The Cellar - Guns urban vs urban?

Page 4 of 5

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Guns urban vs urban? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=12222)

Happy Monkey

11-02-2006 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

This is interesting. I hear so many people say drugs should be made more available, guns less available -- when half the time, the reason someone commits a crime is because they're high.

If we could bring drug-related crime down to just the crimes committed by users, that would be a vast improvement.

Just like drunk driving, barfights and weekends on college campuses are a vast improvement over the prohibition era.

Aliantha

11-02-2006 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

Interestingly, cars, ball peen hammers, and chainsaws* aren't designed to kill things, but often do anyway ... but never on their own. They don't just leap up and randomly massacre folks. Neither do rifles. Or handguns.

Okay, so maybe chainsaws* do on occasion, I may have picked a bad example)

As Flint pointed out, guns were developed to kill things. That's the history of them. None of the other things mentioned were developed specifically for killing things and other than cars I'd suggest to you that 'often' is probably quite an exaggeration.

As most of the other 'anti-gun' posters have also mentioned, I don't percieve guns as being evil. I, like most of the other posters here recognize that they don't kill anything by themselves, but thanks for pointing that out for us.

There is no point to your argument. It's only a rationalisation.

rkzenrage

11-02-2006 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

False. I don't think guns are wicked, and I'm not scared of them.

I'm subscribing to the idea that certain types of guns are more effective at killing humans than others. A gun is a tool. Yes. I agree. I don't mind tools that exist to kill animals and can also be used in a pinch to kill humans. A shotgun is great at home defense. I don't mind them, because they are hard for a criminal to carry down the street to use in crimes. (Yes, I know they can be sawn off to make them marginally more concealable.) I do mind tools that are designed primarily to kill humans, the way handguns are.

I wish there were no handguns. I realize that there are, in fact, handguns. I'd like to think that there is some way to regulate the amount of handguns out there. I don't know how to do that. What I do know is that when the guns rights supporters try to shut the conversation down by saying that violent crime would stay the same if guns were regulated or outlawed, they are shoveling a load of BS.

And finally, I don't think that the biggest cause of violent crime is the availability of guns. I think there are many avenues that can be pursued before trying to grab guns that will be more effective at reducing violent crime. A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

It is ironic that you say that, they two most popular weapons for violent crime are shotguns and revolvers.

mrnoodle

11-03-2006 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

...you didn't read it, and you wanted a jumping off point to rant about what you wanted to rant about?

bzzt. reread.

no rant here, jsut trying to help the misinformed understand that handguns aren't nearly as powerful as shotguns, and any concealability they offer has little to do with the crimes they're used for.

i.e., just because it looks like something you saw on TV shooting 300 rounds a minute without missing doesn't mean it can.

Urbane Guerrilla

11-03-2006 08:57 PM

There is also the fact that in-home self defense with pistol shots fired will cave your ears in much less than trying the same shots with a rifle -- rifle cartridges, anyway. It's a similar story with using shotgun loads, especially light loads as is recommended: basically skeet loads of powder and large shot. All you need is to damage the invader satisfactorily; there's no need to bring down the ceiling plaster.

It's a good idea not to cut loose with too powerful an arm, so as to contain or reduce problems with overpenetration. Do not shoot a Barrett Light Fifty in your living room. A .380 is a better bet.

A gun intended for fighting humans is hardly an unprecedented piece of equipment: consider the sword. A sword is not, properly speaking, a knife; even its fighting technique is completely different from that of a knife.

For me, it's the intent behind the fighting that saves or condemns. It is not sensible to concentrate exclusively on the hardware, for the reasons of effective opposition that I gave earlier. It is entirely in that part of the combat that contains the volition -- and the arm is emphatically not that.

xoxoxoBruce

11-04-2006 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

snip~-- when half the time, the reason someone commits a crime is because they're high. ~snip

I don't believe half the crimes commited by junkies are when they are high. On smack or crack, that would be near impossible. I think the crimes are committed by junkies who are not high, but want to be, and are trying to gather the price of admission.

Hense, a change in our drug policy would lead to a drastic price reduction and keep these people stoned in the corner, rather than waving their Saturday Night Special around the liquor store.

This is my feeling, but statistics could prove me wrong....anybody got some?:confused:

wolf	11-04-2006 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Absolutely correct, but I don't have stats.

If misuse of healthcare services is a crime, then I've seen an awful lot of it ... and never when someone is actually high ... usually I get folks when they are at the cranky, irritable, starting to hurt phase of either coming down or withdrawal.

Flint

11-04-2006 01:56 PM

People who are high are sitting on a couch, being high. Getting enough money to stay high is the challenge. And, on to of that, coming down from a high is what would make someone irritable and aggressive (the opposite of euphoric and complacent). So, then you have an aggressive person who needs money (or more drugs). I don't have any statistics to support this, but I agree that more crimes would be committed at that point.

MaggieL

11-04-2006 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Do not shoot a Barrett Light Fifty in your living room.

You can't shoot a Barrett in your living room. You can only shoot it *through* your living room. :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

A .380 is a better bet.

That might be going a little too far in the other direction.

Beestie

11-04-2006 11:55 PM

In Virginia, you can carry a gun in a holster in broad daylight. The crime rate in the suburban DC part of Virginia is very low - very low. The crime rate in DC is astronomical by comparison. DC is fond of blaming their crime problem on the availability of guns from Virginia.

Which is DC's way of saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Oops.

Ibby	11-05-2006 12:22 AM

In Taiwan, guns are illegal except for the military, and the crime rate is the lowest of anywhere i've ever seen, including pseudo-police-state beijing.

That is all.

xoxoxoBruce

11-05-2006 01:39 AM

Yeah, but missing persons is high. Must be a high flying saucer visit area, picking up people that irritate the government. :lol:

Ibby	11-05-2006 06:54 AM

Nah, people just get squished in the streets a lot.

Spexxvet

11-05-2006 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You can't shoot a Barrett in your living room. You can only shoot it *through* your living room. :-)
...

I guess you think an innocent person getting injured or killed by a bullet coming out of a house is funny? You like to joke about death and injury, huh?

wolf	11-05-2006 12:09 PM

Spexx, Maggie made a statement of fact, illustrating why longarms are not used for home defense.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.

Page 4 of 5

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page