• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Gun Control: Does limiting who can get a gun reduce crime?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Does gun control work?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Yes and No.

Yes it reduces gun related deaths, which is clearly a good thing

No because when you create a new crime crime stats go up because people are now doing something illegal that once was legal.
 
HAL9000 said:
Yes it reduces gun related deaths, which is clearly a good thing
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand how you can know this for sure. The statistics don't seem to agree with you.

In America, the states that have the highest levels of crime seem to also have the highest levels of gun control.

Gun crimes have constantly been on the rise in Canada (as have the incidents of finding handguns) even though they are heavily regulated.

How do you know this for sure?
 
Garet Jax said:
I am not sure I understand how you can know this for sure. The statistics don't seem to agree with you.

In America, the states that have the highest levels of crime seem to also have the highest levels of gun control.

Gun crimes have constantly been on the rise in Canada (as have the incidents of finding handguns) even though they are heavily regulated.

How do you know this for sure?
Click to expand...

The worst state murder-wise is Louisiana, and I don't think they have strict gun control at all. Gun control is not a linear relationship either. A lot of states have perhaps only relatively strong gun laws, but they may not have passed a line they need to cross in order to have an effect.

Guns are smuggled from the US to Mexico and Canada in huge numbers, one of the few things that smuggling works in "reverse". We can blame the US for the Canadian gun problem.
 
HypX said:
The worst state murder-wise is Louisiana, and I don't think they have strict gun control at all. Gun control is not a linear relationship either. A lot of states have perhaps only relatively strong gun laws, but they may not have passed a line they need to cross in order to have an effect.

Guns are smuggled from the US to Mexico and Canada in huge numbers, one of the few things that smuggling works in "reverse". We can blame the US for the Canadian gun problem.
Click to expand...

Chicago is beating New Orleans in murders this year by a significant amount.
 
HypX said:
The worst state murder-wise is Louisiana, and I don't think they have strict gun control at all. Gun control is not a linear relationship either. A lot of states have perhaps only relatively strong gun laws, but they may not have passed a line they need to cross in order to have an effect.

Guns are smuggled from the US to Mexico and Canada in huge numbers, one of the few things that smuggling works in "reverse". We can blame the US for the Canadian gun problem.
Click to expand...

Maryland, DC and Illinois have some of the toughest restrictions in the Country and look at Baltimore, Washington and Chicago.

But on the other hand Texas and Vermont have little or no gun troubles and their people get in trouble if they aren't carrying them....

1 State of 50 does not representative make.

I learned a long time ago that smart people can make statistics look like anything they want.

I am trying to understand why people believe the way they do - if statistics is their answer, then I am not going to be terribly swayed by their opinion.
 
Garet Jax said:
I learned a long time ago that smart people can make statistics look like anything they want.

I am trying to understand why people believe the way they do - if statistics is their answer, then I am not going to be terribly swayed by their opinion.
Click to expand...

People who say things like this have little to no understanding of statistics.
 
sixone said:
It works on people who respect the law. Not on people who don't.
Click to expand...

No, it limits the numbers of guns, the harder they are to find the less people use them. Right now guns are so cheap the trickle down to everyone, like old computers or beater cars. If they are harder to get, the value rises and only those who go to extreme measures will get them.
 
Todd33 said:
No, it limits the numbers of guns, the harder they are to find the less people use them. Right now guns are so cheap the trickle down to everyone, like old computers or beater cars. If they are harder to get, the value rises and only those who go to extreme measures will get them.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but it still doesn't solve the problem because when someone does decide to acquire a gun and to shoot up the next school and/or theatre, the rest of us will be without any means to defend ourselves. We will be relying completely on the police to save us. If there is one thing I know for sure, cops are hardly ever there in time to stop death - they are just there to figure out who did it and arrest them.
 
Garet Jax said:
Graduated from Waterloo with a Mathematics and Statistics degree - you may want to re-evaluate your opinion...
Click to expand...

So you sunk in 4+ years of your life into what you consider to be a waste of time? How sad.

You should ask for a refund, for multiple reasons.
 
Dumac said:
So you sunk in 4+ years of your life into what you consider to be a waste of time? How sad.

You should ask for a refund, for multiple reasons.
Click to expand...

You're a joker and are adding nothing to this discussion - please leave.

I never said it is a waste of time, I said I am not interested in hearing opinions based only on statistics. Please stop trying to create a fight when one doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Garet Jax said:
I agree with that, but it still doesn't solve the problem because when someone does decide to acquire a gun and to shoot up the next school and/or theatre, the rest of us will be without any means to defend ourselves. We will be relying completely on the police to save us. If there is one thing I know for sure, cops are hardly ever there in time to stop death - they are just there to figure out who did it and arrest them.
Click to expand...

I am surprised how often this mentality comes up. The "I need a gun, to defend myself, from other people with guns!" Well if there were very few guns to begin with this issue would never come up. Maybe during the transition phase to a gunless society this would be a problem, but once we get there that won't be issue anymore.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
HypX said:
I am surprised how often this mentality comes up. The "I need a gun, to defend myself, from other people with guns!" Well if there were very few guns to begin with this issue would never come up. Maybe during the transition phase to a gunless society this would be a problem, but once we get there that won't be issue anymore.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

True dat. Defending oneself against knife violence with knives makes so much more sense.
 
HypX said:
I am surprised how often this mentality comes up. The "I need a gun, to defend myself, from other people with guns!" Well if there were very few guns to begin with this issue would never come up. Maybe during the transition phase to a gunless society this would be a problem, but once we get there that won't be issue anymore.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

The problem is that countries, criminals and gun manufacturers will never let that transition happen. Countries want them so they can defend themselves from invaders and the other two are obvious.

Look at cigarettes - they serve no purpose whatsoever other than to cause cancer, cost people lots of money and make them smell like ashtrays - yet they are still around.

If I believed for a second that we could make that transition as a society, then I would agree with you and fight to make that happen. I just don't see it though....

So with that said, it makes no sense to allow the law abiding citizens give up their guns only to let the criminals keep them.

What pisses me off the most is that the American politicians who are pulling the hardest for gun control have armed body guards to protect them. If I had that, I wouldn't need guns either....
 
Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Having a dick is not.
Less guns = less gun crime.
Less dicks = less rape.
If follows that every male should have his dick cut off at birth. Then there would be less rape.
 
oldsmoboat said:
Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Having a dick is not.
Less guns = less gun crime.
Less dicks = less rape.
If follows that every male should have his dick cut off at birth. Then there would be less rape.
Click to expand...

well must concede to this logic.
 
oldsmoboat said:
Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Having a dick is not.
Less guns = less gun crime.
Less dicks = less rape.
If follows that every male should have his dick cut off at birth. Then there would be less rape.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Less guns = more gun crime

Armed criminals will not give up their weapons and any thought of a voluntary or even a forcible disarmament of this population is a pipe-dream.

Armed criminals mostly shoot other armed criminals, this will not stop. The great majority of individual shooting incidents fall into this category.

Criminals, armed and unarmed, avoid confrontation with armed citizens. Expect more gun and other crime to occur against a voluntarily disarmed and helpless populace.

Involuntary and forcible disarmament of an otherwise law abiding armed population is also a pipe-dream.

Libs and governments want disarmed populations as it makes it easier to have autocratic rule. Stupid limp wrist libs think they will be in charge, but those who gain power won't be stupid limp wrist libs, they will be self-serving autocrats.

Autocratic ruler genocide of their own populations is exponentially the greatest source of death by guns. The worst of these autocratic rulers are driven to expand power and annex their neighbors and the first targets are those populations that are least able or least willing to defend themselves.
 
Garet Jax said:
My personal opinion is no for a few reasons:

1) Some of the worst crime (NY, CA, MD, NJ, IL) are in States that have some of the toughest gun control laws.
Click to expand...

That's because criminals can easily drive & get their gun in a neighbouring state that has lesser gun control. The effect would be much different if all states had the same strict gun control laws. Why isn't this a federal power?

It's like in Canada where our biggest gun control problem is the flood of handguns coming from the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top