2012-07-28, 16:33 | Link #61 | ||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Now I don't think you can ever fully stop gangs getting their hands on weapons, but by using gun control you can restrict the supply and up the prices so much that the gangs can never hope to be able to stand up to the police forces of the country, and so can never be too blatant in their criminal activities. They're restricted to more difficult ways to earn money like illicit goods. Quote:
Quote:
The reason they use drugs (and other illicit items) to make money is that they're not strong enough to get people to part with their money unwillingly. The Mexican drug cartels don't bother to sell drugs in Mexico, because they know they can just get everyone's money by simply waving a gun in front of them. In the USA, they know that won't fly, so they have to get people to part with their money voluntarily, by selling them something irresistible (drugs), and they can maintain obscenely high returns on that by ensuring they're the only supplier in an area, and so don't have to compete on price. It so happens that drugs are a particularly easy good to get a monopoly over (because it's illegal, and highly desirable). If your drug supplier jacks up the prices (due to a monopoly), you can't exactly go to the consumer watchdog the way you can with laundromats. Quote:
|
||||
2012-07-28, 18:43 | Link #62 | ||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the time organized crimes have that much influence, you (and the country you're in) is already fk'd. Quote:
You're treating organized crime as some sort of insurgency with the goal of supplanting and usurping the government, which is fundamentally flawed. And even if we entertain your notion and assume it's true, your method of fighting them is local civilian gun control laws? That's trying to fight a forest fire with a toy water gun. Crime is a social-economic issue, and that's where it'll need to be addressed. Gun is not what caused the cartels to spiral out of control in Mexico, nor would any gun control law solve those problems. |
||||
2012-07-28, 20:11 | Link #63 | ||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The reason gun control is important is that it reduces the number of guns in circulation, and consequently increases their price in the black market, making it much more difficult for crime syndicates to gain the power necessary to conduct their illicit businesses. With a functioning gun control regime they may have enough weapons for limited engagements, but nowhere near enough to conduct full on Mexico-style wars. Quote:
Furthermore, with guns added to the equation the cost of law enforcement goes way up. If your average criminal does not have a gun (as in the UK), then they can usually be subdued by two policemen with batons. Give him a handgun, and suddenly you need multiple officers with expensive equipment to subdue him. You'll also have a lot less people volunteering for the police force if getting shot by criminals is a frequent occurence, and cops will be a lot less willing to confront criminals, after all no one wants to be a hero. Britain has a well functioning gun control regime. Consider the London Riots last year, imagine how much worse it would have been if all those thugs had had guns? The roving gangs of them would have easily overwhelmed any honest citizen trying to defend his property, and the police would have experienced significant casualties trying to subdue them, in fact the army might have been ultimately required. If such a riot were to occur in the US, I shudder to think what the casualties and expense to subdue it would be. |
||||||
2012-07-28, 23:13 | Link #64 | ||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
We can go around in circles forever, suffice to say that we're never going to see eye to eye on this.
