Gun Crime

[KrazyHorse]

Anunikoba

You can't keep all handguns out of criminal hands. The solution, though, is not to simply throw your hands up in the air and give up trying.

[Tuberski]

I really don't have a problem with people owning guns. Do i own one?

no.

Would we be safer in the US if we could get rid of ALL the guns?

Sure, but how can that be guaranteed?


I don't care how good of a shot you are, the majority of the people caryying guns legally in this country, would either freeze up at a time when their gun could prevent a crime, or cause more injury than the perpetrator. you can be taught how to use a gun, but they do not teach civilians how to shoot a gun when being shot at.

But all of this debate is pretty pointless, because "Moses" and his cronies will never allow guns to be outlawed.

[David Floyd]

The explain why we license drivers, doctors, teachers, etc. Is this not a "violation" of thier right to privacy? As you stated earlier.

I already explained my opposition to licensing, with the possible exception of cars on public roads.

It harms the international community because it makes that person a world power. Why do you think that Nation-States have been working so hard to keep them out of the hands of sub-national groups, ex. Al-Qaeda, ect.?

I don't give a tick on a rat's ass about the international community - this is totally irrelevant to the concept of individual rights.

[MrFun]

EEEEEEEEKKKKKK!!!!

I'm sorry I have a real life -- now there are like, dozens of new posts on this thread.

Let me try to remember some of the more significant posts here:

1) Someone said that you mine as well ban automobiles, since people kill other people through accidents and drunk driving.

Automobiles are different from firearms -- automobiles are manufactored and provided as a means of transportation, not as a means to kill people.

By your logic then, that means we should ban all buildings beyond two floors, because people have commited suicide from tall buildings. That is irrational.

I do think mine is more rational with firearms however because with countries that have banned firearms, there is a much lower murder rate. You do not see citizens being mass-murdered by criminals who have firearms from blackmarkets in Great Britain.

2) If you have knowledge and the capital, you can create or obtain nuclear weapons, or the material for them. It is very feasible for the thousands of wealthy people in our country to do so - they can hire scientists with the expertise if they themselves do not have the knowledge.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
this is totally irrelevant to the concept of individual rights.

How so? Rights are balance against State intrest all the time.

[Wraith]

--"Small firearms pose a general safety risk to society when in the hands of individual citizens."

Actually, no they don't. Less than 1% of legally owned firearms are used, in any way, in crimes. Your logic is like saying that since criminals use cars as getaway vehicles, we should ban them. Doesn't wash.

--"In a population of thousands of rich folks you claim there's not one wacko enough to do it given the opportunity?"

Do you know how easy it is to make phosgene gas? And from chemicals that are highly useful and readily available in industrial quantities. If a rich guy wanted to do in a large number of people he could do so now.

--"but they do not teach civilians how to shoot a gun when being shot at."

This isn't gunfights-in-the-street, people. Please quit with that. Most defensive guns uses are probably nothing more than showing the gun, maybe pointing it. Firing it is generally not necessary, much less while taking fire.

Wraith
"How did you end up making a 2000 horse-power cyborg out of an accident victim?"
"My hand slipped."
-- ("Neighborhood Earth Defense Force")

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
I do think mine is more rational with firearms however because with countries that have banned firearms, there is a much lower murder rate. You do not see citizens being mass-murdered by criminals who have firearms from blackmarkets in Great Britain.

As has been pointed out in previous gun-control threads, even if one were to discount all firearm-related murders (the most you could hope to accomplish with a firearm ban), the US would still have a significantly higher murder rate than Great Britain.

[MrFun]

I disagree -- I believe it will significantly lower the murder rate in the United States. You cannot ignore the real examples found in Great Britain and Japan.

Although recently, the really low murder rate in Japan has increased a little, I believe.

[Wraith]

--"I disagree -- I believe it will significantly lower the murder rate in the United States."

I fail to see how. As has been mentioned many times, even if banning guns somehow managed to prevent every gun-related murder, our murder rates are still significantly higher.
I think it's too optomistic to think that even half of them could be prevented by a total ban, and probably nowhere near that much. Most guns used in crimes currently are obtained illegally. A total ban would not significantly increase the difficulty of obtaining an illegal weapon (illegal drugs are moved into the country in ton lots, after all).

The only way you can really draw that conclusion is if you are of the opinion that guns exude an aura of evil, that influences anyone around them to become a killer (and, yes, I have spoken with people who pretty much state that).

