Quantcast

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 96

Thread: The Gun thread.

  1. #1
    End of line.. Hero of Algol gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    8,646
    Rep Power
    123

    Default The Gun thread.

    I'll start this out by saying that Detroit is not the barometer for violent crime and murders in the United States. Detroit is the worst example, because it is a city with a shrinking economy and a very high unemployment rate. The city had to shrink it's boundaries just to be able to afford municipal services that were being stretched beyond the city's tax revenue.

    I grew up in Montana. Just about everyone I know has at least a couple of guns and rifles. It's a state that has a lot of hunting and fishing as part of its recreational outlets. Just about every child at the age of 12 has to attend gun and rifle safety training, before they can acquire a supervised hunting license. The state has a population at just over 1 million residents and the total violent crimes per year is just over (I'm pretty sure that half of those assault charges were good old boys getting in drunken fist fights) 3500 cases, which is less than 1/2 percent. There were only 36 murders last year; I'm willing to bet that you would be hard pressed to find any region where there were only 36 murders for every 1 million residents.

    https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mt/crime/

    The city of Detroit, on the other hand, accounts for 50% of all murders in the state of Michigan, although it only holds 7% of the state's population. Detroit has 9 residents for every 1 resident for the whole state of Montana, yet for every 15 murders in Detroit, you can't even register 1 for Montana. Montana averages 36 murders per year, while Detroit alone, accounts for over 560.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Michigan


    Still, Britain has a much higher violent crime rate than the US and South Africa.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

    Here's a fun fact. States that have passed the concealed weapon license law have seen a reduction in gun crimes.

    http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...ncealed-carry/

    I honestly believe that the theater incident in Paris wouldn't have happened if the people at that concert had guns to defend themselves.
    Last edited by gamevet; 02-21-2017 at 11:17 PM.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  2. #2
    Master of Shinobi Crystalpepsifan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,567
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Raised around guns my entire childhood. Finally got a CCP after my third time being mugged. Fuck the haters.

  3. #3
    Social Justice Ninja Master of Shinobi IrishNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Vice City
    Posts
    2,178
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    i personally find stunners sleeker & more accurate than menacers


  4. #4
    Raging in the Streets bultje112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Noviomagus, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,616
    Rep Power
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalpepsifan View Post
    Raised around guns my entire childhood. Finally got a CCP after my third time being mugged. Fuck the haters.
    you got mugged by someone with a gun?

  5. #5
    Master of Shinobi Crystalpepsifan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,567
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bultje112 View Post
    you got mugged by someone with a gun?
    Not once.

  6. #6
    Raging in the Streets bultje112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Noviomagus, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,616
    Rep Power
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalpepsifan View Post
    Not once.
    then why do you need a gun?

  7. #7
    Master of Shinobi Crystalpepsifan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,567
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bultje112 View Post
    then why do you need a gun?
    Have you ever been stabbed? Because it really fucking hurts. Or do you believe life is like an action movie, and a properly trained fist can defeat weapons? Or are you so disturbingly liberal that you don't believe in a right to self defense? I mean, I understand that someone like you probably has your route to and from your parents basement and the nearest hash bar/coffee shop so carefully planned out as to avoid all potential physical danger; but surely a simple man like yourself can understand the basic principle of knives>fists.

  8. #8
    Raging in the Streets EclecticGroove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    2,656
    Rep Power
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalpepsifan View Post
    Have you ever been stabbed? Because it really fucking hurts. Or do you believe life is like an action movie, and a properly trained fist can defeat weapons? Or are you so disturbingly liberal that you don't believe in a right to self defense? I mean, I understand that someone like you probably has your route to and from your parents basement and the nearest hash bar/coffee shop so carefully planned out as to avoid all potential physical danger; but surely a simple man like yourself can understand the basic principle of knives>fists.
    Not to be pedantic, but yes a properly trained person can absolutely take someone out with a weapon, assuming they have little or no training in its use (which is pretty common when talking about muggers). That depends very highly on the situation of course. A person with a gun trained on you from several feet away or more is not worth the risk of answering the question of, "how good a shot are they really?".
    A person with a knife right in front of you that is handling it a way that makes it obvious they likely know what they are doing is also not worth the risk unless they have made it obvious they intend you harm no matter what you do.

    But that's besides the point.
    Places like Montana are hard to compare to somewhere like Detroit. The entire state has ~ double the population of just the city of Detroit itself (another populr example is Iceland, which has half of Montana's population). Even ignoring the other issues Detroit is having, the population density alone brings in a great deal more issues.
    Cities like Chicago, NYC, and LA all have higher populations as a city than Montana has in the entire state.

    People have no need of rifles there, they aren't going to go out back and shoot targets, they are not going to be taking weekend trips nearby to get some hunting in, etc.
    The culture is very, very different. They are going to have a weapon for one reason, and one reason only. Shooting people, and that has only 2 general options to it. Either you have it to defend against people, or you have it because you intend to use it to threaten or kill others. Are there exceptions? Sure, I can imagine there are a handful of collectors in big urban environments, and maybe even a handful of people who like to go hunting or even just to the gun range.
    But those are going to be very small numbers compared to the rest.

    Compare that to Montana, where I'd imagine well over half of gun owners have their weapons for hunting/sport purposes. Self defense vs people is probably on the opposite end of the spectrum from the urban areas.

    Those violent crime numbers are also not entirely accurate. They are accurate for the UK, but they are not collected the same for all countries. The UK considers a fight between two or more people, even if no one is injured, as a violent crime.

    The collection standards would all need to be universal, or able to be parsed in a way to match them up with a high degree of certainty. The article linked about it even mentions this issue about halfway down.
    That doesn't mean they don't have an issue. But you can't go throwing out a line like "UK has more violent crime than the USA" without mentioning some relevant facts. Just like you can't compare a state with a million people to a single city with 600k-1M+ people and expect it to be an apples to apples comparison.

    People that want to say that owning guns work vs banning guns doesn't always ignore everything else around it. Banning guns absolutely can work. There are many countries in the world where gun ownership is exceedingly hard, and thus almost non existent. And they have low violent crime.
    There are also places where you can own guns, and violent crime is still low.

    But the point of contention isn't if you can theoretically make a gun owning or gun free utopia, it's about the USA. And just like healthcare, people shit all over the ideas of other countries without listening. "The USA is different!" Sure, it is. And one of the main differences is that people have fetized gun ownership here to a degree that isn't found anywhere else in the world in the same way.
    And to discuss that. A few things to keep in mind:
    1) The Second Amendment exists, to be sure. But it's exactly what it is... an amendment. It can be changed or removed at any time pursuant to the will of the people. The people who go all frothy mouthed about, "IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE CAN NEVER BE CHANGED!" Miss one of the major points of the constitution. The writers of the document knew they would have no goddamn idea about the future. They wanted the base of the document to be as solid as possible sure... but the entire reason you can amend it is because they could not think of everything, even for the time they lived in, let alone hundreds of years in the future.

    2) Talking about gun ownership is not all or nothing. The choices are not, "Own a gun, or no one owns any guns". EVERY time gun debates come up, that is what the discussion comes to. "They want to make it harder for some people to get guns. "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!" and a run on gun/ammo sales. They want to ban the sales of high capacity clips? "THEY ARE GOING TO COME INTO YOUR HOMES AND TAKE YOUR GUNS!" And another predictable run on guns/ammo. Are there some people who want them outlawed entire? Sure. But that's almost never the discussion actually being had.

    3) "Well, people can just get them illegally anyways" is not an argument. Why is murder illegal then? Because people will just kill other people anyways right? That sounds like a really stupid argument if you make it about anything other than guns. So stop making it. Yes, everyone realizes that bad people will still get guns. That doesn't mean that we should just throw our hands in the air and completely forget about any kind of gun control whatsoever.

    4) "Gun control means they don't want you to defend yourself". Yeah, bullshit. Again, a FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) argument that is completely meaningless except to whip people into a frenzy. Tazers, certain kinds of pepper spray, and many other non lethal options would be just as effective for the average person as a gun.


    TLDR:
    Need to stop acting like gun control conversations are an affront to the constitution and/or you personally, and also need to make sure that information used is actually relevant, because no matter which side does it, it usually isn't, or isn't in very important ways.

  9. #9
    Framemeister Expert Hedgehog-in-TrainingOutrunner Tower of Power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    666
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Still, Britain has a much higher violent crime rate than the US and South Africa.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html
    You really need to work on your sourcing. Gunfacts.info is not not neutral source. Might as well quote Nintendoage talking about how much better Nintendo is.

    And the Daily Mail is the terrible source for anything. It's basically the UK equivalent of something like The National Enquirer. Complete garbage news source.

    The truth is that violent crime between the US and UK is probably pretty similar: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...her-violent-c/

    Banning guns is not a magical panacea for fixing crime, and having lots of guns is not a guarantee that crime is going to go down, the level of crime is determined by numerous factors.

    However, the number of people killed by guns in the UK every year is about 50 people a year, give or take, while in the US it's about 10,000 give or take. Even if you take into account the larger number of people in the US, it's still many times more per capita. While criminals will find other ways to commit crimes, it's simple logic that if you got rid of all guns, people wouldn't die from guns.

  10. #10
    End of line.. Hero of Algol gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    8,646
    Rep Power
    123

    Default

    Tell the families in Paris about how gun control kept their brothers, sisters, mothers, sons and daughters safe. It didn't help them one bit, because the people that want to get a gun can do so illegally, while the law abiding citizens got mowed down without any means to defend themselves.

    The article I posted about states with a concealed weapon laws, proved that gun crime decreased by as much as 50% once the citizens were granted the ability to carry a concealed weapon. A person that once had an unfair, and unchallenged ability to threaten people with a gun, now has to worry about being at a disadvantage because they don't know who around them is carrying as well.

    I'll put it this way. If only 1 country had nuclear weapons, the urge to use them would be far greater because they could decimate any country they felt was a threat without any fear of being destroyed as well, while just knowing that another country has nukes makes the decision to push the button a whole lot more complicated.

    And Britain gets no free pass because of the way they report violent crimes. What did you expect them to say?
    Last edited by gamevet; 02-22-2017 at 09:44 AM.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  11. #11
    Framemeister Expert Hedgehog-in-TrainingOutrunner Tower of Power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    666
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    Tell the families in Paris about how gun control kept their brothers, sisters, mothers, sons and daughters safe. It didn't help them one bit, because the people that want to get a gun can do so illegally, while the law abiding citizens got mowed down without any means to defend themselves.

    The article I posted about states with a concealed weapon laws, proved that gun crime decreased by as much as 50% once the citizens were granted the ability to carry a concealed weapon. A person that once had an unfair, and unchallenged ability to threaten people with a gun, now has to worry about being at a disadvantage because they don't know who around them is carrying as well.

    I'll put it this way. If only 1 country had nuclear weapons, the urge to use them would be far greater because they could decimate any country they felt was a threat without any fear of being destroyed as well, while just knowing that another country has nukes makes the decision to push the button a whole lot more complicated.
    Why are you changing the subject? I'm not against guns, I'm against bad sources. That article doesn't PROVE anything. You don't understand statistics. You're using, as they call it, "fake news" to back up your claims, do a little more research: http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...es-open-carry/

  12. #12
    End of line.. Hero of Algol gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    8,646
    Rep Power
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tower of Power View Post
    Why are you changing the subject? I'm not against guns, I'm against bad sources. That article doesn't PROVE anything. You don't understand statistics. You're using, as they call it, "fake news" to back up your claims, do a little more research: http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...es-open-carry/
    Your article also points out that it uses a flawed methodology. Was that the point?

    And I didn't change the subject. You said that getting rid of guns would reduce deaths by guns, while
    I pointed out that the Paris incident went down the way it did, because no one in the theater had the ability to fight back.

    I'd like to see an article about how many deaths were caused by illegally acquired guns, and how many of those were caused by illegal immigrants from violent crime countries.
    Last edited by gamevet; 02-22-2017 at 10:17 AM.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  13. #13
    Raging in the Streets bultje112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Noviomagus, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,616
    Rep Power
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalpepsifan View Post
    Have you ever been stabbed? Because it really fucking hurts. Or do you believe life is like an action movie, and a properly trained fist can defeat weapons? Or are you so disturbingly liberal that you don't believe in a right to self defense? I mean, I understand that someone like you probably has your route to and from your parents basement and the nearest hash bar/coffee shop so carefully planned out as to avoid all potential physical danger; but surely a simple man like yourself can understand the basic principle of knives>fists.
    not trying to sound like a bad ass here but I've been doing mma for 10 years, fought in the ring and have also been teaching it. I have no fear whatsoever for someone with a knife. a gun is different, which is why I happily live in a country where almost no one has firearms.

  14. #14
    Framemeister Expert Hedgehog-in-TrainingOutrunner Tower of Power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    666
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    Your article also points out that it uses a flawed methodology. Was that the point?

    And I didn't change the subject. You said that getting rid of guns would reduce deaths by guns, while
    I pointed out that the Paris incident went down the way it did, because no one in the theater had the ability to fight back.

    I'd like to see an article about how many deaths were caused by illegally acquired guns, and how many of those were caused by illegal immigrants from violent crime countries.
    The articles you posting using flawed methodology IS the whole point. You can't make an honest argument if you're using bad sources that use flawed methodology to push an agenda. That's fake news. Get it outta here.

    I said if you got rid of ALL guns, you would have less people getting killed by guns. That's simple guns. No guns = no way to die from guns.

    Your argument about the Paris incident is all coming from an emotional angle. That's a logical fallacy - appeal to emotion. You can't say for sure if having people people armed there would have caused less or more deaths, especially in in crowded nightclub with poor visibility.

  15. #15
    Raging in the Streets bultje112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Noviomagus, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,616
    Rep Power
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    Tell the families in Paris about how gun control kept their brothers, sisters, mothers, sons and daughters safe. It didn't help them one bit, because the people that want to get a gun can do so illegally, while the law abiding citizens got mowed down without any means to defend themselves.

    The article I posted about states with a concealed weapon laws, proved that gun crime decreased by as much as 50% once the citizens were granted the ability to carry a concealed weapon. A person that once had an unfair, and unchallenged ability to threaten people with a gun, now has to worry about being at a disadvantage because they don't know who around them is carrying as well.

    I'll put it this way. If only 1 country had nuclear weapons, the urge to use them would be far greater because they could decimate any country they felt was a threat without any fear of being destroyed as well, while just knowing that another country has nukes makes the decision to push the button a whole lot more complicated.

    And Britain gets no free pass because of the way they report violent crimes. What did you expect them to say?
    you are a complete idiot if you seriously think a gun would've stopped the terrorists in paris. Look at all the school shootings in the US. Guns really work there to prevent deaths don't they? besides the chance of getting killed by a heart-attack was larger then getting killed by a gun even that very day in paris.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •