This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
The QOTD Thread: Goodbye
Return to board index
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Nope.
Post by
Nathanyal
It might go like back in USA when president made list of forbitten songs. The thing was that thous songs came more popular. I don't remember a president ever forbidding songs.
What if you could only drink one bottle of beer per month? I'm pritty sure that almost every one would drink far more than that 1 bottle of beer per month.
Prohibition, look that up. People would, like you say, go around the law and obtain what they want. But it would still be illegal to do so and if caught those people will face a penalty.
Me personally, I wouldn't break that law if it were in effect. I don't even drink lol.
OT: I believe some gun control can make an area safer, but there is always a chance someone might get hurt.
Post by
Skreeran
Here's the thing. I don't think we can expect one solution to be equally applicable for everyone. What works for Denmark won't necessarily work in the United States because we face different circumstances and different problems.
I think the biggest problem with guns is gang violence, and no legislation we make is going to keep them from obtaining guns, because they already have the smuggling connections needed to bypass them.
Honestly, I have a hard time imagining a way to reduce violent crime without taking freedom away from people. If you control guns, people will kill each other with knives. If you take away the knives, people will kill each other with homemade machetes and sharpened rebar.
The problem, I think, isn't with guns, but with people. We can do things to limit what murderers can do, like banning automatic weapons or reducing magazine sizes, but really, I think a lot of this reactionary legislation is just people trying to feel safe instead of facing the facts.
Edit: Also, this would be better suited to the Debate of the Day thread, or its own dedicated thread.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Perhaps, but I tend to be skeptical on the actual safeness that most of the gun control legislation that's being proposed here in America will bring. Taking AR-15s away from the public isn't going to do much, in my opinion. Handguns are actually the most dangerous offenders, in my opinion, but everyone's talking about assault rifles
And I can agree that 5 year olds should not have guns. I got my first gun when I was 8, and my father heavily controlled that one, but I can agree that is unsafe. The question, then, is whether and to what degree the government should intervene there. We can't exactly be having routine inspections of gun owners to make sure their guns are safely locked away.
Post by
Berndorf
As someone already noted, as far as a one rule fits all countries/areas it's not really applicable. In terms of rational gun control which still allows gun ownership I think its going to make the area safer overall. In America, we just have so many views on how to control gun violence that its hard for people to agree to compromise in order to make new federal legislation which would really make a difference. The overall availability of guns just makes new laws somewhat obsolete and the media loves to go on and on about so called assault rifles but they are used in less than 1% of overall gun homicides.
Post by
Nathanyal
The question is if it makes it safER though, not safe. Taking away guns from everyday morons who manage to shoot themselves on accident wont make it safe from gang violence, but it's still safer.
When you buy a gun you should have to go through a lot to make sure you're not a moron.
That's true. And a great deal of Americans, as in 91%, agree there should be background checks for all weapon purchases. Including online sales and at gun shows. But I live in the 9% of the US that think they want to take our guns away and form some socialist government.
And I recall a story about a kid who got a gun for his 5th birthday who shot himself. The tiniest bit of control would've stopped a 5 year old from getting a gun for his birthday...
As for this, I think that is more along the lines of bad parenting than gun control.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Obviously, but if the parents couldn't easily get that gun, I'd doubt they'd get involved with gangs to get an illegal one.But assuming they hadn't committed any crimes or anything, they'd still pass a background check.
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Statistically areas with more liberal gun laws (I mean liberal here in the sense that it's easier to get guns, not in connection with those who identify themselves with a liberal political party) tend to have less violent crime.
Post by
Rankkor
I just realised one thing... It's only controlling guns and not bows. Damn you can carry hand crossbow (really small crossbow which can be carried in 1 hand)... It is not gun it is bow. Gun control is about guns not bows. I just found major hole in this thing...
You may call me troll if you want. It is not forbidden.
there's A LOT of problems with this.
A: Forget the movies, reloading a crossbow takes A LONG LONG LONG time to do so. At most you can do 2 shots per minute with a crossbow. Unless you're the best marskman in the world, you're not gonna hit anything with it, as bolts suffer from wind and gravity more than bullets do.
B: Hand-crossbows don't pack as much punch as you think, and if you wear thick enough clothes, the crossbow will cause light wounds that would in no way incapacitate a threat. Not to mention that a crossbow is borderline impossible to use in close range.
C: And this is the biggie, bows and crossbows are still legislated by any law related to guns since they are still projectile weapons. I think only slings are the one type of unregulated projectile weapon in the world (And even then, some regulations exist for them).
Here's the thing. I don't think we can expect one solution to be equally applicable for everyone. What works for Denmark won't necessarily work in the United States because we face different circumstances and different problems.
I think the biggest problem with guns is gang violence, and no legislation we make is going to keep them from obtaining guns, because they already have the smuggling connections needed to bypass them.
Honestly, I have a hard time imagining a way to reduce violent crime without taking freedom away from people. If you control guns, people will kill each other with knives. If you take away the knives, people will kill each other with homemade machetes and sharpened rebar.
The problem, I think, isn't with guns, but with people. We can do things to limit what murderers can do, like banning automatic weapons or reducing magazine sizes, but really, I think a lot of this reactionary legislation is just people trying to feel safe instead of facing the facts.
Brilliantly put brother, I'd like to add a few things to this:
Correlation =/= causation.
It is true that some countries with a high and tight control on how many guns (if any) can be obtained legally by the civilians (Such as Denmark and japan) have a low rate of gun-related deaths. But if this is true, does that means EVERY country where guns are highly regulated have a low mortality rate with guns?
NO
Venezuela is a country with a lot of gun control. For starters, you can only own one gun per household, that gun can only be a small caliber revolver, everything else is illegal. The weapon, and the ammo for it are prohibitively expensive, and the number of permits needed to own, and use one would probably make a life-sized statue of yourself. You need a permit to own one, another one to carry it with you, another one to use it, another permit to get the first 3 permits (Inceptionā¢).
Does this makes venezuela a safe haven in latin america? A utopia where gun-related deaths are unheard of, and extremely rare? Nope. In fact we have an average of 16.000 gun-related deaths in the country per year. For comparison, the United States, a country with well over 10 times the total population of ours (We have about 26 million, whereas the US has 260 millions), has 15.900 gun-related deaths per year on average.
If you want some harder numbers, this means the total number of deaths per 100.000 population is about 5.1 in the US, whereas in venezuela its a whopping
50.3
*
This is because only law-abiding citizens obey the law, whereas the criminals don't give 2 rat's asses about what the law says. Just because you make drugs illegal doesn't mean people won't get high. Just because you make it harder to get guns doesn't mean people won't get guns. All "gun-control" does, is hamper the average joes in their capacity to defend themselves.
When was the las time you saw someone get mugged in a gun convention? ohh right. Never. You'd have to be mentally deficient to try to rob someone in a place loaded with guns. But, sneak a gun into a "gun-free" zone, and presto, you have a buffet of completely helpless people, ready to plunder.
Reducing the violence and making a zone safer, has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the number of guns. However restricting gun sells does makes the population less capable of protecting themselves in a dangerous environment. This is specially true in venezuela, with the colombian FARCs right next door smuggling guns into the country and selling them to gangs, you now have mafias armed with AK47s, UZIs, and Glocks. Meanwhile, what do average joes like me have to fight back? A machete.
Seems fair.
Edit: Also, this would be better suited to the Debate of the Day thread, or its own dedicated thread.
Yeah but FatalHeaven isn't doing the debate thread anymore, so we gotta make do with what we have. In an effort to try and garner more participation I've been updating this thread every other day, rather than every day, so there's still more room to discuss this topic.
(*)My numbers may be (and probably are)
a little
bit off. Its kinda late :P so my apologies if they are.
Post by
Nathanyal
Rename it to "The QOTEOD Thread"
Post by
Rankkor
Rename it to "The QOTEOD Thread"
hmm..............somehow that just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Post by
Nathanyal
Actually Rank, our population is over 300 million now. I think its close to 310 million
actually
.
I actually think I used actually too much for one sentence.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.