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.

 Peregrine wrote:



Because the best defense is a good offense, and because you recognize that gun control does very little to stop violent crime and mostly just annoys the people who own guns and never break any laws with them.

Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns....fething crazy i kno0w.
the best defence is no one being at war.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Hordini wrote:



?


And no. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an armed assailant. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an assailant bigger or stronger than you. You may feel safe, and that is fine, but there is virtually no situation in which not having a gun is a better defense than having a gun.


And more than one of us has explained to you why the US has a high homicide rate compared to other first world countries. Was there something confusing about our posts?

I have better self defence without firearms, i have less chance of being murdered. a figure your defence figures can not argue.I have less chance of being killed....and I don't need a weapon

Having less of a chance of being killed isn't the same as having better self defense without a gun, which is what you said before. The former may be true, the latter isn't. And there are a lot of factors that go into the latter as well, may of which might not apply, especially if you don't live in a troubled neighborhood in one of the major US urban centers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:



Because the best defense is a good offense, and because you recognize that gun control does very little to stop violent crime and mostly just annoys the people who own guns and never break any laws with them.

Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns....fething crazy i kno0w.
the best defence is no one being at war.

That's weird, we don't have to carry here either. In fact the majority of Americans don't.

but you do have a homicide rate on par with 3rd world countries

 Bullockist wrote:
but you do have a homicide rate on par with 3rd world countries

Sigh. Again, I've given you reasons for that, and they have nothing to do with gun ownership. Could you please stop acting like the only thing responsible for the US violent crime rate is how many legally-owned guns we have?

PS: remember how I mentioned that the US isn't a homogenous mass? There are parts of the US that make the average third-world country look like a pleasant vacation spot.

 Bullockist wrote:
Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns....fething crazy i kno0w.
the best defence is no one being at war.

You do realize that carry laws don't magically stop people from having guns, right? If someone wants to shoot you the fact that the might have to illegally carry a gun to do it probably isn't going to stop them.

yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction. youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation. we have less mnurders.. less gun murders. ass long as you dont spout for pro gun gak i'm ok

 Bullockist wrote:
yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction. youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation. we have less mnurders.. less gun murders. ass long as you dont spout for pro gun gak i'm ok

Are you drunk? I'm not judging, it's cool if you are. You're just making a lot more spelling errors than you usually do. And your posts are a bit belligerent.

What's wrong with being pro gun? That's interesting that only criminals carry in your country. In the US, there are plenty of people who carry who aren't criminals. It's quite nice, actually.

I am pro gun, in my country, in the us well i am not. THe US has a cr4azy murder/homicide figure.that's people dead, people that aren't dead in other countries. why is it ok to have a hi8gh murder rate?

 Bullockist wrote:
yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction.

Now do you see how this destroys your argument that you're safer because carrying a gun is illegal? If the only people who don't carry guns are people who obey the law voluntarily then how exactly is it helping to keep you safe? If you're safer where you live than in the US (again, not a homogenous mass) it's because there are fewer people who want to hurt you, not because someone who is willing to murder you is afraid of breaking a "no guns" law.

youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation.

Could you explain exactly how those things are worse? When you do, don't forget the population density factor. It isn't just poverty and desperation that cause all the murders (and other crime), it's poverty and desperation combined with packing a ton of poor and desperate people into a concentrated area and effectively cutting them off from the rest of the world.

carrying does not mean safer
FFS what fething gave you tat idea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
we don't carry ever, we are safer, or our people are morally superior



Automatically Appended Next Post:
it's fact mate, i have never felt the need to carry a weapon. I have been mugged once for 30 cents. fear does not eneter my brain like that

 Bullockist wrote:
carrying does not mean safer
FFS what fething gave you tat idea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
we don't carry ever, we are safer, or our people are morally superior

You're right. Those must be the only two possible options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:

it's fact mate, i have never felt the need to carry a weapon. I have been mugged once for 30 cents. fear does not eneter my brain like that

It's not about fear.

much like carrying make people safe, ect.\

I DOn't ever think about violent crime atm, i dunno i'm thinking that's a good thing.

 Bullockist wrote:
much like carrying make people safe, ect.\

I DOn't ever think about violent crime atm, i dunno i'm thinking that's a good thing.

I'm very happy for you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction.

Now do you see how this destroys your argument that you're safer because carrying a gun is illegal? If the only people who don't carry guns are people who obey the law voluntarily then how exactly is it helping to keep you safe? If you're safer where you live than in the US (again, not a homogenous mass) it's because there are fewer people who want to hurt you, not because someone who is willing to murder you is afraid of breaking a "no guns" law.

youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation.

Could you explain exactly how those things are worse? When you do, don't forget the population density factor. It isn't just poverty and desperation that cause all the murders (and other crime), it's poverty and desperation combined with packing a ton of poor and desperate people into a concentrated area and effectively cutting them off from the rest of the world.

the whole "{carrying protects you against criminals)" thing is bunk. I dont carry any time in my country and I'm safer.no matter what i do i'm safer. no matter the population density I;m safer!. socio economic i;m safer by over 1,5 % . do i need a gun to be safe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
guns do not make you safe

 Bullockist wrote:
carrying does not mean safer
FFS what fething gave you tat idea?

Of course it does, as long as you're willing to use your gun instead of treating it like a magic "make the bad guy go away" button that you can just wave in their general direction. Even if the chances of using your gun in self defense are low (and they are) a small additional chance of protecting yourself is more than no additional chance.

Also, remember that your original argument was that you're safer because you don't carry a gun, which is a very different claim.

it's fact mate, i have never felt the need to carry a weapon. I have been mugged once for 30 cents. fear does not eneter my brain like that

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Also, again, please stop ignoring the non-gun factors involved in crime. The fact that you feel safe enough to not need to carry a weapon has very little to do with how many legally-owned guns the people around you have access to.

I'll give you statistics,in a country with harsh gun laws, I am safer than a country than with lax gun laws. I don't carry a gun, statistically i am safer than a human (per 100000) that lives in the us.I dunno how you cannot see this, your country is the murder capital 0of the first world.
I'm sure that's ok.

I duuno how you guys don't see it, less guns = less murders.

 Bullockist wrote:
I'll give you statistics,in a country with harsh gun laws, I am safer than a country than with lax gun laws. I don't carry a gun, statistically i am safer than a human (per 100000) that lives in the us.I dunno how you cannot see this, your country is the murder capital 0of the first world.

Correlation is not causation. Please stop ignoring the non-gun factors that I have mentioned over and over again.

I duuno how you guys don't see it, less guns = less murders.

Then please explain the parts of the US that have high gun ownership and low violent crime rates.

And the parts of the US with strict gun laws, low gun ownership, and high violent crime rates.

Honestly, I'm going to have to agree with the "are you drunk" question at this point. Your arguments aren't even making sense anymore, maybe it's time to turn off your computer and go to bed?

 Peregrine wrote:
Honestly, I'm going to have to agree with the "are you drunk" question at this point. Your arguments aren't even making sense anymore, maybe it's time to turn off your computer and go to bed?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was seriously asking.

I bet Dakka wishes there was a similar idea for you and by that i m,ean peregrine, a lot of peregrine. I mean feth... it's all about peregrine

Ok, you're clearly drunk or sleep deprived or something. As an act of kindness I'm going to step out of this debate for a while and stop encouraging you to make posts you'll regret later.

 Bullockist wrote:
I bet Dakka wishes there was a similar idea for you and by that i m,ean peregrine, a lot of peregrine. I mean feth... it's all about peregrine

I don't even know what that means, but I am morbidly curious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, yeah. I'm with Peregrine. If you want to talk about this later when you're done poasting, I'll be happy to discuss it further.

 Bullockist wrote:
Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns.

I'd argue that my state has the sane gun laws. That is to say almost none. I'd also say I am safer here than in most European nations as we don't have a bunch a flying rodent gak crazy Muslims blowing gak up around here.

Life is all about reasonable risk management.

Fair enough, I'll admit when I misread something, which it appears I did.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns.

I'd argue that my state has the sane gun laws. That is to say almost none. I'd also say I am safer here than in most European nations as we don't have a bunch a flying rodent gak crazy Muslims blowing gak up around here.

Life is all about reasonable risk management.

We don't have muslims blowing stuff up, either. In fact, most of the people blowing stuff up/setting stuff on fire etc. are white, non-muslim, neo-nazis. Go figure.

Peregrine wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
I duuno how you guys don't see it, less guns = less murders.

Then please explain the parts of the US that have high gun ownership and low violent crime rates.

Hordini wrote:And the parts of the US with strict gun laws, low gun ownership, and high violent crime rates.

Also that, in the last 10 or so years, the gun ownership rate in the US has risen whilst the violent crime rate using guns in the US has gone down (caveat that correlation is NOT causation, of course).

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
"Gun Monkey" is a reference to those individual manning a artillery piece. Being they look like a bunch of monkey's moving all over the piece to fire thereby putting "Steel on Target"

I thought the accepted term was "gun bunny."

To close to being called a Badge Bunny.

Edit

Might be acceptable now being DOMA and DADT has been removed. Though females are not allowed still in the 13 series slots

Bullockist wrote:ok, so instead of regarding the states as a whole i am to regard it as parts? i'm cool with that , just want to make sure before the next gun monkey gets in with a comment.

I'm not surprised there is localised crime in the us, there is localised crime everywhere .Even if you want to go the socio economic route, aboriginal australians are responsible for 25% of convictions ( at roughly 2% of population)
so wheres our increased murder rate, we most surely have a VERY marginalised minority?
or p0erhaps gun laws play a part,

sweden , denmark, switzerland ect.

African Americans make up about 13% of the population of the USA, but account for over 50% of all violent crimes*. They also have a gun ownership rate that's... I want to say about 1/3 of that of white Americans, but that's from memory. Isolating African Americans from the rest of the USA cuts the homocide rate in half. But no, it's all about gun ownership.

Another note, if you actually graph the world's gun ownership versus homocide rate, you actually get a negative correlation. That is, more guns, less crime. Fewer guns, more crime. Now, the correlation is very weak, and no one should try and use that to claim that guns prevent crime, but it's pretty easy to demonstrate that gun ownership rates have absolutely no causational link to violent crime rates.

Meanwhile, poverty and crime have an extremely strong correlation that's extensively documented by all sorts of different organizations.

Bullockist wrote:

 jorny wrote:
I have a feeling that you might probably get more accidents involving guns in countries with more guns available. However the amount of gun violence probably has a lot more to do with social issues, poverty and drug use than anything else. Switzerland has a lot of military weapons among the citizens. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of hunting weapons (moose hunting is huge). Home guard soldiers (70 000 back in the day) used to keep their assault rifles at home. Recreational shooting with hand guns is also a lot more popular than most people realise.

I do think that weapons should be properly secured though.

If your parents get drunk and start waving weapons around I think that the message should encourage kids to contact a social worker or the police rather than bringing a gun to school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
when you go to this page and see america is not close at all to any western democracy in regard to homocides per 100000 . Perhaps changes to attitudes should be more prominent. Social issues are involved, sure, but i don't see too may first world countries with such a high homicide rate. IS it gun control, or are americans more murderous? If it aint a lack of gun control what is it?

There are a few instances in which you can observe gun control measures decreasing gun-related deaths. Australia's gun ban is one. However, we're not actually concerned with gun related violence. We're concerned with all violence. It doesn't do anyone any good if you take away the guns and people start getting stabbed to death instead. In every case I've been able to find, this is exactly what happens. Remove the guns, and either the criminals will find ways of illegal acquiring guns, or they will just use different weapons in their crimes. After Australia enacted a major gun ban, firearms related deaths (including suicides) dropped, but their overall homicide and suicide rates remained pretty steady.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns.

I'd argue that my state has the sane gun laws. That is to say almost none. I'd also say I am safer here than in most European nations as we don't have a bunch a flying rodent gak crazy Muslims blowing gak up around here.

Life is all about reasonable risk management.

We don't have muslims blowing stuff up, either. In fact, most of the people blowing stuff up/setting stuff on fire etc. are white, non-muslim, neo-nazis. Go figure.

If we're going to inaccurately sensationalize violent crime in the USA, then should you be pointing the finger at inaccurate sensationalize of violent crime in Europe ?




Edit:
*I'm just pointing this out to illustrate that poverty and racial issues are far more closely tied with violence than gun ownership probably ever will be.

I'll preface this by saying I've grown up in Australia, I was reasonably young when our strict gun laws came in to effect (following the Port Arthur massacre), but I have also lived some time in the USA.

For the most part I think violence/crime/murder comes from social problems rather than gun ownership and in the past I've mostly supported the idea of gun ownership... though as time has passed I find myself leaning more toward the gun control side of the argument. There's lots of arguments both ways, but I tend to feel they are more on the side of gun control being the better option.

If you have gun control, yes, criminals will still be able to get their hands on guns... but how often does a criminal with access to black market weaponry go out of their way to kill you personally?

It seems to me you're mostly likely to encounter criminals who are simply trying to steal from you, in which case having a gun on you sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

If you encounter someone who is not a common criminal but rather a gun toting psychopath, then yeah, having a gun on you will make you safer than if you didn't have a gun on you because they're probably going to shoot you anyway so if lots of regular citizens have guns they are more capable of defending against the gun toting psychopath... but at the same time having tighter gun control means the gun toting psychopath is less likely to be toting a gun in the first place. If you're mentally deranged enough to go randomly shooting people it's not THAT easy to find yourself a gun on the black market, it's both difficult and expensive (but by no means impossible).

I'm not sure what the statistics are, but I tend to think if you have guns and even if you are trained in their use, you're probably more likely to be shot or shoot someone or have someone shoot someone else with your gun (eg. a kid who doesn't know what they're doing) by accident than you are likely to have the gun save you in self defence. Even if you know what you're doing, mistakes happen.

There's the argument that citizens should have guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government... I think that idea went out the window some time before WW2 when the military started getting aircraft and tanks that are capable of incredible destruction and are mostly resilient to weapons your average citizen is likely to own.

For a girl (and maybe a dude) having a gun may be a more effective rape-preventative, though it's still hardly a cure for the problem.

Switzerland has high gun ownership but relatively low gun violence, however gun ownership is largely tied to military service and from what I've read it's hard to get a permit to carry unless you work in a high risk job, so even though gun ownership is high, gun control is there as well.

Hunting wise, even countries with gun control seem to typically allow permits for rifles suitable for hunting. Even here in Australia with our strict gun laws I know several people who (legally) hunt. It seems those sorts of rifles are rarely used against people

But in the end I don't sway strongly one way or the other, I just tend to err on the side of gun control being better, but if the majority of society wants to be able to freely carry guns I'm fine with that, but I think it's as silly to think the guns are protecting you as it is to think it's guns are the root of all evil and banning them will fix the core community problems.

Gun deaths per capita in the USA are on par with road deaths per capita in the USA (which also aren't great compared to the rest of the western world but that's another discussion), so if it's worth discussing road safety I think it's worth discussing gun safety and control. Even if homicide doesn't decrease massively but accidental deaths and suicides decrease I think it's worth discussing the matter. I think having no guns around also reduces the chance of deaths during heated arguments (maybe? I don't have numbers, that's just my guess, lol).

All that said... if I were living in the USA again I'd probably own guns, mostly rifles for hunting though, lol. If I lived in the same spot where I lived when I first moved there I'd probably own hand guns for self defence as well because it was a really crappy area and I don't have a wife/kids so I don't have to be all that concerned with accidental deaths of loved ones either. But I wouldn't be opposed to gun control if it's what the community wanted it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It seems to me you're mostly likely to encounter criminals who are simply trying to steal from you, in which case having a gun on you sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

If you encounter someone who is not a common criminal but rather a gun toting psychopath, then yeah, having a gun on you will make you safer than if you didn't have a gun on you because they're probably going to shoot you anyway so if lots of regular citizens have guns they are more capable of defending against the gun toting psychopath...

I think you have that backwards. The average robber wants a weak target, and is likely to run away as soon as they realize you have a gun and might fight back. The homicidal lunatic is more likely to just walk up and shoot you before you have any idea that you're in danger.