Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mass stabbing on Texas college campus

254 replies to this topic
lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#61

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:31 AM

Dead is much better than being Bled. So much money and time is wasted trying to 'save' the severely wounded.
By the way not everyone shot dies, not everyone slashed lives.
Mother nature tries to reduce the world population, and 'science' & medical artists keep fighting her.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#62

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:13 AM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 23:28)
QUOTE (Xylophobia @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 22:10)
Ermm, find me more. Two articles doesn't prove anything.

England:
6 a week

Riiight, a three year old Sun article discissing single incidents. It's hardly a trend of mass casualty events in the US or wider Western world like mass shootings are.

Also, England=/=Britain

QUOTE (HUGOHL @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 03:40)
QUOTE (CygnusX1 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 00:10)
linky link

this is how the world ends

What-the-freakingf*ckingf*ck?

Nice demonstration of reading comprehension. It's not a call for banning all knives, just a particular design of them...

WHAT!?
  • WHAT!?

    A. f*ck

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2002
  • United-States

#63

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 21:05)
QUOTE (OnePiece @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 00:29)
QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 07:07)
Everybody's always so obsessed with the amount of victims, that's what causes mass stabbings, shootings, et cetera. We overplay the scenario, it's almost like we're challenging other criminals to do the same thing.

Yeah really. Its the fact that Americans holds these people up like celebrities that this sh*t keeps happening.

No, the reason it keeps happening is the limited availability of prostitutes.
It cannot have escaped your notice that a majority of these killers are white, asocial males who never had a date in their life? Not only do they grow up being bullied, but they are denied the opportunity to have sex and so sate their blossoming sexual urges.
I am convinced that this is the root cause of their violence.

A hyper-sexualised society and a fringe of loners and oddballs who can't get any. It all adds up.
Trust me, if sex was available to everyone and everyone could have sex legally and safely, this sort of nonsense would barley happen.

Humans are either led by the brain or the libido, you can't nurture one and ignore the other.

Then the loners would kill the prostitutes after they came to the realization that the prostitute doesn't love them and doesn't want to settle down. tounge.gif

Nah, in all seriousness though I kinda agree with your assessment. There are legal brothels in Nevada that do quite well. The women are screened for health problems regularly, they are provided with protection, and if something goes bad and the management can't handle it, then as a legal establishment they can call the police.

I really don't understand why most vices need to be illegal. It only creates more problems surrounding that particular vice.

Xylophobia
  • Xylophobia

    To be accepted in the community you have to be blind

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2012

#64

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:14 PM Edited by Xylophobia, 10 April 2013 - 03:19 PM.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 03:31)
Mother nature tries to reduce the world population, and 'science' & medical artists keep fighting her.

Mother nature...? Uhmm, okay...

QUOTE (Xylophobia @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 22:10)
Ermm, find me more. Two articles doesn't prove anything.
-----
England:
6 a week

No, I've asked for articles of similar scenarios happening in the same country within one year.

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#65

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE (Stephan123 @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 19:42)
And I thought stabbing was only a Berlin thing. mercie_blink.gif

You obviously haven't had the good fortune to frequent Glasgow on a Fri/Sat night.

As for this latest episode of violence on an American education complex, I can just imagine how much the gun control brigade are pissing their pants on the validity of their arguments packing up bag, and sailing down the proverbial drain.

So where do we go from here? Ban only lethal, combat designed knives? No, as it appears the weapon in question was apparently similar in design to that of a surgeons tool. So then what? We ban scalpels? Or do we simply restrict them to use in medical practise? But then what about those sharp little sticks used in art & craft? Do we make students go through a licensing programme to acquire the use of such necessities?


WHAT!?
  • WHAT!?

    A. f*ck

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2002
  • United-States

#66

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:29 PM

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 10:21)
QUOTE (Stephan123 @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 19:42)
And I thought stabbing was only a Berlin thing.  mercie_blink.gif

You obviously haven't had the good fortune to frequent Glasgow on a Fri/Sat night.

As for this latest episode of violence on an American education complex, I can just imagine how much the gun control brigade are pissing their pants on the validity of their arguments packing up bag, and sailing down the proverbial drain.

So where do we go from here? Ban only lethal, combat designed knives? No, as it appears the weapon in question was apparently similar in design to that of a surgeons tool. So then what? We ban scalpels? Or do we simply restrict them to use in medical practise? But then what about those sharp little sticks used in art & craft? Do we make students go through a licensing programme to acquire the use of such necessities?

Well, my approach may be to technical for some, but try to follow me...

What if... we did nothing? Eh? I mean assholes will be assholes. It's illegal to go around and assault people with a weapon and that isn't stopping anyone, so what is outlawing the weapon going to do? I... I fail to see the logic.

We need to spend money on more security for campuses and free counseling options for disturbed individuals. Outlawing an inanimate object does not fix the problems with the person wielding it, nor does it actually make anyone safe from it. It's just silly to think otherwise.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#67

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:22 PM

QUOTE (What!? @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 16:29)
What if... we did nothing? Eh? I mean assholes will be assholes. It's illegal to go around and assault people with a weapon and that isn't stopping anyone, so what is outlawing the weapon going to do? I... I fail to see the logic.

Well... for one thing it makes for instant Felons when you outlaw a normal device/weapon. That makes for 'safe' arrests by the Police and improves their anti-crime ratings.
You don't really think Cops go about endangering their own welfare/health by confronting real dangerous criminals... do you?

There really is only one co$t effective way to deal with 'mental illness' and other Social defectives.

HUGOHL
  • HUGOHL

    In my heaven, there are no gods.

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2012
  • None

#68

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 07:13)
QUOTE (HUGOHL @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 03:40)
QUOTE (CygnusX1 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 00:10)
linky link

this is how the world ends

What-the-freakingf*ckingf*ck?

Nice demonstration of reading comprehension. It's not a call for banning all knives, just a particular design of them...

I'm joking. I know. I'm trying to show my dislike by overreacting.

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#69

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:41 PM

If people weren't unemployed or mistreated the crime rates would go down.

A ban on long pointed knifes would be pointless, people would just use a screwdriver or make their own pointed knifes.
What are they going to do take away my screwdrivers and everything else that could potentially be used to kill somebody?

Hey guys, lets ban electricity because it can be used to roast people.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#70

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:17 PM

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 21:41)
What are they going to do take away my screwdrivers and everything else that could potentially be used to kill somebody?

This argument of reductio ad absurdum seems to be the default defence in cases like this. I don't think anyone is realistically or sensibly advocating the complete outlawing of everything potentially dangerous. They're not even advocating the complete outlawing of one thing that's dangerous. I've always found it quite mystifying how people jump from legislating to prevent improper use or access to an outright ban. I'm fully expecting Weasel to roll in and tell me that it's all because of damp hills and warm toads or whatever other nonsense he will use to justify the completely untenable position that any legislation designed to control access to something is tantamount to banning it wholesale.

omgz153
  • omgz153

    Disregard females, acquire monetary funds

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2007

#71

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:40 PM

There goes the gun debate.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#72

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:10 AM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:14)
but wouldn't it be a little silly to make such a comparison to knives when what was used was hardly a "knife"?

that's not the point.

the point is that it's MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to kill someone with a gun than without a gun.
the difference between 'gun' and 'no gun' = lives saved.

Urban Legend
  • Urban Legend

    No, f*ck no.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2005
  • None

#73

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:21 AM

I don't remember this mission. This happens after you raid the crack den right?

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#74

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:37 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 01:10)
QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:14)
but wouldn't it be a little silly to make such a comparison to knives when what was used was hardly a "knife"?

that's not the point.

the point is that it's MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to kill someone with a gun than without a gun.
the difference between 'gun' and 'no gun' = Die another way.


