GameBanshee Forums

If anyone would like to continue the discussion about gun control you can now do so here and leave the Virginia Massacre thread as a place for mourning not debating.

We all agree that gun control will have no impact on organized crime, but it will have some on the weekend car stealers, house robbers, etc.

Your completely right it will have some effect on weekend car jackers and house robbers, it will encourage them to do it more frequently if they know that no one will have a weapon to defend themselves with.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Your completely right it will have some effect on weekend car jackers and house robbers, it will encourage them to do it more frequently if they know that no one will have a weapon to defend themselves with.

The statistics people have shown on the other thread are clear about that : where there is gun control, the number of crimes other than killings are not higher than in the USA, and the killings are lower. What I meant is that the weekend car jackers and house robbers won't do their crime with a gun anymore so you won't need one to "save" your life when and if they do so to you. And you don't have to worry about organized crime (who will still own plenty of weapons even with gun control) killing you, unless of course you interfere with their business.

Most car jackers and house robbers are not interested in killing people, they just want money: these persons are parasites, not danger.

What I meant is that the weekend car jackers and house robbers won't do their crime with a gun anymore so you won't need one to "save" your life when and if they do so to you.

Even if they dont have a gun whats to stop them from stabbing you or whacking you with a bat, both of those weapons can be just as deadly as a gun at close range.

Most car jackers and house robbers are not interested in killing people, they just want money: these persons are parasites, not danger.

thats true they do normally just want money or your car, but im not one to just hand it over without a fight, they try that with me at home or in my truck and i wont think twice about killing them.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Even if they dont have a gun whats to stop them from stabbing you or whacking you with a bat, both of those weapons can be just as deadly as a gun at close range.

thats true they do normally just want money or your car, but im not one to just hand it over without a fight, they try that with me at home or in my truck and i wont think twice about killing them.

Not as deadly. But deadly, yes... like you said at close range. But car jackers and house robbers without guns will probably flee if you surprise them instead of trying to get close to you and hit you with a knife or a bat. When they are surprised, they know it is a matter of time before the police arrives. Their first goal is not being catch, they won't care about your car or your house when they are seen since there are plenty of others.

I can also add that house robbers without weapons don't go to occupied houses, they wait when people are out. Just like car jackers don't steal occupied cars often.

I can also add that house robbers without weapons don't go to occupied houses, they wait when people are out. Just like car jackers don't steal occupied cars often.

Thats very true, normally they dont. Someone did try to carjack my oldest brother once while he was getting gas, the thief hit my brother with a piece of rebar and knocked him on the ground. My brother has a concealed handgun license and he pulled out his sig p226 and that was enough to frighten the jacker away. so his gun has already paid for itself several times over. (the police in nacadoches, TX are a bunch of dumb hillbillies that barely graduated high school, they never would have found that truck)

@TEMPLAR67: Am I correct then in assuming that you belive the increased amount of deaths caused by lack of gun control is a necessary trade of for you to be able to defend your property?

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Your completely right it will have some effect on weekend car jackers and house robbers, it will encourage them to do it more frequently if they know that no one will have a weapon to defend themselves with.

Statement without anything factual to back it up, once more.
For all you know, it simply means the burglar will arm himself more appropriate before "exploring" a house, thus increasing the risk of a shootout. After all - guns are easy to get, so better safe then sorry in case the houseowner is armed.
Crime still exists - to a massive degree - in the US, not in the least murders and suicides by handguns. Despite many guns in the society, so you can not use the "more guns = safer" argument unless you start to back it up by factuality. Which you can't.

So it does not matter if a baseball bat can do some serious damage, but you have to be within arms length whereas with a gun you can kill several people a good distance away within the same time.
The two as weapons are not comparable. There is a reason why the military uses firearms now and not sticks and bats.
A gun is specifically designed to do damage to people, kill them. A bat is made designed to play sports. There is a huge difference.


Your argumentation is flawed, full of holes and has little, if anything, factual to back it up, and looks to be little to do with actually wanting to debate other then stating random unfounded statements.

I'm interested in finding out if there's strong evidence to support the theory that gun availability increases fire-arm related fatalities. Last time I looked up statistics, I was surprised to find out that countries like Switzerland and Norway had more guns per capita than the US and a significantly lower rate of firearm-related deaths. Does anyone know what the specific regulation is in those countries? If I recall correctly there were near a million assault rifles owned by private individuals in Switzerland, though since they are not meant for self defense (very much like firearms in the US according to the second amendment) very few people actually have permits to carry them in public, which is in stark contrast to American laws.

I'm for the most part leaning towards restriction, if only because I've seen how most vocal gun owners openly proclaim they feel they're within their rights to shoot a trespasser to protect their property, even if their lives weren't in danger. I'm talking "I'd shoot the kid in the back if he was running with my TV" kind of mentality. I know anecdotal evidence like that is a pretty bad reason to make a decision, which is why my opinion isn't really set in stone.

This has been taken from Statistics Canada, so it is official.

"In 1995, when gun registration became compulsory, the death
rate for firearms-related injuries was 3.8 per 100,000
population. Over the following years, the rate, which had been
falling quite steadily since the early 1990s, continued to drop.
Of course, it is difficult to measure the contribution that gun
control regulations may have made to this decrease."

I could be dishonest and end it here, but I have to add that, unfortunately, the number of homicides related to other causes than firearms, who had also had dropped since the 1990, have begin to rise in the last two years in Canada. The statistics I red do not indicate if the persons murdered were civilians or people taking part in organized crime, so it is almost impossible to draw a conclusion from them. I still thaught this could be interesting to know though.

I've never really doubted that regulations such as registration have an effect in lowering the death-toll; I'm more interested to know if gun availability has a similar effect i.e. if there's a casual relationship between the amount of guns per capita and the number of homicides involving guns. From what I know there isn't, which is why I don't think taking guns away will solve any problems. Tighter control over firearms - registration, background checks and the like - is a different matter, and I have nothing against it.

Japan, which has a low violent crime rate, also has some of the most stringent gun controls in the world. Undoubtedly, it will be argued here either way whether or not there is a correlation, but I've always found this statistic quite compelling myself. I will concede, however, that culture has a significant impact as well.

[url="http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html"]This page[/url] shows more statistics, for anyone interested. Though the figures are from 2001.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Thats very true, normally they dont. Someone did try to carjack my oldest brother once while he was getting gas, the thief hit my brother with a piece of rebar and knocked him on the ground. My brother has a concealed handgun license and he pulled out his sig p226 and that was enough to frighten the jacker away. so his gun has already paid for itself several times over. (the police in nacadoches, TX are a bunch of dumb hillbillies that barely graduated high school, they never would have found that truck)

Your brother's story may prove your point, but I have another anectode that is as valid and can prove mine. And believe me, this is not a made up story. Just like I belive you when you talk about your brother's story.

One night, about 10 years ago, one of my friends hit a trespasser on the head with a crowbar and then ran into his house to call the police. When the police came to arrest the criminal, my friend heard him scream: "Wait! Wait! I know (and he gave my friend's last name)!" That trespasser was one of our friends who did not want to go home because he was too drunk and was afraid his parents would yell at him. I can assure you that his parents were not too happy to see him brought home by the police! I am glad my friend with the crowbar did not have any firegun.

Interesting stats, DW, thank you.

Another true story:

In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.

dragon wench wrote:Another true story:

In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.

That is a very sad story.

My friends, at least, can now laugh at the story I just told, because it ended up without any casualties, just a strong headache.

dragon wench wrote:Japan, which has a low violent crime rate, also has some of the most stringent gun controls in the world. Undoubtedly, it will be argued here either way whether or not there is a correlation, but I've always found this statistic quite compelling myself. I will concede, however, that culture has a significant impact as well.

[url="http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html"]This page[/url] shows more statistics, for anyone interested. Though the figures are from 2001.

Japan is not enough to draw a conclusion from, as it's a single case and variables other than gun availability are impossible to control - you mentioned culture yourself. What I did find interesting were the statistics you posted. The top three countries by gun homicide are the USA, Northern Ireland and Italy, which are the only countries to score higher than 1 per 100,000. Northern Ireland has a very low number of firearms per household(8.4%, compared with, say, Sweden's 20%), and a cursory Google search suggested 6% for Italy, which is also below average.

Vicsun wrote:Japan is not enough to draw a conclusion from, as it's a single case and variables other than gun availability are impossible to control - you mentioned culture yourself. What I did find interesting were the statistics you posted. The top three countries by gun homicide are the USA, Northern Ireland and Italy, which are the only countries to score higher than 1 per 100,000. Northern Ireland has a very low number of firearms per household(8.4%, compared with, say, Sweden's 20%), and a cursory Google search suggested 6% for Italy, which is also below average.

What I am going to say will not make me win the "most intelligent thing said on SYM" award but I'm gonna write it anyway: one conclusion we can draw from these stats is that you don't need many firearms to kill someone... one is enough.

the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.

I dont really think it matters what language you speak, if somebody has a gun drawn on you its probably not the best idea to walk toward them.

I'm interested in finding out if there's strong evidence to support the theory that gun availability increases fire-arm related fatalities. Last time I looked up statistics, I was surprised to find out that countries like Switzerland and Norway had more guns per capita than the US and a significantly lower rate of firearm-related deaths. Does anyone know what the specific regulation is in those countries? If I recall correctly there were near a million assault rifles owned by private individuals in Switzerland

There must be something in the water here in the US then or since countries like Switzerland have mandatory military service then the people are more disciplined and are better at handling firearms than most here in the US. I think that a mandatory 2 year service for everyone when you turn 18 would greatly benefit this country.

one conclusion we can draw from these stats is that you don't need many firearms to kill someone... one is enough.

For someone like me, one is never enough:devil:

Vicsun wrote:Japan is not enough to draw a conclusion from, as it's a single case and variables other than gun availability are impossible to control - you mentioned culture yourself. What I did find interesting were the statistics you posted. The top three countries by gun homicide are the USA, Northern Ireland and Italy, which are the only countries to score higher than 1 per 100,000. Northern Ireland has a very low number of firearms per household(8.4%, compared with, say, Sweden's 20%), and a cursory Google search suggested 6% for Italy, which is also below average.

You need to factor in the fact the Northern Ireland has had a lot of terrorist activity for decades, and this is only just dying down in recent years. There have always been several active terrorist groups and vigilante groups there and there is also a lot of hatred between catholic and protestants. All of this would not only make illegal guns very easy to obtain but also gives a strong motive for their use. This is why Northern Ireland has such high figures dispite a low number of firearms per household.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:I dont really think it matters what language you speak, if somebody has a gun drawn on you its probably not the best idea to walk toward them.

Has it occured to you that he could just have been trying to explain to the guy that it was a misunderstanding, that he could have been moving forward in a non-threatening manner, just like you move closer to someone when you feel the conversation is serious?

Or are you trying to say that when someone points a gun at another person, only the person on the wrong end of the gun has the duty to remain calm and think wisely?

For someone like me, one is never enough.

I am talking about killing people and you answer that. Should I find this extremely disturbing, or did I just misunderstood?