Str8 Outta Compton or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Gun

[phuckphace]

split from another thread (thanks Zach!!)

also can we keep this thread civil pls? I'd like to not have this locked

However I cannot condone the American Society. Its completely fucked up. I mean how many massacres do they have a year and still nothing is done about gun ownership.

the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are perpetrated by our black underclass, largely against one another. if you remove those figures from the statistics, our gun-related crimes drop to a level close to that of most European countries. this is the "elephant in the room" that anti-gun people consistently ignore, because acknowledging reality is racist.

the problem isn't guns, it's that we have more criminally-inclined groups than Scotland's total population, several times over. you can have 10 guns for every citizen and still not face serious crime levels if said citizens aren't inclined to commit violent crimes for whatever reason in the first place.

[thegreatgatz]

The major massacres the poster speaks of, I believe, are those such as Ferguson, the Movie Theater shootings, Fort Hood, Chatanooga, etc. these were all committed by white or Arab (who often consider themselves white) males. The major disasters mentioned were all committed by whites and Arabs, not blacks. One must remember gun violence amongst the black underclass is one of the many byproducts of the greed and depravity capitalism creates by building a system in which racism and injustice is structural.

[phuckphace]

The major massacres the poster speaks of, I believe, are those such as Ferguson, the Movie Theater shootings, Fort Hood, Chatanooga, etc. these were all committed by white or Arab (who often consider themselves white) males. The major disasters mentioned were all committed by whites and Arabs, not blacks.

I actually wasn't referring to those. I was referring to the innumerable black-on-black murders that occur extremely frequently but are given relatively little attention. these crimes vastly outnumber the "lone white gunman" shootings such as Batman and Columbine, so your argument is bullshit on its face.

the media hype surrounding those "lone white gunman" crimes (on the whole, very infrequent) compared to the relative dearth of info on black-on-black crimes, supports my point further. you're swallowing the narrative put forth by the UltraKKKapitali$t bourgeois media, what would Comrade Lenin think?!

[thegreatgatz]

I actually wasn't referring to those. I was referring to the innumerable black-on-black murders that occur extremely frequently but are given relatively little attention. these crimes vastly outnumber the "lone white gunman" shootings such as Batman and Columbine, so your argument is bullshit on its face.

the media hype surrounding those "lone white gunman" crimes (on the whole, very infrequent) compared to the relative dearth of info on black-on-black crimes, supports my point further. you're swallowing the narrative put forth by the UltraKKKapitali$t bourgeois media, what would Comrade Lenin think?!

Comrade Lenin would agree that the problems of black on black crime are a result of a top heavy and failing postindustrial power which neglects labor and production in favor of overseas investment. I blame this lack of opportunity for employment and an actual voice as reasons for high rates of black on black crimes. In all, the drug traders, who are capitalists, also have a large part of the blame in these problems.

[DerBear]

the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are perpetrated by our black underclass, largely against one another. if you remove those figures from the statistics, our gun-related crimes drop to a level close to that of most European countries. this is the "elephant in the room" that anti-gun people consistently ignore, because acknowledging reality is racist.

the problem isn't guns, it's that we have more criminally-inclined groups than Scotland's total population, several times over. you can have 10 guns for every citizen and still not face serious crime levels if said citizens aren't inclined to commit violent crimes for whatever reason in the first place.

I don't give a crap about who commits the crime. Its the failure of the American Government to properly restrict and control gun distribution. America is one of the easiest places to get a firearm. Of course I know that people who are in criminal gangs would always find a way to a degree but I don't think gun ownership should be allowed..period. It provides no use whatsoever except causing violence.

The UK learned after the Dunblane Massacre that completely removed owning a gun. You can still get a firearm in the UK but it can't be just for the sake of owning one and can only be issued to people for pest control such as farmers.

[phuckphace]

Comrade Lenin would agree that the problems of black on black crime are a result of a top heavy and failing postindustrial power which neglects labor and production in favor of overseas investment.

I agree to an extent that living in a postindustrial capitalist hellworld probably doesn't help, but I've never bought into the "I cap asses because EVIL RETHUGLICANS" argument as it reeks of failure to accept blame where blame is due. I'm well aware that capitalist malfeasance is severe, but it's not the whole story.

I blame this lack of opportunity for employment and an actual voice as reasons for high rates of black on black crimes.

nope. black-on-black violence was markedly less widespread (even less than the current figure for whites) during the Jim Crow era, when they had even fewer rights and no voice at all. I'm not saying that taking away their rights again will fix anything, merely that ~*RIGHTS*~ aren't the magic solution to reach a better outcome.

In all, the drug traders, who are capitalists, also have a large part of the blame in these problems.

partially correct. the blame is shared by the gangsta-rap artists (capitalists) who glorify violence, misogyny and sexual degeneracy in their tin-eared hip-hop "music".

I don't give a crap about who commits the crime.

ugh facts!

[DerBear]

ugh facts!

Its not that I don't see where you're coming from I just don't feel it validly makes up for the idea that owning firearms is useful. Your statement suggests if we didn't have this mass criminal groups that gun violence would be drastically lower. However I don't believe that is the case.

If the US Government restricted the distribution of guns to citizens the same way the UK has done and further reposes people's guns who're considered dangerous or violent or have mental health issues and slowly reduce accessibility to weapons then within 50-100 years time I can guarantee you'd have a lot less mascaras.

The UK since the 1920s has significantly reduced access and ownership to firearms. If the US did the same but on much larger and forceful scale then I believe the same could potentially happen.

[phuckphace]

Your statement suggests if we didn't have this mass criminal groups that gun violence would be drastically lower. However I don't believe that is the case.

well the guns don't commit the crimes by themselves, they require a person with murderous intent to cause violence. as I already stated, if you aren't the "murder my homeboy over a sack of weed" kind of guy/girl, you simply aren't going to do that.

If the US Government restricted the distribution of guns to citizens the same way the UK has done and further reposes people's guns who're considered dangerous or violent or have mental health issues and slowly reduce accessibility to weapons then within 50-100 years time I can guarantee you'd have a lot less massacres.

again, see my point above.

The UK since the 1920s has significantly reduced access and ownership to firearms. If the US did the same but on much larger and forceful scale then I believe the same could potentially happen.

passing some excessive nanny-state law because something bad happened that one time (referring to Scotland) isn't the solution. the UK has less crime than the US because its citizens are on the whole less inclined toward committing violence. I'm very sure that even if the UK hadn't confiscated guns, you would still have a much lower crime rate than we do for that reason.

instead of unnecessarily disarming your populace due to the actions of a very tiny minority of people, it would make better sense to target the criminality itself.

[DerBear]

well the guns don't commit the crimes by themselves, they require a person with murderous intent to cause violence. as I already stated, if you aren't the "murder my homeboy over a sack of weed" kind of guy/girl, you simply aren't going to do that.



again, see my point above.



passing some excessive nanny-state law because something bad happened that one time (referring to Scotland) isn't the solution. the UK has less crime than the US because its citizens are on the whole less inclined toward committing violence. I'm very sure that even if the UK hadn't confiscated guns, you would still have a much lower crime rate than we do for that reason.

instead of unnecessarily disarming your populace due to the actions of a very tiny minority of people, it would make better sense to target the criminality itself.

But you have to legislate based on the people. If you've got people who are much more violent or have violent tendencies then the government should take steps reduce the potential violence that person can cause which would involve removing access to tools to cause violence such as a gun. That is called logic. If you remove tools that can cause violence then potentially less violence can be caused.

passing some excessive nanny-state law because something bad happened that one time (referring to Scotland) isn't the solution. the UK has less crime than the US because its citizens are on the whole less inclined toward committing violence. I'm very sure that even if the UK hadn't confiscated guns, you would still have a much lower crime rate than we do for that reason.

instead of unnecessarily disarming your populace due to the actions of a very tiny minority of people, it would make better sense to target the criminality itself.

Sorry you don't think that gymnasium full of innocent school children being murdered with a firearm isn't cause to look at restricting firearms? If you don't then you're fucked up in numerous ways. Because any logical person would put two and two together and think "Do you know what, to avoid this happening again, lets introduce some proper gun control"

Furthermore your argument that we're a less violent people isn't true, we have crime and violence within our society we just have one less tool to cause violence.

I believe that the UK is a better place without giving its public access to firearms. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates and casualties in the world.

Lastly there is no goodreason to own a firearm except one possibility which is pest control. Obviously recreational sport is different but the only reason an individual should own a gun is for pest control so like farmers to kill foxes or the Civil Aviation authority to kill the bird populations.

[Professional Russian]

All I'm gonna say is. Why is it when everyone gets shot everyone screams to ban guns, but when someone gets stabbed I don't hear a god damn word about banning knives.

[Abhorrence]

All I'm gonna say is. Why is it when everyone gets shot everyone screams to ban guns, but when someone gets stabbed I don't hear a god damn word about banning knives.

Most likely because whenever anybody hears about gun crime it is usually a massacre that involves multiple deaths whereas most stabbings that are heard of involves like one or two victims.

[Vlerchan]

the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are perpetrated by our black underclass, largely against one another.
Blacks commit spot-on 50% - that's no overwhelming amount.

I also think that it's because black men feel de-masculanised through their current socio-economic condition and so are more prone to ultramasculine acts as a result. Out of interest - phuckphace - You don't believe black people in the US don't choose the thug life - but have the thug life choose them - right? [i.e. some biological argument].

In such a case it leaves just sociological grounds that prompt the behaviour - I'd like to see suggestions in that regards.

[Uniquemind]

But you have to legislate based on the people. If you've got people who are much more violent or have violent tendencies then the government should take steps reduce the potential violence that person can cause which would involve removing access to tools to cause violence such as a gun. That is called logic. If you remove tools that can cause violence then potentially less violence can be caused.



Sorry you don't think that gymnasium full of innocent school children being murdered with a firearm isn't cause to look at restricting firearms? If you don't then you're fucked up in numerous ways. Because any logical person would put two and two together and think "Do you know what, to avoid this happening again, lets introduce some proper gun control"

Furthermore your argument that we're a less violent people isn't true, we have crime and violence within our society we just have one less tool to cause violence.

I believe that the UK is a better place without giving its public access to firearms. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates and casualties in the world.

Lastly there is no goodreason to own a firearm except one possibility which is pest control. Obviously recreational sport is different but the only reason an individual should own a gun is for pest control so like farmers to kill foxes or the Civil Aviation authority to kill the bird populations.

Sadly it's not enough and it doesn't occur often enough for people's heart strings to be pulled for real action.

Know if this happened twice a year maybe there would be more political discussion about this.

The problem that needs addressing first is the Bill of Rights protects those who are a danger to society to an extent that society is disabled to do anything about it without a U.S. Constitutional amendment, which then has an effect on non-threatening people.

I personally don't see the big deal. Change the law, if it doesn't work restore it to how it was before the change. Test the hypothesis if it'll make a difference in crime THEN upon results continue the debate.

[Professional Russian]

Most likely because whenever anybody hears about gun crime it is usually a massacre that involves multiple deaths whereas most stabbings that are heard of involves like one or two victims.

Death is death and crime is crime. It was either a year or 2 ago a kid went on a stabbing spree in school a couple towns over from mine like 4 or 5 killed. You never fucking heard about. If people are gonna bitch about guns they should just bitch about everything that kills. and anyways banning guns would never work. That criminal wants it bad enough he can get it.

[Abhorrence]

Death is death and crime is crime. It was either a year or 2 ago a kid went on a stabbing spree in school a couple towns over from mine like 4 or 5 killed. You never fucking heard about. If people are gonna bitch about guns they should just bitch about everything that kills. and anyways banning guns would never work. That criminal wants it bad enough he can get it.

I wasn't disputing what you were saying, I was just saying the reason why. [emoji14]

[Professional Russian]

I wasn't disputing what you were saying, I was just saying the reason why. [emoji14]

Oh OK sorry. It's a really touchy subject for me because I do own alot of guns and I love having them around and using them and see absolutely no problem with them

[DerBear]

Death is death and crime is crime. It was either a year or 2 ago a kid went on a stabbing spree in school a couple towns over from mine like 4 or 5 killed. You never fucking heard about. If people are gonna bitch about guns they should just bitch about everything that kills. and anyways banning guns would never work. That criminal wants it bad enough he can get it.

I get what you're saying mate but knife crime is talked about in the UK a lot and we've got tough measures on carrying knives in public. But because knives are needed for everyday living e.g. cutting bread, spreading butter, cutting food etc You can't really ban knives.

The US doesn't want to talk about gun control because its a touchy subject but I can't condone how the US has not significantly responded to the amount killing that goes on with firearms by its own citizens.

Criminals will always find guns but right its too easy because obviously the US has a number of ways to get guns legally and then they can be turned for illegal purposes. Furthermore the argument you can defend yourself with a weapon is pretty poor argument. You don't hear many success stories with US civilians defending themselves with firearms.

I know debating with you on this is kind of pointless because you'll never see my point of view because of your own fixation with owning firearms (as you've said above its a touchy subject).

I just can't condone the US governments attitude towards all the massacres.

[tovaris]

Americans are naturaly agressive. I mean the army cult also brings a lot to the peoples agression.
Whel yes the american society is racist and most of the poor are nonwhites, but in my opinion that is a sistemic problem of powerty not gun control.
Since gun control is diferent from state to state we can hardly draw the line undrer the entire country, but... they are in general a murderous bunch. I mean look at poland people are alowed to own semy automatics and fucking armoured troop transports, and still they dont have masicres in poland (there is a bunch of polish mercinaries and volenters fighting in ukrain tho)...
I say we seel america from the rest of the world and bomb them into submision. A tooth for a tooth!

[Professional Russian]

I get what you're saying mate but knife crime is talked about in the UK a lot and we've got tough measures on carrying knives in public. But because knives are needed for everyday living e.g. cutting bread, spreading butter, cutting food etc You can't really ban knives.

The US doesn't want to talk about gun control because its a touchy subject but I can't condone how the US has not significantly responded to the amount killing that goes on with firearms by its own citizens.

Criminals will always find guns but right its too easy because obviously the US has a number of ways to get guns legally and then they can be turned for illegal purposes. Furthermore the argument you can defend yourself with a weapon is pretty poor argument. You don't hear many success stories with US civilians defending themselves with firearms.

I know debating with you on this is kind of pointless because you'll never see my point of view because of your own fixation with owning firearms (as you've said above its a touchy subject).

I just can't condone the US governments attitude towards all the massacres.

I've come to see there's shit wrong with the way the U.S. handles it but I'm not flat out giving up my guns because of some massacres. It's in the Constitution I can have those guns and thats the only argument I need

[phuckphace]

Blacks commit spot-on 50% - that's no overwhelming amount.

50% of the crimes while being only 12.6% of the population as of 2010.

I also think that it's because black men feel de-masculanised through their current socio-economic condition and so are more prone to ultramasculine acts as a result.

Out of interest - phuckphace - You don't believe black people in the US don't choose the thug life - but have the thug life choose them - right? [i.e. some biological argument].

we've touched on this subject before but I'm happy to revisit it. black males tend to have elevated levels of testosterone and most are noticeably more masculine in physical appearance as well as behavior. this I suspect is some sort of evolutionary adaptation to their native environments in sub-Saharan Africa. when they were removed from that environment and dropped into high civilization, the adaptation became disadvantageous. this is similar to how higher rates of sickle-cell anemia were selected for in African populations as it gives resistance to malaria, but in modern Western countries where nobody gets malaria anymore (it's literally 2015) SCA is just a straight up disadvantage.

the same thing happened to the Aboriginal Australians. they are a very "old" group that was isolated from other populations for a very long time, resulting in numerous adaptations which helped them survive for millennia upon millennia in the Australian outback. but drop them into 2015 Melbourne and they start channeling their turbo-vision (an adaptation originally selected for to give an advantage in hunting) into the art of stealing cars and bikes.

In such a case it leaves just sociological grounds that prompt the behaviour - I'd like to see suggestions in that regards.

my argument is that actual genetic differences exist and influence behavior, but that sociological influences can lead to a positive or negative outcome depending on the environment.

in other words, ein Volk, ein Reich.

[Porpoise101]

We should all become care bears and be friends

[Stronk Serb]

Aside from the listing that they are a minority responsible for 50% of crime, that there are biological inclinations towards it, you need to add in their culture and mentality. If you grow up in da 'hood' listening to shitty rappers yelling something along the lines 'bitchez drugz gunz, kill dem we da niggaz', you get accustomed to it and identify with it, also not to mention that your 'hood' rolemodels are gangstaz. As I am aware of, when blacks were predominantly listening to blues, jazz and rock, they weren't responsible for half of the crime commited in the country, also they had class. There are blacks who aren't like that, but a lot of them live in segregated neighborhoods where crime is rampant.

[Vlerchan]

50% of the crimes while being only 12.6% of the population as of 2010.
Blacks commit a disproportionate amount - Yes.

Blacks are also disproportionately impoverished though. I don't think there's statistics published that separates the murders committed along lines of socio-economic conditions and race at the same time - so I'll just concede this point though.

black males tend to have elevated levels of testosterone and most are noticeably more masculine in physical appearance as well as behavior.
I presume this is citing Ross? From what I recall - of reading a debate surrounding it on another forum - it was based on a small sample and the result was something he set out intending to prove on the basis of an earlier hypothesis. The results - since - have never been replicated. I could be wrong though - but then I can't manage to access the actual paper.

Results: After applying sampling weights and adjusting for age, percent body fat, alcohol, smoking, and activity, testosterone concentrations were not different between non-Hispanic blacks (n = 363; geometric mean, 5.29 ng/ml) and non-Hispanic whites (n = 674; 5.11 ng/ml; P > 0.05) but were higher in Mexican-Americans (n = 376; 5.48 ng/ml; P < 0.05). Non-Hispanic blacks (40.80 pg/ml) had a higher estradiol concentration than non-Hispanic whites (35.46 pg/ml; P < 0.01) and Mexican-Americans (34.11 pg/ml; P < 0.01). Non-Hispanic blacks (36.49 nmol/liter) had a higher SHBG concentration than non-Hispanic whites (34.91 nmol/liter; P < 0.05) and Mexican-Americans (35.04 nmol/liter; P < 0.05).

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2007-0028

There's a ~2% difference reported in this paper. I would imagine the higher traces of SHBG would inhibit this though.

I read elsewhere that black people can covert Testosterone to DHT at a somewhat faster rate. But I'm not quite sure about the behavioural impact of DHT.

my argument is that actual genetic differences exist and influence behavior, but that sociological influences can lead to a positive or negative outcome depending on the environment.

in other words, ein Volk, ein Reich.
I was about to mention this. How higher testosterone levels manifest is context-dependent.

Like I would imagine a lot of traders would have abnormal levels of testosterone but it's manifested differently.

[phuckphace]

this topic prompted me to start looking up African American culture from THE FIFTIES and prior, and as usual, it was much classier and, well...better. one thing I noticed was that black people used to give their kids Anglo-Saxon names just like their WASP overlords, with a total absence of atrocious pseudo-ethnic given names like Shaniqua and LaKeesha and LaQwonda from ghetto "culture." they ironically had a more cohesive community, listenable/non-degenerate music, and markedly less intra-racial violence, all in a time when guns literally grew on trees and ¢apitali$m was as capital-y as ever. the one thing that the civil rights movement seems to have accomplished is a slightly higher per capita income (dolla dolla beelz y'all). I don't count voting rights because LOL IT'S RIGGED ANYWAY.

there are some people still alive who got to watch this precipitous decline happen in real time, but they're rapidly fewer by the day. now we've got 99% of millennials believing that blacks had to stay indoors at all times lest they be immediately snatched up and lynched by a snaggletoothed hillbilly with a straw hat and jug of whiskey.

edit: ninja'd by Vlerchan. I'll be responding to your above post momentarily.

[Sir Suomi]

American society just in general is pretty fucked up. Whether it be with a firearm, knife, or a mixture of fertilizer and racing fuel, we continue to kill one another. It's less of an issue in my opinion on how these acts are committed, but why they are committed.

It's safe to say it boils down to three major factors:

Gang related violence, which makes us the vast majority of the deaths caused by firearms. Often these weapons are either stolen or illegally purchased, which means that gun-control would have accomplished nothing in these situations.

The second is religious extremism. I'm not limiting this to Islam, because there are plenty of other religions who do the same, but it's not hard to see a repeating pattern of violence committed in the name of Islam. Whether or not these people are actually following the ways of Islam is another debate.

The third is simply that people are downright bat-shit insane. Any sane citizen wouldn't dream of turning a weapon on an innocent bystander. I agree that tougher legislation should be enacted to limit firearm purchases to those with mental illnesses, history of violent behavior, and a history of restraint orders listed against them.

Most gun owners in America are model citizens who happen to own a firearm, whether it be used for hunting, recreation, or self-defense. While it's a shame to see these events transpire, brutal acts will continue to happen in our nation no matter what we ban.

[DerBear]

I still believe that if the US government were to introduce laws that make it difficult to own a gun then it would at least stop some getting said gun.

[phuckphace]

I presume this is citing Ross? From what I recall - of reading a debate surrounding it on another forum - it was based on a small sample and the result was something he set out intending to prove on the basis of an earlier hypothesis. The results - since - have never been replicated. I could be wrong though - but then I can't manage to access the actual paper.

Results: After applying sampling weights and adjusting for age, percent body fat, alcohol, smoking, and activity, testosterone concentrations were not different between non-Hispanic blacks (n = 363; geometric mean, 5.29 ng/ml) and non-Hispanic whites (n = 674; 5.11 ng/ml; P > 0.05) but were higher in Mexican-Americans (n = 376; 5.48 ng/ml; P < 0.05). Non-Hispanic blacks (40.80 pg/ml) had a higher estradiol concentration than non-Hispanic whites (35.46 pg/ml; P < 0.01) and Mexican-Americans (34.11 pg/ml; P < 0.01). Non-Hispanic blacks (36.49 nmol/liter) had a higher SHBG concentration than non-Hispanic whites (34.91 nmol/liter; P < 0.05) and Mexican-Americans (35.04 nmol/liter; P < 0.05).

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2007-0028

There's a ~2% difference reported in this paper. I would imagine the higher traces of SHBG would inhibit this though.

I read elsewhere that black people can covert Testosterone to DHT at a somewhat faster rate. But I'm not quite sure about the behavioural impact of DHT.

this is far and above my pay grade, unfortunately. I'd definitely be interested in seeing a larger study comparing successful blacks without criminal records vs. prison inmates convicted of violent crimes (gang members, etc.) visually, the former are recognizably human, whereas the latter tend to have brutish and hyper-masculine features - I'd imagine the disparity between the two would be quite pronounced. but then again, just an edumacated guess on my part.

I was about to mention this. How higher testosterone levels manifest is context-dependent.

Like I would imagine a lot of traders would have abnormal levels of testosterone but it's manifested differently.

I was going for "multiculturalism is bad because it causes inherent genetic differences to clash where they otherwise would not." as I've said before, these differences aren't a problem in and of themselves, only when the group is removed from its native environment and placed into an unfamiliar one for which they haven't adapted.

of course, genetic differences are only one factor amongst others, like culture for example.

I still believe that if the US government were to introduce laws that make it difficult to own a gun then it would at least stop some getting said gun.

I still think it would be a better idea to use the death penalty aggressively to cull those individuals predisposed to violence, while combining this with disincentives to reproduce. that way gun owners can keep their guns and fewer people are shot (except the ones I'm shooting, of course).

[Jean Poutine]

As a Canadian, I'm very nervous every time I visit the United States, especially CC states. I don't know who has a gun and who doesn't, I don't know whether an argument, drunken or otherwise, could end with a pistol pointed at my head and I have zero means of defending myself if somebody pulls a gun on me because I'm just a tourist and I can't carry a firearm.

There was one time where I was in New York City and the taxi driver completely misunderstood where I wanted to go. I ended up in some kind of run-down Latino neighborhood in Brooklyn, real poor-looking. I am white as fuck and I also happened to be dressed like a tourist so I looked completely out of place, just as lost as I actually was. People were looking at me suspiciously and some looked kinda...hard I guess you could say. Looked right out of MS13. Thankfully it was during daytime, had it been at night I would have shat my pants and I'm willing to bet something would have happened. Still, I had to call another taxi and the whole time I was waiting for it I was almost shaking in my shoes.

