Jump to content


Photo

Gun Control: Do more guns = more crime?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 Baldr

Baldr

    IRON Diplomat

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Baldr
  • Nation Name:Breidablik

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 06:13 AM - 0280721

But is Russia really a comparable country to the United States in many respects? They're a crumbling post-superpower with serious corruption and law and order issues. Nigeria may have more gun homicides than the US, but they're not a comparable country.


You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you are killed by a gun or a knife or a club. If they kill you, you are still dead.

I mentioned Russia because it was used as an example of a country that has gotten rid of most guns. There are lots of countries with higher homicide rates than the US. Having access to guns isn't the deciding factor in high homicide rates.
  • 0

#22 musky

musky

    Pax Corus Diplomat

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:muskrat
  • Nation Name:hydronia

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 07:37 AM - 0280722

that's correct, Russia was used as an example, of course Russia doesn't have true gun control, as many countries don't.

the simple fact is that gun control doesn't have anything to do with crime and everything to do with people.

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi, An autobiography. The story of my experiments with Truth
  • 0

#23 FreddieMercury

FreddieMercury

    Former Foreign Affairs Minister

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,123 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:FreddieMercury
  • Nation Name:Queendom of Freddie

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 04:51 PM - 0280723

actually Russia and Japan don't have effective gun control, criminals in both countries have all the firearms they want!

Japan actually has knife and baseball bat control. this works out so well that the baseball bat is the preferred weapon of gang assassinations!

Japan and Russia both have long traditions of lying about their national crime statistics as well.


Well, the 20 some odd firearm deaths in Japan a year says otherwise. And Japan is modeled after America, lying about crime statistics wouldn't get their government far.

Don't make any assumptions about my intellectual outlook, i am neither anti-intellectual nor misguided! BTW we are allowed to own tanks! many do.


You seem to automatically label academic research as "fantasy" and somehow detached from "real life experience" which is totally wrong. Which is ironic in this thread since what has convinced me is academic research.

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi, An autobiography. The story of my experiments with Truth


Guns aren't a miracle cure, if they were why are there the constant mass killings and genocides in Africa? After all an AK-47 is dirt cheap and ubiquitous.
  • 0

#24 FreddieMercury

FreddieMercury

    Former Foreign Affairs Minister

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,123 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:FreddieMercury
  • Nation Name:Queendom of Freddie

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 04:56 PM - 0280724

They didn't outlaw swords, they outlawed wearing them. Swords are still common in Japan.

And the fall of the Samurai from their previous prominence is tied fairly directly to firearms. No matter how skilled you are with a sword, a guy with a gun still has the advantage.


lawl, Baldr, don't use the edit button next time.

Forbidding people to carry swords is basically saying they can't use them. I mean, how useful is a sword sitting at home when you are getting mugged?

Also, the firearms Japan were using were REALLY primitive muskets that were inaccurate and took forever to reload, a guy with a sword has a VERY good chance of winning 1 on 1.
  • 0

#25 musky

musky

    Pax Corus Diplomat

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:muskrat
  • Nation Name:hydronia

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 06:02 PM - 0280725

they outlawed swords in 1860, the primitive matchlocks had long gone out of use. in any case those matchlocks were superior to swords on the battlefield. how do you think they displaced the sword in the first place? one on one had nothing to do with it! in any case the outlawing of swords had nothing to do with crime, it had everything to do with breaking the power of the samurai nobility! politics, politics!
  • 0

#26 musky

musky

    Pax Corus Diplomat

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:muskrat
  • Nation Name:hydronia

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 06:04 PM - 0280726

and as to Africa, we are back to the difference between blaming the implements and the people! it's always the people. Africa has genocide because Africans want to kill their neighbors and no other reason!
  • 0

#27 FreddieMercury

FreddieMercury

    Former Foreign Affairs Minister

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,123 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:FreddieMercury
  • Nation Name:Queendom of Freddie

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:15 PM - 0280727

they outlawed swords in 1860, the primitive matchlocks had long gone out of use. in any case those matchlocks were superior to swords on the battlefield. how do you think they displaced the sword in the first place? one on one had nothing to do with it! in any case the outlawing of swords had nothing to do with crime, it had everything to do with breaking the power of the samurai nobility! politics, politics!


Not in Japan, who didn't catch up with the Western world in technology until the 1900's. They used the same primitive guns for over 100 years, never innovating.

My point is, guns were not very practical for personal self defense back then. Guns prevailed on the battlefield more because of logistics, training someone to use a gun is far cheaper and faster than training someone to use a bow/sword effectively. And thus they had a far easier time raising a large gun toting army than a sword toting army.

And I didn't say outlawing swords was due to eliminating crime, rather I pointed that as an example that even though something may have heavy cultural significance (i.e. the gun to some people in the US and of course the Sword to the Samurai) it's not impossible thing to change.

and as to Africa, we are back to the difference between blaming the implements and the people! it's always the people. Africa has genocide because Africans want to kill their neighbors and no other reason!


So then why aren't you blaming the British for abusing their weapons rather than blaming the difference in armaments?
  • 0

#28 ef9boy88

ef9boy88

    Newbie

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:ef9boy88
  • Nation Name:cursed quilts

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 10:34 PM - 0280728

Would gun controal lower the number of gun related CRIME simple answer is no. We have drugs are illegal and yet theu flood into this country without a problem why would guns be any different? I completely agree with the post saying that there should be a mandatory 20 year sentence for any crime where a gun is used. I have several guns and none of them have ever grow legs and shot people.
  • 0

#29 musky

musky

    Pax Corus Diplomat

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:muskrat
  • Nation Name:hydronia

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 August 2010 - 10:44 PM - 0280729

the thing about abusing armaments doesn't make any sense. and you need to brush up on your history, the Japanese used the same weapons as the rest of the world in the nineteenth century, as a matter of fact they bought weapons from the US and Europe in particular. your arguments just don't hold together!
  • 0

#30 Defender of Liberty

Defender of Liberty

    Director of Social Interaction

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • Location: California

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Defender of Liberty
  • Nation Name:The Asatru Republic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 August 2010 - 05:44 PM - 0280730

Even IF guns make things more dangerous, an individual has a right to defend oneself.
It might be a safer world for some if we had draconian laws that denied people of their liberty in other areas as well (speech, religion, Curfews, etc) But I'd rather live free with danger than be safe in a dictatorship.
  • 0

#31 musky

musky

    Pax Corus Diplomat

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:muskrat
  • Nation Name:hydronia

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 August 2010 - 06:54 PM - 0280731

the Japanese do lie about their crime statistics, they often do it in novel ways like the "family suicide" fiction the use to jigger murder statistics. if a man goes home and murders his wife and 50 children, the Japanese government counts it as One suicide, not 51 murders and 1 suicide!

no one said that guns, or anything else are a "miracle cure" just that gun control as crime control is a failure. quite a bit of the academic research you refer to has been discredited by more honest academic research.

the reality is that prohibition, including gun control doesn't work!
  • 0

#32 Blitzkrieg1939

Blitzkrieg1939

    Fireteam Cyprian Member

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 169 posts
  • Location: Virginia

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Blitzkrieg1939
  • Nation Name:Zeutschland

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:57 AM - 0280732

Musky is spot on.


  • 0

#33 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • Associate Justice
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,074 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:03 AM - 0280733

im sorry but saying more guns will solve the problem of gun violence is like saying that more debt will solve our debt problem.


  • 0

#34 Puppier

Puppier

    Top Dog

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • IRC Nick:Puppier
  • Location: 'Murica

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Puppier
  • Nation Name:Contania

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:18 AM - 0280734

Honestly, those who talk of a gun ban are too radical. In order for a ban to work you'd have to get every single gun off the streets and that isn't going to happen. Plus you'd have to keep the out.
  • 0

#35 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • Associate Justice
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,074 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:27 AM - 0280735

My problem with the whole matter is we regulate other things that dont stop people. We regulate drinking and driving but people still do that...are we going to stop attempting to regulate it because some people disobey? What about rape? People still rape others, should we make that legal because we can't fully prevent it? No! Using the excuse that it wont stop people from doing bad things is not valid, because no matter what people will do bad things. Why not take every step to minimize that risk? And don't say "oh if our guns are taken we can't defend ourselves." Bullshit. 


  • 0

#36 Aurelius

Aurelius

    The Blue Man

  • Forum Admin
  • 3,949 posts
  • IRC Nick:Aurelius
  • Location: Australia

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Aurelius
  • Nation Name:Cenk Uygur

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:33 AM - 0280736

Pretty much what DW said. Which is the point made at one point in the following video, which I now provide for your delectation (or disapproval):

 

http://vimeo.com/64432171


  • 0

#37 Barkeaters

Barkeaters

    Custodian of the NADC

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Barkeaters
  • Nation Name:Barkers Nation

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:31 PM - 0280737

There always needs to be a balance of power.  When a vacuum of power is created and ambitious powerful bad people will seize opportunity.  Oppression or slaughter will result hence a balance of power regardless of the power or technology must be maintained.  


  • 0

#38 Nate Luptak

Nate Luptak

    Newbie

  • Former Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Nate Luptak
  • Nation Name:Tatooine

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:29 PM - 0280738

I agree with all the points DW has made thus far. The simple fact is we can't outlaw guns all together. This would just be impractical as well as cause a large portion of the population to feel as if their rights have been violated. I also agree with his point that just because stricter gun control won't make it so every criminal can't get guns, it shows that we, as a country, are opposed to gun violence. There are a couple of specific policies that, based off my personal experiences, would help keep people safe without taking away their rights. an Extremely simple rule that would increase safety in regards to guns is that when a gun is in storage, It should be kept in a locked container like a lock box, a safe, or even a glove box that can lock. This precaution may seem trivial to some of you, however my coworker Devin used to work for the police department and left his gun out in his house, one day his four year old found it. I will not even bother to go into the rest as you can probably guess. There is also the recent bill in the house of representatives known as H.R. 437 which if it had passed would have changed the rules regarding large capacity fire arms and fixed magazines. This bill had the right idea in this aspect but was grouped in with other ideas that are way to extreme and wouldn't have worked in the long run. The clause that I believe is one that should have been enacted was that magazines with over 10 rounds would be illegal. The reason I believe this is reasonable is that it is still possible to hunt, go sports shooting , and defend oneself without the ability to kill large numbers of people such as in columbine or other such incidents.


  • 0

#39 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • Associate Justice
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,074 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:38 PM - 0280739

I agree. I don't honestly think any non-radical political figure has proposed the full banning of guns. Nobody, or not may people, are trying to take away your hand guns, and shotguns. The 2nd amendment has limitations to it, a nuclear missile is an "arm" should we be allowed to have those in our back yards because of the second amendment? No, there was no way to foresee the might and power of high power machine guns of the future, so it is childish at best to say that the second amendment should protect the right to those. 


  • 0