For you no guns solution people
-
On three occasions I have actually faced a madman with a knife (actually one drunk and two muggers - whether they were mad or not didn't come up in the conversation) and have lived to tell the tale (although I got badly slashed once, stabbed another time and was completely uninjured on the third occasion - for those who are interested, all three of my attackers fled the scene alive, but with serious injuries). With guns, I don't know if I would be here at all.
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits. - Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most. - I vaguely remember having a good memory...
Exactly. I'd take on a dude with a knife. A gun ? No way. Not even if I had a gun.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
On three occasions I have actually faced a madman with a knife (actually one drunk and two muggers - whether they were mad or not didn't come up in the conversation) and have lived to tell the tale (although I got badly slashed once, stabbed another time and was completely uninjured on the third occasion - for those who are interested, all three of my attackers fled the scene alive, but with serious injuries). With guns, I don't know if I would be here at all.
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits. - Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most. - I vaguely remember having a good memory...
-
None of this means anything. I never said there was NO gun violence in other countries. There's just more ( quite logically ) in a country awash with guns. If I decide to become a criminal, do you think some network of super villians mails me a gun ? Or do I need to find one ? Isn't it easier to find one when there's lots of them about ? Isn't that logical ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It's a black market, supply and demand. They'll just cost more, and if you don't need a gun for your enterprise, you'll just use the next cheaper option, like machetes. While law abiding citizens will remain unarmed. That's what they did in African civil wars. Bullets weren't worth it against unarmed opposition. They hacked people apart. 3. Lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp writes at Cato, “In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel ‘have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/[^]
-
There is no good response to the argument. There are people that are pro-gun, people that are anti-gun. The fact of the matter is the anti-gun nuts are using this as an opportunity to push the anti gun agenda to tick of the pro gun nuts and not a single person from either side ever makes a compelling rational argument that takes into account all relevant facts. (Most nut jobs leave off information that doesn't support their argument). Now if you really want to discuss something important, let's discuss using their vs. his or her, or alternating gender pronouns. Because, well, we are likely to solve that problem a lot sooner.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
There is a clear and rational argument. Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them. The cases where a gun makes someone safer, are very rare and dwarfed by the number of kids shot in the US. But, I agree, and indeed said, that a time like this, when emotions are high, is a dumb time to try to make that case.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It's a black market, supply and demand. They'll just cost more, and if you don't need a gun for your enterprise, you'll just use the next cheaper option, like machetes. While law abiding citizens will remain unarmed. That's what they did in African civil wars. Bullets weren't worth it against unarmed opposition. They hacked people apart. 3. Lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp writes at Cato, “In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel ‘have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/[^]
They still don't come from thin air. And I'd rather face a gun with a machete, than a gun. And yes, that's what I said. It's a combination of access to guns and some sort of cultural issue that is going on here. You could have the guns without the violence, but you HAVE the violence and a good first step would be better control of the guns.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It's a black market, supply and demand. They'll just cost more, and if you don't need a gun for your enterprise, you'll just use the next cheaper option, like machetes. While law abiding citizens will remain unarmed. That's what they did in African civil wars. Bullets weren't worth it against unarmed opposition. They hacked people apart. 3. Lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp writes at Cato, “In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel ‘have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/[^]
-
Less guns => lesser availability => higher costs => less chance of obtaining one => less chance of killing many people easily.
Sponsored by Logic
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
Higher cost does not equal less chance of attaining one necessarily. Think of the free market system, pure supply and demand (this tends to be how black markets operate, so perfect example). As the guns become scarce to criminals, the demand outpaces supply, driving up the price. The sellers want to meet demand because the price is so high, and will start taking guns from any source possible (like cops, shipping containers, etc) bringing the price down so it still remains economical to steal / straw purchase and sell, and still is economical to buy (I'd say an equilibrium that wouldn't be much different than it is now, but I'm no Nash). Unless you did what Carlin said and make bullets $10k, anyone wanting to kill many people would still easily do it. You know the Columbine kids? They had straw buyers.
-
They still don't come from thin air. And I'd rather face a gun with a machete, than a gun. And yes, that's what I said. It's a combination of access to guns and some sort of cultural issue that is going on here. You could have the guns without the violence, but you HAVE the violence and a good first step would be better control of the guns.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
They still don't come from thin air.
Sure, but as long as guns exist in the world, access to them will, too.
Christian Graus wrote:
And I'd rather face a gun with a machete, than a gun.
I guess it depends on who would be alerted, how close you are, who has the jump. But come on, that is silly.
Christian Graus wrote:
You could have the guns without the violence, but you HAVE the violence and a good first step would be better control of the guns.
Actually locking up violent criminals is best first step.
-
Higher cost does not equal less chance of attaining one necessarily. Think of the free market system, pure supply and demand (this tends to be how black markets operate, so perfect example). As the guns become scarce to criminals, the demand outpaces supply, driving up the price. The sellers want to meet demand because the price is so high, and will start taking guns from any source possible (like cops, shipping containers, etc) bringing the price down so it still remains economical to steal / straw purchase and sell, and still is economical to buy (I'd say an equilibrium that wouldn't be much different than it is now, but I'm no Nash). Unless you did what Carlin said and make bullets $10k, anyone wanting to kill many people would still easily do it. You know the Columbine kids? They had straw buyers.
But you are making one more step away from scarcity by saying that sellers want to meet demand because the price is so high, by taking more guns. No! The scarcity is scarcity. The sellers compensate their loss of profit exactly by increasing the price. That's the end of the cycle. It is risky to steal it from cops, and it will again drive the price up. But people won't be having dozens of weapons at home, just waiting for a kid to play, or when the mood strikes the owner to kill, pursue a revenge, or commit shooting out of depression. Many instances wouldn't have even started, because the threshold of getting money together, buying an expensive gun from a unknown source (potentially a cop) will just be too hard for him. So he/she will suck it up, or kill herself, or use other less effective means. Like killing only the person that caused it. But it will still make a huge difference. To kill many people without a gun it takes real effort, and much fewer people will be willing to do it, if guns are not available, or they are harder to obtain.
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
-
Exactly. I'd take on a dude with a knife. A gun ? No way. Not even if I had a gun.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I have. Both. and one of them walks to this day(both incidents were around 25 years ago) with a limp and scars, the other doesn't walk. If I had had a gun in hand at the time, neither would be walking and I wouldn't have the scars I do from it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
-
I have. Both. and one of them walks to this day(both incidents were around 25 years ago) with a limp and scars, the other doesn't walk. If I had had a gun in hand at the time, neither would be walking and I wouldn't have the scars I do from it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow. You can't scare me, I have children.
-
But you are making one more step away from scarcity by saying that sellers want to meet demand because the price is so high, by taking more guns. No! The scarcity is scarcity. The sellers compensate their loss of profit exactly by increasing the price. That's the end of the cycle. It is risky to steal it from cops, and it will again drive the price up. But people won't be having dozens of weapons at home, just waiting for a kid to play, or when the mood strikes the owner to kill, pursue a revenge, or commit shooting out of depression. Many instances wouldn't have even started, because the threshold of getting money together, buying an expensive gun from a unknown source (potentially a cop) will just be too hard for him. So he/she will suck it up, or kill herself, or use other less effective means. Like killing only the person that caused it. But it will still make a huge difference. To kill many people without a gun it takes real effort, and much fewer people will be willing to do it, if guns are not available, or they are harder to obtain.
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
No Smart, it is a market scarcity, supply can and would be increased via sources that previously weren't explored, that is the nature of economies. Demand driven supply, like gas boom in Alberta or North Dakota. There may end up being less total guns, but less guns in criminal's hands? Unlikely and unknowable.
Smart K8 wrote:
That's the end of the cycle.
I honestly quite reading reading after this sentence showed your ignorance.
-
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
At least without guns, it is harder to kill.
-
No Smart, it is a market scarcity, supply can and would be increased via sources that previously weren't explored, that is the nature of economies. Demand driven supply, like gas boom in Alberta or North Dakota. There may end up being less total guns, but less guns in criminal's hands? Unlikely and unknowable.
Smart K8 wrote:
That's the end of the cycle.
I honestly quite reading reading after this sentence showed your ignorance.
