Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US? Just noticing that this discussion is pretty much the views of gun supporters in the US vs the rest of the world (noting that the latter hasn't included many supporters of the former). 0.o
Kilkrazy wrote:
The proportion of the following categories would be interesting to know.
1. Rate of crimes involving guns versus overall crime rate.
2. Rate of crimes involving illegal guns compared with rate of crimes involving use of a legal gun by the perpetrator.
In regards to number 2, do you mean a situation where one of a couple things (examples) happens:
a. Group of armed robbers robs a bank using AK-47s and other weapons that are generally illegal for the general public to own (as in L.A.)
b. a guy breaks into a house with a Glock 40 that was "acquired" from another place, with the intent of knocking it over and taking any valuables.
I think that either situation 'type' would greatly influence numbers involved.
Imagine someone's wife comes home, finds her husband in bed with her sister, and shoots them both with her legally owned self-defence pistol. This would obviously be a double murder by a hitherto law abiding citizen in legal possession of a weapon.
I'm dramatizing, of course, however such situations are not uncommon.
Most murders are committed by friends, family and acquaintances. Such people are certainly not always felons in illegal possession of weapons. These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 17:19:55
Looking at the sources I listed, most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. I suspect that means the 'crimes of passion' are a small percentage of over all gun crimes.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
the "we need guns" people will never change their minds, and the "guns are bad" guys wont either. Give it up guys, its pointless.....
I don't think many of the discussions on similar subjects here on Dakka, or in the greater world ever really come to a one single conclusion. Its the the formulating of the arguments for either side that's the objective, to gain a greater understanding of the either side's points of view to put it bluntly. =P
the "we need guns" people will never change their minds, and the "guns are bad" guys wont either. Give it up guys, its pointless.....
I don't think many of the discussions on similar subjects here on Dakka, or in the greater world ever really come to a one single conclusion. Its the the formulating of the arguments for either side that's the objective, to gain a greater understanding of the either side's points of view to put it bluntly. =P
I thought discussion was so that eventually everyone that i am right......always.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 17:34:25
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
the "we need guns" people will never change their minds, and the "guns are bad" guys wont either. Give it up guys, its pointless.....
I don't think many of the discussions on similar subjects here on Dakka, or in the greater world ever really come to a one single conclusion. Its the the formulating of the arguments for either side that's the objective, to gain a greater understanding of the either side's points of view to put it bluntly. =P
I thought discussion was so that eventually everyone that i am right......always.
^^ Yeah pitty that most of the other people in such topics are clearly thinking the same way too.
CptJake wrote:Looking at the sources I listed, most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. I suspect that means the 'crimes of passion' are a small percentage of over all gun crimes.
It would be interesting to know the proportion of murders committed with legal/illegal guns. We know that about 2/3rds of murders are committed with guns.
thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.
Thats because everyone has hookers and weed and are therefore chill.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.
I don't need hookers to have sex or drugs to enjoy my life.
Wyrmalla wrote:Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US?
I wonder how many Mexicans support it, what with the rampant gang violence that goes on? It's not like the drug cartels are lacking in guns...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/16 18:53:04
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
There are people with very strong opinions on this issue.
I don't own a gun, but I'm not against them. If I were to get one, I'd either keep it in a safe or with a gunlock on it.
I got to shoot my Dad's guns as a child, and he taught me to respect them. It's a hobby, as much as anything else. I just don't feel the need or have the desire to own one right now.
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
oh come on, Melissia! you know that people are more likely to pull a trigger than to kill someone with scissors or beat their brains out with a baeball bat. Your argument is nonesense, sorry. It takes much more anger and aggresion to actively beat and rip and tear a person apart than to just bend your finger.
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
oh come on, Melissia! you know that people are more likely to pull a trigger than to kill someone with scissors or beat their brains out with a baeball bat. Your argument is nonesense, sorry. It takes much more anger and aggresion to actively beat and rip and tear a person apart than to just bend your finger.
Ask anyone who's actually pulled the trigger on somebody. Not as easy as you think. You damn well know what you're about to do. There is no "Oh, I really wasn't thinking when I pulled the trigger."
Maybe you hang out with immature women. Maybe you're attracted to immature women because you think they'll let you shpadoink them.
But, assuming this is a true crime of passion, the emotion is there. And typically, in these types of crimes, once it starts they dont stop until they are physically unable to move whatever body part is used (ie. the arm if beating with fists or other object).
Wyrmalla wrote:Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US? Just noticing that this discussion is pretty much the views of gun supporters in the US vs the rest of the world (noting that the latter hasn't included many supporters of the former). 0.o
Switzerland IIRC has nearly lost their right to conceal carry. But it failed. I would also like to point out that in many areas of the world gun ownership isn't seen as a right. The exceptions being Switzerland, and the Philippines.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/01/16 19:29:28
I support the principal that if someone is threating your life in the street or breaking into your house to kill you, then you should be able to shoot them down. That is survival instinct.
I agree with killkrazy's point about people getting angry and doing something daft. We've all been there and seen fights and lost our temper. Usually, fists are involved and there is no lasting damage, but guns...There a many examples of law abiding citizens with not even a parking ticket between them, who shot down a cheating/husband wife.
Finally, I cannot let that slur from Frazz pass. Yes, I am jealous of the nation that makes krispy Kreme donuts, but the reason I'm getting involved is because certain Americans took it upon themselves to lecture us about law and order following the London riots. Previously, I was happy for the yanks to blast away at each other, but seeing ann coulter pop up on british tv and lecture us about social welfare...well...she was lucky that was a brand new tv otherwise my foot would have went right through it!!!!
Rant over
ps
Come November, I won't be able to switch a TV on without being bombarded with Presedential election coverage. I'm getting involved because my living room is being invaded.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Come November, I won't be able to switch a TV on without being bombarded with Presedential election coverage. I'm getting involved because my living room is being invaded.
Unfortunately for us in the US, or with US television, we are already being carpet bombed a la Dresden with political crap. From what I've been made to understand of the British Parliamentary elections, I WISH we had a system that limited campaign time like that.
Makarov wrote:I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
I think they should continue to be restricted where they currently are like the UK. I can say yes to the rest apart from the US federal laws because I'm not from the US. I don't know what needing to know the difference between clip and a magazine has to do with having an opinion on gun ownership. That's like saying you need to know how a carburettor works before you can opine on car use.
Makarov wrote:I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
I think they should continue to be restricted where they currently are like the UK. I can say yes to the rest apart from the US federal laws because I'm not from the US. I don't know what needing to know the difference between clip and a magazine has to do with having an opinion on gun ownership. That's like saying you need to know how a carburettor works before you can opine on car use.
I think, and I'm no mind reader here, what he's getting at is more akin to getting into an argument about how the brain functions when one side is a "liberal arts" degree or less education, faced with a Neurosurgeon. The person with less education on the subject will not have the same knowledge base, nor the same respect for the subject matter as someone who is expert in that subject.
I think that someone who has never handled a firearm personally, does not have the same respect for them as someone who does on a regular basis. If they are arguing against gun-rights (that is, they feel all firearms should be banned, regardless), depending on their argument points, they could be speaking from a point of ignorance and heresay, rather than using first-hand knowledge to formulate a good argument. In some cases, I have been in arguments with folks who felt that firearms should be banned, yet the points they were using were already under the control of the government, and handled during the purchasing process. In this way, I think that having some base knowledge of gun-control can lead to better arguments
I thought he was getting at how some of the laws use certain terms inaccurately, and that stories about gun crime also tend to be very inaccurate in the terms they use.
For example, the old 'Assault Rifle Ban' that basically classified any black gun as an assault rifle (yes, that is simplifying what the law actually did). Or how many AK47s are used in crimes, when in fact AK47s are a full auto weapon, and are very rarely used in crimes, instead some semi-automatic version is used.
Folks then run with the wrong terms "Street gangs have easy access to AK47s!!!" which confuses the issue because they then come under the impression that full auto (actual assault rifles) are easily available and often used.
They then don't undestand why folks who do know and understand the laws and terms make statements like "you need a class III license to get an AK, the bad guys didn't use one, it was semi-auto". They just know they feel AK47s should be illegal and controlled, but dont understand they already are...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 20:18:35
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Makarov wrote:I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
I think they should continue to be restricted where they currently are like the UK. I can say yes to the rest apart from the US federal laws because I'm not from the US. I don't know what needing to know the difference between clip and a magazine has to do with having an opinion on gun ownership. That's like saying you need to know how a carburettor works before you can opine on car use.
I think, and I'm no mind reader here, what he's getting at is more akin to getting into an argument about how the brain functions when one side is a "liberal arts" degree or less education, faced with a Neurosurgeon. The person with less education on the subject will not have the same knowledge base, nor the same respect for the subject matter as someone who is expert in that subject.
I think that someone who has never handled a firearm personally, does not have the same respect for them as someone who does on a regular basis. If they are arguing against gun-rights (that is, they feel all firearms should be banned, regardless), depending on their argument points, they could be speaking from a point of ignorance and heresay, rather than using first-hand knowledge to formulate a good argument. In some cases, I have been in arguments with folks who felt that firearms should be banned, yet the points they were using were already under the control of the government, and handled during the purchasing process. In this way, I think that having some base knowledge of gun-control can lead to better arguments
@ Ensis Ferrare You hit the nail right on the head. I have lost track of the number of times people think full autos can still be manufactured, and they are easy to get legally.( No, and it pretty freckin hard/expensive/pointless)
And @Howard A Treesong it does. For example the Brady campaign often calls for the ban of high capacity clips. Which do not exist. Then there are gems like this...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/01/16 20:28:15
CptJake wrote: Or how many AK47s are used in crimes, when in fact AK47s are a full auto weapon, and are very rarely used in crimes, instead some semi-automatic version is used.
Unfortunately, just because it is semi-auto does not somehow make it "not an AK-47". The mode of fire does not in any way alter the make and model of the gun. An AK-47 is an AK-47, semi or full auto.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Makarov wrote:
@Howard A Treesong it does. For example the Brady campaign often calls for the ban of high capacity clips. Which do not exist. Then there are gems like this...
This is American news? That guy definately wouldn't be working in news here. I mean don't put down the person your interviewing. News reporters are supposed to be unbiased and all he seemed to be doing is ignoring the points that she was trying to make and attempting to make her look stupid. She doesn't have to know everything about what the legislation is meant to do, especially not little nitpicky things like what a barrel shroud is (which was probably put in there by someone more informed than her, but she's the spokeswoman for it not them).
Yeah American news really not aught to be used to demonstrate a point. =P
Wyrmalla wrote:Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US?
I wonder how many Mexicans support it, what with the rampant gang violence that goes on? It's not like the drug cartels are lacking in guns...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
The point is that guns are far deadlier than knives, or indeed practically any household object, so sudden personal attacks involving such objects are more likely to result in death when a gun is used.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Here it is. Don't carry guns and less people will get killed, period.
Insulting image removed
back at you... No matter how provoked you are, you are not allowed to call another person idiot on Dakka. Use the Mod Alert button and let us deal with it. MT11
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/17 00:44:13
Lots
Dwarfs: Lots
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
Check out my blog at: averydwarfishblog.blogspot.com
Maybe you hang out with immature women. Maybe you're attracted to immature women because you think they'll let you shpadoink them. 
Lots