shoulda hadda gun?

[comic boy]

Its common sense that fewer guns will lead to fewer homocides but common sense is in short supply it seems

It's common sense that fewer guns means force abusers will be the only ones who have them.

Are you a Communist sir?

Not a communist nor am I a bigot , you are a bigot in relation to this subject which make your points , such as they are , worthless.

[Phatscotty]

Its common sense that fewer guns will lead to fewer homocides but common sense is in short supply it seems

It's common sense that fewer guns means force abusers will be the only ones who have them.

Are you a Communist sir?

Not a communist nor am I a bigot , you are a bigot in relation to this subject which make your points , such as they are , worthless.

I'm a bigot in relation to the subject of guns? Your common sense has left you! And name calling always wins!

You can troll better than that

[nagerous]

Its common sense that fewer guns will lead to fewer homocides but common sense is in short supply it seems

If people keep feeding the troll, he'll a keep trolling sadly.

[GabonX]

I heard somewhere that the theater had a no fire arms on the premise policy..

If this is the case I hope they get their asses sued.

[aad0906]

Its common sense that fewer guns will lead to fewer homocides but common sense is in short supply it seems

It's common sense that fewer guns means force abusers will be the only ones who have them.

Are you a Communist sir?

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

[BigBallinStalin]

Its common sense that fewer guns will lead to fewer homocides but common sense is in short supply it seems

It's common sense that fewer guns means force abusers will be the only ones who have them.

Are you a Communist sir?

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Besides, you're only talking about a correlation. There's plenty of other factors which explain the slight discrepancies in the rates of various crimes across developed countries: legal systems (laws, legislation, prisons, enforcement), cultural attitudes, regulation, public policy, homogeneity of the population, unemployment rates, and neighboring countries, to name a few.

Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Let's assume that no one in the Netherlands has entered a public place and randomly shot people, ever. Guns still aren't the primary cause, which is what you've just implied. So, what do you think explains this?

[Phatscotty]

Its common sense that fewer guns will lead to fewer homocides but common sense is in short supply it seems

It's common sense that fewer guns means force abusers will be the only ones who have them.

Are you a Communist sir?

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

I understand the argument good sir. Fewer guns can statistically lead to fewer homicides, in certain envoronments, cultures, and class structures, but it can also lead to more.

For example, did not Hitler place strict gun controls? Did that lead to lower homicide?
Did not Stalin place strict gun controls? Did that result in a lower homicide rate?
Mao? Pol Pot?

If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat and pencils misspell words.

Don't forget, we have had massive amounts of firearms in the USA for centuries. Only in the last 20 years have these kinds of tragedies begun to happen on a regular basis. We have a problem with our people. IMO, this has been totally predictable. We have less respect for Life now, less respect for Liberty. We do not teach in every school "Thou shall not kill". Morals and values are laughed off. The next generations are less and less raised with a mother and a father in the household. Stimulating impulses on a whim is encouraged. "If it feels good, do it". There is a huge blur between right and wrong to the point some people cannot even tell which is which any more. We are getting the society we deserve.

You can see where I come from on the issue. There is a much bigger picture than trying to get the rate from 4.8 per 100,000 to 4.3.

Plus, I'm sure those numbers do not reflect the number of people who deserved to die.

[rdsrds2120]

Plus, I'm sure those numbers do not reflect the number of people who deserved to die.

Right. Seems fair.

-rd

[Phatscotty]

Plus, I'm sure those numbers do not reflect the number of people who deserved to die.

Right. Seems fair.

-rd

fair has nothing to do with it. It's whether it's true or not.

But that last sentence was designed for a certain kind of discussion, and the 3 paragraphs before it was designed for another kind.

[Woodruff]

Most of the supposed explanations listed in Table 1 actually played little direct role in the crime decline, including the strong economy of the 1990s, changing demo-graphics, better policing strategies, gun control laws, concealed weapons laws and increased use of the death penalty. Four factors, however, can account for virtually all of the observed decline in crime: increases in the number of police, the rising prison population, the waning crack epidemic and the legalization of abortion.[1

]

I find myself exceptionally confused by that fourth one. Anyone care to explain how that particularly decreases crime (other than the fact that it specifically isn't a crime itself, I guess?)?

There's a strong positive correlation between being an unwanted child and seeking a life of crime (I forget the exact variables used because I read that article years ago). When abortion was legalized, a large portion of abortions were due to reasons like "can't afford the kid." This spike in abortions is reflected in later decreased crime because had those kids been born, there would've been an upward pressure on crime. In other words, the loss of unwanted kids later resulted in a decrease in crime.

Ah, ok...that makes sense. It's a longer-visioned impact.

[Woodruff]

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Do you believe the same sort of damage is very likely to be done by a single assailant with a knife or bat as is done by a single assailant with a gun?

[Woodruff]

We have a problem with our people. IMO, this has been totally predictable. We have less respect for Life now, less respect for Liberty. We do not teach in every school "Thou shall not kill".

What the hell? Do you actually believe that aren't teaching students that they shouldn't kill? It's certainly not an ignored subject, not by any stretch. Or is this some weird religion thing you're going on about yet again, while trying to pretend it isn't?

Morals and values are laughed off.

No, they're not. In fact, much of the reason why our young people are becoming so cynical is because they hold to their morals and values with a great seriousness.

Stimulating impulses on a whim is encouraged. "If it feels good, do it".

This is nothing new at all.

You can see where I come from on the issue.

As usual, where you're coming from is the 1940s.

[GreecePwns]

The trade off is as follows:

With gun control, you get less homocide, but armed revolution becomes impossible.
Without gun control, you get more homocide, but armed revolution becomes possible.

Both sides have their merits. I used to be in favor of gun control, but have changed my views.

[Phatscotty]

The trade off is as follows:

With gun control, you get less homocide, but armed revolution becomes impossible.
Without gun control, you get more homocide, but armed revolution becomes possible.

Both sides have their merits. I used to be in favor of gun control, but have changed my views.

Without gun control, you can also defend and fight against/prevent tyranny, as well as defend your family, property, and your own life.

[Lootifer]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

How many of you have done any of the following:
- Performed reserach over and above a google search into any topics relating to criminal behaviour and/or criminal social science.
- Covered any reseach papers that were not directly linked to you by a media organisation (that is you seeked out the specific paper or topic area on your own accord)
- Taken a university course in ANY topic in the school of social science

???

I ask that if you do fit any of this criteria you mention what you have done.

Seriously, and this is aimed at both sides of the coin here - not just my usual adversaries, nobody here, including myself, is qualified to voice an opinion on the matter (that im aware of, certainly noone thus far has come up with any relevant credentials). The topic is highly complex and is unlikely to have any "right" answers.

The fact that some of you are saying things like "common sense says guns prevent crime" and "common sense says guns cause crime" doesnt make your point; it merely just shows how ignorant you actually are on this matter.

This kind of media shitstorm (not the coverage of the tragedy, but the consequential "analysis") and the resulting water cooler discussions pretty much sums up my beef with "liberty".

[Army of GOD]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

How many of you have done any of the following:
- Performed reserach over and above a google search into any topics relating to criminal behaviour and/or criminal social science.
- Covered any reseach papers that were not directly linked to you by a media organisation (that is you seeked out the specific paper or topic area on your own accord)
- Taken a university course in ANY topic in the school of social science

???

I ask that if you do fit any of this criteria you mention what you have done.

Seriously, and this is aimed at both sides of the coin here - not just my usual adversaries, nobody here, including myself, is qualified to voice an opinion on the matter (that im aware of, certainly noone thus far has come up with any relevant credentials). The topic is highly complex and is unlikely to have any "right" answers.

The fact that some of you are saying things like "common sense says guns prevent crime" and "common sense says guns cause crime" doesnt make your point; it merely just shows how ignorant you actually are on this matter.

This kind of media shitstorm (not the coverage of the tragedy, but the consequential "analysis") and the resulting water cooler discussions pretty much sums up my beef with "liberty".

hey, this is what I've been trying to say about internet debates since forever. That's why I can't take things like this seriously, every idiot on both sides of the equation have their own opinions about hypothetical vagaries. Like, when natty(_)dread thinks the world would be better without religion or some such.

[Lootifer]

Yet the american way is to let those self same idiots on both sides make the decisions... I think im going to make a picture...

[Phatscotty]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

Well, for one....I was born and raised and continue to live in and love the country we are talking about. Yet, you live on the other side of the world.

May I ask what you think makes you qualified on this topic?

[AAFitz]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

Well, for one....I was born and raised and continue to live in and love the country we are talking about. Yet, you live on the other side of the world.

May I ask what you think makes you qualified on this topic?

He's rational and intelligent.

[rdsrds2120]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

Well, for one....I was born and raised and continue to live in and love the country we are talking about. Yet, you live on the other side of the world.

May I ask what you think makes you qualified on this topic?

Living in this country doesn't mean you're automatically qualified to talk about social theory, etc. Also, disproving any qualifications he may or may not have doesn't make you any more reputable.

-rd

[Lootifer]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

Well, for one....I was born and raised and continue to live in and love the country we are talking about. Yet, you live on the other side of the world.

May I ask what you think makes you qualified on this topic?

Im not qualified. Good to see you got my point...

Also: Show me the part of my post where I -a- claimed I was qualified to voice an opinion and/or -b- voiced an opinion

[Lootifer]

[BigBallinStalin]

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Do you believe the same sort of damage is very likely to be done by a single assailant with a knife or bat as is done by a single assailant with a gun?

From what I recall on the literature, homicide rates, break-ins, robbery, rapes, and the like were very similar regardless of the gun control laws. Sometimes, you'd see a decrease in one type of crime but an increase in another. Much of the discrepancy is more related to the other factors: "legal systems (laws, legislation, prisons, enforcement), cultural attitudes, regulation, public policy, homogeneity of the population, unemployment rates, and neighboring countries, to name a few."

So, to answer your question, sure, someone with two glocks can kill more people in one shorter instance, but people notice this because of its shock value. People don't notice the 33% unemployment rate of black males under the age of 25 or so. People don't notice that the deaths on government roads per year is 40,000. People don't notice that homicide rates in European countries don't vary that much from the US. I don't think stricter gun control laws (or the complete abolition of guns) would be worth it.

For example, with roads, the government forms many laws and bureaucracies which help reduce these deaths (drinking ages, DMVs, traffic laws, etc.), but even with these regulations in place, are they updating or innovating? Is the problem effectively being addressed while similarly not reducing the quality of life for others at some unacceptable level? If we want almost 0 deaths per year, let's mandate that a knife--pointed at the driver--should be placed in the steering wheel of every car. That'll make people drive very carefully...

[Symmetry]

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Do you believe the same sort of damage is very likely to be done by a single assailant with a knife or bat as is done by a single assailant with a gun?

From what I recall on the literature, homicide rates, break-ins, robbery, rapes, and the like were very similar regardless of the gun control laws. Sometimes, you'd see a decrease in one type of crime but an increase in another. Much of the discrepancy is more related to the other factors: "legal systems (laws, legislation, prisons, enforcement), cultural attitudes, regulation, public policy, homogeneity of the population, unemployment rates, and neighboring countries, to name a few."

So, to answer your question, sure, someone with two glocks can kill more people in one shorter instance, but people notice this because of its shock value. People don't notice the 33% unemployment rate of black males under the age of 25 or so. People don't notice that the deaths on government roads per year is 40,000. People don't notice that homicide rates in European countries don't vary that much from the US. I don't think stricter gun control laws (or the complete abolition of guns) would be worth it.

For example, with roads, the government forms many laws and bureaucracies which help reduce these deaths (drinking ages, DMVs, traffic laws, etc.), but even with these regulations in place, are they updating or innovating? Is the problem effectively being addressed while similarly not reducing the quality of life for others at some unacceptable level? If we want almost 0 deaths per year, let's mandate that a knife--pointed at the driver--should be placed in the steering wheel of every car. That'll make people drive very carefully...

Can you post the things that you've seen comparing homicide levels versus levels of bureaucratic paperwork?

[Phatscotty]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

Well, for one....I was born and raised and continue to live in and love the country we are talking about. Yet, you live on the other side of the world.

May I ask what you think makes you qualified on this topic?

Living in this country doesn't mean you're automatically qualified to talk about social theory, etc. Also, disproving any qualifications he may or may not have doesn't make you any more reputable.

-rd

You guys are hilarious.

Bottom line is, if you want to take away people's guns, then the Communist party has been saving you a seat at it's table.