Guns are not the problem

[dream431ca]

ummm why didnt you just check yourself? it was in the link I posted



blunt: 724

personal (bare hands): 1,078

other: 1,467



anyway you look at it guns are used in 2/3 of all murders ..I'm guessing due to convience

There is one flaw in your logic Mr.Stern. If the guns are banned, you really think that those numbers would stay the same? I believe they would increase dramatically.

 

[CptStern]

of course those numbers would increase ...but not at the same rate as death by firearms ..if that was true the numbers would currently reflect that

 

[ríomhaire]

the fact is, if someone wants to kill someone they're gonna do it with whatever they have the means to get, so, even without guns, murders would still be happening, i doubt the drop in the rate would be that extreme

But what about guns being used to comit other crimes? Surly gang fights would decrease with no guns and people might only be brave enough to rob something etc with a gun in hand.

 

[A True Canadian]

There is one flaw in your logic Mr.Stern. If the guns are banned, you really think that those numbers would stay the same? I believe they would increase dramatically.

Not necessarily; accidental deaths factor in. In order to kill someone with a knife, you have to really try and kill them in the first place. I'm talking about a sawing motion or a blatant walking up and stabbing of the victim. Accidental killings with knives are pretty non-existant. How many scenarios can you come up with where someone is accidently killed by a knife?

If a child found a knife would he be able to kill himself as easily as if he found a gun? No, of course not. Knives are used every day at the dinner table, and a kid knows exactly how knives work. It's likely to be an un-entertaining toy to them. Even if they were to play with it, it only takes one cut before the kid thinks: "Ouch. I don't like this toy" before crying to mommy.

But a gun is something that the kid has never seen before, and his fascination with it is likely to be higher than the knife. The kid's thinking: "Cool, I've never seen this before. What does it do?"

A knife can only pierce the skin so far (depending on the strength of the user) but a gun bullet could go through the entire body extremely easily.

But that's just concerning the kids...

 

[dream431ca]

Not necessarily; accidental deaths factor in. In order to kill someone with a knife, you have to really try and kill them in the first place. I'm talking about a sawing motion or a blatant walking up and stabbing of the victim. Accidental killings with knives are pretty non-existant. How many scenarios can you come up with where someone is accidently killed by a knife?

If a child found a knife would he be able to kill himself as easily as if he found a gun? No, of course not. Knives are used every day at the dinner table, and a kid knows exactly how knives work. It's likely to be an un-entertaining toy to them. Even if they were to play with it, it only takes one cut before the kid thinks: "Ouch. I don't like this toy" before crying to mommy.

But a gun is something that the kid has never seen before, and his fascination with it is likely to be higher than the knife. The kid's thinking: "Cool, I've never seen this before. What does it do?"

A knife can only pierce the skin so far (depending on the strength of the user) but a gun bullet could go through the entire body extremely easily.

But that's just concerning the kids...

Your absolutly right. But this is concerning accidents. You are right guns cause more accidental deaths then anything else likes knives and such. But the fact of the matter is, if someone wants to kill a person that person will do so with a gun or not.

 

[Dag]

I'd much rather be shot, than stabbed or beaten to death.

 

[Icarusintel]

I'd much rather be shot, than stabbed or beaten to death.

the man makes a good point

 

[A True Canadian]

I'd much rather be shot, than stabbed or beaten to death.

Scenario 1:
You are walking down a street late at night, a gang shootout occurs and you are hit with a stray bullet.

Scenario 2:
You are walking down a street late at night, a gang stabbing occurs and you are not hurt.

 

[Dag]

Scenario 3:
Why the f*** were you walking right into this gang shootout anyway?

Scenario 4:
You are walking down the street late at night, a gang stabbing occurs, you are mistaken for a gang member, and brutally stabbed to death.

Think about it, how do you want to die, being shot, or being stabbed and bludgeoned?

 

[A True Canadian]

Scenario 3:
Why the f*** were you walking right into this gang shootout anyway?

You wouldn't be intentionally walking into a gang shootout. But these things have happened where the warfare has made it's way from the alleys to the streets.

Scenario 4:
You are walking down the street late at night, a gang stabbing occurs, you are mistaken for a gang member, and brutally stabbed to death.

Well at least in this scenario you have the time to run instead of getting shot in the back.

Think about it, how do you want to die, being shot, or being stabbed and bludgeoned?

If I play my cards right I shouldn't ever be in a situation where someone wants to kill me.

 

[Dag]

You wouldn't be intentionally walking into a gang shootout. But these things have happened where the warfare has made it's way from the alleys to the streets.



Well at least in this scenario you have the time to run instead of getting shot in the back.



