Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 44,052 Views
  • 1,772 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-18 23:58:23 Reply

Every time a tragedy takes place, people immediately become emotional, irrational, and begin to blame gun laws and the guns themselves as the scapegoat. They claim that if only guns were harder to attain legally, then less gun violence would take place. This isn't an entirely unreasonable conclusion, but it is entirely misguided and entirely FALSE when the facts are considered. In fact, history proves that gun control does NOT work, and has actually made gun violence worse once it has been implemented, as I will prove later.

Also, people think that school shootings and such are an exclusively American phenomena, and that this is only due to our relatively lax gun laws, but this is entirely untrue. People only think this way because they focus all of their attention on the US, ignore other variables such as race, geography, the SHOOTER etc.. and just blame it on the gun.

People also constantly ignore that many similar tragedies have taken place in countries where gun laws are much stricter than our own. Yet these events have never garnered as much attention as the Columbine shooting, and will certainly be all but forgotten after the recent massacre. People all over the world focus all of their attention on the US, overemphasize what takes place in our country, and ignore their own problems, and their own similar tragedies. This causes the ignorance towards our gun laws. Most notable tragedies are:

- The École Polytechnique Massacre in 1989 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in which 14 people were killed, plus the shooter.

- The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in 1996 in which 17 people were shot and killed.

- The Erfert Shooting in Germany in 2002 in which 18 people were shot and killed.

Now, these crimes were committed with simple semi-automatic weapons firing pistol rounds, (and in the case with the Montreal shooting, a civilian model semi-automatic rifle). These type of semi-automatic pistol caliber firearm is what was used in the recent VT shooting, and is what has received the demonization by the gun-control advocates.

These types of weapons are legal everywhere, and are still entirely legal in Canada and Germany.

But the UK got caught up in a liberal frenzy and overreacted, and made a gigantic legal blunder .

After the aforementioned Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in which 18 were killed, the UK legislature voted decisively and banned all legal ownership of handguns in their country in 1997. This irrational law actually caused UK handgun crime to GO WAY UP.

UK handgun violence continued to go up exponentially. Then in 2003 (6 years into the ban) they had TWICE the amount of handgun crimes than they did in 1997 before the ban was enforced!!!

Think about that... by banning handguns, they actually entirely defeated the entire motive for doing so in the first place! By banning handguns, they made gun violence worse. By disarming law abiding citizens, they did nothing to address the actual source of crime, which is the group of people who ILLEGALLY attain handguns and who will not obey gun laws. Committing this major legal blunder only resulted in emboldened criminals who could prey upon citizens knowing that their prey were unarmed.

Now, certainly this simple fact will be ignored by the liberals in the US and elsewhere that will call for changes in US gun laws. Or perhaps if they are actually aware of what happened in the UK, they might pretend that the US might have better success than the UK did if similar gun control is implemented.

But the history and the current reality of our own country shows that this will not work here either.

Take a look here. Compare the murder rate/violence rate in US states, and then consider their respective gun laws:

#1 District of Columbia (Washington D.C mind you) : 3.597 per 10,000 people

Washington D.C. (which is a federal district, not a state) had the tightest gun control laws in the entire country, until just last month, all handguns and concealed carry of any weapons was entirely illegal. Yet it has the HIGHEST murder rate.

#16 Texas : 0.597 per 10,000 people

Texas has very, very lax gun laws as I'm sure you're aware. It has about 1/6th the murder rate as Washington D.C and is at number 16.

#33 Washington (the STATE) : 0.302 per 10,000 people

Washington State, has a much lower murder rate, and is where I live. And my state's gun laws are similar to those of Texas. We are a blue (Democrat majority) state, but we still have a gigantic gun lobby and moderate Democrats who opposed a bill that would have enforced California-style gun laws, numerous times. Hell, our last Mayor was a member of the NRA.

Then you look at the state with the LOWEST murder rate:

#51 Maine: 0.136 per 10,000 people

It's #51 (among 50 states and 1 federal district), it has the lowest murder rate in our entire country, yet Maine has been continually criticized for it's lax gun laws by delusional liberals. Maine has probably THE LEAST AMOUNT OF GUN CONTROL in our entire country. Maine has NO permits or licenses required for any firearm, and no waiting lists, yet it has the LOWEST MURDER RATE IN THE COUNTRY.

Don't you see that? The tighter the gun control, the higher the murder rate. Counterintuitive? Not really, because when law-abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals who don't obey the laws in the first place have free reign. They have defenseless citizens to prey upon. All gun control does is make it so that the only people with guns are the criminals.

So to all the misguided liberals; Are you really honest about your desire to reduce gun crime and violence? Or are you just really against guns first and foremost? Are you against the gun itself, do you hate the inanimate object, or do you hate the person who actually uses it illegally?

Because... it seems that if you REALLY want gun crime tp be reduced, you should be PRO-GUN! You should be AGAINST gun-control if you look at the facts instead of allowing your irrational emotional response to a tragedy to dictate your views.

Conclusion:

GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 00:10:31 Reply

Is this your way of making up for the fact you went on a rant how gun control would have not stopped the V Tech shooting because the guns were probally illegal, when infact they were purchused legally by a person who had been in mental institution.

I think there is a problem when a person can get a gun quicker than they can get their oil changed.

Not all gun control is equal. Gun control can mean many different things. Banning handguns is not the only form of gun control. Surely you must realize that we need to have some sort of controls or regulations in place. We can't have everyone buying guns. Should we let 12 years buy guns, how about convicted felons, the mentaly unstable?

What there should be is a licensing process of some sort. You should have to get a license to have a firearm. I don't see why this could possibly a controversial idea, many countries do it, including Canada. You need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own and use firearms.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 00:15:01 Reply

ok this sounds like a elaboration of another post you made.. So I shall strengthen your case somewhat by making a list of other weapons you can use to kill people.

Rope and other flexible cord like object
Club and other heavy blunt object
Knife
Ice pick
Throwing Star
Sword
Bow
Crossbow
Spear
Stones
Baseball bat
Fish bat
Glass shard
Water
Fire
Poison and animal venom
hot grease
Cast iron skillet
Steel chair
95% of all garden and work tools
Bare hands and feet
Rocket Launcher
Grenade
pretty much every pharmaceutical drug known to man
pretty much every illegal drug known to man (maybe except marijuana)
Automobile
Time

that's not even close to being a complete list, but you get the general idea. guns are just more convenient and easier to use as they require little skill beyond lining up the sights with your target.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Dre-Man
Dre-Man
  • Member since: May. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 00:18:27 Reply

2nd Amendment... end thread.

fahrenheit
fahrenheit
  • Member since: Jun. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 00:21:03 Reply

I think what your saying only proves that banning guns do nothing, it doesnt necessarily have a negative effect which it sounds like your implying. The reason Washington DC has such tight gun laws is because it has a big problem with guns, or take Maine for example, it has very unrestricting gun laws, which might be because they dont need them.

But I would have to agree with JOS on this, gun control doesnt have to mean banning. I would love to see gun distribution be taken on proffesionally where the requirments and background information are more thouroughly checked.


Faith tramples all reason, logic, and common sense.
PM me for a sig.

BBS Signature
cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 00:22:00 Reply

At 4/19/07 12:10 AM, JoS wrote: Is this your way of making up for the fact you went on a rant how gun control would have not stopped the V Tech shooting because the guns were probally illegal, when infact they were purchused legally by a person who had been in mental institution.

No... I made this thread to end the misguided gun control nonsense once and for all. Or to at least be able to make my case with one link to this thread instead of having to devote paragraphs to a thread in the future and get banned for "hijacking" that particular thread.

And mind you, when I said that I thought the VT shooter got his gun illegally, that was before the facts came out and it was an entirely sensible thing to say considering almost all the crime in our country is committed by people who don't legally own their firearms.

The VT shooting was a fluke, statistically speaking.

I think there is a problem when a person can get a gun quicker than they can get their oil changed.

