This will be mines in less than 2 weeks

[Lucius]

If you want to live your life based on statistics. written by people you don't know, based on people you don't know, instead of looking at your own life and situation and doing what you believe is right, that's your deal.

Well said. I mean, everyone knows that seatbelts are utterly useless. Statistics about them saving lives are made up by a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters in a basement in some govt building. It's all rumours, myths, and innuendo. Fortunately some people know better.

LOL, now that is the best post of the thread.

 

And Aram, read what I wrote again and see if you can understand it, I couldn't be bothered to express myself properly yesterday because, well, I'm Danish and I really don't care when I'm tired.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Lucius

[alanschu]

I doubt the article was referring to you being killed by family, but rather an increase in homicides by people feeling more confident with a weapon and then putting themselves in a situation where they get killed by an intruder.

 

I was hoping that that was kind of obvious.

 

Conclusions The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

 

 

Well, at least you read the length more thoroughly. I skimmed through it. -100 points for me

 

 

EDIT: Errr, I think I may have linked the wrong article........that link doesn't look right.

Edited February 11, 2007 by alanschu

[alanschu]

So, because I wear a seatbelt, I should also be afraid that my wife will murder me because I own a gun, because this tiny article in a medical journal found a vague percentage increase in some statstics?

 

 

While I obviously dropped the bomb with that previous link, I was fairly certain that the discussion expanded well beyong what just you or I do. The article didn't state that there's an increased risk of homicide in Aram's house. Public policy isn't just made for you and me though. As for the "vague percentage," upon looking closer at that link, the percentage isn't vague. It's 2.7 times more likely, or 170% (according to their data: "adjusted odds ratio, 2.7").

 

 

 

 

Looking back at what you said though:

 

 

If you want to live your life based on statistics. written by people you don't know, based on people you don't know, instead of looking at your own life and situation and doing what you believe is right, that's your deal.

 

You see, it's not uncommon for the stuff that people believe to be right to not actually be correct. For instance, this one time, I did not put forth due dilligence and briefly looked over an article from the New England Journal of Medicine and grossly neglected the actual point of the article (I blame having 20 tabs open) and read into it incorrectly. But I carried on believing I was right.

 

People persecuted Galileo about his beliefs of heliocentrism, because they believed they were right and he was wrong.

 

Climate change has a group of people investigating solar influences, and posting their conclusions because they believe they are right. They are counted by traditionalists that hold that it is CO2 increases that are causing the increase, because they belief they are right. While not technically mutually exclusive, I'm guessing only one of those camps is correct regarding the level of impact their ideas have (or they're both wrong).

 

Discounting some statistical analysis because they don't agree with your stance, on the merits of them being "written by people you don't know, based on people you don't know," is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala." You can (and should) argue that the findings may not apply to you. That's fine. You can (and should) question issues regarding their scientific methodology (unfortunately this is a bit hard as accessing the full study is somewhat expensive). Maybe they did not take into accountSociological trends never account 100% for everything. You'll always find exceptions. But unfortunately, you are just an anecdote.

 

You'd have been better served addressing the issues in the conclusion. Don't forget, this article refers specifically to homicides in the home. It talks about how the use of illicit drugs and a history of domestic violence are high risk factors. I imagine these high risk factors for homicide are independent of the firearm being present, and therefore probably still contribute to a fair amount of the homicides where the victim is killed at home. Given the high risk factors already present, adding a firearm to an already volatile scene probably won't help. With regards to gun control, it's actually pretty easy to deflect this study. All this study really concludes is a correlation. Sure, gun control may prevent some homicides, but a more effective treatment would likely be providing avenues that help prevent illicit drug use and domestic violence, the other high risk factors. The firearm probably has just an ancillary effect that accentuates a previous problem.

 

Given the sharp increase, I wonder if it's because an overwhelming majority of the homicides already have these higher risk factors associated with them. In other words, homicides in homes don't typically happen without one of these two factors. If that's the case, since they concluded an increased risk of a homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance, I wouldn't be surprised if "virtually all" homicides in the victim's home are done by close friends and family.

 

 

When discussing society and the effect policy has on society, I don't see how you can discount statistics though. I'd certainly prefer to rely on empirical evidence over "commonsense" or whatever conclusions one can come up with through introspection.

[Eddo36]

Can gun control work in Iraq and Afghanistan? Take Ak-47's away from every household. Why or why not? They use bombs more than guns there anyways.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Eddo36

[alanschu]

Well, if they use bombs more than guns, an initial response would be that it would not be effective, since they're not using guns

[mkreku]

I can't believe you're still going on with this..

 

If everyone already has a gun, making new gun laws won't change a thing.

 

If you've had strict gun laws for 600 years, then the laws have done their thing and gun related crimes are very low. Mainly because it's not that easy to get a gun for "heat of the moment" crimes.

 

Does anyone here honestly believe that Sweden's gun related crimes would drop if this Monday our government suddenly would let us all buy guns in every supermarket?

 

Everyone can get a gun already. You apply for a hunter's license. Then you go through a number of tests. If you manage those (they take around a year to complete), you get the licence. Then you apply for a weapon license. If you have no criminal record (violent crimes, I assume), then you get a weapon license. Then you have to buy TWO safes: one for the weapon and one for the bolt. Then you're free to buy a shotgun or a rifle for hunting. No handguns.

 

Unless you join a gun club. Then you don't have to go through all those tests, and you can own Uzi's, Glocks or whatever makes your **** hard. The only thing is that you don't get to take the weapon home with you. You have to keep it in the club safe and you only get to fire it in the club locales.

[alanschu]

I can't believe you're still going on with this..

 

Meh, no one else has started a different topic.

[random evil guy]

why? if you've got a right to bear arms, why not carry around a rpg or a nuclear bomb? who's to say it must be limited to handheld guns?

 

On the off chance that your question is a serious one, I shall reply seriously. Because the supreme court, which is charged with interpreting constititional issues, has decreed that the constitional right to bear arms does not require every household to have a basement full of military and nuclear weapons, but does require that the average, non-felonious citizen has the right to carry a weapon suitable to protect himself, his property and his family.

 

 

so they're interpreting the constitution as they see fit. what is 'suitable'? who are they to say that i shouldn't have a rpg in my basement?

[Aram]

Everyone can get a gun already. You apply for a hunter's license. Then you go through a number of tests. If you manage those (they take around a year to complete), you get the licence. Then you apply for a weapon license. If you have no criminal record (violent crimes, I assume), then you get a weapon license. Then you have to buy TWO safes: one for the weapon and one for the bolt. Then you're free to buy a shotgun or a rifle for hunting. No handguns.

 

Unless you join a gun club. Then you don't have to go through all those tests, and you can own Uzi's, Glocks or whatever makes your **** hard. The only thing is that you don't get to take the weapon home with you. You have to keep it in the club safe and you only get to fire it in the club locales.

 

See, this is an example of gun laws that exist specifically to discourage gun ownership. They make acquiring a firearm a horrendous process people would sooner just not go through, make you lock them up in ways that you could still murder someone if you planned to but could never defend yourself with one, and most of them you don't really own anyway--you sink your money into them but the government keeps them and does with them as they please. It's a clever way of not outright banning gun ownership, but simply stamping out every aspect of it that makes it important. I guarentee you that in any nation where gun control is at this level, it started the same way. It began with licensing and registration. The government turned it into a priveledge instead of a right, and that opened the door. 50 years later, gun ownership is all but crushed. It probably won't even stop there; it certainly didn't for the UK. All those pistols they got to have at the gun range were confiscated and permanently destroyed. Give it a few years and I bet the long arms will go as well.

 

Do I believe that if America began making stripping gun rights the norm, and had them all but outright removed from the world, that gun crime would decrease after about 50 years of doing this? (50 years is about how long it took every European nation, after all.) Actually, I do. I believe a half a century of tyranical government restrictions would reduce gun fatalities in the US, allowing that society and the economy remains the same. The fact is, however, that things don't work in America the way they do in Europe. European nations have existed for thousands of years under kings, emperors, serfs, lords, whatever, and are used to giving up freedom because someone says so. They've existed since before firearms were invented and most have already seen them come and go. America, however, is still a young nation and we grew up with firearms as a necessary part of our survival and independance. We made firearm ownership one of our most basic and vital civil rights as a result. We like having firearms. We consider it an important part of our lives. This is why we will oppose removal of our firearms by our government, and this is why people who pay attention will oppose even the most harmless looking of proposals--as Europe has clearly shown, they will lead to far worse.

[Tale]

See, this is an example of gun laws that exist specifically to discourage gun ownership. They make acquiring a firearm a horrendous process people would sooner just not go through, make you lock them up in ways that you could still murder someone if you planned to but could never defend yourself with one,

It's not meant to be for self defense, it's a hunter's license.

[~Di]

... The fact is, however, that things don't work in America the way they do in Europe. European nations have existed for thousands of years under kings, emperors, serfs, lords, whatever, and are used to giving up freedom because someone says so. They've existed since before firearms were invented and most have already seen them come and go. America, however, is still a young nation and we grew up with firearms as a necessary part of our survival and independance. We made firearm ownership one of our most basic and vital civil rights as a result. We like having firearms. We consider it an important part of our lives. This is why we will oppose removal of our firearms by our government, and this is why people who pay attention will oppose even the most harmless looking of proposals--as Europe has clearly shown, they will lead to far worse.

 

Exactly. Unfortunately in this thread and every similar thread on this topic that I've seen, when cultural and historical differences are laid out to show why America and Europe think differently in regard to gun control, among other things, those comments are routinely ignored in favor of regurgitating meaningless statistical comparisons or simply skipping to the chase with the "America is violent/barbaric/murderous/insult-of-the-day society" silliness.

[Walsingham]

I just wanted to make my apologies, since I am going away on business and will be unable to keep up with the debate.

[mkreku]

..make you lock them up in ways that you could still murder someone if you planned to but could never defend yourself with one..

Uhm, if someone used my guns to murder someone, the police would find out in an instant. Hunting rifles were never meant for "home defence" anyhow. And speaking of that..

 

European nations have existed for thousands of years under kings, emperors, serfs, lords, whatever, and are used to giving up freedom because someone says so.

Yeah, I forgot. You're the "lighthouse of democracy in the world" and you're en entire country full of freedom fighters.

 

In every other country on the planet, freedom is defined by not having to own a gun to defend your home against anyone.

 

Hey, try this, freedom fighters: Go out on your street and shout "I'm going to kill President Bush!" and see how much freedom you really have.

 

Freedom to you is being able to buy as many guns as you want. Freedom to me is not having to own a gun and still feel safe (and being able to say what I want).

[Aram]

Uhm, if someone used my guns to murder someone, the police would find out in an instant. Hunting rifles were never meant for "home defence" anyhow.

 

Not the point I was making. Forcing people to store their firearms in a way that prevents them from accessing them inside of five mintues will not prevent them from doing something unlawful with them if they set their mind oj it. It is a measure specifically desgined to prevent them from being used against intruders.

 

And any firearm, any firearm, from a colonial musket to an elephant gun to an Uzi, can be used as a weapon, for offensive or defensive purposes. Some are better for different purposes than others, but any can be used to protect your life or take someone elses, just as easily as it could not.

 

Yeah, I forgot. You're the "lighthouse of democracy in the world" and you're en entire country full of freedom fighters.

Never said that.

 

Hey, try this, freedom fighters: Go out on your street and shout "I'm going to kill President Bush!" and see how much freedom you really have.

 

If anyone even heard me, thay'd probably just look at me funny.

 

Freedom to you is being able to buy as many guns as you want. Freedom to me is not having to own a gun and still feel safe (and being able to say what I want).

 

You're just as free to not own a gun in America as you are to own a gun, and you can feel about it however you damn well please. Depending on where you live in America, you'll probably be just as safe as you'd be in Sweden. I imagine that there are parts of your country even less safe than parts of ours. Nobody said Americans are less safe or feel less safe than you do. That doesn't change the fact that we do own firearms and many of us do keep them for defense, just as many of us keep smoke alarms and fire extinguishers should the need for them ever arise.

 

If our government outlawed fire extinguishers, claiming that grease fires and such should just be given what they want until the firefighters arrive, that would make about as much sense to us as leaving us at the mercy of home intruders.

[~Di]

Yeah, I forgot. You're the "lighthouse of democracy in the world" and you're en entire country full of freedom fighters.

 

Nobody in this thread has said that or implied it. Maybe we could actually discuss the topic at hand without the routine snide nation-based insult?

 

Hey, try this, freedom fighters: Go out on your street and shout "I'm going to kill President Bush!" and see how much freedom you really have.

 

Although Aram is right, people would probably just shrug. However, freedom of speech in America is not all-encompassing, you are correct. One cannot threaten to murder someone without answering for it, nor can one incite violence or use speech to recklessly endanger others, ala the old "can't yell Fire! in a crowded theatre" example. I know for a fact that America is not the only country on the planet that has these kinds of limits on free speech, so your inference that Americans are somehow oppressed because we cannot use freedom of speech to threaten, intimidate, incite riots or endanger the lives of others falls rather flat.

[Aram]

We also only prosecute people after they do these things. We don't remove their tongues or make them keep them in a safe at the designated talking zone.

[metadigital]

The fact is, however, that things don't work in America the way they do in Europe. European nations have existed for thousands of years under kings, emperors, serfs, lords, whatever, and are used to giving up freedom because someone says so. They've existed since before firearms were invented and most have already seen them come and go. America, however, is still a young nation and we grew up with firearms as a necessary part of our survival and independance. We made firearm ownership one of our most basic and vital civil rights as a result. We like having firearms. We consider it an important part of our lives. This is why we will oppose removal of our firearms by our government, and this is why people who pay attention will oppose even the most harmless looking of proposals--as Europe has clearly shown, they will lead to far worse.

I find your faith in the US brand humans mildly amusing.

[Aram]

I find your faith in the US brand humans mildly amusing.

 

Eh. I'm optimistic about every brand, in a lot of ways.

They're out there...somwhere.

[metadigital]

TRUST NO-ONE!

[Meshugger]

Who needs guns when you have a set of these at home?

 

 

(Sorry, no actual pictures since i don't have a digital camera at the moment)

[theslug]

Wow my friend has like that exact same thing with the 3 swords. Gogogogogo swap meet!

[Dark_Raven]

Katanas!

[Sand]

I need to get a weapon locker. I would love to have a some handguns, swords, maybe a flail, and explosive ordinance to. You know, just in case of burglars and stuborn family members that just won't leave.

[metadigital]

Hmmm, weapons in the home might be a good idea, if we could prevent them from activating outside the home ... "

[kirottu]

Who needs guns when you have a set of these at home?

 

 

(Sorry, no actual pictures since i don't have a digital camera at the moment)

 

Kato perkele mullahan olis melkein varaa noihin!