If I play my cards right I shouldn't ever be in a situation where someone wants to kill me.

Chances are you'll here the shooting, and hopefully walk the other way. People who kill with knives usually come up silently. But I can't argue with your last sentence. :dozey:

 

[Glirk Dient]

Alright...assume people wouldn't want to kill eachother as much if guns dissapeared. Theres another problem. Criminals don't have problems getting ahold of weapons that they don't own or are illegal.

Here is an article that says the previous weapon(assault) ban did pretty much nothing.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/awban.html

What this actually means is that, because the trace requests dropped more than crime did by 8-9 percent, that percentage of the criminals must have simply changed over to using other weapons. This switching is what criminologists call "substitution." It is simply a reason why banning a particular weapon has essentially zero effect on crime.

Substitution, makes a lot of sense, exactly what we have been saying here.

What did the study prove? For one thing, the study found that so-called "assault weapons," possessed only by known people and criminals, had been used less in crime since the ban and had been used to kill fewer police, and found that these facts may have been in part due to the ban.

Hmm, well that's good

Our government payed to have someone search through data to conclude that when something is not available it may not be used as often, a fact that is both obvious and irrelevant. It is irrelevant because reduced use of a particular weapon in crime in no way means that crime is reduced. Criminals simply use whatever other weapons they can get, an effect called "substitution" by economists and criminologists. A real measure of the effectiveness of a crime law must be the extent by which the law reduces crime, not just crime with a specific tool.

Bingo!

 

[A True Canadian]

Chances are you'll here the shooting, and hopefully walk the other way. People who kill with knives usually come up silently. But I can't argue with your last sentence. :dozey:

Well if they didn't come up silently, they wouldn't get many people would they?

But why would they want to kill you out there on the street? You aren't (hopefully) a member of a rival gang so there isn't a motive in that regard. Even if it's a mugging someone is likely to notice a guy with a knife to your throat a lot quicker than the guy with a gun in your back, so help is likely to get to you faster.

 

[Dag]

Well if they didn't come up silently, they wouldn't get many people would they?

But why would they want to kill you out there on the street? You aren't (hopefully) a member of a rival gang so there isn't a motive in that regard. Even if it's a mugging someone is likely to notice a guy with a knife to your throat a lot quicker than the guy with a gun in your back, so help is likely to get to you faster.

I dunno. Theres alot of deserted streets out there.

 

[bliink]

I'd much rather be shot, than stabbed or beaten to death.

You do realise that getting shot probably hurts more than being stabbed in most situations. Eg; shot through the lung with 4 inch exit wound in your back vs stabbed in the lung.

The explosive damage from a gun causes far more trauma than a blade.

The majority of blade attacks (if you're trying to avoid them) are slashings too, which are far more superficial than a bullet in your gut, neck or chest. (which is where you're most likely to be hit)

EDIT: Add to that the fact that firearms are inherently more lethal than knives and fists. If someone is trying to kill you with a gun, an idiot can succeed. With knives its harder, fists, even moreso, plus it takes much more time and is easier to defend against than a bullet.

 

[A True Canadian]

Alright...assume people wouldn't want to kill eachother as much if guns dissapeared. Theres another problem. Criminals don't have problems getting ahold of weapons that they don't own or are illegal.

Here is an article that says the previous weapon(assault) ban did pretty much nothing.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/awban.html

But when's the last time you heard of a murder via assault weapon (outside of a war)??

the Urban Institute report was inconclusive and said that it was impossible for the ban to have accomplished much since the banned weapons were never a significant problem.

Assault weapons didn't cause much of a problem in the firstplace, so of course the ban would have little impact.

Substitution, makes a lot of sense, exactly what we have been saying here.

I would argue that the substitution for the assault gun would be...another gun (pistol, hunting rifle, perhaps even a shotgun). It's like banning beef, there's still other meats out there. Just like banning assault weapons, there's still other guns out there.

Add to that the fact that firearms are inherently more lethal than knives and fists. If someone is trying to kill you with a gun, an idiot can succeed. With knives its harder, fists, even moreso, plus it takes much more time and is easier to defend against than a bullet.

I agree. It takes a lot more skill to kill a live target without a gun. With a gun it's point 'n shoot. Very simple and very easy. But without a gun things become more tricky. You'll need to be crafty to get close to your intended target, and there's still the posibility of getting attacked by them in the process. It suddenly becomes a fair fight.

Realistically, guns will never be successfully banned in North America. But I still believe that if they weren't made so readily available, the murder ratios will drop substantially. Yes there are other weapons that can be used for killing, but they require more effort (which may discourage many from trying to kill in the first place).

