Currently playing: Stuff
YouTube|Hearthstone Decks|Twitter|MyAnimeList
Well I have never in my life seen a person other then a police officer with a gun. And I've met a lot of people of various 'plumage'. I also don't know any person who knows/has know/heared of someone being mugged with a gun. But I do know a couple of people who have been mugged.
Maybe, I dunno, because your culture does not have either a constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms, or a deeply set gun culture. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and not sufficient for making policy.
If you want anecdotes, I've had three people try to mug me in the six years I've lived in Washington State, and managed to avert them because I was carrying my gun at the time.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
No, stop being such a moralist brainwashed by Hollywood. The world isn't divided between good people and evil people. The world has good people who do bad things and bad people who do good things. Point is, when under specific circumstances, you too would rob and kill and you know it.If he is in the process of committing a crime and/or you are in reasonable fear of your life, then no, they do meet the definition of a bad guy.
More guns being held by civilians means it's easier to get a gunAlso this "civilian gun ownership increases criminal incentive to carry guns" line that a lot of Europeans seem to be fond of is horse shit because the conclusion is not supported by the premises.
When it's easier to get a gun, it means more criminals with guns
Therefore, more guns being held by civilians means more criminals with guns
That was a poor attempt at trying to look smart. Go take that philosophy 101 class again
Under very specific circumstances. I.e. the collapse of civilization and the system of law; otherwise no, I would not fathom robbing or killing another person outside of self-defense. People that do that in violation of the law are behaving unethically, and have to face the consequences of their actions whether it be judicial punishment or the risk of being maimed or killed owing to the victim defending his or herself.
Very droll. I wasn't commenting on ease of acquisition, I was commenting on criminal incentive to pack heat.More guns being held by civilians means it's easier to get a gun
When it's easier to get a gun, it means more criminals with guns
Therefore, more guns being held by civilians means more criminals with guns
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
But you can hardly call the situation of an entire continent that outnumbers you almost 2.5 times by population density, as anecdotal evidence?
Wouldn't that be a tad ignorant to the situation there?
I agree with the essential cultural differences, you point out. But it doesn't change that the evidence of the cultural difference in regards of weapon handling is showing a disadvantage for the American people and their overall safety.
I would like to see the death toll through gun violence in the USA since it became independent. I suspect millions have died over that already. I mean just domestic crime. Not civil war or the like. Only domestic violence.
Now lets play a little around with thoughts.
What if the country would really ever fall into the hands of a tyrant, of a dictator. How many lives would that cost? A few thousand, a hundred thousand? 250k or even a million... bad, very bad. One single life is worth to save it. yet still... Until then, more people die daily, and at some point 10 million died, or more. depending whenever a tyrant wants to take charge.
Is that really justified? I don't know. Sounds imbalanced to me.
I'd rather take my chances with a fictional dictator, that may or may never appear, than with running around with the fear someone can shoot me at any given time. Because there's a high chance for it to happen.....
Oooh! I kinda like that ideology! Perhaps America should adopt some harsher penalties specifically based on if you have a weapon, and what type as well.Burglars rarely carry a weapon, because the punishment if caught is severly harsher with a gun/knife than without. So in the majority of the cases, if you catch a burglar in your house, they will run away like rabits.
Well that is impossible because in America you have the right to bear arms, so it won't matter if you are robbing or not (I wasn't carrying my weapon to rob, I carry it with me all the time, its my right your honor!)
In that case, ignore what I just said
I wasn't aware that Belgium covered the entirety of the European continent.
I doubt such statistics exist. Nor would they add anything to your argument.I agree with the essential cultural differences, you point out. But it doesn't change that the evidence of the cultural difference in regards of weapon handling is showing a disadvantage for the American people and their overall safety.
I would like to see the death toll through gun violence in the USA since it became independent. I suspect millions have died over that already. I mean just domestic crime. Not civil war or the like. Only domestic violence.
Except the difference is, you can be shot either way. Banning guns does not remove the possibility of being shot; for example, Australia's rate of gun violence is almost at pre-ban levels currently.Now lets play a little around with thoughts.
What if the country would really ever fall into the hands of a tyrant, of a dictator. How many lives would that cost? A few thousand, a hundred thousand? 250k or even a million... bad, very bad. One single life is worth to save it. yet still... Until then, more people die daily, and at some point 10 million died, or more. depending whenever a tyrant wants to take charge.
Is that really justified? I don't know. Sounds imbalanced to me.
I'd rather take my chances with a fictional dictator, that may or may never appear, than with running around with the fear someone can shoot me at any given time. Because there's a high chance for it to happen.....
At least in the US, you have the option of being able to return fire.
---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 02:12 PM ----------
The liberty to bear arms carries restrictions, it is not unconscionable that adding such a law would be Constitutional.
---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 02:14 PM ----------
Please, having a gun does not 'make you safer', that is NRA propaganda. What it does is it creates options, and puts you at parity with or at advantage to an aggressor.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Well..... statistically every american has a gun... about 200 mio guns legal, about 100 mio illegal.. with a population of 314 mio... Makes a stat for almost everyone has one. That is not the case, we know that much.
But it's safe to say that about 50% people do have a gun, whether legally or illegally obtained.
That's a very scary thought..
As for an anecdote. The woman and the daughter just went shopping a couple days ago. They wanted to get into a store. For some reasons they didn't make it there.. Too distracted with other shopping stuff... At night in the news we learned that there was some stuff going on, cause apparently some guy was running around in that store with guns....
I mean, you can't even go shopping without worrying too much anymore.
It seems like all those crazies who shot around lately drawing more crazies out in the open.
I'm sorry. But I certainly don't want to live like I was at war or something. Where security heavily armed is needed on every other street corner, and in every other shopping strip...
Might be just me but probably one of the least intelligent threads I've seen.
Comparing one of the top10 most threatened persons on the plant with....
10p OP.
But soon after Mr Xi secured a third term, Apple released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts.
Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.
I've initially read the title as "fun free zones" and was truly intrigued...
Not all humans have empathy, and when they do, it's not shit that concerns them. I could give half a rat's ass about some people in a faraway land that died to X Y Z, it's tragic, it sucks, it's life.
Ok, well, look at Georgia, all residents are required to have a gun, crime went down 60%. Those areas? People die, EVERY DAY.Isn't the reason why people want tighter gun-control laws because they care about those killings? What is your point anyway?
He got them from his mom, AFTER HE KILLED HER. And then STOLE THEM. Tighter gun control laws would keep guns out of the legally abiding citizens, and allow things like Chicago, California, New York, and Mexico to be a reality. My point is, you're ignorant, and skirting around my sentences to prove your vague point of which, nobody knows what you want, aside from, BAN GUNZ.Actually, all reports point out to the fact that the Conneticut dude got his guns from his mom. Which were legally owned. Actually, most of these mass-murderers got their guns through legal means, and tighter gun-control laws would make it harder, if not impossible, for many of them to make such acts. Only the most dedicated of them would carry out their plans. Again, your point?
You quoted only one portion of it, the rest of it, "I think an entire thing's purpose through before mindlessly slandering what it is." And it's not irresponsible, are you literally telling me that you'd allow guns to be loaded all over the floor of an amusement park? You're assumptions are wrong, insulting, and make you appear quite ignorant.Because he's not fascinated and obsessed with death. He's a responsible person, unlike you, who treat guns as if they were something that belonged in an amusement park. That's the attitude of an irresponsible person.
The facts that I have clearly stated, and pointed out more than once.Facts? What facts? Those statistics that have been shown countless times proving that the USA have far bigger gun-related death rates than other countries where there's tighter gun control? Why don't YOU look at the facts, hypocrite?
Chicago, New York, California, Mexico, the United Kingdom. The crime rates there are higher than in places with less strict gun control laws, such as Georgia, and Texas.
Sure there are more gun related deaths, however, you make it sound like millions die every day, when that's just not true. It's relatively only ~200,000. More people die from poisoning, pool drowning, and car accidents.
It would take 118 years at the same rate of how many die from guns, to reach the number of poison related deaths, right now.
---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 04:25 PM ----------
Chicago and Houston have similar populations, Chicago having around 600,000 more, however, I can account personally for the number of shootings I've personally eye-witnessed.
Which is 0.
I am sure you know as much as I do, that we've compared the stats for whole of Europe more than often already in the other threads.
The description of his scenarios for Belgium match exactly with every other European country.
And no one who points that differences out, has ever claimed that there are zero gun related death in Europe...
But there's a huge difference between 1 casualty per capita and 12 casualties per capita.
The US is dead last amongst all the western countries in those stats.
Plus, read the 2 articles I posted........ One can hardly say the USA even has sufficient data, if it's illegal to even research it officially.
It's easy to claim that weapons have no impact on safety in a negative way, when gun lobby manages that the scientific research for it gets prohibited, by removing the funds needed to do the research.
Not asking to disarm the entire population.. Just asking to reason with the facts that are so obvious.
At some point, denying facts is pretty much the same as denying that the Earth is not a disc.
I am a very reasonable and rational person. I do life with facts. If someone shows me facts, I look into them, and then I make my own judgement and decision, and certainly would I never deny those facts.
I can't remember any story where the Concealed weapon holder acted like a "douchie wannabehero". That's glorification from stories and internet jokes.
And I don't want to give up my possessions to appease some jackass that won't further himself in his life on his own.
If he's ruined his life, that's his own fault.
That's my culture and view, I'd rather prefer I keep my freedoms, such as being able to keep my guns, I understand differing views, however it's seems to be that because I hold these views, I'm automatically a demon, as compared to how others expected to be treated when they want to take away my freedom.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Who will regulate this? So basically you want to turn these "gun free zones" into police state sections, and futhermore just because its a "Gun free zone" isn't going to stop someone from walking into with a gun and opening fire...... YOU obviously dont know how they work.