Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 5:01pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

No, most criminals do use guns to commit crimes.

they use them because their victims have guns aswell. it's a circle of violence that has to be broken.
if their victims have no gun then they would not need a gun either. a small criminal will rather buy some drugs then a gun.
and if you as victim has no gun then there is no need for the criminal to shoot you. only if you as victim point a gun at him he might start shooting in reaction. escalating the whole situation.

 

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 5:19pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,592 posts

I only meant that their experience with guns is almost always negative.

That's because guns are a mostly negative thing...It's like, if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it.

There isn't an issue when something isn't abused.

 

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 5:39pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

That's because guns are a mostly negative thing...It's like, if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it.

There isn't an issue when something isn't abused.

That's pretty incorrect. Number of households with a gun = 117,181,000 and The number of gun murders = about 11,000 a year. If only 1% of gun owners use they're guns for hunting, target practice, competition, etc once a year then guns are used 100 times more for lawful purposes than for illegal ones. Legal uses of a gun far far outweigh the illegal uses. I'm not saying guns are great or everyone should have one, I just don't see how they're mostly negative when lawful positive uses far exceed the unlawful negative uses.

 

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 5:58pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,592 posts

That's pretty incorrect. Number of households with a gun = 117,181,000 and The number of gun murders = about 11,000 a year. If only 1% of gun owners use they're guns for hunting, target practice, competition, etc once a year then guns are used 100 times more for lawful purposes than for illegal ones.

You missed the qualifier statement. Read it again.

" if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it."

Neutral uses do not affect it. If people want to blow up their watermelons instead of offsetting the deaths by defending lives with them, that means +0 lives saved, when other people are out murdering others by dropping watermelons.

Legal uses of a gun far far outweigh the illegal uses.

Injuries caused by guns far outweigh injuries prevented. You're comparing the wrong thing.

 

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 6:45pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

than they were used to defend lives

Well I have no idea how many times guns are used to defend lives vs taking lives. Gun statistics can get pretty weird, depending where you get em from.

Neutral uses do not affect it. If people want to blow up their watermelons instead of offsetting the deaths by defending lives with them, that means +0 lives saved, when other people are out murdering others by dropping watermelons.

Its a serious topic but the whole watermelon analogy gives me the giggles. I can't take talking about dropping watermelons to kill people seriously lol

Injuries caused by guns far outweigh injuries prevented. You're comparing the wrong thing.

I see your point. Though, I believe people don't put these statistics into context. They repeat these numbers and say how atrocious they are.

 

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 6:56pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,592 posts

Well I have no idea how many times guns are used to defend lives vs taking lives. Gun statistics can get pretty weird, depending where you get em from.

That's the problem with statistics. How they are gathered, who was polled, how the data is presented, and many, many other factors influence how they turn out.

Its a serious topic but the whole watermelon analogy gives me the giggles. I can't take talking about dropping watermelons to kill people seriously lol

Oh well.

I see your point. Though, I believe people don't put these statistics into context. They repeat these numbers and say how atrocious they are.

The fool looks smart when he mimics the wise-man. Regardless, facts are facts even if people don't understand why something is what they claim. A crazy person saying a bus was going to run them over that day, without any reason to believe so at the time of the claim, wasn't wrong if it actually happened.

 

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 8:39pm

sweettanner

sweettanner

36 posts

When everyone is talking about gun control, they miss one important point. If they outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. If this happens, then our cops and good people have what to protect them? a knife? No matter what they do for gun control, bad people will have guns. besides, i will never give up my guns. I shoot skeet and i also hunt. Their is no way that i will give up my guns.

 

Posted Feb 9, '13 at 9:25pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,592 posts

When everyone is talking about gun control, they miss one important point.

The ones missing one important point are people who think increase gun control = no guns at all. Here, let me help you. This is from the previous page.

WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.

No matter what they do for gun control, bad people will have guns

Except there will be less of them. That's like saying because firefighters arrive at the scene when the house is already burning, they should just let it burn to the ground because the house will still be damaged.

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 12:37am

zombinator2000

zombinator2000

34 posts

A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.
B.No, it's like installing more antivirus softwares in people's computers even though said antivirus software has failed to work to stop viruses.
C.Please educate me when a mass killing spree occurred outside of a gun-free zone.
D." if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it."
So we're looking at [Insert weapon here] deaths instead of total deaths?

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 1:08am

Kasic

Kasic

5,592 posts

A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.

Multiple people have expressed over the course of this thread that they wish an increase in gun control. Not complete revocation. Only a small number have said no civilian firearms at all.

B.No, it's like installing more antivirus softwares in people's computers even though said antivirus software has failed to work to stop viruses.

Not really. Countries with less guns have lower gun homicide rates. It's pretty simple.

C.Please educate me when a mass killing spree occurred outside of a gun-free zone.

An odd way to phrase that.

Here's a list of killing sprees. I don't know how many of those occurred with another armed person present, but the vast majority of them used a firearm.

Killing sprees really aren't all that possible with other weapons, unless it's spaced out over time or bombs are used.

So we're looking at [Insert weapon here] deaths instead of total deaths?

I'm comparing it to avoid using the word 'guns' since people flip out the moment you mention stricter gun laws. The idea was to create a hypothetical where an object which, when left alone, killed no one. It had it's uses for sport, was used as a weapon of murder, or conversely used to save lives.

I don't want stricter gun laws because they're guns. If no one killed with guns, no one would be complaining that people had them. If watermelons caused tens of thousands of deaths a year as a murder weapon, I'd be advocating a restriction on watermelons.

The point isn't "what they were made for" or "what people can do with them.'
It's what they ARE doing with them. Guns are the most common weapon in murders where countries have lackadaisical gun control. That should tell you something pretty obvious.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!