Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
  1. #61
    My 2 cents about the topic:
    I divide society in two major groups, the criminal region (CR) and the lawful region (LR).
    By violence I mean that a gun was used to injure or kill someone.
    By interaction I mean that a gun was used to threat someone but not being triggered.

    With a Gun restriction I think:
    The amount of CR to CR violence will remain the same.
    The amount of CR to LR violence will either remain or decrease.
    The amount of LR to LR violence will decrease.
    The amount of CR to CR interaction will remain the same.
    The amount of CR to LR interaction will either remain or increase.
    The amount of LR to LR interaction will decrease significantly.

    I live in the LR world so from a LR to LR perspective it is exceptionally good with a gun restriction.
    From a CR to CR perspective it is not changed, and whats going on here is not of my concern.
    The crucial point is the CR to LR perspective. Would you want to decrease the violence by risking to increase the interaction? I would say deffinately. If I am a victim of a crime I have faith in the lawsystem of my country and I am convinced that the criminal will be arrested and judged. I might have lost some cash but I would be unharmed.
    Some people would argue that a gun control would increase the CR domination over LR. But than I remind you Police/FBI/SWAT etc do have guns too and it is them who are responsible for the safety of the citizens.

    TLDR
    If you think your lawsystem works fine and that the police are doing their jobs right. Than a gun control is a great thing.
    If you think your lawsystem and police force are somewhat corrupt or not doing their jobs. Gun control might not be as good.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 08:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Necrotan View Post
    Hehe which means that all our arguing over logic, win or lose, in this topic was irrelevant. Your math was right, but it doesn't help anyone =p
    Thats why I love math :P

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by studkaw View Post
    My 2 cents about the topic:


    With a Gun restriction I think:
    The amount of CR to CR violence will remain the same.
    The amount of CR to LR violence will either remain or decrease.
    The amount of LR to LR violence will decrease.
    The amount of CR to CR interaction will remain the same.
    The amount of CR to LR interaction will either remain or increase.
    The amount of LR to LR interaction will decrease significantly.


    Sorry, was lurking the forums and had to make an account and post because I enjoy logical discussion as much as the next guy.

    Anyway, it seems that you are leaving out LR to CR violence. Without a way to protect themselves, those with no respect for others will have a huge upper hand. I am not trying to say your argument is wrong, or someone else is right, but you have to account for those living in LR that would have been able to protect themselves from rape, theft, etc. Those are the people that would suffer the most, IMO.

  3. #63
    As a Canadian I just want to say a few things.

    1) Why do average Americans need to own Assault Rifles?
    2) You can still own most handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles with Gun Control
    3) Countries with no gun control often have mandatory military training

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by jetflash View Post
    As a Canadian I just want to say a few things.

    1) Why do average Americans need to own Assault Rifles?
    2) You can still own most handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles with Gun Control
    3) Countries with no gun control often have mandatory military training
    1) we don't. you don't need a true assault rifle for protection or hunting.
    2) a handgun for protection and shotguns/rifles for hunting/pest control are completely realistic
    3) some of the worst crimes of the past 10 years have been committed by ex-military. the sniper in DC was ex-military. i don't see the benefit of that to anyone but those who want a partially trained population ready to be drafted.

    this has never happened in most of the places the average person lives. it could, but it hasn't. it's not common. we had 98 tornadoes in one day in my state last year. i SAW 8 tornadoes from my back porch, it rained parts of houses. that was awful, hundreds dead, thousands without a home. but that doesn't mean you expect or worry about that every time it thunders. it happened, it was awful, it's not normal.

    this wasn't normal, gun regulations wouldn't stop it. he didn't have mental problems, he had a better life than i've ever had, nice home, had whatever he wanted and was intelligent. the kid was simply a piece of shit since birth and was destined to do something stupid because he could not mentally fit into society. ted kaczynski was the same way.

    the problem is that these 'weird people' are actual threats. these social retards never feel like they fit in and when they can't deal with that, they snap. we will NEVER address that though because there really is no way to address that. society is full of tragedy.

    if anything an armed officer at the school could have saved everyone, some, half whatever.

    all the schools around here have cops on duty during school hours. they're armed and the big HS has 6 on duty with full riot gear at their disposal. all you can do is up security of schools and fight fire with fire. it probably won't happen to anyone you know. you won't stop it. you can counter it though.

    they won't address what needs to be addressed though. people wanna cry about guns and video games.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •