Capitalists and gun laws [Archive]

higgs629

20th April 2007, 21:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:18 am
As you might have guessed the gun law debates have been raging on RevLeft and many other places since the V-Tech shooting. I'm just wondering what you capitalists think about gun laws?
Some thoughts

- I am a strong proponent of the second amendment, which accomplishes two things, it protects us from criminals, and from governmental over-reach.

- Criminals will be able to get guns whether or not they are banned, just as criminals are able to get marijuana in the US despite its banning. What we do not want for the absolutely armed criminals to have a field day over legally dis-armed victims.

- In Switzerland every male citizen is legally required to keep an automatic rifle in the house, and know how to use it. The crime rate in switzerland speaks to effectiveness of this policy, as does the propensy of switzerland to get invaded (ie, never.). One also notes that Switzerland is a very free nation generally. (ie, its government has not commited any sort of gross constitutional overreach in recent memory.

- In Canada where guns are generally outlawed the violent crime rate is higher than in the US. For instance, there are significantly more rapes in Canada, per capita.

- The right to life implies the right to take actions to defend one's life from criminals and from government. The right to bear arms therefore is a necessary result of the right to life. (This of course does not mean one has the right to use those arms on innocent victims, but rather only if one is not the intiator of physical force, and they may only be used against the intiator (assuming the degree of force is somewhat similar, or that someones life is threatened).)

wtfm8lol

20th April 2007, 21:47

Guns are almost completely illegal in this country and we have far fewer problems with them than America does. I always here this "if we ban guns it will make things worse" argument, but it just hasn't happened here.

correlation, and certainly not causation.

Demogorgon

20th April 2007, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:43 pm
- In Switzerland every male citizen is legally required to keep an assualt rifle in the house, and know how to use it. The crime rate in switzerland speaks to effectiveness of this policy, as does the propensy of switzerland to get invaded (ie, never.). One also notes that Switzerland is a very free nation generally. (ie, its government has not commited any sort of gross constitutional overreach in recent memory.

No they aren't. Only men who actually do military service, which is no more than a third of eligible men these days. The country is less armed than America.

Switzerland's low crime rate can be attributed to its prosperity, there is a definite trend that shows the better off a country is, the lower its crime rate. It is worth noting though, that while Switzerland's overall crime rate is low, its murder rate is surprisingly high, as is its gun crime.

As for it being a free country. Well parts of it are. Geneva and Zurich are probably as free as you will find in a capitalist country. Other parts of it are not very free at all though.

freakazoid

20th April 2007, 21:52

I had mentioned Switzerland in the other thread.

I think strong gun laws are needed where guns are becoming problematic in a given area. If there is a lot of gun crime it makes sense to restrict guns. An area where people are possessing guns without incident is not crying out for them to be banned.

The other point I think is that some people wish to be allowed to own guns and others wish to be able to live in a gun free environment for safety concerns. There is no reason why both shouldn't be allowed their way. Allow guns in some areas and not in tohers according to the tastes of the people living there.

You do realize that at that college it is a gun free zone right? A lot of good that law did!

Demogorgon

20th April 2007, 21:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:47 pm

Guns are almost completely illegal in this country and we have far fewer problems with them than America does. I always here this "if we ban guns it will make things worse" argument, but it just hasn't happened here.

correlation, and certainly not causation.
Hang on you tld us there was a strong link that said that if you ba gins it will cause more gun crime. I demonstrate the opposite and now it is not causation? Have you got any proof restricting guns will lead to more gun crime? All the evidence I have ever seen suggests the opposite.

Demogorgon

20th April 2007, 21:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:52 pm
You do realize that at that college it is a gun free zone right? A lot of good that law did!
It was right in the middle of a country with ridiculously lax gun laws, not to mention a far more dangerous culture of gun fetisisation. What difference is restricting guns on a college campus going to make under the circumstances?

wtfm8lol

20th April 2007, 22:26

I demonstrate the opposite and now it is not causation?

you are aware that there are more factors that go into crime than gun laws, yes? for example, south africa has strict gun laws, but a much higher homicide rate than the united states. few people are claiming that the presence of gun laws causes this. it's simply another factor.

What difference is restricting guns on a college campus going to make under the circumstances?

30+ people dead instead of two or three.

Demogorgon

20th April 2007, 22:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:26 pm
you are aware that there are more factors that go into crime than gun laws, yes? for example, south africa has strict gun laws, but a much higher homicide rate than the united states. few people are claiming that the presence of gun laws causes this. it's simply another factor.
South Africa has very lax gun laws. It is a bit of a free for all to be honest. The Government is talking about restricting them, but that hasn't happened yet. And please show me some evidence that stricter gun laws lead to higher crime.
30+ people dead instead of two or three.Sorry but this kind of logic is the reason America has all these problems with guns in the first place. Do you really think arming everyone to the teeth would somehow have stopped a masacre like this?

pusher robot

20th April 2007, 22:35

I am a capitalist, and I see no reason why citizens in good standing should not be permitted to own any weapons they wish to pay for, excluding NBC, but especially personal protection weapons. The right to defend oneself trumps almost all other concerns.

Somewhat off-topic - other countries should not be so free with their advice. There have been plenty of other mass-shooting incidents in supposedly "civilized" societies with far fewer guns. Cross-national comparisons generally show that the U.S. has a lower violent crime level with the exception of homicides, which are way above average. But these comparisons are usually worthless, because the causes of violent crime and homicide are usually very specific to a time and place. In particular, the U.S. homicide rate is high not so much because of gun availability, but a nasty and - due to racial sensitivity - politically difficult gang crime problem in some of our inner cities. That's why some of the places with the highest crime rates - big cities - have the strictest gun control. This leads to a strange situation where most people don't actually experience the United States' unusually high homicide rate, because those high rates are actually confined to relatively small and well-known areas.

