Gun Control

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Well, there are other studies. Lots of them.

But I'm pretty sure that the ones that are easy to find aren't going to say what you want them to say.

It's sort of the same way you can find like 15 or 20 total published studies that say global warming doesn't exist, but you'll have to search through something like 15,000 ones that say it does before you can find them.

Wait....

Global warming doesn't exist??

NEW THREAD TIME!!

http://www.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf

a paper on concealed carry and crime rates.

problem of course as with any study, is the search criteria can be changed to suit either side of the argument.

id like to see a study showing how many guns used in crime (that are recovered) are/were legally owned ie used by their owner or stolen.

up here guns used in crime have been obtained through crime from a store or factory (some have been found that never had a serial number) legaly owned guns (or stolen) make up close to 1% of crime guns.

http://www.guardian./news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract?rss=1

darker is more crime, Darker is more civilian owned firearms

http://img341./img341/5893/homicideinthecanada1926.gif (image wont post)
homicide rates in Canada were lower for the majority of the 1930s, all of the 1940s, all of the 1950s and majority of the 1960s than they are now. During that time period there was only small amounts of gun control in Canada such as a handgun registry. Full autos were legal, there was no licencing, there wasn't even the FAC system yet, there was no long gun registry, you were able to carry a handgun, there was no enormous list of prohibited firearms, there was no 5 round limit, etc.

Funny how that map he presents in the first page so well coincides with the maps previously posted in this thread.



It's funny how the pro-gunners argue that they need the weapons to defend themselves yet at the same time argue that there needs to be more education on how to keep their weapons safe and under control. If a weapon is intended for protecting your home it kind of needs to be easily accessible which in turn prevents them from also being safely stored.

..or are you going to run into your wardrobe (or wherever you keep your safe), fiddle with keys and get your gun out, possibly assemble it as well before protecting your home?

I bet most of the times, those weapons used to actually defend a home was not properly stored in the first place.

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

http://www.uwplatt.edu/~wiegma...r%20example.pdf

paper on concealed carry and crime rates.

problem of course as with any study, is the search criteria can be changed to suit either side of the argument.

id like to see a study showing how many guns used in crime (that are recovered) are/were legally owned ie used by their owner or stolen.

up here guns used in crime have been obtained through crime from a store or factory (some have been found that never had a serial number) legaly owned guns (or stolen) make up close to 1% of crime guns.

Yeah, I don't think this one helps you. From the conclusion:

Quote:

In conclusion, there is no significant change on crime rates when concealed carry weapon
laws are passed. These studies show that by slightly changing the criteria, altering the filtering
of the data used in the analysis, or using different analysis techniques, different results can be
produced that indicate that the crime rates either increased or decreased after the law was
implemented in comparison to what it was before. In fact, many of the studies on the effects of
concealed carry weapon laws are based in part on the data Lott collected, differing only in
analyzation approach and/or additional updates in data collection; all of them produced different
results. If concealed carry weapon laws had a major impact on crimes, it would be easy to see
the change in the rates.

So the takeaway there is: [Concealed] carrying guns doesn't make you safer.

So, it's not a crime deterrent?

Also, that paper appears to be an example paper for an introductory Crim Justice college class. Not exactly a rigorous source.


I'll look at the others later.

Well...a lot of those countries in Africa and the Middle East can be thrown out. Very few own guns, but there are also things like mass genocide and war going on. The same can be said for some of the central American countries, where drug lords all but rule the country.

it also doesn't up crime rate either so what does it hurt ? how much crime is reported if a guy walks up says give me your money, you flash a gun they bugger off. do you report it ? most wouldn't. so the crime rates are going to be skewed. you don't hear about the number of crimes prevented by CC. but those crimes would have happened without it. so you aren't getting a rise in crime either

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Well...a lot of those countries in Africa and the Middle East can be thrown out. Very few own guns, but there are also things like mass genocide and war going on. The same can be said for some of the central American countries, where drug lords all but rule the country.

which is the reason behind owning guns in the states, THAT is what the 2nd amendment is all about protecting yourselves from your government.

would those same drug lords be running rampant if civilian ownership of guns was allowed ? would the genocide be happening if the civilian populace had a way to defend themselves other than spears and rocks. we really wont know because mass genocide hasn't happened to my knowledge in a country with civilian ownership of guns.

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

http://img341./img341/5893/homicideinthe canada1926.gif (image wont post)
homicide rates in Canada were lower for the majority of the 1930s, all of the 1940s, all of the 1950s and majority of the 1960s than they are now. During that time period there was only small amounts of gun control in Canada such as a handgun registry. Full autos were legal, there was no licencing, there wasn't even the FAC system yet, there was no long gun registry, you were able to carry a handgun, there was no enormous list of prohibited firearms, there was no 5 round limit, etc.

How long back in time are we going to drag this argument?

I'd bring you some reliable statistics on how many people were killed by swords back in the days if I could. Society changes. The whole mentality of people changes very drastically in 100 years. Heck, you don't even have to go back that far to see drastic changes in mentality and society in general. There's no denying that guns aren't the only factor at play here but remove the guns and you'll have a lot less incidents with lethal outcome.

A person isn't destined or dead set on doing something. The ease at which he or she can accomplish what he suddenly gets the urge to do is something that is a very deciding factor in whether or not he/she will actually do something. Sure there will always be maniacs who are dead set on doing something and they will always find a way to do it unless exposed and stopped by someone else.

http://img823./img823/920/rtc2.jpg
another image shack picture that wont work for me.

Quote:

Originally posted by 2112Pooh

I'd bring you some reliable statistics on how many people were killed by swords back in the days if I could. Society changes. The whole mentality of people changes very drastically in 100 years. Heck, you don't even have to go back that far to see drastic changes in mentality and society in general. There's no denying that guns aren't the only factor at play here but remove the guns and you'll have a lot less incidents with lethal outcome.

A person isn't destined or dead set on doing something. The ease at which he or she can accomplish what he suddenly gets the urge to do is something that is a very deciding factor in whether or not he/she will actually do something. Sure there will always be maniacs who are dead set on doing something and they will always find a way to do it unless exposed and stopped by someone else.

And if you Educate people better, get people to understand that a firearm needs to be kept locked up (there are handgun safes on the market that make it easy to get into even at night but only if you know the code) out of reach of children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut they have some of the strongest gun laws in the states. the brady campaign rates them as #5 in the states.

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

which is the reason behind owning guns in the states, THAT is what the 2nd amendment is all about protecting yourselves from your government.

No, it's about protecting yourself from the British when you've just declared yourself independent from their rule. There's no need to protect yourself from your government in the US or any other western, democratic country. Therefore, there's no need to carry weapons either.

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

would those same drug lords be running rampant if civilian ownership of guns was allowed ?

I'm sure they would. Farmers still wouldn't be able to do anything about those drug lords or cartels. Just look at how the worlds strongest and most influential military force has failed to deal with drug lords on several occasions.

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

would the genocide be happening if the civilian populace had a way to defend themselves other than spears and rocks. we really wont know because mass genocide hasn't happened to my knowledge in a country with civilian ownership of guns.

Genocide has nothing to do with people versus government. In most cases the genocide probably would've been even worse if they'd all had access to weapons. Take a look at what happened (and still is happening to some extent) in central Africa. Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Congo for example. That wasn't a government killing its people, that was neighbours killing neighbours. Add some (more) firearms to that equation and it would've been even worse (if that's even possible).

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

And if you Educate people better, get people to understand that a firearm needs to be kept locked up (there are handgun safes on the market that make it easy to get into even at night but only if you know the code) out of reach of children. they have some of the strongest gun laws in the states. the brady campaign rates them as #5 in the states.

A gun is a gun is a gun.

Whether it is locked away or not doesn't remove the risk of having it there compared to not having access to it in the first place.



If you are so afraid of something happening to you in your home, put bars on your windows and a safety-door at your main entrance. That way you're safe in your home without weapons.

Quote:

Originally posted by 2112Pooh

...
No, it's about protecting yourself from the British when you've just declared yourself independent from their rule. There's no need to protect yourself from your government in the US or any other western, democratic country. Therefore, there's no need to carry weapons either.


Genocide has nothing to do with people versus government. In most cases the genocide probably would've been even worse if they'd all had access to weapons. Take a look at what happened (and still is happening to some extent) in central Africa. Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Congo for example. That wasn't a government killing its people, that was neighbours killing neighbours. Add some (more) firearms to that equation and it would've been even worse (if that's even possible).

you keep on believing that a govt wouldn't do that, do you really thing that the only reason a govt doesn't want its citizens to have guns is to keep crime down ?

as for the second, if the other neighbors had guns they could have defended themselves. but no, you have some supplied with guns from wherever against unarmed people. whats going to happen if they walk onto a farm with their rifles out only to have a warning shot buzz over their head ? are they going to keep coming or are they going to run away ?

for every argument i have replied you have one that is just as dumb as you claim mine are.

I'm done with this thread.

The constant bickering back and forth, and off topic conversation is doing nothing.

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

you keep on believing that a govt wouldn't do that, do you really thing that the only reason a govt doesn't want its citizens to have guns is to keep crime down ?

Rofl, you can't be serious..

I'm sorry but the opinions you're displaying are dangerously close to the opinions of people like Timothy McVeigh.

If you gave me the choice between a society where everybody was required to have weapons to protect themselves from their neighbours and a society where weapons were illegal and those found carrying weapons were punished for it, I'd choose the latter every single time.

Quote:

Originally posted by izuzan

as for the second, if the other neighbors had guns they could have defended themselves. but no, you have some supplied with guns from wherever against unarmed people. whats going to happen if they walk onto a farm with their rifles out only to have a warning shot buzz over their head ? are they going to keep coming or are they going to run away ?

for every argument i have replied you have one that is just as dumb as you claim mine are.

Both sides had guns in the Rwanda-Burundi genocide actually, it was instigated by men with weapons and carried out by other men with weapons with the civilians in the middle. Adding more guns wouldn't have made the incident any less atrocious. I don't think you grasp the concept of what happened there to be honest so I'll just leave it at that.

I am a third grade teacher living in Georgia... and an avid gun collector. I spent most of my day Friday trying to convince my kids that they were safe and that things were going to be fine, but it tasted a lie as it came out of my mouth. As much as I enjoy my guns, I enjoy watching my students learn and grow more. I can't honestly promise them that nothing like that would ever happen at our school. We have security measures as I am sure they do in Conneticut, but we must ask ourselves is it enough? I got up this morning and drove to my local gun store just to get a feel of how yesterday's tragedy is going to trickle down into very small towns like the one I live in. As I was talking to the owner he was telling me that as he was unlocking his door this morning to open for business, the phone was already ringing. It was the ATF. I hung out for about two hours shooting the breeze with everybody and his phone rang at least 15-20 times. Every gun that was sold while I was there had to be called in to th ATF. Usually he justs runs a background check and if you come up clear you are good to go. The point I am trying to make now that I have rambled on is that I believe we need stronger gun control laws. Yes, I love my guns and don't want anyone telling me what I can and can't do in my own home. I'm not saying ban guns, I'm just saying that it needs to be much more difficult to get them. I bought two while I was there and there was very little hassle. I pray that President Obama uses wisdom and all the information at his disposal to make decision that will benefit everyone. Pointless arguing will not get us anywhere. New need a solution, not a bunch of hot heads. And that's all is have to say about that.

P.S. I hate trying to type on my iPads virtual keyboard. Thank God they let me teach math and not spelling or English/language arts!

Quote:

Originally posted by 2112Pooh

...

Rofl, you can't be serious..

I'm sorry but the opinions you're displaying are dangerously close to the opinions of people like Timothy McVeigh.

If you gave me the choice between a society where everybody was required to have weapons to protect themselves from their neighbours and a society where weapons were illegal and those found carrying weapons were punished for it, I'd choose the latter every single time.

...
Both sides had guns in the Rwanda-Burundi genocide actually, it was instigated by men with weapons and carried out by other men with weapons with the civilians in the middle. Adding more guns wouldn't have made the incident any less atrocious. I don't think you grasp the concept of what happened there to be honest so I'll just leave it at that.

How about a society where people have free choice as to their hobbies. there are millions of legally owned guns that didn't kill any innocent people yesterday, there will be millions of legally owned firearms that wont kill anyone today. don't give me that jackaninny crap of if it saves just one life. if that were the case there would be no racing, no skydiving, no football or baseball, no hobby that is remotely dangerous. just because some whackjob killed his mother and stole her guns and did this does not mean the thousands of other people out there should have their private property taken from them. if that were the case no one would have a car because of the people that do hit and runs drunk drive and drive without a license when they have had it taken away.

Just stop talking and listen to yourself. Comparing the shooting in Connecticut to racing, skydiving, football, or baseball is sicking. You are taking a horrible tragedy and belittling it with your asinine comments. Guns kill...thats what they were invented for, just because you can target shoot with them does not make them their primary purpose...all the other things mentioned in your ridiculous statement were invented for fun. I take take a football and go kill 20 children with it.

Please kindly remove your head from your ass, have some common decency as a human being, and stop trying to make a mockery out of this inhumane act of evil.



**On a moderation side - Any more comments like the one above and I'm locking this thread out of bad taste.**