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

[En_Fuego]

No, the problem is caused by federal drug prohibiton.

Ok Gary Johnson

 

[Nuclear]

Ok Gary Johnson

But that's true.

 

[EloTheMan]

Rubber bullets don't always stop people.

Maybe they are to unreliable to be an effective defense weapon, sometimes people get knocked out or killed by a rubber bullet in the head, or the guy might as well had been hit by a paintball rifle.


The ideal defense weapon would would stop a person but not kill him. Firearms are meant to kill people. I think they should find a replacement instead of just banning them so there wont be another black market boom like the ones alcohol bans caused.

And I think that is the only real reason to why not to ban guns in the US, having such a large gun culture without guns would only benefit illegal activities with more valuable stuff to sell.

 

[Nuclear]

Rubber bullet guns are prohibited in many countries as well, I believe.

 

[rulerofiron99]

Some existing alternatives:
- Shotgun that shoots sandbags (this WILL stop someone, but obviously a shotgun is pretty big)
- Taser pistol (one shot AFAIK, miss and you're dead)
- Water cannon (only for dispersing crowds lol)
- Pepper spray (requires a skillful melee)

What I would like to see is a pistol that acts as a flashbang. In the tip, it would have the chemicals needed to make a bright, extremely bright flash. It should also have an audible bang, but not too loud that it stuns the user as well. You wouldn't need to be a good shot with this thing, as long as you point it in the target's general direction and they are looking vaguely towards you, they'll be blind for the next few minutes while you can escape or disarm them.

 

[Total_Warrior]

Prove there isn't a link between violent video games and violent crime.

I've played more violent, gory games and watched some of the most fucked up movies more than anyone I know. And I have never contemplated killing someone, much less a fucking kid. They need to look into the values and family of the person wielding the gun. My parents were there for me to teach me values: What's right and what's wrong. I can watch movies like SAW and play horror games with no problem. I might even start laughing. Does that make me some kind of maniac who will massacre a school? No.

It's the person to blame. Not the guns. A LONG time ago you could probably walk into any hardware store and buy any kind of machine gun with no problem. What's interesting is even though you could do that back then, events like what happen today probably never happened back then. Ask your grandparents if anything like the Connecticut shooting happened in their time. The point is: Society is getting more and more retarded.

 

[En_Fuego]

Imo, if there was a causal link between playing violent games and committing violent crime there would probably be way, way more of these events occurring. An interesting factor though, is that nearly every single "shooter" in the past couple of decades in schools and/or public events have had one thing in common:

psychological issues.

 

[Nuclear]

Prove there isn't a link between violent video games and violent crime.

Have you ever heard about things like "burden of proof" or "Russel's teapot"?

 

[HappyTauren]

Actually, that's quite simple. People claim games affect how they feel. People claim music affects how they feel. I know all of this personally, and if you think that listening to loud death metal while playing shooters all day doesn't change your personality, you're probably a mad person. Too much adrenaline all the time can make you more aggressive. Although this will not exactly make a tame person go and stab 10 people in the mall, it still does change the behavior for the worse. If someone is impulsive on his own, he can and will become way more aggressive through these adrenaline rushes, and this is something that affected me as well.

 

[EloTheMan]

A workout gives a lot more adrenaline than playing violent games, and instead of drinking soda and eating chips you will probably take various workout food and drinks (like powder-milkshakes) that will most likely contain ingredients with testosterone similar effects. But since it is considered "healthy" people don't blame it for violence or even considering it.

The majority of criminals with records of violence work out a lot.

The few times I have gotten adrenaline out of a game are very small in effect and doesn't even last for very long.

And if you want a real adrenaline rush then you should try out Juggernaut in airsoft, this one time after when I was Juggernaut I could still feel my hands shaking 3 hours later.


The only legit link between violence and video games is inspiration of methods which you can find in books and movies too. Who hasn't thought about blowing up a corrupt government like in V for Vendetta?

Why vid-games?

 

[HappyTauren]

A workout gives a lot more adrenaline than playing violent games, and instead of drinking soda and eating chips you will probably take various workout food and drinks (like powder-milkshakes) that will most likely contain ingredients with testosterone similar effects. But since it is considered "healthy" people don't blame it for violence or even considering it.

