NationStates

Genivaria wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Self-defense?
Seems rather obvious.

From like a mugger?
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you?
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.

Czechanada wrote:The entire world should switch back to using medieval weaponry anyways.

Dravaklia wrote:Liberals, typical.

Blasveck wrote:

Genivaria wrote:From like a mugger?
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you?
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.

So we just say "Fuck it!" And make it harder for the victim to have a chance of defending themselves?

Genivaria wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Self-defense?
Seems rather obvious.

From like a mugger?(1)
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you (2)? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you? (3)
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.(4)

Blasveck wrote:

Genivaria wrote:From like a mugger?
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you?
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.

So we just say "Fuck it!" And make it harder for the victim to have a chance of defending themselves?

Genivaria wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Self-defense?
Seems rather obvious.

From like a mugger?
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you?
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.

Genivaria wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
So we just say "Fuck it!" And make it harder for the victim to have a chance of defending themselves?

No what I'm saying is that if there is a solution this isn't it.
Perhaps we should instead see what the countries with lower crime rates have been doing.

Genivaria wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
So we just say "Fuck it!" And make it harder for the victim to have a chance of defending themselves?

No what I'm saying is that if there is a solution this isn't it.
Perhaps we should instead see what the countries with lower crime rates have been doing.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Genivaria wrote:From like a mugger?(1)
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you (2)? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you? (3)
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.(4)

1) Sure. Or a wild animal.
2) Then one is pretty much fucked gun or not in most cases (though there certainly are enough exceptions I'd rather have the firearm than not).
3) In most instances probably not (though there are exceptions). But then, one is capable of presuming upcoming events before one has a gun aimed at them but still in enough threat that being ready to draw their weapon wouldn't be an offense (picking up a hitchhiker, being the aforementioned hitchhiker, being at the scene of an active shooting or robbery of another person, etc.) We aren't limited in our usage of self-defense here to the handful of seconds after a mugger screams 'your money or your life!'.
4) That's fair enough, but it is effective for a portion of people. Even if it is not and concealed carry is a wash when it comes to crime and doesn't affect it it doesn't hurt anyone else. *shrug*

Genivaria wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:1) Sure. Or a wild animal.
2) Then one is pretty much fucked gun or not in most cases (though there certainly are enough exceptions I'd rather have the firearm than not).
3) In most instances probably not (though there are exceptions). But then, one is capable of presuming upcoming events before one has a gun aimed at them but still in enough threat that being ready to draw their weapon wouldn't be an offense (picking up a hitchhiker, being the aforementioned hitchhiker, being at the scene of an active shooting or robbery of another person, etc.) We aren't limited in our usage of self-defense here to the handful of seconds after a mugger screams 'your money or your life!'.
4) That's fair enough, but it is effective for a portion of people. Even if it is not and concealed carry is a wash when it comes to crime and doesn't affect it it doesn't hurt anyone else. *shrug*

Fair points granted.
My point is that if reducing violent crime is our goal then the gun control issue is almost entirely irrelevant.
Solutions lie elsewhere I think.

New Aerios wrote:

Genivaria wrote:No what I'm saying is that if there is a solution this isn't it.
Perhaps we should instead see what the countries with lower crime rates have been doing.

Yes! Great idea! Countries like... Switzerland, for example!

Blasveck wrote:

Genivaria wrote:No what I'm saying is that if there is a solution this isn't it.
Perhaps we should instead see what the countries with lower crime rates have been doing.

That's what quite a few people are saying.

Instead of trying to take the gun away from the criminal, help society so someone doesn't have to become a criminal in the first place.

New Aerios wrote:

Genivaria wrote:No what I'm saying is that if there is a solution this isn't it.
Perhaps we should instead see what the countries with lower crime rates have been doing.

Yes! Great idea! Countries like... Switzerland, for example!

Genivaria wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:1) Sure. Or a wild animal.
2) Then one is pretty much fucked gun or not in most cases (though there certainly are enough exceptions I'd rather have the firearm than not).
3) In most instances probably not (though there are exceptions). But then, one is capable of presuming upcoming events before one has a gun aimed at them but still in enough threat that being ready to draw their weapon wouldn't be an offense (picking up a hitchhiker, being the aforementioned hitchhiker, being at the scene of an active shooting or robbery of another person, etc.) We aren't limited in our usage of self-defense here to the handful of seconds after a mugger screams 'your money or your life!'.
4) That's fair enough, but it is effective for a portion of people. Even if it is not and concealed carry is a wash when it comes to crime and doesn't affect it it doesn't hurt anyone else. *shrug*

Fair points granted.
My point is that if reducing violent crime is our goal then the gun control issue is almost entirely irrelevant.
Solutions lie elsewhere I think.

Genivaria wrote:

New Aerios wrote:
Yes! Great idea! Countries like... Switzerland, for example!

You do realize they practice universal conscription to get this trigger discipline right?

New Aerios wrote:

Czechanada wrote:The entire world should switch back to using medieval weaponry anyways.

BAN ASSAULT CROSSBOWS NOW!

New Aerios wrote:

Genivaria wrote:No what I'm saying is that if there is a solution this isn't it.
Perhaps we should instead see what the countries with lower crime rates have been doing.

Yes! Great idea! Countries like... Switzerland, for example!

Frisivisia wrote:

New Aerios wrote:
Yes! Great idea! Countries like... Switzerland, for example!

(Image)

It's almost as if Switzerland has a far different system of social and economic policies as well as differing population and population density from the US!

New Aerios wrote:

Frisivisia wrote:It's almost as if Switzerland has a far different system of social and economic policies as well as differing population and population density from the US!

I know right! Maybe that's what you yanks should try and change (well, except for the population part), instead of banning guns!

New Aerios wrote:

Frisivisia wrote:It's almost as if Switzerland has a far different system of social and economic policies as well as differing population and population density from the US!

I know right! Maybe that's what you yanks should try and change (well, except for the population part), instead of banning guns!

Blasveck wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

So your whole point was that gun control doesn't actually do much, if anything at all, and that guns are actually irrelevant when it comes to reducing crimes?

Starkiller101 wrote:

Dravaklia wrote:Liberals, typical.

Yeah liberals suck