--"You cannot ignore the real examples found in Great Britain and Japan."

Sure we can, because there are plenty of other variables. You can not take two data points in total isolation and make even a correlation case, much less a causation case.
Using your logic, I could substitute suicides for murders, and get the result that banning guns would dramatically increase the suicide rate in the US (using Japan as the other example).

This just doesn't work for either argument.

Wraith
"Next time you threaten to shoot someone, make sure they actually have a will to live."
-- ("The John Larroquette Show")

[Urban Ranger]

Wraith,

Here is the most detailed crime statistics for Hong Kong that I can find so far.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wraith
Do you know how easy it is to make phosgene gas? And from chemicals that are highly useful and readily available in industrial quantities. If a rich guy wanted to do in a large number of people he could do so now.

He could, but do note the failed attempts of the Japanese cult AUM Shinrikyo to kill large numbers of people with sarin gas. Notice that they had chemistry experts working at it and still failed to product a toxic gas with sufficient purity to do their deeds.

It is not as easy as it sounds.

[David Floyd]

He could, but do note the failed attempts of the Japanese cult AUM Shinrikyo to kill large numbers of people with sarin gas. Notice that they had chemistry experts working at it and still failed to product a toxic gas with sufficient purity to do their deeds.

Intoducing a highly toxic agent into a water supply shouldn't be too difficult for someone with the means, then.

[Wraith]

--"Here is the most detailed crime statistics for Hong Kong that I can find so far."

Okay.

Overall Crime Rate per 100,000 for the year 2000: 1,159.0

FBI UCR for 2000 (seems to be most recent available)
per 100,000 for the year 2000: 4,124.0

Of course, this says nothing about what is and isn't counted as a crime, but the US is already way ahead, and we haven't narrowed things down to just violent crimes yet.

Hong Kong again
Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 (2000) 222.2

FBI's UCR has listed 506.1 per 100,000.
However, according to the UCR, only 25.6% of those involved a firearm.

So, even if you assume getting rid of firearms would have prevented every one of those, we've still got a much higher rate.

And, again, this says nothing about what was and wasn't counted, so it's kind of hard to tell.

--"Notice that they had chemistry experts working at it and still failed to product a toxic gas with sufficient purity to do their deeds."

Well, I'm not too familiar with sarin, but it seems to be rather more complicated than phosgene. Which can be made simply by mixing two chemicals...
Another reason to choose phosgene would be the smell; very few people would be alarmed by the scent of musty hay. And since usually symptoms won't appear until you've already taken a lethal dose...

Why'd they use sarin anyway? Just because it's supposed to be a nerve agent? We should just be happy that most criminals are stupid.

Or, if you prefer fire, buy one of those huge propane tanks. You're already 90% of the way to your own 30,000 gallon fuel-air bomb.

Wraith
"Opportunities multiply as they are seized."
-- Sun Tzu

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Wraith
Well, I'm not too familiar with sarin, but it seems to be rather more complicated than phosgene. Which can be made simply by mixing two chemicals...

The synthesis of sarin is a multi-part process involving some relatively uncommon chemicals (at least, uncommon at the level of purity required by the processing). Two parts of the process produce unwanted HCl that must be completely distilled out of the mixture, and another part of the process produces an unwanted chemical agent that must also be removed (but which is similar enough in molecular weight to the semi-synthesized sarin that distillation is very difficult). The presence of any impurities in the final product will cause the sarin to quickly degrade, which apparently was the problem with the sarin produced by the Tokyo group.

Why'd they use sarin anyway?

I'm guessing overkill.

[KrazyHorse]

Effectively dispersing chemical agents is an extremely difficult proposition. Poisoning water supplies would require an inordinate amount of chemicals, and it's doubtful that even a successful attempt would kill more than a thousand people in a city. Most people are fairly effectively "plugged in" to the media, and within an hour you'd have a 99+% informed population.

Neither of these actions are even close to as swift, deadly or easy to perform as the detonation of a thermonuclear weapon which could be stored in the back of a station wagon. There's a whole different scale of destruction involved in the two actions, and nuclear materials are more easily regulated, having fewer everyday usages than conventional or chemical materials (which are actually regulated fairly strictly themselves. Try buying a few thousand gallons of some of the more useful chemicals from your local scientific supplies store and see how far you get). I'd give you five years of free trade in nuclear materials before the first mushroom cloud appears. Feel free. I wouldn't be visiting the US anymore, though.