ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:13 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:11 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:44 am
Posts: 94
Location: @ University
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Sweet.

The pro-gun people pretty much invariably have to use anecdote to argue with, while the anti-gun people use statistics. Becauses the statistics are pretty much all are their side.

Actually, I've heard both sides use statistics.

I've also seen this, from someone who generally knows what he's talking about:
Before anyone starts citing Gun statistics I'll make a pre-emptive explanation. Recently, several universities did in depth studies of the various "Stats" used to justify or condemn use of fire arms by the civilian population. Notably all of the studies were missing information necessary to provide meaningful answers for the arguments people were using the studies to support. Some studies were used by both Gun control supporters and those who oppose it. Same studies, same data, Diametrically opposed conclusions.

So they analyzed all the REAL information in all of those studies they could find. End result? Literally no evidence for either sides case.

Sam's Dead on. Newer studies are in the works, with criteria, standards, controls etc. Carefully put together to avoid flaws if at all possible and gather the sorts of information needed to see any trends. As yet no results I'm aware of have been published. Most if not all of the Data available up to 2005 falls under the first group of studies they tore up.

_________________
Tim
:D :D :D
IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
Whack-with-the-cluestick of the day:
"Nubile" is *not* the adjective form of "newbie."
<< cringe >>

Ian did it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Boss Out of Town wrote:
( ... a long, good argument against guns ... )
Teach a culture to fish, and it eats regularly; teach it shoot guns, and it shoots people on a regular basis.


Very nice. I wouldn't have chosen the drunken cowheard example, though.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:45 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Wrin wrote:
I on the other hand think you're a danger to society and should be restricted to accessing only other gun-toting lunatics until most of you kill each-other off.


Careful not to let personal bias in, Wrin, it can ruin an argument. I agree with Nick in this case, that firearms should be allowed for citizen ownership, as long as controls are used. Background checks, licensing, mandatory firearms saftety courses before licensure, and my own personal flavor: mandatory inclusion of a keyed trigger-guard device which makes it physically impossible to pull the trigger without removal. A person who wants a gun is going to get one. Let him legally, institute controls, and it's safer than letting him go to the black market. Am I a 'gun-toting lunatic' as well?

Wrin wrote:
Removing the weapon from one of the persons in the scenerio changes the picture a bit. In all likelihood it'll be the person breaking the law already that has the weapon, so you know you need to stay quiet and call the authorities or let them take stuff. The three primary possibilities for this situation (assuming you don't confront the armed robber - that could go either way): you could call the authorities and likely show overwhelming force to the thief, you could be caught trying to call the authorities and become a knockout victim (you aren't likely to be able to put up much resistance, and are thus less likely to be killed), or you could let them take your stuff. These aren't all the best examples and I'm sorry for that, but it's pretty clear to me at least that having a weapon raises the stakes and makes this situation worse.


That all depends on your version of 'worse'. Pretty obviously, to you, it's whether someone gets hurt, thief or victim. Pretty obviously, to me, it's whether or not my belongings get stolen. Not having a firearm greatly increases the odds of that, and is, to me, worse.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:35 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Jasper wrote:
Wrin wrote:
I on the other hand think you're a danger to society and should be restricted to accessing only other gun-toting lunatics until most of you kill each-other off.


Careful not to let personal bias in, Wrin, it can ruin an argument. I agree with Nick in this case, that firearms should be allowed for citizen ownership, as long as controls are used. Background checks, licensing, mandatory firearms saftety courses before licensure, and my own personal flavor: mandatory inclusion of a keyed trigger-guard device which makes it physically impossible to pull the trigger without removal. A person who wants a gun is going to get one. Let him legally, institute controls, and it's safer than letting him go to the black market. Am I a 'gun-toting lunatic' as well?

Wrin wrote:
Removing the weapon from one of the persons in the scenerio changes the picture a bit. In all likelihood it'll be the person breaking the law already that has the weapon, so you know you need to stay quiet and call the authorities or let them take stuff. The three primary possibilities for this situation (assuming you don't confront the armed robber - that could go either way): you could call the authorities and likely show overwhelming force to the thief, you could be caught trying to call the authorities and become a knockout victim (you aren't likely to be able to put up much resistance, and are thus less likely to be killed), or you could let them take your stuff. These aren't all the best examples and I'm sorry for that, but it's pretty clear to me at least that having a weapon raises the stakes and makes this situation worse.


That all depends on your version of 'worse'. Pretty obviously, to you, it's whether someone gets hurt, thief or victim. Pretty obviously, to me, it's whether or not my belongings get stolen. Not having a firearm greatly increases the odds of that, and is, to me, worse.