There are so many problems with body building alone that I won't even start commenting on this. But yes, I agree, as for adrenaline rushes, bodybuilding (mostly!) is way worse than video games, but then again, you don't blow up the place or shoot people into head with an AK-47 while working out. There's this psychological moment too, which can often give people 'what if' thoughts (I do have those!). However, you can turn up some rap or metal music while working out, so that get the same effect, just far less personal and far less effective. So basically:

video games = personification of aggression + some adrenaline rush + manipulation through sounds/music/graphics + thought provoking questions about violence
working out = a great adrenaline rush + MAYBE manipulation through sounds/music + doesn't mean there has to be personification of aggression + not so many thought provoking questions about violence
aggressive movies = moderate adrenaline rush + manipulation through sounds/music/visuals + thought provoking questions about violence
'violent' literature = minor adrenaline rush + no manipulation through sounds/music/visuals + many and very effective thought provoking questions about violence (due to speed and how free our mind is during reading as opposed to other media)

Most people make a mistake when thinking about those things by oversimplifying it.

The majority of criminals with records of violence work out a lot.

The few times I have gotten adrenaline out of a game are very small in effect and doesn't even last for very long.

And if you want a real adrenaline rush then you should try out Juggernaut in airsoft, this one time after when I was Juggernaut I could still feel my hands shaking 3 hours later.

The only legit link between violence and video games is inspiration of methods which you can find in books and movies too. Who hasn't thought about blowing up a corrupt government like in V for Vendetta?

I completely agree, but I'd like to add that games make it way more personal. It's not the same thing, when you blow up the thing 'yourself' and when you watch 'someone else' do it.

Regarding other posts concerning this: So, you connect your adrenaline rush that you feel during a video game with the character that you perceive as yourself, who slaughters people by dozen, and expect this to have absolutely no effect on your psyche? That's ridiculous. How it is going to affect you is completely subjective, and then, saying that it doesn't affect anybody ever is just a tad more ridiculous.

 

[Total_Warrior]

Who hasn't thought about blowing up a corrupt government like in V for Vendetta?

"Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."

Think about that. Like I've been saying. It's us people who we should blame. Not blame inanimate objects like video games and guns. What's next? Candy?

 

[HappyTauren]

Suggesting that we blame inanimate objects is retarded. They wouldn't exist if we didn't specifically design them to be what they are. So yes, we do blame people, and we do blame ourselves, to some extent.

 

[Total_Warrior]

No. We scapegoat objects because we as humans have evolved into a new breed of retard. There is always something to blame that isn't us people. So let's say someone killed 15 people in a school because his pencil sharpener broke. We might as well blame sharpeners then right? Should be fine since were already blaming guns and video games. So no. Suggesting that we blame inanimate objects isn't retarded at all. What's retarded is that we are not blaming ourselves.

 

[dracemia]

Beside blaming guns, a lot of people is putting in their paranoia and their urge to express freedom through guns as well. The 2nd amendment and all that.

Right now, some guy in Texas is probably proud of himself that he owes a .22 or else Obama would have overthrow democracy and crown himself an oppressive emperor already. I tried to understand that guns can be useful in may circumstances but I still don't see it as a household item that you might get to use even once a year. (Unless you go to a shooting range, and totally miss my point)

Everyone want to live in a safe public and a place where there is no gun-crime but a lot of people still need to owe guns because they don't have the courage to walk out of their house unarmed. Nobody want to start setting an example of that gun-free community and start pissing in their own ears, telling themselves its raining. Always an excuse to "exercise" their rights.

 

[Ender]

Nobody want to start setting an example of that gun-free community and start pissing in their own ears, telling themselves its raining. Always an excuse to "exercise" their rights.

want to see a gun free community? the UK is fairly close to being one and they have the one of the highest crime rates in europe here is a link. also the jews in germany during a certain period of time were banned from possession of firearms. in fact if you look at history all oppressed peoples are banned the right to defend themselves.
as for this quote

they don't have the courage to walk out of their house unarmed

well it entirely depends on where you are, for instance if you are in certain parts of los angles, chicago, phoenix, tucson, seattle etc.. you know what you are right. I would be pure yellow, and if you were smart you would be a coward too, guns or no guns, knives or no knives one person without a gun isn't a match for 2 people(we are talking about the average person here, not chuck norris.)

as to your other quotes

Right now, some guy in Texas is probably proud of himself that he owes a .22

why would anyone be proud they "owe" a .22? how would you become in debt to your own gun? Now, if you meant to say own, well that is a stupid statement. if you are going to make that stupid statement use a gun that someone(other then a 12 year old) might be proud to own like a 30 ot 6 hunting rifle or a remington semi-automatic shotgun.

but I still don't see it as a household item that you might get to use even once a year

um you obviously don't own gun. you have obviously never fired a gun, or if you have it was only once and you were a horrible shot. You also live in an urban or sub-urban area. or if you live in a rural area you are not a farmer with cows, and have never seen a wolf, coyote or bear except in a zoo. I know its ad hominem, but i don't see another way to answer this, because you obviously don't know the majority of gun owners.

