Let me turn this around, rather than answer your comments directly:
If gun control cannot reduce gun violence, what can?
I invite you to read the thread more carefully: education.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Let me turn this around, rather than answer your comments directly:
If gun control cannot reduce gun violence, what can?
Generally speaking, the areas of this country with the most gun violence are the places with the strictest gun control laws.
Generally speaking, the areas of this country with the least gun violence are the places with the least gun control laws.
Gun control laws only have an impact on law abiding citizens. The criminals will still get their guns the same way they get them today - illegally on the street, and likely smuggled into this country the same way drugs, humans, and exotic animals are smuggled in.
Criminals LOVE gun control laws. It makes it safer for them to rob people and break into houses.
If you were a criminal, would you rob the house or mug a person you knew had a gun, or would you rob the house or mug a person you knew was unarmed?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I invite you to read the thread more carefully: education.
As good as education is, wouldn't gun violence be reduced even further if education was combined with certain laws such as:
1. restricting gun ownership to those with no criminal record;
2. background checks prior to sale
3. mandatory education(!)/training
4. a six-month wait period
5. a limit of one firearm per person
My point is not that this will eliminate gun violence, rather that it would reduce it below what education alone can effect.
As good as education is, wouldn't gun violence be reduced even further if education was combined with certain laws such as:
1. restricting gun ownership to those with no criminal record;
2. background checks prior to sale
3. mandatory education(!)/training
4. a six-month wait period
5. a limit of one firearm per person
My point is not that this will eliminate gun violence, rather that it would reduce it below what education alone can effect.
All except for number 5 (which is completely arbitrary) make sense, and are employed in America, although typically not well. But these are hardly strict gun control principles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
All except for number 5 (which is completely arbitrary) make sense, and are employed in America, although typically not well. But these are hardly strict gun control principles.
A limit of calibre is probably required.
And no automatics or machine guns, for obvious reasons.
A limit of calibre is probably required.
And no automatics or machine guns, for obvious reasons.
Why? Criminals get their hands on automatic weapons even though they're illegal in the US. The calibre of a weapon is hardly worth regulating, as most law abiding citizens do not want .50 cal rifles and machine guns, and everyone else can get it via the black market. Placing these laws would do nothing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Why? Criminals get their hands on automatic weapons even though they're illegal in the US. The calibre of a weapon is hardly worth regulating, as most law abiding citizens do not want .50 cal rifles and machine guns, and everyone else can get it via the black market. Placing these laws would do nothing.
Some criminals would still be able to; many or most probably wouldn't be able to, given that smuggled weapons are far more expensive than weapons bought at the corner store.
The point of the laws would not to be guarantee that no such weapons enter America, the point would be to reduce their number.
Some criminals would still be able to; many or most probably wouldn't be able to, given that smuggled weapons are far more expensive than weapons bought at the corner store.
Most who want them would, as they are or can be affiliated with the black market. You have no idea how impossible it would be to try and prohibit a certain type of firearm in America. If you don't believe me, look at how accessible drugs are in (many parts of) America.
The point of the laws would not to be guarantee that no such weapons enter America, the point would be to reduce their number.
Yes but the question is why. You have yet to succinctly answer that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
As good as education is, wouldn't gun violence be reduced even further if education was combined with certain laws such as:
1. restricting gun ownership to those with no criminal record;
2. background checks prior to sale
3. mandatory education(!)/training
4. a six-month wait period
5. a limit of one firearm per person
My point is not that this will eliminate gun violence, rather that it would reduce it below what education alone can effect.
I assume that your first question was meant to be rhetorical, however the simple answer is that there is no certain way to tell.
1. I am certain that FELONS are not permitted to legally own a firearm. Those convicted of misdemeanors are generally allowed (unless it is a misdemeanor domestic violence, I believe) to own a firearm legally.
2. These are in place in most if not all states.
3. I don't believe in this at all. Look at driving laws, in my home state if I wanted to gain my drivers license at age 16.5 one of the requirements was to take drivers education. However if I did not want to take drivers education I could wait until age 18 and pass the driving test. You simply cannot regulate everything.
4. Six months is absurd. Anything more than two weeks is asinine. The idea behind a waiting period is to stop crimes of passion, generally 24-48 hours is plenty and up to two weeks will make sense.
5. Why don't we limit people to one vehicle per person? Many guns are used for a specific purpose and are all but useless outside of that specific purpose.
As mentioned, strict gun control in this country and outside of it have proven to most protect the criminal and have done little to nothing to limit violent crimes.
It's the truth, and if you wish to perceive the truth as racism...that's on you. Yes, there are just as many whites as blacks living below poverty. But who often do you see white people living below poverty joining a gang like the Bloods or Crips? And this just proves that in America today, people are brainwashed into automatically associating any information that portrays a non-white ethnic group in a negative light as racist - even when that portrayal is based on facts and statistics. If it's racist to acknowledge that a member of the black ethnic group is more likely than a white to be in a gang, and that a black man is more likely to commit a race-based crime against a white man than vice versa...I guess I'm a racist for accepting the facts of life in this country.
Hispanics make up the largest ethnic group in gangs - 46%.
Blacks make up the second largest group in gangs - 34%.
Whites account for 12% of gang members.
Asians account for 6%.
And "Other" accounts for 2%.
That means for every Asian in a gang, there are two whites, six blacks (rounded up), and eight Hispanics (rounded up).
For every white in a gang, there are three blacks (rounded up) and four Hispanics (rounded up).
I suppose that is a racist study though, even though it was based off of police reports submitted by officers after arrests.
Aside from the Ku Klux Klan, name me an all-white or predominantly white gang. And don't mention Neo-Nazis/Skinheads, as that is a subculture and not a gang. And don't mention biker gangs...those are often split right down the middle in racial lines.
Off the top of my head, I can tell you the Bloods and Crips are predominantly black, and both the Latin Kings and MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) are entirely Hispanic in their memberships. And the New Black Panther Party (you know...the group that stationed three members outside the Philadelphia polling station to threaten/intimidate white voters, who were arrested, charged, and convicted of violating the Voter Rights Act, and then released and had all charges dropped by the Obama DoJ after he took office) is entirely black in their membership.
See, the problem here is that you are skewing your sample. You are disincluding the very groups that would disprove you for arbitrary reasons. A gang is a gang. The studies you cite are referencing inner-city youth gangs, which is a very different subject that gangs as a whole (it's hard to avoid youth gangs if you are a young male living in that neighborhood, while other types of criminal activity are a lot more avoidable even in poor areas). If you look at criminal organizations that use firearms as whole, I guarantee you it will look a lot more like the actual poverty demographics. Organized crime is a big one, but the problem with counting them is because unlike the youth gangs they don't flaunt their membership. So it's harder to accurately tally. Trust me, as a New York Italian - they severely outnumber the youth gangs.
And I'm currently trying to find the 5:1 ratio quote in a non-biased publication. I've found it twice so far, once in an Op-ed piece by Larry Platt and again in an NRA article, but I know if I post those I'll get attacked for using "biased" sources.
Well yeah, NRA is a very biased source. Is there an actual study he is quoting or did he just spout a number off his head? I've done research into this before and couldn't find anything that directly links gun use to crime prevention, only gun use in self defense.
Honestly, look at the statistics posted above. It's just the facts. Minorities are more likely to belong to gangs in the U.S. This is especially true of the hispanics now because they are the primary immigrant group. It looks like it's a matter of integration into mainstream society, as far as I can tell, black gang membership is going down... but still way more black gang members than white.
Youth gangs, as I mention above. It's not the same thing. It'd be like me saying all video gamers are aggressive based on a study of 13 year old boys.
The term 'white trash' is racist. If they are 'trash' then they are trash, who cares about their race? Imagine if someone was running around calling people 'black trash', wouldn't that be racist? Indeed it would.
Just trash then. The term redneck is racist, too. I was only pointing out that the same attitudes exist everywhere, they just aren't all in what would be considered 'rednecks'.
Rodyle, I have lived in middle class American suburbs for 28 years.
As I have stated on multiple occasions, not only have I NEVER seen someone shot, I have also never HEARD of someone being shot or KNOWN someone who was shot.
Moreover, I have never really seen a gun, besides a rusty old rifle that my friend bought as an antique and used once for target practice.
So... I think it depends greatly on where you live, but I also hate this overly general stereotype about American society.
I'm with you here. Gun violence is nearly as prevalent as people make it out to be. There IS a bad stereotype about American Society, when in reality the vast majority of people are responsible Gun Owners. These shootings that eat up the news for months are still rare occurences, and have less to do with our actual gun ownership laws than it does with our social structure making many of us predisposed for violence. The guns are just a tool, not the symptom or disease.
Anyway, the way I see it, Guns have to be saturated in the general population and people have to have licenses to carry for it to be a real deterrent. It works in Texas because they have that threshold of gun owners that makes criminals think twice. Elsewhere, not so much.
Well yeah, NRA is a very biased source. Is there an actual study he is quoting or did he just spout a number off his head? I've done research into this before and couldn't find anything that directly links gun use to crime prevention, only gun use in self defense.
Isn't a successful act of self-defense a perfect example of crime prevention? Due to self-defense, the crime itself (be it murder, rape, or just a robbery) was prevented.
This page is a list of statistical facts from publicly available data, and released in this form by a firearms training group. This is a group that does education.
FACT: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed.
FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Isn't a successful act of self-defense a perfect example of crime prevention? Due to self-defense, the crime itself (be it murder, rape, or just a robbery) was prevented.
This page is a list of statistical facts from publicly available data, and released in this form by a firearms training group. This is a group that does education.
Oh, sorry. I meant self-defense as is a shooting that was ruled self-defence. I could never find good data on the gun being the deterrent without it being discharged.
Organized crime, sure. The majority of criminals are just poor, single operators, who could not afford the markup for smuggled automatic weapons.
Yea a .50 cal mountable gun for a tank might be expensive, but getting a smuggled firearm probably isn't. An oozi doesn't cost much more than a pistol.
To reduce gun violence.
No you misunderstood. You haven't proven why this is necessary to reducing gun violence, and if it does that it will even have a significant effect. It is entirely arbitrary on your part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Oh, sorry. I meant self-defense as is a shooting that was ruled self-defence. I could never find good data on the gun being the deterrent without it being discharged.
FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
That's from the article I linked to previously. 99.1% of violent crimes prevented every day are prevented just by showing a handgun - not using it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Yea a .50 cal mountable gun for a tank might be expensive, but getting a smuggled firearm probably isn't. An oozi doesn't cost much more than a pistol.
The premium paid for a smuggled good does not stem from the cost of production, but the cost of transport and associated risks.
An uzi might be moderately more expensive to produce than a pistol, but if uzis are illegal, the price you pay would be far more than the price difference between a legal pistol and a legal uzi.
It is this price difference that I am asserting would result in fewer uzis in the hands of criminals, as the majority of criminals are poor, and could not afford the premium on smuggled weapons.
No you misunderstood. You haven't proven why this is necessary to reducing gun violence, and if it does that it will even have a significant effect. It is entirely arbitrary on your part.
I'm not asserting that reducing the number of guns in America is necessary to reduce gun violence, simply that it probably would.
I fail to see the arbitrariness of my assertion.
The premium paid for a smuggled good does not stem from the cost of production, but the cost of transport and associated risks.
An uzi might be moderately more expensive to produce than a pistol, but if uzis are illegal, the price you pay would be far more than the price difference between a legal pistol and a legal uzi.
It is this price difference that I am asserting would result in fewer uzis in the hands of criminals, as the majority of criminals are poor, and could not afford the premium on smuggled weapons.
If this were true weed would be really expensive. As it stands, kids are able to get it by scrounging up lunch money.
I'm not asserting that reducing the number of guns in America is necessary to reduce gun violence, simply that it probably would.
I fail to see the arbitrariness of my assertion.
It's arbitrary because you haven't proven that it might. You're just having faith in it, i.e. it's almost 100% arbitrary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
It's arbitrary because you haven't proven that it might. You're just having faith in it, i.e. it's almost 100% arbitrary.
It is intuitive that if guns are a condition precedent of gun violence, then limiting the number of guns limits the possibility of gun violence.
How can you have gun violence if you have no gun?
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Smuggled marijuana is more expensive than when legal and grown locally. The same is true of smuggled firearms and those manufactured locally.
A Blood or Crip or member of any gang can easily get a fully automatic AK-47 (definitely not made in the US, and definitely not legally acquired as a Class III weapon) within hours of getting out of prison. That should say something about availability and price of smuggled firearms.
It is intuitive that if guns are a condition precedent of gun violence, then limiting the number of guns limits the possibility of gun violence.
How can you have gun violence if you have no gun?
First, that would only impact gun violence. And as recent history has shown in other countries, following a ban or strict regulation of firearms doesn't actually lower overall crime rates. In fact, in most examples available historically, crime rates increased following a ban or strict regulation before leveling off.
Take the United Kingdom as a perfect example. Firearms are banned in the UK - even their police are unarmed aside from batons. Yet the violent crime rate there is comparable to the violent crime rate in the US. Naturally, they have a lower gun crime rate (but guns are still acquired and used in the UK by the criminals despite a ban) - but they have a significantly higher knife-crime rate (and criminals in the UK actually use their knives far more often than criminals in the US actually use their guns).
And even then...you're assuming a new regulation or an outright ban would result in the criminals dutifully turning in their firearms alongside the law-abiding citizens.
I can assure you that wouldn't happen. Law-abiding citizens would turn in their firearms, criminals would keep their firearms and begin committing more crimes since their fear of an armed victim is gone, and the police would in turn be stretched far too thin responding to calls.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
A Blood or Crip or member of any gang can easily get a fully automatic AK-47 (definitely not made in the US, and definitely not legally acquired as a Class III weapon) within hours of getting out of prison. That should say something about availability and price of smuggled firearms.
I'll need more than your word on the matter to convince me.
Also, I suspect the majority of gun violence is not committed by gangs (they just get a lot of attention).
First, that would only impact gun violence. And as recent history has shown in other countries, following a ban or strict regulation of firearms doesn't actually lower overall crime rates. In fact, in most examples available historically, crime rates increased following a ban or strict regulation before leveling off.
As I stated above to PeterGriffin, for the purposes of this debate I am solely interested in reducing gun violence.
Take the United Kingdom as a perfect example. Firearms are banned in the UK - even their police are unarmed aside from batons. Yet the violent crime rate there is comparable to the violent crime rate in the US. Naturally, they have a lower gun crime rate (but guns are still acquired and used in the UK by the criminals despite a ban) - but they have a significantly higher knife-crime rate (and criminals in the UK actually use their knives far more often than criminals in the US actually use their guns).
That's fine; it's harder to kill a person with a knife than with a gun, and it is
much harder to kill many people with a knife than with a gun.
If private guns in America were replaced with knives, I am certain you would see a decline in mortality due to violence.
And even then...you're assuming a new regulation or an outright ban would result in the criminals dutifully turning in their firearms alongside the law-abiding citizens.
As per my first post in the thread, I believe that because there are so many guns in America, it is probably too late.
I can assure you that wouldn't happen. Law-abiding citizens would turn in their firearms, criminals would keep their firearms and begin committing more crimes since their fear of an armed victim is gone, and the police would in turn be stretched far too thin responding to calls.
I doubt most citizens would turn in their guns at all out of fear of visible minorities and the government.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Smuggled marijuana is more expensive than when legal and grown locally. The same is true of smuggled firearms and those manufactured locally.
One of the factors that helps to make illegal firearms cheaper in the US is their use in murders. Criminals have at least some knowledge that guns can be traced to the crime scene, so they'll get rid of it. Such killers use a gun they purchased illegally, fence it, and purchase another. Supply of guns is kept up partially through this method. Link here showing the relative ease and competitive costs of obtaining an illegal firearm.
Smuggled marijuana is more expensive than when legal and grown locally. The same is true of smuggled firearms and those manufactured locally.
Any evidence for this? Marajuana cropand other drug crops are typically bought at(to Americans) dirt cheap prices straight from the farmer. Most of the prices are then inflated to make things profitable for the middleman, in this case the cartels. And individuals selling in an organized crime group often work for less than minimum wage(see Freakonomics, chapter called "Why Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms"). I dunno. Cheap importation prices, complete tax evasion, and paying less-than minimum wage all sound like good reasons why illegal drugs might potentially be cheaper than legal pot.
Smuggled marijuana is more expensive than when legal and grown locally. The same is true of smuggled firearms and those manufactured locally.
Actually I don't think this is true. As Gwafa noted, drug cartels dodge import taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, minimum wage, and probably a whole lot more. Plus a large portion of their target audience is not rich, meaning they have to sell at low prices to be profitable.
I agree with him about illegal firearms as well. They are not hard to get at all.
It is intuitive that if guns are a condition precedent of gun violence, then limiting the number of guns limits the possibility of gun violence.
How can you have gun violence if you have no gun?
It is neither contextually accurate nor relevant. So it's a poor support for your argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I invite you to read the thread more carefully: education.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Education.
EDIT: Haha, me and Ulfasaar said the same thing.
Generally speaking, the areas of this country with the most gun violence are the places with the strictest gun control laws.
Generally speaking, the areas of this country with the least gun violence are the places with the least gun control laws.
Gun control laws only have an impact on law abiding citizens. The criminals will still get their guns the same way they get them today - illegally on the street, and likely smuggled into this country the same way drugs, humans, and exotic animals are smuggled in.
Criminals LOVE gun control laws. It makes it safer for them to rob people and break into houses.
If you were a criminal, would you rob the house or mug a person you knew had a gun, or would you rob the house or mug a person you knew was unarmed?
As good as education is, wouldn't gun violence be reduced even further if education was combined with certain laws such as:
1. restricting gun ownership to those with no criminal record;
2. background checks prior to sale
3. mandatory education(!)/training
4. a six-month wait period
5. a limit of one firearm per person
My point is not that this will eliminate gun violence, rather that it would reduce it below what education alone can effect.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
All except for number 5 (which is completely arbitrary) make sense, and are employed in America, although typically not well. But these are hardly strict gun control principles.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
A limit of calibre is probably required.
And no automatics or machine guns, for obvious reasons.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
Why? Criminals get their hands on automatic weapons even though they're illegal in the US. The calibre of a weapon is hardly worth regulating, as most law abiding citizens do not want .50 cal rifles and machine guns, and everyone else can get it via the black market. Placing these laws would do nothing.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Some criminals would still be able to; many or most probably wouldn't be able to, given that smuggled weapons are far more expensive than weapons bought at the corner store.
The point of the laws would not to be guarantee that no such weapons enter America, the point would be to reduce their number.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
Most who want them would, as they are or can be affiliated with the black market. You have no idea how impossible it would be to try and prohibit a certain type of firearm in America. If you don't believe me, look at how accessible drugs are in (many parts of) America.
Yes but the question is why. You have yet to succinctly answer that.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Organized crime, sure. The majority of criminals are just poor, single operators, who could not afford the markup for smuggled automatic weapons.
To reduce gun violence.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
I assume that your first question was meant to be rhetorical, however the simple answer is that there is no certain way to tell.