Why would a criminal care about a law prohibiting the ownership of guns? they're already breaking the law to begin with so why would they care?
Answer: it means they can break the law without having to take a risk of being killed by an armed law-biding citizen.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#75

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:28 AM

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 19:37)
Why would a criminal care about a law prohibiting the ownership of guns? they're already breaking the law to begin with so why would they care?
Answer: it means they can break the law without having to take a risk of being killed by an armed law-biding citizen.

so we shouldn't do anything at all, right? to hell with gun laws because criminals will get them anyway right?
might as well turn the US back into the Wild West, eh?

don't be dumb.
gun control works when you apply gun control seriously. look at most of the European Union. look at Australia. look at China or Japan.
these places have harsh, strict gun control laws. these places have EXTREMELY LOW violent/gun crime rates.

coincidence? I think not.
policy works. but politicians have to be serious about it.

•¿F¡ññ4L¡ƒ£?•
  • •¿F¡ññ4L¡ƒ£?•

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#76

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:46 AM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 06:49)
QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:46)
QUOTE (Raavi @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 12:29)
The Pro-gun advocates sure as hell will have a field day on this one, "Crazy libs want to ban guns? knives are equally as bad! We've got mass-stabbings now. Gonna ban 'm to?!"

You act as if your mockery invalidates the point.

Also, as lil weasel pointed out a lot of people don't realize they've been stabbed, and that's true for people witnessing someone being stabbed. As far as why no one intervened sooner, a lot of people seem to assume they're heroes and would lay down their life in an instant to save someone else's, but past that it's possible that these people had no idea how severely others were being attacked.

To be honest this makes me rethink and possibly revise my stance on gun-control seeing a real-life example that knives are equally if not much more threatening.

Same here actually

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#77

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:46 AM

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 02:37)
Why would a criminal care about a law prohibiting the ownership of guns?

Because it would make procurement of firearms much more difficult for them, whether legally or illegally? Not that it matters anyway, because as I've said already no-one is demanding the prohibition of the ownership of firearms. It's a straw man argument.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 02:37)
they're already breaking the law to begin with so why would they care?

Which is questionable in it's relevance, given that the overwhelming majority of firearms used in violent crime are legally owned but grey-market-transferred weapons. They aren't smuggled guns with the serials scrubbed off, they're private purchases that aren't exposed to any kind of background check or legislative monitoring. Grey market, but perfectly legal under US law. Possession of these weapons, in the case of previous felons, might be illegal in and of itself but their procurement of the weapons is largely unrestricted.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 02:37)
Answer: it means they can break the law without having to take a risk of being killed by an armed law-biding citizen.

The number of mass shootings that have been stopped by armed civilians can be counted on the fingers of my left knee. The number of shootings full stop per year which are stopped by armed civilians is relatively minimal, especially in the case of those occurring outside the home like the incident in this case. The simple fact of the matter is the "criminals like firearms being outlawed because they aren't faced with the risk of getting shot" thing is a fallacy on two counts. One because no-one is suggesting outlawing firearms, and two because the chances of a criminal actually being killed by a member of the public are already minuscule.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#78

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:23 AM

The first step to 'outlawing' guns is the required Registration of them.
After they are registered and the Government Knows where they are the second step is to 'sweep them up'.

That 'mass killings' aren't stopped by armed (conceal carry) citizens is they don't occur in places where CC persons are permitted.

user posted image


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#79

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:21 AM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 08:23)
The first step to 'outlawing' guns is the required Registration of them.
After they are registered and the Government Knows where they are the second step is to 'sweep them up'.

Right. And that's why every single nation with legal, restricted and registered access to firearms permits citizens to own them legally. Sorry but this notion is truly idiotic. Can you find me a single example of a nation in modern times which has used mandatory registration of firearms to pre-empt their outlawing? Go on, find me one single example.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 08:23)
That 'mass killings' aren't stopped by armed (conceal carry) citizens is they don't occur in places where CC persons are permitted.

Bullsh*t.

Luby's massacre- Texas, concealed carry legal.
San Ysidro McDonald's massacre- San Diego, concealed carry legal.
Geneva County massacre- Alabama, concealed carry legal.

I could continue if you wish?

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#80

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:25 AM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 01:23)
After they are registered and the Government Knows where they are the second step is to 'sweep them up'.

user posted image

WHAT!?
  • WHAT!?

    A. f*ck

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2002
  • United-States

#81

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:01 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 01:46)
QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 02:37)
Why would a criminal care about a law prohibiting the ownership of guns?

Because it would make procurement of firearms much more difficult for them, whether legally or illegally? Not that it matters anyway, because as I've said already no-one is demanding the prohibition of the ownership of firearms. It's a straw man argument.

I'm not saying anyone is out to take all of our guns at this point and time. I think this argument gets started largely because the pro-gun side argumenteer™ seeks to either preempt or respond to an anticipated sensationalist argument that is often made by the anti-gun side of the spectrum.

Anyway, humor me for a minute. How would it actually make the procurement of the weapon more difficult? I can walk out my front door right now and buy any number of illegal substances or services. All I have to do is know a guy that knows a guy. Introductions really aren't that difficult if you have some coin. It might take me an extra day (at the most) to find out who is selling, and then I buy it just the same as if I walked into a shop.

QUOTE (El_Diablo)
don't be dumb.
gun control works when you apply gun control seriously. look at most of the European Union. look at Australia. look at China or Japan.
these places have harsh, strict gun control laws. these places have EXTREMELY LOW violent/gun crime rates.


These countries are not the United States of America (to state the obvious). Not mentioning this from a patriotic stand point, just merely stating that these countries have never had the volume of weapons this country has, nor have they ever had a consumer market that is comparable to ours, or a history that insinuates that the citizen not only has right to own and carry but that it is practically their patriotic duty to do so. The amount of guns in circulation here is to high for legislation to matter. Not to mention the fact that we share an easily passable border with Mexico.

I stand by what I said earlier. We need to focus on fixing people and providing security. I think that's really where there is work to be done.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#82

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE (What!? @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 17:01)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 01:46)
QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 02:37)
Why would a criminal care about a law prohibiting the ownership of guns?

Because it would make procurement of firearms much more difficult for them, whether legally or illegally? Not that it matters anyway, because as I've said already no-one is demanding the prohibition of the ownership of firearms. It's a straw man argument.

I'm not saying anyone is out to take all of our guns at this point and time. I think this argument gets started largely because the pro-gun side argumenteer™ seeks to either preempt or respond to an anticipated sensationalist argument that is often made by the anti-gun side of the spectrum.

Anyway, humor me for a minute. How would it actually make the procurement of the weapon more difficult? I can walk out my front door right now and buy any number of illegal substances or services. All I have to do is know a guy that knows a guy. Introductions really aren't that difficult if you have some coin. It might take me an extra day (at the most) to find out who is selling, and then I buy it just the same as if I walked into a shop.

More than happy to humour you. The primary issue is one of price. If firearms are either illegal or heavily restricted, then the ease of their flow into the nation is also limited. Proper police enforcement of restrictions or bans results combined with the destruction of weapons recovered leads to a drop in availability. The market saturation point lowers and therefore the product becomes much more expensive. We have seen this in the UK firearm black market, not so much with firearms themselves but with ammunition. You can convert a blankfiring handgun into a live weapon with a few quids worth of modifications, but handgun ammunition is extremely expensive because very fewh have the facility to load or reload rounds. Therefore foreign imports, which are by no means reliable and stable, become the sole source of ammunition.

