# NF gun control



## Razvan (Dec 17, 2009)

I don't think youare allowed to bring a gun to school, so it would stop nothing.

I am against guns and against violence, I never needed to protect myself froms omebody with a gun and hopefully never will, yes I did get rubbed a few times, but they were so osubtle for me to realise and even if they tried it with less subtility, I would have preefred to give them the money. Thing is, if thieves knew they risked being shot, they wouldnot stop to ask questions, they would just use more force as a precaution and shoot you before you could do anything. From my point of view, allowing people to have guns would only make criminals more violent. And why do we pay taxes for police andjustice system if they can't fight crime efficiently.Something needs to be done there, if you asked me. Invest in education, invest in people and you will not need guns, in my opinion.

PS: I think most college shootout were done with legal guns, taken from parents...
PS2: Yes, in the US you are in deep s***, you already have lots of guns on the market so, banning them now...all guns would go away only in 50 years.


----------



## Phoenix400 (Sep 19, 2009)

Razvan said:


> I don't think youare allowed to bring a gun to school, so it would stop nothing.
> 
> I am against guns and against violence, I never needed to protect myself froms omebody with a gun and hopefully never will, yes I did get rubbed a few times, but they were so osubtle for me to realise and even if they tried it with less subtility, I would have preefred to give them the money. Thing is, if thieves knew they risked being shot, they wouldnot stop to ask questions, they would just use more force as a precaution and shoot you before you could do anything. From my point of view, allowing people to have guns would only make criminals more violent. And why do we pay taxes for police andjustice system if they can't fight crime efficiently.Something needs to be done there, if you asked me. Invest in education, invest in people and you will not need guns, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Well, I gotta say, I don't agree with your opinion, but I will respect it. There are a few points I'd like to bring up for you to take into consideration.

In the case of college shootouts being with legal 'parent owned' guns, the guns still aren't the problem, in my opinion. Its the failing of the parents to properly teach their children about right and wrong and how to properly cope with the world. Everybody just wants to pass the buck and blame somebody else for their problems. Also, any parent who owns guns and doesn't teach their kids the proper respect for the weapon and its dangers once they're old enough is an idiot. If they're not old enough, there's plenty of ways to secure your firearms so they can't get to them. I agree with you on investing in people. A lot of this would stop (not all of it, some people are just plain nuts. ex: sociopaths) if people would start being real parents and the community would encourage more outreach programs for troubled youth.

There's an important point I'd like to make on the mentality of criminals, they're cowards. Criminals prey off of those weaker than themselves, that's why its important not to make yourself look like an easy mark. They thrive off of intimidation. It explains why they usually work in groups and gang violence. Safety and power in numbers. Granted there are violent criminals out there who get off on beating their victims, but the vast majority are thieves looking for a quick pay-off. There was survey done in US prisons (can't quote the exact source right now) and most criminals said what they feared most was that their victim could be armed. This is the exact reason why the vast majority of break-ins are done when the people aren't home. Most reported cases I've seen, as soon as the home owner comes out and starts throwing bullets, the criminals try to beat a hasty retreat. 

Here in the US, they'll usually tell you to just give a robber the money. Its not worth your life. However if you feel that its more than a robbery and have significant fear for your life then you can usually be justified in self-defense. That's why I love our laws about concealed carry. You practice it properly and nobody knows you're carrying a gun unless you tell 'em. Criminals are left to wonder who's armed and who's not. Make ya think twice about jumpin' somebody if you can't really tell, wouldn't it? 

As for the failures in the justice system, a lot of it is logistics. How long does it take to commit a crime? The police can't teleport. Somebody has to call and report a crime in progress, the dispatcher has to send out the location on the radios, and the closest officers still have to get there. That usually takes longer than for the crook to do his thing and bail. The rest of it is just poor budgets and bureaucratic horseshit that lets crooks get off on technicalities once they've been caught :angry:. You could put a cop on every street corner, but that would bankrupt the whole country trying to pay for it and the thought of Martial Law makes me incredibly uncomfortable. 

And for the record, it'd take a lot longer than 50 years for the guns to disappear here. I sold an original WWI M1911 a couple of years back. It was beat to death, but still fired ball ammo just fine. I ran the serial # and the manufacture date came back 1914. Over 90 years old and still ran like a champ :laughing:


----------



## Razvan (Dec 17, 2009)

I'm not saying you are not making a good point, but what I ment about the justice system is that it should work more on prevention and I would also have liked to see people being educated properly from kindergarten to highschool, maybe I am a bit idealistic, but I think that everybody being shown what it means for somebody to die and taught to embrace peace, to have an educated view, would do more good that everybody holding a gun. Each criminal has a psychological motivation so if you work in that area with each person, give them hope, maybe they will not want to do bad things. I don't think people are born bad...but yeah, I guess guns are the simpler solution.

However I don't understand why you need the firepower, in your home it really doesn't matter if you have a gun, a AKM or whatever... And how about that sniper guy in Washington, if I remember correctly, from a few years ago...how does a weapon help you defend from that. Plus his gun was legally obtained?


----------



## Phoenix400 (Sep 19, 2009)

Razvan said:


> I'm not saying you are not making a good point, but what I ment about the justice system is that it should work more on prevention and I would also have liked to see people being educated properly from kindergarten to highschool, maybe I am a bit idealistic, but I think that everybody being shown what it means for somebody to die and taught to embrace peace, to have an educated view, would do more good that everybody holding a gun. Each criminal has a psychological motivation so if you work in that area with each person, give them hope, maybe they will not want to do bad things. I don't think people are born bad...but yeah, I guess guns are the simpler solution.
> 
> However I don't understand why you need the firepower, in your home it really doesn't matter if you have a gun, a AKM or whatever... And how about that sniper guy in Washington, if I remember correctly, from a few years ago...how does a weapon help you defend from that. Plus his gun was legally obtained?


Well, as I said, I agree with you about investing in people. I personally believe that people have just as much potential for 'good' in them as 'evil' and that some people are born more predisposed for one than the other. It still a conscious decision as to what path they choose to follow. Some of the best people come out of the worst conditions and vice versa. There are amazing people out there who have turned away from addiction and darker ways of life to become better people. There are some people out there with a thirst for violence though, and choose to satiate it. Human's by nature are a violent species, you just have to look into history to see numerous examples. Yes we have the power to rise above it, but we're a long way from being there.

I agree that there could be more done for prevention, but I don't feel the responsibility lies in the hands of the justice system. Its great for law enforcement to get involved, don't get me wrong. I remember the D.A.R.E program in school when I was a kid. Good idea but the problem with it was it was just a one week seminar. "Don't do drugs, see ya later." Prevention takes dedication, long-term commitment. It takes getting involved in other people's lives, inspiring, helping, teaching. Prevention isn't in the hands of the justice system, its in the hands of the families and the communities. There's too many broken homes out there and not enough people in the community reaching out to guide these people. Yeah, counseling would help, but there's not enough counselors out there and they're not that well trained for the pay grade they get. I guess you could say that its the Social Services departments that could really step up their game rather than the justice system, but the greatest share of the responsibility lies in the home with the parents and family. 

As for the D.C. sniper, I don't remember much about that. I was in Airborne School at the time. You've got to remember, here in the US guns aren't just for self-defense. There's hunting and recreation as well, numerous sporting events for firearms. I don't know if the guy purchased the gun through legal channels or not. Most law-abiding gun owners are responsible, but people do snap. There's not much you can do at that point but hope somebody with the power can put a stop to it before too many people get hurt. Unfortunately, sometimes shit just happens and its out of our hands.

The guns aren't the problem. Its an inanimate object, the only will it has is the will of the one who holds it. Its the people that need fixing, its society. Something, somewhere has gone horribly wrong and the situation is only getting worse. 

World's a crazy place nowadays. Anything can happen at any time. There's a serial rapist in my area right now, breaking into homes when women are alone. The police still haven't caught him yet. If people would be more safety conscious, lock their doors, get alarm systems, etc, he might not have as many victims under his belt. If he jumped a woman who was armed, maybe she could end the bastard and there wouldn't be any more victims. When its past the point of prevention something has to be done.

What it really comes down to is this, I choose to take responsibility for my own safety instead of depending on others (like an inefficient police force). Sadly, in this day in time, I feel safer with a firearm. That's why one stays in my house and, as long its legal for me to carry, one stays on my belt. It won't save me from everything, in fact I consider it to be my last ditch effort, my ace in the hole. Its no guarantee, but it could be that extra edge if something bad happens. It'd be great if we lived in a world where that wasn't necessary but, well...it is what it is.


----------



## Razvan (Dec 17, 2009)

> What it really comes down to is this, I choose to take responsibility for my own safety instead of depending on others (like an inefficient police force). Sadly, in this day in time, I feel safer with a firearm. That's why one stays in my house and, as long its legal for me to carry, one stays on my belt. It won't save me from everything, in fact I consider it to be my last ditch effort, my ace in the hole. Its no guarantee, but it could be that extra edge if something bad happens. It'd be great if we lived in a world where that wasn't necessary but, well...it is what it is.
> 
> I know, I may havesoundedlike anidealist, but whoknows,wehave evolved and maybein 100 yearsfire arms will not be needed.:happy:


I agree with you that thisis the simplest solution and the only one you as an individual can do, but I don't likethe fact that the society which is also formed by individuals is not capable of finding a solution to this. Also, I think in the US it's truethat because so many badpeople have guns, youhave to own one, I am happy hough that thisis not the casewhere I live and in general there are not that many cases of crimes involving guns. Still, there are alot ofpeople that could need to learn to defend themselves, but it can be done with less dangerous weapons, or by learning aikido or something.:happy:


----------



## Phoenix400 (Sep 19, 2009)

Razvan said:


> I know, I may havesoundedlike anidealist, but whoknows,wehave evolved and maybein 100 yearsfire arms will not be needed.:happy:


Lol. Nothing wrong with being an idealist, just don't lose sight of the current reality. Reaching for the ideal is great, but it can't just materialize, it has to be worked for. You can't just work AROUND reality, you have to work THROUGH it. 

Way I see it, it goes like this:
This is how things should be.
This is how things are.
Why are things this way?
If this is what's causing things then how can the issue be addressed? How can I start to change the way things are into what they should be?

On the issue of gun control in this thread:

Q: What would happen if we banned guns? 
A: People would just start killing each other with bows and arrows, or knives, or bats, etc. Heck with the proper knowledge of Human Anatomy, a ball point pen can make for a field expedient artery ventilator. 

Q: Why is this true?
A: Lots of reasons. Human nature, society, poor parenting, etc, etc.

Q: How can we fix this?
A: ...that's really what the whole gun control debate is all about at the core (as far as I see it). Everybody's getting into arguments over fixing a SYMPTOM of the problem and not addressing the ACTUAL problem. Really I think it comes down to the fact that humanity has a lot more evolving to do before we're anywhere near ready for some kind of non-violent utopia. 



> Still, there are alot ofpeople that could need to learn to defend themselves, but it can be done with less dangerous weapons, or by learning aikido or something.:happy:


I agree to a point. I'm a firm believer in learning self-defense. I like marital arts, not just for the techniques but for the mindset. Wish more people would read 'The Book of Five Rings', its a martial art book that's used metaphorically these days (not for physical combat but more for mental and verbal) and I usually find it in the 'Business Administration' section of the book store as opposed to the 'Sports' section. 

There's plenty of laws dealing with force on force, excessive force, etc. A stepped approach to defense is usually preferable in my mind. 

1.) Avoidance and Deescalation. Diplomacy
2.) Physical combat if there's no other choice
3.) Weapons for when conflict is inevitable and the enemy has a superior tactical advantage.

Criminal comes at you with the intent to rob, rape, murder, etc., they already have the advantage of surprise. Defending yourself is all about maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. Guy comes at me with a knife, I have gun. Advantage is in my favor if I can draw fast enough. Guy comes at me with a gun, I'm still at a disadvantage due to his already being in the mindset, just gotta use your best judgment at that point and hope for the best. Surprise, take advantage of opportunity, gain the tactical advantage.

To quote myself from earlier in this thread:


> The great equalizer. Criminals look for the easy marks. If they've got a massive power and/or numbers advantage, I'll do whatever I have to do stay alive. I've got a little hand-to-hand training but my body's pretty beat up. What's a 110lbs woman, 80 year-old man, or a physically disabled person gonna do against muggers/rapists?


lol. Don't think I'm pickin' on ya or anything. You bring up interesting points and I love to debate things that I feel strongly about.:happy:


----------



## Razvan (Dec 17, 2009)

Phoenix400 said:


> To quote myself from earlier in this thread:
> lol. Don't think I'm pickin' on ya or anything. You bring up interesting points and I love to debate things that I feel strongly about.:happy:


Hehehe, no, I don't think you are picking on me, I think we are debating, also, this is interesting, although not quite relevant for many reasons : List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It does show however that culture and education do have an impact on criminality, not sure about gun control though, but in my opinion, like I said, if you get the temptation away, people will be less likely to kill (if they are educated enough). Of course, there are different approach lets say for example between Europe, China or the arab countries.


----------



## Navis Amoris (Feb 21, 2010)

I live in The Netherlands, and I can tell you that gun control does not help. The people that actually _want _to use guns are always able to get their hands on one (black market) and the rest of law-abiding citizens are defenseless when something does happen. The criminals who aren't active in organized crime (like robbery, etc) but do like to mug or randomly attack people simply use knives. Less shootings, more stabbings. In my opinion gun control is simply a topic that politicians use to give potential voters a false sense of security.


----------



## Dallas (Nov 7, 2009)

Forgive me for skimming through the rest of the posts, but I believe that guns should not be controlled. Not for my sake, but for my family's, I would hate to sit there while someone broke into my house and proceeded to endangered my loved ones while I'm helpless. If the United States ever did ban guns, I would just have to have one illegally.


----------



## fantasista (Feb 8, 2010)

I'm against guns, period.


----------



## Phoenix400 (Sep 19, 2009)

Razvan said:


> Hehehe, no, I don't think you are picking on me, I think we are debating, also, this is interesting, although not quite relevant for many reasons : List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It does show however that culture and education do have an impact on criminality, not sure about gun control though, but in my opinion, like I said, if you get the temptation away, people will be less likely to kill (if they are educated enough). Of course, there are different approach lets say for example between Europe, China or the arab countries.


lol, Just makin' sure. I know some people that get incredibly sensitive about this topic.

Interesting statistics. Its hard for me to take statistics as gospel sometimes. The 1st paragraph of that article even states that it may not be entirely accurate and does not include violent crimes that did not result in homicide. I dunno, I've got a lot of fellow gun owner friends that get very deeply embroiled in the gun control battle. The constant war between the Brady Campaign and the NRA here, both throwing around statistics they've intentionally skewed in their favor, has left me kinda jaded about the whole thing. That's just within the US where the stats are pretty uniform, throwing in different countries stats and how they report things just makes it even more complicated. 

That said, if you look at the statistics you posted and then THIS: U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters , I find that somewhat telling. Our homicide rate in the US is actually very low considering we've got the highest amount of privately owned guns by far compared to the rest of the world. 



SLN said:


> I live in The Netherlands, and I can tell you that gun control does not help. The people that actually _want _to use guns are always able to get their hands on one (black market) and the rest of law-abiding citizens are defenseless when something does happen. The criminals who aren't active in organized crime (like robbery, etc) but do like to mug or randomly attack people simply use knives. Less shootings, more stabbings. In my opinion gun control is simply a topic that politicians use to give potential voters a false sense of security.


I saw a news report on increases in home invasions where the people were actually home and a high increase in the number of knife assaults in Europe. Something about how some private companies are actually marketing kevlar lined school uniforms to combat the problem. Not sure how true that is as it was an American news station reporting, but its bothersome.

It also makes me wonder what kind of weave they use for the kevlar. If I remember right, kevlar is designed to catch an object and disperse the kinetic energy throughout the weave. By design, its still supposed to be susceptible to slashing and puncturing with objects sharp enough to damage the weave...I need a body armor guru in here. That report just made me think "marketing gimmick to prey on peoples' fears". Especially after seeing the thickness of the material, I can't see it being that much protection compared to what I do know about armor. 

Also: There was a post further back in this thread that mentioned carry on school campus. I'm in agreement that CC permit holders should be allowed to carry on campus, especially considering the school shootings that have happened in this country. 'Gun Free Zones' just scream 'Target that can't fight back' to me. If somebody on campus was armed maybe they could've put a stop to a couple of the nuts. 

