Gun ownership
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
So do criminals get worse sentences based on whether or not a gun is used?
Yep. But once you commit to doing a crime with a deadly weapon, you are looking at very hard time. And my point was that responsible gun owners WON'T pull a gun for any reason. Idiots will, and criminals will and at that point, pulling the trigger is not that much worse than just pulling out the gun. So you have a group that knows better than to pull the gun, let alone the trigger. A group that doesn't and hasn't thought about having to pull the trigger. And a group that figures they might as well pull the trigger. You know, I don't like my chances in this scenario. 2/3 are dangerous.
-
Exactly. The more armed people you have, the less chance the unarmed people have if something bad happens. Responsible gun owners know that taking out that gun is effectively committing to killing someone. So do criminals. The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
Perfect argument for banning all gun ownership. :thumbsup: Certainly, since (some) of the police in the UK are routinely armed, the incidence of illegal possesion and use of weapons appears to have increased. (This is not based on any research, just on my personal impression from the media. Of course, there is bound to be some major bias in there, since the media sensationalize most things to boost interest!)
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
-
EliottA wrote:
You arm yourself for those times that don't fall under your 'most' category.
Fair enough. I'm not saying owning a gun would be useless, but I don't think that, in this type of environment, the benefits outweigh the increased risks.
EliottA wrote:
I don't know, I think proportionally there is more crime in an overcrowded area then in a sparsely populated area where you find more cause for gun ownership.
That's the point. There's a lot more crime in an overcrowded area, but you have to distinguish between the levels of violence in those crimes. Would gun ownership reduce the frequency of minor crimes? Probably. But those crimes that do occur would be more likely to escalate, and result in more serious injuries or deaths. The question you have to ask... If petty crime goes up, but violent crime goes down, isn't that an improvement? Sure, it's not a utopia by any stretch, but the mere fact that you're less likely to die on any given day seems like a benefit to me.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ah, here is where we disagree, you're reducing the amount of violent crime, but may also increase crime as a whole due to the disappearance of the crime that doesn't exist due to gun ownership as a deterrence.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
Ah, here is where we disagree, you're reducing the amount of violent crime, but may also increase crime as a whole due to the disappearance of the crime that doesn't exist due to gun ownership as a deterrence.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
Exactly. Don't get me wrong... I'm NOT supporting a nationwide ban on guns. I just think it makes sense to ban it in dense urban areas, on a case-by-case basis, where a strong police force can reduce (Not eliminate, obviously, but reduce) the additional non-violent crime.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I read an article once about a guy who bought a tank fix it up and drove it around in town. I forget what town it was, but he used rubber tracks so he wouldn't chew up the road. Cool article. Obviously the weapons didn't work, but as a vehicle it did.
SO would that be classified as an SUV? ;)
-
no. They'd call it the Wagon or something... They call theirs Chariot...[^] That tank is nto quite so bad ass, but still scary. (Edit, I was thinking of a different tank that they use to use.)
modified on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM
That's ok... IMI still makes the Desert Eagle, so that's gotta count for something. Oh, but Steyr Weapons (Austria, I believe) wins hands-down for the best assault rifle. (By "best," I of course refer only to how cool it looks, because I have zero experience firing anything but a .22 rifle outside of video games)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Whatever gave you that idea?[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I wasn't actually asking a question, merely stating the obvious.
-
I wasn't actually asking a question, merely stating the obvious.
Heh, I know... See what I linked to? :P
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
That's ok... IMI still makes the Desert Eagle, so that's gotta count for something. Oh, but Steyr Weapons (Austria, I believe) wins hands-down for the best assault rifle. (By "best," I of course refer only to how cool it looks, because I have zero experience firing anything but a .22 rifle outside of video games)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
It's all good, the Israeli's took modified Centurians and managed to have 2 trackless tanks take out something like 30 during the Yom Kippur war. If it is the AUG A1, yes it is pretty awesome for looks. The weapon is pretty damn stable, fairly accurate (but admittedly I was never a sharpshooter) and never seemed to jam. The newest one looks pretty awesome and even has it so you can just plug in your favorite scope (or any mission specific scope) into the top rail. That's pretty nice.