Nations which have properly enforced firearm restrictions or outright bans have a much lower market saturation than those in nations without the restrictions. Cost becomes a serious factor. What can you get a grey market weapon in the US? Tens of dollars? A single shot converted blankfiring pistol with one round of 9x17 or 18 is a few hundred quid, a proper pistol with a box of either in the thousands. Hence the far lower prevalence of crimes involving firearms in the UK.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#83

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:52 PM

The Obvious thing to do is Put Serial Numbers on all knife blades and handles.
Require a License to own a Bayonet, fighting knife, or any blade over two inches.
Require a Police Issued Permit to Buy any edged weapon, including kitchen ware.
Stop sales at knife shows, let the people pickup their items at the store front.
Stop TV sales and On-Line sales, where nobody knows who is really getting the item. Make the delivery to a store front just as they are required to do with mail order guns.
Then if the knife is used in a crime and the police recover it, it can be traced to the owner.
How could any 'sensible' person deny that Registered Blades would hurt anyone?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#84

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:07 PM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 17:52)
The Obvious thing to do is Put Serial Numbers on all knife blades and handles.
Require a License to own a Bayonet, fighting knife, or any blade over two inches.
Require a Police Issued Permit to Buy any edged weapon, including kitchen ware.
Stop sales at knife shows, let the people pickup their items at the store front.
Stop TV sales and On-Line sales, where nobody knows who is really getting the item. Make the delivery to a store front just as they are required to do with mail order guns.
Then if the knife is used in a crime and the police recover it, it can be traced to the owner.
How could any 'sensible' person deny that Registered Blades would hurt anyone?

I'll dignify your tripe with a proper response if you can a) make an argument that doesn't consist of logical fallacies (reductio ad absurdum and straw man argument in this post alone) and b) respond to my earlier challenge to identify a single nation which has used firearm registration as a springboard to the complete outlawing of firearms. I'm waiting.

WHAT!?
  • WHAT!?

    A. f*ck

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2002
  • United-States

#85

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:40 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 11:33)
QUOTE (What!? @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 17:01)
Anyway, humor me for a minute. How would it actually make the procurement of the weapon more difficult? I can walk out my front door right now and buy any number of illegal substances or services. All I have to do is know a guy that knows a guy. Introductions really aren't that difficult if you have some coin. It might take me an extra day (at the most) to find out who is selling, and then I buy it just the same as if I walked into a shop.

More than happy to humour you. The primary issue is one of price. If firearms are either illegal or heavily restricted, then the ease of their flow into the nation is also limited. Proper police enforcement of restrictions or bans results combined with the destruction of weapons recovered leads to a drop in availability. The market saturation point lowers and therefore the product becomes much more expensive. We have seen this in the UK firearm black market, not so much with firearms themselves but with ammunition. You can convert a blankfiring handgun into a live weapon with a few quids worth of modifications, but handgun ammunition is extremely expensive because very fewh have the facility to load or reload rounds. Therefore foreign imports, which are by no means reliable and stable, become the sole source of ammunition.

Nations which have properly enforced firearm restrictions or outright bans have a much lower market saturation than those in nations without the restrictions. Cost becomes a serious factor. What can you get a grey market weapon in the US? Tens of dollars? A single shot converted blankfiring pistol with one round of 9x17 or 18 is a few hundred quid, a proper pistol with a box of either in the thousands. Hence the far lower prevalence of crimes involving firearms in the UK.

This makes sense in that if I were someone will ill intent I would have to wait longer to make my purchase, which may test my conviction for whatever atrocity I have planned to carry out. This could also force me to use a less lethal weapon... then again I could just as well go crazy and build a pipe bomb with a cheap remote detonator (I'm surprised more of these guys don't.)

Point being I can see what you mean by the economic impact having a positive effect on deterring the criminal element by driving up black market prices. Still police would have to intercept and destroy a hell of a lot of guns before any real permanent damage was done. I imagine prices would rise sharply at first, but any real change in the marked would likely take years, and even then importing new guns wouldn't be that difficult. Guns could easily come from Eastern Europe through Canada, or any South American country through Mexico. We have been loosing the war on the prohibition of narcotics for decades. Every now and again we find and eliminate a common route smugglers may use to bring in product, or we eliminate a supplier, but it never lasts. I doubt arms and ammunition would pull the same volume as say cocaine and heroin. After all we are talking about addictive hard drugs vs people looking to kill or shoot stuff for fun here. Still, I don't imagine it to be too much of a stretch to compare similarities in business models between the two. Eventually weapon demand would even itself out, and though the price would be higher these prices would eventually just become the new normal. It wouldn't make them unobtainable to those that really wanted them, especially since the normal profile for the people who commit these crimes are fairly privileged middle to upper-class white kids.