 

[Nuclear]

I live in an European country where, for my surprise, gun ownership is 46 per 100 people. I have never read any news that someone had successfully defended themselves from someone by using a gun. Instead, I read news about drunken idiots and angry old men threatening each other and going on rampage around the town. It's absolute fantasy.

 

[Zakamutt]

because you obviously don't know the majority of gun owners

Prove the majority of gun owners are of the demographic you specified, please.
Additionally, the news about the UK being such a massive crime hotspot is from The Daily Mail. This is not a very credible source, apparently: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail (I might be a faggot for trusting RationalWiki, of course, but since the Daily Mail article is vaguely sourced...)

Seeing a srs lack of sauces in the thread atm; I know it's all cool to be lazy, but you might be wrong and stuff and not know it!1

 

[dracemia]

also the jews in germany during a certain period of time were banned from possession of firearms. in fact if you look at history all oppressed peoples are banned the right to defend themselves.

Because obviously the nazis have a propaganda against the jews. Maybe the US government have an agenda against its own people too ?

well it entirely depends on where you are, for instance if you are in certain parts of los angles, chicago, phoenix, tucson, seattle etc.. you know what you are right. I would be pure yellow, and if you were smart you would be a coward too, guns or no guns, knives or no knives one person without a gun isn't a match for 2 people(we are talking about the average person here, not chuck norris.)

Does it really matter if I have a gun or not ? I'm being "the change I want to see in the world" and I have the courage to walk out of my house without a gun, if I get shot then there's why more strict gun regulations are required. I don't need to threaten another human's life to defend myself.

why would anyone be proud they "owe" a .22? how would you become in debt to your own gun? Now, if you meant to say own, well that is a stupid statement. if you are going to make that stupid statement use a gun that someone(other then a 12 year old) might be proud to own like a 30 ot 6 hunting rifle or a remington semi-automatic shotgun.

Sorry for the typo but like I said, sarcastically, if they weren't allow to own guns, Obama might have overthrow democracy already because that's what you get when you reason along the lines comparing people with the nazis.

um you obviously don't own gun. you have obviously never fired a gun, or if you have it was only once and you were a horrible shot. You also live in an urban or sub-urban area. or if you live in a rural area you are not a farmer with cows, and have never seen a wolf, coyote or bear except in a zoo. I know its ad hominem, but i don't see another way to answer this, because you obviously don't know the majority of gun owners.

No, I've never fired a gun, nor do I own a gun and the majority of gun owners that I have come across were shooting at me or someone else. Militia, soldiers, robbers, gang members. (while people who actually own guns and are not criminals probably don't tell me they own guns.) So, excuse me if I can't really make it sound like I try to understand people who guns have saved their lives and properties. I do try looking it from another perspective but....

....I said this already but I'll say it again.

The majority of bullet-recipients are another human beings. It's good that guns are used to defend farms and drive away wild animals but ...how many of wolf or coyote are shot each year ? Find that number and compare them to the number or gun-related homocide (be it accidental or intentional).

I really can't look that number up because it depress me too much but I can already guess the stats.

ps. jesus christ, I'm sorry for replying paragraph by paragraph. I'm still a bit tipsy, it's hard for me to form a really coherent lines of reasoning BUT a few paragraphs around the end should obviously state my point.

 

[The Comunist Party]

Goverment has the right to decide which of it's citizens are capable of carrying guns, what they really need to do is random houses searches for illegal weapons, body searches, etc. oh yes, outlawing guns is a good start as well.

After that create a Psychological analysis that will determine who is crazy and who isn't. As well as an analysis of the agreement with the current government, as anyone who disagrees with their nations leaders is a possible terrorist and hence, a possible mass murderer, and hence should not be allowed to carry a gun.

