{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/10/2013 3:52:39 AM
18
Nobody died?
What if that guy had a gun?
[i]
Ohh.....[/i]
And before the argument comes that "knives are just as effective as guns", realize that we stopped using swords and axes in warfare many years ago.
English
-
An armed citizen could have prevented anyone from getting stabbed. Also, a person knowing what they are doing could easily kill 20 people with a knife.
-
That's the point, guns are way to effective as weapons. "A person who knows what they are doing" is not going to easily kill 20 people with a knife. That doesn't happen often, despite knives being readily available. Guns on the other hand can be used by children. Also, vigilante justice is not something to be cherished. It often can and will go horribly wrong.
-
How are they way too effective? That's the point, so I don't have to engage a target at close range and put myself in greater risk. I control the situation.
-
That's the point I'm making: guns are far better than knives, if this was a shooting, many people would die. My response was on the statement made by someone in this thread "knives effectiveness=guns effectiveness".
-
Not if there was someone there to stop them, they would be less inclined to cause harm at all.
-
Unfortunately for your argument, more guns does not stop gun crime. Having a look at basically most other Western countries, gun crime deaths/rate and violent crime have been decreasing there since their gun laws were restricted further. (Exceptions exist in harsh economic times and a few other factors). Let's note that Britain has a hugely restrictive gun policy, which has resulted in a decrease in gun crime over the past few years, along with violent crime. The death toll from gun crime in the US is 40x that of Britain, per capita.
-
Actually it can if there is more gun freedom, you're also neglecting other forms of crime. We have less violence than nations with gun bans because of it. If you want to reduce gun crime we need to end prohibition of drugs and prostitution and allow concealed carry far more easily. Britain has more violence than we do.
-
Edited by Quantum: 4/10/2013 8:27:18 AMProve it., that first part. Also, as for the Britain violence thing: http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/the-difference-between-us-uk-violent-crime-rates-depends-on-definition-of-violent-crime/ Britain has a much larger definition of violent crime. In actuality, when specific stats are compared, Britain is lower in the majority of cases.
-
Look at Kennesaw, GA, where firearms have caused crime tho plunge. Also, Australia saw an increase in violence after harsher gun restrictions.
-
Edited by dazarobbo: 4/10/2013 9:02:01 AM[quote]Also, Australia saw an increase in violence after harsher gun restrictions.[/quote]No. [url]http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view paper.html[/url] Keep in mind those restrictions were implemented in 1996. Now then... 1. [url=http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi359-1.png]Homicide rate[/url]. This was falling before the ban and there were no huge spikes after it. 2. [url=http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi359-2.png]Assault rate[/url]. Again, this was increasing before the ban but actually appeared to level-off after it. 3. [url=http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi359-3.png]Sexual assault rate[/url]. The overall rate has remained the same since before the ban. 4. [url=http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi359-4.png]Robbery rate[/url]. Yes, this spiked in roughly 1995-1996, however as of 2006, these rates were back to what they originally were. Considering the firearm laws have not changed, this spike does not seem consistent with the ban (otherwise the rates would have remained at the same level).
-
You tell him.
-
Source?
-
Seriously? It's common knowledge and I suppose you couldn't do a quick search. http://www.kennesawcommunication.com/2012/01/22/gun-town-usa-kennesaw-gun-law-shoots-down-crime/ http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847
-
Edited by Quantum: 4/10/2013 9:02:08 AM1. Correlation=/=Causation. The population grew from 2000-30000. Obviously the gun crime rate would go down, as there are more non-gun crime committing people than criminals, the proportion would decrease. That's plainly obvious. The article fails to link an actual causal relationship, it only points out a pattern. It doesn't give a good indication of the context, either. Gun crime has been decreasing in the US for some time now. Extra guns is not the factor here. 2. I tracked this article's source, it is this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts And GUESS WHAT? And he doesn't actually give a link to any of his sources. His claims "X bureau" said this, without telling us where he got this information, or whether it was widely released or not. The first source is misleading, the 2nd source is bullshit. Who would have known. Let's also put this into perspective: Australia and New Zealand have been running some crime reporting programmes in the past few years IIRC. They have been encouraging citizens to report crime, especially family violence. That would have easily caused the increase. You literally linked me to a blog.
-
hate to break it to you, we still have bayonets/tomahawks in service.
-
Hardly used. Let's be realistic.
-
bayonets, standard issue. tomahawks, any commander who allows it, a soldier may purchase them for themselves as kit. they've been used as recently as afghanistan and iraq by US troops.
-
Yes, but 99.9999999999999% of engagements did not involve the use of actual tomahawks/bayonets offensively. In some cases, all they did is force the enemy to retreat, not even to wound/kill.
