Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, all the sudden you guys know how to read statistics!!! I am impressed. Wait, why is when we argue against gun control, you would immediately lose the ability to read stats?
Funny how that happens, isn't it? Also how amazing it is that once you cite this suddenly the cause is the vast differences between Japan and the US, not the gun laws, that cause it. Just last week it was "ban guns like Japan, look at their low murder rate". Today it's "well they are a totally different country"
I disagree, I think you can have separate debates on different kinds of violence. In fact, I would argue that this type of argument has long been used by the right to try and ignore the obvious success places like South Korea have had in stopping gun homicides.
You can have those debates all you want. If you're the type of person who draws a distinction however, then you're an anti gun nut.
It is not logical to care about the difference between the instruments used in a murder - if you are someone who is strictly anti-violence. Now if you're someone who just doesn't like guns, it's perfectly logical to care. You, however, are a zealot in such a case, and your outlook is as much as an admission that you do not care about violence, you care about guns. Which, in my honest opinion, makes you an irrational idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
I don't think you understand my point. My point is that gun homicides can be controlled with gun laws as South Korea and Singapore have proven, that is a simple fact, with that said violence generally is dependent on socioeconomic factors I don't see why you cannot understand this.
I understand your point perfectly, I'm just restating my original argument.
I do not accept your earlier contention that the laws in Norway are anything like the laws here. They are much more heavily restricted. I'd put them right in between the US and S Korea.
Most that I've read on South Korea does mention provisions for the ownership of hunting rifles. However I am having a difficult time digging up solid information on the subject.
You can have those debates all you want. If you're the type of person who draws a distinction however, then you're an anti gun nut.
It is not logical to care about the difference between the instruments used in a murder - if you are someone who is strictly anti-violence. Now if you're someone who just doesn't like guns, it's perfectly logical to care. You, however, are a zealot in such a case, and your outlook is as much as an admission that you do not care about violence, you care about guns. Which, in my honest opinion, makes you an irrational idiot.
I understand your point perfectly, I'm just restating my original argument.
I do not accept your earlier contention that the laws in Norway are anything like the laws here. They are much more heavily restricted. I'd put them right in between the US and S Korea.
Most that I've read on South Korea does mention provisions for the ownership of hunting rifles. However I am having a difficult time digging up solid information on the subject.
I understand, but with that said Norway is much closer to the US then it is to South Korea. In South Korea you can only own guns for military duty, sport shooting, hunting etc., and you need to hand them over to the police during periods when you don't need them for those activaties. It is a very common model throughout the far East which is why unlike Norway or the US those countries have almost no gun violence. I am not saying we should implement a South Korea style legal policy, but I think we can and should be able to openly discuss what other countries do and their results. That is just a debate it isn't anything to be afraid of. As to Norway being similar to the US. As far as international comparisons of gun laws go they are more strict then the US, but they are not that different when you take a global perspective.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 01-15-2013 at 11:06 PM..
I understand, but with that said the Norway is much closer to the US then it is to South Korea. In South Korea you can only own guns for military duty, sport shooting, hunting etc., and you need to hand them over to the police during periods when you don't need them for those activaties.
I saw* this among the handful of things I read on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
It is a very common model throughout the far East which is why unlike Norway or the US those countries have almost no gun violence. I am not saying we should implement a South Korea style legal policy, but I think we can and should be able to openly discuss what other countries do and their results. That is just a debate. As to Norway being similar to the US. As far as international comparisons of gun laws go they are more strict then the US, but they are not that different when you take a global perspective.
For starters, I still see no legitimacy in a debate about gun violence and gun violence alone.
Furthermore, when you take a global perspective, you also have to consider countries like Mexico, as well as much of South America, which does not support your argument at all, even as it pertains to gun violence alone.
You yourself made the argument that the rate of violence (not just gun violence) has much to do with socio-economics.
I'll just have to respectfully disagree on your point about breathing room. I see maybe a slightly larger gap, but nothing substantial.
US (in most states) - No registration, no licensing, no training requirements, no caliber restrictions, almost no prohibitions on ammo purchases, shall issue concealed carry.
Norway - Registration, licensing, caliber restrictions, licensing for ammo purchases, no concealed carry.
South Korea - Registration on crack.
I say this among the handful of things I read on the subject.
For starters, I still see no legitimacy in a debate about gun violence and gun violence alone.
Furthermore, when you take a global perspective, you also have to consider countries like Mexico, as well as much of South America, which does not support your argument at all, even as it pertains to gun violence alone.
You yourself made the argument that the rate of violence (not just gun violence) has much to do with socio-economics.
I'll just have to respectfully disagree on your point about breathing room. I see maybe a slightly larger gap, but nothing substantial.
US (in most states) - No registration, no licensing, no training requirements, no caliber restrictions, almost no prohibitions on ammo purchases, shall issue concealed carry.
Norway - Registration, licensing, caliber restrictions, licensing for ammo purchases, no concealed carry.
South Korea - Registration on crack.
As to Mexico, that doesn't really challenge my argument. Basically laws are no good if you cannot enforce them and as such Mexico's gun laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on since smuggling is so rampant.
South Korea also isn't registration on crack it is a de facto ban on gun ownership is what it is. Sure you can technically "own guns" but the government only lets you have them for a limited time and closely watches you during that time. Again I am not saying I support it, but rather saying the distance between South Korea and Norway is pretty huge much larger then the US.
With that said you have made it pretty clear that you don't acutually want to debate since you have said as much so good night.
When Australia banned them their suicide by gun rates fell by large amounts... try again, the facts just don't support you.
You have no knowledge of how many in Japan would use a gun if there were plentiful, you mistakenly assume there would be no change, with no evidence to support the flawed logic.
As to Mexico, that doesn't really challenge my argument. Basically laws are no good if you cannot enforce them and as such Mexico's gun laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on since smuggling is so rampant.
You can't sit here and disregard the existence of a law due to its likelihood to be broken.
We're having a discussion about the effectiveness of gun laws themselves. Effectiveness of said laws is an integral part of the discussion, as presumably the expectation in passing these laws is that they will be followed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
South Korea also isn't registration on crack it is a de facto ban on gun ownership is what it is. Sure you can technically "own guns" but the government only lets you have them for a limited time and closely watches you during that time.*
Call it what you'd like. It is not an outright ban. Even if it was however, since it is so close, I stand by my earlier statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
With that said you have made it pretty clear that you don't acutually want to debate since you have said as much so good night.
I won't debate gun violence and gun violence alone, no. It's a ridiculous position to take and wreaks of anti-gun zealotry.
If you care to debate, we can debate that point. Explain the logic of such a position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
