News:

Be sure to tell your friends about NinSheetMusic!

Main Menu

Politics

Started by spitllama, September 05, 2012, 07:15:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dude


Altissimo

#976
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on February 24, 2016, 07:59:53 PMDoes that suggest a direct correlation, though (i.e. is owning a gun the direct and only cause of this- like, "Would these people just not kill their partners if they didn't have a gun?" which seems improbable*- or is it something else, like the fact that people who are more likely to want to own a gun for no reason are more violent, or just the fact that so many people own guns that people will inevitably be able to find connections among unrelated things?).




*For example, the article says, "A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm," but if the abusers didn't have firearms, wouldn't they just threaten their partners with something else? Does the removal of firearms reduce any injury or instance of domestic violence? Should we be focusing on that (firearms) as a problem instead of getting to the root of the cause (while I agree that restricting access to certain weapons or places to people known to be violent is a good step, it won't prevent these people from being violent in the first place- only attempt to mitigate damage)?

Additionally, the article says that "applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married." Does the removal of firearms reduce the need for protective orders, or does it only make it more likely that someone will apply for one in cases of violence (i.e. motivate them more to apply for a protective order that they probably already need in the first place)?


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to be combative. I'd just like to have more direct and clear information on this subject.

you're right about correlation =/= causation. that being said from my own experience i think this is one case where correlation does equal causation. for the same reason that people attacking schools meet more success when they use firearms than when they use knives or other such weapons, i think so too do people trying to attack their partners meet more success when they have firearms

also: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/ women are not often able to protect themselves with guns in their houses in the case of domestic violence; 16% of abused but not murdered women had guns in their homes whereas 51% of murder victims had guns in their homes

Sebastian

Quote from: Ruto on February 24, 2016, 07:20:12 PMWhy does anyone need guns? Especially untrained hicks.
Why not? I do think that everyone that owns a gun should know how to use it.



Altissimo

i dont think anyone would disagree with that, it's a matter of the fact that people who do know how to use them still do all kinds of horrendous shit

oh why do i even bother

Sebastian

Quote from: Altissimo on February 24, 2016, 08:20:48 PMi dont think anyone would disagree with that, it's a matter of the fact that people who do know how to use them still do all kinds of horrendous shit
That's true.
My point is that the Gun Control Laws won't stop the criminals because they will always have guns. It will stop the law-abiding citizens from getting them.



Dudeman

Honestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.
Quote from: braixen1264 on December 03, 2015, 03:52:29 PMDudeman's facial hair is number 1 in my book

Altissimo

Quote from: Dudeman on February 24, 2016, 08:30:11 PMHonestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.

imma agree heavily wit this

KefkaticFanatic

It makes it more difficult for the average psychopath or petty criminal to acquire weaponry as it isn't so readily available to enter either the legitimate or illegitimate market.  Outlawing guns will not result in random muggers suddenly getting top mafia sources.

I look forward to when the US can join the civilized world and deprecate the irrelevant clause that keeps this problem around.



me irl
[close]

FireArrow

@mlf
Well, you're a law abiding citizen up until the point you shoot someone. There's no black and white "good guys" and "bad guys" - most of the shootings you hear about in the news are from people who would otherwise be unable to get a gun if we had better laws. They aren't criminals trained in the black market, they're emotionally distraught teens and young adults who can too easily obtain power.

Would you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?

Quote from: Dudeman on January 23, 2017, 05:35:59 PM
straight from the department of redundancy department

Sebastian

Quote from: Dudeman on February 24, 2016, 08:30:11 PMHonestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.
A+. This would be the best solution.

Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 08:33:01 PMWould you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?
Nah, that's different and you know it :P



Altissimo

It... really isn't.

Sebastian

Chemical weapons are much different than hand guns.....gas and all.



FireArrow

Quote from: Sebastian on February 24, 2016, 08:38:50 PMNah, that's different and you know it :P

How? They are both conduits for killing large amounts of people easily? In gun free countries like Japan, the idea of either of them are equally horrifying.
Quote from: Dudeman on January 23, 2017, 05:35:59 PM
straight from the department of redundancy department

Sebastian

Quote from: FireArrow on February 24, 2016, 08:45:54 PMHow? They are both conduits for killing large amounts of people easily? In gun free countries like Japan, the idea of either of them are equally horrifying.
I see your point, but I think Dudeman hit the nail on the head. Proper training and a having background check would be the best thing to do before acquiring a gun.



FireArrow

Quote from: Sebastian on February 24, 2016, 08:54:23 PMI see your point, but I think Dudeman hit the nail on the head. Proper training and a having background check would be the best thing to do before acquiring a gun.

That's kinda what democrats want and conservatives are fighting against. I'll further that statement by assuming that Noc, the guy who started this, doesn't want further gun control laws. I don't think anyone is truly fighting for an outright ban on guns beyond semi-automatic assault weapons.
Quote from: Dudeman on January 23, 2017, 05:35:59 PM
straight from the department of redundancy department