| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| where is your stand |
| total disarmament |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| strict guns control |
|
53% |
[ 15 ] |
| light guns control |
|
21% |
[ 6 ] |
| free access to guns |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Erb Duchenne
Bottom line? Guns are bad... but criminals should have the fear that their opponents might have the bigger gun in the closet. I'm reluctant to vote though... until I get a better definition on the terms in the poll.
No offense but this is where you are absolutely wrong. Guns are NOT bad. There is NOTHING inherent in a gun (or a mushroom, or a glass bottle, or anything else) that makes it bad. "Bad" is a function ONLY of something a person does that is disagreeable to others. Please do not make this mistake. We do NOT need to severely limit guns but rather we need to severely limit what people do with guns.
Long before guns were invented people killed other people, people robbed other people and people imposed their will on other people. If you feel a need to disallow guns, then you also need to disallow all other potential weapons - which means you need to pick up all rocks, sticks, etc.
This mania against guns is totally misplaced - by people who want easy solutions to very difficult problems - by people who want to be able to wear the white hat and NOT have to severely punish other people who commit crimes against other humans.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:04 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@Joey, with that logic, if you were to free guns, you should also allow normal citizens to own tanks, missiles, strike fighters and nukes.
Guns are not inherintly bad, but their main use is to harm/kill other living things, with the exception of guns made only for sports shooting. I agree that most gun users use their guns responsively, but even with stricter laws they would still be able to buy those guns.
And how do you propose limiting what people do with guns? Wouldn't it be better to be able to stop a criminal from getting the gun in first place, rather than convicting him for a murder after he/she shot someone with it. And if the stricter control of guns doesn't have any effect, how do you explain the differences between US and the european countries that have stricter gun regulations.
Guns should not be wholly prevented, but I see no reason why they can't be supervised better. Background checks should be mandatory, to see that the person has no history of violent crimes. Also, I don't see any reason why a normal person would need a full-automatic weapon..
And for hunting weapons, why not require a hunting permit since they'll need one anyway, IF they are going to use the guns they way they are claiming to.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:56 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
@Joey, with that logic, if you were to free guns, you should also allow normal citizens to own tanks, missiles, strike fighters and nukes.
Not at all - please don't go overboard in what has been a discussion of guns not weapons of mass destruction. As with all things in an ordered society (or more or less ordered  ), there are and must be certain limits. The analogy I was making was to single human damage type weapons (guns, rifles) not weapons of mass destruction.
quote:
And how do you propose limiting what people do with guns?
The limits are already in place in (very likely) every country in the world. It is unlawful to harm or intend to harm another human and it is illegal to force or attempt to force another human to do something against their will (rape, robbery, etc.). There does NOT need to be another law. All we need to do is appropriately enforce those laws that already exist and to make it clear that violent crimes are totally unacceptable behaviour. People MUST self limit what they do.
quote:
Wouldn't it be better to be able to stop a criminal from getting the gun in first place, rather than convicting him for a murder after he/she shot someone with it.
No, it would be better (though likely impossible) to stop a human from committing a crime of any kind (with or without a gun) in the first place.
quote:
And if the stricter control of guns doesn't have any effect, how do you explain the differences between US and the european countries that have stricter gun regulations.
No clue what you are referring to here - you will have to be more specific.
quote:
Guns should not be wholly prevented, but I see no reason why they can't be supervised better. Background checks should be mandatory, to see that the person has no history of violent crimes. Also, I don't see any reason why a normal person would need a full-automatic weapon..
And for hunting weapons, why not require a hunting permit since they'll need one anyway, IF they are going to use the guns they way they are claiming to.
I agree we should do as good a job as possible with education, supervision, etc. of those who wish to own guns. We should (and we are generally speaking) ensure that guns and ammunition is clearly tracked to owners (technology is helping with this). Insofar as a person with a history of violent crimes being able to obtain a gun - again it is the wrong approach as they will ALWAYS be able to do so. The proper approach is to disallow repeat violent offends out on the streets at all - in other words do what I said we must do which is to make people responsible for their actions - totally responsible.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:46 pm |
|
|
MtnDwarf
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 36
|
First off people seem to think that making more laws is the answere. Just make a new law instead of try to fight the problem at its source. A lot of what joey is saying is very true and I agree with him. Criminals will still be able to get weopons it will be the law abiding people who will not. Try to get this strate in your head,a criminal by defintion is a person who doesnt obey the law hmmm. How would making a LAW to stop a CRIMINAL from getting a hold of a gun.
The argument that in the future it will be hard for criminals to get guns is a little silly, we will still be manufactering guns(military, police) and there will be more money for people to manufacter them ilegally.
Finally about the fact that europeon countries having less problems then America, well that is simply not true. Did you know that something like 85% of all roberies take place when the people that own the residents are present?? HMMM if you cant put the reason for that together then your opinion really doesnt have much merrit now does it.
_________________
"It is impossible to better oneself without knowing ones weaknesses" |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 7:57 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
Here is an interesting little piece of statistical data I found from US crime statistics.
In a 1997 study in the US: During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun.
What this means in the context of the question raised in this forum is that EVEN if you did away with ALL guns in the US you would not be effecting a very large change in crime - that is MOST (85%) of the crimes were performed without the use of a gun!
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 8:10 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Think about rediculousness of that statistic for a moment Joey.
P.S. I had a much longer reply, but my ISP connection died and I lost it to the random electronic noise...
_________________
(@) |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 8:26 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
@Joey, with that logic, if you were to free guns, you should also allow normal citizens to own tanks, missiles, strike fighters and nukes.
Not at all - please don't go overboard in what has been a discussion of guns not weapons of mass destruction. As with all things in an ordered society (or more or less ordered ), there are and must be certain limits. The analogy I was making was to single human damage type weapons (guns, rifles) not weapons of mass destruction.
I was just oversimplifying it the other way, I know that you don't actually want those things to be available.
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
The limits are already in place in (very likely) every country in the world. It is unlawful to harm or intend to harm another human and it is illegal to force or attempt to force another human to do something against their will (rape, robbery, etc.). There does NOT need to be another law. All we need to do is appropriately enforce those laws that already exist and to make it clear that violent crimes are totally unacceptable behaviour. People MUST self limit what they do.
I agree with you, I'm not a big supporter of the "big brother" tactics governments use to "protect" us from ourselves, it's happening a lot in Finland too and I'm pretty loud in protesting them. However, the gun laws are something I support. As I said, I'm not opposing people having guns, I'm just saying we should think who we are giving them to
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
No, it would be better (though likely impossible) to stop a human from committing a crime of any kind (with or without a gun) in the first place.
That would be the best option, true. But utopian society with no crime is not happening in the near future, so the most we can do is to try to keep the injuries and crimerates as low as possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
No clue what you are referring to here - you will have to be more specific.
The fact that stricter gunlaws and less violent crimes have a statistical (atleast) correspondency. Since the mentality, overall living and too many other factors also affect the crime statistics, I'm not going to argue a straight correspondency between US/european gun laws and crime statistics.
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
I agree we should do as good a job as possible with education, supervision, etc. of those who wish to own guns. We should (and we are generally speaking) ensure that guns and ammunition is clearly tracked to owners (technology is helping with this). Insofar as a person with a history of violent crimes being able to obtain a gun - again it is the wrong approach as they will ALWAYS be able to do so. The proper approach is to disallow repeat violent offends out on the streets at all - in other words do what I said we must do which is to make people responsible for their actions - totally responsible.
It's not always, I agree. By strict gun laws I mean that this should be enforced more strongly. I agree that there will always be non-legal ways to obtain firearms as long as we manufacture guns, and even after that, untill every singe gun is destroyed (which is not a realistic scenario). But by ensuring that the legal ways to obtain a gun are controlled atleast to some extent, by running background checks and such, we can get atleast some guns off the street.
