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. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Comparing guns with nuclear weapons is ridiculous. When nuclear weapons are launched, you can get the info of them coming for you early, and you can send yours. Guns on the other hand do their job practically instantly, there's no time for you to shoot yours before their bullet hits you. Balance of terror doesn't work that way.

    @dracemia
    [​IMG]
     
  2. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    You guys are thick, honestly.

    Guns act as a deterrent for other guns, for the same reason as nuclear weapons in every way.

    Ex. Person A wants to rob Person X, Person A pursues this idea until realizing that Person X has a firearm (or 6 lol), and decides it would be unwise to rob the house when Person X is home, or to rob the house at all.

    The thought of instant death usually propels people away from taking part in it.

    You're not going to get into a fight with someone who has a gun, simple because he can kill you, and you don't really want to die.

    Now I don't think it's wise for everyone to have guns, that's not what I'm saying, but what I am saying is human nature outweighs any semblance of your broken logic.

    It doesn't matter what you think, the honest truth is guns scare people, 90% of people, they have the same effect as those "Beware of Dog" signs. In fact I think their should be signs that state if someone is armed or not in regions where crime is high.
     
  3. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    You're not going to put up a sign that says "I have a gun, so don't even try" on your door, and you're not going to say that to everyone you meet, most people have no way of knowing about the gun.
     
  4. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    That's actually why your logic doesn't work in real life. You don't know if anyone is carrying a gun or not and you may find this hard to believe but if guns are really that a common object people so frequently find others carrying, there would be no gun community because it'd be too common to have a specific community of it.

    I'm sorry but the majority of people don't carry guns and people who commit gun-crimes don't plan out their strategy, either you have a gun or not, the first sign of resisting, they'll shoot you anyway. Because, like I said, guns are so easy to use, it's hard not to use them when you are carrying one even if other people might shoot back. That's simple logic.


    And your last sentence is exactly why it doesn't work, no one is carrying a gun in the open or hang a sign that say I'm armed with a glock. So, if I want to rob someone with a gun, chances are that they don't own a gun and if they do, I'm just going to shoot mine anyway.


    I'm actually repeating that a lot.



    But your deterrence scenario might work if you carry the gun like them cowboys in the past, you know out in the open, easy to notice and to reach.
     
  5. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    You guys still miss the point. The only way to stop people from doing something is to instill fear. I wasn't referring to people carrying guns, I was referring to houses. Did you guys miss the "Beware of Dog" example? Those are on houses and fences, not on cardboard signs that people wear. Quit trying to mix and match my words at your convenience.

    All I said is that if its common for people to be armed, and you're afraid of being shot, you won't do anything that would prompt someone to shoot you. This is purely hypothetical, and the theory of deterrence.

    And why the fuck does there need to be a gun community... I think the words gun and community don't fit in the first place.
     
  6. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I don't think you can make the comparison between dog sign and gun ownership.
    [​IMG]
     
  7. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    [​IMG]
    also there is another Sign I've seen that says, Patroled by John Deere, Guarded by Winchester.

    stop right there, you are punished for using guns in such a way that they take away someone else's unalienable rights, and again the tenth amendment, and again I ask you, where in the Constitution does it say the Fed Government has the right to manage guns? you are avoiding addressing this point, instead you are attempting to compare apples to oranges


    You are missing the point guns do not mean more violence, as austrlia and england both show (by the rapid rise in violent crime after guns were practically outlawed)

    show me a statistic that proves that outlawing guns reduces violence. give one logical argument, where your main point doesn't depend on emotion.
    (the quote below is an excellent example of a pathos based argument)

    what the above article says is that kellermans ratio is inherently flawed.

    Edit: I would like you to tell me how many successful self defense cases are carried out without a gun every year.
    If you want me to address any point, just tell me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  8. Zakamutt

    Zakamutt

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I'm way too lazy to find sources for any statement to counter Ender at the moment (He's winning). However I must nitpick on using the constitution as an argument. Really, it's an argument from false authority; the right to bear arms was instituted in a completely different time than the current, and unlikely to be based on much research.
     
  9. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Are you sure about that?

    Would you really rob someone if you knew there was a good chance you would die?
     
  10. Zakamutt

    Zakamutt

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Given that I'd pull my gun first, I doubt my victim would dare to do anything. I'm fairly confident in my ability to hit a target at close range.
     
  11. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    offtopic to Zakamutt
    how is now a completely different time? Human nature doesn't change. you will always have people who wish to assert unjust dominion over other people.
    Do you know what the purpose of the second amendment is? one of the reasons the USA won its revolution, is that everyone had a gun. The reason its the second amendment is because right after the freedom of speech. the right to defend your liberty is really important. The reason they even put it in there despite all of the opposition against it, one of which was Madison, was they did not want the government to infringe upon the rights that they viewed as essential for liberty. (the reason there was an opposition against it is that people, like Madison, were concerned that the government would eventually decide that the only rights people had were the rights expressly stated in the Constitution, hence the tenth amendment.
    also how is it false authority? Until the Constitution changes it is law.

    do you know how many years of research went into the writing of the constutition? do you know how many years Madison spent researching past governments? (remember the bill of rights is based off of Virginia's bill of rights, which was written by George Mason with input from Madison


    edit:
    No you wouldn't, instead you would rob someone without a gun. its a whole lot safer.

    Edit here is an essay that discusses DGU(defensive gun use) The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  12. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Haha no.

    Ender summed it up much better than I. Both arguments are sound, but in the end the truth is nothing will happen no matter what we do we are destined for continual violence and failure.
     
  13. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Because, like I said, It does sound really stupid if we all pretend that the government doesn't have the the rights to regulate behavior that is deemed a threat to other citizens.

    I'm not avoiding it, it is a common thing that there is nothing to discuss about... but since you brought it up, by your logics then I suppose the hate-speech law is also a breach of Constitutional rights because just like guns, they're regulating your freedom of speech.

    Now, you see why I don't address this point. Every rights you have come with limit and regulations, I'm still baffled as to why people who own guns feel like one right is above others.


    If you want to pull legal terms, you'll have to talk to someone else. I'm sure someone might have brought up the same question you did, the "Where in the constitutional rights does it say the government can regulate our rights ?" and I'm not going to look it up for you because the idea of absolute freedom with no limitation is beyond stupid for a democratic country. It's like ..the fundamental foundations of democracy, you know.

    I'm not, you are. We're talking about gun crimes and homicide by guns, other crimes are not being addressed here. This is another simple logic. Reducing access to guns obviously mean less guns in crimes, as I've stated in the previous post that not every criminal seek out guns as a weapon but rather it was in their ownership when they commit a crime with it.

    I'm not saying that gun is a factor in violent behavior, we've established that human is violent in nature, there's no denying in that. I'm talking about gun-crimes.

    I might phrased those arguments emotionally but that doesn't mean the statements themselves are illogical tho.

    That could work for crimes that need to be planned ahead, house robbery or store robbery. Still didn't stop people from actually doing it, sadly.

    And considering how most gun crimes aren't well-thoughts robbery, this theory won't be as effective when it's applied to street-walkers.

    I'm saying this for the last time. I don't think desperate people who decided to rob someone would be thinking clearly as to "This guy might have a gun too".

    He's going to show up in front (or from behind you) with a gun pointing at you. Whether you have a gun yourself or not is irrelevant to him, the moment you pull out a gun, a knife, putting up a fist or running away, he shoots you. Whatever the outcome, someone is going to get hurt really bad.

    So, unless you hang your gun on the belt like them cowboys. There's no way this robber guy could know you have a gun and stop himself from trying to rob you in the first place.


    This is for crimes outside households, of course.

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

    Here's some fun questions for you think about.

    If guns are fully legal, no restriction what-so-ever, would that solve the gun crimes and gun violent ?
     
  14. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    again, we see that he has no response for the fact that if you remove guns violence goes up, I am not talking about places that never allowed guns in the first place, I am talking about in places that guns were once legal in. so are you willing to triple crime?a pathos argument remember before england and austrlia banned guns they had a lower violent crime rate then the USA, now they have thrice ours.


    source
    so what if the attacker gets hit? the attacker has already decided to step outside of the law. Now if the victim get injured, that is a different situation but,

    so if you use a gun to defend yourself, you have a 5.5% chance of getting hurt
    and be aware that in
    so deciding to defend yourself with a weapon, does not provoke the attacker (according to their sample set of 217 cases)

    if you pull out a gun you have a 4.5% chance of being shot at(this does not mean hit, remember criminals have a 18% chance to hit.)
    Dracemia, please read this well written article on DGU, take it with a grain of salt (as the article itself encourages you to)

    about the constitution
    .
    How my my logic, you see guns don't threaten peoples right to be safe in their homes and person.

    First off is free speech banned? no, law doesn't work that way, instead what you do is proscribed punishment for those who would infringe on others rights.

    Animals are, People are what they've done. any attack on someones reputation, slander, can be considered an attack on their person, in fact it is usually far more damaging (with out your reputation what are you?). So should we ban speech? Words have killed trillions of people. Single phrases have mutilated thousands . A single cry has caused widespread revolutions. Words have murdered thousands of innocent children, Committed genocide, Infanticide, Caused wars that have consumed the entire world. Speech is the most dangerous weapon. Ridiculous you say, this is so stupid, why would you even think that? well maybe it is stupid and ridiculous. But every war was caused by words. Sometimes a speech, a call to arms. It has caused every genocide, "everyone who is (insert race here) is inferior" "they aren't like us". Every single mass atrocity has been caused by words "go kill every tenth person in such and such village" "go strap a bomb onto yourself and you will go to heaven". So should we ban speech? No, only punish those who misuse their freedom in an attack on someone else's freedom. The constitution allows this ("safe in their person and property"), but, remember we don't ban speech because someone might slander someone, we don't ban speech because someone might start a lynch mob. Instead all we do is tell people that if they misuse their right of free speech, and encroach on someone else's right, they lose some of their freedoms.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
  15. Zakamutt

    Zakamutt

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Ugh, statistics. After looking at stuff, the inter-comparability is just... Man. Anyway, compare fig.4 and fig.5 here. (looks like you might have to copy this one due to its extreme length, seems to have borked the forum).

    The homicide rate in the UK is in fact lower than the rate of homicides in the US. (somewhat recent stats; rates appear to have been relatively stable). I must admit it is not significantly lower.

    It should be noted that in the UK crime report I found (Table A.01) the rate of crimes in which serious wounds were inflicted is at 0.8%.

    For what it's worth, this lists the intentional homicide rate of the US as 4 times that of the UK. It appears well-sourced.
    (found something else to support this: UN Intentional Homicide Report)

    Given the low sample size, are you sure this can be trusted?

    Part of the problem concerning UK statistics of gun violence is the prevalence of air weapons, of which crimes were not registered in the years before the 1997 firearms acts:
    Yeah, Wikipedia again. God I'm lazy.

    What I've found so far indicates the possibility that strict gun control has no effect on crime rates, up or down. The question then becomes what percentage of crimes result in serious injuries, and if people feel less or more safe in a country with a high prevalence of guns. Personally I would be fucking creeped out if I walked around in a place where everyone had guns, but that's cultural.

    Moar contitutional shiz
    Human nature may not have changed, but the structure of the places humans live in certainly have. Researching past civilizations seems rather silly, as they will be even further removed from current conditions.

    Regarding "argument from false authority", this relates to a potential fallacy where one uses an authority that does not have good knowledge of the subject at hand, not laws. I suppose I should have used "argument from misleading authority", really. Whether you believe a man could predict the future structure of civilization and its effects on crime etc more than a 100 years forward is your prerogative, I guess.

    I have more to say on this topic if required, but it's just an aside anyway :f.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013
  16. HappyTauren

    HappyTauren

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    8,408
    Resources:
    87
    Models:
    61
    Icons:
    23
    Packs:
    1
    Tutorials:
    2
    Resources:
    87
    This thread has boiled down to the "does adding mayonnaise make a sandwich toxic" debate. It could, but it really depends on how the immune system handles it, which means this is highly individual. While the ban of guns might make some riot, it would also probably make many people withdraw guns. While the law that completely permits all kinds of weapons would make some psychopaths cash in, some people would just become more careful, etc.
     
  17. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    I really don't think you know anything about gun violence. It is not what you see on TV, mass shootings where people die, it is mostly gang-related, or related to rape, and robbery. The other cases are much rarer than the ladder. And the ladder crime entail intent, intent entails intelligence, and intelligence means you can decide whether or not it's smart to rob someone as dangerous as your self.

    These are my last points, since they completely diffuse your entire argument.

    80-/+% of all gun violence is with illegal weapons, a statistic I read to no surprise a few days ago.

    When you account for gun violence and don't account for other crimes you are one, disposing of your own, self-stated moral high-ground, and two making a completely illogical assumption that gun violence, and crime are unrelated, which is senseless, seeing how most gun violence comes from petty crime and not the shooting rampages you saw on TV that made you get all antsy. There were 500 gang-related shootings in Chicago last year.
     
  18. Zakamutt

    Zakamutt

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Sauce?

    Also, I realize it might take awhile to read my sources - I still haven't really begun on the defensive gun use essay more than a page or so - but I think I have made some valid arguments based on statistics. Take your time, I guess, and feel free to ignore Dracemia.
     
  19. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Okay, I think you two are conflicting with what you were arguing about earlier or you might have mistaken my stands (at least Ender is) So, I'm sorry but you might have diffuse my argument if we're actually talking on the same page.


    We've established that human is violent in nature, there's no stopping that. Violent and crimes are always going to happen.

    Now, in this thread that talks about Gun Right and Gun Control, I said on numerous occasion that I support a more strict regulation of guns, not a total ban. Nobody is calling for your guns to be taken away, but we're calling for a harder to access gun restriction. I even specifically list the reasons of why we need to deal with gun crimes separately from other crimes

    So, I brought up gun crimes and gun violent, which is a part of violent and one of the few actual national problem that occur so often, it has its own category in the list of national problems.


    Now, Ender keep on insisting that gun is not a factor in violent, which I'm not replying to because I agree and I moved on to other points like how it's so hard not to use a gun in your hands when it's so easy to use and it's more unlikely to find a gun-owner to rob on the street (or even in households) because guns aren't really that common to find among many areas of the country.

    So, can we please get back to gun control and more strict gun regulation now ?

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


    Now to actually conflicting my own words, The US is known to have the highest rate of gun-ownership in the world in sheer numbers alone the average of 88 out of 100 people, according to here.


    But that's not what it sounds like, the number doesn't represent each states as its own with its own laws and people, an area with a lot of gun-owners can raise that number up. That's how statistics, we all know that.


    I'm not denying that the US isn't the country with the most problem with gun violent but comparing that with other 1st world country, such as the UK or Australia (as per Ender's examples)

    The US turn out to be the only 1st world country with exceedingly high rate of gun violent and gun homicide with other comparatively advance nations, like the UK, Australia, Europian nations, India. 60 percent of homicide in the US occur with firearms while other gun-permeated like Finland (with the rate of gun-ownership at 45.3 out of 100 people) have only 19 percent of homicide involving firearms.


    Maybe, that's why they announced gun-violent as a national problem. You guys are not the worst out there, Italy or African countries have it worse.

    ...but the US shouldn't have been up there among 2nd world country in this aspect.

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

    Also, I found that this statistic map will illustrate these points.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map


    and then there's this site I found that have strangely suspicion statistics. (because they don't directly link their source)
    --------------------------------


    I'm sorry I didn't finish that essay you linked me, Ender. I was reading it when I saw the term "Defensive Gun Use" and I stopped reading it, that it was obvious that the author will try to mask the true nature of firearms in that essay.

    As I've stated so many time, there's nothing defensive about firing a gun. That's called fighting back. I'm not belaying the author's point (mostly because I did not finish it) but I'm sure it'll turn out to be convincing because it's obviously bias with information.


    You know how to use gun defensively ? Hold it side-way and deflect a bullet with it. That's the defensive use of a gun. Holding it and pointing it at someone is threatening. Firing it, is called attacking. (Fighting back)
    --------------------------------------------------

    You want my personal experience ? Here's what I told Jazztastic about my personal experience

     
  20. RiotZ

    RiotZ

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,722
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    There are no 100% solid statistics.

    But according to this blog, and police sources (which are scattered) it is over 90% of gun violence, and over 95% of homicides.

    http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635

    "The overwhelming majority of gun related crimes are committed with guns that have been stolen, and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime."

    The legal purchaser is almost never the one who commits the crime, and based on how the gun trade works.