If we are a police state, why is our murder rate so high?
Ban every gun
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Compared to Israel (and many other places), it's really, really, really not.
Because the police kill so many people.
Yo, Imma let you finish, but Le Quack had the best police rambling of all time. OF ALL TIME.
You're not even close.
Yeah, but most of them live in constant fear that their own neighborhood might become part of the warzone. I think it's fundamentally different.
GasBandit
Staff member
You mean there are other variables in play in any given situation other than just whether or not there are guns? Shocking.
But actually, that shouldn't have any bearing at all, if the premise is that more guns = more murder. If things are almost a war zone, shouldn't there be more guns AND more murder?
GasBandit
Staff member
So fuck the police, and then trust them to take all of our guns. Got it.
at the end of this the police won't have guns either like in the UK.
also, I was joking about Murder-By-Cop being the spike in our gun deaths
but the police do kill a lot of people, and they don't need guns to do it! A Houston man died by tazer earlier this week whose crime was being sick and "scary" (read: a minority)
also, I was joking about Murder-By-Cop being the spike in our gun deaths
but the police do kill a lot of people, and they don't need guns to do it! A Houston man died by tazer earlier this week whose crime was being sick and "scary" (read: a minority)
Nobody but Charlie and you (repeatedly) have made that claim. You constantly try to make the argument of your opponents into this, so that you can oppose it, but that's just cheap and easy (like UR MOM HARHAR). On the opposite side, Charlie thinks all guns are always bad and evil, giving you an easy opponent, too.
How about admitting, for once, that easy availability of guns (in all variations) has an impact on the number of accidental fatalities and fatalities during robberies/home invasions? I'm not asking you to say the government should control them, if you think the trade-off is worth it for your right to defend yourself I'll leave you to it - but can you, for once, say that, in a perfect world where there are no guns, less people would die? Perhaps there'd be more burglaries (not in Europe, but hey), perhaps all terrorism would be done with gas and microbes instead (not exactly the case right now in Europe either, but anyway), perhaps the government will come in and dominate all you poor Americans into slavery because, without guns, there's no possible way to fight back (lolwut) - whatever, I'm not arguing for or against.
I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to admit that, in general, an abundance of guns (in badly-trained hands, too) is dangerous.
GasBandit
Staff member
... I thought that was the issue at hand? Or did I misread the thread title?[DOUBLEPOST=1344017790][/DOUBLEPOST]
It might. It probably does. It's hard to say to what degree, as was posted earlier removing the tool doesn't necessarily remove the murder.[DOUBLEPOST=1344017877][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well, phrased THAT way (as in a loaded question) nobody would deny an "abundance of guns in badly trained hands" is dangerous. But couldn't that also be argued as a deficiency in training?
1. Who is going to take the guns from the cops when the criminals still hold theirs? The Zetas and Gambinos are going to be harder to disarm than the gun-nuts.
2. The English cops are carrying guns more and more often.
3. I guess being sick did not have anything at all to do with the guy dying. Or his fighting the paramedics off...
Sure. I've argued that exact same thing in the past - I don't remember if it was this thread or one of the other ones - I said a draft/enforced civil service wuld allow everyone to have some basic training with a gun and would probably reduce gun accidents. Israel and Finland come to mind as coutries with a draft system, and more weapons, but much lower gun death rates. It's against the Consitution and whatever, so not the solution for the USA, but hey.
And a deficiency of responsibility as well. The Spider-Man rule ("With great power...") definitely comes into play.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Wait, what's against the constitution? Cause I know I for one had to register for the draft when I turned 18, and there are firearm training safety courses available all over the place.
Then I'm misusing a word somewhere. Obligated 2 year military service between school and college?
Nobody born after 1952 has been drafted in the States.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes, but not because doing so would be unconstitutional.
The best training that I've had was from my Dad.
Every gun is loaded, don't point a gun at something you don't want to destroy.
Then the next good piece came from reading an article about the Mt. Carmel Siege. It was a picture of an ATF officer standing around "WITH HIS FINGER ON THE TRIGGER!" Yeah, don't do that either. Only put your finger on the trigger when you have your target picked out. I saw a cop with 40+ years experience do that and he damn near killed himself when he fired the shotgun straight into the air.[DOUBLEPOST=1344020863][/DOUBLEPOST]and,
The best safety on a gun is the one between your ears.
Every gun is loaded, don't point a gun at something you don't want to destroy.
Then the next good piece came from reading an article about the Mt. Carmel Siege. It was a picture of an ATF officer standing around "WITH HIS FINGER ON THE TRIGGER!" Yeah, don't do that either. Only put your finger on the trigger when you have your target picked out. I saw a cop with 40+ years experience do that and he damn near killed himself when he fired the shotgun straight into the air.[DOUBLEPOST=1344020863][/DOUBLEPOST]and,
The best safety on a gun is the one between your ears.
My apologies, I misremembered. You said it was in a draft for the Constitution, but didn't make the final cut. My bad.
In that case, giving everyone a few years of military practice with guns might go a long way in reducing your casualties due to guns being mishandled.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ah, yes, the first draft of the 2nd amendment did have a no-conscription clause. I agree though that a national firearm training program would be beneficial and a much better use of federal dollars than quite a bit of what they're doing now.
I think this is why other countries with high gun ownership rates (Israel, I think Finland or Sweden, Russia) don't have it quite so bad: They have "mandatory" (you can get out of it) military service. So you get all the rules of gun ownership crammed into your head during basic training and not knowing it by heart isn't an option unless you feel like getting your ass kicked by the drill sergeant. This leads to a large percentage of gun owners not treating them like toys or unstoppable death machines.
Nah!
GasBandit
Staff member
So our general consensus sans the willfully ignorant is that everyone should have a gun and be trained on its use?
Hmm, no....I think the consensus would be more something along the lines of limited gun ownership/use is acceptable, if the owners are properly trained in its use. "Everyone should have one" is only you and 5 other people who think so. Hint: those are mr Smith, mr Wesson, mr Herstal, mr Winchester and mr Colt.*
*I'm aware Herstal is a small city, where the first factory was located. Winchester isn't the original owner's name either. I don't think either S&W or Colt are still owned by someoen by the name. And I'm aware there are lots of people who think everyone should own a gun. It's a joke. Lighten up.
- Status