Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 05-12-2007, 07:46 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Mandatory Gun Ownership Reduces Crime

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 05-12-2007, 07:51 PM
chicgeek's Avatar
chicgeek chicgeek is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-19-04
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 14,188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
*slaps head*
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-14-2007, 03:16 PM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
In soviet russia, head slaps YOU!!!!
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-14-2007, 04:59 PM
hyperspace's Avatar
hyperspace hyperspace is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 04-30-07
Location: new york city
Posts: 474
iTrader: 0 / 0%
In this case America is behind other countries. Guliani's mandatory gun ownership law is a good idea but who is he kidding? It's 2007, not 1987, when he was mayor. What we need is mandatory bazooka ownership.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-14-2007, 05:29 PM
geo77's Avatar
geo77 geo77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 04-04-07
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 89
iTrader: 0 / 0%
So, initially, citizens were required to go out and BUY a gun, even if they didn't want one, then learn how to clean, shoot, and otherwise maintain it? Hmm...it seems, at least, that they didn't have to carry it around with them at all time.
It's interesting that this policy isn't more widely known, especially since both pro- and anti-gun lobbyists could get so much material from it.
Anyway, those statistics look really good, but I question the sample size (and thus the validity of some of the assumptions). Could you implement something like that in a real city? I think crowding conditions would seriously change things....
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-15-2007, 03:32 PM
StupidScript's Avatar
StupidScript StupidScript is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 09-22-06
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 663
iTrader: 0 / 0%
What percentage of crimes in that town involved guns before the statute?
What about after the statute?

Without those figures, it's impossible to determine whether the statute had anything to do with the drop. Maybe shoplifting has almost evaporated?
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-15-2007, 04:19 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by StupidScript View Post
What percentage of crimes in that town involved guns before the statute?
What about after the statute?

Without those figures, it's impossible to determine whether the statute had anything to do with the drop. Maybe shoplifting has almost evaporated?
Deny the facts all you like. People are less likely to commit a crime against someone they know to be armed. Aggressive criminals are by and large worthless, gutless cowards. They're looking for weak victims for easy money, not a shootout.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-15-2007, 04:27 PM
StupidScript's Avatar
StupidScript StupidScript is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 09-22-06
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 663
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I'm not denying anything, merely observing that without context, it's just chest-beating, and not scientific observation.

If the statute was not accompanied by another statute giving each gun owner the right to carry a loaded weapon with them at all times, then the statute probably had the most impact on home invasion-type crime, not domestic violence, drug use, vandalism or purse-snatching.

And if a majority of the crime pre-statute involved home invasions, then they probably had a couple of freaks who simply left town, resulting in many fewer home invasions, and hence a drop in crime levels. We really can't tell without context.

Besides, with such a small population, more than likely most of the crimes were being perpetrated either by a select few delinquents or by people from out of town. A reduction in either ("C'mon, let's get out of here ... it's no fun anymore." or "Are you crazy? Why would I want to go to that dung heap of a town?") would result in a reduction in the crime rate.

But perhaps shoplifting DID evaporate, as those worthless, gutless cowards shrank away from all of the gun-toting grocers ... who are well-known for their proclivity for shootouts ...

Remember: Guns don't kill people ... frozen hams do.

Last edited by StupidScript; 05-15-2007 at 04:31 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-15-2007, 05:14 PM
Brian's Avatar
Brian Brian is offline
Super Trooper
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I'm all for mandatory common sense education
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-16-2007, 09:18 AM
ewomack's Avatar
ewomack ewomack is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 11-01-06
Posts: 4,502
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by South View Post
People are less likely to commit a crime against someone they know to be armed.
People are more likely to shoot at something that they think will kill them. Especially those who have no experience with handling a gun. If we all have guns, or are very likely to have guns, then we all become dangerous to one another, and, consequently, we all become targets. Someone who feels threatened and who has a gun is likely to fire at anything that moves. What they fire at may or may not be threatening. Why take a chance? Blow it away! Had all of the Virginia tech teachers and students been armed there would have been three times the deaths. In such a situation, with everyone armed, it's extremely hard to see who is doing the shooting and who is doing the defending. All you would see is person after person running with a gun. If you're threatened, you're going to kill anyone you see carrying a gun. Why would you think twice if you knew a maniac was running loose? Arguing that more guns equals less shooting deaths makes the huge assumption that people will be organized enough to know who to shoot at.

I don't think guns should be banned, but arming everyone makes disorganized and frenetic situations exponetially more dangerous without massive planning and organization on the part of the defenders. and in such situations planning and organization remain difficult. Think of all the stories about armies accidentally shooting their own soldiers. And that's with massive planning and organization. All it takes is for some confusion to arise for "friendly fire" to occur.

Last edited by ewomack; 05-16-2007 at 09:22 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-16-2007, 11:28 AM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewomack View Post
If we all have guns, or are very likely to have guns, then we all become dangerous to one another, and, consequently, we all become targets. Someone who feels threatened and who has a gun is likely to fire at anything that moves.
You're just wrong. Everything you're saying is a point-of-view what-if that just doesn't hold water at all when compared to real life situations. People aren't that way. If I can quote experience without it being labeled "anecdotal" (what people who disagree on this forum love to call real experience that they can't argue with), I live in about heaviest armed section of the country. Most of us have guns. Nobody walks around wide-eyed paranoid shooting at anything that moves. In fact, there's not much reason to. The atmosphere is lighter.
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-16-2007, 11:42 AM
Julie's Avatar
Julie Julie is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 02-23-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I will never touch a gun. And if I lived in some whacked out town that tried to pass a law forcing me to own one, I'd sue their asses.
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-16-2007, 12:44 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by South View Post
You're just wrong. Everything you're saying is a point-of-view what-if that just doesn't hold water at all when compared to real life situations. People aren't that way. If I can quote experience without it being labeled "anecdotal" (what people who disagree on this forum love to call real experience that they can't argue with), I live in about heaviest armed section of the country. Most of us have guns. Nobody walks around wide-eyed paranoid shooting at anything that moves. In fact, there's not much reason to. The atmosphere is lighter.
Yes, true. When I used to carry, it makes a person more.... at ease. And you don't feel threatened, and are much more responsible with your actions.

The original post proves that point.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-16-2007, 01:34 PM
Julie's Avatar
Julie Julie is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 02-23-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Yes, true. When I used to carry, it makes a person more.... at ease. And you don't feel threatened, and are much more responsible with your actions.

The original post proves that point.
You might feel that way, but not everyone would.
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-16-2007, 02:37 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie View Post
I will never touch a gun. And if I lived in some whacked out town that tried to pass a law forcing me to own one, I'd sue their asses.
They're "whacked out" because their time-tested proven method of crime deterrent that has completely eradicated violent gun deaths in their community doesn't fit with your personal social conviction? They're brilliant. Know why? Because they allowed common sense to dictate their gun laws instead of liberal whiner groups. As it turns out, legally requiring gun ownership has been about the only effective gun law so far. It's working, that's the only argument that counts here.

And you'd sue people to change/weaken successful safety laws for an entire community of people because that law didn't set well with you personally? Let me guess....Democrat...right?
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-16-2007, 02:39 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by South View Post
Let me guess....Democrat...right?
Kind of obvious, no?
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-16-2007, 06:01 PM
Julie's Avatar
Julie Julie is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 02-23-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
South - Yea, just like it's kinda obvious that you're a Southern Conservative, in every damn thing you ever post. Anyways, I don't like labels all that much...but if you want to categorize me, do so as a liberal-leaning individual...not a freaking Democrat, because honestly, even they don't fully represent what I believe...especially when it comes to the abortion issue.

Anyways.....Much of the world gets along just fine without guns. I don't need one because I'm not going to shoot anyone or anything. It's not just not me.

I don't call FORCING everyone to have a gun a common sense law. Frankly, I don't care if people have guns, I just care that if they do, they got them in the proper way, aren't crazy, and know what the heck they are doing. Otherwise, they can do whatever they want for all I care. Shoot some deer, or kill the intruder on your property...whatever floats your boat. Just don't force me to prescribe to your ideals or live your way of life.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-16-2007, 06:09 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Just don't force me to prescribe to your ideals or live your way of life.
You have a responsibility as a citizen to protect yourself, and stop crime when it happens in front of you.
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-16-2007, 07:55 PM
geo77's Avatar
geo77 geo77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 04-04-07
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 89
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
If I can quote experience without it being labeled "anecdotal" (what people who disagree on this forum love to call real experience that they can't argue with)
Um...yeah. Personal experience, when discussed in any situation, is by definition anecdotal. Anecdotes are fine and necessary on a forum, but generalizing those statements into pseudofacts seems a bit contrived. You can't actually disagree with experience, and nobody is. It'd be like disagreeing with gravity. I did that once....ended up with a broken leg.

I digress. Here's another situation to contemplate. I grew up in a village that did NOT require its citizens to carry guns. Number of deaths from guns: 0. Draw your own conclusions....
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-16-2007, 08:17 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by geo77 View Post
Um...yeah. Personal experience, when discussed in any situation, is by definition anecdotal. Anecdotes are fine and necessary on a forum, but generalizing those statements into pseudofacts seems a bit contrived. You can't actually disagree with experience, and nobody is. It'd be like disagreeing with gravity. I did that once....ended up with a broken leg.
The term is used here as an attempt to discredit, impossible as you said but still tilted for that purpose. You knew what I was talking about. Stop that.

Quote:
I digress. Here's another situation to contemplate. I grew up in a village that did NOT require its citizens to carry guns. Number of deaths from guns: 0. Draw your own conclusions....
I'm not aware of any towns other than the one at the front of this post that do require gun ownership, but that certainly doesn't hinder ownership. I wouldn't rob a bank in a room full of armed people whether they were required to carry the guns or not.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eww, but is it a crime? John Scott Forum Lobby 192 06-30-2006 07:37 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC