Ooooorrrly? Want to go 10 rounds with me, when I'm armed with a bowie knife and you armed with a kindergarden fisher price paper scissors?blackrave said:
Poll: Arm the Victims or Take Away the Gun?
- Thread starter firelightning1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It wouldn't require 10 roundsBakedZnake said:
One way or another it would end in 1 round
And yes, I'm insane enough to actually try something like this
Although I'd prefer to use my belt instead of scissors...
P.S. But the point was that, such appliances are as dangerous as knife against someone who isn't armed.
These are the facts:
A person who has a gun in his house is 4 times more likely to be murdered inside their house
A person who has a gun in his house is 5 times more likely to commit suicide.
Giving guns to victims, factually doesn't protect them. People who own guns are more likely to be murdered and more likely to suffer a violent death
I'm not arguing for a gun ban, I have no idea if that would work in the US. But scientifically studies have shown that the idea that guns protect the owner is a myth. They are factually a threat to the owner. People are 35 times more likely to be murdered by a gun in the US than the average for rich countries. Sucide rates by gun are 8 times higher and accidental gun deaths are 10x higher.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.full#
(It's also been shown that tighter background checks have no perceivable affect on gun deaths.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946)
Your opinion was sensible and I confess I might have been tempted to share it as far as school shootings go (although it should be noted that with 9000 gun deaths a year to the UK's 50, school shootings aren't a significant problem compared to the wider crimes). But as much as it seems logical, it's been shown that for some reason it just doesn't work and would end up with more kids dying
A person who has a gun in his house is 4 times more likely to be murdered inside their house
A person who has a gun in his house is 5 times more likely to commit suicide.
Giving guns to victims, factually doesn't protect them. People who own guns are more likely to be murdered and more likely to suffer a violent death
I'm not arguing for a gun ban, I have no idea if that would work in the US. But scientifically studies have shown that the idea that guns protect the owner is a myth. They are factually a threat to the owner. People are 35 times more likely to be murdered by a gun in the US than the average for rich countries. Sucide rates by gun are 8 times higher and accidental gun deaths are 10x higher.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.full#
(It's also been shown that tighter background checks have no perceivable affect on gun deaths.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946)
You in particular might find that study interesting because it shows that educating the kids on firearm usage has no perceivable affect on the higher homicides and suicides that results from people (particularly people under 20) having access to guns.Rastien said:
Your opinion was sensible and I confess I might have been tempted to share it as far as school shootings go (although it should be noted that with 9000 gun deaths a year to the UK's 50, school shootings aren't a significant problem compared to the wider crimes). But as much as it seems logical, it's been shown that for some reason it just doesn't work and would end up with more kids dying
Have you looked at the gun control laws for all those cases? Because I see them trotted out anytime the gun control question comes up and it's mostly ridiculous.Singularly Datarific said:
In the Soviet Union guns were largely scarce in 1929, and because they were still working on production there was little or no way to have guns on the market and still supply their military. At the same time though rifle training was a part of after-school extracurricular activities, so while guns were not freely available people knew how to use them. Also the limits only applied to new guns, civilians did not have access to military hardware but the old shotguns and rifles they owned were still left in their hands. The exterminations you talk about all took place during the war and it was mostly within the party. The gulags were not death camps and while thousands were sent there few were actively killed.
It is also fun to note that all of those examples are either totalitarian dictatorships or anarchic states, neither of which the US is anywhere close to being. Check your sources for these numbers and facts too, since I know all of them came from absurdly pro-gun American sources.