Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by uhohs, May 22, 2012.
Clap clap clap
Yes, and if you read that article, you note the guns are coming from legal sellers and that many of them are extremely expensive, running $2K-$3K for even a 9mm. Note also this does not include ammunition either.
umm, usually gun carrying crimes carry very stiff sentences no matter how minor like here it's 10-20-life.
When everyone is armed no one is just going to do something that's not for profit unless that victim did a major wrong against someone.
This guy was just a random victim as far as we know.
Are you saying that in a society where everyone can carry a gun there are no random acts of violence?
Because that's not true.
there are plenty of locals in the US where guns can be barred by the business owner or laws. In many states you can not carry where alcohol is sold or served.
even in TX he could not legally have had a gun in a pub/bar.
So was your original point sarcasm?
Assuming that jail time is an effective deterrent, these guys would already be going to jail for murder in this situation, guns or not. If the punishment for murder isn't enough to deter them I doubt tacking on the extra bit for carrying a gun would be.
This has already been handled, but you admitted you know this not to be the case. Even when everyone is armed people do stupid ass shit to random victims.
Violence has been PROVEN to go down in areas where populations of gun owners are high.
There is always going to be potential for a random act, but if a gang were to grab a guy chances are in an armed public, someone would be around to help with a gun.
Crime rates have been going down, while handgun sales are at an all time high. Check FBI and ATF statistics.
There is no arguing with him.
I've never seen stats that rising rates of gun ownership cause lower violent crime rates. I have seen stats where the two are correlated, but they never seem to control for other factors. The example is that gun ownership rates are going up in some places because of more permissive laws, and crime rates go down. The problem is that crime rates are going down in many places whether or not gun ownership rates are going up. So if you ONLY look at places with more gun owners, you'd conclude this is proof that guns cause less crime, when the broader data suggests other factors are at work.
In other words, maybe gun ownership does lower crime...but it seems far from proven as far as I can tell. A great example would be the massively lowering crime rate in New York City over the last several years, despite still having restrictive gun laws.
At least it proved the anti-second amendment politicians were all liars or idiots. They all promised that crime would go up, and it would be like the wild west when concealed carry laws were passing. Gun sales skyrocketed and crime fell.
New York had lots of crime, even though they had restrictive guns laws. So that didn't do them any good. Just like Washington DC.
Sure there are lots of factors, but restrictive gun control laws didn't help.
Didn't gun sales also increase in New York? They've increased almost everywhere else.
I think the problem is that if you add any new law then crime will go up because what was once illegal is now a crime...
I'm not sure that stats from the US are really useful in a UK thread anyway, given that it's a completely different culture, if you banned guns across the country the stats might be useful, but you haven't....
actually in a the 'wild west' and in earlier times it was common for people to carry sidearms. Also forensics was terrible back then. They didn't even know about fingerprinting.
While there was still murder and random acts of violence, it wasn't as bad as today. In fact they moderated themselves a lot better in fist fights where both sides were armed. However, most accepted a loss back then and didn't go home and get their homies to come back and run a train on the winner.
Dude, go read history and then today's news.
Since you state this is a "UK" thread, then in fact we should disarm the whole nation. They can't even win a fight when armed anyway. Just makes it dangerous for everyone else.
Yeah weve never won a war...
*rolls eyes until they end up stuck in head*
So I assume that all the violence In the wild west was as well documented as today then?
There you go, typical HAL9000.
In counterpoint, the UK only won wars when they got lucky.
*** they lost the greatest country in the world. If they were capable they'd have just taken it back.
This is proof the entire UK should remain unarmed.
That's not always true. People sometimes become violent because they're on drugs or they're just straight up crazy and guns can enable this behavior. They can also disable this behavior. This video shows both: guy freaks out with a gun and he's stopped after he is shot by someone
The virginia tech shooting was another example of someone just going crazy but he was in a "gun free zone" so nobody was able to stop him. The lesson is pretty clear: guns should either be completely free or they should be completely restricted in all areas for all people. Going half way is why virginia tech happened.