In the end I fear the compromise the legal gun user would have to make in order for what you are talking about to occur would damage them more then it would damage the criminal element.


I'll admit I'm pulling some of this out of my ass, but I take what I see and try to fill in the rest as best I can. You may be privy to some things I may have missed, but what I've said here makes sense to me.

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#86

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:55 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 17:07)

I'll dignify your tripe with a proper response if you can a) make an argument that doesn't consist of logical fallacies (reductio ad absurdum and straw man argument in this post alone) and b) respond to my earlier challenge to identify a single nation which has used firearm registration as a springboard to the complete outlawing of firearms. I'm waiting.



You know, he doesn't need to give you an example of a nation that used the registry of firearms as a hitlist for the confiscating them. All he really needs to find is something else that was systematically removed from an area through registration.
After all, would it not be the same concept?

Also, the fact that you need to register a firearm is a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

Moonshield
  • Moonshield

    amplifier worship

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2002
  • Mongolia
  • Best Senior Moderator 2013

#87

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 14:55)
You know, he doesn't need to give you an example of a nation that used the registry of firearms as a hitlist for the confiscating them. All he really needs to find is something else that was systematically removed from an area through registration.
After all, would it not be the same concept?

Like the Nazis did, right?

GTAKid667
  • GTAKid667

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 May 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Most Helpful [GTA] 2013
    Contribution Award [GTA III]

#88

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:04 PM

Well... It seems that we have some nasty people in the world. People that physically harm or kill others are messed up and shouldn't be on this planet

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#89

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:07 PM

QUOTE (What!? @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 20:40)
I'll admit I'm pulling some of this out of my ass, but I take what I see and try to fill in the rest as best I can.

Not really, it's very well formed and thought out. But does it work to reduce the likelihood of mass-casualty spree killings? In this context, yes. Most are not planned. Most are done with a weapon of convenience. If firearms cease to be convenient, they will not be used. Explosives are seldom used because they are never convenient- they take too much foresight and planning. In terms of the effect on overall crime, probably minimal. But nations with intensive firearm restrictions statistically have far lower rates of spree killing.

QUOTE (Moonshield @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 21:02)
QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 14:55)
You know, he doesn't need to give you an example of a nation that used the registry of firearms as a hitlist for the confiscating them. All he really needs to find is something else that was systematically removed from an area through registration.
After all, would it not be the same concept?

Like the Nazis did, right?

Oooh, Godwin's law? Was this in reference to firearms? Because they actually made civilian access to firearms (long guns at least) significantly easier for most of the population.

AH64- no, Weasel catagorically said that registering firearms resulted in them being banned. I'd like him to demonstrate a single case of this to substantiate his argument.

Moonshield
  • Moonshield

    amplifier worship

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2002
  • Mongolia
  • Best Senior Moderator 2013

#90

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:19 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 15:07)
Oooh, Godwin's law? Was this in reference to firearms? Because they actually made civilian access to firearms (long guns at least) significantly easier for most of the population.

AH64- no, Weasel catagorically said that registering firearms resulted in them being banned. I'd like him to demonstrate a single case of this to substantiate his argument.

Just throwing fuel on the fire.

I think he's referring to any example of registering anything as a means of tracking and ultimately confiscating said something, and not in literal reference to gun registration. I really don't see how that's pertinent to any sort of discussion regarding firearms, though.

I'm kind of curious how registering gun ownership is in violation of our second amendment rights, however.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users