UN Global Gun Ban?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Eh, you do realise that the crimes committed with fire-arms is still close to 400,00, right? Just imagine if those guns were taken away! The number of crimes committed with fire-arms would be...wait a second...I'm working this out...Hmmm...getting close...got it: 0. That's nice, isn't it?

Hi, Krunk! You have yet to prove your bullshit point you started with here🙂 Whenever you want to take a step out of fantasy land and share something other then your opinion with say um, facts, I would love to converse further with you.

Your points are so powerful let me also add, feed the world, end starvation! Wow I think I just found a way to end World hunger also, its amazing, no your amazing Krunk.shit

Well Bardock and he do love their fantasy land........They have a honeymoon suite too......... 😍

Originally posted by Soleran
Hi, Krunk!

Koo-eee, Soleeeeeerannnn! Over here! Are you paying attention, little one? Good. I shall begin...

Originally posted by Soleran
You have yet to prove your bullshit point you started with here🙂 Whenever you want to take a step out of fantasy land and share something other then your opinion with say um, facts, I would love to converse further with you.

Your points are so powerful let me also add, feed the world, end starvation! Wow I think I just found a way to end World hunger also, its amazing, no your amazing Krunk.shit

Oh, dear god! You are hilarious! You see my post where it says 'imagine if those guns were taken away'? Do you see that? Well, that means...guns...are...taken...away. Did I speak s-l-o-w-l-y enough for you, or do you need me to repeat it? One more time? OK, cutie, here you are: The...guns...are...taken...away. That means: no more guns, so no more gun-related deaths.

(Prayer to baby Jesus and his dad: Dear baby Jesus, please give Soleran the ability to comprehend words and simple sentences. Thank you. Amen.)

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Err, no, how do you figure it's the contrary?? If getting a gun illegally is illegal in the first place...adding another law to make them more illegal is going to do what? Nothing. The criminal will still have a way to get an illegal gun. Yet, the normal citizen is restriced to having no gun to protect themselves.

How many robbers do you think would be deterred by the thought of being shot by a regular citizen? "Hmm, do i try to take this guy's $50, knowing there is a higher possibility that this guy will shoot me in the face?" Or what about rapists who can't rape a woman because she can shoot his balls off? No, that wouldn't deter a criminal at all 🙄

Let me just point out that people who typically own guns are generally not the ones who are likely to be raped in the first place—ie, men.

Honestly, I'm not sure what I think of gun bans. I will say, though, that I know of a lot of irresponsible idiots who do own guns and keep them sitting around loaded where their young kids can get them. Then there's Kip Kinkel, who begged his dad for a gun for months, and went and shot up the school when he finally got one. I think the problem has more to do with the culture of violence being perfectly acceptable (and in some areas, especially poor inner-city neighborhoods, a way of life) than with whether guns are legal or not. The other thing is, if crime in general decreases, say, because everyone has money and there's no reason for most sane people to commit crimes, gun violence will obviously decrease as well.

"Hi, Krunk! You have yet to prove your bullshit point you started with. Whenever you want to take a step out of fantasy land and share something other then your opinion with say um, facts, I would love to converse further with you."

Baby Jesus answered your prayer, he was just upset you failed to realize acceptance is just as big a first step as faith itself.

Thats ok though, I bolded the appropriate words to get your attention back in place🙂 I didn't want your brain to get to tense with that, seeing as your brain is about 2/10's the size of everyone else's. My epiphany for ending world hunger was as useful as your repsonse to guns.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Let me just point out that people who typically own guns are generally not the ones who are likely to be raped in the first place—ie, men.

Honestly, I'm not sure what I think of gun bans. I will say, though, that I know of a lot of irresponsible idiots who do own guns and keep them sitting around loaded where their young kids can get them. Then there's Kip Kinkel, who begged his dad for a gun for months, and went and shot up the school when he finally got one. I think the problem has more to do with the culture of violence being perfectly acceptable (and in some areas, especially poor inner-city neighborhoods, a way of life) than with whether guns are legal or not. The other thing is, if crime in general decreases, say, because everyone has money and there's no reason for most sane people to commit crimes, gun violence will obviously decrease as well.

Word.

Originally posted by Soleran
"Hi, Krunk! You have yet to prove your bullshit point you started with. Whenever you want to take a step out of [B]fantasy land and share something other then your opinion with say um, facts, I would love to converse further with you."

Baby Jesus answered your prayer, he was just upset you failed to realize acceptance is just as big a first step as faith itself.

Thats ok though, I bolded the appropriate words to get your attention back in place🙂 I didn't want your brain to get to tense with that, seeing as your brain is about 2/10's the size of everyone else's. My epiphany for ending world hunger was as useful as your repsonse to guns. [/B]

My mummy once told me that "Imitation is the highest form of flattery", however when I'm being copied by a crap on a stick, I beg to differ with that statement.

Anyway, I guess you missed the clarification I gave to that statement. It happened immediately after you first questioned it. Keep up, little one...Keep up.

Uncle Krunk will let you read it again:

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Well, if you are being explicitly extreme: if no-one has any guns, then no-one would get killed by guns. You can't deny that. However, obviously (to those of us with cognitive function) the total eradication of all gun-ownership is impossible, but the less guns there are the less gun-related deaths there are.

Do I have to do the 'less guns = less gun-related deaths' thing again? I hope so...

and since a ban wouldnt work, how do you plan on decreasing the amount of guns?

Anyone notice the difference in the way that the pro and anti gun ban people use statistics.

Those in favor of the ban tend to use straight numbers, compare one country with another, etc. Yes, the US has more crime than the countries listed. Is it because of guns? maybe, but really there is no way to tell. There are too many factors.

Those against a ban tend to compare a country against itself. Pre-ban numbers versus post ban. This option has fewer dissimilar variables. I think it's a bit more reliable.

So no guns = no gun crime, but since even in this hypothetical world there is the same motivations and number of criminals the crime would simply be shifted. Guns don't commit crimes, criminals do.

So, getting rid of guns won't get rid of crime. It might (again too many variables to be sure) decrease the homicide rate. But that just brings us to the question: Would you rather have a 1 in a 100 chance of getting killed or a 1 in 10 chance of getting mugged/assaulted/raped/or other violent/confrontational crime?

I'll take my chances with guns, thank you very much.

Put another way, who do you want to be better armed, the citizens or the criminals, because if you ban guns, whatever guns remain will be in the hands of the criminals.

-edit-

my numbers are not accurate, just based intuitively on other numbers seen previously in the thread.

Originally posted by docb77
So no guns = no gun crime, but since even in this hypothetical world there is the same motivations and number of criminals the crime would simply be shifted. Guns don't commit crimes, criminals do.

As a hypothesis, I can't argue with that. In fact, I generally agree with it. However, the ease with which the use of a gun can result in a fatality means that by banning them, the frequency of the deaths would most likely be reduced.

Originally posted by docb77
So, getting rid of guns won't get rid of crime. It might (again too many variables to be sure) decrease the homicide rate.

This is really just an extension of your first point, but the hope that there would be a 'decrease in the homicide rate' is actually the whole point behind banning guns.

Originally posted by docb77
But that just brings us to the question: Would you rather have a 1 in a 100 chance of getting killed or a 1 in 10 chance of getting mugged/assaulted/raped/or other violent/confrontational crime?

This is a very light-weight point of contention as the likelihood of actually being in a situation like that is pretty slim.

Finally, it's good to see that someone on the pro-gun ownership side can actually form a coherent post regarding it.

Becuase "Criminals already illegally manage to buy illegal firearms" isn't coherent at all.

The UN isn't going to do this, Russia and the U.S. would never give up there guns.

One of the silly parts of this gun l;aws arguments is trying to prove they reduce crime based on the idea that places with gun control laws have a higher crime rate.

That's a false link. The truth is, these places developed high crime rates, and subsequently introduced anti-gun laws to try and deal with them.

A much more sensible way to look at it is to see the rate at which crime is dropping. Such figures clearly show that, in the States, crime is dropping much faster in palces with laws against, say, concealed handguns, than it is in places without.

Then there is strange idea that the stats that compare countries against themselves are more reliable than caomparing country country. Arrant nonsense. First of all, the stats comparing countries with themselves do not make a single link between the gun laws and any increase in crime. None. They are also being trated on the idea that they were intended to cause an enormous reduction in crime. Nope- they really were just to ban the guns which people were tired of. Fact is, though, that even before the gun control laws were introduced in places like Australia, they had not even remotely the amount of gun crime that the States has now. An increase in gun crime afterwards which pro-gun enthusiasts make take to mean that the laws are uselss in reality reflect something like five or six more incidents in one eyar than the year before- something far more likely to be linked to a simple increase in crime in general, and such a tiny number as to be irrelevant, seeing as that number happens in some ten minutes in the States.

Comparing countries against countries is very valid indeed. It is said that other factors may explain the difference. Might they? name them. There hasn't been a single one put forward that passes any sort of logical test. The only simple and direct link that can be made is between the US' 'unusual' attitude to guns, and their staggeringly enormous gun crume rate. Deal with the first and you deal with the second. Dealing with the first simply must involve doing something about gun law. That is the situation.

-

"Becuase "Criminals already illegally manage to buy illegal firearms" isn't coherent at all."

Only if you could coherently link that to saying that gun control laws won't do anythihg. But you can't. The fact is, countries with gun control laws seem to have an impact on illegal guns too. More importantly, as I say above, this is all part of your general gun culture, which laws would start to address.

-

" but since even in this hypothetical world there is the same motivations and number of criminals the crime would simply be shifted"

And yet that is not true. The American figures clearly show that the gun crimes are simply in addition to other crime- not instead of. So your point seems to be wrong; guns create more motivation for crime. Certainly in the US they are.

