[J m HofMarN]

This isn't the Old West we are talking about here, law enforcement has armoured vehicles not horses.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

Your logic seems to indicate that because law enforcement rides in armored vehicles, people need guns more than in the old west.

By taking away the ability for ordinary people to defend themselves you are making them a target for crime.

I dont think anyone has suggested taking away weapons at all. All anyone's suggested is not giving out assault rifles and maybe requiring registration or education for gun owners. Also, being a target requires that one be easily singled out. And I cant tell a gun owner from a non gun owner just by looking.

Criminals will have weapons no matter what the laws are.

And they'll probably be better than most people with those weapons due to experience. So you pull a gun on a guy who's just robbing you, and the next thing you know someone's dead. And it's probably you.

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

What about overall population, the transmission of illicit substances, and organized crime, and poverty? Did all of those follow that increase? My guess is yes, and none of them are related to guns.

[civilian_number_two]

Ditto. Vancouver has a virtual ban on hanguns and the homicide per capita rate goes down annually while the population increases. The US Capital region is notoriously crime-ridden, impoverished, and mismanaged.

I think if I were a gun-toting criminal and I assumed that all of my targets had guns, I would be more likely to shoot a person on sight rather than ask them to grab some floor while I took their VCR. If I thought that a carjacking might lead to my death by concealed handgun, again I'd shoot at the first sign of resistance.

Gun control settled the west. We're not talking about a ban, but a limitation on carrying right. Assault weapons are a specific type of gun and you can't readily conceal them in a car, a handbag, or under your coat. They are not used for personal protection or hunting. I would endorse registration of such weapons if not an outright ban. As the argument goes, if I should be allowed to own assault weapons, then why does the FBI investigate bomb makers? Shouldn't I be allowed pipe bombs, land mines, and stinger missiles for personal protection?

[Deucaon]

Ditto. Vancouver has a virtual ban on hanguns and the homicide per capita rate goes down annually while the population increases. The US Capital region is notoriously crime-ridden, impoverished, and mismanaged.

Does Canada ghettos and slums? Canada can afford to take care of its poorest citizens so they don't need to resort to crime mainly due because Canada doesn't have as many people.

I think if I were a gun-toting criminal and I assumed that all of my targets had guns, I would be more likely to shoot a person on sight rather than ask them to grab some floor while I took their VCR. If I thought that a carjacking might lead to my death by concealed handgun, again I'd shoot at the first sign of resistance.

So you break into a house and the first thing you do is locate the owner of the house and kill them so that if you are caught then you go in for second degree murder and not breaking and entering or armed robbery?

Gun control settled the west. We're not talking about a ban, but a limitation on carrying right. Assault weapons are a specific type of gun and you can't readily conceal them in a car, a handbag, or under your coat. They are not used for personal protection or hunting. I would endorse registration of such weapons if not an outright ban. As the argument goes, if I should be allowed to own assault weapons, then why does the FBI investigate bomb makers? Shouldn't I be allowed pipe bombs, land mines, and stinger missiles for personal protection?

So firing bullets out of a gun is the same to you as firing explosive projectiles?

I am against banning assault weapons in the US because criminals have assault weapons. If you do wish to limit the repercussions of an assault rifle then arms manufactures can make a civilian only version of an assault rifle which doesn't allow full auto. As assault weapons are deterrents first and foremost it would be stupid to ban them outright.

[J m HofMarN]

Does Canada ghettos and slums?

Hey, I think Canada's a great country too, but yes, it ghettos and slums[sic]. But your general argument, that Canada has a better social welfare system, is correct. It kind of flies in the face of your main argument that the US has a higher rate of gun violence because of gun control, and Canada has a lower rate because of maple fairies or unicorns. That social welfare net, a different national character, more interest in downtown areas, a greater emphasis on living together, I could go on and on as to the reasons that Canada has a lower violent death rate per capita, and I would never get to the part about gun availability.

However, the question of gun availability itself is telling of the different national attitudes. In the US it is a fairly common belief that we must answer percieved or possible violence with violence. In Canada it is believed that it's safer to just let the RCMP or what have you handle things. I can honestly say that I would never expect to hear a Canadian citizen arguing that they need an assault rifle to defend themselves, with the exception of fans of the losing side of a hockey game. Especially if it was the oilers and flames. That's the closest to a violent ethnic rivalry I've seen up there.

Canada can afford to take care of its poorest citizens so they don't need to resort to crime mainly due because Canada doesn't have as many people.

what in the name of fuck? poor people in Canada don't need to resort to crime mainly due because it doesn't have as many people? How in god's name does that work?

