Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Doesn't Answer my Question Watchman.
Quote:
Increasing Gun Control and Such SOunds good but... How do you expect to take unresigtered guns off the streets from gangbangers if you don't catch them?
If they rob a homeowner at gunpoint, and escape, then, Police won't do anything good,would they? :inquisitive:
They can bring in the CSI and profilers and find him, you should watch more TV. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Couple of things I thought that I should bring up.
1. In the Martial Arts thread in the frontroom Vuk talks about how it is easier to disarm a person with a gun than a person with a knife.
2. the requirements for gun ownership that Myrrdral described truthfully don't sound much more restrictive than the laws here.
3. There are a lot more guns total in the US then in Britain. This makes enforcing gun control laws much more difficult. Unless of course the person with the gun is a nice law abiding citizen, but in that case why would you want to take their gun in the first place.
Why is no one focusing on the real culprit, Marylin Manson?
After all, he isn't popular in Iceland, which has a very low murder rate. While he is popular in America, which has a high murder rate. Since Iceland is just like America I can conclude that Marylin Manson is responsible for the violence in America.
Oh so which increases in firearm regulation are you linking to which increases in gun crimes ?Quote:
I'm not talking of simply since the handgun ban*.
Or is it that facts which you claim prove your point are actually "facts"*
* as in not factual:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I'm speaking of the totality of English gun control in the last century, it's increasing strictness after WWII, and the corresponding increasing crime. If gun controls are so great, why is crime in England not below 1914 levels?
CR
:inquisitive: They may do things differently where you live, but around here they're sort of supposed to find and apprehend the criminal for due legal procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Then again for some reason people don't rob a jack at gunpoint here, least of all homes. Jewelry stores sometimes, and as the staff of such establishements have standing instructions to let armed robbers take the junk and let cops deal with them later casualties of such incidents stay at a practical zero.
:strawman3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
...like the United Kingdom ver. 2007 was even remotely the same thing as the United Kingdom v. 1914. Don't be silly.
Come off it Watchman don't just call strawman , give him a chance to hang himself .Quote:
like the United Kingdom ver. 2007 was even remotely the same thing as the United Kingdom v. 1914. Don't be silly.
So Rabbit Englands totalitarian gunlaws caused murder rates to rocket from 0.96 /100,000 to 1.62 in 100 years while Americas more relaxed gunlaws turned a murder rate of 1.2/100,000 into 5.9 .Hmmmmm......you were trying to say something ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Almost like the USA and the UK, huh? Besides, Myrddraal was claiming that long term, gun control will reduce crime. That is not evident.Quote:
like the United Kingdom ver. 2007 was even remotely the same thing as the United Kingdom v. 1914. Don't be silly.
tribesy - why don't you look up and post how many homicides in the US happened in cities or states with gun control - like NYC, California, Washington DC, New Jersey?
CR
Strawman again. I'm pretty sure nobody's claiming gun controls reduce crime in general - because the things are a nonissue to much petty crime - but firearms related crime, which tends to have an effect of limiting serious violent crime due to lack of access to a convenient and even in unskilled hands quite easily lethal weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So has violent crime, not just including firearms, declined in Britain as more laws and restrictions were put in place?
CR
Because we have been there before and your claim has been shown to be absolute bollox .:yes:Quote:
why don't you look up and post how many homicides in the US happened in cities or states with gun control - like NYC, California, Washington DC, New Jersey?
Would you like to debate it in a newspaper or something ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So now Rabbit for your claim to hold any merit there should be no difference in murder rates within different disricts of a city that has the same citywide gun laws ...is there a difference ?
For your claim to be true there would be no difference in murder rates throughout a State that has Statewide gun laws......is there a difference ?
For your claim to be true there would certainly be no city or area of a State which has lax gun laws that has anything like a similar level of murders as areas with tighter gun laws ....are there areas that have similar levels ?
Now I could go further and do some "semantics" and ask in relation to ...in cities or states with gun control ....can you name any US city or State that has no gun control ?:eyebrows:
Yeah.... I've heard people say such idiotic things before... He must be talking about situations where you're already standing close to the guy with the gun. With a distance of around 5m, there's no way I wouldn't be able to shoot Bruce Lee before he got close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldinger
So is it your position that if there is any variation at all of crime rates within a city, then one can't compare overall crime rates for the city? And the same for states? And then the claim that cities and states with stricter gun control must always have worse crime in every little area than any other city or state with less gun control?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Wow, that's stupid.
CR
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
So is it your position that if there is any variation at all of crime rates within a city, then one can't compare overall crime rates for the city?
Errrrr ....It is you Rabbit who tries to link the strictness of gun laws to crime rates , it is you who claims to have facts to back up your claims , it is your claims that turn out to be "facts" instead of facts .
The stupidity rabbit is trying to make crazy claims about the benefits of lax gun controls in relation to crime when the examples you try to use are so full of holes .Quote:
Wow, that's stupid.
Since one of your favourite examples to use is D.C. , an example you claim has more gun crime because it has stricter gun laws :dizzy2: why is there varying levels of gun crime (or other crime) within that area ?
The fault lies with your gun fetish , and your seeming theories that guns and the laws relating to them are the major issue when it comes to crime .
Hey Banquo whats wrong with Flanagan and Allen ? Why the deletion ? there were no warnings issued for the link before .
"full of holes"? So to meet your criteria for facts that go against your position, there can be absolutely no minor exceptions or variations, even though the the overall point is intact?
It's like you're on a hike and a guide says 'this is a deciduous forest' while surrounded by evergreens and you spot a conifer or two and starting innanely yelling that he's wrong.
Not to mention you've missed the point of my argument. Anti-gunners in here have been saying that gun control reduces crime. Of course, you haven't questioned that, though it links gun laws and crime. My examples prove them incorrect. The examples don't have to show that more citizens carrying guns reduces crime, only that gun control laws are ineffective at reducing crime.
Indeed, let's look at DC, who's crime and murder rates shot up 30 years ago when they banned handguns, while the crime rate in the rest of the nation declined. The contention here is about whether gun control reduces crime. This example, and many more, along with statistical research, would seem to indicate not.
You implied that gun control laws don't affect crime levels. Perhaps you should be arguing with the anti-gunners here who insist gun control reduces crime then. The rest of the blathering is really irrelevant to the discussion.
CR
Er... we haven't. It's kind of a bad form, as well as constructing strawmen, to put words in others' mouths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Or at least one of the central points I've been arguing for is that gun ownership has jack all effect on the issue compared to properly functional law enforcement system and what might be termed "a healthy society".
Wow , that really has me stumped . ~;) So I imply that gun control laws don't affect crime levels , and anti- gunners here seem to imply that they do hmmmmmm.......Quote:
You implied that gun control laws don't affect crime levels. Perhaps you should be arguing with the anti-gunners here who insist gun control reduces crime then. The rest of the blathering is really irrelevant to the discussion.
...isn't that someone insisting that gun laws do affect crime levels:idea2: are they an anti gunner:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
But the state that allows people to buy a pistol, and conceal it on themselves without any permits has some of the lowest crime in the nation. Indeed, most of the crime comes from places where guns are very regulated or banned (Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, LA)
Make your mind up rabbit if you insist that lax gun laws reduce crime and those anti gunners insist that tight gun laws reduce crime you are both wrong .
So perhaps you could re-read post #54 , then you could take what that implies and then maybe apply it to somewhere like D.C. which you are so fond of mentioning ...though of course that does mean more and stricter gun laws , which you would be opposed to eh ?
Now you have in the past said that you are in favour of stricter enforcement of existing regulations (which is often at odds with your rants about some existing regulations) .
So, keeping that in mind, would you mind US gun laws (that is, generally less restrictive, allowing non-criminals to own semi-auto assault rifles, etc.)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
As for 'strawmen':
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Or someone showing that gun control doesn't reduce crime. You shouldn't leap to insult someone based on only one possible reading of a sentence. Like one was ...without knowledge... of different possibilities in the English language. ~;pQuote:
isn't that someone insisting that gun laws do affect crime levels are they an anti gunner
CR
Errrrr...ineffective gun control doesn't reduce gun crime . decent legislation with proper enforcement does .Quote:
Or someone showing that gun control doesn't reduce crime. You shouldn't leap to insult someone based on only one possible reading of a sentence. Like one was ...without knowledge... of different possibilities in the English language
If I wanted to insult your posts on the subject I would go for something more along the lines of how it is absolute bollox that you attempt to link DCs rise in crime to gun laws when that areas rise and spike (like that corresponding to other cities with different gun laws) is entirely unrelated to gun legislation ..but hey DCs handgun ban and its "link" to a rise in crime is a popular fallacy with the pro-gun crowd even though like most of their arguements it has no basis in reality .
Context, my dear Tribesman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Your choice of song for this thread reminded me of that video posted by SFTS some while ago, showing a fellow setting light to a barrel of petrol in an attempt to fry a swarm of bees.
:bow:
Context ?Quote:
Context, my dear Tribesman.
This is a debate about gun laws isn't it ?
Is it not the same context ?~;)
So on to debate firearm legislation with someone who doesn't want to debate firearm legislation ...
Effective legislation Rabbit ....forget trying to link certain neighbourhoods steep rise in crime with firearm legislation when the cause of the spike is a crack epidemic in those neighbourhoods....since the topic is about a school shooting , how did ineffecive legislation and loopholes lobbied for by the pro-gun no matter what crowd allow someone like the two fruitcakes at Columbine purchase guns ?
How does ineffective legislation allow people in DC purchase guns in States neighbouring the district ?
Now you could go back to post #54 and think about those cases too .:yes:
then you could think of some proposed legislation that is attempting to address this issue ...then you could try and repeat your objections to that proposed legislation when you raised it as a topic because it was "firearm legislation" and the NRA were campaigning against it .
Then perhaps you could try and make a case for why guns should not be registered or that if they are registered why the government must delete the registration .
That's just...awesome! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Hmmmm.....not like this I hopeQuote:
You're like a dental drill, you don't stop before you're done, you hurt a lot but you only try to improve things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPQ7...elated&search=
sorry but the challengeable nature made me want to dig it back outQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
ladies and gentlemen can you name one thing that started in 1914 that took about 60% of the nations males off the streets (heres a hint they wernt all going to france on holiday you know) - not to mention we can only quote figres on REPORTED crime which is a bad point since Britian at the time was a class driven socicety, most of the crime would have been between the workers and would never have been reported (and even if it was the police wernt renowned for being particulary useful at that point).
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
He isn't really trying to improve the patient, is he? :sweatdrop:
So what is decent legislation? It would seem that a bare minimum is decent enough, provided it is actually enforced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You keep making the same mistake, tribesy. DC's mayor has said that ban has 'saved thousands of lives'. Considering DC was the murder capital per capita of the US for many years, that would appear to be incorrect, as whatever other circumstances aside, the ban was accompanied by significantly increased murders.Quote:
If I wanted to insult your posts on the subject I would go for something more along the lines of how it is absolute bollox that you attempt to link DCs rise in crime to gun laws when that areas rise and spike (like that corresponding to other cities with different gun laws) is entirely unrelated to gun legislation ..but hey DCs handgun ban and its "link" to a rise in crime is a popular fallacy with the pro-gun crowd even though like most of their arguements it has no basis in reality .
You talk about a 'crack epidemic' or similar problem as the cause of the rise. But the higher violence in DC has not been going on for a year or five or even a decade; it's been three decades. Gee, almost like claiming it's some epidemic is just so people can ignore that gun control didn't do squat.
LOL, a lame argument straight from the mouths of US anti-gun groups.Quote:
how did ineffecive legislation and loopholes lobbied for by the pro-gun no matter what crowd allow someone like the two fruitcakes at Columbine purchase guns ?
And makes even less sense than when the anti-gun groups roll it out. The two Columbine killers broke the law in acquiring every weapon they had. There were no loopholes they slipped through, they committed numerous felonies before the day of the massacre.
They can't purchase handguns in other states and have to keep long guns locked up at their homes. And long guns are hardly used in crimes. Gee, that must mean practically every pistol in the district is there illegally.Quote:
How does ineffective legislation allow people in DC purchase guns in States neighbouring the district ?
And as to 'effective' legislation - I still haven't seen why if it's so effective violent crime in England has been going up.
CR
So since the law and/or its enforcement there doesn't even manage to keep people from getting their mitts on suitable firearms illegally, wouldn't it be better to get rid of guns once and for all so the things simply aren't available on the market, legal or illegal, in the first place...? Sure, gangsters can still get them, but they'll be paying premium for whatever crap the smugglers can get in so it's only the "pro" criminals who're getting them... it works more or less that way in Japan AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
:strawman2: :dozey:Quote:
And as to 'effective' legislation - I still haven't seen why if it's so effective violent crime in England has been going up.
...because crimes stem from causes and effects quite different from the legislation developed to contain and limit them, for example ? The laws we're talking about here have no direct effect on the social conditions and pressures that produce crime, violent or no; they just affect the availability of different tools that can be utilized for the purpose, and AFAIK tight controls (caveat: that are actually also enforced) on firearms ownership tend to have an effect of reducing actual deaths by the simple virtue of depriving would-be killers of easily lethal weapons.
As has been already observed, it'd be kind of challenging to carry out a massacre at a school or some other public place with a knife or axe. But it's quite easy enough to make a remarkably spirited attempt at killing lots of people in a rather short time with a few guns...
No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .Quote:
So what is decent legislation? It would seem that a bare minimum is decent enough, provided it is actually enforced.
Errrrr...he is a politician rabbit , they are not noted for their honesty , this mayor fellow , he wouldn't be the one with the drug habit and preference for prostitutes would he ?Quote:
You keep making the same mistake, tribesy. DC's mayor has said that ban has 'saved thousands of lives'.
So are you saying that there is some relevnce to his words or that showing that a politician talks crap somehow improves your case ?
Errrrr...no the ban was accompanied by varying increases and decreases of murders just like other areas , it showed a significant increase in areas with a drug problem during the peak of that problem just like other areas with he same drug problem showed significant inceases at that time .Quote:
as whatever other circumstances aside, the ban was accompanied by significantly increased murders.
Ah you mean that being able to obtain weapons by using loopholes in the legislation is wrong so the criminals are wrong and nothing should be done to close those loopholes as they would interfere with law abiding citizens wanting to trade guns without licencing , registration and backround checks from source to user .Quote:
LOL, a lame argument straight from the mouths of US anti-gun groups.
And makes even less sense than when the anti-gun groups roll it out. The two Columbine killers broke the law in acquiring every weapon they had. There were no loopholes they slipped through, they committed numerous felonies before the day of the massacre.
Errrrr...yes they can since there are loopholes that allow them to do it .Quote:
They can't purchase handguns in other states
Hmmmm since when ? is this the past 100 years thing again ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
And as to 'effective' legislation - I still haven't seen why if it's so effective violent crime in England has been going up.
Ah so that would be a call for a handgun ban then :oops:Quote:
And long guns are hardly used in crimes.
As I often point out in these discussions, as far as long guns go this country's about on par with the US per capita. But they're all away at hunting lodges and summer cottages and shooting ranges and wherever the Hell people now are required to store them (under, as it were, lock and key), and for pretty obvious reasons feature crap all in crime...