Poll for Gun Control Advocates

[myrkul]

Like taking pointy objects away from out-of-control children.

I think C. S. Lewis said it best:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

[1714789810]

1714789810

[1714789810]

1714789810

[1714789810]

1714789810

[AntiCap]

If your goal is to prevent harm to others, then you also want to prevent the potential harm from NOT having a gun. Since the whole group won't grow up at the same time, it's more fair and efficient to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis with mandatory liability insurance (like cars). That way you won't deem society ready and give guns to idiots, and won't deem society unready and deny guns to to cautious trained citizens.

Gun laws DON'T reduce murders, look it up if you don't believe me.

Like I said in my OP I think it's the culture that needs to change. In a violent culture you need to limit the access to dangerous things. You would also rather be accidentally stabbed during a robbery, than accidentally shot. Or even intentionally stabbed come to think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The US is far higher than Canada, Europe or Australia, which are the usual comparison objects. Three to four times higher.

[myrkul]

Give everybody guns, violent culture fixes self.

Gonna need a mop, though.

[AntiCap]

Give everybody guns, violent culture fixes self.

Gonna need a mop, though.

Great solution. Make sure everyone tries to be the most violent. That will turn out well I'm sure.

[myrkul]

Give everybody guns, violent culture fixes self.

Gonna need a mop, though.

Great solution. Make sure everyone tries to be the most violent. That will turn out well I'm sure.

If you want to select for peacefulness, it is best if peaceful people have the tools to defend against violent behavior. A peaceful person does not become violent when armed, but he does become a more dangerous target for the violent people to attack.

[Explodicle]

If your goal is to prevent harm to others, then you also want to prevent the potential harm from NOT having a gun. Since the whole group won't grow up at the same time, it's more fair and efficient to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis with mandatory liability insurance (like cars). That way you won't deem society ready and give guns to idiots, and won't deem society unready and deny guns to to cautious trained citizens.

Gun laws DON'T reduce murders, look it up if you don't believe me.

Like I said in my OP I think it's the culture that needs to change. In a violent culture you need to limit the access to dangerous things.

Correct, which is what mandatory liability insurance would do. You haven't justified just having one sweeping policy for the foolish and wise alike.

You would also rather be accidentally stabbed during a robbery, than accidentally shot. Or even intentionally stabbed come to think about it.

Would you rather face a robber while you are armed or unarmed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The US is far higher than Canada, Europe or Australia, which are the usual comparison objects. Three to four times higher.

I'm not disputing American aggression. I'm disputing a causality between permissive gun laws and homocide rate, so you'd have to show how homocides decrease in jurisdictions once gun bans are enacted.

[AntiCap]

If you want to select for peacefulness, it is best if peaceful people have the tools to defend against violent behavior. A peaceful person does not become violent when armed, but he does become a more dangerous target for the violent people to attack.

What does living in a violent environment do to people?

[asdf]

If you want to select for peacefulness, it is best if peaceful people have the tools to defend against violent behavior. A peaceful person does not become violent when armed, but he does become a more dangerous target for the violent people to attack.

What does living in a violent environment do to people?

The state cultivates violence. It is a system entirely based on violence. You want to prevent violence by using the treat of violence to remove peoples ability to defend themselves from said violence.

[myrkul]

If you want to select for peacefulness, it is best if peaceful people have the tools to defend against violent behavior. A peaceful person does not become violent when armed, but he does become a more dangerous target for the violent people to attack.

What does living in a violent environment do to people?

What is a more violent environment,
this (Porcfest 2009):


or this (just a few days ago):

[BitcoinINV]

I once had a Wise Gunnery Sargent in the Marine Corps that said "The only reason the United States, has not or will not ever get invaded is, There are enough weapons to arm every Man, Women and Child willing to defend there land. No self respecting person would let any one come take there land. It really has nothing to do with the country it has to do with what is protecting what is yours. Your country, your state, your county, your city, your block. Its yours and if you like the way you live, you would shoot any invader foreign or domestic trying to take it plain and simple."

I am a believer of this 100%, if there is a will there is a way gun or no gun. Crackheads will rob you with a gun or a knife does not matter.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S34v0.pdf
 
And here is a perfect example

http://www.jdnews.com/articles/investigating-102834-police-shooting.html

USMC 6541 Aviation Ordie tech.... I built bombs and worked on there electronic systems.
 IYAOYAS b*tches!

**** edit ****
New York has a anti hand gun law and it has DONE NOTHING!

[AntiCap]

Correct, which is what mandatory liability insurance would do. You haven't justified just having one sweeping policy for the foolish and wise alike.

Would you rather face a robber while you are armed or unarmed?

I'm not disputing American aggression. I'm disputing a causality between permissive gun laws and homocide rate, so you'd have to show how homocides decrease in jurisdictions once gun bans are enacted.

What sweeping policy have I proposed?

I have been robbed. I was unarmed and gave up what little I had on me. He got a little cash, I got away unharmed. Had I been armed I might have resisted which would have ended badly for one of us.

I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?

[myrkul]

I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?

Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

[BitcoinINV]

I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?

Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

Sweet I'm going to get that book for bathroom reading lol

[AntiCap]

If you want to select for peacefulness, it is best if peaceful people have the tools to defend against violent behavior. A peaceful person does not become violent when armed, but he does become a more dangerous target for the violent people to attack.

What does living in a violent environment do to people?

What is a more violent environment,
this (Porcfest 2009):
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2484/3660895006_9bf4b133d8_z.jpg?zz=1

or this (just a few days ago):
http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/14/52/70/3321374/7/628x471.jpg

Do you always avoid answering questions by asking a question of your own?

And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.

[BitcoinINV]

There is no such thing as peace..... If someone wants something bad enough they will take it, if it be a person or a president.

[Ascholten]

Give everybody guns, violent culture fixes self.

Gonna need a mop, though.

Great solution. Make sure everyone tries to be the most violent. That will turn out well I'm sure.

It will turn out very well if we kill off the hand wringers first followed by the thugs and those who think it's cool to hold the gun sideways when you shoot it.
Society will quickly right itself and members will be polite towards each other again.

[drakahn]

I used to be a gun control advocate, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

[myrkul]

Do you always avoid answering questions by asking a question of your own?

And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.

I answered your question by not answering it. I ceded the point. Yes, a violent environment makes people violent. But note that while we only see one person open carrying in the first picture, there is no reason why everyone there would not be armed, even Bongo-boy there. The situation, however, is not violent, regardless of how many people are armed, because the people are peaceful. The second picture, on the other hand, is violent, because the people with the guns are violent. A little backstory: That gentleman there with the knife was minding his own business, smoking something that "looked like a marijuana cigarette", and is simply (unsuccessfully, and unwisely) attempting to defend himself from their aggression.

"Everybody" isn't armed in that picture, only the thugs in the blue costumes are.

[AntiCap]

I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?

Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.

Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.

[drakahn]

I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?

Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.

Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.

This is what I used to sound like, I guess I've grown up since then... Guns ARE tools for killing, and when you need to kill someone you want it to be easier for you than it is for them