 

[willyd]

Living in Texas and Im on a ranch and some sonovabitch tresspasses on to my property, well i reckon hes trying to harm me some how. Well then im gonna get me my nightvision and 30.06 and enjoy me some night huntin. Yee haw!

 

[Dag]

You do realise that getting shot probably hurts more than being stabbed in most situations. Eg; shot through the lung with 4 inch exit wound in your back vs stabbed in the lung.

The explosive damage from a gun causes far more trauma than a blade.

The majority of blade attacks (if you're trying to avoid them) are slashings too, which are far more superficial than a bullet in your gut, neck or chest. (which is where you're most likely to be hit)

EDIT: Add to that the fact that firearms are inherently more lethal than knives and fists. If someone is trying to kill you with a gun, an idiot can succeed. With knives its harder, fists, even moreso, plus it takes much more time and is easier to defend against than a bullet.

A shot to the lung would either put you in shock or kill you. (There are, of course, exceptions.) But have you ever cut yourself? Not like ouch, I got a pinprick but actually almost cut something off? I dropped I knife on my foot (Lets not raise questions.) and I couldn't stop cussing for a week strait. And look at those pictures of Mussolini. That doesn't seem like a quick and painless death, does it?

 

[bliink]

I got a pinprick but actually almost cut something off? I dropped I knife on my foot (Lets not raise questions.) and I couldn't stop cussing for a week strait.

Imagine a bullet in the foot.

Firearm > Blade

 

[Dag]

Depends what kind of bullet. Are we talking 9mil, or 50cal.?

 

[bliink]

Depends what kind of bullet. Are we talking 9mil, or 50cal.?

Either one's gonna hurt more than a knife!

(maybe not a .22 )

 

[Dag]

(maybe not a .22 )

Under Default, Dag Wins! :E :bounce:

 

[bliink]

Under Default, Dag Wins! :E :bounce:

.22 isn't a bullet, its a rolled up ball of spit-wet paper.

 

[falconwind]

i think that most people would at least agree that guns are a major part of the problem, and certainly not the solution, as Charleson Heston would like to believe.

It's far to easier to kill someone with a firearm, psychologically speaking. The principle is pretty simple, point and squeeze the trigger. It's certainly not as messy as killing someone with your own hands, up close and personal, mano e mano. Or even with a knife or a baseball bat. All you do is open up on a car, and rest assured that everyone inside is swiss cheese. You don't even neccessarily see anything. At the end of the day, the only thing physically staining your hands is gun smoke residue (CSI, thank you )

People, i think, wouldn't kill so often if they actually had to get their hands messy.

 

[Dag]

I think a 50cal. would make a little mess as opposed to chocking someone.

 

[Glirk Dient]

i think that most people would at least agree that guns are a major part of the problem, and certainly not the solution, as Charleson Heston would like to believe.

It's far to easier to kill someone with a firearm, psychologically speaking. The principle is pretty simple, point and squeeze the trigger. It's certainly not as messy as killing someone with your own hands, up close and personal, mano e mano. Or even with a knife or a baseball bat. All you do is open up on a car, and rest assured that everyone inside is swiss cheese. You don't even neccessarily see anything. At the end of the day, the only thing physically staining your hands is gun smoke residue (CSI, thank you )

People, i think, wouldn't kill so often if they actually had to get their hands messy.

If guns are the problem, why do countries where guns are legal not kill eachother as much as we do? Didn't bowling for columbine explain this?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

ooo, Pwn ^

 

[Dag]

If guns are the problem, why do countries where guns are legal not kill eachother as much as we do? Didn't bowling for columbine explain this?

Like Nicuragua? The Falklands? Somalia? Ethiopia? Liberia? Cape Verde? Nigeria? Afghanistan? Sudan? Zimbabwae? The Congo? Iraq? Saudi? Look at just about any 3rd world country, and you'll change your mind.

And Bowling for Columbine wasn't completly truthful. :angel:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

[ríomhaire]

3rd world counties are in a much different state to what most of us could imagine so bringing them into a debate were most of us are in 1st world countries is pritty pointless.

 

[Dag]

He brought it up, I'm just finishing it.

 

[falconwind]

If guns are the problem, why do countries where guns are legal not kill eachother as much as we do? Didn't bowling for columbine explain this?

i never said that guns were the sole source of the problem. Certainly the people wielding them have a problem too. I'm just saying that having guns is like giving 5 year old a baseball bat in a room full of plate glass windows. You're asking for trouble.

What I'm saying is that guns make killing seem simple and superfluous. No one ever accidently killed someone with a toothbrush (and shivs are a different matter all together). Having weapons everywhere and having people getting killed is pretty easy to predict.