Jump to content

Gun Control 5


Stubby

Recommended Posts

From the other thread... Correlation doesn't equal causation. Or at least that is what I learned in school. Gang bangers in the inner city might own guns (illegally I might point out) and also use them to kill each other. That doesn't mean that a law-abiding citizen will be murdered because they like to go hunting.

Countries with extremely high gun ownership percentages oriented towards hunting normally have strict gun control laws as well. See Sweden and Finland for example. They also have low rate of gun related killings, too.

Interestingly, nobody goes around these parts roaring about their right to bear arms. Hunting is a fairly normal part of our culture, I suppose, but it's also seen as extremely important to conduct yourself properly as a gun owner and that everything should be administered and licensed properly, with emphasis on security. Even in Finland, which is like the most hardcore country on the planet, easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But who's "they" here? I believe it was AncalagonTheBlack who made the coparison with India. On the linked site you can compare US data with any country in the world.

^^^ This.

I made the comparison between the US and India to show that even though India has nearly 3x the population of the US,the US has nearly 7x the no. of guns.You guys have way too many guns,what are you so afraid of that you need so many ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyanna,

What kind of controls are in place in Sweden and Finland?

I know that in Norway all guns have to be stored in a locked gun cabinet, and I believe that they cannot be loaded outside of designated hunting areas and shooting ranges. Mind you, that last part I was told by my cousin who hunts, but I assume he knows what the rules are.

In addition there are fairly strict background checks (much stricter these days), and a longish wait period.

The reason I bring Norway up in connection to Finland and Sweden is that the percentage of the population owning guns are about the same and that the gun fatalities are broadly similar as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ProsessK,

Again regulations of that type are well worth discussing.

There are other restrictions, such as a ban on automatic and semi automatic rifles, as well as pistols. They can be aquired through membership in a gun club (though that too is up for discussion these days), but require going through a rather strenous process of background checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I get from most pro-gun arguments is that in the US you need a gun to protect yourself from all the people who have a gun... Somehow, this "logic" is lost on me.

So when criminals start breaking into law-abiding citizens' houses with RPGs, what are the good citizens gonna get to defend their families? M-16s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I get from most pro-gun arguments is that in the US you need a gun to protect yourself from all the people who have a gun... Somehow, this "logic" is lost on me.

The logic of being unable to face an armed intruder with no means of defense, is lost on me.

So when criminals start breaking into law-abiding citizens' houses with RPGs, what are the good citizens gonna get to defend their families? M-16s?

Try an argument that people can take seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lorien,

I believe his point is that RPGs aren't available on the public market and you don't see criminals in the US toting RPGs because of that ban.

TLD,

An RPG is difficult to conceal and when used makes a great deal of noise something criminals tend to want to avoid. As such, while I acknowledge your point the legal ban may not be the only reason we don't see criminals totting RPGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling a gun in a situation where you have been punched would count in the US as a defensive use of a firearm, it is actually a dangerously reckless escalation of a situation. Facing down a burglar with a gun is insanity, unless he is entering the room in which you or your family are. People in crime surveys who state they have used a gun against criminals are often reporting arguments that wouldn't have got out of hand if there had been no guns, or situations where they have imbecilically put themselves and their families in harm's way because of their inability to calculate risk.

That place had some weird looking dudes in it. The fact that these guns seem to instinctively attract weirdos is definitely a black mark, no offence to any of our gun-owning boarders

yeah, am now wondering if there's a correspondence of cause among those sufficiently afflicted by antisocial disorders to escalate a disagreement to firearm "self defense" and those who commit mass murder. instead of medical treatment for the mentally disabled, the US offers an unrestricted right to firearms so they can self-medicate their phobias, paranoias, and psychoses. teabaggerism's resistance to health insurance reform and to gun control are accordingly the same policy.

i.e., use the gun & nazi memorabilia shows as the broom to sweep up the usual suspects and get them the medical treatment that they need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic of being unable to face an armed intruder with no means of defense, is lost on me.

Surely though, if less people had guns, less people would need guns... no?

Try an argument that people can take seriously.

You just said yourself that people need to be able to defend themselves against an armed intruder. If you need a gun to defend yourself in front of someone with a gun, what will you do when criminals start using more dangerous weapons than guns?

Lorien,

I believe his point is that RPGs aren't available on the public market and you don't see criminals in the US toting RPGs because of that ban.

TLD,

An RPG is difficult to conceal and when used makes a great deal of noise something criminals tend to want to avoid. As such, while I acknowledge your point the legal ban may not be the only reason we don't see criminals totting RPGs.

While the point was an purposeful exaggeration to make a point, you understand what I meant. Just because something is banned doesn't mean criminals have easier access to it.

I'm certainly not an advocate of a complete ban on guns, that would surely be counterproductive. I was just expressing the fact that I don't understand the logic that some pro-gun people are using that says that "more guns means more safety". There are more guns in the US than anywhere else in the world, surely then the US should be the safest place on earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made the comparison between the US and India to show that even though India has nearly 3x the population of the US,the US has nearly 7x the no. of guns.You guys have way too many guns,what are you so afraid of that you need so many ?

I misunderstood your post then. I took it to read:

[statistics showing there are lots more guns in the US than in India.]

Followed by:

[statistics attempting to make out that people are almost as likely to get murdered by guns in India as in the US.]

Sorry if that was not what you were trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic of being unable to face an armed intruder with no means of defense, is lost on me.

I've got a feeling that if you face an armed intruder who's really willing to hurt you, no gun would be of any help whatsoever. And if this hypothetical intruder (even if armed) is not really willing to hurt you, he would probably ends up dead himself anyway, if you had a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...