As to the first quote->response, I was (mostly) joking. For the second, you make a very good point. If your opinion of 'worse' in my example does not include a concern for the well-being of the thief, I must devise a completely different argument as that one's unlikely to matter to you. I shall return to post said argument when I have collected my thoughts on the matter. (I must evaluate my point of view in the case that said concern is discounted, as I've never really thought of it that way.)

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:51 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
As far as I can see, most of the examples of an armed society becoming more dangerous that have been given so far are flawed in that only a portion of the populace is armed and preys on the rest.

Furthermore, statistics aside, I am unaware of any study where placing more weapons in the hands of normal (= generally law-abiding) citizens resulted in more deaths overall (I am including the "deterrent" effect here), or where restricting the rights of normal citizens to own firearms did not result in an increase in violent crime. Of course I also agree with the checks and balances that Jasper mentions to ensure greater safety, although the keyed trigger-guard might cause a fatal delay when confronted with an armed intruder.

Also, despite the "drunken cowherds" example which seems to have been taken from Hollywood's rather inaccurate portrayal of the "Wild West", the period was actually one of the more law-abiding societies in history when looked at in terms of crime/death per capita (excluding indian conflicts). The Law was a social contract, and people who broke the law were declared "outlaw" and had no rights (i.e. they could be and often were hunted down like animals) which served as a considerable deterrent. Criminals like Jesse James and Billy the Kid were (in)famous because they were so rare.

Interestingly enough, there were also more legal suits per capita than there are today, which shows that the people generally trusted and turned to the law to decide disputes. Of course the law was also much simpler than today and most cases were decided through mediation before ever going to court.

_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Wrin wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
But Rule of Law + everyone being armed is better than either one of them alone.


I disagree. Introducing a weapon to a situation, even an even distribution of weapons, only raises the risk to everyone involved.

Situation: you wake up and somebody is in your house. Since we're running with the "everyone is armed" scenerio, this person more than likely has a weapon with which he or she is unlikely to hesitate to break the law. You, on the other hand, have a weapon with which you have a right to defend yourself. This situation has very likely become one where someone will be seriously injured or killed.
Removing the weapon from one of the persons in the scenerio changes the picture a bit. In all likelihood it'll be the person breaking the law already that has the weapon, so you know you need to stay quiet and call the authorities or let them take stuff. The three primary possibilities for this situation (assuming you don't confront the armed robber - that could go either way): you could call the authorities and likely show overwhelming force to the thief, you could be caught trying to call the authorities and become a knockout victim (you aren't likely to be able to put up much resistance, and are thus less likely to be killed), or you could let them take your stuff. These aren't all the best examples and I'm sorry for that, but it's pretty clear to me at least that having a weapon raises the stakes and makes this situation worse.
As for the situation where nobody has a weapon? Physical prowess plays a big part if you actually confront them, but you're less likely to be seriously hurt or killed in your own home when you know the surroundings and may well be able to scare them off. This situation is less likely than one person having a weapon because outlawing weapons just doesn't work. A person who breaks the law anyway won't usually hesitate to carry backup, especially illegal backup.


BA-A-A-A-A-A-A! Go get fleeced, sheep.

"By rendering myself defenseless, I therefore make myself less likely to need defense! BRILLIANT! I'll just let ruthless criminals who couldn't care less about my well-being walk all over me so I don't annoy one and have him respond with lethal force! Never mind the thousands of people in the country who cooperated with their attackers and were summarily murdered anyway just to eliminate witnesses or because the criminal was planning on killing them to begin with and they just made it easier for him."

Congratulations, you've decided to be a sheep. When the wolves come, I suppose they might decide you're not worth the effort if they're lazy.

If a country followed the same philosophy you do, you know what would happen? They'd get invaded, subjugated, and ruled by others who weren't as stupid.

If a criminal KNOWS he's likely to get shot when he commits a crime, do you think he's going to be more likely to murder everyone he encounters or more likely to avoid a situation that could kill him? Criminals usually take the easy way out; that's why they're criminals.

It's really quite simple. If you don't want large-caliber holes in you, don't fucking break into my house to steal my stuff and attack me in my sleep. Don't rape, don't rob, don't murder, and don't go in my house without my permission, and the odds are pretty darn good that I won't find a reason to kill you.

Kinda funny how crime goes down in areas when they allow law-abiding citizens to start carrying guns. I haven't seen any shoot outs over parking spaces or the last can of spam at the grocery store, but a lot less crimes are being committed because the criminals are afraid of their victims fighting back.

"God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal". Sure, a big guy who works out a lot and has experience fighting can probably kick my ass in no time flat, but add a gun to my end of the equation and suddenly the odds are a little better. Would YOU try to mug someone if you thought there was a good chance of getting ventilated in the process?

