More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

What is your stance on gun proliferation?

I own a gun. I DON'T TRUST MY DAMN NEIGHBOUR!!!
2
2%
I own several guns, I'm a hitman .(shhhh don't tell anyone)
3
4%
Change the constitution. Outlaw guns once and for all!
14
16%
GIMME A FLAMETHROWER!
2
2%
Nukes for everyone!
7
8%
I don't own one right now, but I seek to acquire some soon as I'm planning a massacre.
2
2%
I'm a hippie. WADDUA THINK I MEAN?? *punches you in the face*
0
No votes
I don't like guns. When I kill people I use a dildo.
5
6%
mmmmmmmmmmmmy Glock.
1
1%
Strict gun control is the way to go.
18
21%
If everyone had guns, less violence would be the result.
11
13%
I'm in a gun club, I only shoot for pleasure.
2
2%
I'm in a gun club, I train for home defense.
3
4%
I like bananas.
6
7%
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
4%
Militias is our only hope.
6
7%
 
Total votes: 85
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:21 am

zjoere wrote:I find this a bit confusing. Does this mean that if the police witness a crime they don't have an obligation to intervene? Or in this case the police didn't have to respond to the emergency call and could just sit around in their office all night playing cards?


The police have no legal obligation to stop a crime or to try to protect the life or property of an individual unless they create the duty by creating a specific reliance upon them by the victim.

xander wrote:The woman didn't need an automatic weapon to protect herself, so a ban on things like AKs and M16s would not have been a problem. So, please explain to me how the cited home invasion argues against sensible gun control legislation.


It doesn't, at least not by my definition. But there are different ideas of what "sensible" gun control is, and to some (who think that sensible gun control involves banning the ownership of handguns) it would. If yours does not, then fine. But where you see banning military style rifles as sensible gun control, I do not.

Also, policy shouldn't strictly be about numbers Preventative policies, for example, might not have numbers yet to be based upon. Humanitarian policies might not have a quantifiable economic or statistical number associated with them, but they might well be a good idea. Shipping wheat to a country in famine, for example, might have all sorts of numbers attached to it, but the value of that might not be truly quantifiable. You do it though because it's the right thing to do.

Xocrates wrote:But that's the thing, there are better and less dangerous alternatives that are about as effective. And frankly a large part of the reason we don't have more of them is because people much rather use guns.


Such as what?

Pepper spray is an irritant, not an immobilizer. There are numerous accounts of murderers and rapists being pepper sprayed, to no avail. Tazers are moderately effective, but are highly variable. Clothes, distance, and battery are all factors in whether it works at all, much less about effectiveness. To be effective you generally have to be very close, and if the person pulls the prongs out you're in trouble.

In this case, the guy was shot five times int eh head and neck, to no avail. What do you think would have been more effective?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:11 am

Feud wrote:What do you think would have been more effective?

Tranq darts :P

A bit more seriously, as you yourself pointed out, the guy took 5 shoots to the face and lived. And that was someone caught by surprise at close quarters, in most cases the person doing the shooting probably wouldn't even hit, and even if it did it might not be enough to stop him.

So, what exactly makes guns more effective that all the alternatives you've casually dismissed?
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:29 am

I'm basing it upon the idea that by nature it is more effective when it does work, and that it is most likely of the means available to discourage further criminality once put into use (a criminal is more likely to flee from a gun than from a bat, pepper spray, etc).

Looks like it's a bit murky numbers wise:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

In some cases the numbers were about the same, in other cases lower.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:11 am

He should be very glad she didn't have a big knife.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:53 pm

Feud wrote:
zjoere wrote:I find this a bit confusing. Does this mean that if the police witness a crime they don't have an obligation to intervene? Or in this case the police didn't have to respond to the emergency call and could just sit around in their office all night playing cards?


The police have no legal obligation to stop a crime or to try to protect the life or property of an individual unless they create the duty by creating a specific reliance upon them by the victim.



That just sounds like you have a crappy police service.

Feud wrote:I do think the best way to get people to change their mind is to take them shooting. SOOOO much fun.


I just realized this sounds a lot like something someone who advocated the legalization of drugs would say. :lol: You don't want to legalize drugs? Wait till you try some heroin man, it's SOOOO much fun. And not dangerous when handled right.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 pm

zjoere wrote:That just sounds like you have a crappy police service.


Most places in the world have the same standard.

Next time a crime is committed against you or someone you know, try suing the police for breach of duty in failing to protect you from crime and for failing to prevent the offense. Your lawsuit will almost certainly fail, because police virtually everywhere do not have the legal requirement to protect you or your property.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:51 pm

Feud wrote:
zjoere wrote:That just sounds like you have a crappy police service.