-
As I see it responsible gun owners, sellers, government and manufacturers are at the heart of the problems with guns. It's certainly easy enough for the government to pass a law, or an amendment in this country, to ban guns and remove them from the population, however it takes away one more thing that someone can do. It may be small and dumb to some, but for others it's important and that isn't what matters. In my opinion it means people aren't responsible enough to have them. That's a sad and pathetic thing to me. What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
America has 20 times the gun deaths per capita of Australia. America has 18 mass shootings a year, we had 13 in total prior to our gun buyback, and none since. What part of that is 'paternalistic' or an indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
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.
-
As I see it responsible gun owners, sellers, government and manufacturers are at the heart of the problems with guns. It's certainly easy enough for the government to pass a law, or an amendment in this country, to ban guns and remove them from the population, however it takes away one more thing that someone can do. It may be small and dumb to some, but for others it's important and that isn't what matters. In my opinion it means people aren't responsible enough to have them. That's a sad and pathetic thing to me. What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
wolfbinary wrote:
What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption?
Well there's drugs, smoking, whoring, and gambling. Those are either tightly controlled or illegal all together in most places. You know.. the fun stuff. :laugh: Guns are more tightly regulated all the time. To buy on from a dealer you need to pass a background check and fill out the "I'm no crazy" test. It's a couple true/false questions. All the more reason to buy privately I guess. Even once you have a gun if you plan to carry with you there are FBI background checks, classes, finger printing, and more paperwork. And all this so honest people can carry one. Criminals will skip all the paperwork and just carry them. :doh:
-
I read an article once about a guy who bought a tank fix it up and drove it around in town. I forget what town it was, but he used rubber tracks so he wouldn't chew up the road. Cool article. Obviously the weapons didn't work, but as a vehicle it did.
-
America has 20 times the gun deaths per capita of Australia. America has 18 mass shootings a year, we had 13 in total prior to our gun buyback, and none since. What part of that is 'paternalistic' or an indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
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:
indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway. That being said like anything else it's a right you can loose. People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
-
Christian Graus wrote:
indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway. That being said like anything else it's a right you can loose. People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
thrakazog wrote:
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway.
Not really. It spells out your right to form a militia. A right which was valid when the army was no better armed than the populace, but today is just a farce.
thrakazog wrote:
People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
Yes, I was considering that yesterday. Perhaps the difference in gun deaths is entirely that we make sure that it's hard for criminals to have guns, and you guys give them guns until they kill someone, then take them away ( and then they can just break into houses and look for 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.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption?
Well there's drugs, smoking, whoring, and gambling. Those are either tightly controlled or illegal all together in most places. You know.. the fun stuff. :laugh: Guns are more tightly regulated all the time. To buy on from a dealer you need to pass a background check and fill out the "I'm no crazy" test. It's a couple true/false questions. All the more reason to buy privately I guess. Even once you have a gun if you plan to carry with you there are FBI background checks, classes, finger printing, and more paperwork. And all this so honest people can carry one. Criminals will skip all the paperwork and just carry them. :doh:
thrakazog wrote:
And all this so honest people can carry one.
And for what reason would someone do that ? Except for living in a country where they need to out of fear for all the other citizens with guns, I guess ?
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.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway.
Not really. It spells out your right to form a militia. A right which was valid when the army was no better armed than the populace, but today is just a farce.
thrakazog wrote:
People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
Yes, I was considering that yesterday. Perhaps the difference in gun deaths is entirely that we make sure that it's hard for criminals to have guns, and you guys give them guns until they kill someone, then take them away ( and then they can just break into houses and look for 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:
Not really. It spells out your right to form a militia.
People like to argue that. But even if the point is conceded that leaves you with having to define exactly what a "A well regulated Militia" is. How many people does it take to be a militia. 1 guy? 10 guys? a thousand? Who do you define as being in charge of said militia? City? State? Random collection of citizens? With this slippery slope most people just pay more attention to the part about "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not really. It spells out your right to form a militia.
People like to argue that. But even if the point is conceded that leaves you with having to define exactly what a "A well regulated Militia" is. How many people does it take to be a militia. 1 guy? 10 guys? a thousand? Who do you define as being in charge of said militia? City? State? Random collection of citizens? With this slippery slope most people just pay more attention to the part about "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
thrakazog wrote:
But even if the point is conceded that leaves you with having to define exactly what a "A well regulated Militia" is
None of the questions you raise, really change the fact. You're allowed to walk around with a gun, in the context of taking part in a militia. This does imply you have the right to have a gun in your home, for the purpose of joining said militia at some point. And again, this implies that 500 of you with guns would be the equal in armament of 500 government soldiers, which is no longer true.
thrakazog wrote:
With this slippery slope most people just pay more attention to the part about "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
No, you're wrong. The gun lobby focuses on the half that, taken out of context, says what they want it to say. It's not a slippery slope. It plainly sets out your right to have a gun in your home, in preparation to bear arms in the context of a militia. Assuming that the idea of a militia was still valid ( and it's not, it's a farce ), it would not change that this is the context in which you have a right to bear arms, not the context of a trip to the supermarket.
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.
-
thrakazog wrote:
And all this so honest people can carry one.
And for what reason would someone do that ? Except for living in a country where they need to out of fear for all the other citizens with guns, I guess ?
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:
And for what reason would someone do that ?
The reason I do it is to not be in violation of the tons of laws we have regulating where you can have a gun in your vehicle when you are going somewhere. I go target shooting with friends which means I need to take my gun along in the car. Laws covering how/where you have your gun in a vehicle vary by county and city. Some places require it be unloaded, some require it to not be in reach of the driver. Some require it to not be in plane sight. I didn't want to worry about what location I was at or what minor differences in transporting my gun I might encounter. Having the concealed permit allows me to not worry if I put the gun in the backseat, the trunk, or my coat pocket. I can give you several other answers but you probably wont like any of them: Scouts motto, always be prepared. Because I can. Chicks dig it. Because I like guns. Last but not least... because it makes people like you angry.
-
thrakazog wrote:
But even if the point is conceded that leaves you with having to define exactly what a "A well regulated Militia" is
None of the questions you raise, really change the fact. You're allowed to walk around with a gun, in the context of taking part in a militia. This does imply you have the right to have a gun in your home, for the purpose of joining said militia at some point. And again, this implies that 500 of you with guns would be the equal in armament of 500 government soldiers, which is no longer true.
thrakazog wrote:
With this slippery slope most people just pay more attention to the part about "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
No, you're wrong. The gun lobby focuses on the half that, taken out of context, says what they want it to say. It's not a slippery slope. It plainly sets out your right to have a gun in your home, in preparation to bear arms in the context of a militia. Assuming that the idea of a militia was still valid ( and it's not, it's a farce ), it would not change that this is the context in which you have a right to bear arms, not the context of a trip to the supermarket.
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:
No, you're wrong.
Er, no I'm not. Weather or not we agree one how it's written or its intention. How the law is enforced is pretty much exactly how I've described it. Each state varies it's laws a little but the basic right to own a gun is derived from that amendment.
-
It's all good, the Israeli's took modified Centurians and managed to have 2 trackless tanks take out something like 30 during the Yom Kippur war. If it is the AUG A1, yes it is pretty awesome for looks. The weapon is pretty damn stable, fairly accurate (but admittedly I was never a sharpshooter) and never seemed to jam. The newest one looks pretty awesome and even has it so you can just plug in your favorite scope (or any mission specific scope) into the top rail. That's pretty nice.
That's the one. I don't know how well they shoot, but the Aug A1 is just a thing of beauty.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