I've also had the opportunity to contrast how Americans behave in Canada and I always thought they were over-cautious and tended to perceive threats everywhere. At night, my friends would ask me to cross the street if a group of young guys or whatever were coming towards us on the sidewalk, or even just stood there in the park bullshitting. They were always on edge, looking around, trying to spot possible threats to their safety. I live in a city of almost one million people and murder is exceedingly rare here (we don't even get one per year). Petty crime and crime against property is also much rarer than elsewhere. That's a constant throughout the province. Even in Montreal, where all the crime is, it's really not all that bad, and a good chunk of it is drug market-related.

I never felt the need to avoid crossing paths with anyone, or walking briskly to get out ASAP without looking suspicious and I've lived in a pretty rough borough (well, as rough as a borough in Quebec City can be, which is admittedly not much) where I often took walks alone at ungodly hours. The worst that can realistically happen is maybe somebody will ask you if you'd like to buy drugs from them. I kept telling them that no one was going to jump us, stab us or shoot us, to no avail.

I thought I was paranoid whenever I visited the US because I am foreign but apparently paranoia is simply a side-effect of living or being in the US. I've known Americans to smuggle guns up north for a visit because that was the only way they felt safe.

I don't believe scrapping our gun control policies up here in the North would result in more crime in general (because we mostly lack the elephant in the room pointed out in this thread) but I feel like it would make society more paranoid and less open. I'm convinced that Canadians have that "nice" reputation because we are far less paranoid and more trusting. Americans certainly have a paranoid streak in their culture, staying on guard at all times to safeguard the Constitution, liberty needing to be rekindled with the blood of tyrants once in a while. There'll always be someone out to get you and rob you of your rights, it seems.

I don't know if less guns would help Americans be more open, but it might. I don't know whether it's worth it, either.

[Miserabilia]

Too lazy to read the whole thread.

But, it's certainly easier to come by a gun when you simply get it from someone you know or legaly own one; this means that making them illegal to posses doesn't stop criminals but it stops the type of gun use that creates these world famous american massacres;
bursts of emotional rage that lead to in-the-moment dramatic decisions; and coming by a gun in a situation like that is easy when you don't need criminal means to come by one.

Certainly all arguments I've heard from pro-guns is to disprove arguments about the downside of guns already legal, rather than giving us a single advantage to actualy owning a gun besides "muh self defense" (against people with more guns..)

[DriveAlive]

Too lazy to read the whole thread.

But, it's certainly easier to come by a gun when you simply get it from someone you know or legaly own one; this means that making them illegal to posses doesn't stop criminals but it stops the type of gun use that creates these world famous american massacres;
bursts of emotional rage that lead to in-the-moment dramatic decisions; and coming by a gun in a situation like that is easy when you don't need criminal means to come by one.

Certainly all arguments I've heard from pro-guns is to disprove arguments about the downside of guns already legal, rather than giving us a single advantage to actualy owning a gun besides "muh self defense" (against people with more guns..)

Defense, hunting, sport, fun. Theres many reasons to own guns. If you haven't shot a gun or participate in any shooting sports or hunting, I don't expect you to understand.

As Ive said numerous times, gun violence is just a sympton of the mental illness epidemic in America. Ever since the Reagan cut funding for mental health care, the homeless rate and crime rate has gone up. No one should be surprised if you don't care for the mentally ill that a few of them will occasionally shoot up a school or something. Don't balme guns and ignore the real problem.

[Miserabilia]

Defense, hunting, sport, fun. Theres many reasons to own guns. If you haven't shot a gun or participate in any shooting sports or hunting, I don't expect you to understand.


"it's a gun thing, you wouldn't understand"
that still doesn't have a strong point for *owning* a gun.. You can have guns at hunting or sport/shooting range territory but still not let people own them themselves (which is the real problem).
The only point you've made here to support *owning* a gun is still muh self defense.


As Ive said numerous times, gun violence is just a sympton of the mental illness epidemic in America. Ever since the Reagan cut funding for mental health care, the homeless rate and crime rate has gone up. No one should be surprised if you don't care for the mentally ill that a few of them will occasionally shoot up a school or something. Don't balme guns and ignore the real problem.

Maybe your crazy people wouldn't get their hands on guns as easily if half the population wasn't actively trying to get everyone to own a gun.

[Stronk Serb]

As Ive said numerous times, gun violence is just a sympton of the mental illness epidemic in America. Ever since the Reagan cut funding for mental health care, the homeless rate and crime rate has gone up. No one should be surprised if you don't care for the mentally ill that a few of them will occasionally shoot up a school or something. Don't balme guns and ignore the real problem.

Why not make it harder for nutjobs to get a gun then?

[Vlerchan]

this is far and above my pay grade, unfortunately.
If I'm honest that's as much as I understand on the issue. I was just going to make stats-based critiques from there.

[...] brutish and hypermasculine [...]
But, sure, in societies where this could be channelled productively, a Rightist would value this?

I was going for "multiculturalism is bad because it causes inherent genetic differences to clash where they otherwise would not." as I've said before, these differences aren't a problem in and of themselves, only when the group is removed from its native environment and placed into an unfamiliar one for which they haven't adapted.
I sort of just don't believe in these genetic differences is the problem.

I'm more on-board with cultures. If we can determine with reasonable certainty cultural attitudes in relation to one an other I would be on-board with engaging with cultural-racism in terms of altering migrant patterns.

---

I also think there was a reasonable amount of disruption within black communities between the 50s and now. Like mass-migration towards the cities. But I don't know enough about the subject at all to make a proper address.

On the music, white people thought it was degenerate back then too I'm quite sure.

[Stronk Serb]

If I'm honest that's as much as I understand on the issue. I was just going to make stats-based critiques from there.


But, sure, in societies where this could be channelled productively, a Rightist would value this?


I sort of just don't believe in these genetic differences is the problem.

I'm more on-board with cultures. If we can determine with reasonable certainty cultural attitudes in relation to one an other I would be on-board with engaging with cultural-racism in terms of altering migrant patterns.

---

I also think there was a reasonable amount of disruption within black communities between the 50s and now. Like mass-migration towards the cities. But I don't know enough about the subject at all to make a proper address.

On the music, white people thought it was degenerate back then too I'm quite sure.

Well, jazz and blues I think were pretty popular in the fifties. I mean before WWII we had whites here copying jazz music from across the lake.

[Microcosm]

Putting strict regulations on guns would solve the problem, but it seems like it would cause many more problems that are a much bigger deal.

Just look at all the rednecks threatening to take up arms if the government tried to take their guns. There's no doubt there'd be some at least small scale civil war. It's a constitutional right to these people and they'd refuse to give it up under any circumstance.

In short, American(specifically southern) political views just don't accept it.

Not to mention that even if the government took everyone's guns then there would still be people hiding away guns ready to shoot up a school or something.

The south will rise again

[DerBear]

I still think it would be a better idea to use the death penalty aggressively to cull those individuals predisposed to violence, while combining this with disincentives to reproduce. that way gun owners can keep their guns and fewer people are shot (except the ones I'm shooting, of course).

Aggressive use of the death penalty? Historically the death penalty was applicable to over 300 crimes in Britain and was similar to the United States at the same time and guess what? It didn't deter crime, that's why even now, in the States, its only reserved for brutal murders and hasn't done much to deter crime so when the death penalty was used aggressively in history its done little to deter crime.

The clear issue is that the US constitution was written over 300 years ago and when the right to bear arms was allowed was a completely different time and less civilised than today.

Surely if they made it difficult to own a gun but still possible then this wouldn't infringe on the right to own arms but just make the process difficult. I mean owning a gun in the UK is near impossible but still possible under specific conditions.

I honestly haven't heard a convincing argument as to how this law is beneficial to society.

All I've heard is a bunch of pro gun nuts try and lay the blame at the feet of the individual, rather than the gun which is fair enough BUT when its so easy to obtain a gun legally which is then often used in massacres then clearly guns need to be addressed and restricted, especially in a modern society.

[DriveAlive]

Aggressive use of the death penalty? Historically the death penalty was applicable to over 300 crimes in Britain and was similar to the United States at the same time and guess what? It didn't deter crime, that's why even now, in the States, its only reserved for brutal murders and hasn't done much to deter crime so when the death penalty was used aggressively in history its done little to deter crime.

The clear issue is that the US constitution was written over 300 years ago and when the right to bear arms was allowed was a completely different time and less civilised than today.

Surely if they made it difficult to own a gun but still possible then this wouldn't infringe on the right to own arms but just make the process difficult. I mean owning a gun in the UK is near impossible but still possible under specific conditions.

I honestly haven't heard a convincing argument as to how this law is beneficial to society.

All I've heard is a bunch of pro gun nuts try and lay the blame at the feet of the individual, rather than the gun which is fair enough BUT when its so easy to obtain a gun legally which is then often used in massacres then clearly guns need to be addressed and restricted, especially in a modern society.

There are more guns than people in America. With that many guns, you'd think that there would be a massacre every day at least. My point is, why should we let a few people ruin gun rights for everyone. Instead, we should work to cure the problems in America that lead to gun violence.

[tonymontana99]

split from another thread (thanks Zach!!)

also can we keep this thread civil pls? I'd like to not have this locked



the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are perpetrated by our black underclass, largely against one another. if you remove those figures from the statistics, our gun-related crimes drop to a level close to that of most European countries. this is the "elephant in the room" that anti-gun people consistently ignore, because acknowledging reality is racist.

the problem isn't guns, it's that we have more criminally-inclined groups than Scotland's total population, several times over. you can have 10 guns for every citizen and still not face serious crime levels if said citizens aren't inclined to commit violent crimes for whatever reason in the first place.

Exactly. The problem isn't in the guns, but mainly the uneducated people who were unfortunate enough to be born in neighborhoods that are still caught up in gang violence, "G mentality" and crap like that. These recent shootings are just going go be used as scapegoats for gungrabbers.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[DriveAlive]

What I don't get is why nobody sees that these shootings are not carried out by upstanding mentally stable members of the community who were turned into killers by the power of the gun. Rather, they were done by the mentally ill that society just finds it easier to ignore. Without a gun, they would use a knife or car or bomb or...

[DerBear]

There are more guns than people in America. With that many guns, you'd think that there would be a massacre every day at least. My point is, why should we let a few people ruin gun rights for everyone. Instead, we should work to cure the problems in America that lead to gun violence.

I'm sorry but that argument is worse than any argument here.

Massacres won't happen every day but what about general shootings? Gun Violence? Armed Robbery? Those happen quite frequently in many states of the US. The UK barely has over 500 offences committed eahc year between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Now gun offences to clarify in the UK include threatening with fake guns e.g. Toy Guns, illegal possession of a Firearm and then obviously every crime involving a gun.

The actual number of shootings in the UK is less than 60 each year.

I've taken a look at a lot of crime statistics in the US with in relation to gun crime and its huge.

Okay you might not have a school get massacred every day but massacres happen semi frequently throughout the year and gun crime is massive in the US and isn't just concentrated to the worse off areas.

Its complete bullshit that the US Federal Government hasn't done anything about this yet. Is it fair to punish the masses for the acts of the few? If it saves lives then yes otherwise you have a very selfish mentality.

[DriveAlive]

I'm sorry but that argument is worse than any argument here.

Massacres won't happen every day but what about general shootings? Gun Violence? Armed Robbery? Those happen quite frequently in many states of the US. The UK barely has over 500 offences committed eahc year between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Now gun offences to clarify in the UK include threatening with fake guns e.g. Toy Guns, illegal possession of a Firearm and then obviously every crime involving a gun.

The actual number of shootings in the UK is less than 60 each year.

I've taken a look at a lot of crime statistics in the US with in relation to gun crime and its huge.

Okay you might not have a school get massacred every day but massacres happen semi frequently throughout the year and gun crime is massive in the US and isn't just concentrated to the worse off areas.

Its complete bullshit that the US Federal Government hasn't done anything about this yet. Is it fair to punish the masses for the acts of the few? If it saves lives then yes otherwise you have a very selfish mentality.
Wait, Im being selfish for not wanting to sacrifice my freedoms for some gangbangers. If you think that Im going to give up my 2nd Amendment rights so a couple less people die, then you are dead wrong. If we wanted, the gov. could put a breathalizer and text jammer in every car. That would certainly reduce deaths. We don't, though, because it is a ridiculous overstepping of gov. power. If you want to live in a nanny state that focuses on making sure that everyone is super duper safe all the time, then you can move to England if you want. In America, there's this thing called personal responsibility. If people choose to act irresponsibly, then there should be punishments. Until then, we can't just ban everything that could be dangerous to irresponsible people. All this country seems to do now is cater to the idiot minority.

On the issue of gun violence, I believe it has nothing to do with the guns. You said that the real problem is gun violence in the poor inner city areas. How many times do you hear about an upstanding hunter or a lawful concealed carry holder commiting a drive-by shooting? You don't because the gun isn't the problem. The problem is lack of education, jobs, and support for inner city youth. Until you start focusing on poverty and mental illness, there will be violent crime.

[phuckphace]

tl;dr - guns are scary!!!

Scotland once successfully and voraciously defended itself against Roman invasion, now they collectively piss themselves and tremble in a corner when they see a Nerf gun

[Judean Zealot]

I'm sure Boudicea is very proud of the Celts.

[Plane And Simple]

ROTW is not to bash people. While they might have a different opinion or debating technique, you still should respect them. Any rude post from here on will be deleted and action will be taken

[DerBear]

tl;dr - guns are scary!!!

Scotland once successfully and voraciously defended itself against Roman invasion, now they collectively piss themselves and tremble in a corner when they see a Nerf gun

I know it must be very hard for someone like yourself to actually articulate a proper, well throughout response that isn't based on completely taking the piss out of a nation that has the least amount of gun crime in Europe and most of the world.

Wait, Im being selfish for not wanting to sacrifice my freedoms for some gangbangers. If you think that Im going to give up my 2nd Amendment rights so a couple less people die, then you are dead wrong. If we wanted, the gov. could put a breathalizer and text jammer in every car. That would certainly reduce deaths. We don't, though, because it is a ridiculous overstepping of gov. power. If you want to live in a nanny state that focuses on making sure that everyone is super duper safe all the time, then you can move to England if you want. In America, there's this thing called personal responsibility. If people choose to act irresponsibly, then there should be punishments. Until then, we can't just ban everything that could be dangerous to irresponsible people. All this country seems to do now is cater to the idiot minority.

On the issue of gun violence, I believe it has nothing to do with the guns. You said that the real problem is gun violence in the poor inner city areas. How many times do you hear about an upstanding hunter or a lawful concealed carry holder commiting a drive-by shooting? You don't because the gun isn't the problem. The problem is lack of education, jobs, and support for inner city youth. Until you start focusing on poverty and mental illness, there will be violent crime.

Well yes it is selfish. If I was in the United States and citizen of the US I would happily give up my firearm rights if I knew it had even the smallest of chances to prevent another school shooting, another massacre. I would.

You say a few less people dying but thus its not a few. The UK had its first lethal police shooting incident in 2015 a couple weeks ago, the US has had over 600.

As for living in a nanny state we don't. we have freedom, personal responsibility and all that. We just know that arming a population without strict control is a terrible idea. I mean when the US constitution was written it was written in a time of wild unrest, not a civilised society. It cannot be applicable in today's society.

I mean I've seen the process of what you need to in the US to get a firearm and quite frankly its not a lot and is totally open for people who are irresponsible for getting a firearm. I mean in some states its so easy that having a process is pointless.

Comparing gun crime to car accidents is a poor example. Its not saving a few lives, if guns were strictly controlled or outrightly banned I can guarantee in the long term (short term wouldn't do anything) that gun crime would be reduced significantly.

I also never said it was applicable to only a few groups, yes those groups are responsible but quite frankly the amount of gun crime isn't just applicable to those groups.

Also picking individual examples e.g. hunters isn't a very good argument because individuals can act responsibility with a firearm. I have no doubt about that. However if we compare even one state to any European country, the US state will have higher gun crime.

I can understand owning firearms for sport and hunting but those should be controlled and only be accessible at either a club or hunting grounds/areas. Other than that there is no legitimate reason really to own a firearm because even arguments like protection have so many holes in that argument.

[Professional Russian]

In short, American(specifically southern) political views just don't accept it.

Not to mention that even if the government took everyone's guns then there would still be people hiding away guns ready to shoot up a school or something.

The south will rise again

Specifically the south? You do know its everywhere(with the exception of the hippies in California). Everywhere in the country people have threatened with civil war if they ban guns. Not just the south. As for hiding away guns to shoot up schools? So you're saying if the government came for my guns and burried them in my backyard so they couldn't get them I was hiding them to shoot my school up? I'm sure that makes total sense. That's got to be the dumbest argument I've heard in my life. Why is it when there's a school shooting people want to ban guns but when there's school stabbings you don't hear a god damn thing about banning knives.

[DerBear]

That's got to be the dumbest argument I've heard in my life. Why is it when there's a school shooting people want to ban guns but when there's school stabbings you don't hear a god damn thing about banning knives.

Because you can't ban knives so to speak. You can make specific types of knives illegal e.g. switch blades

Also news establishments in America are terrible, I mean truly horrific. I mean they can be openly bias, only report specific stories that target their audience and are heavily pushing their own agendas whereas in the UK news broadcasts have to be objective to quite a high standard.

But you can't put a blanket ban on knives because we need knives for things like cutting food and daily essentials whereas with guns we could live perfectly well without them and I don't want to keep pointing at the UK but we're proof that we can operate fully well as a society without guns.

[Professional Russian]

Because you can't ban knives so to speak. You can make specific types of knives illegal e.g. switch blades

Also news establishments in America are terrible, I mean truly horrific. I mean they can be openly bias, only report specific stories that target their audience and are heavily pushing their own agendas whereas in the UK news broadcasts have to be objective to quite a high standard.

But you can't put a blanket ban on knives because we need knives for things like cutting food and daily essentials whereas with guns we could live perfectly well without them and I don't want to keep pointing at the UK but we're proof that we can operate fully well as a society without guns.

The UK has always in some way had a ban on guns though as where the US hasn't. Clinton tried....and failed, gun company's still found a way around his assualt weapons ban. Also the first way to controlling a population is by taking away their weapons. So if the government wanted to control the UK they could. If the US government tried to take all control and tell us what to do we could fight back....pretty sure that was in the amendment...wait the amendment is the whole reason they can't ban guns, let alone the civil war that will follow. Inb4 anyone says the military would beat the people down do you really believe members of the military, which many many many of them go on to own firearms afte retirement and during duty, are going to willingly fight to take away one of their own rights? No they aren't. They may be trained to take orders but it don't mean they're going to follow them.

[Miserabilia]

Also the first way to controlling a population is by taking away their weapons. So if the government wanted to control the UK they could. If the US government tried to take all control and tell us what to do we could fight back....

I'm sorry but that's just ridiculously far fetched. With this reasoning, we could have anything ready "just in case" the government suddenly went evil and tried to controll us. And ofcourse, this has happened in the past; but what does owning a gun change in that?
Do you not think fighting back by shooting will only get you killed faster?
I mean, If you're thinking worst case scenario, you gotta go all the way.

[Professional Russian]

I'm sorry but that's just ridiculously far fetched. With this reasoning, we could have anything ready "just in case" the government suddenly went evil and tried to controll us. And ofcourse, this has happened in the past; but what does owning a gun change in that?
Do you not think fighting back by shooting will only get you killed faster?
I mean, If you're thinking worst case scenario, you gotta go all the way.

Look at every gun owner in America. Think about it, you really think they're all just going to give up their guns? No they're going to fight back to keep their rights. Sure many will die but there will always be more to fight.

[DerBear]

Look at every gun owner in America. Think about it, you really think they're all just going to give up their guns? No they're going to fight back to keep their rights. Sure many will die but there will always be more to fight.

I don't honestly think their would be a civil war over gun rights. The fact is the US wouldn't ban guns and do a recall. If they were to ban firearms what they'd hopefully do is

1) Prevent any more guns being able to be purchased legally e.g. You can't go to gun store basically.

2) Prevent the ability to carry firearms outwith your own property

3) Prevent specific weapons from being passed onto family when the official owner passes away. Obviously if it was historic/a trophy weapon e.g. Something someone obtained during a war or time served then that's different.

This way, within time like the UK did, you'd see less people with firearms access.

Generations wouldn't be able to have easy access to firearms.

Furthermore the idea of a 'people militia' overthrowing a government in this day and age is complete bollocks. We live in a civilised society, not in the old west. That part of the amendment was put in place when the new age of Government was dawning and nobody knew exactly if the government was going to last due to it being in a time of new social unrest.

[Miserabilia]

Look at every gun owner in America. Think about it, you really think they're all just going to give up their guns? No they're going to fight back to keep their rights. Sure many will die but there will always be more to fight.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

literaly do not even know how to respond to this line of thinking

[DriveAlive]

I don't honestly think their would be a civil war over gun rights. The fact is the US wouldn't ban guns and do a recall. If they were to ban firearms what they'd hopefully do is

1) Prevent any more guns being able to be purchased legally e.g. You can't go to gun store basically.

2) Prevent the ability to carry firearms outwith your own property

3) Prevent specific weapons from being passed onto family when the official owner passes away. Obviously if it was historic/a trophy weapon e.g. Something someone obtained during a war or time served then that's different.

This way, within time like the UK did, you'd see less people with firearms access.

Generations wouldn't be able to have easy access to firearms.

Furthermore the idea of a 'people militia' overthrowing a government in this day and age is complete bollocks. We live in a civilised society, not in the old west. That part of the amendment was put in place when the new age of Government was dawning and nobody knew exactly if the government was going to last due to it being in a time of new social unrest.

If you even admit that the responsible and legal gun owners are not the problem, then why do your ideas only punish this group? Wouldn't it be more likely to reduce violence if we focused our resources on fighting mental illness and poverty?

[Miserabilia]

If you even admit that the responsible and legal gun owners are not the problem, then why do your ideas only punish this group? Wouldn't it be more likely to reduce violence if we focused our resources on fighting mental illness and poverty?

responsible and legal gun owners?
Hunters or sports can get special permits and limited acces.
But you mean people who own one and don't use it, for example?
Because that is still a problem. They aren't the problem, but the situation they create is, where lethal violence is easily accesible.

[DriveAlive]

responsible and legal gun owners?
Hunters or sports can get special permits and limited acces.
But you mean people who own one and don't use it, for example?
Because that is still a problem. They aren't the problem, but the situation they create is, where lethal violence is easily accesible.

So people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? What about wanting to hunt out of state or out of the country? What about going to a different shooting range? You are making the situation more difficult for the people who want to follow the law.

Please don't take this as condescending, but what is your experience, if any, with firearms?

[Miserabilia]

So people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves?

with a gun? no.
What you're doing here is like saying people aren't allowed to eat when a certain toxic isn't allowed in food anymore.

What about wanting to hunt out of state or out of the country? What about going to a different shooting range? You are making the situation more difficult for the people who want to follow the law.


There can be laws and rules made for that small percentage of people that do these things; they can arragne something, even if that is more difficult than just doing it. Seriously, just because through something like permits this is more difficult, that's nowhere near to an argument to why gun ownership would be legal to all.


Please don't take this as condescending, but what is your experience, if any, with firearms?

Seems pretty irrelevant to me.

[phuckphace]

Also the first way to controlling a population is by taking away their weapons.

lol and/or lmao

I'm all for gun rights but this particular argument is retarded. personal weapons are only useful in self-defense scenarios against one or a few assailants/burglars, not fending off GUBMINT OPPRESSION. the day the gubmint decides to personally oppress Bert, Bert is fucked even if he owns a nice set of full-auto rifles and crates of ammo stacked to the ceiling in his libertycave. sure, you could spray lead at the first 10 cops who came to confiscate your guns, until SWAT rolls up and paints a red Rorschach blot on the wall behind your erstwhile head.

universities & the media are actually where most of the "controlling" originates, just fyi

[DerBear]

If you even admit that the responsible and legal gun owners are not the problem, then why do your ideas only punish this group? Wouldn't it be more likely to reduce violence if we focused our resources on fighting mental illness and poverty?