Quote:
Quote:
Oh yea, and the gangs and mafias are doing just fine in China, and they have little problem smuggling and producing their own weapons. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2012-07-29, 05:49 | Link #65 | |||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Also, local circulation of weapons is very important in determining weapon prices. If everyone and his mother owns a gun, you don't need to go to Colombia to get a gun. The black market price for a gun will approach the real market value of a gun, as they'll be extremely easy to obtain. It's the difference between a criminal organisation being able to get 2 guns, and being able to get 200 guns. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you decided to get some friends together and hold your neighbour's property to ransom, would you get away with it? Or would you get busted by the police? You might manage it once, or maybe even twice, but it wouldn't take long for you to be reported and for the police to come down on you. The same doesn't occur in the less controlled parts of Mexico. Quote:
Of course rioters won't be a private army, but they can still kill a lot of policemen (and each other) before getting subdued. If everyone has a gun, and there's no law and order, what would logically happen? |
|||||
2012-07-29, 06:59 | Link #66 | ||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Sigh, your red herrings are starting to get pretty old.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110...0-percent-myth Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.forensiccolleges.net/blog...rican-history/ Quote:
Quote:
Let's try to keep these discussion at least somewhat close to the realm of the plausible. At this point you're pretty much saying that the availability of civilian firearms will lead to the downfall of societies and governments. |
||||||||
2012-07-29, 07:58 | Link #67 | ||||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So if the guns are cheap, and no limits exist on who can buy them, then most people with a criminal disposition will try to obtain one, be it through a licensed dealer, or second hand (just like they manage to get alcohol they technically can't buy). Once the youth has almost ubiquitously armed itself with guns, then most of the rest of the population will get guns as well, for self defense, even those who would otherwise prefer not to own one. Once a riot occurs, with all the opportunities for looting it offers, you'd be a fool not to use your gun, especially in a situation where physical strength is the only law. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is possible to have gun ownership and restrict the flow of weapons to organised crime and other extra legal organisations. I would simply do the following: 1. Limit all residents and citizens to 2 weapons, 1 of which is a small arm (pistol, handgun), the other being a rifle or shotgun, with exceptions for those possessing a hunting or sports license. 2. Require all gun sales to be carried out through licensed gun vendors. 3. Require all guns sold to be registered to a single individual, and listed on a government database. You must have a certificate showing you know how to use the gun, and are of sound mind, with no criminal past, or connections. 4. Reselling a gun, or allowing it fall out of your possession will be an prisonable offense. 5. Allowing your gun to be stolen will be a prisonable offense unless you can prove you took adequate precautions to secure it against theft, which are listed by the government. 6. If your gun is used in any kind of felony, unless you can prove you adequately secured the gun, you are also responsible. 7. A gun may only be disposed of by selling it back to a licensed vendor, or selling it to a government armory, or having the transfer of the license approved by the state authority, with the new owner listed on the state's database. Gun laws in the United States are lax in comparison, if you wanted to you can buy unlimited number of guns (who really needs more then 1 for self defense?), and you don't need to register a gun that's bought at a gun fair. It's not banning guns outright (as that would be anathema to most americans), it's about control. |
||||||||
2012-07-29, 09:20 | Link #69 |
The Most Hated™
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A random coordinate on the space-time continuum
Age: 36
|
the thing is everyone blames the guns for causing victims but it is actually the people who handle the guns are the culprits...
my opinion is that every country has its own laws 4 this stuff and i agree perfectly to it. The problem is that you get the document for keeping and using the guns, but it should be regulated by controlled periodical check-ups that the person who has a gun hasn't gotten nuts, or has some psycho issues. about self defense, or saving your loved ones. ....no bullet will stop me....hell they will need a bazooka to stop me and pray for it to hit me before i get to them cuz if i get to them i tear the guy(s) to pieces with bare hands....and then i will be sentenced for murder of extreme cruelty. if someone needs a gun they should be prepared to defend themselves without one too. cuz i think murder for self defense is not justified either. think of the thief too.. it has a family...a kid.. will you be happy if someone killed your relative.. NO... then.think of it this way... murder is not the answer...learn martial arts so you can incapacitate your victim but killing is too much. we should not carry out death....that is someone else's job(depends on religion).
__________________
|
2012-07-29, 11:22 | Link #70 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
There have been enough cases of a thief surviving and then *suing* the home owner that most legal analysts say if you are forced to defend yourself in your home you should kill the intruder.
1) If they survive, they are likely to sue. 2) If they are in your home while you're there you can assume they are willing to kill you.
__________________
|
2012-07-29, 11:25 | Link #71 | ||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Sigh, and it continues...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nobody is arguing that there should not be any regulation, but the regulation you're proposing is just so far out there it's not even funny, nor is your outlandish claims that civilian grade weaponry will allow organized crimes to topple governments (the Syrian rebels would wish it was so easy). Your slipper slope fallacies are so slippery it can probably sling shot you straight to the moon. |
||||||
2012-07-29, 11:58 | Link #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Martin was convicted for manslaughter and possession of an illegal weapon which resulted in a 5 year conviction. The surviving burglar got convicted for burglary and was sentenced to 3 years. There was a bit of a mess with early paroles after. There was no self defense case as Martin used excessive force on a fleeing unarmed opponent. Martin was lucky to get off with a reduced sentence on appeal, due to a psychological condition. He was initially charged with murder and could have received a life sentence. |
|
2012-07-29, 13:00 | Link #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 47
|
"Yea, that's why the Mexican cartels are totally not sourcing the majority of their weapons from south america! oh wait... "
No your correct, this is courtesy of Operation Fast and Furious, an operation put in use by our own BATFE! And the effects are devastating! They were attempting to track where the illegal weapons were going, and let them go over the border...guess what they were never recovered and people died! It was a result of what's calmed "straw sales" where a person without legal means of purchasing a firearm, finds a "patsy" and gives then money to buy the guns for them, it is very illegal. And yet the ATF let these guns go south so they could find the cartel bosses. It's a huge debacle and a senate committee is investigating and has issued subpoenas and arrest warrants for those agents involved as well as Eric Holder! Government corruption is one thing, but it's stupidity is another. |
2012-07-29, 14:17 | Link #75 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Stupidity has always basically defined the BATFE... and it shows how hard it is to eliminate an agency that executes disaster after incompetent disaster and is redundant to the mandates of other agencies.
__________________
|
2012-07-29, 15:25 | Link #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 47
|
Quote:
And besides, I think much of the arms that are showing up in Mexico might have been provided by Colombia, they are or were the drug traffickers of the world at one point, and had millions of dollars to spend on arms. In any event I do not favor gun control, as it simply doesn't work! |
|
2012-07-29, 18:06 | Link #77 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Key facts from the article: 1) The United States has roughly 88 guns per 100 people. Most other countries have 10 guns per 100 people. The country with the second highest number of guns per people is Yemen, at 54 per 100. 2) America has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That's 4x more than Switzerland, 10x more than India, and 20x more than England and Australia. (This point is not surprising in light of point #1.) 3) Within America: "In the decade since the year 2000, violent crime rates fell by 20 percent; aggravated assault by 22 percent; motor vehicle theft by 42 percent; murder – by all weapons – by 13 percent. But guns are the exception. Gun homicide rates haven’t improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000. Meanwhile, serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent, as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier." These are the facts. How do you explain them? There are two potential explanations. One is that American society is unhealthy and/or houses more deranged individuals than other societies, which seems unlikely. The second is that we're dealing with a reality brought about by having more gun ownership. I'm not fully convinced that gun laws are the answer, but the facts stand as they are. If American society wants its guns, that's all fine and well - but we need to accept that there are consequences.
__________________
|
|
2012-07-29, 18:18 | Link #78 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I would question the notion that "getting automatic weapons has become easier". Automatic weapons are still illegal outside museums, government/military/police forces, and private historical collections.
__________________
|
2012-07-29, 18:37 | Link #79 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Articles like that usually tries to paint the presence of gun as the cause of crimes, which completely flies in the face of reality, as crime is a social-economic at its core. If the mere presence of gun causes more crimes, then shouldn't the overall crime rate be increasing instead given the relaxation of gun control laws? The bottom line is, crimes in the US will not go away even if a magical device sudden took away every single firearms in the country. Trust me, a machete will works just well. Not that banning firearms will prevent criminals from obtaining them, just ask the DEA how that war on drugs is going The only way gun control will work is if you completely ban the sale, manufacturing, and ownership of all firearms, and destroy all current stocks along with all methods of manufacturing them ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET. which will then just set you back to the medieval age as far as weaponry goes, which as we all know had no problems with violent crimes right? |
|
2012-07-29, 18:42 | Link #80 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Regardless, it seems rather obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if you have more guns, you can expect to have more gun-related injuries and deaths. Remove the guns, and you will have less. It is impossible to completely eliminate guns from society (not only because society would throw a fit, but because some criminals will always find a way to get hold of guns). It is also impossible to completely eliminate murder, assault, and theft. But reduce guns, and you reduce gun-related murder, gun-related assault, and gun-related theft. Again, it's a question of what society wants. The use of cars are responsible for many deaths and injuries, but we can't ban cars; they are deemed too vital to society. Are guns vital enough to society that we'll just have to accept the deaths and injuries related to them? It's society's choice, and the consequences of that choice are society's responsibility.
__________________
|
|
|
|