Topic: The Gun Topic

[Axelgear]

it's a good thing people like you weren't around in 1860

..... I am curious as to what you're referring to...

[Brandonazz]

I'm against gun control just because in any truly free society, the people should always be able to change the government.

it's a good thing people like you weren't around in 1860

What about the American Civil War?

How many of the Confederate soldiers used their own guns?

It has no real bearing on gun control today, but I should point out that what 762 said is a staple of earlier societies.

[HolsteinCow]

It has no real bearing on gun control today, but I should point out that what 762 said is a staple of earlier societies.

how early

[Axelgear]

What about the American Civil War?

How many of the Confederate soldiers used their own guns?

Not sure, really, but that's a good point, actually. The Southern States wanted to secede and backed it up with firepower. The North refused to acknowledge their Constitutional Rights. The South lost but they were able to fight back, right?

... Before anyone says the Civil War was over slavery, don't fool yourself.

[MetallicDragon]

What about the American Civil War?

How many of the Confederate soldiers used their own guns?

Not sure, really, but that's a good point, actually. The Southern States wanted to secede and backed it up with firepower. The North refused to acknowledge their Constitutional Rights. The South lost but they were able to fight back, right?

... Before anyone says the Civil War was over slavery, don't fool yourself.

Then please, enlighten us. What was the Civil War over, if not slavery?

[Hammerman58]

You could do all you want about controlling guns but people will find ways of getting them. You might have 50 nuts out of a 100 people with guns but if u do something u might have 1. The thing is you got 1 nut with 99 people not being able to do anything about that 1 nut.



We should not worry about what tools are used to commit crimes but the roots of those crimes. Sure take the gun from the guy but hes just going to walk across the street and but a machete. Gun control should not be a form of crime prevention. Nobody wants to tackle the issues of why people do what they do they just want to take away the items those people use.

Do not blame guns blame the society that harbors criminals and work to help that society be a better place.


The civil war was not about slavery at the start. It was first of all to make the country whole again by crushing the rebellion. Also the south was a different then the north so they thought they should be there own country. Its the difference why the lost. The north had the industry and money. The south had farming and less money plus about half the manpower. If the south had industry and more man power they would have won because of the better leadership. The slaver were freed to get some more northern support to continue the war. But he did not free the middle states because slavery was strong there and he did not want to lose the support.
Lincoln only freed the southern slaves and not the middle states between north and the south.

[Axelgear]

Keeping the Southern States in the Union. The Slavery bit was thought up by Lincoln and his advisers. They decided on that because it would give them a reason to fight. The North largely didn't like slave owners and Lincoln gave them an excuse. For the record, even during the Civil War, the North didn't free their slaves. In fact, until the Constitution was amended to include a ban on slavery, the Emancipation of slaves ONLY occurred in states that fought for the Confederacy.

[Daxx]

Sure take the gun from the guy but hes just going to walk across the street and but a machete.

Actually we already knocked that notion on its head a long time ago in this thread by demonstrating that most injuries from guns are either accidents or non-premeditated, and further we demonstrated that guns tend to lead to more grievous injuries in instances of accidents, domestic disputes and so forth.

Sure, the guy who premeditated murder is going to get his kill any way he can. However, when you remove guns from the situation instances of homicide (in terms of the ratio of homicide to assault, ABH and GBH) are reduced. The argument that says that criminals will always get guns and so therefore gun control isn't useful is flawed in a number of ways, because firstly crimes involving guns are reduced in countries with gun control and also gun control is not just about reducing criminal acts.

[Axelgear]

Actually we already knocked that notion on its head a long time ago in this thread by demonstrating that most injuries from guns are either accidents or non-premeditated

When did we do that? Though, to be honest, non-premeditated violence is the most common kind of violence.

and further we demonstrated that guns tend to lead to more grievous injuries in instances of accidents, domestic disputes and so forth.

Not sure how you could demonstrate this, but okay.

Sure, the guy who premeditated murder is going to get his kill any way he can. However, when you remove guns from the situation instances of homicide (in terms of the ratio of homicide to assault, ABH and GBH) are reduced. The argument that says that criminals will always get guns and so therefore gun control isn't useful is flawed in a number of ways, because firstly crimes involving guns are reduced in countries with gun control and also gun control is not just about reducing criminal acts.

.... It's not just about reducing criminal acts or at least reducing the harm they cause? I thought that was the point. If there's any other argument besides that, Daxx, something is very wrong.

