Hooahguy 00:52 12-15-2012
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
True, but the noise will attract others who will likely arrive on the scene with their own derringers. Add to that the derringer's bullets are hard to actually get a killing shot with, it gives those on the receiving end a chance to survive long enough to receive aid.
...Unless the attacker is a criminal able to get a better weapon than a derringer, though really when you are dealing with a guy who is able to get black market weapons you are kinda screwed anyway, even with the current civilian portable weaponry.
Thats assuming that people around you have them, unless you made everyone carry one. And thats also assuming there are people around you to hear the gunshot. And with the whole black market thing, there are definitely civilian carry weapons that can evenly match black market weapons. Lets assume though that they arent carrying black market assault rifles (which data shows they wouldnt be).
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
I'd disagree there. As far as I am concerned the problem is not with whether or not you can have guns but on the assumption that gun ownership is just like garden shears ownership, or worse somehow "necessary" to defend yourself. I've made the comparison before, but what it says to me is the USA is like Somalia: no functioning state to keep its citizens safe and maintain the rule of law. If you don't have guns to defend yourself, why then, you might end up killed/robbed/whatever. This is not hypothetical fantasy out of the realm of implausible coincidence land, no it's apparently actually a likely scenario.
Stand your ground, my foot. Fix your country, how's that for a root cause?
The difference between almost all of those countries and the US is that they are not as ethnically diverse as the US is. I studied criminology this semester and if its anything I learned, is that in areas where there the ethnic groups are many and in tight areas, combined with poverty and poor education and societal standards, leads to crime and violence.
Now, the urban centers, with their high population densities and lots of ethnic conflicts, naturally have a high crime rate. Just look at the UK. Overall the population is overwhelmingly white British- well over 80%. Now in London, its much less, I think around 65% last I checked. The crime rate in london is also a lot higher in London than in the rest of the UK. Similarities occur with every European country I looked at.
Because the US is such a melting pot of ethnic groups you are naturally going to have more crime than in places where there is one dominant ethnic group.
Papewaio 01:10 12-15-2012
Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
The difference between almost all of those countries and the US is that they are not as ethnically diverse as the US is. I studied criminology this semester and if its anything I learned, is that in areas where there the ethnic groups are many and in tight areas, combined with poverty and poor education and societal standards, leads to crime and violence.
Now, the urban centers, with their high population densities and lots of ethnic conflicts, naturally have a high crime rate. Just look at the UK. Overall the population is overwhelmingly white British- well over 80%. Now in London, its much less, I think around 65% last I checked. The crime rate in london is also a lot higher in London than in the rest of the UK. Similarities occur with every European country I looked at.
Because the US is such a melting pot of ethnic groups you are naturally going to have more crime than in places where there is one dominant ethnic group.
Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?
Hooahguy 01:26 12-15-2012
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?
As RVG said, not in the way the US is. Just look at the percentages.
Montmorency 02:15 12-15-2012
1. Mental illness (cf. ACIN).
2. Most guns used in such crimes are illegally acquired. Regulating legal weapons however stringently will never reduce the supply or ease of access to this market.
3. There are too many guns within the United States to ever have hope of effecting a serious ban of any nature. We might as well try to burn all books - a long ordeal.
4. Legislation spurred by catastrophe is always worse than well-considered and soberly-analysed legislation.
There, I think I've regurgitated Panzerjaeger's points.
Now, perhaps the easy way out would simply be to institute an examination for gun owners, as well as a license, in the style of drivers' licenses and exams. Renewals might be every 5 years. All new guns sold would need to be registered. To undercut the black market, it would be necessary to make the process simple and easy in a way not wholly detrimental to the selective process itself. Otherwise, many would always simply turn to criminality.
I can't imagine a way to accomplish this - the regulations and tests would appear as a joke. What would the effect be Rather than regulating the legal market, it seems to make more sense to go for curtailing the illegal market, and that makes no sense because, well, how the heck could it be done? A War on Guns?!
There aren't easy ways out, and we shouldn't search for them - it's counterproductive in every way. Mental illness aside, bans must be cast aside as an option and any new controls and restrictions considered should be very specific as to ways, means, and ends, in what they intend to accomplish and how. Well-meaning blanket legislation never works, fellows.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
So which is the straw man, the war on terror or that the US has more gun deaths then any other western nation per capita?
The War on Terror is indeed a strawman. It is wasteful and unnecessary. The problem is minimal, though theatrical and dramatic. Islamic terrorists have never seriously endangered the country or even substantially increased the risk of using any means of transportation. The proper response to 9/11 would simply have been to increase funding for the FBI and CIA, and prioritize their function as to monitor for local cells and lone wolves in the country, and to reduce abroad the operational capacity of large and coherent terrorist franchises. At the very most, a black-ops raid in Afghanistan and select other states as a show of power and to eliminate some of the leadership. Otherwise, life should have gone on as normal. Anyway, if the number of gun deaths is empirically small the per-capita rate shouldn't concern anyone overmuch.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I don't know where you live, but obviously not in the US. It was taxation without representation that riled up the elites. They felt they were proper British citizens (aristocrats even) and deserved to be treated as such. That's why you saw motions such as the Olive Branch Petition to prevent all out war in the first place. No one wanted war, they only wanted a democratic voice and were happy to pay taxes as long as they could redress their concerns.
The schoolbook variant. Most of the more 'radical' revolutionaries, the ones who fomented in the first place, had a significant financial stake in eliminating British mercantilistic competition.
Finally, articles on the psychology of These People:
http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/stud...CJS%202008.pdf
http://jaapl.org/content/38/1/87.full.pdf+html
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...86.2011.581523
Introversion, narcissism, persecution complexes, and extensive prior criminal records.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
The schoolbook variant. Most of the more 'radical' revolutionaries, the ones who fomented in the first place, had a significant financial stake in eliminating British mercantilistic competition.
I am not a history major, so perhaps they were greedy bastards. However, the logic behind the post I criticized is still lacking in that the motivations of the Revolutionaries are somehow meant to invalidate the validity of the 2nd amendment. It seems to a be post amounting to attacking the man (men in this case) rather than the argument, which he clearly admits he doesn't understand.
EDIT: Back on topic, this is not a problem that government can cure. No government policy will change social stigmas surrounding mental illness, no government policy will promote family, friends and strangers to lend a helping hand to others or to even be on the look out for symptoms of such problems.
Was listening to the radio and a father was talking about how he will explain the massacre to his son. It was summed up more or less as, "well son, there are just some sick people out there who do bad things."
Indeed, this is what our culture treats these incidents. Some people are "just sick" and they "happen" and that's that. And we continue to be shocked and confused when they "happen" again.
--Newtown Shooting No Surprise, We've Systematically Removed God From Schools--
- Mike Huckabee
Could you kill this man for me please? I am sure he thinks he's a respectable person but imho he deserves to have every bone in his body snapped for trying to hijack these events for his own gain. Bah, disgusting. Truly. FU&die
ACIN, your argument is laughable because you want to make America more socialist, that's no different from reducing gun ownership in terms of eroding fundamental american values.
Originally Posted by Husar:
ACIN, your argument is laughable because you want to make America more socialist, that's no different from reducing gun ownership in terms of eroding fundamental american values.
Altruistic != socialist
Try again. This time by using words that are actual synonyms.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO