A good reason to own guns in the home

[Firestarter 0]

There is no need to quote my posts in their entirety when yours immediately follow mine. Stop.

 

Disarming Jews may have been a neccessary step towards kiling them, but your posts make out like it was the only factor.

Then you are misreading them.

 

THe Jews were basically placed in prison, and any prisoners need to be disarmed. Would you put someone in prison with a gun now?

What the hell kind of asinine question is that? Of course not. But the Jews were imprisoned for no reason other than the fact that they were Jews, and they were imprisoned unjustly AFTER their guns were taken away. Thus there could be no resistance.

 

The disarming of Jews wasn't the main point of their dehumanization

It absolutely was.

 

Thats like saying Saddam should be allowed to keep all of his weapons becaue they're his.

What the fuck? Seriously, are you smoking something right now? Because if not you're even more of an idiot than I thought you were. Are you seriously equating the Jews, victims of genocide, with Saddam Hussein, a perpetrator of it? That's so obscene it doesn't even deserve a response.

 

Taking away guns is lunacy now?

Yes.

 

What do you honestly think would happen if guns were taken away or outlawed in the United States?

They won't be.

 

And the jews offered no resistance? Please. Orthodox Jews may have been obliged to be peaceful, but there was resistance to Nazis.

True, but I never denied that. They didn't resist them in an organised and consistent way - most thought that things would just get better if they cooperated. That there would be progress if they showed signs of trust. Signs of peace.

 

Sound familiar? They're your words.

[Jingus 0]

This is making my head hurt.

 

FACT: bad, evil, violent people will always have some sort of access to guns, whether through theft, a black market, or whatever.

 

COROLLARY: good people need to have their own guns to protect themselves from the bad ones.

 

Could it be any simpler?

[Firestarter 0]

This is making my head hurt.

 

FACT: bad, evil, violent people will always have some sort of access to guns, whether through theft, a black market, or whatever.

 

COROLLARY: good people need to have their own guns to protect themselves from the bad ones.

 

Could it be any simpler?

It's a bit too simple for Europeans, it seems. They can't quite make themselves accept that evil per se actually exists.

[Firestarter 0]

Usually It's the One with the Gun Who Gets to Ask the Questions

 

You know who is the best public? The American public, that's who. According to this poll, most know that more gun control isn't a solution to stopping a sniper. Also, despite the media's constant attempt to make the NRA look worse than the nazis, the NRA still has a higher approval than disapproval rating. I doubt any other country is as pro-gun as America, and I bet they'd get vastly different polling results.

 

American Polltaker: I wish to ask you some questions about guns.

 

Frenchman: Ahh! Guns! Do not hurt me, American! Paris is yours!

 

American: No, I just wanted you to answer a poll about guns.

 

Frenchman: Well, I hate guns, you stupid American. I'm not some thuggish cowboy wanting to shoot at everything. We French are much more sophisticated. For instance... Ahh! An insect! Save me, American!

 

American: It's just a butterfly.

 

Frenchman: Quick, kill it with your gun! It is your duty, American!

 

American: It flew off.

 

Frenchman: Once again my non-violent diplomacy triumphs!

[k thx 0]

What do you honestly think would happen if guns were taken away or outlawed in the United States?

They won't be.

And on that note, I see that there is no point in debating this with you.

[Firestarter 0]

I see that there is no point in debating this

Awww, poor little widdums is taking his ballsy-wallsy and going home...

[k thx 0]

This is making my head hurt.

 

FACT: bad, evil, violent people will always have some sort of access to guns, whether through theft, a black market, or whatever.

 

COROLLARY: good people need to have their own guns to protect themselves from the bad ones.

 

Could it be any simpler?

The most evil people will have access to guns. However, this isn't a case of just good and evil. There are many shades of grey. How many times have you seen someone get violently mad. Maybe they were drunk. Maybe they were just dicks. Whatever, if that person had a gun handy at that point, they may have used it in the heat of the moment. If nothing else, it would have been an option. However, if they don't have that option, they wont use it. How many people on this board have guns? How many times have they had to use them? If someone is gonna shoot you for no reason, they're just as likely to stab you for no reason.

 

I live in the UK, in a fairly big city. I have never seen or heard of people using guns here. As a result, the city is a lot safer. Yes, there's violence but very few deaths. Believe me, when you live in a city like that, you wonder why the hell Americans think everybody needs to have guns.

 

One thing I will say, however, is that America cannot outlaw guns now. It's too late. The "good" people would hand them over, while the people who would actually use them for bad means would keep them. And that's damn fucked up.

[Slayer 0]

Back to the Aussies, re: Martin Bryant.

 

I'm surprised none of you had ever heard of any type of conspiracy theories regarding this... maybe that's just an American thing, I dunno.

