 |
Super Columbine Massacre RPG Discussion Forum
Your source for reactions, questions, complaints, interpretations, and other feedback about the game.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MnM
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 3224
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:53 am Post subject: E/D would have loved this guy |
 |
|
"I want everyone to have a gun. If I think that someone doesn't have one, maybe I'll fine them $10."
-- Tennessee Republican gubernatorial hopeful Basil Marceaux
_________________
Visit my site and read the book in a few months.
http://thehardestlesson.com/
Also, to any researchers, please support the Columbine Wiki by adding this to your sig.
http://www.columbine-wiki.net/wiki/Main_Page |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thevirus8792
Joined: 05 May 2010
Posts: 540
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know someone who thinks like that. She's libertarian and thinks everyone should own a gun for self-defense, even 14 year olds. I do believe guns should be legal and all, but definitely not for teenagers. They get into fights all the time... do you know how many times they'd shoot each other? We're stupid; we'd totally do it.
_________________
What REALLY happened on 4/20/99--> http://notanothercolumbineytmnd.ytmnd.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, it's true that more guns means more violent crime... which is why Vermont, which ostensibly has the most lenient gun laws in the USA and has far more gun owners per capita than approximately 30 other states in the Union, also has the 2nd lowest violent crime rate in the USA.
Last edited by Username on Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Behemothy
Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 552
Location: a brave new world
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whenever anyone I knew took a vacation in the U.S., the running joke was to say goodbye to them with, ''Don't come back with bullet-holes!''.
So, um... no offence to anyone here. 
(I love y'all really!)
_________________
Is life not a hundred times too short to be -- bored in it? - Nietzsche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MnM
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 3224
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Username"]Yes, it's true that more guns means more violent crime... which is why Vermont, which ostensibly has the most lenient gun laws in the USA and has far more gun owners per capita than approximately 30 other states in the Union, also has the 2nd lowest violent crime rate in the USA.[/quote]
I'm sure that must be the only reason for such a low crime rate. Not poverty/wealth/education/rural-urban/etc., but solely the number of guns.
If only we could give guns to everyone in South Central! It'd be a Utopia in just 3 years! 
_________________
Visit my site and read the book in a few months.
http://thehardestlesson.com/
Also, to any researchers, please support the Columbine Wiki by adding this to your sig.
http://www.columbine-wiki.net/wiki/Main_Page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MnM wrote: |
I'm sure that must be the only reason for such a low crime rate. Not poverty/wealth/education/rural-urban/etc., but solely the number of guns. |
When did I ever say that? Vermont clearly illustrates that the problem doesn't lie with lenient gun laws, in and of themselves, which was my point.
| MnM wrote: |
| If only we could give guns to everyone in South Central! It'd be a Utopia in just 3 years! |
No need, as it's already much easier for criminals and gang bangers to get guns in LA than probably any other group in LA, except for maybe cops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asloversgo
Joined: 02 Jun 2010
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
:/
_________________
"I don't mind living in a man's world as long as I can be a woman in it"
Last edited by asloversgo on Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MnM
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 3224
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Username"][quote="MnM"]
I'm sure that must be the only reason for such a low crime rate. Not poverty/wealth/education/rural-urban/etc., but solely the number of guns.[/quote]
When did I ever say that? Vermont clearly illustrates that the problem doesn't lie with lenient gun laws, in and of themselves, which was my point.
[quote="MnM"]If only we could give guns to everyone in South Central! It'd be a Utopia in just 3 years! [/quote]
No need, as it's already much easier for criminals and gang bangers to get guns in LA than probably any other group in LA, except for maybe cops.[/quote]
Okay, so you see my point that giving everyone guns doesn't automatically = less crime.
Ie, Beverly Hills wouldn't be much safer or more dangerous if everyone there had guns.
_________________
Visit my site and read the book in a few months.
http://thehardestlesson.com/
Also, to any researchers, please support the Columbine Wiki by adding this to your sig.
http://www.columbine-wiki.net/wiki/Main_Page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MnM wrote: |
Okay, so you see my point that giving everyone guns doesn't automatically = less crime. |
Who ever said anything about "giving everyone guns"? And who even thinks that in the first place? High gun ownership rates can indeed mean less crime in certain situations, but obviously not in all, and I doubt anyone actually thinks that it "automatically" means less crime.
| Quote: |
| Ie, Beverly Hills wouldn't be much safer or more dangerous if everyone there had guns. |
I disagree with that, actually. From what I understand, Beverly Hills is generally a very wealthy and affluent area. Wealthy people in general are not very prone to committing crime, since attaining/maintaining wealth in the first place generally requires a good deal of self-control, and the ability to delay gratification. As such, most of the crime that takes place in Beverly Hills is likely the result of people from nearby poorer areas looking for a way to steal from people who are much wealthier than themselves. All of this makes me think that Beverly Hills might indeed be safer if more, though definitely not all, of its residents possessed guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Behemothy
Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 552
Location: a brave new world
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: |
| From what I understand, Beverly Hills is generally a very wealthy and affluent area. Wealthy people in general are not very prone to committing crime, since attaining/maintaining wealth in the first place generally requires a good deal of self-control, and the ability to delay gratification. As such, most of the crime that takes place in Beverly Hills is likely the result of people from nearby poorer areas looking for a way to steal from people who are much wealthier than themselves. All of this makes me think that Beverly Hills might indeed be safer if more, though definitely not all, of its residents possessed guns. |
All this sounds like elitist claptrap to me. Crime encompasses a wide range of behaviours, not just typically lower-class burglary and violence. Wealthy and influential people are more prone to engage in white-collar crime, and moreover, are likely to benefit from the authorities turning a blind eye to their misdemeanours (refer to 'Harris vs Hoffshneider' type threads).
I know that the debate here is about guns and violent crime, but you made a pretty ignorant statement there.
_________________
Is life not a hundred times too short to be -- bored in it? - Nietzsche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Behemothy wrote: |
| Username wrote: |
| From what I understand, Beverly Hills is generally a very wealthy and affluent area. Wealthy people in general are not very prone to committing crime, since attaining/maintaining wealth in the first place generally requires a good deal of self-control, and the ability to delay gratification. As such, most of the crime that takes place in Beverly Hills is likely the result of people from nearby poorer areas looking for a way to steal from people who are much wealthier than themselves. All of this makes me think that Beverly Hills might indeed be safer if more, though definitely not all, of its residents possessed guns. |
All this sounds like elitist claptrap to me. Crime encompasses a wide range of behaviours, not just typically lower-class burglary and violence. Wealthy and influential people are more prone to engage in white-collar crime, and moreover, are likely to benefit from the authorities' turning a blind eye to their misdemeanours (refer to 'Harris vs Hoffshneider' type threads).
I know that the debate here is about guns and violent crime, but you made a pretty blanket statement there. |
I thought it was pretty obvious that we were only talking about crimes which may or may not be impacted by the availability of guns. White-collar crimes obviously weren't on my mind, since they have virtually nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. What I said still applies to most other crimes, however, particularly those which might be impacted by gun ownership rates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BeyondBelief
Joined: 30 Jan 2009
Posts: 437
Location: Washington, DC, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Username, Vermont is not a good example for referencing low crime rates in a place with a high gun-toting population. Of course it has low crime rates -- the entire state has a population of five. In places with higher density populations there is always higher likelihood of crime, with or without guns.
Try making gun laws more lenient in DC. Then, you'll have a point.
Vermont has the allegedly 2nd lowest crime rate partially because its population is so low that it's also the second least populated state. Hardly a shining example of lenient gun laws being effective at crime rate reduction in the United States.
More and easier availability of guns, at least in the United States, typically does and has proven to lead to more violent crime overall, even if five-person, Mrs. Cleaver, perfect Annie Oakley Vermont is the second safest state because it's an exception to the rule. Not to mention that Vermont never really had a crime problem to begin with, regardless of their gun laws.
_________________
Whatever gives you hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BeyondBelief wrote: |
| Username, Vermont is not a good example for referencing low crime rates in a place with a high gun-toting population. Of course it has low crime rates -- the entire state has a population of five. In places with higher density populations there is always higher likelihood of crime, with or without guns. |
The above quote is very misleading. Vermont may have a relatively small population size (621,760 people) compared to a bunch of states that are either much bigger in area or completely overcrowded, but it also has the 30th highest population density in the Union. Considering that 20 other states in America have lower population densities than Vermont, it's abundantly clear that you were greatly exaggerating, to the point of laughable absurdity, the supposed extremely low "population density" of Vermont.
| Quote: |
| Try making gun laws more lenient in DC. Then, you'll have a point. |
That's a completely ridiculous thing to say. A hugely overcrowded area like DC is going to have an extremely high crime rate no matter what, particularly given the many circumstances which currently effect DC. Furthermore, it's worth noting that DC has a population density which is nearly 9 times higher than the state in the USA with the highest population density (New Jersey), so it clearly cannot be compared to any entire state in this respect.
| BeyondBelief wrote: |
| Vermont has the allegedly 2nd lowest crime rate |
Here's a link showing that Vermont did indeed have the 2nd lowest violent crime rate as recently as 2007:
http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html
Also, you're making it very blatantly clear that you have extremely poor reading comprehension skills. If you actually look at my original post in this thread, you'll see that nowhere did I mention Vermont's general "crime rate" (which you keep falsely repeating, as if that's even what I said), but Vermont's "violent crime rate". Go ahead and look at the post wherein MnM quoted my original post too, if you think I edited my OP recently (which I obviously did not, as evidenced by MnM's quote of my OP). This may seem like a small distinction, but it's a very important one.
| BeyondBelief wrote: |
| Hardly a shining example of lenient gun laws being effective at crime rate reduction in the United States. |
You're completely missing my point. I cited the case of Vermont as a means of showing that extraordinarily lenient gun laws and unusually high gun ownership rates don't necessarily mean higher violent crime rates, and can even coincide with incredibly low violent crime rates. My intention in doing this was to illustrate how ridiculous it is when people try to blame high violent crime rates on guns, in and of themselves, and to try to get people to consider that other factors are clearly of far, far greater importance in determining the violent crime rate of a given region. To place a great deal of blame on guns is to ignore the far greater problems at root of high violent crime rates. This is why supposed "solutions" like gun control, usually proposed by shifty and scheming politicians, are nothing more than the equivalent of putting band-aids on wounds that go much, much deeper than the surface level.
Of course, MnM later brought up general crime rates, entirely without any provocation from me, and so I responded to that with some speculative "maybes", but that was entirely besides my original point and, if you read my posts where I dealt with general crime rates, I made no commitment of pretending to be certain of anything (ie. "All of this makes me think that Beverly Hills might indeed be safer if more, though definitely not all, of its residents possessed guns.").
| BeyondBelief wrote: |
| More guns, at least in the United States, typically do and have proven to lead to more violent crime overall |
That's a very lofty claim. I hope you're prepared to back it up with evidence. I look forward to putting it under close scrutiny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