Also, for the record, I point out again that when I say gun control, I mean restriction (I.E. Banning their handling in public places by civilians), and countries that lack this restriction have been shown to have lower murder rates than countries that don't have it.

Still, there's elements on both sides. There are countries with low restrictions on gun control and high murder rates and vice versa, as well as countries with high restriction on gun control and high murder rates, and vice versa.

Personally, I like things like Switzerland, though. Every male of a certain age has a gun, but they don't go crazy and murder people in the streets or just snap and kill people. It seems more their culture that keeps them safe than any law for or against gun control.

[Werechicken]

Actually we already knocked that notion on its head a long time ago in this thread by demonstrating that most injuries from guns are either accidents or non-premeditated

When did we do that? Though, to be honest, non-premeditated violence is the most common kind of violence.

Prove it then, and pro-gun sites do not count as proof.

[Axelgear]

It's surprisingly difficult to do so. There's no statistics, that I can find, that differentiate murder and manslaughter. (Edit: For the record, I include crimes of passion in non-premeditated)

Also, this is totally off topic, or at least the current line of discussion, but I just found a list for murder rate by region in the US. This is both murder and manslaughter. In Montana, where there are close to no restrictions on guns (No licensing, no restrictions, no safety training, etc.), the murder rate is lower than that of the UK and only slightly higher than England/Wales. In fact, in North Dakota, which has the lowest murder rate in the US and a lower murder rate than Britain, their laws on gun control are close to non-existent, while the highest murder rate is in Washington D.C., which has a total ban on gun ownership and sales.

For the record, the rates are available here and the gun laws are usually found swiftly on Google.

[Daxx]

and further we demonstrated that guns tend to lead to more grievous injuries in instances of accidents, domestic disputes and so forth.

Not sure how you could demonstrate this, but okay.

Earlier in the old part of this newly-merged thread I found some statistics about domestic abuse. In homes where a gun is present, domestic abuse is statistically significantly more likely to result in a homicide. Go read up on it, it's interesting.

Sure, the guy who premeditated murder is going to get his kill any way he can. However, when you remove guns from the situation instances of homicide (in terms of the ratio of homicide to assault, ABH and GBH) are reduced. The argument that says that criminals will always get guns and so therefore gun control isn't useful is flawed in a number of ways, because firstly crimes involving guns are reduced in countries with gun control and also gun control is not just about reducing criminal acts.

.... It's not just about reducing criminal acts or at least reducing the harm they cause? I thought that was the point. If there's any other argument besides that, Daxx, something is very wrong.

Please read me correctly. The objective of gun control is not merely about reducing numbers of crimes committed, it's about reducing the homicide and serious accident rates as well.

[Axelgear]

Earlier in the old part of this newly-merged thread I found some statistics about domestic abuse. In homes where a gun is present, domestic abuse is statistically significantly more likely to result in a homicide. Go read up on it, it's interesting.

And people who commit spousal abuse should not be allowed firearms. If they have charges that have gone through against them (Charges with substance), take away their weapons. It's not unreasonable. I'm for taking away a violent felon's weapons.

Please read me correctly. The objective of gun control is not merely about reducing numbers of crimes committed, it's about reducing the homicide and serious accident rates as well.

If you're serious about accident rates, ban swimming pools and cars, the former leads to far more deaths than hand guns in accidents, and the latter causes more deaths in accidents alone than anything else. There's only 17,000 murders in the US but 46,000 car crash related deaths and 2.9 million car crash related injuries.

As for homicide, you can't take away the right to have a gun from people using it responsibly because some will use it irresponsibly or criminally. That's like taking away everyone's knives or cars or cigarettes or whatever because some people just can't control themselves. You don't take away the rights of law-abiding people just because they might become unlawful later.

[Daxx]

Earlier in the old part of this newly-merged thread I found some statistics about domestic abuse. In homes where a gun is present, domestic abuse is statistically significantly more likely to result in a homicide. Go read up on it, it's interesting.

And people who commit spousal abuse should not be allowed firearms. If they have charges that have gone through against them (Charges with substance), take away their weapons. It's not unreasonable. I'm for taking away a violent felon's weapons.

This was after the fact. And the homicides weren't always committed by the abuser, either.

You don't take away the rights of law-abiding people just because they might become unlawful later.

Yet again, you're ignoring the point I'm making. But whatever, I'm not going to explain it again.

[Werechicken]

Okay compared to guns how many swimming pool deaths have there been?

Also you keep mentioning banning cars, despite the fact that cars are far more common and are vital to many people, whereas guns are not, with the possible exception of a few tiny minorities.