How many people are seriously afraid of firearms?
No it isn't. If you're a desperate junkie with a gun, you're likely to shoot someone with it if it helps you get your next fix. Makes sense.
YOU are a desperate junkie with a gun. Do you shoot the unarmed British shopkeeper who's busy handing you all his money? Do you shoot the twitchy American shopkeeper you know has a shotgun beneath the counter? Tick tick tick tick... police could be on the way and this guy isn't moving any quicker. You need your fix, man. What's your move?
You assume the shopkeeper in the UK won't be prepared for any sort of attack for some reason, which doesn't really make much sense to me.
He is prepared. He's insured and he has instructed his workers to fully cooperate with robbers. You know this perfectly well.
Or try this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... ings_x.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... ne_of_duty
50-something police killed on duty in America each year. A couple of hundred killed in Britain SINCE 1900! Which ones have guns? The fact is guns drastically increase the chance of murder because they raise the stakes.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Directly at which viewer? If it were an image posted once in a specific thread, there would actually be a probability of the digital image of a sonic assault rifle being pointed at a specific individual, but being in an avatar there is no specificity possible.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I have no problem with guns aside from a little fear of the kickback and sound when firing one.
But the image of a gun doesn't bother me at all.
For the person bothered by the gun in the avatar, how do they react to all the guns on TV?
I'd be curious to see how the feelings towards guns break down in a country by country basis.
I think our attitudes towards guns has a lot to do with the culture we we're brought up in.
Here in the US, areas with the most gun freedom, have the least amount of crime.
If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will carry guns. Do you think a person planning on committing a crime really cares if the gun they are carrying is legal?! !
_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
But the image of a gun doesn't bother me at all.
For the person bothered by the gun in the avatar, how do they react to all the guns on TV?
Specifically this, from which the avatar derived. In the first episode, Commander Taylor went outside the fence and fired his non-lethal sonic assault rifle into the air to serve as a distraction so that a couple of incoming vehicles could make it safely to the compound and then was picked up and sped away before the therapod could reach him. (Although he was preparing to shoot at the dinosaur if necessary absolutely, but didn't because he didn't need to do so.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6aNEIZwPFc[/youtube]
You should try a .22 caliber if you're afraid of recoil or noise, they aren't so bad for that.
I think our attitudes towards guns has a lot to do with the culture we we're brought up in.
Here in the US, areas with the most gun freedom, have the least amount of crime.
If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will carry guns. Do you think a person planning on committing a crime really cares if the gun they are carrying is legal?! !
Well, I think that parental attitudes, school curriculum, and attitudes of locally available media would be more to the point. Each person is educated in their opinions individually. Nation wide stats would only show a broad overview and would have little to do with each actual individual.
Again, people are what's scary, not the tools they use.
I've been interested in seeing the movie for that.
RE: restrictions and the nature of violence:
You just have to look at Oz, where there was very little restriction to a lot overnight.
Studies have been done; they show that whilst the overall murder rate with firearms is down, the rate of murders via other means is up, so it's effectively the same. Oz is quite free of many of the impoverished and past abuses of immigrant minorities (the indigenous population was effectively wiped out, and its structure and pride, are gone), so it's probably the best example.
Unbiased researchers and professional opinion said there was no point.
Why would you want a gun if you have no reason to use it and it doubles your jail time if you get caught? Criminals having guns isn't the problem until people get shot. People get shot because they have guns.
"Another immediate effect is that law-abiding citizens get shot by criminals because they are sitting ducks and have nothing to defend themselves with."
No, this is exactly what doesn't happen. Think about it.
Ok, I'll rephrase it: Another immmediate effect is that law-abiding citizens get robbed by criminals because they are sitting ducks and have nothing to defend themselves with.
If criminals don't plan on using their guns, why would they have them in the first place? You don't have to actually fire the gun to use it for criminal purposes, you know. And it's alright for criminals to have guns, as long as law-abiding citizens don't? Ordinary people don't just go out waving their guns around. Criminals do; ban or no ban.
More guns does not equal more gun related violence. Canada has a higher gun ownership rate than the UK, yet Canada is safer. Switzerland has a far higher rate yet, and it's one of the safest countries in the world. Even Ghandi advocated private gun ownership.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
When firearms are illegal, only the criminals would have access to such weaponry or would be able to use less modern weaponry if the shopkeepers are not able to have firearms legally, but if firearms are legal then there is a greater risk of loss of life for the criminal. So, that would be 2 instances where a criminal would have an advantage and one where the shopkeeper would have the ability to defend themselves (although it could be argued that they also could carry a knife or sword or crossbow or whatever). So, on that basis, about 2 to 1 for robberies prevented by the possibility of a law abiding citizen owning a firearm.
Now, if a person is intending to steal it is likely that they would intend to live to enjoy what they have stolen. If the shop keeper is not legally allowed to have a means of defense, then there is no risk of stealing but there is a risk that they may later be identified so they may kill for that reason. If the shopkeeper is permitted to own a means of defense equal to or greater than their assailant, then there is a chance they may die and so they may shoot them also for that reason in addition to possible future identification.
Yes. Look at Britain. The police and public don't have guns, only criminals have guns. Who gets shot with guns? Criminals and associates of criminals. This is a perfectly reasonable situation, and it's probably an equilibrium situation so long as politicians don't get panicky.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Yes. Look at Britain. The police and public don't have guns, only criminals have guns. Who gets shot with guns? Criminals and associates of criminals. This is a perfectly reasonable situation, and it's probably an equilibrium situation so long as politicians don't get panicky.
What? I suppose it doesn't matter that the only thing necessary to fit into the category of "associate of a criminal" would be to make their acquaintance, willingly or unwillingly?
Yes. Look at Britain. The police and public don't have guns, only criminals have guns. Who gets shot with guns? Criminals and associates of criminals. This is a perfectly reasonable situation, and it's probably an equilibrium situation so long as politicians don't get panicky.
What? I suppose it doesn't matter that the only thing necessary to fit into the category of "associate of a criminal" would be to make their acquaintance, willingly or unwillingly?
Acquaintances of criminals don't get shot. Look at who actually gets shot. I mean in the real world. In Britain, if you aren't criminal or knowingly associating with criminals you have to be astoundingly unlucky to get shot. I like those odds.
People like to have the illusion of control, that's the problem. Without thinking rationally most people would rather have a gun in a dangerous situation, because they think they're the one in control. Meanwhile everyone else is thinking the same. Idiots.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
What do people expect people of a certain age to look like? |
29 Feb 2024, 9:19 pm |
Does it seem like autistic people are more likely to not.... |
20 Feb 2024, 11:53 pm |
Any linux people can help me? |
16 Feb 2024, 10:05 am |
How Many People Are Here These Days? |
18 Apr 2024, 12:50 pm |