-

"But that just brings us to the question: Would you rather have a 1 in a 100 chance of getting killed or a 1 in 10 chance of getting mugged/assaulted/raped/or other violent/confrontational crime?"

A highly misleading question. The situation is clear here- the amount of extra murders caused by your gun issue is huge. The idea that guns reduce any other crime isn't even an established fact. Even if they did- which I see no evidence for- the reduction is not even vaguely worth the enormous homicide rate.

---

To repeat- the US gun crime problem is horrendous. Not simply high. if it iwas three or four times worse, THAT would be high. In fact it is over a hundred times worse. It is so beyond high that it cannot comfortably be expressed.

This is related to your gun culture.

The gun culture is inextricably linked with your gun laws.

You cannot solve this issue without, therefore, attacking that culture via the laws.

Continue to make excuses all you like- it is sitll your people dying out there, and the whole world is scorning you for it.

You cannot compare the crime levels of the US with another country and say "we're the same" not only is that silly but also rather ignorant. Take England for example...how many major cities does England have? No, not the UK I'm saying England. Take those cities and compare them to the major cities of the US. Just Los Angeles alone has gang ratio larger than any city in England.

Gun Control? Certainly! Gun shops don't sell weapons to the gang member with bad criminal record. What else is he to do? He goes to the black market and get an illegal AK-47. Semi Automatic or Assault rifles are AGAISN'T the gun laws. But we're talking about a gang member NOT the average productive member of society.

Then we have the Cuban factor. Explain to me this...if the US is portrayed as the Gun craze maniacs we are...why every year Cubans get on a boat and travel to Florida? Gee! Castro doesn't allow guns in Havana...you'd think they be very safe over there...yet they come to the Machine gun firing USA to live? This is bizzare!

"You cannot compare the crime levels of the US with another country and say "we're the same" not only is that silly but also rather ignorant. "

Preposterous! The cultures and backgrounds of the countries are similar and all other crimes are highly comparable on a reasonable scale. Every single crime has a similar rate EXCEPT the gun crime, and as a result, the murder rate.

Aside from me not having much idea of the provenance of your claim that implies that the gang problems in other countries are atoo small to count, as ever, I will point out this- if the trouble were gang related, that would be reflected in ALL violent crime. Yet with stabbings, assaults, burglary , rapes... the figures are very similar, lower in some places, higher in others.

But when we get to gun crime, the US rate is several hundred times higher.

Trying to dismiss this on the grounds of 'you cannot compare countries'- when everything else seems to be very comparable- is just another example of sticking your fingers in your ears.

As for your Cuban point- that just means that murders or not, the US is a better place to live than Cuba. Same with Mexico. But I am afraid the murder rate as caused by guns in the US is a fact, not an opinion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

But when we get to gun crime, the US rate is several hundred times higher.

Your right. Gun crimes are higher in states that have more anti gun laws. Like California and New York.

The truth is that the U.K.s crime rate soared after the handgun ban.

Ush...

And we're not denying that the gun crime is higher. But to say a ban will improve matters is false. Again, look at my Cuban factor. They don't allow guns in that country and yet they get on a boat and come to Florida where is most likely the refugees will encounter the mythological American Gun firing lunatic. So if it is better to live in the USA then by all means is safer. However, gun crime is higher? How is that better? contradiction.

You fail to see the point I clearly made on the Gun Shop owner. Guns laws forbide the store owner to sell a gun to anyone with a past criminal record. "I" can walk into a gun shop...take the test...have my DMV record checked and get clearance to purchase a gun. Why? I have NO past criminal record and is consider a productive member of society. Whereas the Gang thug who most likely has been previous arrested for a misdeameanor or felony or has a bad DMV record WILL not get a gun.
That obviously is NOT going to stop him from getting a gun. He eventually obtain one by illegal means....Black Market. By putting a ban on all guns do you stop the Black Market? Absolutely NOT! You'd wish that would happen but is not going to happen.

The issue is not solely blame guns or bullets or the stuff you used to clean a gun...the issue is on the social standards of the gang member. Anti-gang programs have help reduce criminal actions on most low income cities. Yes! most gun crimes are cause by rival gangs in neiborhoods where drug dealing and turf disputes occur.

Now, what is consider a gang member? No, you're wrong if you're thinking a chav or a soccer hooligan from England is in the same level as gang member from Compton or Watts or any other city in the USA were gang members are consider hostile individuals. For generations gangs members are the result of a terrible Social Economic backlash which minorities have to live in for decades. The issue should NEVER have been about banning guns..the issue should be about improving their social economic status. These people are force to commit crimes in order to live. You're looking at the tool to commit a crime (in this case a gun) the real factor is in the gang member. That's what we should ban in this country....gang members.

Guns don't kill people. Humans kill people, guns are just a tool.

Originally posted by Aziz!
Guns don't kill people. Humans kill people, guns are just a tool.