 

Here are the things I've heard, bearing in mind that 1) I'm recalling this from memory and 2) I don't lend credence to these, but they may be something to think about

 

1. Some eyewitness reports had the man being very large and heavy set, a far cry from the rather lanky Bryant (granted, you may not remember much about a guy if you're running the hell away from him)

 

2. The gun was an Armalite (IIRC), a rather high-end weapon for some mildly-retarded Tasmanian to have acquired

 

3. When police found the gun, it had been found that the backchamber clogged (or something like that, I don't know the specs and hopefully someone with more knowledge can fill in) which would have resulted in an explosion back onto the shooter, which at best would have left severe scarring on the shooter's arm or at worst totally obliterated it. When Bryant was arrested, no such injuries were found.

 

4. The pinpoint accuracy of the shootings would put the shooter in the top half of the top 1% of shooters in the world, meaning that either Bryant was extremely lucky (as the original article of this thread demonstrates, firing shots wildly will not result in a high accuracy rate, much less for the chance of a fatal shot) or he had been training with the Aussie special forces (highly unlikely)

 

5. Not long prior to the incident, the Tasmanian government had ordered a special cadaver carrying van (capable of carrying 20-30 bodies), a rather strange acquisition for a sparsely populated island that may experience at worse 2-3 people dying in the same place around the same time

 

As for the overall conspiracy of "why?", the only possible one I've heard of is that the Aussie government needed an impetus to foster public support for stricter gun control, which even I (a gun supporter) find silly and preposterous

[Zorin Industries 0]

I see that there is no point in debating this

Awww, poor little widdums is taking his ballsy-wallsy and going home...

Well, you didn't give a straight answer to a direct question ( one that I also want to know the answer to )

[Firestarter 0]

Well, you didn't give a straight answer to a direct question ( one that I also want to know the answer to )

What would happen if all guns were taken away from everyone tomorrow? My answer was perfectly straightforward and direct. They won't be. Which part do you not understand? It was a stupid question based on an inane hypothetical and my reply was more than sufficient. I might as well ask you "What if tomorrow we invented technology that could raise people from the dead? Then we could correct any possible errors we might make in executing people; would you be in favour of the death penalty in that case?" You want to give me a straight answer to that one? What's the point? I like to keep debates grounded in, y'know, reality. I dunno, maybe that's just an American thing.

[Jingus 0]

One thing I will say, however, is that America cannot outlaw guns now. It's too late. The "good" people would hand them over, while the people who would actually use them for bad means would keep them. And that's damn fucked up.

And that's my point. The bad guys have all the guns they want, right now. Gun control laws don't stop them at all. The flow of illegal weapons through America is simply too vast to be contained. And until such a containment could be effected, any other debate is pointless.

[k thx 0]

Well, you didn't give a straight answer to a direct question ( one that I also want to know the answer to )

What would happen if all guns were taken away from everyone tomorrow? My answer was perfectly straightforward and direct. They won't be. Which part do you not understand? It was a stupid question based on an inane hypothetical and my reply was more than sufficient. I might as well ask you "What if tomorrow we invented technology that could raise people from the dead? Then we could correct any possible errors we might make in executing people; would you be in favour of the death penalty in that case?" You want to give me a straight answer to that one? What's the point? I like to keep debates grounded in, y'know, reality. I dunno, maybe that's just an American thing.

No, it's a relevant question. You are arguing that guns shouldn't be banned, and giving reasons why they shouldn't. I asked what you thought would happen if they were banned. Not purely taken away, but outlawed. It's something that has happened in many other countries, and something that many are clamoring for in the States. It may be extremely unlikely to happen, but it's still a minute possibility.

[k thx 0]

One thing I will say, however, is that America cannot outlaw guns now. It's too late. The "good" people would hand them over, while the people who would actually use them for bad means would keep them. And that's damn fucked up.

And that's my point. The bad guys have all the guns they want, right now. Gun control laws don't stop them at all. The flow of illegal weapons through America is simply too vast to be contained. And until such a containment could be effected, any other debate is pointless.

Yeah, but I think the arguement has changed from "should guns be outlawed" to "is it right that guns should be outlawed".

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Hey Chave,

 

Your point about it would be too late to hand over weapons...It was too late thousands of years ago.

 

My honest opinion on what would happen if guns would be outlawed?

1) A hell of alot of people would NOT give up their guns they got legally

2) Crime would definitely increase on all levels

3) A new government bureaucracy would be created, probably more invasive than the worst descriptions of HomeLand Security.

4) America, and its spirit, dies completely over time as the nation degenerates.

 

I would gladly write up how, economically speaking using simple s/d game and bosian updating how this would logically and consistently come about. However, your mind is probably completely closed to the possibility that this scenario could indeed be right.

 

EDIT: Do I really need to mention I work for the Justice Department so I see how people react to law changes?

Edited February 10, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[k thx 0]

Hey Chave,

 

Your point about it would be too late to hand over weapons...It was too late thousands of years ago. 

 

My honest opinion on what would happen if guns would be outlawed? 

1) A hell of alot of people would NOT give up their guns they got legally

2) Crime would definitely increase on all levels

3) A new government bureaucracy would be created, probably more invasive than the worst descriptions of HomeLand Security.

4) America, and its spirit, dies completely over time as the nation degenerates. 

 

I would gladly write up how, economically speaking using simple s/d game and bosian updating how this would logically and consistently come about.  However, your mind is probably completely closed to the possibility that this scenario could indeed be right.

 

EDIT: Do I really need to mention I work for the Justice Department so I see how people react to law changes?

Not closed, but I've seen first hand that a society can thrive without guns and as a result I'm admittedly biased, as I'm sure we all are. However, if you crack down on posession and production of guns, as well as ammunition, then the black market trade will be forced way underground. Yes, guns will still be available, but they will be used far less, because they'll be more valuable.

 

As for an increase in crime, I'm not so sure. There will be no more impetus to carry out gun crimes if guns are outlawed, because criminals still can't be sure that their victim hasn't got a gun.

 

And I still don't see how Americas spirit would die. Maybe the arrogance would decrease, but some would argue thet's not a bad thing.

 

Also, as I said before, I agree that it's too late for America to give up guns, but I don't think the effects would be that far reaching.

[sfaJack 0]

However, if you crack down on posession and production of guns, as well as ammunition, then the black market trade will be forced way underground. Yes, guns will still be available, but they will be used far less, because they'll be more valuable.

Isn't the black market, by definition, "underground?" How does guns being more scarce decrease the likelihood that they will be used? Some dude who has a gun and wants to use it is going to use it.

 

As for an increase in crime, I'm not so sure. There will be no more impetus to carry out gun crimes if guns are outlawed, because criminals still can't be sure that their victim hasn't got a gun.

Uh, you can't exactly be sure that your victim doesn't have a gun now. How does disarming the innocents and, by your admission, NOT disarming the criminals reduce the impetus to commit a crime? Your logic makes no sense.

 

And I still don't see how Americas spirit would die.

That's because you aren't an American.

 

Also, as I said before, I agree that it's too late for America to give up guns, but I don't think the effects would be that far reaching.

Too bad you'll never get the chance to see how far-reaching the effects would be.

[Firestarter 0]

And I still don't see how Americas spirit would die.

That's because you aren't an American.

I think that sums it up perfectly right there. God bless America... land of the free, because she's the home of the brave.

[k thx 0]

SFA Jack:

 

Isn't the black market, by definition, "underground?" How does guns being more scarce decrease the likelihood that they will be used? Some dude who has a gun and wants to use it is going to use it.

 

I meant that the Black market trade would become even less available to the general public, to the point that it was run by gangs as opposed to just criminals.

 

Uh, you can't exactly be sure that your victim doesn't have a gun now. How does disarming the innocents and, by your admission, NOT disarming the criminals reduce the impetus to commit a crime? Your logic makes no sense.

 

That was my point. You may be disarming the innocents (on the whole) but someone still can't be sure that their victim is an innoccent. The deteral offered by the possibility of a victim owning a gun would still be there, so the amount of gun crimes shouldn't go dramatically up.

 

That's because you aren't an American.

 

Touche. But I still don't see how the possession of guns is an integral part of American spirit. And if it is, that's not neccessarily a good thing.

 

I have no idea what you were trying to say with that last one.

 

I have no idea what you were trying to say with that last one.

[Firestarter 0]

That was my point. You may be disarming the innocents (on the whole) but someone still can't be sure that their victim is an innoccent. The deteral offered by the possibility of a victim owning a gun would still be there, so the amount of gun crimes shouldn't go dramatically up.

I love this. Crime rates won't go up because criminals will be afraid that they might be attacking other criminals. Like y'know the Grandmothers Gang, or the Ladies in Business Suits Bloods. Or maybe the Accountants' Yakuza.

 

Fucking brilliant, I'm laughing so hard I can't see. Seriously, are you trying to make a serious argument for your side or is this a comedy routine?

[Anorak 0]

This is making my head hurt. 

 

FACT: bad, evil, violent people will always have some sort of access to guns, whether through theft, a black market, or whatever. 

 

COROLLARY: good people need to have their own guns to protect themselves from the bad ones. 

 

Could it be any simpler?

It's a bit too simple for Europeans, it seems. They can't quite make themselves accept that evil per se actually exists.

Oh, I know evil exists, the Devil & the Boogeyman and all that...yep.

 

For my sins, I just happen to live somewhere where I don't feel the need to own 12 fucking guns fer christ's sake!! Who should really be mocking who here exactly? I guess most of us simple European folk don't come into contact with guns in our lifetime, sure we miss out on a few of the simple everyday pleasures in life like taking our kids to shooting ranges but we get by nonetheless.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Chave, okay its economics time dammit. And while economics cannot completely predict behavior, it does do approximately good...meaning it is very useful. People act approximately like economics models predicts.

 

Given the following 2 equations:

Demand for Murders =a-b(Co)

Supply of Murders.-c+d(Be)

 

Those are standard notations for Supply and demand equations. Yes, you can derive a demand and supply curve for ANYTHING. That is logically valid.

 

a=Maximum amount of murders demanded possible, ie...population limit minus 1. or 100%..whichever

b=Elasticity of Murder...this relates to Co

Co=Price(cost) of Murder. b acts as a multiplier on this variable. As the price/cost of Murder gets higher, b multiplies that effect and the total is subtracted from a

c=Negative because supply carries costs and murders will not supply until there is some reason too. This is a fairly simple economics notion.

d=multiplier on the quantity. as Be(in this case you can think of Be as benefits to murder to the murderer as the murderer kills more people. We assume diminishing marginal returns.

 

You can set these equations up, solve for equilibrium values.

 

I now introduce a shock, where the cost of obtaining P (remember, thats the multiplier b) is lessened because of something...call it, innocents do not carry guns

 

What happens?

 

Murders rise.

 

Say anything else you want, but TRY and argue on those grounds. Analyze the costs and benefits. There is ONLY one outcome to the system, and only one effect to the shock.

 

Algebra and Economics...Ain't it beautiful...

If only more people knew this stuff...

 

My Gawd, I just realized I'm tag-teaming this thread with Marney.

That is one very weird partnership.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Firestarter 0]

I just happen to live somewhere where I don't feel the need to own 12 fucking guns fer christ's sake!! Who should really be mocking who here exactly?

Maybe I should be mocking you for not having the freedom to own 12 (or more) guns, for not having the ability to make that choice for yourself, but that would be unkind. I just feel a little pity.

 

I guess most of us simple European folk... miss out on a few of the simple everyday pleasures in life like taking our kids to shooting ranges but we get by nonetheless

Glad to hear it. I'm sure your kids are glad to hear it, too, when they're raped or murdered.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I just happen to live somewhere where I don't feel the need to own 12 fucking guns fer christ's sake!! Who should really be mocking who here exactly?

Maybe I should be mocking you for not having the freedom to own 12 (or more) guns, for not having the ability to make that choice for yourself, but that would be unkind. I just feel a little pity.

Believe it or not Marney, i'd say the vast majority of peoplein the U.K. do NOT want guns legally available. There is already some concern at the rising amounts of illegal guns being used in the country, and the general consenus is to try and remove guns as much as possible from the U.K

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Did it ever occur to you that the problem isn't with the people who legally owned guns?

 

Do people who legally own guns buy them illegally? I'd say that's an approximately overwhelming...No..and a Duh~! on top

[Firestarter 0]

the vast majority of peoplein the U.K. do NOT want guns legally available. There is already some concern at the rising amounts of illegal guns being used in the country

legal guns =! illegal guns

 

 

 

Edit: Stephen beat me to it.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Cancer Marney

[Zorin Industries 0]

Yes, of course. I'm just trying to show what the difference is in the 2 cultures

[Firestarter 0]

I'm just trying to show what the difference is in the 2 cultures

Chave has been posting in this thread; it wasn't really a revelation.

[k thx 0]

Given the following 2 equations:

Demand for Murders =a-b(Co)

Supply of Murders.-c+d(Be)

I realise what you're saying there, but (guess what I'm gonna say) it's not that simple. The benefits of killing someone would not increase by that much simply because people can't defend themselves with a gun. If someone is gonna murder someone, then they'll murder them. If someone wants to kil someone, they wont stop because they think that person has a gun. Hell, if someone has a gun, they should be able to kill someone without retalliation anyways, whether their victim has a gun or not.

 

The possesion of guns is not the main variable in this equation. There are other ways to kill someone. There are other ways to defend yourself.

 

Yes, there may be an increase in the amount of gun crimes, certainly over the short term, but it wont be a major change like you seem to be predicting. It certainly wont be enough to throw American society out of balance.

 

In addition, if the production of guns and ammunition is cut down, then after a short amount of time the disparity between criminals and innoccents with guns will decrease, leading to a net decrease in gun crimes and an overall benefit to American society.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I'm just trying to show what the difference is in the 2 cultures

Chave has been posting in this thread; it wasn't really a revelation.

"Maybe I should be mocking you for not having the freedom to own 12 (or more) guns"

 

Just pointing out the fact that not everyone WANTS that freedom

[Firestarter 0]

Oh I know. That they'd deny it to their law-abiding countrymen is the sad part.