While your busy doing that, you need to create design an educational system that will produce people who agree with the way you think, as well as start preparations for reconditioning camps for people who don't manage to pass the Psychological tests you created.

Eventually all gun crimes will cease to exist, problem solved

 

[Ender]

Prove the majority of gun owners are of the demographic you specified, please.

Prove they aren't.
Here is a statistic by galluphere is a statistic that says 48% percent of all gun owner own more then one gun, which tells us that they are gun enthusiasts and if you look at. And although there isn't a poll showing that the Majority of gun owners practice once a year. all of the gun owners I have met use guns fairly regularly, even the ones that don't hunt.

Additionally, the news about the UK being such a massive crime hotspot is from The Daily Mail. This is not a very credible source, apparently: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail (I might be a faggot for trusting RationalWiki, of course, but since the Daily Mail article is vaguely sourced...)

[url="http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime]nationmaster[/url] UK is ranked third you will note that the USA has way more gun homicides (though after you take population into account the number drops down to about 30 times as many), on the other hand, murder is a rather uncommon crime. Here is an article on this.

here are a couple of good reads for you
Essay on gun control by law professor an essay by the author, adressing the less guns = less crime myth The Quandary of the Gun

The majority of bullet-recipients are another human beings. It's good that guns are used to defend farms and drive away wild animals but ...how many of wolf or coyote are shot each year ? Find that number and compare them to the number or gun-related homocide (be it accidental or intentional).

wrong, the majority of bullet recipients are paper targets

how many of wolf or coyote are shot each year

other then the ones the government shoots, hardly any, but, if you mean how many coyotes or wolfs magically vanish, or are scared off by someone firing a gun. Only ranchers, and the occasional rural dweller could add to that poll.

here is a really good essay http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

 

[dracemia]

other then the ones the government shoots, hardly any, but, if you mean how many coyotes or wolfs magically vanish, or are scared off by someone firing a gun. Only ranchers, and the occasional rural dweller could add to that poll.

here is a really good essay http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Hey, if guns are used to scare off wild animals, I could have buy some firecrackers. Those things even scare me occasionally, no need for gun to drive away animals.

wrong, the majority of bullet recipients are paper targets

Well, I'm not a paper-target rights activist.

BUT to stay on topic, I know that there's whole community revolving around guns and even a sport is made around it. Still, does this lifestyle and entertainment worth human lives when this "sport equipment" is also the most practical weapon as of date ?

 

[Ender]

BUT to stay on topic, I know that there's whole community revolving around guns and even a sport is made around it. Still, does this lifestyle and entertainment worth human lives when this "sport equipment" is also the most practical weapon as of date ?

please read the articles I posted in the last post particularly, the Quandry of the Gun, it has a lovely table showing violent crime rates in UK, USA, and Aus. remember homicide is a very rare crime.
edit: actually the Essay I would like you to read is this one
edit: here is a nice statistic from Aus
edit:2 here one on assault

edit3: I would like to address this point

is also the most practical weapon as of date

yes it is, guns are the only weapon that women can use as well as men. they are currently the best equalizer.

 

[RiotZ]

Violence in America is almost entirely unrelated to guns.

America is a violent culture because of our ethnic diversity, religious beliefs, and generally zealous, self-righteous nature. We will never change, we will only get worse with the increased size of our population, and the growing desparity created by the all powerful Obama and past shitty presidents (G.W.B. comes to mind).

And if you intend to kill a large quantity of people, you don't need guns to do it. That guy who shot up the Dark Knight Rises premier in Colorado did most of his damage with IEDs. I mean, you guys think guns kill people, gun don't kill people in Iraq or Afghanistan, bombs do... Explosives are the ultimate equalizer, not bullets, hell with explosives you don't even have to aim.

Ban all guns and criminals will still have them, and the rate of violence in the gun trade will skyrocket to an absurd level, much like illegal drugs. Ban Assault Weapons and people will still kill each other at a high rate.

There is no reasonable fix for this, other than ethnic cleansing, ban of religion, and improved education. Basically the model for Communism.

 

[HappyTauren]

Yep, guns are bad because people are bad. If people are good, then any tool is good.

 

[RiotZ]

Yep, guns are bad because people are bad. If people are good, then any tool is good.

Pretty much. I could beat you to death with a wrench, doesn't mean the wrench is evil. And if everyone beat each other to death with wrenches, would they ban wrenches?

Assault Wrenches Ban

 

[HappyTauren]

The only problem with guns is that they are actually tools with a very specific purpose, that has a lot to do with harming other beings or things, where a wrench is used to repair something. That being said, what I said up still stands.

 

[dracemia]

Well, the only reason we debate over guns is probably because explosives are already banned. Out of all the weapons and firearms more lethal than a combat knife, gun is still the only one you can waltz into a shop with papers and buy them legally.

I'm sure there'll be a grenade-debate too, if we can buy them legally from a nearby grenade-shop close within walking distance.


Also... In legal terms, I don't think I've heard a sentence that goes "...using a gun as a weapon" while there could be "....using a wrench as a weapon". So,I'm assuming that this means most guns are legally recognize as a weapon no matter the purpose. I'm not sure about this, if anyone is in law-school or have any knowledge on this. Feel free to correct me

 

[RiotZ]

The only problem with guns is that they are actually tools with a very specific purpose, that has a lot to do with harming other beings or things, where a wrench is used to repair something. That being said, what I said up still stands.

Gasoline and soap were not created with the intention of killing people in mind, but mix soap with gasoline and you have homeade napalm. You might as well just ban Wal-Mart...

Well, the only reason we debate over guns is probably because explosives are already banned. Out of all the weapons and firearms more lethal than a combat knife, gun is still the only one you can waltz into a shop with papers and buy them legally.

I'm sure there'll be a grenade-debate too, if we can buy them legally from a nearby grenade-shop close within walking distance.


Also... In legal terms, I don't think I've heard a sentence that goes "...using a gun as a weapon" while there could be "....using a wrench as a weapon". So,I'm assuming that this means most guns are legally recognize as a weapon no matter the purpose. I'm not sure about this, if anyone is in law-school or have any knowledge on this. Feel free to correct me

Explosives aren't banned, you can't buy them, of course not that would be bollocks. Sure if they catch you making bombs, you're in deep shit. But you can make bombs out of pretty much anything. Hairspray, Deoderant, Fertilizer, Gasoline, Diesel Fuel, Tin Foil... The list is endless. There's no way to stop violent people from being violent.

Human beings are designed to be the ultimate killing machines, and we are, we have proven so for the last 40,000 years, before we had guns we still found ways to kill each other in massive numbers, swords and bows namely.

And finally, if I smashed you over the head with a wrench it would be assault with a deadly weapon (I believe), and if I shot you and you survived, it would be assault with a deadly weapon. And of course on both attempted murder factors in.

 

[HappyTauren]

Gasoline and soap were not created with the intention of killing people in mind, but mix soap with gasoline and you have homeade napalm. You might as well just ban Wal-Mart....

Hence why I don't actually care if they are outlawed, since people always find ways.

 

[RiotZ]

Hence why I don't actually care if they are outlawed, since people always find ways.

100% agreed.

We are coming undone as a society.

 

[Zakamutt]

Current arguments seem to be proposing a false dichotomy of a weapons restriction either being 100% effective or completely worthless. I'm sure some will 'always find a way', but will everyone?

 

[Nuclear]

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

 

[RiotZ]

I'm not sure how I read the above comments.

But my stance is, banning Assault Weapons, yes it makes sense, and I agree with it, but in the end it will make no difference, the only solution to our problem is a fundemental change in philosophy.

 

[Zakamutt]

Absolutely zero difference whatsoever?
I mean, consider the probability of someone using an assault weapon instead of a common handgun if assault weapons were not legal. The point is that n(casualties / damage) will be lower due to P(higher-damage weapon used) being lower. The same argument can be applied for all levels of banning weapons; the question is if it will be sufficiently efficient or not for you, compared to any disadvantages.

 

[dracemia]

I don't believe that people are inherently evil .. (or good) but rather learnt to be either or just plain sanctimonious. So, I second any motion to improve general moral-standard with civilized process of consensus.

Less violence, more intelligence.


ps. Fun fact I saw on the internet: Guns are less regulated than women's right to abortion, globally. (replace the "women's right to abortion with the name of female genitalia for a stronger impact")

 

[HappyTauren]

This is said on technology, but you could apply the same to law, etc.

 

[RiotZ]

Absolutely zero difference whatsoever?
I mean, consider the probability of someone using an assault weapon instead of a common handgun if assault weapons were not legal. The point is that n(casualties / damage) will be lower due to P(higher-damage weapon used) being lower. The same argument can be applied for all levels of banning weapons; the question is if it will be sufficiently efficient or not for you, compared to any disadvantages.

Have you ever seen the movie Taxi Driver? Where Robert Deniro buys firearms illegally?

This brings up two points.

Rifles and other "assault weapons" can still be purchased illegally.

And you can have as many handguns as you want. Let's say 3 handguns equals 1 assault rifle, carry 6 handguns and you've got 2 assault rifles. It makes no damn difference how you cut it.

And to elaborate further on my main point.

Higher intelligence entails a more peaceful nature, the problem is, we are an unintelligent race, in fact, a cultivation of unintelligent races, who degrade the country as a whole.

Why are the Japanese, South Koreans, and Chinese so peaceful? Highest average IQ scores for any countries.

The human mind is a powerful weapon, like anything else, it can used for what you like, and what you see fit... It can topple governments, create weapons powerful enough to annihilate human life in massive proportions, or it can be used for morally healthy purposes. But it's at the discretion of the user.

Interestingly, the whole gun debate makes me think of a song called Schism, in which the lyrical premise states that we cannot advance as individuals or entire cultures without strengthening our compassion and understanding.

This is not simply about guns, it is about a bigger picture, a culture so convoluted by differing ethical beliefs and principal lack of morality, that it's tearing itself apart.

We bane our own existence, not technology.

 

[EloTheMan]

Higher intelligence entails a more peaceful nature, the problem is, we are an unintelligent race, in fact, a cultivation of unintelligent races, who degrade the country as a whole.

Why are the Japanese, South Koreans, and Chinese so peaceful? Highest average IQ scores for any countries.

The Empire of Japan slaughtered more Chinese children than Nazi Germany managed to kill Jews.

Before China was united under one flag they were in the same situation as Europe was before the Industrialization era.

Korea...


Every single place on this earth has had bloody conflicts. And its always the same reasons behind them. Honor, religion, ethnics, greed (aka power) etc.
Rarely its completely out of social reasons.

 

[RiotZ]

The Empire of Japan slaughtered more Chinese children than Nazi Germany managed to kill Jews.

Before China was united under one flag they were in the same situation as Europe was before the Industrialization era.

Korea...


Every single place on this earth has had bloody conflicts. And its always the same reasons behind them. Honor, religion, ethnics, greed (aka power) etc.
Rarely its completely out of social reasons.

I never said it's because of social reasons.

And these events occurred to long ago too hold any merit against my point. The English slaughtered the Native Americans and took their land, and here we sit. The Russians used to have mass genocides against secular groups who opposed their government.

When I said peaceful, I meant peaceful right now.

 

[ManYouAreEvil]

What, so High average IQ means less criminality? Really?

First of, IQ is as good of a measurement for intelligence as one length is for a volume, it doesn't quite tell the whole story.

Then if we compare the the list of Highest Average IQ (source) with the List of countries by intentional homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants

List

It doesn't quite add up - now does it.
Even if (in the same article, note Wikipedias source is UNODC USA has many, many more homocides than let's say China, they're not that far away in actual IQ.

Doctor Richard Lynn states in his book the Wealth of Nations that the average IQ of a nation correlates with its GDP (comparison), which could have some truth in it.

There's no coincidence that we have most homocides in the Americas and Africa (using the wikipedia article as reference), where that is where we see the most typical crime factors most ocurring. Poverty. Injustice. Corruption. Criminal Gangs. Drug Cartels.

 

[HappyTauren]

Intelligence is a resource, just like muscles. As much as muscles don't make a person more empathetic, so doesn't intelligence. Of course, those two resources are dedicated to helping a person at different tasks, but neither are required to understand empathy.

 

[dracemia]

The Empire of Japan slaughtered more Chinese children than Nazi Germany managed to kill Jews.

It's called the Nanking Massacre, There's an entire website dedicated to one of the most unbelievably violent event in the entire history of our civilization.

http://www.nanking-massacre.com/



To get back on topic, I still think a strict regulation of guns is the best option right now. No entertainment, sports or lifestyle is worth human lives whether an innocent one or not. Some people have proven to be suitable to use guns and they want to exercise their rights, so let's compromise.

 

[RiotZ]

What, so High average IQ means less criminality? Really?

First of, IQ is as good of a measurement for intelligence as one length is for a volume, it doesn't quite tell the whole story.

Then if we compare the the list of Highest Average IQ (source) with the List of countries by intentional homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants

List

It doesn't quite add up - now does it.
Even if (in the same article, note Wikipedias source is UNODC USA has many, many more homocides than let's say China, they're not that far away in actual IQ.

Doctor Richard Lynn states in his book the Wealth of Nations that the average IQ of a nation correlates with its GDP (comparison), which could have some truth in it.

There's no coincidence that we have most homocides in the Americas and Africa (using the wikipedia article as reference), where that is where we see the most typical crime factors most ocurring. Poverty. Injustice. Corruption. Criminal Gangs. Drug Cartels.

This argument is laughable... China has 1.2 billion people, America has 310 million. So China has 4x more people and a similar homicide rate. Half the countries on their with low murder rates can't compare in size to countries like the US or China.

IQ is a rough estimation of overall intelligence, more intelligent people are less emotional and therefore less likely to commit a violent act, regardless of circumstance.

Now take a look at the murder rate in African countries, and take a look at their IQ averages (in most cases sub-80s.) How's it adding up now?

Furthermore you can't account for all the violent/low IQ people by just looking at the country averages, of those 13,000 homicides what is the average IQ of the killer, and this we will probably never know. Have a look at the IQs of people who have committed homicides, and I'm sure they'll score average or lower.

And finally, IQ is the only solid representation of Static and Crystalized Intelligence, and it seems to bear out in my favor when relates to violence. I wouldn't discount things like Mensa on self-insecurities. My IQ is only 110 something, but I don't discount it as an inaccurate figure.

 

[Nuclear]

IQ and GDP are related in a way. World's average IQ has been rising because of better and healthier living conditions and environment for children to develop. So wealth affects IQ, which then might affect GDP. Not sure how this is related to gun discussion.

PS. Curse you all, I spilled my tea while typing this.

 

[Zakamutt]

Have you ever seen the movie Taxi Driver? Where Robert Deniro buys firearms illegally? [snip more stuff]

You're using a movie to make an argument about reality. What the fuck. You're using song lyrics in your argument. You think twin/more handguns are as practical as assault rifles.

What the fuck.

----

I see some calls for improving the morality of humans in the thread. While this is certainly a goal I can get behind, it can hardly be the only thing that regulates human behaviour. Again, I can see a call for a more perfect solution here. Let's think pragmatically for a bit?

Sorry if this comes out a little bit sharp, I'm kinda depressed right now.

 

[RiotZ]

You're using a movie to make an argument about reality. What the fuck. You're using song lyrics in your argument. You think twin/more handguns are as practical as assault rifles.

What the fuck.

----

I see some calls for improving the morality of humans in the thread. While this is certainly a goal I can get behind, it can hardly be the only thing that regulates human behaviour. Again, I can see a call for a more perfect solution here. Let's think pragmatically for a bit?

Sorry if this comes out a little bit sharp, I'm kinda depressed right now.

I'm sorry bro, but it was a really good movie. If you wanna be a dick, that's okay too. I didn't realize you were the standard for intellectual high ground LOL.

Handguns are as practical as rifles at close range, same with shotguns. I mean it doesn't really make a difference, I could kill you with a clothes hangers, a handgun, or a shotgun, or a rifle.

Also, I realized something strange, if you combine the European murder rate, it's the same or more than the US murder rate... And Europe combined is similar in population size as well to the US...

 

[Nuclear]

Comparing Europe and US doesn't really work, since Europe has a wide variety of countries in it with great differences in laws, wealth, etc.

 

[HappyTauren]

Comparing USA to itself shouldn't work either, if you compare the coasts with the misbegotten lands known as 'central america'.

 

[RiotZ]

Comparing Europe and US doesn't really work, since Europe has a wide variety of countries in it with great differences in laws, wealth, etc.

The differences in laws, GDP and ethnicity and religion are very much like the differences in the US states.

I am just saying, similar murder rates for similar sized populations. Whereas China's murder rate is ridiculously low for how big a population they have, which I attribute to higher intelligence among common people.

And @ HappyTauren, when I say America I mean the US, not sure if you thought I meant Mexico, Brasil, Canada and all the other countries when I say "America."