Of course it is statistically knowable. Your stance is just forcing you not to go another step in a simulation of few-guns scenario. If the guns were made limited, legal only after proper psychological tests and training, then the gun enthusiasts would be filtered, and only the reasonable ones would have guns. The guns would have to be sucked out of the legal market, and be disposed of. This wouldn't have to be a one time thing, but a slow transformation. It would be illegal to own a gun without a license. Therefore all the guns found via standard police work would be seized, and possibly recycled as a metal. This would over time created scarcity. Now there would be only few licensed guns, and same amount (probably much less due to confiscation over the years) illegal guns as before. It would be harder to get a new illegal gun, because most of them would be owner by criminals. But also it would be less likely (nearly not likely) to meet a man (victim) with a gun. So there wouldn't be a need to own a gun to rob a man. But some criminals (who can get hands/money on one) would still prefer to own it, but they wouldn't be force to shoot someone so often, because they would fear less that the victim owns a gun, thus killing him either as a prevention, or countermeasure of victim's attempted gun attack. So there are three effects at works here: 1) less likely to get a gun (because it would be more expensive, therefore less people can afford it) 2) less accidents because guns are not owned by anyone, but only licensed/tested people 3) lower rate of shooting during mugging (attacker now knows, the victim is likely to not have gun, so either he doesn't need one which is better for him, because guns are now really expensive, or he is not that often panicky in fear of victim pulling his own gun in defense) It works in most of the Europe. The muggings are plenty here, but guns are rarely used. Usually as a threat more than to shoot anyone. People are still getting killed (even with guns), but at a rate many times lower. You can still do the mass shooting if you really plan to, but that's just life. You can't control everything. You can lower the risks reasonably though. And mass shootings are not major source of gun invoked deaths anyway. Even though they receive much more media coverage. They are only tiny speck of percent.
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
-
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
Stay classy America :doh:
-
There is a clear and rational argument. Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them. The cases where a gun makes someone safer, are very rare and dwarfed by the number of kids shot in the US. But, I agree, and indeed said, that a time like this, when emotions are high, is a dumb time to try to make that case.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Because the facts don't matter. All the shootings that take place in the US don't matter. It's almost a matter of religion with people who are raised to think that access to guns makes them free.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
None of this means anything. I never said there was NO gun violence in other countries. There's just more ( quite logically ) in a country awash with guns. If I decide to become a criminal, do you think some network of super villians mails me a gun ? Or do I need to find one ? Isn't it easier to find one when there's lots of them about ? Isn't that logical ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
None of this means anything. I never said there was NO gun violence in other countries. There's just more ( quite logically ) in a country awash with guns. If I decide to become a criminal, do you think some network of super villians mails me a gun ? Or do I need to find one ? Isn't it easier to find one when there's lots of them about ? Isn't that logical ?
Based on that then you should be able to easily demonstrate a direct correlation between guns and violence using a number of countries, say 20 at least, where some have restrictive laws and some have liberal laws.
-
Less guns => lesser availability => higher costs => less chance of obtaining one => less chance of killing many people easily.
Sponsored by Logic
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
Smart K8 wrote:
Less guns => lesser availability => higher costs => less chance of obtaining one => less chance of killing many people easily.
Logical but the assumption is wrong. You assume that there is a way to make guns disappear. If that was true then your argument would make sense. However it there was in fact a way to make them disappear then it should work the same way for coke and weed. And there is certainly a vast amount of evidence that absolutely nothing done in last 40 years has reduced those. Matter of fact there is evidence that the quantity/quality has increased while the price has gone down.
-
But you are making one more step away from scarcity by saying that sellers want to meet demand because the price is so high, by taking more guns. No! The scarcity is scarcity. The sellers compensate their loss of profit exactly by increasing the price. That's the end of the cycle. It is risky to steal it from cops, and it will again drive the price up. But people won't be having dozens of weapons at home, just waiting for a kid to play, or when the mood strikes the owner to kill, pursue a revenge, or commit shooting out of depression. Many instances wouldn't have even started, because the threshold of getting money together, buying an expensive gun from a unknown source (potentially a cop) will just be too hard for him. So he/she will suck it up, or kill herself, or use other less effective means. Like killing only the person that caused it. But it will still make a huge difference. To kill many people without a gun it takes real effort, and much fewer people will be willing to do it, if guns are not available, or they are harder to obtain.
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
Smart K8 wrote:
No! The scarcity is scarcity. The sellers compensate their loss of profit exactly by increasing the price. That's the end of the cycle.
I suspect that you certainly have never engaged in any serious criminal activity and haven't even bothered to read much history nor economics. With an increase in price MORE producers appear. As a counter example you will find that buggy whips are very scarce and also very cheap.
Smart K8 wrote:
To kill many people without a gun it takes real effort, and much fewer people will be willing to do it, if guns are not available, or they are harder to obtain.
Yes but as long as we are looking for magical solutions why not just wish all the 'bad' people into the corn field and be done with it?