247 réponses à ce sujet

[fhs33721]

would you rather watch your children/spouse die rather than be in a position where you had to take someone's life?

Just curious because for some there is that factor too...

Does this actually happen a lot where you life? Do people specifically break into houses in order to kill children/spouses? Because were I live people  break into others houses to steal money or valuables or in order to spray-paint a giant d*ck on someones car or walls.

Also most burglars actually are smart enough to break in when nobody's home because it's easier to do these things then. Maybe criminals just have no idea how to do aything efficiently where you live.

[Colonelkillabee]

Lol the examples given are rather morbid and extreme, but then, sadly, **** like this does occasionally happen.

[crimzontearz]

Does this actually happen a lot where you life? Do people specifically break into houses in order to kill children/spouses? Because were I live people break into others houses to steal money or valuables or in order to spray-paint a giant d*ck on someones car or walls.
Also most burglars actually are smart enough to break in when nobody's home because it's easier to do these things then. Maybe criminals just have no idea how to do aything efficiently where you live.

no, I am blessed to live in a part of Massachusetts that is rather quiet and with low criminality. Next year I am moving to Italy so there is that.

But with that in mind botched break ins lead to violence just as often as to the burglar fleeing. Since I have children that scenario is not that unlikely for me.

[SnakeCode]

It baffles me that so many people don't understand there is a correlation between lots and lots of people owning guns, and lots and lots of people getting shot...

 

 

On Topic- Though my thoughts do align on the matter I don't feel mages are at all like guns, I don't think the comparison fits at all.

[Colonelkillabee]

It baffles me that so many people don't understand there is a correlation between lots and lots of people owning guns, and lots and lots of people getting shot...

 

 

On Topic- Though my thoughts do align on the matter I don't feel mages are at all like guns, I don't think the comparison fits at all.

The studies prove there isn't:

 

 

 

• In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime
• A 2008 report by the University of Melbourne that analyzed firearms deaths for a period of 100-years in Australia, concluded that the new laws did not have any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.
• A 2011 study published by the Justice Policy Journal examined the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand over a 30 year time period. The results don’t provide any evidence in favor of the belief that banning guns reduces mass shootings. According to the authors:

  “[The results do]not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”

• A study published in the British Journal of Criminology found that there was no evidence that the NFA [National Firearms Agreement] had any impact on reducing firearm homicide. They did find that it may have helped reduce firearm suicide, but note that societal factors were already reducing suicide rates. Lastly, a 2009 study published by the Australian Institute for Suicide Research examined how the NFA effected suicide rates and found the following:

  “The implemented [firearm] restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference”.

• In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings. In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh.  More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research. 

  The study goes on to say:

  "…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

 

 

Guns aren't the cause, guns are simply the means. Take guns, people will either still find and use them illegally, or in Britain's case, use something else.

[Roamingmachine]

It baffles me that so many people don't understand there is a correlation between lots and lots of people owning guns, and lots and lots of people getting shot...
 
 
On Topic- Though my thoughts do align on the matter I don't feel mages are at all like guns, I don't think the comparison fits at all.

Correlation equates causation now? People kill people. Always have and always will. Shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, head kicked in...There is no difference. Heck, ask the Chinese how well personal firearms ban works on stopping mass killings. Guns are simply a tool to level the playing ground between predators and victims in human society.

As for the OP: No. Mages are people, not tools.

[Sifr]

I think there's a difference here between Guns and Mages, because while the former has no say in being used to slaughter someone indiscriminately, the latter is a feeling, thinking person who can decide to use their powers or not.

 

Many people accuse Mages of being living weapons (and they technically are), but I'd like submit that we should all go back and watch The Iron Giant, where the entire point of that film was that "You are who you choose to be" and that any thinking person, even a walking doomsday machine, has the free will to decide that "I am not a gun" if they don't want to be.

 

(Plus it's a freaking awesome movie...)

[Dean_the_Young]

I see the underlying differences as more compelling than the similarities, so I don't view the analogy as particularly relevant. Magic, unlike guns, can't be put down, can manifest itself malignantly regardless of the prior intent or good will of the holder, and has multiple properties well outside of comparative relevance to personal firearms.

[EmperorSahlertz]

First of all, having a gun might make it worse? What is she supposed to do then hope the criminal doesn't kill or rape her?

Second, how do you know it safe? The whole point is to expect the unexpected.

Rape is even more rare than actual assault, and assault with death as a result even more rare still. It must be horrible to live a life in constant fear of such small odds comming true... You have a bigger chance on dying in your car on the way to your job, than even being assaulted (without any death involved).

 

And the thing is, there are better ways to defend yourself than lethal weapons. Pebersprays, tazers, self-defense, etc. all of which non-lethal. Every professional ALWAYS say that one of the WORST things you can possible do, in case of a crime, is to whip out your own weapons and start "dispensing personal justice". It escalates the situation beyond control, and more often than not results in unintentional damages done.

[Sir DeLoria]

I said in proportion to guns, as in if the number of owners were the same, jackass.

Actually that article is very divided on the issue. See, far more children drown in pools than are accidentally shot, but the amount of teens and adults who accidentally die by firearms is twice as high as pool drowning. So, I'd actually label you analogy far too complex to use in this argument.

That is important because it shows that people will use whatever they have to accomplish their goal if they are truly serious about killing someone, even yourself. If they didn't use guns, they'd use a pool, or knives as Britain shows.

Yes, but guns make killing much easier than any other means. Killing someone in melee requires far more strength and is much more difficult than by shooting. Since the general handgun ban in '97, there have be no large scale massacres anywhere in the UK.

Your reading comprehension does you no credit.

Lol, that's ironic for you to say.
 

you ignorant little **** stain.

Ignorant? Lol, again, ironic. Also, you sound really pissed off, did I hit a nerve?

You're done here. Give up some supporting evidence like I did or shut the **** up:

Oh those couple demographs you just now found and where so excited about, you had to copy paste them multiple times across two pages? Well, my stats are mostly from the Bureau of Crime and the extensive 1998 studies of Dr Arthur Kellermann, M.D. There's a few news articles too.

http://newtrajectory...p-for-home.html
http://www.cbsnews.c...-homicide-risk/
http://lostallhope.c...methods-suicide
http://www.latimes.c...0121-story.html
https://s3.amazonaws...ull_LEARN21.png
http://nation.time.c...suicide-murder/
http://media2.mic.co...a362bf56f01.png

[Sir DeLoria]

No one's taking US citizen's guns no matter what anyone here thinks, so it's not worth wasting more finger breath.

Jesus H. Christ, no one wants to ban firearms in the US! There's a difference between outright banning guns and controlling them and making them less accessable.

[Eldrid]

Hmm an interesting observation.. but remember you can still bring harm or kill people even without weapons. But what makes them different is, most people don't have a choice that they are born with magic. It is part of them unlike with guns that you still have a choice and have no repercussions if want to get rid of it.

[Colonelkillabee]

nevermind, lol not worth it. Those studies I linked refute these.

[Colonelkillabee]

Jesus H. Christ, no one wants to ban firearms in the US! There's a difference between outright banning guns and controlling them and making them less accessable.

Both will fail, both are stupid. People don't study their history and will repeat it.

[herkles]

can this thread be moved to the off topic section as it has nothing to do with dragon age?

[Colonelkillabee]

I think the mods are dead, lol. Perhaps it was guns' fault.

[Roamingmachine]

Yes, but guns make killing much easier than any other means. Killing someone in melee requires far more strength and is much more difficult than by shooting. Since the general handgun ban in '97, there have be no large scale massacres anywhere in the UK.

5lbs of pressure will break the human larynx and cause a rather slow, agonizing death. Stabbing someone requires no virtually strength at all and is incredibly hard to defend against bare-handed. These are just two examples. And the Chinese tend to disagree on the effectiveness of banning handguns to stop mass killings.

[Sir DeLoria]

Both will fail, both are stupid. People don't study their history and will repeat it.

So you think guns shouldn't be tracked and be sold at Wallmart? Sure, great idea, you know while we're at it let's lower the minimum age requirement for ownership to 12. Oh and I'm guessing you support gun ownership for criminals and the severely handicapped too.

nevermind, lol not worth it. Those studies I linked refute these.

Umm, no? Except for one, your studies have nothing to do with mine. The ones I posted simply point out, that guns are rarely actually used for self-defense, when compared to homicide or other crimes, that's a fact proven by national records.


Here's an interesting comparision though, in Germany, a country where guns are legal but tightly controlled, the murder rate is 0.8. In the US it's currently 4.7, more than five times as high as Germany's. Now yes, there are of course social differences, but it's hard to deny any parallel when 2/3 of murders in the US last year where carried out with guns.

(Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012.)

[Sir DeLoria]

5lbs of pressure will break the human larynx and cause a rather slow, agonizing death. Stabbing someone requires no virtually strength at all and is incredibly hard to defend against bare-handed. These are just two examples. And the Chinese tend to disagree on the effectiveness of banning handguns to stop mass killings.

Yeah, there was a mass stabbing in a US college earlier this year. More than a dozen people were severely injured but none died, had the perpetrator used a firearm it would've undeniably ended worse.

Yes, it's true the cleaver attack in China this year was deadly, but the same group of men could have killed more people with firearms.

Guns are a more effective means of killing, that's undeniable.

[herkles]

In my state they recently passed a law allowing concealed weapons at bars. >. >

[Roamingmachine]

Yeah, there was a mass stabbing in a US college earlier this year. More than a dozen people were severely injured but none died, had the perpetrator used a firearm it would've undeniably ended worse.

Yes, it's true the cleaver attack in China this year was deadly, but the same group of men could have killed more people with firearms.

Guns are a more effective means of killing, that's undeniable.

There's actually been several mass killing in China done with knives and such. In a crowd, a knife and an axe works just as quick as a bullet. Guns aren't especially great at making people dead, they just have range. Of course engaging at range makes hitting those vitals even more difficult. So yeah, I kinda deny that guns are more effective at killing people than cleavers and kitchen knives. All of them excel at it when used in a setting that takes advantage of their strengths and all of them have their drawbacks. Me, i'll rather face someone shooting at me than someone rushing me with blades.

[New Kid]

Some of these comments have genuinely scared me.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Lets just have a nice cup of tea and calm down.

[Panda]

In my state they recently passed a law allowing concealed weapons at bars. >. >

 

Most manslaughters in my country happen in influence of alcohol and my friend's dad got beating to death in bar too. Alcohol combined to any weapon isn't good idea... well good luck with that law ^^;

[raging_monkey]

Seriously guys the US isnt that bad so can we please drop this its, flame bait, off topic, and complete misinformation. Drop it and let this thread die