Do you really think arming everyone to the teeth would somehow have stopped a masacre like this?

Do you think making a weapon illegal will stop somebody who has already decided to commit mass murder?

Demogorgon

20th April 2007, 22:41

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 09:35 pm
Do you think making a weapon illegal will stop somebody who has already decided to commit mass murder?
It will reduce the likelihood. It makes carrying out the mass killing that much harder.

What it certainly stops beyond doubt though is the hot blooded murders that tend to make up the majority of murders. It is a lot harder to shoot someone on the spur of the moment if you don't have a gun.

wtfm8lol

20th April 2007, 22:42

South Africa has very lax gun laws. It is a bit of a free for all to be honest. The Government is talking about restricting them, but that hasn't happened yet.

oh really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa)

Do you really think arming everyone to the teeth would somehow have stopped a masacre like this?

no, i think the students in the classrooms would ahve sat on their asses and let the shooter fire round after round at them. isn't that what you would have done?

What it certainly stops beyond doubt though is the hot blooded murders that tend to make up the majority of murders.

definitely. things like knives and blunt objects dont exist and people only commit domestic murders with weapons.

also, the vast majority of murders are committed by previous offenders and people with obvious tendencies towards violence. please, back up your ridiculous claims with statistics.

Demogorgon

20th April 2007, 22:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:42 pm
oh really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa)

Only an American could think that qualifies as tight gun laws. Those are lax by international standards.
no, i think the students in the classrooms would ahve sat on their asses and let the shooter fire round after round at them. isn't that what you would have done?And that would have looked like the ending scene in resevoir dogs with nobody knowing who had shot first. Very appealing that is.

Seeing as you ignored my last uestion, here's a new one. See these schools inAmerica where there is a gang problem and they are extremely strict about making sure there are no guns on the premises? Should they start leting guns back in again? After all by your logic that would make them safer, wouldn't it?

wtfm8lol

20th April 2007, 22:52

And that would have looked like the ending scene in resevoir dogs with nobody knowing who had shot first. Very appealing that is.

what a joke. do you honestly believe they had no idea who the offender was and wouldn't be able to tell based on the fact that he was shooting at EVERYONE and not just one individual person?

anyway, i dont think you could classify any of the people with guns in that room (aside from the cop) as law-abiding citizens.

Seeing as you ignored my last uestion, here's a new one. See these schools inAmerica where there is a gang problem and they are extremely strict about making sure there are no guns on the premises? Should they start leting guns back in again? After all by your logic that would make them safer, wouldn't it?

unless they have an armed security guard in all rooms and hallways and stairwells, yes i believe the students should be able to defend themselves.

pusher robot

20th April 2007, 22:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:48 pm
And that would have looked like the ending scene in resevoir dogs with nobody knowing who had shot first. Very appealing that is.

Please, I beg of you, on behalf of Americans and gun owners everywhere, do not base your opinions on fictional movies.

higgs629

20th April 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 20, 2007 01:53 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 20, 2007 01:53 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 08:47 pm

Guns are almost completely illegal in this country and we have far fewer problems with them than America does. I always here this "if we ban guns it will make things worse" argument, but it just hasn't happened here.

correlation, and certainly not causation.
Hang on you tld us there was a strong link that said that if you ba gins it will cause more gun crime. I demonstrate the opposite and now it is not causation? Have you got any proof restricting guns will lead to more gun crime? All the evidence I have ever seen suggests the opposite. [/b]
I question the assertion that there is less crime in your country. Which country is it. (If you wish to protect your privacy list two countries and I will check the crime statistics of both).

higgs629

20th April 2007, 23:45

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 20, 2007 02:41 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 20, 2007 02:41 pm)
pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 09:35 pm
Do you think making a weapon illegal will stop somebody who has already decided to commit mass murder?
It will reduce the likelihood. It makes carrying out the mass killing that much harder.

What it certainly stops beyond doubt though is the hot blooded murders that tend to make up the majority of murders. It is a lot harder to shoot someone on the spur of the moment if you don't have a gun.[/b]
It actually increases the likelihood as the mass killing is now being perpetrated against legally disarmed victims. Do you honestly believe that banning guns would prevent guns from reaching criminals? According to that logic, there is no marijuana in America. :rolleyes:

higgs629

20th April 2007, 23:57

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 20, 2007 01:50 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 20, 2007 01:50 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 08:43 pm
- In Switzerland every male citizen is legally required to keep an assualt rifle in the house, and know how to use it. The crime rate in switzerland speaks to effectiveness of this policy, as does the propensy of switzerland to get invaded (ie, never.). One also notes that Switzerland is a very free nation generally. (ie, its government has not commited any sort of gross constitutional overreach in recent memory.

No they aren't. Only men who actually do military service, which is no more than a third of eligible men these days. The country is less armed than America.
[/b]
Yes they are.

"However, the Swiss Militia continues to consist of the entire adult male population, with voluntary participation by women and children, required to keep an automatic rifle and ammunition at home and to periodically engage in combat and marksmanship training." (wikipedia, "militia", switzerland, emphasis, mine)

Switzerland's low crime rate can be attributed to its prosperity, there is a definite trend that shows the better off a country is, the lower its crime rate. It is worth noting though, that while Switzerland's overall crime rate is low, its murder rate is surprisingly high, as is its gun crime.

Well lets look at countries of similar prosperity. Let's take Canada for example. There are 14 times as many rapes per capita in Canada as in Switzerland!

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 00:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:52 pm
unless they have an armed security guard in all rooms and hallways and stairwells, yes i believe the students should be able to defend themselves.
Right so the gang heavy schools would be safer if the gang members were allowed to take their guns in unimpeded, I think I can judge the quality of the mind I am dealing with here.

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 00:06

Originally posted by higgs629+April 20, 2007 10:45 pm--> (higgs629 @ April 20, 2007 10:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:41 pm

pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 09:35 pm
Do you think making a weapon illegal will stop somebody who has already decided to commit mass murder?
It will reduce the likelihood. It makes carrying out the mass killing that much harder.

What it certainly stops beyond doubt though is the hot blooded murders that tend to make up the majority of murders. It is a lot harder to shoot someone on the spur of the moment if you don't have a gun.
It actually increases the likelihood as the mass killing is now being perpetrated against legally disarmed victims. Do you honestly believe that banning guns would prevent guns from reaching criminals? According to that logic, there is no marijuana in America. :rolleyes: [/b]
I honestly believe there are a lot less armed criminals here than in America. I also honestly believe there has only ever been one gun massacre in this country and that was before guns were banned.

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 00:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:57 pm
Yes they are.

"However, the Swiss Militia continues to consist of the entire adult male population, with voluntary participation by women and children, required to keep an automatic rifle and ammunition at home and to periodically engage in combat and marksmanship training." (wikipedia, "militia", switzerland, emphasis, mine)

In theory, in practice most people are exempted. There are so many exemptions these days that if you want out of it, you can get out of it. Only abut a third of the eligible population end up doing it.
Well lets look at countries of similar prosperity. Let's take Canada for example. There are 14 times as many rapes per capita in Canada as in Switzerland!Well Canada is less prosperous than Switzerland and has a larger wealth gap.

Also in terms of guns. In many ways Canada has laxer gun laws. In Switzerland while you can do what you please with the weapons, the ammunition is more restricted. You are not allowed to carry a loaded gun around outside your house or proper areas for using it. In Canada you are allowed to carry weapons.

Also Rape is a funny one to use, given it isn't the women who are getting armed in Swizerland is it? And I don't think there is a particularly high evel of women going out and buying guns in witzerland compared to other countries.

Also you are aware that a Swiss army rifle isn't much use if your house is broken into? By law the guns and ammunition have to be kept under lock and key with the ammunition is sealed containers. There simply isn't time to fiddle around with all that if yur ouse is broken into. Also if it turns out to be a false alarm, good luck explaining why the containers seel is broken. That is a powerful disincentive to using it.

wtfm8lol

21st April 2007, 00:17

Right so the gang heavy schools would be safer if the gang members were allowed to take their guns in unimpeded, I think I can judge the quality of the mind I am dealing with here.

how many gang members do you think really want a shootout where they will certainly die? if any one of them pulled out a gun and fired it at someone else, he would immediately be killed. what exactly do you propose? that we take away the student's right to defend themselves so when a crazed student starts shooting people they can't do anything but wait for him to run out of ammo?

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 00:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:17 pm

Right so the gang heavy schools would be safer if the gang members were allowed to take their guns in unimpeded, I think I can judge the quality of the mind I am dealing with here.

how many gang members do you think really want a shootout where they will certainly die? if any one of them pulled out a gun and fired it at someone else, he would immediately be killed. what exactly do you propose? that we take away the student's right to defend themselves so when a crazed student starts shooting people they can't do anything but wait for him to run out of ammo?
Righto, tell you what. I said at the start that everyone should get to choose what level of societal armament they wish to live in. So how about you go and live amongst armed gang members and I will continue living in my disarmed society and we will see who gets shot first, eh?

I used to think the American obsession with guns was funny, but after the tragedy this week I am not laughing any more. It looks like a collective psychosis that most of the society is suffering from that if they continue to let God knows who get their hands on God knows what weapons, they will somehow be safer.

wtfm8lol

21st April 2007, 00:24

Righto, tell you what. I said at the start that everyone should get to choose what level of societal armament they wish to live in. So how about you go and live amongst armed gang members and I will continue living in my disarmed society and we will see who gets shot first, eh?

i'd rather not live amongst gang members of any sort, but if i had the choice of having an adequate weapon to defend myself against them or not, i would certainly pick to have it. after all, they're not going to give a shit if the gun is legal or not. gang members are dangerous no matter what the laws are because they don't care if they're following the law or not.

if they continue to let God knows who get their hands on God knows what weapons, they will somehow be safer.

the people who are going to cause trouble with the firearms will get the firearms regardless of the law. banning guns as you seem to be suggesting would only affect people who care about the law. you're giving criminals an advantage over people who follow the law, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 00:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:24 pm
the people who are going to cause trouble with the firearms will get the firearms regardless of the law. banning guns as you seem to be suggesting would only affect people who care about the law. you're giving criminals an advantage over people who follow the law, which is absolutely ridiculous.
No you aren't. You are making it much harder for them to aquire the guns for a start. Here some riminls do get ahold of illicit guns. But most of the time they are old or modified replicas and don't work anyway, and with luck they get caught before somebody gets shot.

Are you really saying criminals here have it easier with guns than in America where it is just a question of walking into a gun shop?

This notion that somehow by arming everyone else as well you will be safer is ridiculous. If that were the case people would get shot here all the time, yet it simply doesn't happen. Shootings are incredibly rare.

Some Americans are so provincial that they don't seem to realise that the rest of the world has often had the debates they are having and have moved on. I think if they were to travel around Europe a bit, they would be quite surprised at what they see. All the time I here Americans tell me this policy or that policy would be disastrous, whether it be banning guns or proportional voting, and I just have to roll my eyes because as far as Europe is concerned the debate is often over.

wtfm8lol

21st April 2007, 00:44

No you aren't. You are making it much harder for them to aquire the guns for a start. Here some riminls do get ahold of illicit guns. But most of the time they are old or modified replicas and don't work anyway, and with luck they get caught before somebody gets shot.

honestly, do you think that the majority of criminals buy their weapons legally? do you really think they want someone to have a record of their transaction? no! they buy it from an underground supplier who WILL get the guns if they are demanded just like suppliers of everything else that is illegal do all of the time.

Are you really saying criminals here have it easier with guns than in America where it is just a question of walking into a gun shop?

is it easier to acquire? no, its probably just as difficult for a criminal to obtain one. however the advantage of having a gun among an unarmed population far outweighs any difficulty in obtaining one.

This notion that somehow by arming everyone else as well you will be safer is ridiculous. If that were the case people would get shot here all the time, yet it simply doesn't happen. Shootings are incredibly rare.

Some Americans are so provincial that they don't seem to realise that the rest of the world has often had the debates they are having and have moved on. I think if they were to travel around Europe a bit, they would be quite surprised at what they see. All the time I here Americans tell me this policy or that policy would be disastrous, whether it be banning guns or proportional voting, and I just have to roll my eyes because as far as Europe is concerned the debate is often over.

once again, you're ignoring that gun laws are NOT the only factor that goes into crime. europe had lower homicide rates than the united states long before they enacted strict gun laws.

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 01:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:44 pm
once again, you're ignoring that gun laws are NOT the only factor that goes into crime. europe had lower homicide rates than the united states long before they enacted strict gun laws.
I'll ignore the rest of your post, because this bit is uncharactristically intelligent and it would be a shame to spoil it.

Well yes point taken. I guess you can get caught up too much in one part of the argument and miss the other factors. Availability of guns in America is not the only problem, nor, for that matter, is it the primary one. I said before, possibly in this thread. That availability of guns is not nearly as big a problem as the culture that fetishises them. I guess that is a major reason why Switzerland has less problems with its guns (despite tougher laws than some people here think) they're culture doesn't make such a big deal of them.

At the ame time though. It seems clear to me that allowing dangerous weapons to be sold almost without restriction is causing a serious problem, particularly in a culture like America where the gun obsession is rendering it particularly dangerous.

But I will concede the point, if you were to apply American gun laws to Scandinavia, you wouldn't have half the trouble you have with them in America.

wtfm8lol

21st April 2007, 01:17

I guess that is a major reason why Switzerland has less problems with its guns (despite tougher laws than some people here think) they're culture doesn't make such a big deal of them.

switzerland has less of a problem with guns because switzerland has less of a problem with crime. knives and blunt objects and other means of killing people are readily available in switzerland, but they're still not used for that purpose.

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 01:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:17 am

I guess that is a major reason why Switzerland has less problems with its guns (despite tougher laws than some people here think) they're culture doesn't make such a big deal of them.

switzerland has less of a problem with guns because switzerland has less of a problem with crime. knives and blunt objects and other means of killing people are readily available in switzerland, but they're still not used for that purpose.
There is that. But do you really think American obsession wth firearms is harmless?

wtfm8lol

21st April 2007, 01:42

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 20, 2007 07:29 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 20, 2007 07:29 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 12:17 am

I guess that is a major reason why Switzerland has less problems with its guns (despite tougher laws than some people here think) they're culture doesn't make such a big deal of them.

switzerland has less of a problem with guns because switzerland has less of a problem with crime. knives and blunt objects and other means of killing people are readily available in switzerland, but they're still not used for that purpose.
There is that. But do you really think American obsession wth firearms is harmless? [/b]
i think the real problem is the american obsession with violence, which isn't entirely an american obsession so much as it is an american inner city obsession. as long as this continues there will be a problem regardless of gun laws.

higgs629

21st April 2007, 01:51

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 20, 2007 04:14 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 20, 2007 04:14 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 10:57 pm
Yes they are.

"However, the Swiss Militia continues to consist of the entire adult male population, with voluntary participation by women and children, required to keep an automatic rifle and ammunition at home and to periodically engage in combat and marksmanship training." (wikipedia, "militia", switzerland, emphasis, mine)

In theory, in practice most people are exempted. There are so many exemptions these days that if you want out of it, you can get out of it. Only abut a third of the eligible population end up doing it.

[/b]
Prove it. I have seen no evidence, beyond your word which suggests that to be the case. I have also seen no evidence to support your other claims. Especially concerning the gun laws of Canada. Regarding your claims about Switzerlanders not being able to use their guns ammunition, and that this must remain sealed, is untrue. Any ammunition which they acquire may be used in ways that they see fit. It is only a specified amount of sealed emergency ammunition, used in militia service that is inspected. They may carry their firearms outdoors if they like if they get a permit, (which are issued very liberally). Hunters do not even require a permit.

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 02:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:51 am
Prove it. I have seen no evidence, beyond your word which suggests that to be the case. I have also seen no evidence to support your other claims. Especially concerning the gun laws of Canada. Regarding your claims about Switzerlanders not being able to use their guns ammunition, and that this must remain sealed, is untrue. Any ammunition which they acquire may be used in ways that they see fit. It is only a specified amount of sealed emergency ammunition, used in militia service that is inspected. They may carry their firearms outdoors if they like if they get a permit, (which are issued very liberally). Hunters do not even require a permit.
Having just checked, the facts I cited are in the very Wikipedia article you told me to read :lol:

Anyway exemptions are indeed very easy to come by and at any rate the size of the Swiss militia is being drastically reduced due to growing unpopularity. They have recently cut it again to 220,000 and that includes 80,000 on inactive reserve. A fraction of the eligible population. Let me put it another way. Only about 3% of people in Switzerland are in the militia these days.

And as for the guns, the ammunition they are issued with must remain sealed and ammunition used in places like shooting practice can not leave the building. Similarly military rifles are not to be used for your own purposes.

There are other guns available yes (though you can't just wander abut with loaded guns as in America), more significantly though, these guns aren't particularly wide spread is use. Which kind of makes your asssertion that Switzerland is heavily armed (and that that can be a reason for low crime) baseless.

Kwisatz Haderach

21st April 2007, 02:35

I definitely support an armed population in all capitalist societies - it makes revolution so much easier.

As for gun ownership under socialism and communism, I believe it should be up to each community to decide on their own gun laws.

But the argument that gun ownership reduces crime is absurd. It is essentially based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (criminals are thought to be less likely to shoot people if the respective people can shoot back). But MAD only works if both sides are equally likely to use deadly force, which is not the case here. Do you believe it is a simple matter for someone who has never shot a person before to pull out their gun and engage in armed combat with an angry attacker? Ridiculous! For most people, having a gun won't help them defend themselves because they would be too scared (and/or untrained) to use the gun properly.

And the argument that criminals can just as easily acquire guns whether they are legal or not is also bullshit. Only a remarkably corrupt and incompetent government could fail to enforce its own laws to such a degree that when object X is banned, there is just as much of it on the market as before it was banned. Yes, banning guns wouldn't eliminate the possession of guns, but it would greatly reduce it.

That is why I would probably vote for significant restrictions on gun possession in a socialist society. But like I said before, as long as capitalism still reigns, guns are great. ;)

anti_fa01

21st April 2007, 02:38

Drugs are banned yet there is a large abundance on the streets......There is this thing you may have heard of it.....its called the "Black Market"

Kwisatz Haderach

21st April 2007, 02:44

Yes, but:

1. Drugs are addictive. Guns are not. Banning an addictive substance is usually ineffective because people will go to any lengths to obtain it.

2. Whatever "abundance" of drugs there may be on the street, it is still less than the quantity of drugs that would be available if drugs were legal. Do I really have to teach you basic economics to prove this to you? The black market can never grow as big as a legal market would be.

wtfm8lol

21st April 2007, 02:48

1. Drugs are addictive. Guns are not. Banning an addictive substance is usually ineffective because people will go to any lengths to obtain it.

what makes you think a criminal, who is often the same person as the drug addict, will stop any shorter in his attempt to gain possession of a weapon?

2. Whatever "abundance" of drugs there may be on the street, it is still less than the quantity of drugs that would be available if drugs were legal. Do I really have to teach you basic economics to prove this to you?

thanks for helping the other side? if drugs were legal, law abiding people may use them. since they are not, law abiding people do not use them. drug addicts would and do use them either way. similarly, if guns are legal, law abiding people may keep them for their protection. if they are illegal, most law abiding people will not keep them for their protection. criminals will have them either way.

RNK

21st April 2007, 03:06

- In Canada where guns are generally outlawed the violent crime rate is higher than in the US. For instance, there are significantly more rapes in Canada, per capita.

LMAO

Violent crime is higher, but murder rate is way, way lower. Canada's murder rate is 1/3rd the US. Infact, more people were killed in NYC in 2003 than in the entire country of Canada (and Canada has over 3 times the population).

So what's worse; double violent crime, or triple the murder rate?

Jazzratt

21st April 2007, 12:12

Everyone should be provided with a gun. Except for capitalists, they can line up against the wall in an orderly fashion.

seraphim

21st April 2007, 13:11

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 20, 2007 08:39 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 20, 2007 08:39 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 08:17 pm

I think strong gun laws are needed where guns are becoming problematic in a given area. If there is a lot of gun crime it makes sense to restrict guns.

i disagree. if you restrict guns, do you think criminals will kindly return them or stop seeking them? no, you will simply be taking away the most effective way for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the criminals.

The other point I think is that some people wish to be allowed to own guns and others wish to be able to live in a gun free environment for safety concerns. There is no reason why both shouldn't be allowed their way. Allow guns in some areas and not in tohers according to the tastes of the people living there.

i don't have a problem with people self-governing, but they will find that criminals will become attracted to the areas with no guns and will keep away from the areas with guns out of concern for their own safety.
Guns are almost completely illegal in this country and we have far fewer problems with them than America does. I always here this "if we ban guns it will make things worse" argument, but it just hasn't happened here. [/b]
No but it hasn't made them better either gun crime is on the rise in the UK in spite of the laws banning fire arms. The only thing the Dunblane laws have done is made it impossible for pistol shooting to be practised as a sport in this country. The kind of people who no longer have guns are those who would never use them in a criminal fasion anyway.

colonelguppy

21st April 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:47 pm

Guns are almost completely illegal in this country and we have far fewer problems with them than America does. I always here this "if we ban guns it will make things worse" argument, but it just hasn't happened here.

correlation, and certainly not causation.
yeah just look at switzerland.

freakazoid

22nd April 2007, 08:44

And please show me some evidence that stricter gun laws lead to higher crime.

I have in the other thread and I will post it again,

Also try comparing D.C., guns are super evil, to Virginia, guns are good. D.C., high crime rate, Virginia, low crime rate.

1999 Statistics (Per 1,000 residents):

DC - 81
Prince George's County MD - 53
Alexandria City VA - 47
Arlington City VA - 33
Montgomery County MD - 31
Prince William Country VA - 29
Loudoun County VA - 24
Fairfax County VA - 24

This was pasted from, http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../0800guncon.htm
"The issue of continued high crime in the aforementioned areas is especially disconcerting when one compares the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is at a high rate and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., just across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent and gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is many multiples higher. Some try to turn this argument around in an attempt to blame the crime problems in Washington, D.C. on weak gun laws in Virginia, but the reality is that Virginia with all of its guns and few laws does not have the crime problem that plagues Washington, D.C. and its gun bans. If guns are the problem, then why is it that those areas with the most guns have the lowest crime levels? "

Infact, more people were killed in NYC in 2003 in 2003 than in the entire country of Canada (and Canada has over 3 times the population).

