Play nice folks. Address the topic without personal insults.
A lot of crime is committed spur of the moment - not got a figure for that, read it in a book on psychology. The ease of access of weaponry - and as you failed address that point - that the lethal option, i.e the gun, means it is often used, and is often a licensed weapon.
The US is an outlier in many statistics - as shown in one of the links you didn't address.
In regards to "seeing you shoot the targets" or "your military experience", I seriously doubt pretty much anyones claim that they can draw, safe, chamber, raise, sight and fire to defend against someone who already has their handgun against their face.
In regards to further gun control - very little is caused by assault weapons - which are banned. Larger than .50 cal is banned. Very little crime with those, and they're banned - in regards to assault rifles, less crimes committed with them due to the difficulty in getting hold of them and increasing policing of illegal gun trafficking.
There are roughly 100 more legally registered firearms than cars per 1000 - this can cause outliers - similar to how San Marino has more cars than people, depending on the state of the environment that owner is within. For example, a farmer might need only a single vehicle, but a few rifles to protect his livestock.
To become a Driver in the UK, one needs to apply for a Provisional licence, which includes an initial background check. They then need to take a theoretical and a practical test, scoring a particular amount on both. This includes the rules of road use and safety, under both of which, the drunk driver is made note of. Upon completing and passing the test, you can now apply for a full license, which includes another background check (and have the option to take further tests, but this is more to do with proving you're a better driver for a cheaper insurance these days). You are taxed on the road use, and you are required to be insured to drive a car - and have proof of all of the above when you purchase a car from a store dealer. Certain secondhand sales can become a bit dodgier, but even second hand dealers are under financial and lawful obligation to fulfil similar checks on cars sold.
While driving, you have safety measures, such as limited speed (on roads, as well as in-built limiters on certain cars), safety belts, safety features in the cars themselves such as rumblers/noise warnings/bitchin' betties to wake you up should you drift out of lane, police checkpoints to stop and check DUI's, and have the right to stop any car they believe is acting erratically (caught on camera to prevent miscarriages of justice) who they can then legally request a a breathalyzer analysis which can check for presence of alcohol, which if positive means a trip to the station and a further more detailed scan. Result includes penalties, fines, temporary bans, awareness courses, and eventual loss of license, which accrues after a number of points have been added from a number of sources which includes speeding and other driving offenses or road misuse. All of these actions have reduced road fatalities since their inclusion. Hell, some cars, and especially company cars are coming with Breathalyzer locks. There are ways around this, such as asking someone else to blow into the sample (unless of course it's DNA keyed), but relying somewhat on most peoples good sense of not helping a drunk person drive, or hotwiring - but that's not only illegal, but unsafe and a skill very few people are aware of (and no, it takes more than jamming a screwdriver into the ignition key, I've tried it) - especially so these days with electronic start ups on modern cars.
If there was a cause for some form of instant transportation or teleport device or whatever, I don't think it would be too long until cars in general just became banned, as not only are they unsafe, but their very reason they're not banned is because they're utilitarian, and that ability is now superceded by the instantaneous teleport. Cars are utilitarian. Guns are made for one purpose - killing things.
"Protect yourself" is an idea that was drummed up by those who would seek to make profit from the sales of such - similar to how the government bans research into biodegradeable/safe/green/reuseable energy on the strength of money it recieves from oil magnates. You wouldn't believe the arguments people are getting into over in the UK about the proposal for the creation of Europes largest nuclear power station - they're citing Chernobyl and Fukushima as viable reasons as why not to do it - most of the information having filtered down into the public domain by deliberate misinformation which all started somewhere - usually the government after being advised by their oil magnate paymasters. Replace "oil magnates" with "wealthy gun owning sponsors" and "the NRA", and "nuclear power" with "gun control" and you're somewhere near the mark.
Why should you be even able to buy one a rifle off the store, despite having similar testing
A quick google here shows me this;
Please, also check out the rest of that article. In addresses points such as comparisons between sales from a dealership and private sales etc. The article is more about gun control rather than removal of sale of guns - which is what I'd ultimately like to see, but increasing control and providing police the powers to do that job is a good start.
If you want to debate the X doesn't do Y, people do Y, is ignoring the transitivity of causation. The pro-gun lobby attempts to cloud the issue, here, but if in the case of the last few mass shootings, many of which were commited by lawful gun owners using legally bought firearms and magazines, the argument holds no weight. This, in the internet, is strawmanning.
If "transitivity of causation" is unknown to you, it simply means the "vehicle/method of death". Schrodingers cat - radiation didn't kill the cat, Schrodinger did. He put the cat in the box, knowing that radiation could kill it. It's a fair enough point. But if there was no radiation, the cat would be alive.
Most crimes are commited on the spur of the moment - there is very little planning that goes into many of them. They tend to grab what's near to them, and then do the action (which may be criminalised in law). The weapon is a tool of empowerment. A man caught cheating by his wife might have an argument in the kitchen. There is a gun in the safe. She knows this, and pulls the gun on him, killing him. If the gun wasn't there, there are other ways she could kill him. Knife from the kitchen, clubbing him with a heavy weight, strangling him with an electric cable, smothering him with a pillow, running him down with a car, etc, but all of those take a lot more effort to do, and give someone a greater chance of protection.
Having that gun stowed unassembled in two seperate safes both with a two number combination lock (that any particular person knows only one of the codes to) is going to slow down the time it takes to get such weapons which causes emotionally caused crime.
If she attacks him while he's defenceless (he's asleep, on the sofa, say), or goes through the above sequence to get that firearm, it's premeditated.
In regards to criminals using weaponry, that won't chance. It happens over in the UK. But it's about reducing numbers and access to such.
100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
Let me put it this way.
Not everybody who owns a gun will commit a crime with it. That much is plain and obvious. But we know via statistics that most gun crime comes from legally owned weapons. That's a lot of crime that wouldn't have happened if those guns weren't there because their law abiding owners could not obtain them in the first place. A gun is an easy reach in crimes of passion, there's little time for thought or cooling down. When someone is freshly pissed off for whatever reason, the gun is there, within their reach and ready to go in minutes.
Now, let's compare this principle for a moment to drugs. When someone takes drugs in a moment of ill judgement, the person most at risk is themselves. When someone handles a gun in a moment of ill judgement, the ones at risk are other people.
Which of the above makes more sense to have illegal? Understand that when people's lives are put in jeopardy by the premise of owning a gun, the law abiding majority do not matter. Saving lives is what matters.
The columbine boys also planned their out months in advance.
Guns could have been banned everywhere in both cases and the only thing that probably would have happened is push the date of the attacks back.
Alright, and as with many things a few have to ruin it for the many. Since some here can't be assed to remain civil and on topic, theres little point in this thread remaining open. Especially because those same people are more content arguing about their rights to bear guns or the stupid lengths others will go to retain that 'freedom.'
So thread closed, good job to those who lead to this. And for anyone who was involved, don't bother thinking your in the right because just like 40k theres no good side to be had here; merely degrees of asshole that will be dealt with in due course.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 08:10 AM.|
Powered by the Emperor of Man.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.0 Beta 4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.