UN Gun control.... GO!

[myrkul]

I have a friend in the Philippines where guns were recently banned. There is now a rash of hit and run armed robberies there. Recently, her neighbor (a relative) was gunned down for the cash he was carrying in a money belt. It happened in broad daylight by a masked motorbike rider. I am not against guns, but we need reason to guide our lawmakers.

So, what you're saying is, they took the guns away, and crime rates went up?

Who could have possibly predicted this?

You would think that would be obvious to legislators. Unless you have a kingdom with cameras everywhere, the killers have little to fear.

Even a kingdom of cameras can't stop masked men... hehe they'd have to have a build that is unmistake able or the like.

Yeah they use body mechanic analysis. The cameras can tag heat signatures of their vehicles and can track the perps just about anywhere. Besides, most crooks are dim and get caught. Gunmen tend to live a life of violence and it's rarely for very long.

Imagine how short that career would be if more victims were armed.

Certainly someone carrying large amounts of cash would take precautions, including a firearm. In your home, a weapon should be recommended. However, most of the time guns are used in random situations where you would not be prepared for the element of surprise.

True. But criminals prefer unarmed victims. A higher percentage of armed people in an area reduces the likelihood that anyone will be attacked. (Especially if those armed people are carrying concealed, and it is known that concealed carry is a thing they do in that area.)

[1714795828]

1714795828

[1714795828]

1714795828

[1714795828]

1714795828

[1714795828]

1714795828

[1714795828]

1714795828

[Timo Y]

I'll just leave these here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_Royal_Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

We need stricter car control laws.

[FirstAscent]

I'll just leave these here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_Royal_Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

Your point?

[myrkul]

I'll just leave these here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_Royal_Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

Your point?

You asked what people used cars for. I gave you some examples.

[FirstAscent]

I'll just leave these here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_Royal_Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

Your point?

You asked what people used cars for. I gave you some examples.

But how does that address the content of my post? Answer: it doesn't.

[myrkul]

I'll just leave these here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_Royal_Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

Your point?

You asked what people used cars for. I gave you some examples.

But how does that address the content of my post? Answer: it doesn't.

It specifically answered one of the questions you posed. I'm sorry you're not happy with the answer, but I assume you're accustomed to that disappointment by now.

[FirstAscent]

I'll just leave these here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_Royal_Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

Your point?

You asked what people used cars for. I gave you some examples.

But how does that address the content of my post? Answer: it doesn't.

It specifically answered one of the questions you posed. I'm sorry you're not happy with the answer, but I assume you're accustomed to that disappointment by now.

I asked three questions in that post. You attempted to answer one of the questions I asked by avoiding what people really use cars for on a daily basis. I think that demonstrates your argumentative tactics, and dismisses you as anyone to take seriously.

[Xenland]

I think this whole conversation is openended and I thought the input of information was relevant, but I didn't ask the questions so I can't be too sure how usefull it was to the asker but objectivly the information was usefull none the less.

[FirstAscent]

I think this whole conversation is openended and I thought the input of information was relevant, but I didn't ask the questions so I can't be too sure how usefull it was to the asker but objectivly the information was usefull none the less.

The information myrkul provided was to try and show how cars and guns are the same, which is very far from the truth. Thus the importance of discerning how each contributes to the economy. Let's try this again. Consider a ban on cars, trucks, buses and knives. What happens?

[myrkul]

I asked three questions in that post. You attempted to answer one of the questions I asked by avoiding what people really use cars for on a daily basis.

But you don't base your arguments on what people really use guns for on a daily basis. You use outlying, violent, crazy people. So, I did the same.

Consider a ban on cars, trucks, buses and knives. What happens?

The economy (especially the restaurant industry) shuts down. It's hard to prep food without knives.

Of course, criminals will still have them, while law-abiding citizens will not. We can expect motor-vehicle accidents, overall, to be reduced, but the fatalities (especially bystander fatalities) in each individual accident we can expect to increase. Only criminals and police officers will have vehicles, and so most traffic can be expected to be at high speed - either trying to avoid being caught, or trying to catch. However, this may be a boon to the rail and air industries, since most goods will then have to be moved via rail. Getting them to the store, however, remains an issue. Wal-mart may have to set up it's own rail-line. Transportation will be almost entirely by rail (for the plebes) and air (for the elites). In-city transportation may have to go back to the horse-and-buggy, reintroducing a cleanliness problem that was eliminated close to a century ago.

Finally, criminals will still have knives, while the law-abiding citizen will not. The end result is the same as we see with guns: crime will increase, as knife-wielding criminals are emboldened by their victims being disarmed. (Not to mention, very likely walking with a load of groceries, most restaurants having closed down.)

To sum up: Banning a thing only harms society, in that it ensures that only criminals will have it. If this thing is useful in defending one's self from criminals, like a gun, or a knife, or in protecting one's safety whilst traveling, like a car, then the law abiding citizens will suffer. I don't recommend it.

[myrkul]

Furthermore, the loss of so much personal mobility except for the elites who can afford private jets, or even perhaps exemptions to the car ban, will stratify the society. Like guns, cars are a democratizing force.

[Xenland]

I asked three questions in that post. You attempted to answer one of the questions I asked by avoiding what people really use cars for on a daily basis.

But you don't base your arguments on what people really use guns for on a daily basis. You use outlying, violent, crazy people. So, I did the same.