Most places in the world have the same standard.

Next time a crime is committed against you or someone you know, try suing the police for breach of duty in failing to protect you from crime and for failing to prevent the offense. Your lawsuit will almost certainly fail, because police virtually everywhere do not have the legal requirement to protect you or your property.


And an investigation against police officers isn't always done thoroughly. You could have a hard time suing the police if they actually broke some law so the lawsuit failing is probably to be expected.
But I looked it up and Belgian law states: "in fulfilling their missions the police ensure the enforcement of public order (including the compliance of police law), the prevention of crimes and protection of persons and goods. They shall also render assistance to any person in danger"
So i suppose this does create some sort of legal obligation to stop crimes and protect the life and property of an individual.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:18 pm

That sounds a lot more like a policy or mission statement than an establishment of a legal duty that has civil or criminal consequences for breach.

Even if it does though, winning a lawsuit after the fact isn't always satisfying if you've been severely injured in the process.

Out of curiosity, what's the average police response times over there?
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:01 pm

It's part of the "Law of the police office". But you are right that it doesn't mention any legal consequences for breaching that part. In fact it even clearly states that police officers only have to pay compensations for damages done by them if the damage is a consequence of willful misconduct, serious fault or frequent minor error.
But there is a legal consequence tied to negligence which could apply in some cases. You can be punished if you neglect to offer assistance to someone in great danger (under some circumstances). It is clearly stated that this applies to "he who, although he is able to do so without serious danger to themselves or others, refuses or neglects to help someone in danger, the help that is legally requisitioned" (not the best translation but legal texts are worded in their legal ways). I suppose this targets the police and other emergency services. So I suppose that would apply in situations.

But all this talk about legal obligations isn't really connected to the gun debate as far as I can tell? Or are we viewing the fact that the police are incompetent to help in time as a possible reason to allow people to own guns to defend themselves?

I'll try to find some numbers on police response time but I'm not sure if I will find any. Our police aren't a great fan of statistics. We're not really up to date on that front.

EDIT: found a 2009 report. It only focuses on the calls that are listed in a database. Only 44% of the calls that were listed also listed the response time (not a great fan of statistics like I said :lol:). After some more data cleaning they ended with 39% of the number of calls that could be analysed on response time. In 50% of the cases the police arrived at the scene within 16 minutes, in 75% of the cases they arrived within 26 minutes and in 90% of the cases they arrived in 44 minutes.

That paints a rather bad picture of our police force but those are the general numbers. It gets slightly better when taking in to account the priority given to the calls. For calls with the highest priority in 54% of the cases the police arrived at the scene in less than 10 minutes, in 83% they arrived within 20 minutes and in 93% they arrived within 30 minutes. That still means that in 7% of the highest priority cases it took more than half an hour for police to arrive. That could be a bit problematic.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
Citizen
level2
level2
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:09 am

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby Citizen » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:03 am

Radiant Caligula wrote:After (yet) more public shootings in the US recently, I wonder what people think could be done to erradicate the threat of maniacs going berserk with guns in the US.

I'm happy I don't live in America for the single fact that it has more public shootings than any other country on earth - if you rule out warzones and civil wars. To completely prevent massacres anywhere in the world is nigh impossible - human beings are raving mad. But when this sick species have easy access to guns tragedy is bound to happen.

Here in Norway we have one of the highest concentrations of domestic guns in the world, but most of them are linked to hunting. It is very rare for people to actively use firearms to protect their homes and carrying guns for protection is very restricted. We have some of the lowest crime rates in the world and 'cause of this our police force don't carry guns, except for special operations.

In my mind the more guns the public have access to the more violent a society will get. If a burglar is breaking and entering isn't he more likely to bring a gun if he knows he probably will bump into a homeowner with a firearm? As long as guns are made, bad people will always get their hands on them, but wouldn't you agree with me that strict gun control or possibly prohibition would decrease the risk of shootouts and massacres?

Image



You're an idiot. You take life changing tragedy and post moronic poll. Congratulations, you win the retard award of the year.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby xander » Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:13 pm

Citizen wrote:You're an idiot. You take life changing tragedy and post moronic poll. Congratulations, you win the retard award of the year.

