1. Updated Resource Submission Rules: All model & skin resource submissions must now include an in-game screenshot. This is to help speed up the moderation process and to show how the model and/or texture looks like from the in-game camera.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. DID YOU KNOW - That you can unlock new rank icons by posting on the forums or winning contests? Click here to customize your rank or read our User Rank Policy to see a list of ranks that you can unlock. Have you won a contest and still haven't received your rank award? Then please contact the administration.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Rubbed the right way, the genie is out of its lamp! The 12th Concept Art Contest Results have been announced.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Race against the odds and Reforge, Don't Refund. The 14th Techtree Contest has begun!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Gun Rights v. Gun Control | A look at the facts.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Swazi Spring, Dec 18, 2012.

  1. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    you are really prejudiced you know that?and here I though liberals were supposed to be "open minded". here is where that article is from "Reprinted by special permission of Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995." The article is addressing cases where people who were getting assaulted/burglarized, used a gun to defend their person/property against said criminal.

    first off I am going to assume you have a familiarity with how statistical error works. lets look at their population size, which if you believe what there number says is 2.1 million (defensive gun uses per year).
    with a sample size of 2,000(for a population of 200+ million) you have about a ±2% sampling error. Lets suppose that they have a ±5% sampling error(which would exist if your population was 200 million instead of a 100 times smaller), you are still significantly safer, 10.5% chance of getting hurt vs a 25% chance, (mind you it could also just as easily be a .5% chance as a 10.5% chance, if you have a 5% error) Realistically though, their error is going to be between 1.6% and 2%

    you don't say, I would hazard a wild guess that the homicide rate in the USA is in fact lower then the rate of crime in the UK. sorry for my sarcasm here I think that you think that Crime == homicide, Homicide is a subset of violent crime which is a subset of Crime. If you look at the violent crime rate in the UK you will find it is 3 times the US's, to give you a perspective that's 400 more assaults etc.. per capita. How does one decide whether 400 more people getting traumatized for life, is better then 2 more people getting killed? (per capita)




    but what you listed isn't crime rates, its amount of gun crimes committed. Crime rates would be such and such offenses commited per capita. And if one looks at that then the UK's crime rate, which on the whole is significantly higher .http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime here are two number taken from that survey on crime committed per year 6,523,706 Uk, 11,877,218 US, now if one remembers that the UK has a population 1/5 the size of the USA then one ends up with these numbers 32,618,530 UK, 11,877,218 US. interesting to think about, it might makes one wonder doesn't it? (though it could not be quite as Significant as I make it sound, as it says under the figures, they are a better example of the populations willingness to report crimes. Still 32 mill vs 11 mill.

    Edit: I liked your first linked article, though you are right it is a rather long read,. Look at figure 6, it shows some interesting trends, also figure 3.
     
  2. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Interesting point seeing as how the UK has a population of 60 million, versus the US' 310 million. Not taking into account the size of the populations skews the numbers.

    The larger the population the more destitute people there will be, and the more people therefore prone to violent behavior, that factored with the % increase in size of all statistics. Makes the UK seem like Uganda compared to the US.
     
  3. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I actually went and read it after my last post out of my "deep down sense of neutrality", the author do have a strong logical persuasion.. even if I've never say anything against people whose guns save their lives. (I think it was in my early post with Jazztastic) So, I'm not sure why you linked that essay to me still ?


    Now, before I proceed to counter-argue. Are we still talking about gun crimes and gun violent ? because if you guys want to pull in how gun is just a factor to overall violent rate of a country... then, I have nothing more to say than "Violent is in our nature, it's going to happen with or without guns."

    I'm here to say gun isn't a tool, it's a weapon and I support a more strict regulation of it. I have nothing on crimes and violent as a whole concept. I've got nothing on that. but if we want to reduce gun violent and gun crimes, harder access to guns is obviously going to help.

    I'm not even kidding, I have nothing. The crime and violent as a whole are all cultural philosophy and not something I'd rather talk about.

    ----------------------------------------

    Quick question tho, if you are a responsible gun-owner who already own a gun... why are you opposing the idea of more strict regulations ? You're obviously not a criminal and I've said it on almost every posts here that no one is calling for a total ban of guns here.
     
  4. Zakamutt

    Zakamutt

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Ouch, no shit. Actually, I was mislabeling the UK stats; both list Intentional Homicide. Intentional Homicide is afaik any intentional killing, not just gun-related ones.

    Do you think you can get any data on what % of violentdifferences in what counts as such nonwithstanding crime in the US results in serious injuries? I'm fairly interested in this as 0.8% in the UK feels rather low to me.

    @dracemia seems like you have a personal phobia/dislike for guns that is not necessarily statistically quantifiable. However, if you were able to get rates of general fear/anxiety of getting shot and so on, that might support your point.
     
  5. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    according to the earlier article I read, in confrontations between victim and offender you have a 30% chance of getting injured, but I don't know, what precentage of those are serious injuries. I will look into it.

    Well its gone up a lot with all of the news attention on it. I would suggest he goes to Gallup or Pews if he is interested in getting data on it.
     
  6. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Nah, that's not really a point I would make. It's still personal preferences no matter how many people have this anxiety/phobia of getting shot. It doesn't effect the country as a whole and should be talked about as supportive statement in this case. :)

    I'm just focusing on the original topic of "Would better gun control reduce gun crimes?", I'm not arguing other topic. (Except that time with "Gun as a weapon", that really ticked me off.)

    I saw that in my research, out of 10 people who got shot, 7 survive with minor injuries, 1 with serious injuries and 2 die.
     
  7. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    What number of those 7 were incapacitated.
     
  8. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I'm not sure, it didn't say. I was looking up research on surviving chances of being shot.
     
  9. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Minor injuries sounds almost like being grazed, or in a situation where the bullet flies all the way through without hitting anything... Then again a minor injury could be like getting shot in the foot, which would incapacitate you, and prevent you from doing any harm to anyone.
     
  10. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Relevant Onion;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FI_AZTzfok
     
  11. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Dear lord, NRA is the worst possible group of pro-gun advocate. People like them must be why someone would own a gun and not miss the chance to put a few bullets in their eye sockets.
     
  12. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Comments like that relate to violence, and are socially derogatory.
     
  13. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    So is the people who own guns because "God gave it to us and we should use them whenever someone deserve to die"

    I'm not paraphrasing.

    They're also against background check and when asked about gun-regulations, had their spoke persons (on 3 separated occasion) explicitly stated "Freeways don't even need lanes because criminals aren't going to stay in them anyway."

    ...still not a paraphrased statement.


    Chris W. Cox is like a Westboro Baptist Church preacher if they worship guns.

    --------------

    I was actually glad nobody (seriously) bring them into the discussion. Call me violent all you want, I'm just a human ..better yet, I don't go on a killing-spree in accordance to being distraught.
     
  14. gorillabull

    gorillabull

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    everyone should own a gun that way if some one tries to shoot ya you can shoot them first
     
  15. RED BARON

    RED BARON

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,187
    Resources:
    43
    Models:
    37
    Icons:
    3
    Packs:
    1
    Skins:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    43
    Simple its a matter of opportunity and motive. Given the strict laws for guns the opportunity is missing hence doesn't occur. Hence why arguments as to violent games and such is pointless, given that those are also in Eu countries.

    As for gun control my own firm opinion is that it should be put in place in USA, while I agree with the constitutional right to own a gun, I don't agree with lack of control nor with availability of guns of military grade.

    It is alright to own a gun, heck even two. But there is little sense in owning 20 different guns, including assault rifles with the stated purpose of "self protection". One isn't able to use that many guns, nor is there a need for it.
    Also a simple manner of implementing a register (not to prevent sale), but to keep tabs on guns makes perfect sense given the gun violence in USA. Also making sure drunks and people with a mental condition can't go in a buy a gun is also meaningful.
    Drunks because the irrationality inherent with that condition, hence preventing sale until the person is sober makes perfect sense. Sure nothing prevents him getting drunk after buying the gun - but its still an improvement.

    Mental condition for obvious reasons that they can act beyond reason and as such is a danger.
    Both of them which is in line with the idea that convicted criminals shouldn't be able to buy guns either - Which is also fitting with a register of guns to prevent that from happening.

    I don't agree with removing every gun or preventing future purchases, but thats not whats being discussed nor should it given the gun environment in USA, but still making logical and meaningful control with guns is no different the control of drugs, even when legal in certain states like marijuana.
    Control does not equal a stop of guns (Like the NRA seems to "believe"), instead it should equal measures to limit gun violence, as a good deal of those crimes could if not prevented, at least have been blunted by accepting that an uncontrolled market of guns isn't what was intended with the constitution nor should it be what people want.

    Funny thing is that when considering how little control and rights American citizens have under some areas of the law (Law suit contracts, strip search, terror laws and so on), it is ironic how little control they want over the guns.

    In the good old saying: Violence equals Violence
     
  16. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    If someone owns 20 guns, I think that person is less dangerous than the one that owns only one. Because then he or she is probably a collector and knows the safety stuff and how to be responsible.
     
  17. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    And I'm not sure if I 100% agree with the above statement, since the person with 20 guns is likely going to have rare and exotic weapons, probably "assault" weapons, which means they're more likely to be stolen from than a little old lady with a .44 magnum.

    I believe the crime rate is a higher percentage based on the population in the UK. And crime would be directly affected by gun control.

    No guns, people less afraid of police, more willing to commit criminal acts.

    Ender has already been over this, you can't use the UK as a comparative to the US, because the UK is just as big a criminal shit-hole.
     
  18. EloTheMan

    EloTheMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    471
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Chris Kyle got shot at a shooting range, probably with a handgun in a holster a and a rifle in his hand. He was the deadliest sniper in US military history with many years of training and experience and it didn't help him.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  19. RED BARON

    RED BARON

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,187
    Resources:
    43
    Models:
    37
    Icons:
    3
    Packs:
    1
    Skins:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    43
    While I agree with your first sentiment, I disagree with the quoted - As it has pretty much been proven that when police upgrade their arsenal, the criminals does the same - And they are more likely to shoot first, as the police is doing the same.

    As said violence bequest violence.

    As for UK I believe you would find that they have far less gun related crimes than USA (Also in percentage related to amount of citizens). Of course other problems also have an influence, but the too easy access to guns gives the opportunity as mentioned, and as such only serves to increase the problem.

    Still, control is not the same as total ban on weapons. Which is why the headline for this topic is somewhat wrong, as Gun rights and gun control is not opposites, but instead should be joined in a logical marriage born both out of sense and responsibility, but also culture. Hence access to weapons yes, access to all types of weapons no, access to people with an increased chance of coming a crime with them, no (or at least not without a thorough checkup) and finally keep check on them, so solving crimes becomes a much easier job (Why even be against it? Or as the NRA did, prevent that? It isn't a prevention of weapons nor any limits of rights, its just a tool to help the police when a crime has been committed). :eekani:
     
  20. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    That's exactly what I've been saying. We're talking about gun violent and it's going to decrease in rate when people have less access to guns with more strict regulations.

    -----------------------------

    Also, after a few research session, I think it's fair to ask if we can all talk about crime rate and gun-related crime separately because gun-related crimes and gun violent are more likely to result in death, considering its properties and potential.

    And we all know that we don't recover from death, from being a victim in crimes, we might.


    Now, RiotZ says that UK is a crime-pit kind of country, it really is. There's no denying the numbers and statistics of the crime rate (provided by Ender)

    However, the number of murder rate in the UK is ..well, exceedingly low in direct opposite to the rate of crime and violent. In comparison, the rate of murder in both England and Wales combined is lesser than the rate of murder in certain states.

    which is to illustrated by this map courtesy of the city-data.com's anon member.

    [​IMG]

    from this FBI annual crime report

    Now, according to the UK governmental report on homicides here

    That put England and Wales around 1.4 murder rate per 100,000 people and Scotland around 2.4.

    ---------------------------------

    I think it's safe to say that it'd have been ok if Colorado or Michigan or Texas is a country of its own, this number would have been understandable... but it's not. That's a state out of an entire country.

    and before anyone point out that it's a murder rate not a gun-murder rate, I found this map which illustrated how each states of the US compared to countries with top gun-homicide rate.

    [​IMG]

    Now you see why gun-violent is a national problem and should be dealt with separately from dealing with crime rate in general.

    ------------------------------------------

    I'm not sure where I'm going with this statement but I think the number of gun ownership attribute directly to the rate of overall intentional homicides. I also found this graph by georgeoughttohelp.com

    [​IMG]

    I just thought that it could make a good point. :)
    We can go back to crime, if it's too conflicting in a post.