, any fool can figure that out
so, conversely then, more restrictions = less guns = less shootings? if this is true why have the number of shootings in britain gone UP to an all-time high today (admittedly still a small number) while gun control is tighter than ever? whereas in the 19thc, gun control was non-existent and shootings were rare (source: 'guns & violence: the english experience' by joyce malcolm, before you ask)
Nightshade wrote:I fail to see how your specious reasoning that more guns will cause more gun crime is common sense. As has been stated before, that's a HUGE leap of logic to make, and one with which I disagree strongly.
I also think that it's a large assumption on your part that people will want to buy another gun simply because they won't have to fear being jailed if they decide to defend themselves if attacked. Getting a concealed weapons permit, while not difficult, is not something that's done in an afternoon. If you only owned a shotgun, and wanted to carry a pistol, you'd have to go through all the paperwork and the training course before you could do so.
Did you know that it's been legal to have a gun in your glove compartment for years in Florida? I don't see regular reports of massive rush hour gunfights, do you?
I did not say crime, i said violence. When you have four guns laying about the house the chances of little Timmy accidentally blowing his brains out with one are bigger than when you have only one. The chances of someone with a bad temper using deadly force to settle an argument are greater when there is ready access to a gun, that sort of thing. I don't see what the leap of faith is here, it's like saying if there are more cars there will be more accidents.
The second bit of my argument is based on what i think i'd do if such a law was passed here: i'd immediately get a gun. If walking down the street could make some asshole shoot me because they'd consider me a threat, i'd want the oppertunity to kill him first, because hey, they'd be a threat to me.
seremtan wrote:so, conversely then, more restrictions = less guns = less shootings? if this is true why have the number of shootings in britain gone UP to an all-time high today (admittedly still a small number) while gun control is tighter than ever? whereas in the 19thc, gun control was non-existent and shootings were rare (source: 'guns & violence: the english experience' by joyce malcolm, before you ask)
I think it's a mistake to compare through time, so to speak. There's lots of factors that have an influence on the number of shootings, (price of guns, availability of guns, lethality of guns etc) so many that the comparison is most likely meaningless. Why not compare to a modern day state that has the same culture, say France or Germany?
Nightshade wrote:I fail to see how your specious reasoning that more guns will cause more gun crime is common sense. As has been stated before, that's a HUGE leap of logic to make, and one with which I disagree strongly.
I also think that it's a large assumption on your part that people will want to buy another gun simply because they won't have to fear being jailed if they decide to defend themselves if attacked. Getting a concealed weapons permit, while not difficult, is not something that's done in an afternoon. If you only owned a shotgun, and wanted to carry a pistol, you'd have to go through all the paperwork and the training course before you could do so.
Did you know that it's been legal to have a gun in your glove compartment for years in Florida? I don't see regular reports of massive rush hour gunfights, do you?
I did not say crime, i said violence. When you have four guns laying about the house the chances of little Timmy accidentally blowing his brains out with one are bigger than when you have only one. The chances of someone with a bad temper using deadly force to settle an argument are greater when there is ready access to a gun, that sort of thing. I don't see what the leap of faith is here, it's like saying if there are more cars there will be more accidents.
The second bit of my argument is based on what i think i'd do if such a law was passed here: i'd immediately get a gun. If walking down the street could make some asshole shoot me because they'd consider me a threat, i'd want the oppertunity to kill him first, because hey, they'd be a threat to me.
If said person has guns "laying around the house" while they have children who don't respect weapons then it's their own damn fault.
I wouldn't buy a gun because I still wouldn't be able to shoot anyone. I really don't think I could. I suppose if they were going to kill me I could but I've never had to think about that.
We have a law like this in Ohio that allows a licensed person to conceal a pistol. Very few people actually applied for a license and there hasn't been any increase in violence. Thug niggers still kill other thug niggers and poor white trash still kill other poor white trash...
No, he's not. Guns do not make people kill each other, and it's almost as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is with a gun. If you're a psycho that's inclined to kill someone when you lose your temper, you'll do it with whatever's at hand.
See, you guys in Canada and Europe seem to think that if I own a gun, I'm always just about to shoot someone with it. That's entirely incorrect. There are shitloads of sane, legitimate gun owners in the US that would never think of shooting someone to settle an argument.
As for Timmy blowing his or his friend's head off with daddy's .45, well, that's a possibility. If the gun is owned by an irresponsible adult, it's a definite possibility. But you should know, Florida was the first state to pass a law that sent the owner of the gun to jail in the aforementioned circumstances.
No, he's not. Guns do not make people kill each other, and it's almost as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is with a gun. If you're a psycho that's inclined to kill someone when you lose your temper, you'll do it with whatever's at hand.
See, you guys in Canada and Europe seem to think that if I own a gun, I'm always just about to shoot someone with it. That's entirely incorrect. There are shitloads of sane, legitimate gun owners in the US that would never think of shooting someone to settle an argument.
As for Timmy blowing his or his friend's head off with daddy's .45, well, that's a possibility. If the gun is owned by an irresponsible adult, it's a definite possibility. But you should know, Florida was the first state to pass a law that sent the owner of the gun to jail in the aforementioned circumstances.
i reckon that if chavs managed to get ahold of guns then we'd be fucked
its just a simple case of brains, or lack of
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
Ryoki wrote:
And an increase in overall gun posession will cause more gun related violence.
It's common sense, come on.
Take a look at how many guns are legally owned in Canada and then take a look at how low our national gun crime stats are. After that factor in that most of our violent gun crimes are gang related and committed with black market guns and you'll see that your argument is flawed.
Last edited by Tormentius on Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
seremtan wrote:so, conversely then, more restrictions = less guns = less shootings? if this is true why have the number of shootings in britain gone UP to an all-time high today (admittedly still a small number) while gun control is tighter than ever? whereas in the 19thc, gun control was non-existent and shootings were rare (source: 'guns & violence: the english experience' by joyce malcolm, before you ask)
I think it's a mistake to compare through time, so to speak. There's lots of factors that have an influence on the number of shootings, (price of guns, availability of guns, lethality of guns etc) so many that the comparison is most likely meaningless. Why not compare to a modern day state that has the same culture, say France or Germany?
i'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. yes, there are a lot of factors, which i think i said before, but not restricted to gun-related factors as you're suggesting
anyway, my overall point is that fetishizing the gun as an object of fear and loathing is just irrational. i mean, listen to reefsurfer - florida liberalises its gun laws and he, a resident of sweden, some 4000 miles away, pisses himself with fear over it
i have no particular desire to either own a gun or shoot anyone for any reason, but i fucking hate the patronising attitude of govt which decides that i am too untrustworthy to own one if i wish (while they consider themselves trustworthy enough to have enough firepower to scorch the earth)
Nightshade wrote:
No, he's not. Guns do not make people kill each other, and it's almost as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is with a gun. If you're a psycho that's inclined to kill someone when you lose your temper, you'll do it with whatever's at hand.
See, i just don't agree with that. I think it's much harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. And of course any proper psycho would find other creative means to solve his problems when no gun is handy, but then most gun violence is not the work of psychos, is it.
The way i see it weaponry has evolved around one thing: the amount of distance between the user and the soon to be wasted. It's not pure practicality, it's also to overcome that basic instinct 95% of us have that says not to kill other people, which is stronger when the act of killing itself is more physical and intense. Hit someone over the head wth a large rock repeatedly and watch him die slowly and you'll be haunted more than if you kill more than 200 people from your plane several kilometers above the earth and watch the whole thing from your little tv screen.
I believe the same applies to guns vs knives (maybe to a somewhat lesser extent haha).
Tormentius wrote:
Take a look at how many guns are legally owned in Canada and then take a look at how low our national gun crime stats are. After that factor in that most of our violent gun crimes are gang related and committed with black market guns and you'll see that your argument is flawed.
It is not, really: i bet you Canadians have more gun related violence than say Sweden or Norway.
seremtan wrote:
i'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. yes, there are a lot of factors, which i think i said before, but not restricted to gun-related factors as you're suggesting
I was just arguing that comparing Brit gun violence with stats from that long ago makes less sense than comparing them with stats from something more like current Brit society. Maybe France was a bad example, but err you understand, oui?
seremtan wrote:
i have no particular desire to either own a gun or shoot anyone for any reason, but i fucking hate the patronising attitude of govt which decides that i am too untrustworthy to own one if i wish (while they consider themselves trustworthy enough to have enough firepower to scorch the earth)