You are responding to someone who disappeared more than a year ago, and adding nothing to the current conversation, which you clearly haven't read. Who's the idiot?

xander
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:26 pm

Apologies for the double post, but the content is divergent enough that it seemed warranted. This is primarily directed at Feud and Ace, but I welcome comments from others. Please read this editorial. It does an excellent job of explaining my point of view---far better than I myself could do. For those that don't want to read the whole thing, a few highlights:

There are two major problems that need to be addressed: (1) unusual events, such as mass shootings, and (2) the more common background of gun violence. Several propositions are made to prevent both. Some of the more interesting include

  • Mandatory registration of firearms (similar to the registration of vehicles).
  • Background checks every time a firearm is sold, whether privately or by a licensed retailer (so that if a firearm is used in a crime, it can, theoretically, be traced back to the legal owner).
  • To support the above point, mandatory factory-stamped serial numbers on multiple parts of the firearm.
  • Again, to support the above, criminal liability for those who's arms are used in violent crimes. If you are the last owner of record and your gun is used in a crime, you can be charged as an accessory after the fact.
  • Mandatory licensing and training in order to own a firearm. If you want to own a gun, you need to be properly trained and obtain a license, which includes a justification for why you want one. It doesn't have to be a "good"---sport shooting, for instance---but those that justify their possession of firearms with "I want one," or "To fight the coming race war," might get a second look.
  • Mandatory trigger locks and/or gun safes for when a firearm is not being used. The point here is not to prevent a firearm from being stolen, but to limit the accidental or intentional use of domestically-owned firearms by children or other unauthorized users.
  • Stiff penalties, including loss of licensure, for dealers who show a pattern of selling weapons that are ultimately used in criminal acts, both in the US and in other countries.
  • Limits on the kinds of firearms and accessories that can be bought by civilians. Large clips and automatic weapons are not something that should be widely available.


To this, I might also add the availability of restricted weapons to gun clubs. No private citizen needs to own an AK47 or AR15. However, I respect that there are some people who like to shoot these things for fun. Fine. Join a gun club, which must keep the firearms under lock-and-key, with annual inspections. Want to fire the weapon? Do so on the premises of the gun club.

From the standpoint of mass killings, limits on clip size and availability of automatic and high-powered weapons makes it more difficult for a potential mass murderer to obtain such weapons. Is it impossible? Probably not. Could someone kill 20 school children with a frozen banana? Anything is possible if one is sufficiently motivated. Does this mean that we should throw up our hands and give up? Absolutely not. From the standpoint of the background violence, being able to track weapons back to the original owner or seller should help to keep weapons off of the street and out of the hands of those that are likely to commit crimes without unduly impacting those with a legitimate right to own and use a gun.

So, Feud, Ace, others: what is objectionable about this?

-----

One other, kind of unrelated point: you have made a big deal about the woman hiding in her closet and repeatedly shooting an intruder. I have given this some thought, and now feel that I can put my opinion into intelligible text. If there is an intruder in my home with a firearm, there has already been a catastrophic failure in my community. An intruder would have had to get through a locked door, evaded the community watch, ignored the usual police patrols, and somehow obtained the firearm in the first place. He would have to have motivation to break into my home, representing a failure of social services treat someone with a mental illness or drug addiction. In order to think that a closet is the best place to be, I would have to be so out of touch from my community that I am unwilling to seek shelter with my neighbors. Moreover, my firearm is properly stored, it is going to take time to get to it, unlock it, load it, and use it. This is while under pressure from a potentially hostile intruder. It is going to be a rare case when possession of a firearm is the deciding factor. Finally, I would have to believe that a firearm, as opposed to a baseball bat or can of pepper spray, is the best possible way to defend myself. As you pointed out, Feud, at close range, a person with a knife is far more dangerous than a person with a gun, which is why the police train to shoot from a greater distance.

xander
Citizen
level2
level2
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:09 am

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby Citizen » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:37 pm

xander wrote:
Citizen wrote:You're an idiot. You take life changing tragedy and post moronic poll. Congratulations, you win the retard award of the year.

You are responding to someone who disappeared more than a year ago, and adding nothing to the current conversation, which you clearly haven't read. Who's the idiot?

xander


If you think I'm going to read 11 pages of nonsense, you're as stupid as idiot who started this thread. :D
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby xander » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:45 pm

Your private message to me, which read "get fucked, xander," is a sign of an incredibly mature person with a genuine desire to discuss ideas in an intelligent and civilized manner. I thank you for your input. Now, with regard to your post in this topic:
Citizen wrote:If you think I'm going to read 11 pages of nonsense, you're as stupid as idiot who started this thread. :D

You needn't read all 11 pages. You could simply have noted that the original post was over two years old, and then decided not to respond. Or you could have gone to the end of the topic, and responded only to the most recent discussion. Your inability to see this, or any of the other possible actions that you could have taken, suggest that you are perhaps not the sharpest marble in the flock.

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:36 pm

xander wrote:So, Feud, Ace, others: what is objectionable about this?


Before we even start on those points, some which i strongly disagree with others not so much, where in the Constitution would the Federal government have power or authority to enact such laws?

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests