Politics

[Waddle Bro]

Here's my opinion, short and strong:

Guns should not have been invented, no one should even have them. Guns bring NOTHING but harm.

[Shadoninja]

Here's my opinion, short and strong:

Guns should not have been invented, no one should even have them. Guns bring NOTHING but harm.

Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I don't see how you'd risk your family by staying in a place like that, or want to move when your house has been broken into multiple times. How can you think of money being an issue when you move, if by staying, you'd get robbed or someone gets hurt in a burglary? It's not being paranoid at all to think about safety and it's not what you'd call "a slightest bit of trouble."

Having your house broken into doesn't justify carrying a gun in public. It is paranoia to think you'd always need one...and just delusional to think you'd be able to play a hero and stop a crime with it someday.

Hmmm... let's take an example from my own life...

The neighborhood we used to live (when I was really young) in was rather violent (e.g. we found bullets lodged in our walls, as my father has said several times), although the neighbors were friendly. Although we were somewhat-eager to leave, we couldn't at the time.
However, now, the neighborhood we live in is peaceful, except for a few break-ins that have been happening in the past year (when people aren't at home, though; even in the gated communities around here).

To sum it all up, the reason we are still here is because there's no reason to move; it isn't paranoia to carry a gun: it's paranoia to constantly be hopping around just because of some little threat, which could be easily handled some other way. Unless there was a mass invasion of robbers (a dozen people breaking in through the roof, windows, and doors ), there is more than one way to take care of them (whether it be guns or fists ).

If you think of stopping crime as a delusion, then there is no way you can: you must take action whenever it is needed, and within your boundaries. Doubt and inaction are, obviously, worse solutions, in most cases, unless justified.

Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.

Exactly; you might as well amputate people's hands and feet and replace them with mechanical ones that resist when you try to use them for violence.

[Waddle Bro]

Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.

So you disagree with me, eh?

YOU MUST DIE

[Shadoninja]

So you disagree with me, eh?

YOU MUST DIE

I didn't say I disagreed with you but it would be pointless to magically unexist guns because we humans will just find some other way to kill each other.

[Waddle Bro]

Don't be pessimistic. You'll make Mikuru cry.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Don't be pessimistic. You'll make Mikuru cry.

Being pessimistic is different from being honest, though in some cases honesty can hurt (like Mikuru ).

[Jub3r7]

Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.

For instance, when I get a fairly long paint brush and a springy clothes-hanger from backstage theater and go around shooting people. XD

[Cobraroll]

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.

That's true. But handguns make it a lot easier to kill a bunch of people at one time.
 - They are easily concealable, without a specific security check you can get one with you almost everywhere.
 - They are extremely mobile. A pistol and ammunition to kill dozens of people can easily be carried in pockets. Neither do they weigh you down while running, for instance.
 - They can be used at range, not requiring you to expose yourself to the victim or get into close combat in order to hurt him.
 - They require very little preparation to use. Acquire gun and ammo, put ammo in gun, pull trigger, that's it.
 - They can be used repeatedly very fast. If you miss a shot or two, you can just pull the trigger again.
 - You can ready one, shoot, scramble around for a time interval of your choice and still be ready to shoot again at a moment's notice.
 - The amount of force required to operate the weapon is minuscule compared to the amount of force it transfers to the target.
 - The amount of skill required to kill somebody with them is laughably small. As long as your victim is in the path of the bullet, he will get severely injured.
 - They can be used (somewhat less reliably) whilst drunk, drugged, half-asleep, child or in panic and still be incredibly lethal.
 - They (currently) don't require much effort or money to acquire and operate.
 - The probability of collateral damage is high. The bullet will keep going until it hits something.
 - They are just as dangerous to accidental victims as to intentional. A speeding bullet does not care if the person it hits is your target or an innocent bystander.
 - You can (legally or illegally) acquire all the components (gun and ammo) and practising with the weapon without raising too much suspicion. Not before you kill somebody with it.

Had killing people been a competitive metagame ruled by somebody, guns would have been banned to Ubers. No other items can claim the same efficiency when it comes to homicide. They are either unwieldy, cumbersome, expensive or unreliable, put the user in a risky situation, or require a great amount of power and skill to kill with.

Tl;dr: Guns don't necessarily kill people. People kill people. But guns make it a hell of a lot easier.

[Dude]

You'll make Mikuru cry.

(like Mikuru ).

And all of the sudden, I want to uncontrollably punch you both and I have no idea why.

[fingerz]

Here in Australia, we don't see why you would have the need to use guns. I don't know why Americans see having a gun as a right. Phht!

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Here in Australia, we don't see why you would have the need to use guns. I don't know why Americans see having a gun as a right. Phht!

Population of Australia: 22,620,600
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 1.0

Population of US: 311,591,917
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 4.8

The United States alone (don't make me find the statistics of the whole continent of North America) has about 13 times the population of Australia, yet the murder rate is only (a bit ironic to say "only", I should add...) 4.8 times it.

"The study (undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development) estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004."
"For the year 2010 UNODC made a similar study. It presumed a number of 468,000 intentional homicides for this year. That would correspond to a worldwide rate of 6.9."

Honduras has the highest rate:
Population: 8,249,574
Homicide per 100,000 people: 91.6


Now, for a minute, let's look at Spain:
Population: 47,265,321
Homicide per 100,000 people: 0.8

Gun laws in Spain, according to this:
"Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun."
"Firearms must be registered and inspected annually."
"Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols."

According to this, gun laws are more restrictive.
Also somewhat relevant, but providing less information (and thus, probably not the best source): this

I'm not sure if this (and Spain ) has been mentioned before in this thread, but a balance of strict and "right-to-bear-arms" would help reduce homicide rate in a country as large as the United States.

[fingerz]

If that is the only alternative that people will agee on, I'll go with that at least.

[vermilionvermin]

Population of Australia: 22,620,600
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 1.0

Population of US: 311,591,917
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 4.8

The United States alone (don't make me find the statistics of the whole continent of North America) has about 13 times the population of Australia, yet the murder rate is only (a bit ironic to say "only", I should add...) 4.8 times it.

I don't think you're interpreting those statistics right.  If it's per 100,000 people, the population should be irrelevant, which means that we're doing something wrong.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I don't think you're interpreting those statistics right.  If it's per 100,000 people, the population should be irrelevant, which means that we're doing something wrong.

The larger a population, the greater number, one would assume, of individuals that are likely to commit a crime of any degree (including homicides). I not not merely interpreting numbers, but also putting other points in conjunction with them.