• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Gun Control

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Czar

You're pathetic. Now you're just making things up.

<< everyone has at least a revolver and some semi-automatic guns >>

If you're going to try to talk to the adults around here, at least use some factual information rather than what the movies might lead you to believe what the US is like.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
BoberFett

You know that everyone says everyone just to make a point even though its not everyone, just realy realy realy a big part :)
 

DaBoneHead

Senior member
Sep 1, 2000
489
0
0

Andrew,

During the late 80's and mid 90's, florida had a very violent reputation, and it deserved it. People living there poked fun at the reputation with simple things like bumper-stickers that read &quot;Don't call it Tourist Season if we can't shoot em!&quot;.

During the latter part of the nineties, the crime rate (particularly violent crimes) dropped dramatically, with some categories dropping more than 50% over a four year period. There has been much debate on why this occurred, but the two most discussed reasons were a better economy and forcing convicts to serve 80% of their prison term. As a matter of fact, I have *never* heard until today the argument that concealed weapons were in fact a large contributor to the drop, and I don't buy it. Sorry.

Regarding statistics, I try not to get hung up on them. But when I hear things like &quot;95% of guns are never used to hurt anyone&quot; (or whatever stat you want to quote), I don't think about that 95%, I think about that 5% whose lives are destroyed or changed because of it. I don't know if it makes sense to you, but getting tied up in the numbers game loses sight of the victim.

Oh, and I would never compare a gun to a car or anything else. A car's primary purpose is transportation, whereas a gun's primary purpose is to threaten, intimidate, and kill. Just because by using either you may end up dead is not a valid basis to compare them. For instance, you could also die by eating food(choking), and by that logic you would classify food in the same category as guns, and that doesn't make sense. So lets leave guns in their category (weapons), cars in their category (transportation), and food in its category (substance). If you actually start eating your guns, then we can arrange the categories accordingly. :p
 

Bakwetu

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,681
0
0
Andrew
If by some strange occurence the people of the US would elect a potential dictator and allow him to totally change your constitution without anybody stopping it, getting guns would not be such a big problem (look at all the guerilla movments around the world). But who would you be fighting, the US army? In that case good luck with your handgun ;). In my country people haven't been even close to a civil war since the 16th century, so I don't really see the need for me to rush out and try and get me a firemarm (which I couldn't anyway). I don't see how the situation in Germany and Finland in the 20ies has got anything to do with this.

About your funding fathers-I understand if you respect them and all, but their words and opinions are not holy or anything. Your society has changed in numerous ways since then, and naturally the laws and regulations have to change as well.
 

DanC

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2000
5,553
0
0


<< but their words and opinions are not holy or anything >>


Blasphemy!



<< During the latter part of the nineties, the crime rate (particularly violent crimes) dropped dramatically >>


Yep. If you were a street hair-ball, and knew there was a better-than-even chance that the citizen you were about to try to victimize was just as likely to whip out a 16-shot SigSauer and ventilate the sh*t out of you... would you think twice?

I venture to say - yes.
 

Bakwetu

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,681
0
0
Ok Red
Then you would only need one sniper rifle. Give it to Russ for safekeeping until that day comes.

 

Futuramatic

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
728
0
0
DaBoneHEad - your name is well earned :)

Your arguement can't be valid becuase your reasoning is limited. Your arguement can be applied to anything.

So lets say that 95% of >insert item here< are not involved in dealy/maiming acts. So because 5% of >insert item here< are involved in maiming/killing accidents, screw the other 95%???

Don't ciggaretes(SP) kill more people than criminal acts with guns? Why not outlaw those (NOTE: I am not a smoker, but I do NOT support the outlawing of tobacco)?

You and I and EVERYONE ELSE on the board knows that if the statistics were in your favor, you would be screaming them at the top of your lungs. However, if they show that guns, when owned and operated in a responsible manner by responsible citizens, effectively deter (even in the least bit) crime and/violence, you dismiss them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY