International Gun Ban Treaty
- Thread starter MobbinINda916
- Start date
I'm not sure what type of restrictions would help. Gun laws do not curb gun violence when guns are already prevalent in society. Maybe if we enacted gun laws before there were millions of guns in our country, before it became a multimillion dollar industry, before it became commonplace to own a gun, we'd be able to do something. But it's too late for that. Guns are already here. I don't have any statistics on this, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of gun murders are from guns that are owned illegally and not registered. I think banning anything just places that thing into the black market, and then the only people with access to it are people who are involved in the black market. Basically you're just ensuring that people more likely to be criminals are the same people more likely to have access to hand guns. Like Rasan said way back in the beginning of this, we can't focus on banning guns, we need to focus on the societal issues which cause people to murder each other with guns. Whether a state has a strong gun law or a weak gun law really has no effect on the level of killing. Look at poverty rates by city and I'm sure you'll have a much better indicator of that city's homicide rate. I'm sure its no coincidence that Detroit and Washington DC have a higher murder rate than the Hamptons.
My issue is that restrictive laws are put in place because of irresponsible people, but they have the effect of punishing responsible people. Some people can't use guns wisely? Let's make guns illegal. Some people can't use weed wisely? Let's make weed illegal. What about the people who can responsibly own guns and smoke weed without shooting people or turning into junkies? They should be punished because a bunch of retards ruined it for the rest of them?
My issue is that restrictive laws are put in place because of irresponsible people, but they have the effect of punishing responsible people. Some people can't use guns wisely? Let's make guns illegal. Some people can't use weed wisely? Let's make weed illegal. What about the people who can responsibly own guns and smoke weed without shooting people or turning into junkies? They should be punished because a bunch of retards ruined it for the rest of them?
I never tryed to take credit for that. Of course i didn't write it! This is the siccness.net not the World Book Encyclopedia! Why don't you sue me for plagiarism? lol You are blatantly ignoring facts to suit your arguement! These are not facts that i need to tell you either. Look it up for yourself.
http://dwighthouse.tumblr.com/post/23600052878/guns-texas-vs-california Here you go! Dude also has all his sources linked for the article! Go head and pick that apart for an hour to suit your argument!
Heres the entire article for everybody just to end the debate. Keep in mind if you want the sources you actually have to go to the link. http://dwighthouse.tumblr.com/post/23600052878/guns-texas-vs-california I picked out the most relevant parts of the article to answer the question that was asked by "cali grown 420.."
A co-worker mentioned off-handedly that Texas isn’t a great place to live. We live in the tax-heavy, business-unfriendly, regulation-drowning, judicial-legislating, financially-bankrupt, crazy people-containing, but nice weather-having state of California. It seemed odd to me that he would find a state as free as Texas so terrible when compared to California. Speaking for myself, I would love to end up in Texas. California was the last state I wanted to move to, but thanks to this economy, California offered the first job I could get in my field, so I took it.
I asked my co-worker why he found Texas so terrible. The first answer I got back was that Texas has crazy people in it. This answer didn’t hold water for me. I told him that if California is known for anything, it’s known for having crazy people in it. He conceded immediately upon reflection, but followed up with the fact that Texas has more liberal gun laws than California, and therefore, crime was worse. I didn’t have any statistics on hand, and I honestly didn’t know. He mentioned some standard points about America being relatively violent, especially with guns, compared to Europe. I conceded that (because I’ve heard that before), but noted that guns are effectively banned in much of Europe, and some people over there have now resorted to killing people with bats with guns less easily available. I topped it off with a truism that it’s not the weapon, it’s the people who kill people.
But as I lay there thinking before falling asleep, I recalled that Los Angeles, California was famous for being crime-ridden and having lots of murders. Stirred from my bed, I looked up some basic statistics. What I found was actually quite shocking.
As of 2010, Texas ranks second place for the most number of people murdered with firearms (805). California, with its stricter gun laws, is in first place for the most firearm murders (1,257).
Keep in mind that there are 48% more people in California, but California suffers 56% more gun murders than Texas. Similarly, of all ways to murder people, Californians murder people with guns 69% of the time, while Texans murder with guns only 65% of the time. This indicates that the average Californian is more likely to murder or be murdered with a gun than the average Texan.
No-one knows for sure how many guns exist, are owned, and who owns them, but I did find a 2001 survey that purportedly broke down likely gun ownership by state. According to these numbers, Texans as a whole own 45% more guns than Californians. That’s total guns, not guns per capita. So it would seem that even with fewer total guns spread among more people, more are still murdered with guns in California.
If you break down the number of gun murders per 100,000 people, we see the likelihood of gun murder relative to the size of the population. This is the actual likelihood that you will be murdered with a gun in that state. With this measure, we see that your chance of murder by gun is 1 in 29,674 in California, compared to the less likely 1 in 31,348 in Texas.
Interestingly, the most violent gun crime area in America by far is Washington DC. No state comes anywhere close. There is almost an order of magnitude more gun murders in Washington DC than any state. Your chance of being murdered with a gun in Washington DC is 1 in 6,250. Washington DC is infamous for its long standing ban on legal gun ownership by private citizens, in direct violation of the Second Amendment. This ban was partially lifted a couple years ago, but the restrictions on private gun ownership are still severely limited.
At the other end of the spectrum, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia has had a city ordinance since 1982 requiring all households to own at least one gun and ammunition for it, with the reasonable exceptions of the mentally handicapped, religiously convicted against guns, and known criminals. Their overall crime rate is half the US average.
This is why I believe that the solution to gun crime in America is for every man, woman, and child of responsible age in America should be trained in the proper and responsible use of a gun, and preferably own one personally, keeping it with them whenever possible. It’s not that I like guns. I don’t. They can be painful to shoot, they’re loud, and ultimately, their fundamental purpose is to kill things, which I’m in no hurry to do. However, I crime deterring power they provide, even if never fired against an assailant. I also recognize that if the time comes for me to defend myself, I would rather have a gun and live, than dial 911 so the police can take pictures of my corpse when they arrive 30 minutes later.
■Gun Crime Statistics Source
■Gun Ownership by State Survey
■Gun Laws and Restrictions By State
■Texas Population Source
■California Population Source
■Kennesaw, Georgia Source
Upon writing this post, I decided to also look up statistics for Europe’s violent crimes and compare them to the United States’. According to a 2009 article on the subject of violent crimes, we were both wrong and I shouldn’t have conceded initially.
Of those countries listed in the article, France has the least number of violent crimes in Europe with 504 instances per 100,000 residents. Yet, America has even fewer at only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Britain has the highest rate at 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, where I think they have some of the most strict gun laws in the free world.
I would have conceded that perhaps Americans were different and that more gun ownership worked for us to reduce gun crime, but that gun ownership may not be effective or even positive in other countries. However, it would seem that Europe could probably benefit even more than America from more responsible gun ownership and less restrictive gun laws, because their crime rates are already well above ours.
■Violent Crime in Europe Article
The moral of the story:
■Guns are good
■Check the stats
A co-worker mentioned off-handedly that Texas isn’t a great place to live. We live in the tax-heavy, business-unfriendly, regulation-drowning, judicial-legislating, financially-bankrupt, crazy people-containing, but nice weather-having state of California. It seemed odd to me that he would find a state as free as Texas so terrible when compared to California. Speaking for myself, I would love to end up in Texas. California was the last state I wanted to move to, but thanks to this economy, California offered the first job I could get in my field, so I took it.
I asked my co-worker why he found Texas so terrible. The first answer I got back was that Texas has crazy people in it. This answer didn’t hold water for me. I told him that if California is known for anything, it’s known for having crazy people in it. He conceded immediately upon reflection, but followed up with the fact that Texas has more liberal gun laws than California, and therefore, crime was worse. I didn’t have any statistics on hand, and I honestly didn’t know. He mentioned some standard points about America being relatively violent, especially with guns, compared to Europe. I conceded that (because I’ve heard that before), but noted that guns are effectively banned in much of Europe, and some people over there have now resorted to killing people with bats with guns less easily available. I topped it off with a truism that it’s not the weapon, it’s the people who kill people.
But as I lay there thinking before falling asleep, I recalled that Los Angeles, California was famous for being crime-ridden and having lots of murders. Stirred from my bed, I looked up some basic statistics. What I found was actually quite shocking.
As of 2010, Texas ranks second place for the most number of people murdered with firearms (805). California, with its stricter gun laws, is in first place for the most firearm murders (1,257).
Keep in mind that there are 48% more people in California, but California suffers 56% more gun murders than Texas. Similarly, of all ways to murder people, Californians murder people with guns 69% of the time, while Texans murder with guns only 65% of the time. This indicates that the average Californian is more likely to murder or be murdered with a gun than the average Texan.
No-one knows for sure how many guns exist, are owned, and who owns them, but I did find a 2001 survey that purportedly broke down likely gun ownership by state. According to these numbers, Texans as a whole own 45% more guns than Californians. That’s total guns, not guns per capita. So it would seem that even with fewer total guns spread among more people, more are still murdered with guns in California.
If you break down the number of gun murders per 100,000 people, we see the likelihood of gun murder relative to the size of the population. This is the actual likelihood that you will be murdered with a gun in that state. With this measure, we see that your chance of murder by gun is 1 in 29,674 in California, compared to the less likely 1 in 31,348 in Texas.
Interestingly, the most violent gun crime area in America by far is Washington DC. No state comes anywhere close. There is almost an order of magnitude more gun murders in Washington DC than any state. Your chance of being murdered with a gun in Washington DC is 1 in 6,250. Washington DC is infamous for its long standing ban on legal gun ownership by private citizens, in direct violation of the Second Amendment. This ban was partially lifted a couple years ago, but the restrictions on private gun ownership are still severely limited.