ROFL, NYC also has some really strict gun laws, http://www.nysrpa.org/nygunlaws.htm The part on NYC is at the bottom and it says,

For City of New York: Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York, § 17-01. Assault Weapons Designated. (a) Pursuant to Subparagraph 7 of Paragraph a of Subdivision 16 of § 10-301 of the New York City Administrative Code, the following makes and models of weapons are determined to be particularly suitable for military and not sporting purposes and are determined to be within the statutory definition of assault weapon as set forth in § 10‑301(16) of the New York City Administrative Code: (1) Models Calico M-900 carbine, Calico M-100 carbine manufactured by American Industries, (2) Models Lightning 25-22, AP-74 manufactured by AMT, (3) Model AR-180 manufactured by Armalite, (4) Model .223 SAC manufactured by Austrian Automatic Arms, (5) Models M-1-SA, 1927-A1-SA manufactured by Auto Ordinance, (6) Model Light 50 82-AL manufactured by Barrett Firearms, (7) Models AR70, BM 59 manufactured by Beretta, (8) Model Assault Rifle manufactured by Bushmaster Firearms, (9) Model SR-88 manufactured by Charter Firearms Industries, (10) Models AR-15 manufactured by Colt, (11) Models MAX-1, MAX-2, K1A1, K2, USAS-12 shotgun manufactured by Daewoo Industries, (12) Models C90, C100, C450 manufactured by DMAX Industries, (13) Model MK-IV carbine manufactured by ENCOM, (14) Models FN-FAL, FN-LAR, FN-FNC manufactured by Fabrique Nationale, (15) Model MAS 223 manufactured by FAMAS, (16) Models AT-9 carbine, AT-22 carbine manufactured by Feather Industries, (17) Models XC-450 AUTO OCARBINE, XC-220, XC-900 manufactured by Federal Engineering Corporation, (18) Models SPAS-12, LAW-12 pump auto shotguns manufactured by Franchi, (19) Model GC HIGH TECH carbine manufactured by Goncz Company, (20) Models HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, PSG-1, G3-SA manufactured by Heckler & Koch, (21) Models UZI-carbine, MINI-UZI carbine, GALIL-ARM, GALIL-AR, GALIL-SAR, GALIL-SNIPER manufactured by Israeli Military Industries, (22) Model PM-30 PARATROOPER manufactured by Iver Johnson, (23) Models AP-74, AP-84, AP-80, AP-85, SPECTRE AUTO carbine manufactured by Mitchell Arms, (24) Models of the Kalashnikov-type semiautomatic, including those manufactured by Norinco (China) and Hungarian Arms, (25) Models NDM-86 SNIPER RIFLE manufactured by Norinco, (26) Model M-14S manufactured by Polytech Industries, (27) Model MINI-14/5F manufactured by Ruger, (28) Models 57-AMT, PE-57, SG550SP, SG551SP manufactured by SIGArms, (29) Model L1A1A manufactured by Small Arms Factory, Australia, (30) Models BM-59, SAR-48, SAR-58, SAR-3, M-1A manufactured by Springfield Armory, (31) Model MK-6 manufactured by Sterling, (32) Model AUG-SA manufactured by Steyer Daimler-Pusch, (33) Models M-76-SA, M-78-SA manufactured by Valmet Corporation, and (34) Model NIGHTHAWK manufactured by Weaver Arms Corporation. Please look in the file library for more information on NYC gun laws.

Here is another site that talks about the laws, concealed carry there, http://www.packing.org/state/new_york_city/

There is that. But do you really think American obsession wth firearms is harmless?

It seems that most of the obsession is anti-gun, not pro-gun as you would like to believe.

Right so the gang heavy schools would be safer if the gang members were allowed to take their guns in unimpeded,

What is to stop them now? Some sign that says gun free zone? LOL

I said at the start that everyone should get to choose what level of societal armament they wish to live in. So how about you go and live amongst armed gang members and I will continue living in my disarmed society and we will see who gets shot first, eh?

Um... the disarmed one seeing as they are disarmed. A person who doesn't care about hurting others has two choices, attack someone who can kill him or attack someone who is defenseless, hmmm.... choices.

And just for fun an interesting article, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/clarke1.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112007/posto...r__lott_jr_.htm (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112007/postopinion/postopbooks/the_all_american_gun_postopbooks_john_r__lott_jr_. htm)

Chicano Shamrock

22nd April 2007, 12:43

Right so the gang heavy schools would be safer if the gang members were allowed to take their guns in unimpeded, I think I can judge the quality of the mind I am dealing with here.
I have already made my points in the other thread but I would just like to comment on this one. I went to public high school in the Los Angeles school system. There were many gang members in the school but non gang members were always the majority. I was friends with some gangbangers and I saw many times that some of them would bring pistols to school. Now we were under 18 so they obviously got these guns illegally. Hell you have to be 21 to buy a pistol and we were only about 14. Aside from what was obvious they told me that they had bought them from somebody in their neighborhood.

So anyways there were small "race wars" going on at school. People were getting beat up and there were masses of blacks and asians against mexicans and other latinos. Once they had to bring in a squad of police and they even brought in a helicopter to swoop above and scope out the situation.

The point is that the gangsters at school had guns. They got them illegally. Gun restriction laws didn't stop them.... shit age restriction laws didn't stop them. We were almost half the legal age. Now all us non-gangsters would be fucked if they decided to do anything. Now I am not suggesting arming high school students. But it is just an example of having a gun free zone with a disarmed public in this area. Anybody that wants to be a criminal is going to have a weapon if it is legal or not. Gun restriction laws are not going to stop gangsters from packing heat. They will stop the majority of people from being able to defend from criminals whether they are gangsters or gangsters with a badge.

freakazoid

22nd April 2007, 16:55

The point isn't to arm everyone. The point is to allow people to arm themselves. Not everyone is going to arm themselves but the ones that do are going to know how to uses them.

wtfm8lol

22nd April 2007, 23:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:55 am
The point isn't to arm everyone. The point is to allow people to arm themselves. Not everyone is going to arm themselves but the ones that do are going to know how to uses them.
exactly, and criminals can't tell the difference between an armed and trained person and an unarmed person.

higgs629

23rd April 2007, 00:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:06 pm

- In Canada where guns are generally outlawed the violent crime rate is higher than in the US. For instance, there are significantly more rapes in Canada, per capita.

LMAO

Violent crime is higher, but murder rate is way, way lower. Canada's murder rate is 1/3rd the US. Infact, more people were killed in NYC in 2003 than in the entire country of Canada (and Canada has over 3 times the population).

So what's worse; double violent crime, or triple the murder rate?
Alright lets analyze it.

The chance of getting murdered in Canada is 00.0014%, in the US the chance of getting murdered is 00.0042%. So you are 00.0028% more likely to get murdered in the United States.

In Canada your chance of getting raped is 00.07%, in the US it is 00.03%, a 0.04% difference, if you are a girl it is about double in each and thus the difference is also double, (.14 - .06 = .08). So basically there is a 0.08% greater chance in getting raped in canada if you are a woman.

So which is the better deal. Would you rather have a 4 in one hundred thousand chance of getting murdered, or a 7 in ten thousand chance of getting raped?

Personally I would gladly trade a 7 in ten thousand chance of getting raped down to a 4 in one hundred thousand chance of getting murdered, and still have the second amendment.

23rd April 2007, 02:38

How can anyone support "gun control"? All it does is disarm the people that follow the law! Do people that commit crimes follow laws?

freakazoid

25th April 2007, 08:21

Interesting read about the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot, http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004165

I like the opening paragraphs :D,

WEST POINT, Ky.--A casualty list from the Knob Creek Gun Range, which hosted one of the country's largest machine-gun shoots this past weekend, would look something like this: Two dozen old appliances. A dozen junked cars. Tens of thousands of rounds of spent ammunition. Zero people.

Aim: Having a blast.

These statistics will be disturbing to the myopic antigun crowd, which fails to recognize the millions of rounds fired safely every year, including the tens of thousands fired at this twice-yearly event that draws everyday folks from as far away as California and Florida.

Here is another great story, Former Miss America foils intruders
She shoots out tire with her .38 pistol http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...04200375/-1/all (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/NEWS02/704200375/-1/all)

Also don't forget about what happened at the Texas University in 1966. If it wasn't for the armed civilians he would of have killed many more people,

Whitman killed his wife the night before his Spree, using a hunting knife. That morning, he used the knife to kill his mother.

He went to the tower wearing khakis; he had a footlocker on a dolly and appeared to be some sort of University janitorial-type employee. He had an M-1 Carbine, a Remington 6mm with a K4, a S&W (IIRC) .357, and sardines, crackers, and at least one gallon of water, a shotgun-pistol and his hunting knife.

He went up to the Observation Deck office, and killed the woman there with the single-shot, sawn-off shotgun. (He had openly used a neighbor's hacksaw and vise, a couple of days before the Spree.) As he was preparing to block the access door into the office, a family showed up. He killed two and wounded at least one, with the shotgun-pistol. I think it was the father and one child who escaped.

He then went out on the south parapet and opened fire with his M-1 Carbine, during the last few minutes of class-change time. The delay from his dealing with the family undoubtedly saved many lives, since most students had already left the South Mall area. It was at that time he killed Patrolman Billy Speed, who was on foot approaching the Mall.

Over the next hour, civilian ground fire was the only useful effort. The Austin PD had only those old .351 self-loaders. Travis County deputies went home and got deer rifles. Afterwards, the then-head of the DPS Homer Garrison told my father that without the ground-fire from citizens, Whitman could have stayed up there until he ran out of food and water. Ground fire forced him to fire through drain holes in the parapet wall, rather than over it. Ground fire then began searching the drain holes.

A National Guard guy entered the tower from the West Mall. A policeman took the NG's M-1 Carbine away from him. They were then joined by Officer Martinez, who had gotten to the tower through a steam tunnel.

Then, the Assistant Manager of the University CoOp arrived. He was a WW II Vet, and had experience in street/city battle in Europe. He organized and led the operation thereafter.

They went to the OD Office. They carefully checked the only access to the deck, on the south side. The two patrolmen moved east and then north along the east side of the tower. The Vet moved west and then north. The west side is not a clear path (Disremember the visual obstacles); he heard some sound and fired a shot in an effort to get a ricochet into the then-unknown Bad Guy.

That shot forced Whitman to the northwest corner of the observation deck. The patrolmen came around the northeast corner, saw Whitman, and ordered him to freeze. He didn't. They emptied a pistol and a shotgun at/into him, killing him.

That's the bare bones of it.

flalawyer2b

7th May 2007, 01:48

I've heard the argument made that other countries that have more restrictive gun laws have less violent crime than the United States. I have also heard an explanation why: The United States has more Blacks. Blacks commit a disproportionately large amount of crime in the U.S. when compared to their percentage of the population.

I'd be interested in seeing a comparison, for countries that have more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. and also have less crime, of the amount Blacks make up of their populace compared to the U.S.

I think someone said Switzerland and Canada fit those characteristics. Assuming that's correct, let's take a look:

According to Wikipedia: Demographics of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnicity), Blacks make up only 2.5% of its population.

According to Wikipedia Demographics of Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland#Population), Switzerland had about 50,000 Africans living there in 2000 out of a total population of 7.2 million = < 1% Blacks.

In the United States, on the other hand, Blacks make up about 12% of the population. Wikipedia Demographics of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Demographics)

Needless to say South Africa, which I think someone else pointed to as an example of a country with very lax gun laws and a way out-of-control crime rate (significantly higher than the U.S.), has a very high Black population (also significantly higher than the U.S.)

This is obviously too small a sample to mean anything and there are obviously even other variables one could point to that are different from country to country. However, they do seem to support the explanation that those who point to the percentage of Blacks claim is the reason for the disparity in violent/gun crime.

7th May 2007, 07:10

Uh, correlation isn't the same as causation. And your entire argument along race lines is just fucking stupid. Go away.

RNK

7th May 2007, 07:17

Crime rates follow poverty statistics like a hooker follows a hundred dollar bill.

If you're bit on correlation, relate that fact -- and while you're at it, relate to the fact that African-Americans are predominantly poor, particularly in relation to the white population.

And stop being an ignorant fuck.

7th May 2007, 08:03

Uh, he wasn't basing that on poverty; he was basing it on race. He'll be banned soon anyways.

RNK

7th May 2007, 10:10

I know. And I'm telling him that crime is more accurately identified in relation to poverty than by race.

ZX3

7th May 2007, 12:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:17 am

If you're bit on correlation, relate that fact -- and while you're at it, relate to the fact that African-Americans are predominantly poor, particularly in relation to the white population.

Which is myth-Most African-Americans are middle class.

flalawyer2b

7th May 2007, 14:32

Zampano: I don't understand why I would be banned. I am interested in civil debate and discussion and conduct myself accordingly.

RNK: Insults (like calling someone an "ignorant fuck") are ad hominem attacks which are very unbecoming. It sounds like you are saying that crime is *not* caused by lax gun laws. Is that correct?

Jazzratt

7th May 2007, 15:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:32 pm
RNK: Insults (like calling someone an "ignorant fuck") are ad hominem attacks which are very unbecoming.
No. No, no, no, no NO! http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/Jazzratt/normal_no.jpg
An ad hominem attack is a dismissal of an argument based on the arguer (it literally means argument from the man.) simply calling someone by a moniker they thoroughly deserve does not constitute an ad hominem, gimboid.

flalawyer2b

7th May 2007, 17:08

Jazzratt Posted on Today at 02:18 pm
An ad hominem attack is a dismissal of an argument based on the arguer (it literally means argument from the man.) simply calling someone by a moniker they thoroughly deserve does not constitute an ad hominem, gimboid.

First, I believe you are mistaken on the literal translation of "ad hominem." Literally translated it means, "to the man". If I am mistaken please tell me which word means "argument".

Secondly, "ad hominem" is an adjective which as we know must be used with a noun. To say something is "an ad hominem" is an incorrect usage of an adjective as a noun, probably caused by a misunderstanding of its translation (q.v. above).

Thirdly, whether you attempt to dismiss someone's argument by doing so or simply do so because you are frustated or just because you think someone deserves to be called "stupid", doing so is indeed an ad hominem attack.

Fourthly, how do you know where I shop? ;-)

Fightin Da Man

7th May 2007, 17:33

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 20, 2007 09:35 pm
I definitely support an armed population in all capitalist societies - it makes revolution so much easier.

As for gun ownership under socialism and communism, I believe it should be up to each community to decide on their own gun laws.

But the argument that gun ownership reduces crime is absurd. It is essentially based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (criminals are thought to be less likely to shoot people if the respective people can shoot back). But MAD only works if both sides are equally likely to use deadly force, which is not the case here. Do you believe it is a simple matter for someone who has never shot a person before to pull out their gun and engage in armed combat with an angry attacker? Ridiculous! For most people, having a gun won't help them defend themselves because they would be too scared (and/or untrained) to use the gun properly.

And the argument that criminals can just as easily acquire guns whether they are legal or not is also bullshit. Only a remarkably corrupt and incompetent government could fail to enforce its own laws to such a degree that when object X is banned, there is just as much of it on the market as before it was banned. Yes, banning guns wouldn't eliminate the possession of guns, but it would greatly reduce it.

That is why I would probably vote for significant restrictions on gun possession in a socialist society. But like I said before, as long as capitalism still reigns, guns are great. ;)
Gun deterrence is absolutely NOT based on MAD. It's based on an observation of criminal patterns of behavior. Most criminals do not just go up to the first person they see and mug him. They look for people who are alone, distracted, small, weak, old, etc... They take their time and pick their targets so that they find one who is unlikely to want to or be able to defend him or herself. If it's a well known fact that most people in a certain city carry concealed weapons, that is a huge deterring factor for criminals because you don't know who is going to pull a gun on you. On the other hand, in a place like New York City or Washington DC where gun laws are draconian criminals can rest assured that they won't have a gun drawn on them unless they are unlucky enough to mug an off-duty cop.

Demogorgon

7th May 2007, 17:42

I wasn't going to respond to the racist until he was banned, because I didn't want to give im the satisfaction of a response. But now he is gone, I would like to make a point. Look at his profile. He says he is a "libertarian anarcho capitalist" and the first thing he does is make racist posts. That kind of says something, doesn't it?

freakazoid

7th May 2007, 19:20

Granny shoots intruder, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1302793
Video on the right side of the screen. :D

Jazzratt

7th May 2007, 19:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:08 pm

Jazzratt Posted on Today at 02:18 pm
An ad hominem attack is a dismissal of an argument based on the arguer (it literally means argument from the man.) simply calling someone by a moniker they thoroughly deserve does not constitute an ad hominem, gimboid.

First, I believe you are mistaken on the literal translation of "ad hominem." Literally translated it means, "to the man". If I am mistaken please tell me which word means "argument".

Secondly, "ad hominem" is an adjective which as we know must be used with a noun. To say something is "an ad hominem" is an incorrect usage of an adjective as a noun, probably caused by a misunderstanding of its translation (q.v. above).
Semantics for fuck's sake, I can't believe you'd devote this much time to looking like a pseudo-intellectual.

Thirdly, whether you attempt to dismiss someone's argument by doing so or simply do so because you are frustated or just because you think someone deserves to be called "stupid", doing so is indeed an ad hominem attack.
Fallacies are quite specific things, and the set up of an ad-hominem attack does not take into account whether or not your fragile ego is dented.

It goes like this:
Person X makes claim Y.
Person X is a twat
Therefore Y is false.

NOT like this:
Person X makes claim Y
Y is false because Z
and Person X is a twat.

Fourthly, how do you know where I shop? ;-)
I follow you.