Of course you would, because you don't want to acknowledge the larger context. You'd rather maintain your anti-gun views regardless of the facts.

Not all gun control is equal. Gun control can mean many different things. Banning handguns is not the only form of gun control.

Yet that is what people have been calling for in the US. Because the VAST MAJORITY of crimes i the US are committed by handguns. But banning them does nothing to take handguns out of the hands of people who actually use them illegally.

Surely you must realize that we need to have some sort of controls or regulations in place. We can't have everyone buying guns. Should we let 12 years buy guns, how about convicted felons, the mentaly unstable?

We do have some regulations, and I don't disagree with all of them but there is a certain threshold in which gun control because counter productive. Banning guns and making gun ownership a large, time consuming hassle crosses that threshold.

In the US you have to pass a background check, be 18 or 21 depending on the gun and so forth. That is fine as it is because the people commiting the vast majority of crime in the US wouldn't meet that critera and sure as hell wouldn't give up their guns or refuse to buy guns illegally if new laws were passed.

What there should be is a licensing process of some sort. You should have to get a license to have a firearm.

I don't think so. If you are a law-abiding citizen with a clean record you should be able to get a gun. But the fact is, that states in the US that have more lax gun control laws have lower murder and gun violence. So there seems to be no point in force licensing and registration on firearms when this causes less legal ownership by creating financial barriers to purchasing firearms that is insurmountable for some people who deserve firearms.

You need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own and use firearms.

And the funny thing is, cars and motorcycles are more deadly than firearms. So maybe the gun control freaks should start telling us to walk everywhere we go.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
Draxiss
Draxiss
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 00:54:11 Reply

what do you expect? its like alcohol. the banned it and then al capone got rich on the profits of selling it.

but in this case its the legal selling thats the issue. why did we sell handguns to someone who has a record of mental disturbance?

answer that


With a broken heart and a lost soul, Red October shall slay all

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:00:14 Reply

At 4/19/07 12:21 AM, fahrenheit wrote: I think what your saying only proves that banning guns do nothing, it doesnt necessarily have a negative effect which it sounds like your implying.

well, banning guns removes them from law abiding citizens, rendering them defenseless against a gun toting criminal who either made his own gun (which isn't very hard), bought it illegally, stole it, or bought it legally and didn't hand it over after the ban. This empowers the criminal, and criminals KNOW it.

look over in britain, the gun crime continues to rise despite the ban, why is this? because, only criminals have guns, law abiding citizens have no guns to fight back with and the criminals know this.

let's see. a gun has long range, good accuracy (with competent shooter) especially at close range, easy to use, and deadly as hell. the best defense? another gun of course.

back in the ancient times the knights on horseback were the supreme fighters, until the invention of the crossbow. with a crossbow a peasent with a few hours training could easily kill a mounted knight simply by aiming and firing the crossbow.

Try this, you will need 2 airsoft guns, 2 chestpads and 2 painball helmets.

put on your protective gear, and give a friend a loaded airsoft gun. now, go lie in bed and let the other person walk through your front door. his mission will be to shoot and "kill" you if he sees or hears you. of course this is just a simulated break in. also make sure it is somewhat dark inside. try it several times and see just how often you can actually disarm him without being "shot". of coursem you can use things like nerf bats and such to simulate actual weapons. then get your own airsoft gun, and see how much easier it is to defend yourself on even ground.

of course I have tried this myself with my group of friends and the results are obvious. you are far more likely to get killed if you try to defend yourself by using a melee weapon while your opponent has a projectile to work with. one of the funniest times was when i hurled the nerf bat and hit my friend right in the face (he had his helmet on). of course in real life you probably wouldnt THINK to THROW your weapon, because if you miss you are effectively disarmed against a gun.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:01:45 Reply

At 4/19/07 12:54 AM, Draxiss wrote: what do you expect? its like alcohol. the banned it and then al capone got rich on the profits of selling it.

but in this case its the legal selling thats the issue. why did we sell handguns to someone who has a record of mental disturbance?

answer that

Because it's impossible to prevent people who have mental disturbances from buying guns legally unless they have done things that would be put on a permanent record. And even then, they can still get guns illegally via the black market.