Of course, I live in a military town and 1/2 the people in my school are active duty or prior-service military (myself included) that have all been trained to run TOWARDS the sound of gunfire. Even being unarmed, if somebody tried to pull a Virginia Tech here, they'd get sacked by 1/2 dozen GI's after another 1/2 dozen came up with a way distract the maniac so the other 'squad' could blindside him. That's why I doubt you'll ever hear about a college shooting in this town *knock on wood*. Not to mention that I'm sure there's some people round here that said "Screw Johnny Law, I'm not gonna be a defenseless target" and have a mouse gun in their pocket or something.


----------



## Razvan (Dec 17, 2009)

That's true, US is the most "armed" country, but it's also in top when it comes to violence, so that was also where I was getting, violence and tools that are related to violence (guns), is there any connection? Does promoting tools that can be easily used for violence bring violence? I don't think the US is less cultured or less educated than other countries, although the poor state system (from what I have read) and the expensive private system of education do tend to limit the education level for most people. So education may not really be the cause, in my opinion. Yes, the statistics are probably not very accurate, but I'm pretty sure there is enough accuracy to set a trend or to have an idea.

Regarding knives, knives are less dangerous than guns, first, you have to get close to a person in order to attack him, as opposed to guns, secondly, you have to use your own strenght and not those given by powder to inflict damage. For the rest, it's all about luck regarding to where you get hit. So in my opinion guns have more chances to kill than knives (otherwise we would be still using swords in wars :crazy 

Regarding campuses, the best solution would be for guards who do have weapons or police officers and tighter control of people who enter or move around the campuses, instead of everybody having a gun, at least in my opinion.

For example, in my country, criminal gangs still use knives and clubs and only a few use guns whne they do criminal acts or fight each other. And most of the attacks using guns are targeted towards banks or places where you can change currency and very rarely gas stations (and can't remember if I heard of a shop being robbed with a gun). Usually these places also have armed guards.

I don't know, it's hard to comapare different philosophies implemented, in the US and in most EU countries (if not all), so the US one asumes violence is present in day to day life and needs to be stopped with violence, gun control asumes violence can be stopped by preventing access to guns and other violence weapons (knives etc), people getting caught having one are punished. Without clear points to compare it's hard to say which one is best, for me, the statistic from wiki is good enough to show guns should be controlled along with other violence weapons that have potential to kill and not just impair and the rest not banned (like pepper spray or electric shock weapons or non lethal ball guns), but I do agree that is not fully accurate.


----------



## aela (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't like guns. I don't like having or using guns or being around them. I'm not going to keep one around for protection or any other reason. (I also don't like cars and other big hunks of high-momentum motorized metal. There are a lot of things I don't like.) They make it too easy to be careless with something as fragile as life. But, as I see it in my country (U.S.), banning guns wouldn't do anything about poverty, social and economic inequality, hate, a racist and nearly entirely punitive "justice" system, etc. – the things that would actually make a difference in the conditions that feed violence. So I'm not pro-gun, but I'm not pro-banning-guns. I see gun control as a blind alley as far as its official purpose.


----------



## Phoenix400 (Sep 19, 2009)

Razvan said:


> *That's true, US is the most "armed" country, but it's also in top when it comes to violence, so that was also where I was getting, violence and tools that are related to violence (guns), is there any connection?* Does promoting tools that can be easily used for violence bring violence? I don't think the US is less cultured or less educated than other countries, although the poor state system (from what I have read) and the expensive private system of education do tend to limit the education level for most people. So education may not really be the cause, in my opinion. Yes, the statistics are probably not very accurate, but I'm pretty sure there is enough accuracy to set a trend or to have an idea.


Well, the US is hardly top when it comes to violence. I found the following link to guns per 100 residents by country, [ List of countries by gun ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]done by the same group that did the statistics you posted. If you multiply the gun ownership by 1000 to bring it up to per 100k and match the homicide stats you posted, the ratios seem very telling. A cursory glance however tells me its more in the society than the guns. The stats on mine state that it doesn't take into account things like collectors (I personally know several people that have over a dozen guns and where I grew up, most people had at least 4-6 guns, mostly for different types of hunting).

I'm using the stats from your link for 2007 (or the next closest year) as the Gun stats were done in 2007. Trying to keep it as consistent as possible.

Homicide/guns 
per 100k/100(x1000=100k)
US: 5.6/90(90k)
Canada: 1.8 /31.5(31.5k)
Australia: 1.2/15.5(15.5)
UK: 2.03/5.6(5.6k)
France: 1.59/32(32k)
Mexico: 10/15(15k)
Russia: 17.9/9.0(9k)

Now somebody double check my math on this but here's what I've got.
*Comparing the percentages of the # of homicides and guns owned in the US against other countries (rough estimate ratios):*
-Canada has 32% of the homicides and 35% of the guns. (Better)
-Australia has 22% of the homicides and 17% of the guns. (Worse)
-UK has 37% of the homicides and 6% of the guns. (Worse)
-France has 28% of the homicides and 35% of the guns. (Better)
-Mexico has 178% of the homicides and 16-17% of the guns. (Way worse)
-Russia has about the 320% of the homicides and only 10% of the guns. (...Mother of God :shocked

Now, as stated before, I don't trust statistics (especially when its international). However, these studies were performed by the same group, so there should be some common standard they use. To answer your question which I bolded in the quote: After comparing the 2 charts and looking at this (especially Mexico and Russia), I don't see a real connection between availability of firearms and the violence in society. This just screams at me that there's underlying issues within the cultures themselves that need to be addressed and more gun control isn't the answer. What those cultural issues are is up for debate. Could be education (as you stated). I'm more inclined to question the poverty level, prevalence of drugs, cultural tolerance, etc. It can't be nearly as simple as narrowing it down to one specific cause.




> For the rest, it's all about luck regarding to where you get hit. So in my opinion guns have more chances to kill than knives (otherwise we would be still using swords in wars :crazy


That all depends on how bad of a shot you are. I've seen people at the range who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they stuck the barrel right up against it. :laughing:



> Regarding campuses, the best solution would be for guards who do have weapons or police officers and tighter control of people who enter or move around the campuses, instead of everybody having a gun, at least in my opinion.


The main problem there is "Who's gonna pay for it?". Those security guards have gotta get paid. Most schools aren't gonna be able to afford much more than a rent-a-cop (hell, most of 'em skimp on cameras and the like). And the rent-a-cop will just hide and radio for the real cops if something goes down. They wouldn't be getting paid enough to get shot at.

EDIT: You've mentioned stun guns on a couple of occasions. I know several people in or attached to LE. If I remember correctly, a stun gun rated at 850k volts has a real possibility of stopping someone's heart if you hit 'em in the right place. Considering that they sell 1-2 million volt guns, well, they can be lethal. Granted its amps that are the real killer and not volts, there's still reports of people dying from stun guns. I've personally let a friend hit me with their 350k gun. I've grabbed electric fences with more oomph. I told them to upgrade because unless you hit me just right with that when my adrenaline was pumping, you're more than likely just gonna piss me off more.

EDIT 2: Gawd I hate statistics, but I hate math in general. It seems it can't be avoided in topics such as this though.


----------



## Phoenix400 (Sep 19, 2009)

Phoenix400 said:


> What those cultural issues are is up for debate. *Could be education (as you stated)*. I'm more inclined to question the poverty level, prevalence of drugs, cultural tolerance, etc. It can't be nearly as simple as narrowing it down to one specific cause.


Just realized I misquoted you here. I see in your earlier post that your not sure if its an education based issue either. Apologies. 




aela said:


> I don't like guns. I don't like having or using guns or being around them. I'm not going to keep one around for protection or any other reason. (I also don't like cars and other big hunks of high-momentum motorized metal. There are a lot of things I don't like.) They make it too easy to be careless with something as fragile as life. But, as I see it in my country (U.S.),* banning guns wouldn't do anything about poverty, social and economic inequality, hate, a racist and nearly entirely punitive "justice" system, etc. – the things that would actually make a difference in the conditions that feed violence.* So I'm not pro-gun, but I'm not pro-banning-guns. I see gun control as a blind alley as far as its official purpose.


Now THIS is what I consider getting down to the heart of the matter. Its the point I was making earlier about treating the disease and not the symptoms. What I think we have at work are multiple factors contributing to the problem of violence in the world. 

I'd like to see somebody do a study as to the most common motivations for violence in different countries. Then start comparing them and see if there's any common themes. I can't even imagine the amount of data you would have to go through to start homing in on cross-cultural causes, but it could be useful. From there it may be possible to look at countries who have already addressed the issues with the most success and put together a model that could be implemented in countries struggling more heavily with violence.....Just a wild idea that popped into my head.:crazy:


----------



## Razvan (Dec 17, 2009)

Phoenix : it is a very interesting point of view, what I'm not sure the gun ownership statistic may succed to achieve is also take into consideration the guns owned by criminal organisations which is not regulated in any way :laughing: Also regarding Russia, they have a well spread organised crime unfortunately and this organised crime system has no respect for human lives and authoristies are either too corrupted or not able to deal with it.:frustrating:

Yeah, I agree with you that it is a matter of culture and education and other social factors, but I do also think that if guns were controlled better and organised crime guns controlled first, everything would be even better. Yes, you are also right when you say that this is not a real solution, the real solution is to invest more in society.:happy:


----------



## Phoenix400 (Sep 19, 2009)

Yeah, there's 2 links to the pdf files of the reports in the footnotes of the link I posted. Its a lot to read and I just did a basic skim through. Both of our stats clearly stated there's no way they could be entirely accurate, so I consider these to be just an exercise in critical thinking. If the intel is flawed, any decisions made based on the intel will be flawed by design (this goes for both of the stats you and I posted). I'm not sure how they're tracking the amount of guns either. Like I said, it doesn't take into account collectors either (one person who owns dozens of guns and such). I'd like to see a breakdown of the guns by legal ownership/ illegal arms myself. 

I don't know a lot about Russia, I chose it as an example because the homicide is so much higher than the US. I picked the UK and Australia because I know their gun control laws are much stricter than the US. Canada and Mexico because they're on either side of my country. Canada has more gun control but Mexico is a free-for-all as far as I know. Don't know why I chose France, it was more of a 'close your eyes and point' choice for the sake of randomness:laughing:.

Taking what you said about Russia's organized crime and corrupted authorities, I think some of the same could be dealt with in the US as well. We've already got a lot of laws in place that aren't being enforced. I think here in the US, instead of trying to make more laws for people who break laws anyway, we need to enforce the ones we've got and basically start cracking down on the ALREADY illegal arms trade.

Or to quote the Charlie Daniels Band, "If you take 'em away from the criminals first I'll gladly give you mine." 





Much truth in this song. :crazy:


So what it boils down to is we're in agreement that the real solution is helping society overcome its weaknesses. Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree on the gun control issue itself though. Works for me, this has been an interesting debate.

EDIT: Had a friend look over this thread and wanted to make a clarification on the percentages I posted earlier. Hopefully it'll make things easier for others to see what I was getting at. What I was looking for in those stats was consistency across the board. I'd still have to go through every country on the gun list I posted and correlate it with the homicide stats Razvan posted (but I'm lazy and hate math). The UK and Australia are being used as my basis in the argument as their gun control laws are much stricter than the US. If we look at the UK: It only has 37% of the reported homicides compared to the US (going by Razvan's stats). It only has 6% of the reported guns in country compared to the US (going by the stats I posted). Now if the percentage of homicides reported was equal to the percentage of guns reported when compared to the US (or 37/37 instead of 37/6, or if Australia had closer to 22/22 instead of a 22/17), then we might be able to say that the issue is related. Looking at it across the board though, I don't see enough consistency in the guns-to-homicide ratio to conclude that the two factors are clearly connected. I hope that clears up my line of thinking a little bit.


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ...Do you support gun rights, or do you support gun restiction? Here's my take on it:
> 
> I am an INTP and for gun rights, even though I am a liberal US democrat, and this is for a number of reasons.
> #!. It's our constitutional right. Nearly a million people have died to give and defend these rights, so it's just plain ungrateful to not use it.
> ...



Another NF here (INFP) and here's my answers:

I support gun rights. Your answers for 1,2,4,5 are what I believe also. My father has a gun in his nightstand and I think this is a great idea for protection. There are assholes beyond belief in this world who think it's their right to break into my home and kill me, my loved ones and take my stuff. Hey, my stuff ain't your stuff and my home they need to stay out of. I would LOVE to have the chance to be armed and send a little instant justice their way.


----------



## Razvan (Dec 17, 2009)

Phoenix400 said:


> Taking what you said about Russia's organized crime and corrupted authorities, I think some of the same could be dealt with in the US as well. We've already got a lot of laws in place that aren't being enforced. I think here in the US, instead of trying to make more laws for people who break laws anyway, we need to enforce the ones we've got and basically start cracking down on the ALREADY illegal arms trade.


Well, if you want to know more about Russia, google Anna Politovskaya and also there was another journalist whose fate was even worse, he got arested by the police while he was getting off a plane, than "accidentaly" shot in the car by the police...I don't remember the name though (here it is : Police officer who killed south Russia journalist gets two years | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire ) and also here's an article on wiki about it :
List of journalists killed in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I am saying holly crap, they are still killing them in 2010 too, didn't know about that). Anyway, my point is you cannot compare US with Russia, in the US they buy the journalists while still giving them a sense of freedom, this is a democratic way :laughing:, while in Russia, unfortunately they beat the crap out or kill people. It's something that is reflected on the society, it's an indicator of how they do things there. Russia is moer like an autocratic country with one party controlling or trying to control everything while damaging others who want democracy. I'm really sorry for the russian people as I am sure this does not represent the people.




> So what it boils down to is we're in agreement that the real solution is helping society overcome its weaknesses. Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree on the gun control issue itself though. Works for me, this has been an interesting debate.


True, but I don't think we disagree on gun control issue either, I just think that for some EU countries (mine included, for the moment), gun control could do the trick, while for the US gun control would not work, because too many criminals already have a gun. But with the US, there is also the belief that one needs to protect himself from government, most give this argument as well, which is another thing I don't agree, because I would rather that we make sure we don't get to the point where we need to protect from the government...


----------



## RMNG (Jan 20, 2010)

This thread has left me pleasantly surprised. I suspected a much greater percentage of you NFs would be in favor of gun control. Fascinating.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Goldfoxx said:


> As an european the discussion seems to me a bit odd. There are a lot of countries were guns are not allowed, and they are very safe. (all of europe). But maybe it is so unsafe in the states that one has to have a weapon, but I ask myself how many times an average american uses his gun on average in a year.
> 
> I have more the feeling that it is a discussion about holding on to a futile right which has no practical use in most of everyday life.
> 
> But that it seems to be a loaded question in the usa is without doubt.


For the USA I tend to see it as a vicious circle; people have guns, so people need guns to defend themselves. It's hard to see any way for them to reverse that, even if there was the popular opinion to do that, they couldn't really just recall all weapons because how can you trust people to do that? In the UK, even most police don't have guns, and I feel a lot safer for it. It does seem like a very strange debate from the outside since here the vast majority of people are so against gun ownership.


----------



## pylly (Feb 23, 2014)

What has been done cannot be undone. Banning and stripping them from people would only harm the law abiding citizen. The whole gun scenario in USA is so fucked up that change would only make it even worse.
People having the right to own guns intended to hurt and kill people (not for hunting and sport shooting) goes beyond my understanding.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Honestly, I'm completely and utterly for gun control and the stuff that's happening in the US regarding it is just mind blowingly ridiculous in my eyes, but I am looking from a biased point of view. Although crime is present everywhere int he world, I cannot imagine needing a gun for my protection over where I live. I think the society over here has handled gun control, crime and self-protection very well, besides the occasional sociopaths. But, i talked about it briefly with my US friend and frankly, I think the mentalities are so different that considering history, the way the society is being handled and in a way programmed, how emphasizing fear on media is what gets the cash rolling in the newsroom, it probably is in everyone's best interest and the most logical thing to do to have gun rights. It's too far in a shit hole already to even look at the bigger picture, see the initial cause and it's effect and try to change the problem at it's core.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

''Everyone should respect the gun and it will be fine'' argument also seems odd to me. Do we really believe that anything that becomes as regular as a gun in ones belonging will become more respected and of bigger superiority? The object, i mean. I would assume (yes, just assume) that the more accepted using a gun becomes the less careful people will be around it. You have to take the general human psychology in consideration when making a law like that. Not that I have much knowledge of it right now, but I hope the one's that are in control of such laws, do.


----------

