Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #19421
    I am Murloc! Atrea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    5,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    The US has had high gun ownership since its inception. Given the nature of most of our gun related crimes, legalizing all drugs would have a far greater impact on curbing crime than new gun laws.
    What a perfectly meaningless thing to say.

    By suddenly allowing something that is presently illegal, of course you are going to lower the crime rate. It wouldn't lower drug use incidence - it would just legalize it.

    That isn't 'curbing crime' any more than 'not having money to eat' is 'curbing your appetite'.

    The problem with existing gun laws in the US is that they are not nationwide.
    In a land with uncontrolled inter-state borders, a law in State A has very little effect on State B; and since anyone in State B can walk in anytime they want to State A, it doesn't really affect much.

    If you witness, however, countries with nation-wide gun restrictions, you see in every single case a lower incidence of gun violence.

  2. #19422
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrea View Post
    What a perfectly meaningless thing to say.

    By suddenly allowing something that is presently illegal, of course you are going to lower the crime rate. It wouldn't lower drug use incidence - it would just legalize it.

    That isn't 'curbing crime' any more than 'not having money to eat' is 'curbing your appetite'.

    The problem with existing gun laws in the US is that they are not nationwide.
    In a land with uncontrolled inter-state borders, a law in State A has very little effect on State B; and since anyone in State B can walk in anytime they want to State A, it doesn't really affect much.

    If you witness, however, countries with nation-wide gun restrictions, you see in every single case a lower incidence of gun violence.
    I think he's speaking of violent crimes.

  3. #19423
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrea View Post
    What a perfectly meaningless thing to say.

    By suddenly allowing something that is presently illegal, of course you are going to lower the crime rate. It wouldn't lower drug use incidence - it would just legalize it.

    That isn't 'curbing crime' any more than 'not having money to eat' is 'curbing your appetite'.

    The problem with existing gun laws in the US is that they are not nationwide.
    In a land with uncontrolled inter-state borders, a law in State A has very little effect on State B; and since anyone in State B can walk in anytime they want to State A, it doesn't really affect much.

    If you witness, however, countries with nation-wide gun restrictions, you see in every single case a lower incidence of gun violence.
    A vast number of murders in the US are caused by disagreements between people concerning the illegal distribution of controlled drugs. Walgreens and CVS dont resort to shooting at each other when compeating for customers....

  4. #19424
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrea View Post
    So by virtue of that, are you suggesting that the culture of America is to blame for its high violence?

    If so, do you not see an inherent problem in arming that culture's population?
    Nobody's talking about intentionally arming criminals. Just because a country has a higher potential for inter-ethnic violence doesn't mean that every individual does.



    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    Zambia has 38 murders per 100k people, Uganda 36.3, Congo 30.8, Ethiopia 25.5, Sudan 24.42
    New Orleans has 57.6 murders per 100k people, Detroit has 48.2, Baltimore has 31.3, Oakland 26.3, Philadelphia 21.2
    London has 1.6 murders per 100k people, Oslo 1.2, Rome 1.1, Berlin 1.1, Madrid 1.0, Sydney 1.0, Tokyo has 0.4
    Now from the 2 groups, which one are you closer to ?
    Yeah, and the next line from the post you quoted was:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Outside of a few areas in a few major cities, the US is a fairly low-crime place.
    But again, feel free to skew the issue outside the bounds of reason by comparing the worst of the US cities to whole countries.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  5. #19425
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    But again, feel free to skew the issue outside the bounds of reason by comparing the worst of the US cities to whole countries.
    I can compare your best cities and they will still be between 5.0 and 10.0 per 100k. Which is absurd.

  6. #19426
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    Zambia has 38 murders per 100k people, Uganda 36.3, Congo 30.8, Ethiopia 25.5, Sudan 24.42
    New Orleans has 57.6 murders per 100k people, Detroit has 48.2, Baltimore has 31.3, Oakland 26.3, Philadelphia 21.2
    London has 1.6 murders per 100k people, Oslo 1.2, Rome 1.1, Berlin 1.1, Madrid 1.0, Sydney 1.0, Tokyo has 0.4
    Now from the 2 groups, which one are you closer to ?
    Let's compare apples to apples here, before you can cherry pick more of whatever it is you're trying to prove.

    Zambia 38
    Uganda 36.3
    Congo 30.8
    Ethiopa 25.5
    Sudan 24.42

    UK 1.2
    Norway 0.6
    Italy 0.9
    Germany 0.8
    Spain 0.8
    Australia 1.0
    Japan 0.4

    US 4.8

    Now from the two groups, which are we closer to?

  7. #19427
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    Zambia has 38 murders per 100k people, Uganda 36.3, Congo 30.8, Ethiopia 25.5, Sudan 24.42
    New Orleans has 57.6 murders per 100k people, Detroit has 48.2, Baltimore has 31.3, Oakland 26.3, Philadelphia 21.2

    London has 1.6 murders per 100k people, Oslo 1.2, Rome 1.1, Berlin 1.1, Madrid 1.0, Sydney 1.0, Tokyo has 0.4
    Is it just me, or does the group with all the violence have another common... "theme"?

  8. #19428
    Quote Originally Posted by steale View Post
    Let's compare apples to apples here, before you can cherry pick more of whatever it is you're trying to prove.

    Zambia 38
    Uganda 36.3
    Congo 30.8
    Ethiopa 25.5
    Sudan 24.42

    UK 1.2
    Norway 0.6
    Italy 0.9
    Germany 0.8
    Spain 0.8
    Australia 1.0
    Japan 0.4

    US 4.8

    Now from the two groups, which are we closer to?
    You are closer to the big group of 20 or 30 third world countries which are between 4.8 and 2.0.

  9. #19429
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    I can compare your best cities and they will still be between 5.0 and 10.0 per 100k. Which is absurd.
    You sure?
    http://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/crime-statistics
    The barbarians...
    http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-owne...s-1418143.html

  10. #19430
    Are we really comparing these statistics again? I guess it's been a few hundred pages.

  11. #19431
    As I said before, a city that small can't be used for a statistic. I can link a thousand villages with 0 guns owned and 0 murders.

  12. #19432
    Quote Originally Posted by steale View Post
    Let's compare apples to apples here, before you can cherry pick more of whatever it is you're trying to prove.

    Zambia 38
    Uganda 36.3
    Congo 30.8
    Ethiopa 25.5
    Sudan 24.42

    UK 1.2
    Norway 0.6
    Italy 0.9
    Germany 0.8
    Spain 0.8
    Australia 1.0
    Japan 0.4

    US 4.8

    Now from the two groups, which are we closer to?
    You didn't include the many European countries that do have crime rates higher than 2.0; and yes, even higher than the US in some cases.

    Also the white murder rate is the same as countries like Taiwan, Belgium and Luxembourg.

  13. #19433
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    As I said before, a city that small can't be used for a statistic.
    Ah...i see. it was a mistype then, right? So when you posted...
    I can compare your best cities and they will still be between 5.0 and 10.0 per 100k. Which is absurd.
    You really meant to post...
    I can compare your best cities that i choose based on fitting the narrative and they will still be between 5.0 and 10.0 per 100k. Which is absurd.
    I can link a thousand villages with 0 guns owned and 0 murders.
    which proves?

  14. #19434
    One of my co-workers raised an interesting question. He's an African American gun owner and a very intelligent individual, whom I often discuss politics and history with.

    He asked whether or not laws that prevent so-called "criminals" from owning guns are actually good thing? Because the Founding Fathers were considered criminals at the time. In fact, anyone who is trying to overthrow a government, regardless of how tyrannical that government is, would likely be deemed a "criminal" by said government. Do laws that prevent so-called "criminals" from owning guns actually go against the very reason we have the right to bear arms to begin with? What do you think?

  15. #19435
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    One of my co-workers raised an interesting question. He's an African American gun owner and a very intelligent individual, whom I often discuss politics and history with.

    He asked whether or not laws that prevent so-called "criminals" from owning guns are actually good thing? Because the Founding Fathers were considered criminals at the time. In fact, anyone who is trying to overthrow a government, regardless of how tyrannical that government is, would likely be deemed a "criminal" by said government. Do laws that prevent so-called "criminals" from owning guns actually go against the very reason we have the right to bear arms to begin with? What do you think?
    On a slightly different note - this usually blows the minds of quite a few people if they don't already know about it. There are several state Constitutions and Bill of Rights that encourage insurrection and revolt under certain circumstances.

    New Hampshire's Bill of Rights states: “Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

    Pennsylvania's Constitution Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights: “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

  16. #19436
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolus View Post
    On a slightly different note - this usually blows the minds of quite a few people if they don't already know about it. There are several state Constitutions and Bill of Rights that encourage insurrection and revolt under certain circumstances.

    New Hampshire's Bill of Rights states: “Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

    Pennsylvania's Constitution Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights: “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.
    Ah okay, thanks for informing me! I'll be sure to pass this on to my friend.

  17. #19437
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    One of my co-workers raised an interesting question. He's an African American gun owner and a very intelligent individual, whom I often discuss politics and history with.

    He asked whether or not laws that prevent so-called "criminals" from owning guns are actually good thing? Because the Founding Fathers were considered criminals at the time. In fact, anyone who is trying to overthrow a government, regardless of how tyrannical that government is, would likely be deemed a "criminal" by said government. Do laws that prevent so-called "criminals" from owning guns actually go against the very reason we have the right to bear arms to begin with? What do you think?
    Better question is if violent criminals should be out of prison period....

  18. #19438
    Quote Originally Posted by Maleficus View Post
    Ah...i see. it was a mistype then, right? So when you posted...

    You really meant to post...


    which proves?
    First of all I said cities, not small villages. Second, trying to make a general statement from a small example of data is called an inductive reasoning and it's avoided like plague since it leads to awfully incorrect conclusions.
    Pretty much all US cities with over 500k population have over 5.0 murders per 100k, in most cases - higher.

  19. #19439
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    Ah okay, thanks for informing me! I'll be sure to pass this on to my friend.
    This is a really great site as well (www.wallbuilders.com)... the Library section... if you haven't visited it. Your friend might find the black history section fascinating.

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...les.asp?id=135

    It's a depository that contains all the speeches, etc. of the founding fathers. I even found this letter from Thomas Jefferson to his nephew:


    "In order to assure a certain progress in this reading, consider what hours you have free from the school and
    the exercises of the school. Give about two of them, every day, to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to
    learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a
    moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with
    the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun
    therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

    Source:

    Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Thomas Jefferson Randolph,
    editor (Charlottesville: F. Carr, and Co., 1829), Vol. I, p. 287, to Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.
    Last edited by Dolus; 2013-08-01 at 04:51 PM.

  20. #19440
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    First of all I said cities, not small villages. Second, trying to make a general statement from a small example of data is called an inductive reasoning and it's avoided like plague since it leads to awfully incorrect conclusions.
    Pretty much all US cities with over 500k population have over 5.0 murders per 100k, in most cases - higher.
    So, we need to ban large cities in the US to lower crime. I like it.

Posting Permissions

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