There are ten poor people in a neighborhood in DC, so they resort to crime, but maybe if there are five poor people in a neighborhood in Toronto they'll just decide to open a Tim Hortons' franchise instead? Why?

I can kind of see what you were getting at. You're either saying that since Canada has fewer people, they can do more for those people (rebuttal A) or that Canada has fewer poor people (rebuttal

A: Overall population has nothing to do with economic and social conditions. We're talking proportionality and such. If there are a million people in Canada, it is safe to assume that the proportion of people living in poverty is the same as in the US. And before you start, no, they don't have more money than the US. indeed they have less tax income due to a smaller population, however I would wager that proportionally that tax income is about the same. It's just used differently. Instead of putting a few billion into building the "Mother of all bombs" as we like to do, they build a shelter for single mothers, which doesnt cost a few billion. Poverty is less serious in Canada because of this, but it probably occurs at the same rate, adn the government probably gains as much money from each tax payer as the US government.

B: Yes, this is true. But proportionally the amounts are probably the same even though that poverty is likely not as severe due, as I stated, to the government's devotion to providing a safety net.

So you break into a house and the first thing you do is locate the owner of the house and kill them so that if you are caught then you go in for second degree murder and not breaking and entering or armed robbery?

Hey look, you produced logical thought. Let's compare that to your previous statement in this very thread.

If someone breaks into my house, the cops aren't going to catch them until they've already shot me in the face and ran off with my TV.

Ok, now in your scenario you're unarmed and relying on the cops. So we'll assume that gun ownership is limited or restricted in some fashion. That means your assailant probably knows you dont have a gun. So why would he bother shooting you? Your statement above applies to your previous statement on page five of this topic.

It does NOT apply to Civ's scenario. Because while an armed criminal has nothing to fear from an unarmed victim of petty theft, he has a lot to fear if that victim is visibly armed. So if you go waving a gun about, or if it's known that there are guns in 100 percent of households (much less assault rifles) then criminals will be far jumpier and much more likely to use lethal force during the commission of their own special enterprises.

And while I'm on hte subject of your previous posts, I missed this bit:

Isn't this the same argument as Prohibition or the War on Drugs?

Prohibition was a resounding failure that caused infinitely more crime than it prevented. The war on drugs is a resounding failure that has caused infinitely more crime than it has prevented AND is largely responsible for the obscene rate of imprisonment suffered in this country (1/100 overall, and in black and immigrant communities the rate rises as high as 1/50)

I am against banning assault weapons in the US because criminals have assault weapons.

Here is a list of other things criminals have:

Heroin
Explosives
Syphillis

Are you against curing syphillis because criminals have syphillis? Etc

As assault weapons are deterrents first and foremost it would be stupid to ban them outright.

Deterrants? To what, the national army of Guatemala? If you have a knife or a revolver that's enough to make most criminals think twice. If you have an assault rifle that's enough to make most militia men think twice if you happen to be in Somalia. No, assault rifles are not a viable deterrent in the US because generally crime in the US is not serious enough that an assault rifle is needed to deter it.

Your fantasy of hordes of crack head zombies converging on your car with a hammer is utter madness, and since that is the only scenario that justifies having an assault rifle, or a chain saw attached to your arm, we must assume that there is no justification for posessing an assault rifle.

Spealing of which, ASSAULT rifle. Made for assaulting enemy positions in a fugging war, or assaulting your local high school at fugging lunch time. One of those uses is (arguably) responsible and legal. The other is not. The difference is that in one usage it is under military jurisdiction at the behest of an (arguably, ideally) competent leader, and in the other usage, the one where it's in civilian hands, it is under the power of a sophomore who has been called a fag one too many times.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 18 May 2008 - 02:05 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Jm said more or less what I would have said. I think a couple of details about Canada/US difference are wrong, though. Canada does have a slightly higher rate of taxation. The idea of the US having a lesser ability to create a social safety net because there are more people is completely off, though. As Jm pointed out, it's about proportion. If 10% in each country live in poverty (number pulled out of ass), then the country can use its tax resource to manage that poverty. Governmentally, it's a question of priority. Despite a slightly lower rate of taxation, the US government has the resources to create a working social safety net (as well as to have a national system of social medicine). It's just not being done, for all manner of reasons. Oddly it's something that conservative Americans are proud of; you will often hear folks speak negatively of Canada's health and welfare systems, using terms like "cradle to grave" and so forth.

In any case, I am not certain that poverty rates in the US are related to criminal gun use.

So firing bullets out of a gun is the same to you as firing explosive projectiles?

No, they are clearly differnt things. But if it's a question of rights, why allow me the one right while denying me the other? What is the reasoning behind controlling my use of nail-filled pipe bombs?

[Deucaon]

Jm said more or less what I would have said. I think a couple of details about Canada/US difference are wrong, though. Canada does have a slightly higher rate of taxation. The idea of the US having a lesser ability to create a social safety net because there are more people is completely off, though. As Jm pointed out, it's about proportion. If 10% in each country live in poverty (number pulled out of ass), then the country can use its tax resource to manage that poverty. Governmentally, it's a question of priority. Despite a slightly lower rate of taxation, the US government has the resources to create a working social safety net (as well as to have a national system of social medicine). It's just not being done, for all manner of reasons. Oddly it's something that conservative Americans are proud of; you will often hear folks speak negatively of Canada's health and welfare systems, using terms like "cradle to grave" and so forth.

What exactly do you propose the American authorities do about poverty within the US?

In any case, I am not certain that poverty rates in the US are related to criminal gun use.

Poverty creates criminality and with criminality comes an influx of weapons. Though weapons aren't the source of crime, they certainly help criminals carry out crime which is why criminals have weapons which is how this debate is related to poverty.

No, they are clearly differnt things. But if it's a question of rights, why allow me the one right while denying me the other? What is the reasoning behind controlling my use of nail-filled pipe bombs?

This has less to do with rights and more to do with keeping crime in check.

[J m HofMarN]

What exactly do you propose the American authorities do about poverty within the US?

Maybe the same thing we've been jabbering about Canada doing? Instead of leaving them in ghettos with schools that dont work, no job opportunities, no health care ,etc, we could provide good schooling, advanced social welfare, healthcare, job training, and initiatives for companies to open in underdeveloped areas. I dont know exactly what the Canadian/Western European/Japanese model has been, but it cant be that hard to emulate and you yourself have stated that by attacking poverty we can reduce the circumstances that justify gun ownership.

This has less to do with rights and more to do with keeping crime in check.

If there were, say, an evil scientist working on something that would harm the planet or population, or if there were some evil organization that had just killed a bunch of innocent religious scholars in their home, I think people need pipe bombs or trucks loaded with fertilizer to defend against them. It's our right.

[Slade]

Civ: If people can't afford the bloated, corporate controlled US health system, then they don't deserve proper, affordable medical treatment. It weeds out all of those sissy weaklings who like to share and don't see the glory of climbing on the backs of others to get to the top. Why should the wealthy pay for some ghetto family to eat when that family won't even get a job to support itself? This is America. If you have the money, you are entitled to whatever you'd like. If you don't have money, you are entitled to be taken advantage of by those who do have money. It's the best system in the world, and the only one that works. The government should keep its hands out of the economy, unless it's passing legislation to promote my business while making it harder for my competition!

Seriously for a moment: Deucon: If it shouldn't be a crime to walk around with an assault rifle and keep it for defense, why should it be a crime to keep nail bombs around for defense?

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, the majority of gun crimes in the US are not poverty related. Many are drug related. Drug territory disputes are not related to poverty as the criminals in question are employed and paid well enough in the drug trade. Buyers of assault rifles are certainly not poor people, and they are used to break up drug corners, not to get a loaf of bread or to steal an XBox for a quick fix of sweet sweet drugs.

If the idea of gun control is about keeping crime in check, then exercise gun control. As in the example I brought up originally (Dodge City), gun control calms cities down. Stats of areas with gun control suffering increases in gun violence do not show a correlation; the gun control in those areas was a measure taken to slow violence that was already happening. Overall, gun violence in America is decreasing with respect to population growth. It is still, however, alarmingly high.

[Deucaon]

Seriously for a moment: Deucon: If it shouldn't be a crime to walk around with an assault rifle and keep it for defense, why should it be a crime to keep nail bombs around for defense?

One is a weapon that fires bullets that are fairly accurate and precise while the other is an explosive device that indiscriminately destroys within its radius.

Deucaon, the majority of gun crimes in the US are not poverty related. Many are drug related. Drug territory disputes are not related to poverty as the criminals in question are employed and paid well enough in the drug trade. Buyers of assault rifles are certainly not poor people, and they are used to break up drug corners, not to get a loaf of bread or to steal an XBox for a quick fix of sweet sweet drugs.

So a person from a middleclass family/neighbourhood has the same chance of getting involved in the drugs trade as a person from a slum or ghetto?

If the idea of gun control is about keeping crime in check, then exercise gun control. As in the example I brought up originally (Dodge City), gun control calms cities down. Stats of areas with gun control suffering increases in gun violence do not show a correlation; the gun control in those areas was a measure taken to slow violence that was already happening. Overall, gun violence in America is decreasing with respect to population growth. It is still, however, alarmingly high.

Criminals will have all types of weapons no matter what the law is. If you take guns away from law abiding citizens then how does that help stem crime?

[J m HofMarN]

Good heavens I hope I haven't been placed on some kind of sim-ignore list again.

Regardless...

One is a weapon that fires bullets that are fairly accurate and precise

An assault weapon's shots are neither accurate nor precise. The idea is that if you're facing a lot of people who want to kill you, its good to put out a lot of bullets that will maybe hit them all, rather than just putting out one or two bullets at a time that will likely hit one ortwo of them. So yes, I would say that an assault rifle is a bit closer to a pipe bomb than to a pistol, because it is an anti personnel device rather than a self defense device.

So a person from a middleclass family/neighbourhood has the same chance of getting involved in the drugs trade as a person from a slum or ghetto?

Criminals will have all types of weapons no matter what the law is. If you take guns away from law abiding citizens then how does that help stem crime?

For on it makes the police's job easier. If they see a gun sitting about on a table in a city with gun control, they will know that something is probably up and go on to investigate. Whereas if there is a gun on every table, how will they tell the criminal from the rest of society? Also, making guns more scarce to the general public will clearly squeeze violent criminals.

[civilian_number_two]

So a person from a middleclass family/neighbourhood has the same chance of getting involved in the drugs trade as a person from a slum or ghetto?

I think you've gone on a tangent here. Sure, it's easier to recruit runners, lookouts and soldiers for the drug trade from poor areas. not necessarily ghettos, but there too, sure. But while it's the case that organized drug traders will own and use guns, and that many of their employees came from poor areas, it does not follow that poor people not involved in the drug trade (that's the majority of them) are also gun-toting murderous criminals.

Criminals will have all types of weapons no matter what the law is. If you take guns away from law abiding citizens then how does that help stem crime?

You're making me repeat myself, so I will do so in point form.

a ) Noone is talking about taking away the right to bear arms. we're discussing assault rifles.

b ) Dodge City.

In future, I will simply say "a )" or "b )" to represent these arguments.

[Deucaon]

I think you've gone on a tangent here. Sure, it's easier to recruit runners, lookouts and soldiers for the drug trade from poor areas. not necessarily ghettos, but there too, sure. But while it's the case that organized drug traders will own and use guns, and that many of their employees came from poor areas, it does not follow that poor people not involved in the drug trade (that's the majority of them) are also gun-toting murderous criminals.

I never implied that all poor people were criminals but face it that most criminals are from poor neighbourhoods, probably unemployed and don't a chance of getting a job close to their neighbourhood.

What's your solution to stemming crime?

You're making me repeat myself, so I will do so in point form.

a ) Noone is talking about taking away the right to bear arms. we're discussing assault rifles.

b ) Dodge City.

In future, I will simply say "a )" or "b )" to represent these arguments.

How do you defend your home if a criminal with an assault rifle attacks your home and you don't have an assault rifle? Assuming you only have pistols, rifles and kitchen utensils to defend yourself.

[Slade]

Unless your pistol is a flintlock, a bullet is a bullet, so I'd imagine it would be fairly balanced unless there's a firefight going on. But if someone breaks into your home with an assault rifle, I say just let him (or her) take your damned TV and report the robbery to the police after said criminal is gone. I can't imagine any actual reason a criminal would "attack" someone's home outside of some drug dealing or gang hit, and in that case, just don't get involved with that stuff. If you are involved, you probably have your own assault rifle anyway.

You need to clarify what you mean by "attack," I think. And it would also be great if you actually paid attention to what everyone's been saying instead of asking the same questions over and over after people have already answered you.

[Dr Lecter]

How do you defend your home if a criminal with an assault rifle attacks your home and you don't have an assault rifle? Assuming you only have pistols, rifles and kitchen utensils to defend yourself.

But the fact is, that is you didn't have a gun, why is he going to shoot you, and why would you want to shoot him? If you can afford a gun, you can certainly afford a burglar alarm and household insurance. If an alarm is going, and the cops are on their way, do you really think a criminal is going to hang around? And even if he does take something, you're insured, who gives a shit if he nicked your TV?