Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/27/2004 7:24:33 PM EST
Calling the infitinte wisdom of Arfcom!!

My wife is arguing that big cites need stricter gun control laws; her reasoning is (apparently) that the greater population density creates more opportunity for crimes. Personally, I think all of the arguments she presented were rather dumb (didn't go over well when I mentioned that).

What would you guys say to that argument?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:25:46 PM EST
District of Columbia was the murder capital of the world for several years......

Argument ended.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:29:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairman:
Calling the infitinte wisdom of Arfcom!!

My wife is arguing that big cites need stricter gun control laws; her reasoning is (apparently) that the greater population density creates more opportunity for crimes. Personally, I think all of the arguments she presented were rather dumb (didn't go over well when I mentioned that).

What would you guys say to that argument?


Outline the over-the-top gunlaw restrictions of NYC and DC, and how ridiculously high their murder / violent crime rates are. Point out they do no good, and leave LAW-ABIDING people unarmed, unable to defend themselves against lawbreakers who are ALREADY illegally armed.
Point out the huge drops in FLA crime rates, when the state loosened their gun laws.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:29:54 PM EST

No. Big cities need stricter CRIMINAL-control laws.

The reason is that 100% of ALL violent crimes are committed by CRIMINALS.

There are more CRIMINALS in high-density urban areas, hence, more crimes.

We need to remove the criminals from society, keep them removed for as long as possible and that will 1) Reduce repeat offenses, 2) Act as a deterent against other criminals and 3) Leave the rights of law-abiding citizens utterly untouched.

Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:30:26 PM EST
If the argument is correct (greater density etc. ) then your need for protection is greater also, hence it makes more sense for criminals to believe MORE people are capable of defending themselves. It's possible that criminals will then move to areas where they know for sure they have the advantage or else go into other areas of crime that are not as risky.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:36:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2004 7:36:36 PM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By Chairman:
Calling the infitinte wisdom of Arfcom!!

My wife is arguing that big cites need stricter gun control laws; her reasoning is (apparently) that the greater population density creates more opportunity for crimes. Personally, I think all of the arguments she presented were rather dumb (didn't go over well when I mentioned that).

What would you guys say to that argument?



Washington DC, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the nation. They also have the highest rates of violent crime.

It is a statisical fact that places with strict gun control have higher rates of violent crime, and places where it is easier for citizens to obtain firearms for self defense have seen reductions in the violten crime rates.

Guns make people safer, gun control makes people less secure.

Now go make me a pot pie, and slip into that black nightie I bought you for my birthday!
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:37:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Chairman:
Calling the infitinte wisdom of Arfcom!!

My wife is arguing that big cites need stricter gun control laws; her reasoning is (apparently) that the greater population density creates more opportunity for crimes. Personally, I think all of the arguments she presented were rather dumb (didn't go over well when I mentioned that).

What would you guys say to that argument?



Washington DC, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the nation. They also have the highest rates of violent crime.

It is a statisical fact that places with strict gun control have higher rates of violent crime, and places where it is easier for citizens to obtain firearms for self defense have seen reductions in the violten crime rates.


that's all you need.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:38:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairman:
Calling the infitinte wisdom of Arfcom!!
You rang?

...the greater population density creates more opportunityneed for crimesself-defense, and the tools that make it possible.



Yes, there's more opportunity for crime. If we want to control crime, what should we control? Let's compare:

What percent of the total number of guns are used in crimes? I don't have the numbers, but I'd be very surprised if it was more then 1%.
What percent of crimes involve guns? Not sure, probably 30-50% or so, if you limit it to violent crime.

What percent of the total number of crimes are committed by criminals? 100%
What percent of criminals commit crimes? 100%

So, which one should we control?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:45:26 PM EST

What percent of the total number of crimes are committed by criminals? 100%
What percent of criminals commit crimes? 100%

So, which one should we control?



I like it! I occasionally get backed into corners by her damn lawyer logic (lawyer logic=doesn't actually make sense, but hard to point that out definitively)
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:48:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:52:49 PM EST
chicago murder rate in 2003: 598 murders in 2003, according to U.S. Department of Justice data.
quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aGEsdK7xB3M8&refer=canada

I can't find the death toll of US soldiers in Iraq for one eyar, but it took about a year and 4 or 5 months to hit 1000.
AND THAT WAS IN A FUCKING WAR ZONE VERSUS A US CITY WHERE GUNS ARE ALL BUT COMPLETELY BANNED
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:53:41 PM EST
1. Larger cities have more crime. FACT

2. Criminals don't obey laws. FACT

3. Putting more laws on the books will not stop a criminal from doing anything. FACT

In that situation the LOGICAL solution is to give law-abiding citizens the RIGHT to protect themselves.

What really happens is that more laws are written to restrict access to the tools that would allow law-abiding citizens to protect themseves. The result is law-abiding citizens disarmed and placed at the mercy of criminals.

D.C. and Chicago are the best examples of that.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:05:39 PM EST
Along with DC, NYC, LA, and Chicago, you could also sight London and Scotland Yard Stats that gun related crimes increased by 60% after their gun ban. Also, read about crime stats in Australia. Sad!

It has been statistically recorded for numerous cities that the increase in gun related crime is directly related to making firearms illegal. One of the telling comments I ever heard was on a news program back in the 1980's when they were interviewing a robber that was busted after months of running around DC kicking in peoples doors and robbing them at gun point. His response to the question about how he could be so bold in his crimes was "hey you are the guys that took everyones guns away, why not, now I know they are all unarmed."

Anyone that thinks that guns are the problems needs to do a little investigating and stop being brainwashed by the anti-gun knee jerk draconian approach. It makes the problem worse not better!
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:08:21 PM EST
greater population density = greater chance for crime?

Isn't that the reason why we NEED to be able to carry in the cities? I would say her argument proves 180 degrees opposite of what she is trying to say. Lock up the criminals, they will carry guns anyways. Let the good guys carry to protect themselves and deter crime. If the deer could all shoot back, would you still go deer hunting?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 10:24:50 PM EST
Bigger Cities have heavier traffic, more automobile accidents, more fatalities.

Bigger cities have larger illegal imigrant ppulations, More Crime from illegal alliens seeking refuge from the law in mexico.

Pools cause drownings, don't they. We should then out law Pools?

Drugs cause crime, it doesn't matter if they are illegal or legal, drugs are already a controlled item.


What she is seeking is the promise of safety, show her that an armed resistance to crime is 8 times more effective than the unarmed resistance to crime. I think John Lott has that in one of his papers.

And if the 43 times more likely BS comes up then the other end of that study is that not haveing the gun in the home make it 99 times more likely to be killed in the home.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 10:26:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 10:29:56 PM EST
All that stricter gun control laws accomplish in big cities, is creating a larger, highly populated class of potential victims.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 10:36:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
No. Big cities need stricter CRIMINAL-control laws.

The reason is that 100% of ALL violent crimes are committed by CRIMINALS.

There are more CRIMINALS in high-density urban areas, hence, more crimes.

We need to remove the criminals from society, keep them removed for as long as possible and that will 1) Reduce repeat offenses, 2) Act as a deterent against other criminals and 3) Leave the rights of law-abiding citizens utterly untouched.


What he said + FUCK YAH!


Top Top