5punk

Did you read the comments where she defends her statistics? Anyway, it's perfectly consistent to attack someone else's statistics in favour of your own (better ) ones.

Part of the point that I was trying to make with the statistics is that after strict gun control was implemented in the UK, crime went up. A lot. Causation is another matter, but based on those figures (unless you dispute them - hence read her defence of them in the comments) it seems not unreasonable to believe that at the very least, gun control does not reduce crime.

As to the "legalese", well, it's how I write in a formal manner. If it really bothers you, then I'll proof-read for it... or you could learn something *mutters something about least-cost avoiders*

eion wrote:Did you read the comments where she defends her statistics? Anyway, it's perfectly consistent to attack someone else's statistics in favour of your own (better ) ones.

Yes, Ive read her comments. I find it interesting that although she defends her use of different statistics than the first guy, she totally skips over the point that Jim Whitehead made, that the methods and standards of crime reporting changed at the time she is talking about.

Part of the point that I was trying to make with the statistics is that after strict gun control was implemented in the UK, crime went up. A lot.

The documents the guy above talked about dispute that, hard.

Causation is another matter, but based on those figures (unless you dispute them - hence read her defence of them in the comments) it seems not unreasonable to believe that at the very least, gun control does not reduce crime.

But you are arguing that more lax gun control, specifically: allowing guns to be owned for the purposes of self defence, *would* reduce crime. Italy suggest otherwise*. They used to have some extremely strict gun controll. Then the law was changed to allow guns at home for self defence. Crime went up, not down. This would seem to indicate that although tightening gun control doesnt make things better, loosening it makes it worse.

Joose wrote:Then the law was changed to allow guns at home for self defence. Crime went up, not down. This would seem to indicate that although tightening gun control doesnt make things better, loosening it makes it worse.

Well, no, it doesn't. You're assuming causation.
If I do what you just did, and assume that the statistics in that article are accurate (and I think I have heard similar stats elsewhere), as well as assuming causation, then I would have grounds to argue that increased gun control leads to increased crime.

So we have something of a paradox here: you say decreased gun control leads to increased crime, I say increased gun control leads to increased crime. There is a way to break the paradox, of course - by not assuming causation, in which case it would seem that gun control itself has no effect on crime rates.

And if gun control doesn't affect crime rates, then on balance (given the anti-tyranny value of firearms, as well as the fact that some people probably want to shoot for leisure, and of course the questions that we should ask when government wants to pass a law restricting the things we can own) I'd rather have less gun control.

eion wrote: Well, no, it doesn't. You're assuming causation.
If I do what you just did, and assume that the statistics in that article are accurate (and I think I have heard similar stats elsewhere), as well as assuming causation, then I would have grounds to argue that increased gun control leads to increased crime.

So we have something of a paradox here: you say decreased gun control leads to increased crime, I say increased gun control leads to increased crime. There is a way to break the paradox, of course - by not assuming causation, in which case it would seem that gun control itself has no effect on crime rates.

Seems fair enough. We cant prove one way or the other (as we both seem to have contradictory statistics from reliable sources) and, like you say, assuming causality is suspect in the extreme, then we should ignore crime rates.

And if gun control doesn't affect crime rates, then on balance (given the anti-tyranny value of firearms, as well as the fact that some people probably want to shoot for leisure, and of course the questions that we should ask when government wants to pass a law restricting the things we can own) I'd rather have less gun control.

And given that gun ownership increases suicide rates, and that the anti-tyranny value of firearms is as dubious (if not more so) than relating gun ownership to crime statistics (there are no relevant statistics, its all just assumption), Im happy with the level of gun control we have in England.

As for the anti-tyranny thing: Do you really think that the general populace of america is better armed than the US goverment? And even if it did come to open armed rebellion, the new goverment that would come into power would be the one supported by the person who controlls the most guns. As you have pointed out, criminals have quite the aptitude for gaining access to guns. Therefore, as the largest organised group of armed individuals in the US (after the goverment) is likely to be a criminal organisation, the new goverment would be, most likely, more corrupt than the last one. Protecting your country internally like this through horse of arms is not really a viable option.

.

Hold on, tracking this you've agreed that you cannot agree due to not having all the facts to substantiate your arguments.

I fucking love 5punkers at times.

I think a lot of people's opinion on guns in the UK has been coloured by press coverage of the incidents in Hungerford and Dunblane, whether or not they actually remember it at the time.

In both cases "public opinion" or "outcry" was so strong that the government of the day introduced legislation banning the legal sale of firearms. Whether this was through a frenzy whipped up by the media, or simply sheer horror at what occured is uncertain.

Either way, both were major events, each alone accounting for roughly 15% of the total homicides in the years they happened on our small island.

Each though, were commited by an individual, whereas the resulting laws passed criminalised tens, if not hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people.

I admit to being caught up in the hype at the time, thinking that basically anyone who wanted a gun was obviously a nutter and the least suitable person to own one.

Self-defense hasn't been an acceptable reason for owning a gun in the UK for a long time, and that isn't likely to change, but there are recreational uses.

Times have changed, and now, while I like to mess around and fire my BB guns at cardboard boxes inside my house - stupid people who shoot them at other people are going to ruin that, and make them illegal, too.

It's actually the same argument, although accidents involving replica weapons are less severe, I would never dream of firing one at another person in an attempt to harm them.

Still, a widescale availability of firearms does frighten me, as do visibly-armed police abroad. If two people were fighting in the street near me, I would not want them to have guns.

Joose wrote:And given that gun ownership increases suicide rates, and that the anti-tyranny value of firearms is as dubious (if not more so) than relating gun ownership to crime statistics (there are no relevant statistics, its all just assumption), Im happy with the level of gun control we have in England.

Actually, I would argue that the level of gun ownership has basically no bearing on suicide rates - culture etc. is likely the most important factor. Take Japan, for instance: ludicrously high suicide rate (because there's little in the way of cultural norms against suicide, and it's seen as the honourable way out under some circumstances), but with extremely strict gun control.
Basically, people are going to kill themselves regardless.

Joose wrote:As for the anti-tyranny thing: Do you really think that the general populace of america is better armed than the US goverment? And even if it did come to open armed rebellion, the new goverment that would come into power would be the one supported by the person who controlls the most guns. As you have pointed out, criminals have quite the aptitude for gaining access to guns. Therefore, as the largest organised group of armed individuals in the US (after the goverment) is likely to be a criminal organisation,

This is where your logic breaks down. Yes, criminals can get guns no matter what. However, in a country with relatively mild gun control laws, so can law-abiding citizens - that's the core of my argument against gun control! The largest organised group of armed individuals in the United States? Probably the NRA, who believe you me are not pro-criminal.
Sadly, the United States government probably does have more guns than its citizens. That's not the way it was supposed to be.
However I firmly believe that the possibility of armed uprising has, at least in the past, moderated the behaviour of the US government.

Joose wrote:Protecting your country internally like this through horse of arms is not really a viable option.

Are you talking about national defence here? That's a different issue, but one that I'd be happy to discuss.



Moving on...

FatherJack wrote:In both cases "public opinion" or "outcry" was so strong that the government of the day introduced legislation banning the legal sale of firearms. Whether this was through a frenzy whipped up by the media, or simply sheer horror at what occured is uncertain.

Either way, it's a knee-jerk reaction, and I'm not a big fan of knee-jerk leglislation, between the unintended consequences, the risk of being swept along in the hype (which we've all been guilty of at some point), et cetera.
Basically when it comes to any law, my firm belief is to measure twice, cut once... because you most likely aren't getting those freedoms back, ever.

FatherJack wrote:I admit to being caught up in the hype at the time, thinking that basically anyone who wanted a gun was obviously a nutter and the least suitable person to own one.
<snip>
Times have changed, and now, while I like to mess around and fire my BB guns at cardboard boxes inside my house - stupid people who shoot them at other people are going to ruin that, and make them illegal, too.

I think a big part of people's fear of guns in the UK is due to the fact that the vast majority have never experienced responsible gun use. If the only time you ever see a gun is on the news or in action movies, then that's definitely going to colour your views.
So here's what I'd suggest, if you've never fired a gun before: try it. Do some skeet-shooting, or if you're on holiday/live in the US, spend a couple of hours at a pistol range (many of which have guns available to rent, and all of which will be more than happy to go over gun safety with you). Then you might see guns as they really are: tools, that can be used for good (self-defence, hunting, target shooting) or bad.

I think that the majority of this thread can be summed up by saying that people are basically vile horrible creatures who will do anything to one another in order to suurvive and improve their lives.

The only reason for anyone to have a gun is becuase otehr people have them, unfortunately this means that bad people will get hold of them and use them to do bad things, and stupid people will get hold of them and do stupid things.

I think the original point of this post had something to do with videogames, and having recently done a degree levelproject on violent videogames and their effects on mood of the players I would say that violent games DO have an effect on SOME people, but people are different and not everyone responds to them in the same way, also there are other characteristics to games - such as difficulty, the amount of emersion experienced by the player and even the type of music used - that can have an equal if not greater effect on the mood, and potentially the behaviour as a result of this altrered mood state.

That said I would very much like to see a much more serious attitude taken towards the availability of videogames that have been rated as being suitable only for mature audiences. One study I read whilst researching my project found that minors were able to buy mature rated games 96% of the time.

In my opinion games with violent and other mature content should have proper age restrictions (i.e. 18, 15 etc) the way movies have for years, rather than the slightly ambiguous teen and mature style ratings that are often used. I also think that their shjould be far more strict rules for retailers regarding sle of mature content to minors. Something along the lines of the fines retailers get for selling tobaco or alcohol to those who are underage.

I also think parents shouldd take a more active role in monitoring the games their children play. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that most parents don't have a clue what games their children are playing, and i suspect that many parents wouldn't think twice before buying mature rated games for their children, even though i would guess that the same parents would not allow their children to watch 18 rated movies. Granted parents cannot watch their children all the time, and doubtless many oungsters would manage to get hold of mature rated games some and wpould be able to play them with older friends or relatives, but that doesn't mean peopel shouldn't try.

I think if restrictions like these were put into place and enforced we wouldn't have people like jack thompson up in arms quite so often

The Incredible... wrote:I would say that violent games DO have an effect on SOME people, but people are different and not everyone responds to them in the same way,

Having had not done a degree level project on this, I'd guess that those seriously affected by computer games are probably quite heavily broken in the head anyway.

The Incredible... wrote:That said I would very much like to see a much more serious attitude taken towards the availability of videogames that have been rated as being suitable only for mature audiences.

But still, parents will just buy the game for their kids anyway.

The Incredible... wrote:I think if restrictions like these were put into place and enforced we wouldn't have people like jack thompson up in arms quite so often

Jack Thompson is a fuckwit, at least he's only attacking games/gamers at the moment.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:But still, parents will just buy the game for their kids anyway.

that. parents need to stop being stupid.

Dr. Kitteny Berk wrote:Having had not done a degree level project on this, I'd guess that those seriously affected by computer games are probably quite heavily broken in the head anyway.

I wasn't able to (read: could not be bothered to look for) any existing data comparing 'normal' and 'mental' peoples reaction to violent videogames, but yes, it would be my guess with my degree in psychology, that people who were already disturbed in some way would certainly be MORE likley to act violently after playing vilent games, but then they would have acted violently anyway

Dr. Kitteny Berk wrote: But still, parents will just buy the game for their kids anyway.

This is likely to be the case. Then again, I know my parents were always reasonably responsible when it came to not letting me watch 15/18 rated movies, and i would imagine that attitude still prevails regarding movies, so I think what needs to happen is for parents to be made more aware of how realistic some videogames are these days and that playing these games can be psychologically damaging in SOME cases. Basically make them aware that the rather dismissive 'it's just a game, isn't it?' won't fly, but at the same time they should also know that not EVERY game with realstic graphics is bad, but that they just need to be more active in monitoring the content of the games their children want to play. Parents will probably complain that they haven't got time to sit and watch their kids playing videogames, even for half an hourn or so a day, but in my opinion if you haven't got time to raise your kids properly then you shouldn't have had them

Dr. Kitteny Berk wrote:Jack Thompson is a fuckwit, at least he's only attacking games/gamers at the moment.

Well yea, I suppose he could be attacking other things we enjoy. But it just angers me when videogames are portayed in a bad light, and basically i'm always a little worried that with enough whinging someone like him will end up getting all games, or a large number of them at any rate, banned outright, and therefore take away something i have been very fond of for nearly two thirds of my life thus far

It also may be of interest to some of these reactionary types that i have played vieogames for approximately 14 years, i have played many violent games including but not limited to mortal kombat (1, 2, 3, mythologies, deadly aliance, deception, shaolin monks and armaggeddon), grand theft auto (1, 2, 3, vice city, san andreas, liberty city stories), doom (1, final, 3, ressurection of evil), half life (1, 2, 2 episode 1), quake (1, 2) and never have I gone out on any kind of killing rampage

Most of the times I HAVE become angry, even having iolent feelings due directly to video games, it has bveen largely playing non-violent games. For example, in the Tony Hawk skateboarding games, particularly the more recent ones, where you have to perform a long complex chain of tricks in order to reach a specific goal, sonic heroes, where the camera is often reall dodgy and you can't judge the distance when jumping between paltforms, and licence tests on gran turismo. This tallies with the results of the sty i conducted for my research project, where i found that violence did not cause a significant change in arousal or negative mood but increased difficulty DID