At the other end of the spectrum, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia has had a city ordinance since 1982 requiring all households to own at least one gun and ammunition for it, with the reasonable exceptions of the mentally handicapped, religiously convicted against guns, and known criminals. Their overall crime rate is half the US average.
This is why I believe that the solution to gun crime in America is for every man, woman, and child of responsible age in America should be trained in the proper and responsible use of a gun, and preferably own one personally, keeping it with them whenever possible. It’s not that I like guns. I don’t. They can be painful to shoot, they’re loud, and ultimately, their fundamental purpose is to kill things, which I’m in no hurry to do. However, I crime deterring power they provide, even if never fired against an assailant. I also recognize that if the time comes for me to defend myself, I would rather have a gun and live, than dial 911 so the police can take pictures of my corpse when they arrive 30 minutes later.
■Gun Crime Statistics Source
■Gun Ownership by State Survey
■Gun Laws and Restrictions By State
■Texas Population Source
■California Population Source
■Kennesaw, Georgia Source
Upon writing this post, I decided to also look up statistics for Europe’s violent crimes and compare them to the United States’. According to a 2009 article on the subject of violent crimes, we were both wrong and I shouldn’t have conceded initially.
Of those countries listed in the article, France has the least number of violent crimes in Europe with 504 instances per 100,000 residents. Yet, America has even fewer at only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Britain has the highest rate at 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, where I think they have some of the most strict gun laws in the free world.
I would have conceded that perhaps Americans were different and that more gun ownership worked for us to reduce gun crime, but that gun ownership may not be effective or even positive in other countries. However, it would seem that Europe could probably benefit even more than America from more responsible gun ownership and less restrictive gun laws, because their crime rates are already well above ours.
■Violent Crime in Europe Article
The moral of the story:
■Guns are good
■Check the stats
No, it doesn't. Even if we subtract gang violence, gun-related death rates in the US are still way too high compared to the rest of the industrialized world. In the US, it is 4-4.5 homicides, 5.5-6 suicides, ~0.25 accidental deaths (per 100,000). In the UK it's 0.07, 0.17, and 0.01, respectively. We're talking about 60-fold difference, these are not differences you can explain just with gang violence.
The baseline in the US is way too high, but you were using the deviations relative the baseline that are due to additional factors such as the prevalence of gangs, in order to support your theory. Which is not a valid thing to do
The baseline in the US is way too high, but you were using the deviations relative the baseline that are due to additional factors such as the prevalence of gangs, in order to support your theory. Which is not a valid thing to do
Correction - it's a multibillion dollar industry.
No wonder they're not registered - there is no such requirement in most states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)
That's the idea - if it's restricted to the black market, a lot fewer people will own guns, and those who do will do so illegally.
That's generally correct - solving the gun problem can not be done in isolation from solving all the other problems that act in concer to make the US such a fucked up place
Poverty leads to crime, crime leads to more violence. Independent of those issues, the US still has a gun problem - random people are getting shot every day for no reason by people who were not criminals in the conventional sense and who should not be having guns if it wasn't for that idiotic constitutional amendment
Weed can not kill anyone from distance
There is no way to make sure that a person is going to own a gun "responsibly". People can and do flip out for all sorts of reasons all the time, even apparently stable people. Where I'm from, people get killed by guns in two main ways - 1) professional killers get hired by organized crime to take out someone who's become inconvenient. That's the kind of crime we're not talking about because clearly whoever commits it has the resources to find the guns needed illegally plus it does not target random innocent people (at least most of the time), and 2) police and military officers who have supposedly passed all the psychological tests and checks before they were given the gun who flip out and kill family members, neighbours, other random people - those are exactly the people who are supposed to own guns responsibly, most of the time they do, but "most of the time" is not the same as "all the time"
No wonder they're not registered - there is no such requirement in most states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)
That's the idea - if it's restricted to the black market, a lot fewer people will own guns, and those who do will do so illegally.
That's generally correct - solving the gun problem can not be done in isolation from solving all the other problems that act in concer to make the US such a fucked up place
Poverty leads to crime, crime leads to more violence. Independent of those issues, the US still has a gun problem - random people are getting shot every day for no reason by people who were not criminals in the conventional sense and who should not be having guns if it wasn't for that idiotic constitutional amendment
Weed can not kill anyone from distance
There is no way to make sure that a person is going to own a gun "responsibly". People can and do flip out for all sorts of reasons all the time, even apparently stable people. Where I'm from, people get killed by guns in two main ways - 1) professional killers get hired by organized crime to take out someone who's become inconvenient. That's the kind of crime we're not talking about because clearly whoever commits it has the resources to find the guns needed illegally plus it does not target random innocent people (at least most of the time), and 2) police and military officers who have supposedly passed all the psychological tests and checks before they were given the gun who flip out and kill family members, neighbours, other random people - those are exactly the people who are supposed to own guns responsibly, most of the time they do, but "most of the time" is not the same as "all the time"
