• 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.

Time to ban knives again

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Incorruptible said:
Just another case where the Urban Market is at it again, the police have to take a stand against these xxxxxx


Find another word that is less racially insensitive or baiting. The one you used is not acceptable in this forum.

You were previously vacationed for making racially insensitive comments in this forum, apparently the duration of that vacation was insufficient as a means of convincing you to change your approach.

As such your new vacation will be significantly larger, hopefully long enough that you get the message because if we have a third instance of this from you then you will find yourself on the wrong end of a "3 strikes and you are out" type situation.

Administrator Idontcare
Click to expand...

Clap clap clap
 
actuarial said:
You have no way of knowing that. Why wouldn't any of the 25 thugs have guns?
Click to expand...

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.
 
alkemyst said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CLite said:
You want it to be legal for a guy that is drinking at the pub watching a sport's match to be carrying? As far as I know any reasonable person thinks carrying while intoxicated should be illegal, so even legal carry in UK would not have saved this man.

I understand that perhaps this man's life would have been saved if he was carrying, but shooting up a pub with a semi while intoxicated probably would have guaranteed the potential injury or death of other innocent bystanders.
Click to expand...

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.

http://www.edgelawfirm.com/handguns.and.alcohol

http://houston.about.com/od/governmenteducation/a/Texas-Handgun-License-And-Laws.htm

In What Places is My Gun Prohibited? ?

Airports, courtrooms, schools, voting polls, anywhere alcohol is sold or consumed, racetracks and hospitals. Privately owned businesses and places of worship reserve the right to post signage prohibiting concealed weapons. Many federal properties prohibit concealed weapons as well.
Click to expand...

even in TX he could not legally have had a gun in a pub/bar.
 
Last edited:
alkemyst said:
umm, usually gun carrying crimes carry very stiff sentences no matter how minor like here it's 10-20-life.
Click to expand...

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.

alkemyst said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HAL9000 said:
So was your original point sarcasm?
Click to expand...

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.
 
alkemyst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
alkemyst said:
Violence has been PROVEN to go down in areas where populations of gun owners are high.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rainsford said:
In other words, maybe gun ownership does lower crime...but it seems far from proven as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BladeVenom said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
alkemyst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Baseless statements.
 
HAL9000 said:
Baseless statements.
Click to expand...

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.
 
alkemyst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah weve never won a war...

*rolls eyes until they end up stuck in head*
 
Last edited:
HAL9000 said:
So I assume that all the violence In the wild west was as well documented as today then?
Click to expand...

There you go, typical HAL9000.

In counterpoint, the UK only won wars when they got lucky.

Fuck 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.
 
alkemyst said:
There you go, typical HAL9000.

In counterpoint, the UK only won wars when they got lucky.

Fuck 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.
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
alkemyst said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkFMrAMI9SM

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top