Sign in to follow this  
Che'_Moderator

Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**

Assault Weapons Ban  

68 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Eh, you have to have an enclosed environment with specific conditions for Zimbardo's findings to be relevant. You're stretching on this one Lucas to apply it to the broader world.

It may be a stretch. I was generally talking about the "authoritarian complex" that rises in people. It happens regardless the size of environment, and having a gun on one's hip, I'm willing to bet, would re-inforce these kinds of influences.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Australian laws aren't exactly recent. But they are reported to have little to no effect in general. But the problem there is that Australia already WAS pretty safe by any standard, and gun related deaths are currently around 1 per 100.000 inhabitants a year. The laws appear to have been a knee-jerk reaction to a few high profile shootings.

I'm not here to argue that specific gun laws (in the US or elsewhere) worked. I am arguing against the concept that the best thing possible is "no gun laws whatsoever".

Criminals know that they can bust down your door and not be shot.

Is this relevant to the number of people dying as a result of guns? How many people would prefer to die instead of being burgled? If you could vastly reduce the number of guns in circulation, putting a serious dent in the number of gun deaths, who cares about home invasion? I'd rather get burgled than shot any day of the week. Anyone with a similar opinion who adheres to statistics should come to the same conclusion. In any case, this Australian gun crime and "home invasion" thing appears to be copied straight from a well known biased and unreliable source http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s112652.htm

The total number of such crimes is so low that large percentage swings mean very little. Apparently Australia is a pretty civilized country.

UK - oulaws guns ... stabbings skyrocket ... bans many pocket knives ... stabbings with kitchen knives skyrocket ... make all kitchen knives rounded on the end ... beatings with clubs are now increasing ... ... ... Removing a weapon type from a society just makes those who are still willing to commit violent crimes choose different weapons.

All of which offer a pathetic killing efficiency compared to guns. In order to kill someone with a knife, you will need a considerable amount of physical strength and you also need to get very close indeed to your victim. You'll have to be an absolute Rambo of a man to go on any kind of mini-killing spree with a knife and most of your potential victims will have time to flee while the ones you go get have a decent chance of pulling through. The amount of DEATHS by knives will never be able to match the numbers that guns manage. Silly argument.

Baseball bats still kill several times more in this country every year compared to firearms.

Good grief do you copy-paste any old nonsense from the good ol' boys website? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 ---> 10K out of 15K total homicides are by gun. Even those arithmetically challenged should be able to work out pretty quickly that you're making a pants on fire ridiculous claim there.

The FBI database also shows a nice correlation that is easily overlooked. >80% of gun crimes per capita are commited in cities which have a population >100,000.

It makes sense that there is relatively more crime in big cities (not just in the US) but if I understand you correctly it's not actually meaning anything. The big cities hold a large amount of the total population so a much larger percentage of *anything* per capita will be happening there.

edit: stupid quote tags

Edited by JCviggen
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't you guys just accept, some people should just not have guns.

404 Problem not found

http://news.yahoo.com/teenager-reportedly-used-ar-15-kill-five-mexico-225610219.html

you guys are out of your mind with the attitude more weapons are needed.

"reports the father's name is Greg Griego, a local pastor"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mFtG8SSHto

Edited by fivex84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtQNnlQLlwk&feature=fvwp&NR=1

can't you guys just accept, some people should just not have guns.

I don't see how that video helps any of your argument? It wasn't her gun, she was being supervised by the owner of the gun. I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't think everyone should be allowed to have guns. And I also like the idea of having to pass a training class before being allowed to own one.

It sure is. And that video was awesome. Most of those were fully auto weapons that are extremely expensive to buy, operate, and I'm pretty sure not even legal in most states.

So what's the point of those military weapons being owned by civilians beyond enthusiasm? Some people have made the argument that a point beyond on the Second Amendment was to be able to fight your own government. Whether you believe that is possible, or a likely scenario isn't important. Do you believe that we should be able to maintain a well-armed militia as to defend yourself from a tyrannical government, and how do you propose to do that without weapons on a similar playing field?

And if you're scared of high power weapons ending up in the hands of a psycho, what about a small inexpensive and easy to find weapon held by someone covered in armor? You can buy plenty of armor, and you can armor-plate your own vehicle if you were really nuts. That makes you pretty lethal and dangerous. And a similar scenario was played out in real life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout (for the sake of argument, pretend they didn't use an AR-15 and imagine it was an AK brand)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you're scared of high power weapons ending up in the hands of a psycho, what about a small inexpensive and easy to find weapon held by someone covered in armor? You can buy plenty of armor, and you can armor-plate your own vehicle if you were really nuts. That makes you pretty lethal and dangerous. And a similar scenario was played out in real life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout (for the sake of argument, pretend they didn't use an AR-15 and imagine it was an AK brand)

Only problem with citing the Hollywood shootout is it demonstrated how ineffective these weapons can be on automatic for actually hitting what you want to hit with any kind of accuracy unless you're well trained with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this funny, considering the Illinois gun laws.

408303_479608582075834_1883341799_n.jpg

Edited by fivex84
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Found this funny, considering the Illinois gun laws.

408303_479608582075834_1883341799_n.jpg

You should probably outlaw guns. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine how much it would drop if people couldn't just walk around the city carrying guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this