As I'm not american, I have no saying as what you should do with your internal politics, especially when they don't affect us in any way. I'm pretty satisfied with the finnish system and don't see it offending or "big brother"-like at all. Ensuring that guns are given to responsible owners is not wrong, in my opinion.
About the crime statistic, I think it would be more comparable to get the percentage of violent crimes where a firearm was used.
@MtnDwarf, my stand is that not _anyone_ should be able to buy a gun. And about the crime statistic, I don't understand how it has to do anything with this or how it makes my opinion have less merit, please explain.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 8:33 pm |
|
|
Ryban
Village Dweller
Joined: 23 Aug 2002
Posts: 19
Location: Belgium, Gent |
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
Here is an interesting little piece of statistical data I found from US crime statistics.
In a 1997 study in the US: During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun.
What this means in the context of the question raised in this forum is that EVEN if you did away with ALL guns in the US you would not be effecting a very large change in crime - that is MOST (85%) of the crimes were performed without the use of a gun!
OK I think we all agree that Criminals will always be able to get a firearm through illigal means but that doesn't mean u have to make it easy for them.
BTW Joey MOST of the drimes that gets criminals in prison that should be. And I think thats a great difference , This statitistic could also mean that a lot of gunfights don't get solved. I think it's a quite useless number without any more info (no offence).
As you say Joey its always better in the long term to create responsiblity for one's actions but that does not change the fact that the gun is a murder weapon and ment to hurt or to kill. A knife has other uses (cutting meant and so on) But a handgun has only one purpose, hurting or killing other beings at least thats the way I see it. Therefor we should not only try to create responsiblity but also restricting the amout of guns among civilians. Ok I'm Belgian and it could very well be that I just don't understand why US civilians are so in to guns, but the way I see it is that a civilian has absolutly NO REASON to carry or have a gun. ( as I said maybe I just don't understand the way americans feel about guns ). Especialy no handguns, U always have less violent ways to react on an attacker ( peperspray and so on anyone?).OK It may be less efficient but I shivers start to run down my spine at the simple tought that a civilian carries a gun everywhere he goes, he just has to get exitet in any way (angry, feeling uncomftable, sudden attack of paranoia) And BAM he shots an innocent person. I voted for Strick regulations( full background check, menmber of a shooting range and so on) because that way u are quite certain that that perosn is responsible enough to carry a gun. (and maybe forbid taking the gun home )
I'm leaving the criminals out of discussion here, but (correct me if I'm wrong)to my feeling those shooting accident are the worst. Civilians who never intended shoot other civilians maybe family members (childeren shooting people, and so on. I think it are especially those things that should be prevented). All those things wont happen if there isn't a gun at home.
Ryban , just my 2 cents (hope the post was a bit clear )
always at your service for better explenation
_________________
I don't suffer from insanity,
I enjoy every second of it. |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 10:25 pm |
|
|
MtnDwarf
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 36
|
Sorry if I didnt explain completely earlier. Basicly the reason that in europe the vast majority of brake ins happen when people are at home becouse criminals know that the people who live there most likely dont have a fire arm to defend themselves. In America this statistic is completely reversed, almost all brake ins happen during the day were the burgler has a much smaller chance of getting 80 shotgun pellets lodged in his chest cavity.
_________________
"It is impossible to better oneself without knowing ones weaknesses" |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:14 pm |
|
|
Rendelius
Critical Error
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 16
Location: Austria |
MtnDwarf, I live in Europe and I seriously doubt the numbers you gave. I NEVER heard of a burglary when someone was at home. And only a very few burglars are armed here.
I voted for a strict ban of weapons at home. The few people I know having a gun at are those I would be happy if they had not.
_________________
Rendelius
former Senior Editor RPGDot
now at http://www.theastronomers.com |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:21 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
Gee, seeing as how I am from Texas guess how I voted?
I think we should maintain the right to have guns, but the gun laws need to be very strict. I’m all for making people take numerous classes, tests, and get licensees before being able to have one. Also the punishment for using a gun in any sort of crime should be worse than if you use a knife or other weapon. I think if we try to disarm to populace then will only succeed in disarming the law abiding citizens, but leave the criminals armed. What do criminal care if their illegal if their using them for illegal activities? |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 12:07 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Ryban
OK It may be less efficient but I shivers start to run down my spine at the simple tought that a civilian carries a gun everywhere he goes, he just has to get exitet in any way (angry, feeling uncomftable, sudden attack of paranoia)
Odd, I thought I was innocent until proven guilty. You seem to want to make me guilty simply because I own a handgun. 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:29 am |
|
|
Windwalking
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 227
|
quote:
Originally posted by MtnDwarf
Finally about the fact that europeon countries having less problems then America, well that is simply not true. Did you know that something like 85% of all roberies take place when the people that own the residents are present?? HMMM if you cant put the reason for that together then your opinion really doesnt have much merrit now does it.
That statistic is virtually meaningless; who cares when the crime happens? People may own guns; sure that's a deterrent. But more criminals own guns; that's an advantage for the criminal. But take a look at these overall statistics from Interpol:
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp
Let's just look at homicides, for the year 2000
USA: 15,520 Homicides for 281,000,000 people or 5.51 per 100,000 citizens
France: 2,166 Homicides for 58,000,000 people or 3.70 per 100,000
Germany: 2,770 Homicides for 82,000,000 people or 3.37 per 100,000
I'd say the USA has a bigger problem than France and Germany, does it not? It sure sticks out like a sore thumb compared to these two nations (typical European nations, I'd say). In France access to guns is a lot more difficult than the USA (though not impossible). Germany it is much the same way. Most other factors are similar, including access to violent movies, economic wealth, etc. Cultural differences are there, but I think that the difference is that more people settle disputes in a DEADLY way here in the USA. Why? USA has easier access to guns, which are a LOT easier to kill with than knives or sticks or stones.
And that ridiculous concern about a 1984 Orwellian state... Look at many of those European countries with very limited access to guns... Are THEY 1984 types of states? Sure they're more socialist, but criticizing the government and open debate is still very much a part of those western European democracies. The govts are not trampling on people's freedom of expression (or at least not more than in the USA, land of the holy gun).
So why continue to have guns in such large quantities? I think the USA should follow the European lead and severely limit access by putting the squeeze on manufacturers; perhaps a very radical measure would be to make manufacturers do guns by order only. That way, every gun even MADE would be ordered by a law-abiding citizen that passes all the background tests and such. Or whatever. The point is that the strict gun laws should be ENFORCED. I fear that local gangbanger much more than a 1984 type of state, because the latter has virtually no possibility of succeeding, in my mind...
- Wind |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:03 am |
|
|
Ryban
Village Dweller
Joined: 23 Aug 2002
Posts: 19
Location: Belgium, Gent |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
quote:
Originally posted by Ryban
OK It may be less efficient but I shivers start to run down my spine at the simple tought that a civilian carries a gun everywhere he goes, he just has to get exitet in any way (angry, feeling uncomftable, sudden attack of paranoia)
Odd, I thought I was innocent until proven guilty. You seem to want to make me guilty simply because I own a handgun.
And can I ask why u need a handgun?
I don't say everybody who ownes a handgun is guilty(I didn't even intended that). I say before u get a handgun u should get tested . Maybe u are responsible (I'm quite certain u are  ) but we don't know about all those other handgun owners. And u will have to admit that if it's easier to get a gun It's more likely that persons who should not have one get one. ex person who get angry to easy and such
_________________
I don't suffer from insanity,
I enjoy every second of it. |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:08 am |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Odd, I thought I was innocent until proven guilty. You seem to want to make me guilty simply because I own a handgun.
You own a gun? Okay, that's it, lock her up.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