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:45 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
The situation in Israel (because you don't know it, and it might be insightful):
Theoretically, guns are outlawed. Technically, there are some goups that CAN get a license to guns (hand guns, usually). Those groups are made of a) citizens that were officers during their service, and b) citizens that live in danger-zones.
<<<Danger zones are the settlements near "hot" borders. The Jorden valley and the Golan are examples.>>>
These two groups are BIG. The officer to soldier rate in Israel is really high, and remember that millitary service here is mandatory.
Still, murder with guns is rare, really rare. I think that in the last year more people died in knife fights here than from gun fights (a knife fight is an event which includes a person being hurt by a knife, same for guns).

My opinion:
I happen to be relatively frail (I tend to bleed when I scratch myself), and untill I have the time for serious martial art training I would prefer to have a gun by my side (note that I'm profficiant in using said guns).
I wanted to write something else too, but I forgot what it was. BTW, my English is as horrible as I think it is?

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:18 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 368
Location: Washington
I don't own, nor have I ever owned a gun. I don't lean on the police, because I don't trust cops. I don't live in areas where I would need a gun to feel safe, which takes cops out of the picture. If this seems an under embelished opinion, it's just the way I feel.

On a sidenote, most of the fatalities I've been witness to have been from knives, out of no where, like you'd see in a prison movie. No gun could prevent an act of violence like that, merely provide a means of revenge after the fact.

I saw a kid bleed all over his friends car in my school parking lot from a gunshot wound. Maybe his mom should've packed a gun into his bag lunch.

_________________
----
dA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:15 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Wrin wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
But Rule of Law + everyone being armed is better than either one of them alone.


I disagree. Introducing a weapon to a situation, even an even distribution of weapons, only raises the risk to everyone involved.

Situation: you wake up and somebody is in your house. Since we're running with the "everyone is armed" scenerio, this person more than likely has a weapon with which he or she is unlikely to hesitate to break the law. You, on the other hand, have a weapon with which you have a right to defend yourself. This situation has very likely become one where someone will be seriously injured or killed.
Removing the weapon from one of the persons in the scenerio changes the picture a bit. In all likelihood it'll be the person breaking the law already that has the weapon, so you know you need to stay quiet and call the authorities or let them take stuff. The three primary possibilities for this situation (assuming you don't confront the armed robber - that could go either way): you could call the authorities and likely show overwhelming force to the thief, you could be caught trying to call the authorities and become a knockout victim (you aren't likely to be able to put up much resistance, and are thus less likely to be killed), or you could let them take your stuff. These aren't all the best examples and I'm sorry for that, but it's pretty clear to me at least that having a weapon raises the stakes and makes this situation worse.
As for the situation where nobody has a weapon? Physical prowess plays a big part if you actually confront them, but you're less likely to be seriously hurt or killed in your own home when you know the surroundings and may well be able to scare them off. This situation is less likely than one person having a weapon because outlawing weapons just doesn't work. A person who breaks the law anyway won't usually hesitate to carry backup, especially illegal backup.


*insert personal attack, dubious logic, irrelevent semantics and a "chicken-hawk" personality here*


Wow, that wasn't useful. First, get rid of the idea that just because someone doesn't own a gun, they are automatically a mindlessly conformist, submissive pussy. Noone here is proposing to ban firearms for use in national defense. Almost every country in the world has a standing military, not all of them legalise guns for private ownership, and they do fine. Not everyone who believes in the idea of a police or military force that has the right to bear arms when regular civlians don't, also believes in authoritarian government.

Next, admit your statement that "OMG IF EVERYONE IS ARMED CRIMINALS WILL BE TOO SCARED TO ROB PPL!!1" is bullshit. It's already been pointed out that crime is massively common in countries where ownership of firearms is legal and commonplace, and a large proportion of illegal firearms are actually stolen legally-owned ones.

It IS possible to make a good argument for gun ownership without waving your dick around in the air and asserting what a badass, big-dicked mofo' you are just because you own a shotgun.

For my part... I don't know, partly because the complete and utter uselessness of the statistics and research available on the issue makes it impossible to come to a decision. Ive yet to see ONE scientifically solid, unbiased, comprehensive study on the issue. I do think banning guns in the USA would be a spectacularly bad idea. The gun culture is already too heavily engrained over there, the industry is pretty firmly dug in, and criminals are already armed pretty well. The pro-gun lobbies are right when they say that "If guns were criminalised only criminals would have guns", although possibly not for the reasons they think.

What's more, all those factories wouldn't just pack up and leave as if they were never there... you'd suddenly have a bunch of unemployed gunsmiths who's trade was now illegal, reducing the supply would only drive up the price of the illegal gun trade, without really reducing demand. Plus a substantial proportion of the population would refuse to give up their guns... it just wouldn't work in America.

I don't know whether Im pro the ownership of guns in general, though...

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group