1. I am certain that FELONS are not permitted to legally own a firearm. Those convicted of misdemeanors are generally allowed (unless it is a misdemeanor domestic violence, I believe) to own a firearm legally.
2. These are in place in most if not all states.
3. I don't believe in this at all. Look at driving laws, in my home state if I wanted to gain my drivers license at age 16.5 one of the requirements was to take drivers education. However if I did not want to take drivers education I could wait until age 18 and pass the driving test. You simply cannot regulate everything.
4. Six months is absurd. Anything more than two weeks is asinine. The idea behind a waiting period is to stop crimes of passion, generally 24-48 hours is plenty and up to two weeks will make sense.
5. Why don't we limit people to one vehicle per person? Many guns are used for a specific purpose and are all but useless outside of that specific purpose.
As mentioned, strict gun control in this country and outside of it have proven to most protect the criminal and have done little to nothing to limit violent crimes.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10498534#post10498534
See, the problem here is that you are skewing your sample. You are disincluding the very groups that would disprove you for arbitrary reasons. A gang is a gang. The studies you cite are referencing inner-city youth gangs, which is a very different subject that gangs as a whole (it's hard to avoid youth gangs if you are a young male living in that neighborhood, while other types of criminal activity are a lot more avoidable even in poor areas). If you look at criminal organizations that use firearms as whole, I guarantee you it will look a lot more like the actual poverty demographics. Organized crime is a big one, but the problem with counting them is because unlike the youth gangs they don't flaunt their membership. So it's harder to accurately tally. Trust me, as a New York Italian - they severely outnumber the youth gangs.
Well yeah, NRA is a very biased source. Is there an actual study he is quoting or did he just spout a number off his head? I've done research into this before and couldn't find anything that directly links gun use to crime prevention, only gun use in self defense.
Youth gangs, as I mention above. It's not the same thing. It'd be like me saying all video gamers are aggressive based on a study of 13 year old boys.
MS13 uses machetes and knives in their acts of violence.
Just trash then. The term redneck is racist, too. I was only pointing out that the same attitudes exist everywhere, they just aren't all in what would be considered 'rednecks'.
I know, and I support it.
I'm with you here. Gun violence is nearly as prevalent as people make it out to be. There IS a bad stereotype about American Society, when in reality the vast majority of people are responsible Gun Owners. These shootings that eat up the news for months are still rare occurences, and have less to do with our actual gun ownership laws than it does with our social structure making many of us predisposed for violence. The guns are just a tool, not the symptom or disease.
Anyway, the way I see it, Guns have to be saturated in the general population and people have to have licenses to carry for it to be a real deterrent. It works in Texas because they have that threshold of gun owners that makes criminals think twice. Elsewhere, not so much.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Isn't a successful act of self-defense a perfect example of crime prevention? Due to self-defense, the crime itself (be it murder, rape, or just a robbery) was prevented.
http://libertyfirearmstraining.com/gun_facts.html
This page is a list of statistical facts from publicly available data, and released in this form by a firearms training group. This is a group that does education.
Oh, sorry. I meant self-defense as is a shooting that was ruled self-defence. I could never find good data on the gun being the deterrent without it being discharged.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Yea a .50 cal mountable gun for a tank might be expensive, but getting a smuggled firearm probably isn't. An oozi doesn't cost much more than a pistol.
No you misunderstood. You haven't proven why this is necessary to reducing gun violence, and if it does that it will even have a significant effect. It is entirely arbitrary on your part.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
That's from the article I linked to previously. 99.1% of violent crimes prevented every day are prevented just by showing a handgun - not using it.
The premium paid for a smuggled good does not stem from the cost of production, but the cost of transport and associated risks.
An uzi might be moderately more expensive to produce than a pistol, but if uzis are illegal, the price you pay would be far more than the price difference between a legal pistol and a legal uzi.
It is this price difference that I am asserting would result in fewer uzis in the hands of criminals, as the majority of criminals are poor, and could not afford the premium on smuggled weapons.
I'm not asserting that reducing the number of guns in America is necessary to reduce gun violence, simply that it probably would.
I fail to see the arbitrariness of my assertion.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
If this were true weed would be really expensive. As it stands, kids are able to get it by scrounging up lunch money.
It's arbitrary because you haven't proven that it might. You're just having faith in it, i.e. it's almost 100% arbitrary.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Smuggled marijuana is more expensive than when legal and grown locally. The same is true of smuggled firearms and those manufactured locally.
It is intuitive that if guns are a condition precedent of gun violence, then limiting the number of guns limits the possibility of gun violence.
How can you have gun violence if you have no gun?
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
A Blood or Crip or member of any gang can easily get a fully automatic AK-47 (definitely not made in the US, and definitely not legally acquired as a Class III weapon) within hours of getting out of prison. That should say something about availability and price of smuggled firearms.
First, that would only impact gun violence. And as recent history has shown in other countries, following a ban or strict regulation of firearms doesn't actually lower overall crime rates. In fact, in most examples available historically, crime rates increased following a ban or strict regulation before leveling off.
Take the United Kingdom as a perfect example. Firearms are banned in the UK - even their police are unarmed aside from batons. Yet the violent crime rate there is comparable to the violent crime rate in the US. Naturally, they have a lower gun crime rate (but guns are still acquired and used in the UK by the criminals despite a ban) - but they have a significantly higher knife-crime rate (and criminals in the UK actually use their knives far more often than criminals in the US actually use their guns).
And even then...you're assuming a new regulation or an outright ban would result in the criminals dutifully turning in their firearms alongside the law-abiding citizens.
I can assure you that wouldn't happen. Law-abiding citizens would turn in their firearms, criminals would keep their firearms and begin committing more crimes since their fear of an armed victim is gone, and the police would in turn be stretched far too thin responding to calls.
Certainly, but if the guns they get are less lethal, gun violence is reduced.
Violence with things other than guns tend to be less lethal. For the purpose of this debate I am interested solely in reducing gun violence.
I'll need more than your word on the matter to convince me.
Also, I suspect the majority of gun violence is not committed by gangs (they just get a lot of attention).
As I stated above to PeterGriffin, for the purposes of this debate I am solely interested in reducing gun violence.
That's fine; it's harder to kill a person with a knife than with a gun, and it is
much harder to kill many people with a knife than with a gun.
If private guns in America were replaced with knives, I am certain you would see a decline in mortality due to violence.
As per my first post in the thread, I believe that because there are so many guns in America, it is probably too late.
I doubt most citizens would turn in their guns at all out of fear of visible minorities and the government.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
What would stop criminals from getting any type of gun?
One of the factors that helps to make illegal firearms cheaper in the US is their use in murders. Criminals have at least some knowledge that guns can be traced to the crime scene, so they'll get rid of it. Such killers use a gun they purchased illegally, fence it, and purchase another. Supply of guns is kept up partially through this method. Link here showing the relative ease and competitive costs of obtaining an illegal firearm.
Any evidence for this? Marajuana cropand other drug crops are typically bought at(to Americans) dirt cheap prices straight from the farmer. Most of the prices are then inflated to make things profitable for the middleman, in this case the cartels. And individuals selling in an organized crime group often work for less than minimum wage(see Freakonomics, chapter called "Why Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms"). I dunno. Cheap importation prices, complete tax evasion, and paying less-than minimum wage all sound like good reasons why illegal drugs might potentially be cheaper than legal pot.
Actually I don't think this is true. As Gwafa noted, drug cartels dodge import taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, minimum wage, and probably a whole lot more. Plus a large portion of their target audience is not rich, meaning they have to sell at low prices to be profitable.
I agree with him about illegal firearms as well. They are not hard to get at all.
It is neither contextually accurate nor relevant. So it's a poor support for your argument.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited