Perhaps they are part of the effects, but this would hold for allowing private citizens - or worse corporations - having small nukes. Any move to ban this could be responded to with nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. But then people are fucking morons and I don’t want them to have small nukes. Now the truth is I am against banning personal possession of guns. But I don’t think this argument works. And I hate the fact that since I trust governments so little and not enough people are skeptical about them, it is probably good that so many citizens have guns, even though I think most of those people are morons and now they are more dangerous morons.
For those interested in discovering the cause of crime, here is an insightful presentation where Stefan finds a .96 correlation with divorce rates and property crime from 1960-2012 (at 30:00) and a .85 correlation between divorce rates and violent crime (31:00). He also finds -.59 correlation with poverty and property crime (16:00) among other stats.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBJ5m3sGfk[/youtube]
Yes, that’s very sensible.
I can protect my home with a 12 ga shotgun that will clear a hallway, but not penetrate walls. I can protect my property with a .22LR and a bolt action 30.06 is about all I’d need in reality. I couldn’t make a strong case for needing an AR or a nuke, especially in the house.
Unless you felt like part of the reason citizens need guns is to protect against tyranny, then perhaps AR or nukes would be handy. They are very democratizing, at least potentially. Even elites with access to bunkers don’t want to live their all the time and a nuke carrying citizenship can lash back at a coup or martial law set up prior to tyranny in a much scarier way than they can with a few long guns. Again, not that I want people running around with nukes, just drawing out the example. I see the widespead gun owning as a horrific compromise that would be best dealt with long term by finding ways for power to have less control over information. Right now people are so poorly informed, and that includes in the police and military, that resistence to tyranny can easily be called terrorism and marginalized. But honestly the whole thing makes me rather sick. I suppose when it comes to the US I see the most powerful military in the world with a collapsing economy and that is a bad combination both domestically and internationally. Gun ownership seems like a least evil balancing there, aaaagh. And what you said was very sensible also.
This graph Serendipper posted appears pretty damning to the anti-gun agenda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
Is this checkmate?
It’s funny how the homicide rate of the District of Columbia (24.2 per 100 thousand people in 2015) is nearly 5 times higher than homicide rate of the USA as a whole (4.88 per 100 thousand people in 2015).
Not only do politicians take us to war, but I guess they’re more likely to murder you on a one to one basis.
Here’s a similar graph but between countries:
.png){kind=link}
This graph appears to indicate that if anything, more guns make you safer.
Perhaps that’s because guns even the playing field, people are naturally unequal, some people are strong, others are weak, some people are many, others are few, and the more guns the more people have, the less the strong and the many can oppress the weak and the few, or in other words: guns deter bullies.
Kind of like how nuclearly armed nations don’t go to war with one another, because it’d be mutually assured destruction, which’s why Iran and North Korea are desperately trying to arm themselves, meanwhile the US is doing everything within its power to make sure that doesn’t happen, because it wants to maintain its monopolize on force, so it can continue bullying people.
Just so you all know laws or no laws it is pretty damn easy getting your hands on a gun in the United States, most of the criminals living here know this as well. If you really want a firearm with lots of cash you can get one unregistered pretty easily on the underground black market.
You could just go to Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, St Louis, Philadelphia, or Phoenix for instance and buy one with no questions asked. There are illegal gun runners all over the United States for the right price and they make a lot of profit with their collection of armaments selling them.
These are known as hot weapons with the serial numbers removed.
Yep. Gun control isn’t targeted at criminals because everyone knows you can’t stop criminals from getting guns. Gun control is targeted at law-abiding citizens with the intent to eventually remove the second amendment and disarm the people.
Same logical paradox operates with respect to gun free zones: these places are not meant to protect anyone, they are meant to turn human beings into cattle that cannot defend themselves and then advertise his fact to the world with a sign on the front door “No firearms beyond this point”.
Because yeah, a criminal is obviously going to give a shit about that. Lol.
The left has everyone fooled. Well most people anyway. Some of us actually do have brains, and use them.
Another of your stupid inanities and inability to think?
If a citizen with a concealed carry permit is pulled over by the cops then he will be allowed to go. A criminal with a gun, would be arrested.
Therefore, you’re wrong again. When are you going to say something relevant? Everybody is still waiting. Please, say something intelligent or some type of evidence your brain can reason.
Smart criminals don’t get pulled over to begin with and have on them all the right legal documentation to not warrant a search/seizure or if they are have secret storage compartments in their vehicle that can even elude a veteran experienced highway patrol officer.
Urwrongx1000 keeps having seizures. I hope he is going to be ok.
What you said has literally nothing to do with what I said.
So… yeah
^ what I said
Feel free to actually respond to that. If you can. Or if you dare.
Are you fucking that dumb?
You said this, which is 100% wrong.
Gun control, laws, are targeted at criminals, which is why they are “criminals” in the first place. Retard.
The whole point and purpose of “Gun Control (Laws)” are to identify criminals and take guns away from them, like spree-shooters, or retards like Urgod, who shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun in the first place.
There are ways around all laws and regulations that is called loopholes where if you have the purchasing power requires very little work or effort. Right now if you have the mechanical ability and money you can buy the parts for an AK-47 essentially assembling it in your garage. You can even buy ammunition creator kits for the bullets.
If you have a 3D printer you don’t even need to order the parts but instead make the components yourself. You can even make silencers or compressors out of you garage.
All you need is firearms blue prints specifications easily attained on the internet.
Ideally you want “good guys” to have guns and “bad guys” to not. Therefore the issue is how to remove guns from the hands of spree-shooters. To say “we don’t need gun control” is to imply that spree-shooters can get guns (assault rifles) as easily as anybody else.
Why’re Americans more homicidal than Europeans?
Is it because Americans have more guns?
Again, as I said earlier, Switzerland has loads of guns, yet a lower homicide rate than many-most other European Countries, so at the very least guns alone can’t be blamed for the disparity, if they can be blamed at all, and as I’ve been participating in this discussion and looking at statistics, increasingly I don’t think they can.
Look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
So African Americans, for whatever reasons, genetic, environmental, I don’t want to get into that here, it’s unnecessary, are 8 times more likely to murder people than White Americans.
At the very least this is part of the reason why America has a higher homicide rate than your average European Country, who doesn’t have a large African (American) Population.
Do White Americans commit homicide about as often as White Europeans?
If so, it follows the sole reason Americans commit more homicides than Europeans, is because of African Americans, and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans, who also commit more homicides than White Americans, but less than African Americans.
Asian Americans tend to commit homicide a little less frequently than Whites, but since they’re a small demographic compared with African, Hispanic and White Americans, their lower homicide rate is insufficient to offset the higher African and Hispanic American homicide rates in determining the American homicide rate as a whole.
I’m interested by these US stats that show basically zero correlation between gun ownership and gun murders by state.
Whilst I think such a comparison leaves huge amounts of further relevant detail to be explored, and in fact misses the point, the idea of zero correlation at such a macro level potentially still applying to the micro level on further investigation amuses me. This is because it would otherwise annihilate both sides of the argument:
Are you anti-gun? Well there’s no correlation between gun ownership and gun murders so all your fears were unfounded in practice after all. Deal with that!
But also, are you pro-gun? Well it turns out that all the rhetoric about needing a gun to protect yourself was equally unfounded in practice after all too. Suck it!
Of course, if this were true, despite the welcome respite that we would get from the most polarised commentators incessantly spouting what would have turned out to be fabricated drivel, nothing would change - because with no correlation it’s no longer an issue. So the US would keep their guns, but a least they’d have to eat some humble pie.
But what do these stats really mean?
They mean with however many guns lying around, as long as there are at least some, the vast majority of people still don’t want to use them against each other and don’t, and the ones who do will pick them up and cause much more devastation than if they weren’t around.
About this subject of criminals getting their hands on guns regardless of laws, that’s not the full story. You see, with guns few and far between, black markets do indeed still sell them but at vastly inflated prices. This is only enhanced by there being no legal avenue through which to acquire a gun, and who resorts to criminal behaviour if they’re rich enough to buy guns that cost obscene amounts? Also, when guns are everywhere, their use or even possession isn’t seen in the same way as if they are all banned. It’s like smoking when there’s been a ban on it. You might be against it while there’s no ban, but the degree to which you notice it sky-rockets once it’s banned. Additionally, even criminals don’t need guns, which are far more expensive than knives, when everyone is aware that nobody else has them. There is knowing that you know something, knowing that someone else knows something, but then there is also knowing that someone knows what you know, and even knowing that everyone knows what everyone else knows. The difference between these types of knowing is far more than you might think. Nobody seems to be appreciating the full consequences of banning guns, least of all the pro-gun people. We in countries that have banned them know for sure, by our own experience, how these things pan out. It really IS ok to just let them go. You don’t get enslaved, none of your fears come true - we are living evidence of this.
Yes, there are countries where this happens more so than in others.
In fact, ironically, the countries where banning guns matters least, having guns matters least too. The less you need them, the more you are ok to have them. In the US, you feel you need guns, and correspondingly you don’t deserve them.
A potential scenario that also interests me is based on the above: there might be a sweet spot that causes the most trouble with guns, and as long as you go to one extreme or the other, you’ll be ok. Like people have said, if people know everyone has guns, they’re less likely to use them because they have no advantage. And also, obviously, if nobody has guns, there’s no need to bring one because the advantage is not worth the cost to acquire it.
But what I think it comes down to is this:
Gangs are going to use guns. This will influence figures.
Regular people are only going to use guns on themselves or on others in extreme moments of emotion. The more we do to help prevent these states before they start the better. And when there are less deadly weapons available, the most severe thing at hand won’t be as dangerous and the consequences of the inevitable, occasional crime of passion will be alleviated.
Similarly to the above, mentally ill or unstable people are going to break and go on sprees regardless - but would you rather they did this with a knife or an automatic weapon?