Originally Posted by box
What if the criminal has a loaded gun?
What if god shows up and saves the world?
There are many what if scenarios, and frankly, they are irrelevant because we are generally speaking.
The risk of a criminal showing up with a loaded gun is very low in my country, partially due to no guns being available at all for anyone except very few people, so that's where my position is derived from.
How are you?
Apparently some one hates my opinions and keeps deleting my posts. In my opinion (that's what forums are about, opinions) you should be able to protect yourself from criminals. If a person is such a scum bag that they are out robbing people or breaking into houses, they deserve to be in danger. It should be a very dangerous thing to attack and rob innocent people. I support concealed carry and self defense because people deserve a chance to protect themselves.
Like my original post said; you wanna be a thug, you should be ready to pay a price.
Like my original post said; you wanna be a thug, you should be ready to pay a price.
| Redundant Moderated Message: |
| I don't hate your opinion. One single statement without any elaboration is no discussion material and will be treated accordingly. This post, however, is much better. Keep it up.  |
Last edited by Redundant; Aug 7, 2013 at 09:19 PM.
Originally Posted by Muur
What evidence? From what I've seen the increased availability of weapons (specifically guns) is not parallel to increased crime rate. Australian gun control was almost completely ineffective and cost the Australian government millions. 12 months after the ban homicide rates went up, assault rates went up, armed robberies went up, and in some cases homicides with guns rose up to 300 percent higher. Sure their crime rates have decreased almost insignificantly since then, but it was decreasing before the gun bans. If you look at the murder rates of developed countries with strict gun laws or low gun ownership rates and compare them to other developed countries with high gun ownership rates you will notice that gun possession has a pretty insignificant effect on murder rates. Sure the number of mass homicides will decline, but those are responsible for barely a percentage of homicides per year. Plus more guns=more death is assuming that the ordinary person commits crimes such as murder. Either way, "weapons of self-defense" are for the most part useless, but if they provide a person or family with a higher sense of security then why not let them have them. Not to sound cliché, but gun control isn't about guns its about control, and that somewhat applies to all weapons.
Since the ban has been instated the upward trend in fire arm homicide has been reversed and firearm related homicide in Australia is at an all time low.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
Gun related homicide is merely 10% of that of USA's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
A long term policy cannot be determined by just 12 months of observation. Obviously there will be a knee jerk reaction.
Each country is a separate entity and you definitely can't say "a country with less guns has less gun incidents", but taking any individual country you can say "if there was less guns there would be less gun incidents" - barring if a country is an active warzone of course!
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Since the ban has been instated the upward trend in fire arm homicide has been reversed and firearm related homicide in Australia is at an all time low.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
If you noticed although the gun related homicides dropped, the rate of homicides actually stayed very consistent with the trend that began before the ban was even instated.
Gun related homicide is merely 10% of that of USA's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
Let's not forget to mention that crime rates have dropped in the US without the help of a gun ban. Almost 70% of homicides in the US are gun related, but that's only because of the availability. That doesn't mean the same amount of homicides can't be committed with other weapons or illegal firearms.
A long term policy cannot be determined by just 12 months of observation. Obviously there will be a knee jerk reaction.
Each country is a separate entity and you definitely can't say "a country with less guns has less gun incidents", but taking any individual country you can say "if there was less guns there would be less gun incidents" - barring if a country is an active warzone of course!
The point I brought up is that the amount of guns does not coordinate with the amount of homicides. The amount of homicides is based more on factors like police effectiveness, social standards, political situations, and things like that.
The reasons for the US crime drops have absolutely nothing to do with weapon availability. Its completely reliant on an increased number of police, social trends, political and educational advancement, and changing demographics.
DAMN.
Originally Posted by jewdough
Apparently some one hates my opinions and keeps deleting my posts. In my opinion (that's what forums are about, opinions) you should be able to protect yourself from criminals. If a person is such a scum bag that they are out robbing people or breaking into houses, they deserve to be in danger. It should be a very dangerous thing to attack and rob innocent people. I support concealed carry and self defense because people deserve a chance to protect themselves.
Like my original post said; you wanna be a thug, you should be ready to pay a price.
I'm robbing you at gunpoint. You reach for a gun. I shoot you before you pull it out. Nice self-defense.
I've robbed you at gunpoint. You pull a gun out and shoot me in the back when I'm running away. Congratulations, you're now a murderer.
I fail to see how having a gun changed anything for the better.
And weapon availability does influence crime rate. Most crimes are spur of the moment. Therefore, a person has to believe that they can get away with it, the risk is low, and that it's worth doing it. A gun will shape their perceptions about the first two criteria. If they have a gun, they feel more powerful, so they feel they can get away with it, and that risks against them are lower.
Consider this. People who own guns are 40% more likely to drive aggressively, and make obscene gestures at other drivers. Does this mean that people who own guns are more aggressive people overall, or does it mean guns cause people to act more aggressively, or some other factor causing both. If it's either of the first two, that's already reason enough to restrict gun ownership. And the third option has nothing, as far as I'm aware of, supporting it. So regardless of whether it's guns causing aggression, or aggression prompting guns, the end result of more guns is still a negative result for overall safety.
And my evidence is in the only link I've posted. It has citation on it leading the the respective studies for each claim. I may have messed up a few of the numbers or rounded them to the nearest 10, but the relevance remains.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