Consider a ban on cars, trucks, buses and knives. What happens?

Transportation will be almost entirely by rail (for the plebes) and air (for the elites). In-city transportation may have to go back to the horse-and-buggy, reintroducing a cleanliness problem that was eliminated close to a century ago.

This is almost like being corralled in nazi era seriously.

[Mike Christ]

A tree cannot be charged for murder if it falls on a person, as it did not intent to do so, for it cannot think--however, if the tree fell because someone rigged it to fall, it can be a murder weapon.  We need to ban trees large enough to kill people. 

Therefor, only people with idle hands can kill people.  But hands can't be idle if they're busy working   We need to put a ban on thoughts.

And the following is a series of silliness:

Medicine kills people.  We need to abolish medicine.

Lack of oxygen kills people.  We need a ban on lack of oxygen.

People die in hospitals.  Coincidence?  I think not.  We need to banish people from hospitals, and people dying in hospitals will drop to 0.

Gravity kills people.  We need to live in space.

Hot temperatures kill people.  We need to ban Mexico.

Cold temperatures kill people.  We need to abolish Canada.

Not eating kills people.  But that cuts into profits so we'll leave this one alone.

Getting hit by motor vehicles kill people.  This one also cuts into profits, so this one stays.

Butter knives in the eye kill people.  We need to ban butter knives from getting into eyes.

Jumping up and down too long and overexerting yourself kills people.  We need to ban exercise.

Diving and then flying kills people.  We need to banish the ocean and the sky.

Pollution kills people.  Good luck banning this one!  Ha ha ha!

Excessive amounts of fluoride kill people.  See above.

Having pianos falling on you kills people.  We need to abolish black and white films.

A lack of pirates creates a hotter planet and that kills people.  We need to abolish lack of pirates.

Being heartbroken metaphorically kills people.  We need to abolish teen romance.

And last but not least, living kills people.  We need a ban on pregnancy.

[myrkul]

And last but not least, living kills people.  We need a ban on pregnancy.

“Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent.”

 R. D. Laing

[FirstAscent]

A tree cannot be charged for murder if it falls on a person, as it did not intent to do so, for it cannot think--however, if the tree fell because someone rigged it to fall, it can be a murder weapon.  We need to ban trees large enough to kill people. 

Therefor, only people with idle hands can kill people.  But hands can't be idle if they're busy working   We need to put a ban on thoughts.

And the following is a series of silliness:

Medicine kills people.  We need to abolish medicine.

Lack of oxygen kills people.  We need a ban on lack of oxygen.

People die in hospitals.  Coincidence?  I think not.  We need to banish people from hospitals, and people dying in hospitals will drop to 0.

Gravity kills people.  We need to live in space.

Hot temperatures kill people.  We need to ban Mexico.

Cold temperatures kill people.  We need to abolish Canada.

Not eating kills people.  But that cuts into profits so we'll leave this one alone.

Getting hit by motor vehicles kill people.  This one also cuts into profits, so this one stays.

Butter knives in the eye kill people.  We need to ban butter knives from getting into eyes.

Jumping up and down too long and overexerting yourself kills people.  We need to ban exercise.

Diving and then flying kills people.  We need to banish the ocean and the sky.

Pollution kills people.  Good luck banning this one!  Ha ha ha!

Excessive amounts of fluoride kill people.  See above.

Having pianos falling on you kills people.  We need to abolish black and white films.

A lack of pirates creates a hotter planet and that kills people.  We need to abolish lack of pirates.

Being heartbroken metaphorically kills people.  We need to abolish teen romance.

And last but not least, living kills people.  We need a ban on pregnancy.

It would be best if you didn't speak and put your foot in your mouth over and over. Let's go back to cars.

Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned.

[Lethn]

Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned.

Japan has already had guns banned for a long time you halfwit.

[myrkul]

Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned.

Japan has already had guns banned for a long time you halfwit.

I think that may have been his point.

But of course, I believe he played the "No isolated island nations" card once when discussing historical anarchies...

And I truly doubt the gun ban is the determining factor in Japan's crime rate... I'd say police practices and societal structure play a much larger part:

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

[FirstAscent]

Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned.

Japan has already had guns banned for a long time you halfwit.

No shit, you dimwitted dumbshit (see boldfaced item in quote above). Now, try answering the question. What happens (as in what did happen) to the Japanese economy by virtue of banning guns? And then explain what would happen if cars, trucks, trains, and buses were banned. And, if after reflection, you still wish to pull the "well let's ban cars" argument to support gun rights, then by all means, continue to do so to display the fact that you only have three or four brain cells in operation inside your cranium.

[FirstAscent]

Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned.

Japan has already had guns banned for a long time you halfwit.

I think that may have been his point.

But of course, I believe he played the "No isolated island nations" card once when discussing historical anarchies...

And I truly doubt the gun ban is the determining factor in Japan's crime rate... I'd say police practices and societal structure play a much larger part:

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

I'll refer you to this, since you can't do it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate . Locate within the chart the position and incarceration rate of Japan vs. the incarceration rate of other nations, notably that of the U.S.

[Dabs]

In the Philippines, guns are banned right now, until at least June 12, 2013. But many, defy the ban. Some have exemptions. Some don't, they just carry anyway.