It's easy to criticize when you have hindsight, but there is no way of preventing everyone from getting a gun, legally or illegally if they MIGHT use the gun to kill people or commit other crimes.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
Debauchery
Debauchery
  • Member since: Mar. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:03:49 Reply

the most that will come of this is that mentally disturbed persons will lose the right to bear arms.

However, it wasn't like this guy was a known nutcase. I heard he just spent a day or two in the nuthouse.

AzureFenrir
AzureFenrir
  • Member since: Apr. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:05:33 Reply

At 4/18/07 11:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Also, people think that school shootings and such are an exclusively American phenomena, and that this is only due to our relatively lax gun laws, but this is entirely untrue. People only think this way because they focus all of their attention on the US, ignore other variables such as race, geography, the SHOOTER etc.. and just blame it on the gun.

That is true, of course, but we still have the question of whether gun control (not banning) helps decrease crime rate. Let's look at your facts:

- The École Polytechnique Massacre in 1989 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in which 14 people were killed, plus the shooter.
- The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in 1996 in which 17 people were shot and killed.
- The Erfert Shooting in Germany in 2002 in which 18 people were shot and killed.

As you have shown, shootings occur elsewhere as well, many of which didn't have gun control laws regarding said firearms in place. This is used as an example and understandably offers no proof to the original argument. Now, let us continue examining your facts.

After the aforementioned Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in which 18 were killed, the UK legislature voted decisively and banned all legal ownership of handguns in their country in 1997. This irrational law actually caused UK handgun crime to GO WAY UP.
UK handgun violence continued to go up exponentially. Then in 2003 (6 years into the ban) they had TWICE the amount of handgun crimes than they did in 1997 before the ban was enforced!!!

As this has shown, banning guns does not work, and as Amendment 18 has shown, prohibition does not work. However, regulating alcohol due to age worked, so it makes no conclusions about whether regulating guns, such as permits, registration, and such, will work. Let us look on:

Think about that... by banning handguns, they actually entirely defeated the entire motive for doing so in the first place! [abridged]

An opinion, but valid. However, it still says nothing about regulating guns, only banning them.

Take a look here. Compare the murder rate/violence rate in US states, and then consider their respective gun laws:
Don't you see that? The tighter the gun control, the higher the murder rate. Counterintuitive? Not really, because when law-abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals who don't obey the laws in the first place have free reign. They have defenseless citizens to prey upon. All gun control does is make it so that the only people with guns are the criminals.

Let me add a few statistics to your data, since you seemed to have presented only four states, only one of which actually presents the affirmative case. You leave the user with no clue as to whether the high crime rates in DC is because of other factors, such as being the nation's capital:

LOUISIANA: Second Highest - 1.269 per 10000 people
Almost no gun control whatsoever (it's pretty much equal to Maine), other than FBI regulations and permits for concealed weapons. Anyone can own and buy a handgun or rifle without state record. Yet it has the second highest crime rate in the US.
(Source on LA's gun control laws: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gu nlaw_la.htm)

MARYLAND: Third Highest - 0.93 per 10000 people
Other than juvenile possession laws and a handgun permit, Maryland also has lax gun laws. Yet it has the third highest crime rate in the US. Source: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gu nlaw_md.htm

NEW MEXICO: Fourth Highest - 0.876 per 10000 people
You can't carry concealed weapons (this requires a license anyway, even in the laxest states), and everything else is fair game. You can carry handguns, rifles, and all that stuff. So maybe that fourth highest statistic needs explaining :P. Source: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gu nlaw_nm.htm

I'm not making conclusions, since I'm obviously too lazy to look up the other states. However, the above figures alone should prove your data to be rather suspect, since it seems like you card-stacked whatever information supports your cause. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Conclusion:
GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.

In this entire post you have ended up proving that banning handguns seems to have correlations with higher crime rates, a fact extrapolated from one incident. That's hardly enough to make a comment on all forms of gun control, since there are inadequate amounts of data to truly show that regulations tend towards the negative.

Sorry cellardoor ^^.

Draxiss
Draxiss
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:08:00 Reply

but see thats my point lol

how do we prevent the wrong people from legally aquiring guns. that is the only relevant topic to this particular case.

throwing in the illegal side of the argument is only bringing in a completely indirectly related thing


With a broken heart and a lost soul, Red October shall slay all

BBS Signature
JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:24:34 Reply

At 4/19/07 12:22 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The VT shooting was a fluke, statistically speaking.

Perhaps nationally, but not in Virginia. Virginia has some of the most lack gun laws in the country. Its probally harder to buy a gun on the black market in that state then legally. No waiting periods, minimal background checks and virtually no restrictions on what weapons you can get. I would have been VERY surprised if he guns were illegal in this case.


Of course you would, because you don't want to acknowledge the larger context. You'd rather maintain your anti-gun views regardless of the facts.

Wow celladoor you are amazing. You are able to figure out what I think. I never said I was anti-gun. I dont think we shoudl ban handguns or guns in generally. I think we shoudl do what we can to keep them out of the hands of those who should nto have them. Personally i am quite happy that we are actually going to be finally given guns at work now, although they still have nto gone far enough with the new policies.

But its great to know that you are deciding how I think for me.

But banning them does nothing to take handguns out of the hands of people who actually use them illegally.

I am going to assume that was a typo. I NEVER said we should ban handguns. I swear, if you keep putting words in my mouth I am going to put my foot in yours.


We do have some regulations, and I don't disagree with all of them but there is a certain threshold in which gun control because counter productive. Banning guns and making gun ownership a large, time consuming hassle crosses that threshold.

So applying for a license and taking a test is a big hassle. Its less of a hassle than a driver license, yet people continue to do that. How many responsible gun users are going to be turned away by having to write a simple test and go through a background check to get a license.

Where do you draw the line celladoor? Should there be a waiting period? Should it take longer to get your film processed than it does to buy a bag full of guns?

In the US you have to pass a background check, be 18 or 21 depending on the gun and so forth. That is fine as it is because the people commiting the vast majority of crime in the US wouldn't meet that critera and sure as hell wouldn't give up their guns or refuse to buy guns illegally if new laws were passed.

Licensing gun owners does not stop criminals from getting guns, but it makes it harder and more expensive for them to do so. It also makes it more difficult for kooks to get them and makes sure gun owners know how to properly treat and store their firearms. My biggest fear is the poeple who dont knwo anything about guns but still have them and leave it lying around so little Johnny can find it and shoot someone by accidnet or on purpose. Unless you want to convince me that a kid in grade 4 is able to buy his gun on the black market to shoot a girl in his class.


I don't think so. If you are a law-abiding citizen with a clean record you should be able to get a gun. But the fact is, that states in the US that have more lax gun control laws have lower murder and gun violence. So there seems to be no point in force licensing and registration on firearms when this causes less legal ownership by creating financial barriers to purchasing firearms that is insurmountable for some people who deserve firearms.

Perhaps you and me have differing opinions on what is required for a license. I like the system we have in canada. two classes, long gun and restricted (handguns). You have to have a clean criminal record, no record of being institutionalized in a mental health facility and you have to take 1 safety course for that class of weapon that is not terriblly long or hard. You get a card with your picture on it and when you go to by a gun you show the license and you get your gun essentially once your license is validated. No background checks done in the store because if you get arrested your license is revoked and therefore not valid.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
AzureFenrir
AzureFenrir
  • Member since: Apr. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:26:08 Reply

At 4/19/07 12:15 AM, Korriken wrote: Rope and other flexible cord like object
Club and other heavy blunt object
Knife
Ice pick
Sword
Spear
Baseball bat
Fish bat
Glass shard
Cast iron skillet
Steel chair
95% of all garden and work tools
Bare hands and feet

None of these have as much killing potential as a gun does, and certainly none of them will let you win a fight against multiple unarmed opponents (not even the sword). Eventually, people will jump you and restrain you, at which point...you're kinds screwed.

Throwing Star

Good luck making those, and good luck throwing them with any accuracy if you're not trained.

Bow
Crossbow

Both of these have pretty long reload times, during which the targets can jump you. That, and a bow is much more difficult to shoot accurately than a gun is, and has much less force.

Stones

Even more inefficient than a bow.

Water

I know, let's go do a shooting at the local mall! I'll carry these two buckets of water, you'll carry these two, and we'll splash anyone who refuses to comply with us! Yeah...good luck throwing that many people into water.

Fire

Fun fact: carrying around a torch can get you arrested for arson.

Poison and animal venom
pretty much every pharmaceutical drug known to man
pretty much every illegal drug known to man (maybe except marijuana)

Need injection/consumption. Thus, they aren't efficient as a weapon unless if you can throw it down people's throats 100% of the time.

hot grease

Hot grease usually doesn't kill. Severe burns, yes, but not death.

Rocket Launcher
Grenade

...

Automobile

That's why they are registered and such.

Time

...

that's not even close to being a complete list, but you get the general idea. guns are just more convenient and easier to use as they require little skill beyond lining up the sights with your target.

And that is what makes them the most dangerous. You can kill with these other tools, but they aren't nearly as deadly and easy to use as a gun is (well, maybe automobile, but that IS regulated). Serious, you can do better than that, Korri.

KWAS71KCK
KWAS71KCK
  • Member since: Dec. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 39
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 01:34:46 Reply

At 4/19/07 12:18 AM, Dre-Man wrote: 2nd Amendment... end thread.

*sighs*

No offence to you, but many people should actually read Every Last Details to the 2nd Amendment before stating it.... especially since it was written way back in 1791, and the Declaration of Independence... rwritten in 1776.


Now You Have To Wash The Floor And Do All Of My Laundry!!!!

Demosthenez
Demosthenez
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 03:14:01 Reply

Good post Azure.

At 4/18/07 11:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: By banning handguns, they made gun violence worse.

Correlation does not imply causation. There could have been dozens of other reasons for that rise, for one example like that rising drug culture that was mentioned in the article.

You would be hardpressed to prove that point. Like stupidly conclusive evidence that points to bans and bans alone being the cause of this rise.

Don't you see that? The tighter the gun control, the higher the murder rate. Counterintuitive? Not really, because when law-abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals who don't obey the laws in the first place have free reign. They have defenseless citizens to prey upon. All gun control does is make it so that the only people with guns are the criminals.

I could make a very persuasive argument on how tihs could be the result of a kinda positive feedback loop of sorts. The more gun deaths the more people worry about it and the more they turn to government to solve their problems. Thus tighter regulations. It may not defeat the problem but by damn if the people dont feel good about the fact they think someone is looking out for them.

Dont get me wrong, I am all against bans of all forms. Especially gun bans. But you are walking a very tight line here. You would be better to argue that these bans do not reduce crime, something that is easily demonstrated by your examples. But you take it that extra step to far to twist your perfectly good data into partisan hack job territory by claiming gun crime increases as a result of gun control. You cant prove that with your data now. You cant, it is just no possible.

ReiperX
ReiperX
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 05:25:35 Reply

At 4/19/07 01:03 AM, Debauchery wrote: the most that will come of this is that mentally disturbed persons will lose the right to bear arms.

However, it wasn't like this guy was a known nutcase. I heard he just spent a day or two in the nuthouse.

He was deemed mentally unstable by doctors. This should have been on her record and should have came up when they did the background check on him.

"In 2005, Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states."

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 09:02:29 Reply

At 4/19/07 01:26 AM, AzureFenrir wrote:

I never said they were AS effective, could be used in massacres or good vs multiple opponents. I just said you can kill with them. of course, most people are fixated on the typical shoot schooting scenario when some psycho is running around in the open with a gun blasting away, when they could take a much more subtle approach and might even get better results.

Stones
Even more inefficient than a bow.

well, I reckon i should have said something like Slingshot and stones instead. or even the ball bearings. hide in a spot no one can see you and shoot stones or ball bearings into a crowd. the slingshot can generate more then enough force to kill someone with a blow to the head, especially from steel ball bearings of sufficient size. the slingshot makes very little noise and is easy to hide.


Water
I know, let's go do a shooting at the local mall! I'll carry these two buckets of water, you'll carry these two, and we'll splash anyone who refuses to comply with us! Yeah...good luck throwing that many people into water.

actually that would involve binding someone's hands/feet and throwing them into water that is over their heads. not good for a 1 man killing spree, but for a one kill operation its great.


Fire
Fun fact: carrying around a torch can get you arrested for arson.

lol thats funny. heres another fun fact: filling a water gun with gas and trying to use it as a flamethrower will get your killed. of course, torching someone's house while they are asleep is a good way to do someone in, along with their family.


Poison and animal venom
pretty much every pharmaceutical drug known to man
pretty much every illegal drug known to man (maybe except marijuana)
Need injection/consumption. Thus, they aren't efficient as a weapon unless if you can throw it down people's throats 100% of the time.

eh, grab a hypodermic needle, walk up behind them, stab them and inject. of course many pills can be dissolved in liquid. This would be considered more of a subtle weapon of course pills would be more of a temptation thing and probablly wouldn't work half the time. of course filling a vial with animal venom and telling some drug addict its an experimental new drug....


hot grease
Hot grease usually doesn't kill. Severe burns, yes, but not death.

depends on how much hot grease you use, a bad enough burn will kill. of course if they don't die, they will be horribly scarred for life.


Rocket Launcher
Grenade
...

what? ok so good luck getting your hands on these, but you can make similar type explosives with stuff you can get in town. coke bottle bomb + some paste + BBs = cluster bomb!


Automobile
That's why they are registered and such.

yeah but how easy is it to get a car? simple, walk up to the car lot, pick out a car, fill out a contract, show some ID, pay, hop in, drive into a crowd.
car+bomb = big time deadly.


Time
...

Time kills all things, however....

And that is what makes them the most dangerous. You can kill with these other tools, but they aren't nearly as deadly and easy to use as a gun is (well, maybe automobile, but that IS regulated). Serious, you can do better than that, Korri.

I never once said they could be nearly as effective as a gun (maybe except the grenades and rocket launcher, but good luck getting your hands on a rocket launcher)

and actually things like knives and icepicks have great killing potential if you use them right. rather than running around shooting everyone you can approach someone with weapon hid, pull it out and kill them by ramming the knife or pick into their chest or slicing their throat with a knife. (gore!) of course you would have to make sure not to get blood all over yourself. then repeat. the restroom would be the perfect place to rack up a body count as you could hide them in the stalls.

of course you could catch people where no one else is and strangle them with some then nylon rope or some steel wire, and toss the body into some dark spot, then be on your way, and no one heard a thing. when bodies start turning up, panic ensues.

of course if I was gonna be some numbnuts terrorist, i would go to a large city, perch high atop a building, and shoot arrows into the sky, and let them fall where they will. some will hit buildings or water, but some will land on people, probably killing them, and of course making your own arrows out of wood would make you that much harder to track down as no store records could indicate you buying hundreds of arrows. and with the force they would come down with you could probably just sharpen the tip of the wood and it would be sufficient. the problem would be, how do you get a bow on top of a building without anyone noticing? I haven't figured that one out yet.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Alphabit
Alphabit
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 09:37:34 Reply

Yeah, that's right, if they want my gun they're gonna have to take it out of my cold, dead hands!!!
And then I'll carry on with my life...


Bla

JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 11:43:26 Reply

At 4/19/07 09:02 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 4/19/07 01:26 AM, AzureFenrir wrote:
I never said they were AS effective, could be used in massacres or good vs multiple opponents. I just said you can kill with them.

Your parents dropped you on your head as a kid didn't they. When was the last time you heard of anyone going into a school with a skillet and killing several people, or a man ontop of a clock tower killing people with a slingshot and ball bearings?


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 12:49:39 Reply

You'll notice that your "proof" involves completely uncontrolled variables.

For example, I could say that a high murder rate is caused by a high population density. The numbers fit to that pretty well, but you ignore that fact completely because it doesn't support your theory.

You really need to learn what evidence, proof, and conclusions are one of these days.

BOZARTH187
BOZARTH187
  • Member since: Oct. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 33
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 12:54:51 Reply

I don't agree with a lot of what cellardoor is saying. But one thing i do agree on is that the kid could have got a gun off the street illegally if he couldn't get one legally. And im sure he would have.

JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:03:28 Reply

That is a ridiculous arguement. we shouldn't have gun control because people will just buy it illegally anyways. Thats like saying child porn shoudl be legal because people will do it anyways, or we shouldn't make crystal meth illegal because people will just buy that shit anyways.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:14:25 Reply

At 4/19/07 11:43 AM, JoS wrote:
At 4/19/07 09:02 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 4/19/07 01:26 AM, AzureFenrir wrote:
I never said they were AS effective, could be used in massacres or good vs multiple opponents. I just said you can kill with them.
Your parents dropped you on your head as a kid didn't they. When was the last time you heard of anyone going into a school with a skillet and killing several people, or a man ontop of a clock tower killing people with a slingshot and ball bearings?

HOW ABOUT THE WORST MASSACRE IN AMERICAN SCHOOL HISTORY? WERE GUNS USED THERE?

oops caps, sorry.

When a humn being has in it's mind it wants to kill mass amounts of people, no amount of waiting period, background check, 24-hour surveillance, prohibitive legislation on OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY IMPLEMENTS OF PEACE . . . or any other measure of preventative precaution will stop him from completing his task.

Do you know what will, or at least has the possibility?

but by damn if the people dont feel good about *the fact they think* someone is looking out for them.

I hate that about people.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:15:35 Reply

At 4/19/07 01:03 PM, JoS wrote: That is a ridiculous arguement. we shouldn't have gun control because people will just buy it illegally anyways. Thats like saying child porn shoudl be legal because people will do it anyways, or we shouldn't make crystal meth illegal because people will just buy that shit anyways.

You're ignoring the fact that guns cause peace.

Child porn doesn't cause peace, it molests children.

Crystal meth doesn't cause peace, it leads to crime and personal irresponsibility.

Are you a fucking retard?


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:17:33 Reply

At 4/19/07 01:15 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
Are you a fucking retard?

Let me elaborate.

Scurry off and esearch the Oklahoma CIty bombing, Tim Mcveigh, and the history of the gun in modern military times. THEN come back to this thread before vomiting in it.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:19:29 Reply

At 4/19/07 11:43 AM, JoS wrote: When was the last time you heard of anyone going into a school with a skillet and killing several people, or a man ontop of a clock tower killing people with a slingshot and ball bearings?

Some of the most brutal murder sprees in this country were comitted using a lot of the same implements he just listed, though, and yet... what have we done recently to discourage such sprees?

*cough*


BBS Signature
Brick-top
Brick-top
  • Member since: Oct. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:22:20 Reply

Oh God cell, give it a rest, nobody cares anymore.

I was talking to my dad about gun control because he owns two twelve bore shotguns and two rifles. And the only people that gun control affects are the legal gun owners. which sounds fucking bollocks. Which they should be targeting illegal firarms and dig deep on where they are coming from.

Bajjer
Bajjer
  • Member since: Mar. 31, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:23:26 Reply

Very true. Even according Marx, the more they resent it only brings us closer to rebellion.

LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-19 13:28:51 Reply

In addition, college students are the most defenseless, naive, stressed-out people on the planet.

Killing them wouldn't be tough, and you know none of them are packing heat, maybe a pepper spray can or the occassional stun gun.

If someone rampaged at my campus, they could kill dozens with a simple propane tank, blowing the VA tech massacre out of the water. He might get pepper sprayed, if they ever found out, but the potential for on-campus violence, mixed with the meekness and facelessness of 14,000 students with 14,000 individual problems . . .

well, if you did math good you'd figure it out.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature