Gun Control

[Nocte]

Debate gun control here!

[Mythonian]

Moved (along with the education one) to Open Convo.

Okay, well, I guess I'll start, and you guys can have the first rebuttal.


(I'll start it off short and we can move from there)


Assertion: Reducing gun regulations will reduce crime.

Evidence:
According to the National Institute for Justice:

1. 60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
2. 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
3. 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
4. Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.
5. Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.
6. Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.





And I'll conclude with this (http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s206/Mythonian/lawl/1225522544285.jpg).

[Daaaah Whoosh]

If only our nonlethal weapons were as awesome as the ones in Deus Ex. Sadly, they're not. So yeah, give the good guys the guns.

[bazongaman502]

better be some good ass restrictions to it then... sorry iv lost 3 people in my life due to a gun

[Anarchy]

From a political standpoint, privately owned firearms can keep other counties from invading easily. Its a lot harder to invade and possibly take over a country where citizens themselves have nearly as much killing power as a soldier.

It also keeps power in the hands of the people. If the government has the power to kill so easily with soldiers and guns, the people should have that same power to avoid possible usage of military on our own people.

Obviously these are some severe situations that probably wont happen anytime soon, but similar scenarios occured during the revolutionary war.

[RENGADE 0F FUNK]

NO ONE is taking my baby from me

1918


Gotta love gun stores.

Looking at buying an RPK for next rifle. Not gonna bother going through the trouble of Class 3 liscensing bullshit till I'm out of the military so I'll have to deal with it being semi auto, but ah well.

[Nocte]

I'm not saying remove guns, I love guns. I'm saying make it harder for people who are fucking insane and criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Make it so that anyone who owns a gun, even if they bought it before. Have to re-register, and take an actual psych test to make sure you can own a gun. Ontop of that a proper background check. Therefore guns are harder to get, and if any gun store breaks these registration laws. Well they either get fined or closed down.

And to say that people can actually stop others from hurting someone if they had a concealed gun is bullshit. My uncle told me a story about a cop shoot out in Maine. Basically this guy had a gun and there were like 7 cops surround him. The cops emptied their magazines and missed a whole bunch of shots. Granted the dude died, but 7 trained officers emptying their weapons and missing a lot of shots?

Saying you'll be able to handle the stress of a situation at gun point is stupid unless you've actually done it. Hell soldiers in the military, have confessed to shooting above their target so that they'll miss. Soldiers in our military don't even have the balls to shoot and kill someone. So tell me, how will your average joe be able to do it, if the need arises? Maybe a few rare cases.

[Mythonian]

I'm not saying remove guns, I love guns. I'm saying make it harder for people who are fucking insane and criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Make it so that anyone who owns a gun, even if they bought it before. Have to re-register, and take an actual psych test to make sure you can own a gun. Ontop of that a proper background check. Therefore guns are harder to get, and if any gun store breaks these registration laws. Well they either get fined or closed down.

And to say that people can actually stop others from hurting someone if they had a concealed gun is bullshit. My uncle told me a story about a cop shoot out in Maine. Basically this guy had a gun and there were like 7 cops surround him. The cops emptied their magazines and missed a whole bunch of shots. Granted the dude died, but 7 trained officers emptying their weapons and missing a lot of shots?

Saying you'll be able to handle the stress of a situation at gun point is stupid unless you've actually done it. Hell soldiers in the military, have confessed to shooting above their target so that they'll miss. Soldiers in our military don't even have the balls to shoot and kill someone. So tell me, how will your average joe be able to do it, if the need arises? Maybe a few rare cases.
So wait, 7 cops surrounded someone who had just shot a cop. And these 7 cops emptied their clips. And missed the majority of the shots? What was the range at? How is this relevant to the average person having a gun? I'm confused at how cops shooting someone is related to concealed guns and reducing crime?

I've said nothing about people actually using the weapons effectively. I said that the simple fact that "that person has a gun. I'm not going to try to mug that person" causes a HUGE reduction in crime rates. Look at the statistics! When women were given guns and a bit of training in Orlando, it reduced rape by 88% because it scared the criminals so much without the women even needing to be expert marksmen.

Skill with the weapons is not a prerequisite for the reduction in crime. It helps and definitely needs to happen, but crime still reduces either way.


Having higher gun regulations and background checks does not prevent criminals from getting weapons:


1. A Justice Department survey of felons showed that 93% of handgun predators had obtained their most recent guns "off-the-record."
2. Press reports show that the few criminals who get their guns from retail outlets can easily get fake IDs or use surrogate buyers, known as "straw purchasers," to buy their guns.

Making it harder to get guns only makes it harder for people to have one to defend themselves with:


1. Bonnie Elmasri. She inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.
2. Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross. She bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.
3. Los Angeles riots. USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/) reported that many of the people rushing to gun stores during the 1992 riots were "lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need." Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Sorry to interrupt your serious conversation, but we should just remove firearms.

Then we could focus on the coolest forms of fighting like Sword-fighting and killing people in one punch. =P

Myth, as always, has a valid point. =P

[RENGADE 0F FUNK]

So wait, 7 cops surrounded someone who had just shot a cop. And these 7 cops emptied their clips. And missed the majority of the shots? What was the range at? How is this relevant to the average person having a gun? I'm confused at how cops shooting someone is related to concealed guns and reducing crime?

I've said nothing about people actually using the weapons effectively. I said that the simple fact that "that person has a gun. I'm not going to try to mug that person" causes a HUGE reduction in crime rates. Look at the statistics! When women were given guns and a bit of training in Orlando, it reduced rape by 88% because it scared the criminals so much without the women even needing to be expert marksmen.

Skill with the weapons is not a prerequisite for the reduction in crime. It helps and definitely needs to happen, but crime still reduces either way.


Having higher gun regulations and background checks does not prevent criminals from getting weapons:

Making it harder to get guns only makes it harder for people to have one to defend themselves with:

Mythonian, you have found a place in my heart.

[Silko]

Going to agree with Myth here. Along with all of myths data you can use simple common scene to figure out why gun should not illegal or severally regulated.

Lets say on March 1st 2012 everyone who has a gun must give it to the government because guns are no longer allowed. (Lets also for this simulation assume everything goes peacefully and there are no riots)

People who will follow the law turn in their guns. Now these people who do not follow the law in the first place are expected to follow the new gun law. Fat chance. Now criminals can do what they wish with out fear of getting shot when they try to rob a house or a store. The people who follow the law are now fucked and there is no way the police would be able to handle it. They have a hard enough time with crime as it is.

In short Guns are not bad M'Kay

[Nocte]

How will people know who has a gun and who doesn't though? I mean it's like knowing if that asshole at the bar is a trained MMA fighter or not....

My argument is that people seem to think that giving guns to the people can help prevent the crime,(I know because I created an argument for self defense from my Honors Government class.) by having the people do the police's job. When in fact guns are very deadly even when being handled by professionals. As for the whole self-defense motive. Get a gun long before it's to late... You can't save everyone, and if they are in a abusive relationship then it's her own fault. I'm gonna tell you right now, my mother would have killed any man before he hit me or my brother.

Silko you are failing to see my argument here, it isn't removing guns all together. Rather to put more restrictions on them.

[Silko]

Have you not seeing the data Myth has posted? The thought of people having guns works. People are not trying to do the police's job. Guns for self defense is simple some jackass broke into your house and you pull out your gun in case he is armed. There are reports of robbers running away at the sound of a gun in the house.


When in fact guns are very deadly even when being handled by professionals.

Don't know what you where trying to say with this but yes guns are very deadly. Which is why people think twice before committing a crime.


my mother would have killed any man before he hit me or my brother

That's great and I would do the same before I let someone touch my mother or sisters. If I thought a gun would better protect my family you bet your ass I would get one.


How will people know who has a gun and who doesn't though? I mean it's like knowing if that asshole at the bar is a trained MMA fighter or not....

Thats the point! You want to make people think about starting something or committing a crime. Guns do that.


Silko you are failing to see my argument here, it isn't removing guns all together. Rather to put more restrictions on them.

No I see your point but my argument still holds true. If you make it harder to legally get a gun it will make it harder for law following citizens to protect themselves. News flash eagle, criminals will still illegal get guns when they are banned or severally regulated. Its not going to stop them instead you will see an increase in crime because there is nothing that would put fear in their minds. Can't say the police do it, if that was true there would be no crime

[d3ad1te]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/tables/table27-leok-feloniously-type-of-weapon-01-10.xls


Of course felons would respond to those survey's that way. I would much rather run into trouble with a cop than an armed civilian. Under the UCR, NCVS, and NIBRS all crime has dropped dramatically in the past 20 years (which are nationally conducted surveys). The problem is there are a lot of unreported crimes, lies to make agencies look better, and agencies that don't report at all.

Whether or not this decrease is due to people carrying concealed weapon permits is unknown(Or any other single factor). It's perplexing because usually in bad economic times the crime rate goes up(it has done the complete opposite).



From what I just read on here (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCri me2004.pdf) it seems that Levitt found stricter gun control laws caused no statistical decrease in crime... but neither did concealed weapon permits. This has led me to believe...


Imprisonment's crime-reduction effect helps to explain why the burglary, car-theft and robbery rates are lower in the U.S. than in England. The difference results not from the willingness to send convicted offenders to prison, which is about the same in both countries, but in how long America keeps them behind bars.
One of the biggest deterrents to crime isn't a person with a gun, it's the amount of time we send them behind bars.

But if you look at countries with stricter gun laws we can see they have a much lower crime-rate than our own. (http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0110185-002-XIE.pdf)

Leave with you this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616)


EDIT: I'm making my own opinions here but I had my criminology class today and my teacher said he was a proponent of stricter gun control laws. He's been an Officer and Academy Instructor for like 30 years. I'll ask him to explain more on the subject next class.

[RENGADE 0F FUNK]

How will people know who has a gun and who doesn't though?


Well its obvious you don't own a firearn.

Upon purchase of rifle for instance. (I know from first hand) The gun dealer gets out a form which almost looksalmost like a job aplication in which it asks you for all your information, law infractions and so on. THRN the dealer contacts the FBI and gets a full criminal background check on you. If you have NO history of violent crime then your clear. If you do.. then well your fucked.

Every gun has a serial number on it. That serial number is linked to your record in the FBI. So if you were to commit a crime using that weapon it would be linked to you for evidence.

For example, if you were to pull up my record, you'd see stuff i have 2 paid off speeding tickets, I'm an enlisted recruit in the USMC and that i have a 91/30 Mosin Nagant registered to my name.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Learn your shit before you argue about it.

[Yehsus]

Myself and 2 buddies are going through the journey of purchasing firearms in the state of Massachusetts in March.

Its going to be a long and boring ride.

[Silko]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Learn your shit before you argue about it.

Well I think that wraps this thread up

[Mythonian]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/tables/table27-leok-feloniously-type-of-weapon-01-10.xls


Of course felons would respond to those survey's that way. I would much rather run into trouble with a cop than an armed civilian. Under the UCR, NCVS, and NIBRS all crime has dropped dramatically in the past 20 years (which are nationally conducted surveys). The problem is there are a lot of unreported crimes, lies to make agencies look better, and agencies that don't report at all.

Whether or not this decrease is due to people carrying concealed weapon permits is unknown(Or any other single factor). It's perplexing because usually in bad economic times the crime rate goes up(it has done the complete opposite).



From what I just read on here (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCri me2004.pdf) it seems that Levitt found stricter gun control laws caused no statistical decrease in crime... but neither did concealed weapon permits. This has led me to believe...


One of the biggest deterrents to crime isn't a person with a gun, it's the amount of time we send them behind bars.

But if you look at countries with stricter gun laws we can see they have a much lower crime-rate than our own. (http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0110185-002-XIE.pdf)

Leave with you this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616)


EDIT: I'm making my own opinions here but I had my criminology class today and my teacher said he was a proponent of stricter gun control laws. He's been an Officer and Academy Instructor for like 30 years. I'll ask him to explain more on the subject next class.


The vast majority of people committing a crime do not consider the time behind bars whatsoever.

If someone is struggling to pay a bill or something and needs some cash, and they decide to mug someone on the street, they think absolutely nothing of "If I get caught...". No, if they do that, they are only thinking of the benefits.



However, here is a hypothetical situation:

Let's say that the gun laws are reduced significantly and free classes are offered to anyone who wants to learn to use one.

Well, these classes would be advertised on TV. The news channels would report the law changes, and maybe the increase in sales of guns.

And when a criminal goes out and is thinking about mugging someone, maybe the fact that he saw on the news that a lot more people have guns. Do you seriously think that wouldn't effect him? He would be much more hesitant to do it if he thought there were possible immediate repercussions, or if it was risky.


That's the thing with people: they are fickle and only care about the moment. If they think they might get shot, they won't do something. If they think they might get caught and might be put on trial and might eventually go to prison for a couple years, that doesn't weigh on them as much.



Nearly every crime committed is done as an act of passion or in the "spur of the moment". People act impulsively and often do rash things. When they are considering crimes or doing them, they don't think about the future, only the present.


However, I will admit that going to prison can reduce the likelihood that you'll commit the crime again. Unfortunately, though, that isn't a huge effect, actually. I believe it's like 60% or something of people who get out of prison end up committing the exact same crime that got them there in the first place. That alone places serious doubt on the effectiveness of prisons: instead of fixing the issue, they just delay things a few years.



I find it interesting that this has become more of a psychological issue instead of a legal issue... xD

[Nocte]

Well its obvious you don't own a firearn.

Upon purchase of rifle for instance. (I know from first hand) The gun dealer gets out a form which almost looksalmost like a job aplication in which it asks you for all your information, law infractions and so on. THRN the dealer contacts the FBI and gets a full criminal background check on you. If you have NO history of violent crime then your clear. If you do.. then well your fucked.

Every gun has a serial number on it. That serial number is linked to your record in the FBI. So if you were to commit a crime using that weapon it would be linked to you for evidence.

For example, if you were to pull up my record, you'd see stuff i have 2 paid off speeding tickets, I'm an enlisted recruit in the USMC and that i have a 91/30 Mosin Nagant registered to my name.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Learn your shit before you argue about it.

Funk that doesn't have any relevance to what I said, no one has a sign on their back that says. I have a gun! So don't fuck with me!

I'm not talking about the police and such I'm talking about people you see on the street.

@ Myth

You would never see that type of advertisement on TV... The news may cover it, but people do desperate things in desperate times. So even if their is a chance they might get shot, they'll say fuck it.

However we aren't talking about crime, we are talking about gun related murders.

[d3ad1te]

The vast majority of people committing a crime do not consider the time behind bars whatsoever.

If someone is struggling to pay a bill or something and needs some cash, and they decide to mug someone on the street, they think absolutely nothing of "If I get caught...". No, if they do that, they are only thinking of the benefits.

And how do you know this?

Nearly every crime committed is done as an act of passion or in the "spur of the moment". People act impulsively and often do rash things. When they are considering crimes or doing them, they don't think about the future, only the present.
No not "nearly every crime" is an act of passion. Crimes are either A. Expressive(passion/emotional) or B. Instrumental(To gain something). Most "passion" crimes are assaults(domestic problems).


I find it interesting that this has become more of a psychological issue instead of a legal issue... xD

The legal system uses psychology to study the extent, control, and cause of crime. So it's not moving from one issue to another, it's always been the apart of the problem.

Here are some stastiscs for you.

Use of Firearms in Crime.
60% of murders(UCR)
20% of robberies(NCVS)
10% of assaults(NCVS)
5% of rapes(NCVS)

UCR ( Uniform Crime Report) NCVS( National Crime Victimization Survey).

And Eagle... gun related murder is a crime. We are talking about crime because it has to do with the laws around gun control.

Here is a quote from my textbook.


The fear of punishment may inhibit some would-be criminals. and placing a significant number of potentially high-rate offenders behind bars seems to help lower crime rate. As the nations prison population has expanded, the crime rate has fallen.

Heres another one


As the number of guns in the population increases, so too do violent crime rates. There is evidence that more guns than ever before are finding there way into the hands of young people.(Siegel. 45)

This is the only mention of guns in "Explaining Trends in Crime Rates". Concealed weapon permits are not even cited as a deterrent to crime.

[RetRdidMunkie]

Deadite is right on all of this. Were talkin bout this and some other things in my criminology class right now. Lol.

Deadite, what are you majorin bra?

[d3ad1te]

lol Film and Media Arts.

Just talking crim class this semester, it's very interesting stuff.

Are you a crim major?

[RetRdidMunkie]

yerp. Indeed.

[d3ad1te]

Sweet best of luck on your endeavors sir!

[EriRi 1138]

My opinion on this:

A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.

My real opinion on this (and the education topic):

No matter how much we discuss it we're still a bunch of dudes on the internet and no amount of well-worded arguments will change anything. If you want to see some change, stay in the schools we do have left, go to college, get a fucking doctorate in something, run for governor, eventually get elected president, and then do this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNAHjsAnTd4

[GhostHammer]

I've said nothing about people actually using the weapons effectively. I said that the simple fact that "that person has a gun. I'm not going to try to mug that person" causes a HUGE reduction in crime rates.

When women were given guns and a bit of training in Orlando, it reduced rape by 88% because it scared the criminals so much without the women even needing to be expert marksmen.

Skill with the weapons is not a prerequisite for the reduction in crime.


The thought of people having guns works.

Thats the point! You want to make people think about starting something or committing a crime. Guns do that.


Guns dont kill people, people kill people.


He would be much more hesitant to do it if he thought there were possible immediate repercussions, or if it was risky.

It is not the actual owning of a gun that deters crime, it is the threat of one. If you whole heatedly believe I will shoot you if you walk towards me, and you don't want to die, you wont walk towards me.

Its the same principle as the laws of gravity. People are aware that falling from great heights can kill you, and therefore some seriously fear heights. It's not the actual fall that scares people, its the potential of that fall.

Needless to say, if there is a substantial threat of a weapon in a persons home/business/on their person, someone will consider if an aggressive action is smart or not. It's no different than everyday life. To use the example of the bar...

There is a large guy being loud and obnoxious to your friends. He's wearing a leather jacket and has a bad scar on his face. It is often thought this man is a tough, hard nosed person who can hold their own in a fight. Is this true? It dosn't matter, there is a notion of a threat which stops you from calling him out and possibly starting trouble.



My opinion on this:

A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.

My real opinion on this (and the education topic):

No matter how much we discuss it we're still a bunch of dudes on the internet and no amount of well-worded arguments will change anything. If you want to see some change, stay in the schools we do have left, go to college, get a fucking doctorate in something, run for governor, eventually get elected president, and then do this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNAHjsAnTd4

^This.

[d3ad1te]

My opinion on this:

A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.

My real opinion on this (and the education topic):

No matter how much we discuss it we're still a bunch of dudes on the internet and no amount of well-worded arguments will change anything. If you want to see some change, stay in the schools we do have left, go to college, get a fucking doctorate in something, run for governor, eventually get elected president, and then do this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNAHjsAnTd4


Ok... But that's the point of this thread. To create well-worded arguments on the subject of gun control.

[EriRi 1138]

But what is that solving?

[d3ad1te]

But what is that solving?

Absolutely nothing. But what does that matter. Should we not share our views?

This furthers our knowledge and requires us to sift through information. In my case it's helping me understand and remember information for my criminology class.

[RENGADE 0F FUNK]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy (WW II)

Nuff said.

[d3ad1te]

It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)

[EriRi 1138]

Deadite did his homework ;)

And I'm all for sharing opinions, I'm just more for actually changing things.


One of us needs to grow up to become Dictator of the World. I vote MedeDust.

[Silko]

I vote Skynet hacks the world instead of just our site.

[Link2Halo]

I vote that Jesus comes back so Satin has rule over all the Earth. Think about it all the dictators that have died are probably in his possesion now.

[Ex Zen Mute]

I vote that Jesus comes back so Satin has rule over all the Earth. Think about it all the dictators that have died are probably in his possesion now.

Evil satin.
http://static.creativecrash.com/tutorialimages/200/satin_v04.jpg

[GhostHammer]

Evil satin.
http://static.creativecrash.com/tutorialimages/200/satin_v04.jpg

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHA! I'm actually dying here! Ash <3