Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 21, 2014, 12:26 AM   #76
Ledgem
macrumors 6502a
 
Ledgem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northeast USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
Great. But how do we get there? When we pass laws that ban firearms, only outlaws will have firearms. They don't obey our laws, anyway.
The point has less to do with the law and more to do with having fewer firearms in circulation.

I think everyone recognizes that we'll never be able to get rid of firearms completely. Even if we ban the sale of firearms to citizens, private gunsmiths may still operate outside of the law, weapons may be smuggled in from other countries, and weapons may be stolen from law enforcement or the military. However, banning the sale of firearms would remove an easy route for criminals to acquire weapons (through proxy purchasers), and it would take a lot of firearms out of circulation. Thus, the chances of a criminal getting hold of a gun is decreased.

I've had this discussion a few times before, and it seems like there's a key sticking point in people's minds when they hear this. To those who view firearms as being for defense, the idea that some criminal has even a small chance of getting a weapon makes them feel very insecure. To them, having a firearm is their ticket to safety. They hate the idea of being in a situation where someone has force over them, and they can't fight back.

I think it's understandable, but somewhat flawed. A gun in your hand won't protect you from a bullet that's headed in your direction, and firing your gun won't heal you once you've been hit. Encountering a criminal who lacks a gun guarantees that you won't get shot, though. If your chances of encountering a criminal with a gun are slashed to a hundredth or a thousandth of where we are today, then you'd be safer even if you were disarmed.
Ledgem is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 03:39 AM   #77
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
Oh, the nostalgia for the time of the Victorian!

Beware the Gothic, though...


Gothic rules.

I’d like to see the 9mm bullet that could penetrate those walls.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 05:52 AM   #78
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
... Gothic rules.
For some odd reason, Gothic Revival was a popular architectural style for psychiatric hospitals built during the late 1800s in the U.S. I assume the building's gargoyles (right photo, below) above entranceways helped patients feel more at ease. Undoubtably, knowing they were spending much of their stay behind bulletproof walls helped patients feel secure and protected.

Thumb resize.Thumb resize.
Above left, Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum, built 1881, Weston, W.Va.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 06:18 AM   #79
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502a
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Peach State
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
The point has less to do with the law and more to do with having fewer firearms in circulation.

I think everyone recognizes that we'll never be able to get rid of firearms completely. Even if we ban the sale of firearms to citizens, private gunsmiths may still operate outside of the law, weapons may be smuggled in from other countries, and weapons may be stolen from law enforcement or the military. However, banning the sale of firearms would remove an easy route for criminals to acquire weapons (through proxy purchasers), and it would take a lot of firearms out of circulation. Thus, the chances of a criminal getting hold of a gun is decreased.

I've had this discussion a few times before, and it seems like there's a key sticking point in people's minds when they hear this. To those who view firearms as being for defense, the idea that some criminal has even a small chance of getting a weapon makes them feel very insecure. To them, having a firearm is their ticket to safety. They hate the idea of being in a situation where someone has force over them, and they can't fight back.

I think it's understandable, but somewhat flawed. A gun in your hand won't protect you from a bullet that's headed in your direction, and firing your gun won't heal you once you've been hit. Encountering a criminal who lacks a gun guarantees that you won't get shot, though. If your chances of encountering a criminal with a gun are slashed to a hundredth or a thousandth of where we are today, then you'd be safer even if you were disarmed.
Banning gun sales will just make sure that honest, law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves from the criminals. The murderers, rapists, robbers and thieves would certainly be on board with disarming the sheep.
Southern Dad is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 03:07 PM   #80
0dev
macrumors 68040
 
0dev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
Banning gun sales will just make sure that honest, law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves from the criminals. The murderers, rapists, robbers and thieves would certainly be on board with disarming the sheep.
This is an absurd sensationalist assertion. Look at the UK. Very very strict gun control. Only farmers, some police (not all officers, only special units), and the army has guns. No one else.

You may think then that the UK is rife with criminals shooting everyone to mug them 24/7. But you'd be wrong. Gun crime is a far smaller problem in the UK than it is in the US. Knife crime is more common here, but it's far easier to defend yourself against a knife, especially since most people can't use them properly.

The reason for this is because merely possessing a gun illegally carries a very strict sentence. Let's say you're gonna burgle someone's house. If you do it with a knife you might get a few years if caught. If you're caught with a gun you're gonna be in jail for at least five years on top of the burglary charge just for having a gun. And since the court could easily claim you were intending to use it to cause harm to someone in such a situation, you'd probably get more than that - 5 years is just the minimum sentence for anyone over 18. So criminals aren't going to take this unnecessary risk. Even the stupidest ones know it's not worth the extra years in jail to carry a gun, especially since they also know the person in the house will most certainly not have a gun either (for this reason they also often avoid houses that are clearly not empty).

Now look at a good example of this strict gun control working. Quite simple. America has so many spree killings you could make a weekly reality TV show out of it (you listening, MTV?) and the rest of the world mocks the US for this. "America has gone 0 days without a mass shooting" is a meme that gets repeated constantly because it's always so relevant.

What's the situation in the UK? Entirely the opposite. Spree killings are extremely rare. Even shootings among gang members are rare, really. Rare enough that each time one happens it's on the news.

And what of the self-defence issue? As I addressed above, criminals in practice very rarely carry guns. But nonetheless, if someone breaks into your house, you are allowed to defend yourself using reasonable force. This is backed by the law and in fact there were changes in 2012 to protect the right to defend yourself. You could even kill a burglar in your house and as long as it was proportional to the situation at hand you will not be prosecuted.

The UK is proof gun control works. If the US would stop with this stupid "I need guns for mah freedumb" attitude far fewer people would die. The gun culture in the US actively endangers lives.

And before anyone brings it up, no, the fact that you're all armed does not mean you can take down the government. Americans keep saying this and it sounds more and more stupid each time. The armed forces your government has assembled are far too powerful to be defeated by a bunch of rednecks with pistols. If you think otherwise you're living in a fantasy world.
__________________
"What kind of arrogant ass would quote themselves in their signature?" -0dev
0dev is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 03:10 PM   #81
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502a
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Peach State
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0dev View Post
This is an absurd sensationalist assertion. Look at the UK. Very very strict gun control. Only farmers, some police (not all officers, only special units), and the army has guns. No one else.

You may think then that the UK is rife with criminals shooting everyone to mug them 24/7. But you'd be wrong. Gun crime is a far smaller problem in the UK than it is in the US. Knife crime is more common here, but it's far easier to defend yourself against a knife, especially since most people can't use them properly.

The reason for this is because merely possessing a gun illegally carries a very strict sentence. Let's say you're gonna burgle someone's house. If you do it with a knife you might get a few years if caught. If you're caught with a gun you're gonna be in jail for at least five years on top of the burglary charge just for having a gun. And since the court could easily claim you were intending to use it to cause harm to someone in such a situation, you'd probably get more than that - 5 years is just the minimum sentence for anyone over 18. So criminals aren't going to take this unnecessary risk. Even the stupidest ones know it's not worth the extra years in jail to carry a gun, especially since they also know the person in the house will most certainly not have a gun either (for this reason they also often avoid houses that are clearly not empty).

Now look at a good example of this strict gun control working. Quite simple. America has so many spree killings you could make a weekly reality TV show out of it (you listening, MTV?) and the rest of the world mocks the US for this. "America has gone 0 days without a mass shooting" is a meme that gets repeated constantly because it's always so relevant.

What's the situation in the UK? Entirely the opposite. Spree killings are extremely rare. Even shootings among gang members are rare, really. Rare enough that each time one happens it's on the news.

And what of the self-defence issue? As I addressed above, criminals in practice very rarely carry guns. But nonetheless, if someone breaks into your house, you are allowed to defend yourself using reasonable force. This is backed by the law and in fact there were changes in 2012 to protect the right to defend yourself. You could even kill a burglar in your house and as long as it was proportional to the situation at hand you will not be prosecuted.

The UK is proof gun control works. If the US would stop with this stupid "I need guns for mah freedumb" attitude far fewer people would die. The gun culture in the US actively endangers lives.

And before anyone brings it up, no, the fact that you're all armed does not mean you can take down the government. Americans keep saying this and it sounds more and more stupid each time. The armed forces your government has assembled are far too powerful to be defeated by a bunch of rednecks with pistols. If you think otherwise you're living in a fantasy world.
And how do you propose taking all the guns from those that don't follow the laws? Ask them nicely?
Southern Dad is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 03:13 PM   #82
0dev
macrumors 68040
 
0dev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
And how do you propose taking all the guns from those that don't follow the laws? Ask them nicely?
Thank you for addressing literally none of my points.

The answer to this is simple:

1. If the US was to implement a similar system it'd have to be done gradually.
2. If someone owns a gun when the law forbids them, throw that person in jail.

Simple.
__________________
"What kind of arrogant ass would quote themselves in their signature?" -0dev
0dev is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 03:20 PM   #83
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502a
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Peach State
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0dev View Post
Thank you for addressing literally none of my points.

The answer to this is simple:

1. If the US was to implement a similar system it'd have to be done gradually.
2. If someone owns a gun when the law forbids them, throw that person in jail.

Simple.
We already have laws that say if you possess a gun when the law forbids you to, that you go to jail... Yes, mysteriously felons don't obey those laws. Go figure.
Southern Dad is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 03:26 PM   #84
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
For some odd reason, Gothic Revival was a popular architectural style for psychiatric hospitals built during the late 1800s in the U.S. I assume the building's gargoyles (right photo, below) above entranceways helped patients feel more at ease. Undoubtably, knowing they were spending much of their stay behind bulletproof walls helped patients feel secure and protected.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's wondered about this.

"Hey, you know that place where we're gonna send all those mentally and emotionally unstable people? I got a great idea! Let's make it look like a castle straight out of hell! Nothing comforting about it! We'll have screaming faces and gargoyles EVERYWHERE"!

...but when you consider turn of the century psychiatric medicine, it does kinda make sense.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 03:31 PM   #85
0dev
macrumors 68040
 
0dev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
We already have laws that say if you possess a gun when the law forbids you to, that you go to jail... Yes, mysteriously felons don't obey those laws. Go figure.
That's because in the US guns are currently socially acceptable and extremely easy to buy even if you're not legally allowed to own one. If this was not true, criminals would not have so many of them.

And breaking the law isn't even needed for wannabe mass shooters. The most recent one I bothered to read into, the crazy virgin dude, he purchased three handguns legally despite having mental health issues requiring multiple psychiatrists and antipsychotic medication. Because of course if crazy people can't buy guns to shoot innocent people with their human rights are literally being violated

And, need I add, this was in a state people claim has strong gun control laws! I wonder, in the states with weaker laws, do they literally hand deliver the guns to killers on a solid gold platter?
__________________
"What kind of arrogant ass would quote themselves in their signature?" -0dev
0dev is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 05:38 PM   #86
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by sviato View Post
Never understood why North American homes are built with paper walls :/
Traditional stone and brick don't work very well in earthquake country, by the way.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
Great. But how do we get there?
In all seriousness, I keep hoping that you and other gun advocates will ask yourselves that question, and, try to answer it for yourselves. Because, a lot of other countries have done it. You might ask yourself how they did it.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2014, 05:46 PM   #87
Ledgem
macrumors 6502a
 
Ledgem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northeast USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
Banning gun sales will just make sure that honest, law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves from the criminals. The murderers, rapists, robbers and thieves would certainly be on board with disarming the sheep.
As others have pointed out, other countries went through this transition. There's debate about whether countries experienced an increase in crimes in the immediate aftermath of being disarmed - some people say it happened, others say that it didn't, and I've never looked at the data from those times to know who's lying - but we can't deny that those "disarmed" countries do not have higher rates of crimes than we do. On the other hand, their homicide rates are far lower.

As I said before, it's impossible for us to completely remove guns from the country. I agree with you that criminals aren't going to follow the law no matter what we state. The point is to remove the total number of guns, thereby making it harder for criminals to obtain a gun in the first place.

I disagree with the notion that mayhem would break out if the law-abiding populace were disarmed. If data from foreign countries isn't convincing enough, we have good enough data within our own borders. Based on a Gallup poll, the South has the highest rates of firearm ownership, while the Northeast has the lowest:


When I analyzed CDC deaths related to firearms of all types, the South had the highest by far, while the Northeast had the lowest. The Midwest and West fell between the two, both in terms of reported firearm ownership and firearm-related deaths. I think we all know that the South has the highest rates of crime, too, but out of curiosity I did a little search and found a graphic from the FBI to back that claim up:


I absolutely disagree with the idea that firearms cause crime. Crime is caused by a number of factors, with poverty being a big one. I won't provide a graphic for it, but it's been established that the South is home to some of the poorer states in the Union, while the Northeast is home to some of the wealthiest. However, while firearms do not cause crime, the data indicates that they do not prevent it, either. If your fears were truly realized, shouldn't the crime be highest in the gun-light Northeast and lowest (or at least equal to the rest) in the South?

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but it seems that when you put everything together, firearms increase the overall rates of death and do little to nothing to the rates of crime. We would thus be safer with far fewer firearms in circulation. What say you?
Ledgem is offline   3 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
5s purple photos with stray light? Poob Bubes iPhone 0 Sep 21, 2013 06:45 PM
IOS 7: stray pixel on volume/scrub slider cleo1 iOS 7 8 Jul 23, 2013 08:45 AM
MAPs takes me through my neighbor's yard... Krazy Bill iOS 6 3 Sep 21, 2012 09:59 AM
Resolved: Stray voltage running on 220/240V Kanunu iMac 8 Sep 15, 2012 05:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC