Arming the Teachers
Started by: Pin | Replies: 75 | Views: 3,195
Pugnae DracoPosts: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10
View Profile Your data don't show that at all.
Hypothetical example: Elbonia has 10,000 people and a gun ownership rate of 80%. Every year 100 people are murdered, eighty of them by firearm. Assume no serial killers, so every year 1% of gun owners kill someone. From your dividing method we get exactly 100"%" of "homicides by guns out of the amount of people that own guns". The Elbonian president decides to impose a blanket ban guns. Gun ownership in Elbonia drops to 0.2%. The number of murders now drops to 21 per year, one of which is committed by firearm. From your dividing method as stated we get a rate of ~"4"%, but I'll assume you said the numbers the wrong way round by accident. From your dividing method as inferred we get a rate of ~2500"%". Despite this huge increase in what I'll call the "PD number" crime rates have dropped significantly. 79 lives are saved each year in Elbonia by this policy, and in fact 98.75% of the people who would have used a gun to kill someone gave away their guns. So the PD number shows nothing about how many criminals give up their guns or about how dangerous life is for the law-abiding citizens.
How can you know that somebody WOULD kill somebody with a gun? did they take a survey? "Would you shoot somebody in the face with your gun because you felt like it? of course sure why not?" and now dont forget the people that would kill only if they are provoked... if somebody robs your house, there are people that will simply shoot them and wait for cops to take them away to the morgue...
Zed2Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10
View Profile On average, 100 murders would have happened. 80 would have been by gun owners with guns. 79 of those did not happen. Therefore, 79 would-be murderers gave up their guns and were unable to kill people. You don't have to know which 79 it was.
Besides, it's a hypothetical example and you're completely missing the point.
Pugnae DracoPosts: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10
View Profile On average, 100 murders would have happened. 80 would have been by gun owners with guns. 79 of those did not happen. Therefore, 79 would-be murderers gave up their guns and were unable to kill people. You don't have to know which 79 it was.
Besides, it's a hypothetical example and you're completely missing the point.
but on average, more people use their gus to defend themselves or for hunting... not to shoot random people or robbing something...
Zed2Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10
View Profile Still missing the point. The example was just there to show how useless your numbers were.
But while we're on it, do you really think the benefit of letting, say, two hundred people go hunting outweighs the cost of one person dying? This isn't a case of adding up the number of guns used for good against the number used for bad. You have to look at how much bad is done against how little good.
GZento2Posts: 537
Joined: Feb 2012
Rep: 10
View Profile Draco, I still don't understand why there would need to to be a victim in the first place if there were a more effective way of preventive action
Pugnae DracoPosts: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10
View Profile there doesnt HAVE to be a victim, but there is because there are criminals, and gun laws will simply disarm the victims so they can not defend themselves... so there are higher crime rates...
GZento2Posts: 537
Joined: Feb 2012
Rep: 10
View Profile So youre saying its impossible to disarm the criminals?
Pugnae DracoPosts: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10
View Profile So youre saying its impossible to disarm the criminals?
i am saying that banning things is simply going to make more organized crime... i think that there could be a way... but chances are, criminals are going to find every way the can to resist such laws...
ExileAdministrator2Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10
View Profile Oh, yeah? When's the last time a criminal went on a rampage with a fully automatic assault rifle?
Pugnae DracoPosts: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10
View Profile it is not just assault rifles... if you look at my statistics, which i kindly laid out a few posts ago, you will see that assault rifles are not often used in so called "rampages"
Zed2Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10
View Profile Are they ever used for anything else though? They're not accurate enough for hunting or target shooting, and you can't exactly carry one around all day so they're no good for personal protection either.
GZento2Posts: 537
Joined: Feb 2012
Rep: 10
View Profile Okay, so we've confirmed that there aren't many practical uses behind assault rifles besides war and criminal rampages, but Draco insists we shouldn't ban them. If we don't ban them why don't we increase regulation of guns by requiring registered gun owners to fill out information for whenever they "privately" transfer possession of fire arms. Why don't we ban "private" purchase of guns so that regardless of how or where you obtained it, the weapon is legally registered in your name, which could in turn some what lower the possibility of the weapons "getting into the wrong hands".
Pugnae DracoPosts: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10
View Profile Mk, so assault rifles are good for nothing? they may not be accurate, but they have a high rate of fire, so if you are in a closed area... such as your own house which somebody just broke in to... you can put a lot of bullets in them in a short amount of time... and GZento... the point of private gun purchases is so that people do not have guns registered in their names... and they are called "private" for a reason... I am not entirely sure how you could ban private purchases of guns...
GZento2Posts: 537
Joined: Feb 2012
Rep: 10
View Profile I'm sure you could understand that "banning" private purchasing of fire arms means disallowing the private purchase of guns. People get to keep their guns but there is now further regulation in order to prevent crime. Simple no?
Pugnae DracoPosts: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10
View Profile but then, you get the inevitable corrupt person... be it a police chief, police officer, some random person with a gun, who sells guns privately... since we live in an imperfect world, this kind of stuff WILL happen... so no.... not simple...