Because unfortunately access to guns is the main problem. If the US restricted access to weapons for the masses, the minority who would commit such crimes would have a harder time finding weapons.

Its exactly what they've done in the UK and most of the people in the UK are happy we don't have firearms.

I think that the US needs to be tough on gun crime and address access to weapons.

I mean if I was a US citizen, I'd happily give up my right to firearm ownership if I thought it would stop even one death, stop even one mother finding out their kid has been gunned down while in School or their son being shot because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

[dxcxdzv]

I'm wondering guys how do you feel the more fine.
Personally I'm not comfortable with someone wearing a gun next to me.

But there is two other threads like that, no?

[DriveAlive]

Because unfortunately access to guns is the main problem. If the US restricted access to weapons for the masses, the minority who would commit such crimes would have a harder time finding weapons.

Its exactly what they've done in the UK and most of the people in the UK are happy we don't have firearms.

I think that the US needs to be tough on gun crime and address access to weapons.

I mean if I was a US citizen, I'd happily give up my right to firearm ownership if I thought it would stop even one death, stop even one mother finding out their kid has been gunned down while in School or their son being shot because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I read a reasonably interesting piece a while back (I will try to find it if I can) that said the reason why gun crime was so low in England was not because of gun laws, but because of socialized medicine that guaranteed treatment for the poor and mentally ill. South Africa has very similar gun laws to England, but has much more crime because of the rampant poverty. If you consider this, it is clear that the laws are not causing less crime, but rather the treatment of the mentally ill and impoverished.

[DerBear]

I read a reasonably interesting piece a while back (I will try to find it if I can) that said the reason why gun crime was so low in England was not because of gun laws, but because of socialized medicine that guaranteed treatment for the poor and mentally ill. South Africa has very similar gun laws to England, but has much more crime because of the rampant poverty. If you consider this, it is clear that the laws are not causing less crime, but rather the treatment of the mentally ill and impoverished.

The problem with comparing Africa to the United Kingdom is Africa isn't nearly as stable as the UK. They have mass levels of poverty that doesn't exist on the same level as the UK. They have a high related drug problems, with drug overlords AND gun laws were only recently introduced when you compare to the UK. I mean the UK started gun control at the turn of the 20th century before the rise of modern arms.

Comparing the two countries would be like comparing apples and oranges, you can't do it.

The reason why you can compare the US to the UK is that in terms of modern social structure, they're on an even footing. The UK has nearly every freedom the US has and we're both considered super powers of the world, not to mention economic success of both countries.

Would providing support for the mentally ill and those in poverty help? Yes but only marginally as those in poverty do still commit crimes in the UK. In fact most violent crimes are committed by people who come from or are in a poverty background.

They just don't have tools like access to guns and other weapons to commit crimes with, so instead they use mele weapons, knives etc.

Which, are dangerous but not nearly as destructive to society.

[DerBear]

I know I'm double posting but its in order to bump the topic. I think considering how America has had ANOTHER school shooting, we surely can't let this continue. Its quite frankly FUCKED up.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10387462_773089182726543_8370823349900418606_n.jpg?oh=041cd240ca3bb8299aa9a6ca96 5bc85d&oe=568EF757

[Southside]

I know I'm double posting but its in order to bump the topic. I think considering how America has had ANOTHER school shooting, we surely can't let this continue. Its quite frankly FUCKED up.

image (https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10387462_773089182726543_8370823349900418606_n.jpg?oh=041cd240ca3bb8299aa9a6ca96 5bc85d&oe=568EF757)


Nobody cares about gun control until a school or some mall in the suburbs or rural USA gets shot up. Innocent people get gunned down in the streets of my city everyday and I don't see anyone debating or raging about that.

I think Chicago leads the nation in gun homicides with 411 on the year, believe it or not some people here are proud to have the "Murder Capital" label.

[DerBear]

Nobody cares about gun control until a school or some mall in the suburbs or rural USA gets shot up. Innocent people get gunned down in the streets of my city everyday and I don't see anyone debating or raging about that.

I think Chicago leads the nation in gun homicides with 411 on the year, believe it or not some people here are proud to have the "Murder Capital" label.

People care about gun control but its not put into the media spotlight until something bad happens. Its like terrorism at Airports, people care about it but you don't hear about it until something really bad happens.

[tonymontana99]

The major massacres the poster speaks of, I believe, are those such as Ferguson, the Movie Theater shootings, Fort Hood, Chatanooga, etc. these were all committed by white or Arab (who often consider themselves white) males. The major disasters mentioned were all committed by whites and Arabs, not blacks. One must remember gun violence amongst the black underclass is one of the many byproducts of the greed and depravity capitalism creates by building a system in which racism and injustice is structural.

I'm sure there are still more black-on-black/black-on-white shootings per yer than all of those incidents combined.

[DerBear]

I'm sure there are still more black-on-black/black-on-white shootings per yer than all of those incidents combined.

It'll vary across the board. I mean considering the US is a melting pot of races. I also don't think it really matters, race.

If guns were restricted, there would be less gun crime over time.

[tonymontana99]

It'll vary across the board. I mean considering the US is a melting pot of races. I also don't think it really matters, race.

If guns were restricted, there would be less gun crime over time.

Personally, I think its exaggerated to have AR-15s and assault rifles, but I think every law abiding american should own a semi-auto 9mm or a revolver for self defense. All of these shootings we see occur in gun-free zones. I bet the shooters wouldn't have had the balls to go through with it if they knew the places they were going to were armed to the teeth. Also, race does matter. A lot more black people shooting each other and whites. But most massacres are usually perpetrated by whites, for some reason. I don't think we should prevent law-abiding Americans their right to self-defense, but we should have federal death penalty for all massacres, and have stricter background checks and educate people thoroughly on gun usage.

[DerBear]

Personally, I think its exaggerated to have AR-15s and assault rifles, but I think every law abiding american should own a semi-auto 9mm or a revolver for self defense. All of these shootings we see occur in gun-free zones. I bet the shooters wouldn't have had the balls to go through with it if they knew the places they were going to were armed to the teeth. Also, race does matter. A lot more black people shooting each other and whites. But most massacres are usually perpetrated by whites, for some reason. I don't think we should prevent law-abiding Americans their right to self-defense, but we should have federal death penalty for all massacres, and have stricter background checks and educate people thoroughly on gun usage.

I'm sorry but the self defence argument for owning a gun is really weak.

[tonymontana99]

I'm sorry but the self defence argument for owning a gun is really weak.

Why is it?

[Vlerchan]

Why is it?
I'll locate the papers when I get home from college but I'll mention before then that a number of papers conclude that having a gun in the home correlates with greater probabilities of wounding and death. I'm talking likelihoods on the scale of 3 - 4 (times) here.

Of course gun ownership still saves some lives. But the point is that promoting gun ownership doesn't make for good public policy on the grounds considered in that it leaves people worse off on average.

[tonymontana99]

I'll locate the papers when I get home from college but I'll mention before then that a number of papers conclude that having a gun in the home correlates with greater probabilities of wounding and death. I'm talking likelihoods on the scale of 3 - 4 (times) here.

Of course gun ownership still saves some lives. But the point is that promoting gun ownership doesn't make for good public policy on the grounds considered in that it leaves people worse off on average.

Yeah, I think guns save about 100,000 lives per year in the hands of civillians, but I agree that we should definitely teach people responsible gun usage so we decrease the number of accidental firings and other stuff and can have guns in the hands of responsible people in public places. Of course the gun problem is, like everything else, interconnected with other problems like the economy, society, happiness, etc. If we had a better economy with less unemployment and more job growth and stability, people would be happier and less inclined to go full Breivik because of discontent or depression.

I don't think we should forbid people of owning firearms for self defense, but we should definitely teach everyone responsible gun usage and not have stores that sell guns like they sell soda.

[Vlerchan]

[...] but I agree that we should definitely teach people responsible gun usage so we decrease the number of accidental firings and other stuff and can have guns in the hands of responsible people in public places.
I wouldn't mind the high prevalence of gun ownership so much if the U.S followed a similar practice to Switzerland. In that it would conscript individuals into either local militias or the armed forces-proper and train them including with the use of arms.

Of course the gun problem is, like everything else, interconnected with other problems like the economy, society, happiness, etc. If we had a better economy with less unemployment and more job growth and stability, people would be happier and less inclined to go full Breivik because of discontent or depression.
Sure. I agree. But it's still the case that gun ownership doesn't seem to be helpful probabilities-wise.

The mass shootings - whilst awful - are also exaggerated as a focus point of the issue. Deaths from these shootings make up an insignificant proportion of all gun deaths.

---

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[dxcxdzv]

I guess even in twenty years americans will still be on the question of the regulation of guns. Like some people are still stuck on the question of if the world has been created in six days or not.

[DerBear]

Sorry but where are you getting the stat of saving 100,000 lives from?

Furthermore define 'save'

Also is it reasonable force?

I could save a life by running over someone who is trying to kill someone but is reasonable force? Not really.

[Professional Russian]

Sorry but where are you getting the stat of saving 100,000 lives from?

Furthermore define 'save'

Also is it reasonable force?

I could save a life by running over someone who is trying to kill someone but is reasonable force? Not really.
Well shit son if someone's trying to kill you do you want them arrested and thrown in jail or killed and never having a chance to do it again?

[kev99]

Well shit son if someone's trying to kill you do you want them arrested and thrown in jail or killed and never having a chance to do it again?

I'd want them judged first, before even talking about the punishment...

[Professional Russian]

I'd want them judged first, before even talking about the punishment...

Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. You want to try to kill someone you deserve to be killed back. If you do kill someone you should be sent straight to chair.

[DerBear]

Well shit son if someone's trying to kill you do you want them arrested and thrown in jail or killed and never having a chance to do it again?

I believe in the juridical system so I'd want them tried first. A gun for personal protection rarely saves lives. If anything it can escalate the problem.

[Professional Russian]

I believe in the juridical system so I'd want them tried first. A gun for personal protection rarely saves lives. If anything it can escalate the problem.

Actually I've read multiple times where just showing you have the gun deters your opponent and you usually only use it as a last resort. Anyone in their right mind isn't going to fuck with someone with a gun. Anyone who's dumb enough probably deserved to die

[DerBear]

Actually I've read multiple times where just showing you have the gun deters your opponent and you usually only use it as a last resort. Anyone in their right mind isn't going to fuck with someone with a gun. Anyone who's dumb enough probably deserved to die

I'm not going to deny that cases where a gun has been used successfully as a deterrent doesn't exist. Because I'm sure there are some instances where a gun is used.

However I bet there are many incidents when someone has died for committing a crime such as unlawfully entering a house and has been shot. Does that person deserve to die for being a thief? Well No.

I mean the actual times a gun is used and has resulted in a justifiable death is probably rare. In the UK we have such a thing as reasonable force where one can only use force that is reasonable to defend yourself.

In the US I don't believe that a gun is reasonable force. Now the US has many laws and is dictated by state laws but a lot of them don't have reasonable force laws which potentially can result in people being shot for the example I gave above.

Moving on, is owning a gun for personal protection when rarely used or rarely used appropriately, worth having these shootings we see on the TV on a monthly basis? I mean over in the UK we do get a lot of coverage of violent gun crime from the US and honestly I don't think its worth it.

I mean can anyone honestly say they'd rather have guns and have massacres or have no guns and fewer massacres.

The reason why I say fewer is because we do still have a very small amount of gun crime but this is mostly minor gun crime and is rarely ever a massacre.

[phuckphace]

However I bet there are many incidents when someone has died for committing a crime such as unlawfully entering a house and has been shot. Does that person deserve to die for being a thief? Well No.

:lol3:

----

I regret starting this thread. the Americans get all up in arms (literally) and the Euros bleep-bloop their pre-programmed lines about guns giving off this evil aura that seeps into our pores and turns citizens into rampaging spree shooters. <BLEEP> well here in the UK we once had a bloke kill this chap with a garden gnome and since we're not totally and completely backwards like Amerikkka we now have strict laws against owning garden gnomes</BLOOP>

every time

[Professional Russian]

I'm not going to deny that cases where a gun has been used successfully as a deterrent doesn't exist. Because I'm sure there are some instances where a gun is used.

However I bet there are many incidents when someone has died for committing a crime such as unlawfully entering a house and has been shot. Does that person deserve to die for being a thief? Well No.

I mean the actual times a gun is used and has resulted in a justifiable death is probably rare. In the UK we have such a thing as reasonable force where one can only use force that is reasonable to defend yourself.

In the US I don't believe that a gun is reasonable force. Now the US has many laws and is dictated by state laws but a lot of them don't have reasonable force laws which potentially can result in people being shot for the example I gave above.

Moving on, is owning a gun for personal protection when rarely used or rarely used appropriately, worth having these shootings we see on the TV on a monthly basis? I mean over in the UK we do get a lot of coverage of violent gun crime from the US and honestly I don't think its worth it.

I mean can anyone honestly say they'd rather have guns and have massacres or have no guns and fewer massacres.

The reason why I say fewer is because we do still have a very small amount of gun crime but this is mostly minor gun crime and is rarely ever a massacre.

The thing with someone robbing your house is how do you know they won't kill you while you're there? How do you know they won't react with desdlt force when confronted? You don't know that at all when you head that bump in the night. I'd rather stay alive and find out they weren't packing than being dead from confronting them with a baseball bat and getting shot. And the US will never work like the UK it is physically impossible. Between the guns already on the street and all the illegal ones floating around and entering the country it would never work. Even if the government rounded up all the guns thered still be illegal ones floating around and thats a fact no one can deny. Plus getting the American people to give up their guns is next to impossible but youve already seen me go off about that I'm sure :P

[phuckphace]

I was actually hoping for more discussion on my original points specifically, like how the thread of the Fates (the double helix) ties into criminality and why white countries have less crime in general than "countries" like the United States of Haplotypes. to reiterate, we've got a bunch of people ITT living in relatively homogeneous white countries who think their gun bans are the reason they don't have very many spree killings, which in turn are given disproportionate attention even though they're only a small percentage of the total.

when I hear Euros use sneering euphemisms like America's "gun culture" what they're really referring to are guns owned by white people, the actual target of gun bans. you know they're picturing a white kid waking up on the wrong side of the bed one day and bringing a gun to school. no mention of homeboys or ghetto "culture." this is where the political insanity of race really starts to show: it would make more sense from the standpoint of reducing crime to look at this seriously, but to do so is of course Hitlerian and prohibited so nothing happens. oh and speaking of Hitler, he banned guns too LOLOLOL.

[Vlerchan]

it would make more sense from the standpoint of reducing crime to look at this seriously, but to do so is of course Hitlerian and prohibited so nothing happens. oh and speaking of Hitler, he banned guns too LOLOLOL.
I guess I'll humour you. Have you any proposals?

I haven't considered it from this angle because I'm yet to have it demonstrated the way in which certain races are wired to be more crime-prone but I'm willing to suspend disbelief on that matter for the sake of discussion.
---

On an aside ghetto culture is also something some amount of Hispanics and Whites are integrated into.

[Judean Zealot]

Maybe phuckphace supports affirmative action. :P

[phuckphace]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/trayvon-martin-jordan-davis_n_4855746.html

this piece is entirely too weepy over a fledgling thuglet who would've been stashed away at the crossbar hotel in another five, but...

During South African apartheid, one of the most horrific instances of racism the world has seen, the prison rate for black male South Africans, under immensely unfair laws, was 851 per 100,000. In America today, young black men face a rate of imprisonment effectively ten times that number.

so, phascism > civil rights/welfare? sorry HuffPo but that's old news here in mein playground. didn't realize you guys were such closet shitlords though

[thatcountrykid]

The major massacres the poster speaks of, I believe, are those such as Ferguson, the Movie Theater shootings, Fort Hood, Chatanooga, etc. these were all committed by white or Arab (who often consider themselves white) males. The major disasters mentioned were all committed by whites and Arabs, not blacks. One must remember gun violence amongst the black underclass is one of the many byproducts of the greed and depravity capitalism creates by building a system in which racism and injustice is structural.

I'm sorry but how is Ferguson a massacre? I know this post is months old but I have to ask.