Forget the zombie apocalypse
- Thread starter AntiThom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just out of interest have you ever been mugged? Its not normal you see it coming. Or maybe British muggers are just more sneaky.Naterstein said:
And actually the rate of gun ownership amongst British criminals is quite low. I believe we can be quite proud of this "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales." Admittedly its getting worse of recent but government and the police are pushing back.
I'm sorry but I can't just let that stand. Do you honestly beleive this?AntiThom said:
your "proven fact" is so wrong I'm pretty sure I've just caught cancer from reading it.
honestly, just look at the number of murders in countries where firearms are readily availiable compared to others, obviously isolated "hotspots" don't make a difference, as there is no challange associated with moving firearms in and out of the area. A blanket ban on firearms in America would, undeniably, lower the rate of violent crimes, but don't let these small speed bumps obstruct your "proven facts".
[quote "wikipedia"]
Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries. Some authors attribute both trends to the fact that criminals in America are more likely to have firearms
[/quote]
Fun fact, most violent crime is done on impusle, and is not thought through at all.
honestly, it amazes me how people can use the logic of "it's safer for everyone to have guns, as criminals will have them anyway". No, this is not the case, legalizing firearms makes them much more accessable to people that would have them.
Whether you have a gun to defend yourself or not has nothing to do with if someone shoots you on impulse, it just means that at the end of the day, two people have been shot as the original shooter is likely to draw the fire of other people. I don't see any reason why this is a good thing, surely nobody having a firearm out of fear of being attacked is an infinately better option (and no, you can't counter that with the "criminals will have guns anyway" flawed logic, look at any other country, smuggling firearms is VERY difficult).
Not only is it completely unnecessary for average citizens to be armed, it is also 100% stupid.
In my opinion you're only allowed to be anti-rape if you've grown up in an environment rich in and know both sides of the crime intimately.XT said:
Spot the problem with this logic.
Also, if all guns were banned, one could still go to certain places and buy an entire crate of brand spankin' new full auto Russian AK-47s(already banned for importation) on the cheap.
You see, Boris is in a financial slump, and has something of a coke problem. Because DRUG CONTROL has worked just as well as GUN CONTROL, one could provide him with some white and some green. Then one could walk away with lots o' fire power.
You see, Boris is in a financial slump, and has something of a coke problem. Because DRUG CONTROL has worked just as well as GUN CONTROL, one could provide him with some white and some green. Then one could walk away with lots o' fire power.
Dys said:
Fun fact, most violent crime is done on impusle, and is not thought through at all.
honestly, it amazes me how people can use the logic of "it's safer for everyone to have guns, as criminals will have them anyway". No, this is not the case, legalizing firearms makes them much more accessable to people that would have them.
Whether you have a gun to defend yourself or not has nothing to do with if someone shoots you on impulse, it just means that at the end of the day, two people have been shot as the original shooter is likely to draw the fire of other people. I don't see any reason why this is a good thing, surely nobody having a firearm out of fear of being attacked is an infinately better option (and no, you can't counter that with the "criminals will have guns anyway" flawed logic, look at any other country, smuggling firearms is VERY difficult).
Not only is it completely unnecessary for average citizens to be armed, it is also 100% stupid.[/quote]
You are making assumptions. Please read the following. I would personally appreciate it if you read it all, simply for the sake of integrity.
"Actually, it has been statistically proven-PROVEN- that gun control INCREASES the crime rate in America. See, prohibition didn't take booze from criminals. Banning weed didn't take it away from criminals. In America, we have almost no border security. Which is both why so many mexicans can simply walk over the border and also why all bans and control laws fail here. Gun control solely determines whether or not victims can fight back. Michigan- which used to have the number one murder city(Detroit)had gun control. They decided to pass right to carry laws. Citizens suddenly had the right to carry guns everywhere. The crime rate dropped, and it has stayed low. In new england, the state with the lowest crime rate is Vermont. They have the least gun control. The state with the highest, (I believe it is massachussets) has the most gun control. What's more, while the states in New England with the highest crime rate aren't a COMPLETE inversion of the states with the least gun control, they are pretty close. Ultimately, Australia and Great Britain ENFORCE their borders. The USA does not because a bunch of actors in Hollywood and corporate lobbysists think it would be racist to treat Mexicans like everybody else, and pump up border security to deal with our problems. Ulimately, I LIVE in a state with high gun control, California. California does not recognize right to carry. I was recently robbed and my arm was broken.
Morever, when the Supreme Court overturned many of the gun control laws in Illinois, Obama's home state, the crime rate was LOWERED.
So, in conclusion, you anti-gun activists: DO FREAKING RESEARCH. The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control. The more gun control, the more crime. Britain might enforce it's borders, but in USA we don't, due to bigots who hate the idea of treating Mexicans equally. We should be increasing legal immigration, not simply letting them wander over the border and be exploited by wal-mart and home depot. But since that is what we are doing, all bans and control laws are an exercise in stupidity."
So... his statement is correct. Gun control and the crime rate in america are directly proportional. Get over it. One can argue that would change if we had border security, but it is the reality nonetheless.
I'll reiterate: "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales."XT said:
AFOs (authorised firearms officers) are equipped with H&K G36s, H&K MP5s and Stery Augs. Last time I checked that beats dodgy re-fitted revolvers shipped in from Eastern Europe.
Just remember that my nanny state will feed me, house me, heal me and teach me for free when I have nothing. And do it (reasonably well). Oh, that and we have all the same liberties you do. Except that of course we can drink, fuck and get elected to high office at a younger age.
No, Silver, that's not what "gun control" - a flawed title if ever there was one - is about.Silver said:
Gun banning is about wishful thinking. It's about diminishing personal freedoms and self-defence options in favour of criminals; that may sound counterintuitive, but in reality that's effectively the case.
Let's say you live somewhere where private gun ownership is prohibited. You're accosted by a criminal with a gun, and he demands your wallet. You give him your wallet, and he runs off £500 richer. Or he takes the wallet and shoots you so you can't identify him to the police, whichever.
Or, the same scenario takes place, but you have decided to learn a martial art to defend yourself, because your government doesn't trust you with a gun. Thug pulls gun, demands wallet, you try the kotegaishi your teacher so merrily taught you last week. Then it turns out the criminal missed the part of the lesson where he's supposed to give up, the gun goes off accidentally, and shoots you, or the little old lady at the other end of the street.
On the other hand, if you have a legally-held concealed firearm and the training and skill to use it properly and safely, you feign getting your wallet out as a misdirection, then draw your weapon and invite the criminal to leave with all his insides on the inside. If he does, you reholster and call the police. If he doesn't, you shoot him and call the police. Okay, so you might still get shot, but at least you stand a fighting chance. At least your survival is partly up to you, rather than wholly up to the criminal.
I don't carry a gun; the government in the UK doesn't trust me to own a handgun, or even a .22 rifle if I don't live on a large enough estate. My government trusts 17-year-olds to drive vehicles that kill over three thousand people in the UK every year, and trusts people to have children without having any idea how to raise them, and trusts Tony Blair to not be locked up for being Tony Blair, but security-vetted people with military training mustn't be trusted to carry twenty rounds of .40 on their hip.
Personally, I believe I would be able to safely and effectively use a firearm to defend myself or my family. I don't want to ever have to - I love shooting as long as I'm not harming anything living - but I'm confident in my ability to do so should the need arise. If I were allowed to carry a gun, I could with some degree of confidence be responsible for my own defence at no cost to the taxpayer. But instead I have to rely on the police to react quickly enough to stop a criminal at considerable expense - at best - or investigate a murder in retrospect. Either way it costs the country money, and results in nothing but reduced personal safety.
I can understand the anti-gun arguments. For a long time - despite being a lifelong gun fan - I was very much in favour of "gun control"; however, with the benefit of a couple of decades of careful consideration, I simply can't accept the premise that gun control serves any genuine purpose.
Oh, and RetiarySword, you're right - no crime has ever been stopped by a victim holding a gun.
That's because when they pick up a gun, they stop being victims.
Hey you sound like a,.. oh wait its already been said. Guns or no guns, people are still gonna do stupid shit. Banks get robbed by people with pieces of paper that say bomb or boom maybe we should ban paper also.
I can see one major problem with your logic - rape is a crime in and of itself. Your interpretation would be more accurately phrased as "You're only allowed to be anti-genitals if you've grown up with them."Dys said:
As for your "No, it's really difficult to get guns, honest" assertion, it's simply wrong. With the right (wrong?) contacts and a bit of research, even in the UK or Sweden you can get an automatic weapon for a pittance. It's not anything I've ever had the urge to look into, but even I know of areas where the right questions can point you to your friendly neighbourhood car boot gun dealer. No gun-runner's going to try to get the guns through in his Ryanair carry-on - after all, how many countries can post a thoroughly secured border? In a perfect world there would be no reason to carry a gun, and no means to get one. But it's not a perfect world (and, arguably, can't be).
RelexCryo said:
You are making assumptions. Please read the following. I would personally appreciate it if you read it all, simply for the sake of integrity.
"Actually, it has been statistically proven-PROVEN- that gun control INCREASES the crime rate in America. See, prohibition didn't take booze from criminals. Banning weed didn't take it away from criminals. In America, we have almost no border security. Which is both why so many mexicans can simply walk over the border and also why all bans and control laws fail here. Gun control solely determines whether or not victims can fight back. Michigan- which used to have the number one murder city(Detroit)had gun control. They decided to pass right to carry laws. Citizens suddenly had the right to carry guns everywhere. The crime rate dropped, and it has stayed low. In new england, the state with the lowest crime rate is Vermont. They have the least gun control. The state with the highest, (I believe it is massachussets) has the most gun control. What's more, while the states in New England with the highest crime rate aren't a COMPLETE inversion of the states with the least gun control, they are pretty close. Ultimately, Australia and Great Britain ENFORCE their borders. The USA does not because a bunch of actors in Hollywood and corporate lobbysists think it would be racist to treat Mexicans like everybody else, and pump up border security to deal with our problems. Ulimately, I LIVE in a state with high gun control, California. California does not recognize right to carry. I was recently robbed and my arm was broken.
Morever, when the Supreme Court overturned many of the gun control laws in Illinois, Obama's home state, the crime rate was LOWERED.
So, in conclusion, you anti-gun activists: DO FREAKING RESEARCH. The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control. The more gun control, the more crime. Britain might enforce it's borders, but in USA we don't, due to bigots who hate the idea of treating Mexicans equally. We should be increasing legal immigration, not simply letting them wander over the border and be exploited by wal-mart and home depot. But since that is what we are doing, all bans and control laws are an exercise in stupidity."
So... his statement is correct. Gun control and the crime rate in america are directly proportional. Get over it. One can argue that would change if we had border security, but it is the reality nonetheless.[/quote]
Obviously gun control doesn't work if it is not standardized on a national scale, and if border security is not controlled, I don't recall claiming that guns alone cause the higher crime rate in America, simply that they are a factor that (significantly) adds to it. The whole american attitude towards guns is completely innapropriate, it should NEVER be somebodys right to own a firearm, especially high powered or semi-automatic. If they live in a rural area or have a (tightly controlled) permit, fine. Don't take my respect of firearms as blatant hatred of them, I have no problem with guns being used responsibly and enjoy hunting myself, I'd be something of a hypocrit if I said people shouldn't be allowed to use them, they should just have very strict rules regarding who can have them, what guns are availiable and how readily available ammunition is.
Just to clarify, a national, properly funded and enforced, gun policy in the U.S could only reduce violent crime (not to say it can be done, it's a hypothetical policy), that isn't to say that politicians should knee-jerk ban the sale of new guns to everyone. That is even more stupid than making them easily avaliable originially.
awmperry said:
mmmm, you're example was probably better, but my point still stands that it's naive to think only people with direct experience in something can have a valid opinion.
And my point about it not being easy to get guns if they are illegal is perfectly valid, I live in Australia and know firsthand how difficult it is to get hold of a firearm (legally or otherwise). Do you honestly think that people sell guns on the street?
Even if you could research names of gun dealers, they would have limited supplies and most likely not trust you. More to the point if their names are easily reserchable theres no point buying a gun from them because the blues will alreay be watching. We have a very highly funded, highly trained group of police watching for gangland activity where I come from. They are the only cog in the machine that is the police system that work.
![[zonking great]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/36/36225.jpg?1620302945){kind=avatar}
And what functionality would this be?AntiThom said:
A gun was MADE TO KILL THINGS, you retard.
A shovel? Sure, you can kill people with it. But you can also use it to dig wells, irrigation channels, graves for people with guns, etc.
A hammer? Sure, you can kill people with it. But you can also use it to build houses, in a smithy (not a gunsmithy, you nab) and other such CONSTRUCTIVE uses.
A gun? It can be used to, well, kill. Recreational hunting? You kill. Survival hunting? You kill. Home defense? You kill. If you use "it can scare people" as a reason for the yayness of guns, you might as well use a hammer. As long as you make enough noise with it, you can use a hammer and laugh as the idiot runs away.
There are martial arts techniques to push the gun to the side and punch the attacker in the face. Your hypothetical situation is also flawed in that you assume your feint will work, you assume they won't see through it and shoot as you reach for your gun because NRA propoganda went to your head and you think that you're a hero not a victim.awmperry said:
You also fail to think that when the criminal gives up and you holster your gun, he can just pull his gun back out and shoot you now that he knows where your gun is.
Finally we have the problem that if it all goes arse up and you shoot him, he will survive long enough to shoot back. Movies may tell you that gun instantly kill but they actually give the shot person more than enough time to kill the shooter before bleeding to death.
I also enjoy the paradox in being trained to use a gun safely, unless you bring a wall of bulletproof glass around a gun is never safe.
Cars and families that can't raise children have the purpose of continuing society with the side effects of ruining a small proportion of their user's lives. Guns have the purpose of destroying society with the side effects of giving people a false sense of security; as evidenced in your belief that a gun will help you rather than give a criminal a much better reason to shoot you before you fight back.
Finally of couse people that pick up guns are no longer victims, they become a danger to themselves and everyone they percieve as a threat, out of thought or heat of the moment.
To Rossadti:
Read the post above to see the evidence. Vermont: lower crime rate, Massachusetts: higher crime rate. and on a previous page, I stated out right that social issues, (like the glorification of rappers) and poverty are what matter most of all. But social and economic issues don't vary that much in America on average, hence we can observe the effects gun control has on a particular social/economic enviroment. And as I said, "The crime rate in AMERICA is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control."
I didn't say the crime rate in the WORLD was directly proportional to crime rate. I said in America. And in America, a lot of kids glorify gangbangers and the economy stinks pretty much no matter where you. Social/economic conditions in AMERICA are largely uniform from west coast to east coast, with admittedly some differences (Arkansas and California are way different) but on average it's all pretty much the same.
Hence, if social/economic conditions are almost identical (an oversimplification) from state to state, then the fact poverty/social values has more to do with crime rate is rendered irrelevant. Which in turn renders the statement "The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control." totally valid, since(to repeat myself) a lack of variation from state to state renders the fact that poverty/social issues are more important irrelevant.
Read the post above to see the evidence. Vermont: lower crime rate, Massachusetts: higher crime rate. and on a previous page, I stated out right that social issues, (like the glorification of rappers) and poverty are what matter most of all. But social and economic issues don't vary that much in America on average, hence we can observe the effects gun control has on a particular social/economic enviroment. And as I said, "The crime rate in AMERICA is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control."
I didn't say the crime rate in the WORLD was directly proportional to crime rate. I said in America. And in America, a lot of kids glorify gangbangers and the economy stinks pretty much no matter where you. Social/economic conditions in AMERICA are largely uniform from west coast to east coast, with admittedly some differences (Arkansas and California are way different) but on average it's all pretty much the same.
Hence, if social/economic conditions are almost identical (an oversimplification) from state to state, then the fact poverty/social values has more to do with crime rate is rendered irrelevant. Which in turn renders the statement "The crime rate in America is DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gun control." totally valid, since(to repeat myself) a lack of variation from state to state renders the fact that poverty/social issues are more important irrelevant.
What if he'd had a mate. Who'd shot you. I'm insured on my car. If they want it, they can have it. I'd get more money from the insurance than its worth and I've got one of those little tracking things in it anyway that means there'd be a good chance the thief were caught.XT said:
Also car jackings account for a small number of robberies compared to muggings. There were more muggings in one quarter in the UK than in a whole year in the US!
I've been mugged twice. No big deal. Once they pulled a knife and I said "fine, here's my wallet". Of course I was scared but I lost in total about £30. I didn't even know that they were a threat until they had me against a wall. I don't think having a gun at my leg would have helped as they probably would have just stolen that.
The other time it was two kids and they didn't have a weapon so I told them to fuck off.
Hang on, say what? From the travelling I've done in the States I call bullshit on first hand knowledge. I wouldn't walk out of LA's bus station if I was packing a shotgun, that place was like a demilitarized zone crossed with a refugee centre.RelexCryo said:
The picture is more complex that "X" = Crime. No scientific study would ever conclude anything to be the sole cause of criminality.
Branches of criminology:
1 Social structure theories
-Social disorganization (neighbourhoods)
-Social ecology
-Strain theory (social class)
-Subcultural theory
2 Individual theories
-Trait theories
-Control theories
3 Symbolic interactionism
-Rational choice theory
-Routine activity theory
-Contemporary Cultural and Critical Criminology
And of course if you're American:
4. Gun control.