The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Luke 22:35-38 on June 15, 2016, 11:56:22 AM
-
My thoughts are they've should've had a means of defense.
-
Do you really want a club full of drunk people with guns? From what I've read there were more than 300 people in there. I have worked at a big club like that, and they hire off duty police (armed and in uniform) to keep things under control. I seriously doubt security at that club want a bunch of drunk dumb asses "defending" themselves. Not to mention the ones rolling on e or any other drugs. Fuck.
And before you assume anything - I am not anti gun! In fact, I still have the gun I got for Christmas when I was 10yrs old. My entire family are a bunch of gun nuts.
-
My thoughts are they've should've had a means of defense.
That's not your thoughts, that what conservatives think. You have no own thoughts at all. You're a puppet. But one thing should be clear even to you: The more guns are around, the more deaths by guns there will be.
On the other hand, here in Malaysia everyone in every village has a gun for hunting. We just do not have these problems. People shoot at animals, they do not shoot at people. White people should not own weapons at all ;D (Arabs are white people from our perspective)
Maybe religious groups should stop agitating against homosexuals? Cause that could result in violence against homosexuals? Could that be?
-
Do you really want a club full of drunk people with guns? From what I've read there were more than 300 people in there. I have worked at a big club like that, and they hire off duty police (armed and in uniform) to keep things under control. I seriously doubt security at that club want a bunch of drunk dumb asses "defending" themselves. Not to mention the ones rolling on e or any other drugs.
And before you assume anything - I am not anti gun! In fact, I still have the gun I got for Christmas when I was 10yrs old. My entire family are a bunch of gun nuts.
Because no one was armed he was able to kill that many. The off duty cop didn't do anything due to protocol.
-
My thoughts are they've should've had a means of defense.
That's not your thoughts, that what conservatives think. You have no own thoughts at all. You're a puppet. But one thing should be clear even to you: The more guns are around, the more deaths by guns there will be.
If that's the case then why we aren't even on the top 25 most dangerous countries? Why is places like Waco and Kennesaw are virtually gun free?
On the other hand, here in Malaysia everyone in every village has a gun for hunting. We just do not have these problems. People shoot at animals, they do not shoot at people. White people should not own weapons at all ;D (Arabs are white people from our perspective)
Isn't that racist?
Maybe religious groups should stop agitating against homosexuals? Cause that could result in violence against homosexuals? Could that be?
The guy who attacked the club gay and Islamic.
-
Are you old enough to go to a club? If you are, I want you to go into one (one of the big ones) and spend about an hour there. Then honestly think about what it would be like if the people there were armed.
-
My thoughts are they've should've had a means of defense.
That's not your thoughts, that what conservatives think. You have no own thoughts at all. You're a puppet. But one thing should be clear even to you: The more guns are around, the more deaths by guns there will be.
On the other hand, here in Malaysia everyone in every village has a gun for hunting. We just do not have these problems. People shoot at animals, they do not shoot at people. White people should not own weapons at all ;D (Arabs are white people from our perspective)
Maybe religious groups should stop agitating against homosexuals? Cause that could result in violence against homosexuals? Could that be?
If that's the case then why we aren't even on the top 25 most dangerous countries? Why is places like Waco and Kennesaw are virtually gun free?
Cause in the 25 most dangerous countries there is civil war? Just a guess.
Isn't that racist?
Course it is.
The guy who attacked the club gay and Islamic.
He was a Fundamentalist, who cares if Christian or Islamic. (at least his father was; not sure if he was religious at all). If he was gay by himself, he should have better enjoyed his gay life instead of shoot 50 innocent people, isn't it?
-
On the other hand, here in Malaysia everyone in every village has a gun for hunting. We just do not have these problems. People shoot at animals, they do not shoot at people.
Americans used to be a lot more sensible about guns, but someone figured out how to manipulate us with fears of having our guns taken away... now we've got people who have no idea how to use a gun buying them just to prove a point.
-
It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.
A night club certainly doesn't need a bunch of people with guns being added to the mix of booze, drugs, emotions, loud music, and poor judgment. Imagine being the owner of a nightclub that decided for whatever reason to allow guns on the dance floor. You would leave that club every night that there wasn't a shooting breathing a heavy sigh of relief, knowing that it was going to happen sooner or later so even though tonight may have gone well, it just means your are one day closer to the day the shooting finally happens. F that.
-
A night club certainly doesn't need a bunch of people with guns being added to the mix of booze, drugs, emotions, loud music, and poor judgment. Imagine being the owner of a nightclub that decided for whatever reason to allow guns on the dance floor. You would leave that club every night that there wasn't a shooting breathing a heavy sigh of relief, knowing that it was going to happen sooner or later so even though tonight may have gone well, it just means your are one day closer to the day the shooting finally happens. F that.
Oh no, if all people in the club would have had guns, it would have ended like this:
(http://)
-
That's probably what some people wanted to happen.
-
My thoughts are they've should've had a means of defense.
That's not your thoughts, that what conservatives think. You have no own thoughts at all. You're a puppet. But one thing should be clear even to you: The more guns are around, the more deaths by guns there will be.
On the other hand, here in Malaysia everyone in every village has a gun for hunting. We just do not have these problems. People shoot at animals, they do not shoot at people. White people should not own weapons at all ;D (Arabs are white people from our perspective)
Maybe religious groups should stop agitating against homosexuals? Cause that could result in violence against homosexuals? Could that be?
Ah I see....liberal mentality. This explains alot...
Are you old enough to go to a club? If you are, I want you to go into one (one of the big ones) and spend about an hour there. Then honestly think about what it would be like if the people there were armed.
Luke.... although I agree with 100 percent on firearm freedom. With more people being armed and trained , it can prevent others from doing wrong. (Some people are too stupid to possess a firearm, maybe an IQ test or something?? I don't know what to do with stupidity) Though I am from Texas, have my chl, and have an armory at my shop and home. From a mathematical perspective , violent crime is either not effected from gun control, and places such as UK, violent crime went up.
Simple fact, bad people who want to commit harm will have guns. Someone who does not follow the law, why would they follow the laws on gun control?
However, on this exact thing about clubs I have to agree with S/C. The idea of a bunch of drunk people in close proximity to each other all with firearms. That is one law I care not to revoke. Goes back to that IQ test or logic questionnaire lol
Though I have to say, I wish the fair fight was still alive. Two men or women have a problem, box it out, the winner buys the drinks afterwards. Fair and with respect. The world would be a better place, and reduced anger if this was still a thing.
-
Are you old enough to go to a club? If you are, I want you to go into one (one of the big ones) and spend about an hour there. Then honestly think about what it would be like if the people there were armed.
Well, lets look at what happened before the law was in place.
-
My thoughts are they've should've had a means of defense.
That's not your thoughts, that what conservatives think. You have no own thoughts at all. You're a puppet. But one thing should be clear even to you: The more guns are around, the more deaths by guns there will be.
On the other hand, here in Malaysia everyone in every village has a gun for hunting. We just do not have these problems. People shoot at animals, they do not shoot at people. White people should not own weapons at all ;D (Arabs are white people from our perspective)
Maybe religious groups should stop agitating against homosexuals? Cause that could result in violence against homosexuals? Could that be?
If that's the case then why we aren't even on the top 25 most dangerous countries? Why is places like Waco and Kennesaw are virtually gun free?
Cause in the 25 most dangerous countries there is civil war? Just a guess.
Yet when we look at places like England they have a higher violent crime rate than us when it comes to ratio.
Isn't that racist?
Course it is.
Ok.
The guy who attacked the club gay and Islamic.
He was a Fundamentalist, who cares if Christian or Islamic. (at least his father was; not sure if he was religious at all). If he was gay by himself, he should have better enjoyed his gay life instead of shoot 50 innocent people, isn't it?
I'm a fundamentalist yet you don't hear too much about Christian fundamentalists shooting gays.
-
Japan seems to be doing OK. Maybe they are doing something right, no?
Or maybe it's easy to pick outliers and ignore the larger issue because a certain cherry-picked data point fits our agenda?
-
It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.
There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.
A night club certainly doesn't need a bunch of people with guns being added to the mix of booze, drugs, emotions, loud music, and poor judgment. Imagine being the owner of a nightclub that decided for whatever reason to allow guns on the dance floor. You would leave that club every night that there wasn't a shooting breathing a heavy sigh of relief, knowing that it was going to happen sooner or later so even though tonight may have gone well, it just means your are one day closer to the day the shooting finally happens. F that.
Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.
-
Japan seems to be doing OK. Maybe they are doing something right, no?
First of all they have a high suicide rate. Second they have a different culture than we do. They value respect.
Or maybe it's easy to pick outliers and ignore the larger issue because a certain cherry-picked data point fits our agenda?
No.
-
It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.
There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.
An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons. The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles. You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously? Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. ::)
Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.
And here you are talking about different cultures..........
-
I'm a fundamentalist yet you don't hear too much about Christian fundamentalists shooting gays.
And you do not think that some Army of God guy or another Christian extremist could happen to do the same?
By the way: How is it conservative Christians in America are so fond of guns? I mean, what would Jesus say?
-
It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.
There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.
An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons. The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles. You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously? Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. ::)
Here we go with the old muskets argument. Sorry for sounding a little snarky but I've dealing with this for a bit. The founding fathers had the state of the art weaponry of that time. In fact their Kentucky rifles were more advanced than the British. They had cannons and privately owned ships. Plus they were aware and fans of prototype multi shot firearms.
As for hunting with an AR, you can switch calibers to a more apted one since the .223/5.56 isn't powerful enough to be humane to big animals a lot of the time. Also an AR is great for home defense especially when dealing with home invasions which is usually happens with more than one guy.
Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.
And here you are talking about different cultures..........
You can't deny that we are worst than our parents and grandparents days in many ways.
-
I'm a fundamentalist yet you don't hear too much about Christian fundamentalists shooting gays.
And you do not think that some Army of God guy or another Christian extremist could happen to do the same?
No. I'm aware that there are those who would take to the extreme but they do it against what the Bible says.
By the way: How is it conservative Christians in America are so fond of guns? I mean, what would Jesus say?
What my username references.
-
I'm a fundamentalist yet you don't hear too much about Christian fundamentalists shooting gays.
And you do not think that some Army of God guy or another Christian extremist could happen to do the same?
No. I'm aware that there are those who would take to the extreme but they do it against what the Bible says.
By the way: How is it conservative Christians in America are so fond of guns? I mean, what would Jesus say?
What my username references.
No. I'm aware that there are those who would take to the extreme but they do it against what the Bible says.
We went over that.
What my username references.
Interesting quote actually.
-
It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.
There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.
An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons. The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles. You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously? Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. ::)
Here we go with the old muskets argument. Sorry for sounding a little snarky but I've dealing with this for a bit. The founding fathers had the state of the art weaponry of that time. In fact their Kentucky rifles were more advanced than the British. They had cannons and privately owned ships. Plus they were aware and fans of prototype multi shot firearms.
As for hunting with an AR, you can switch calibers to a more apted one since the .223/5.56 isn't powerful enough to be humane to big animals a lot of the time. Also an AR is great for home defense especially when dealing with home invasions which is usually happens with more than one guy.
Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.
And here you are talking about different cultures..........
You can't deny that we are worst than our parents and grandparents days in many ways.
So more guns are the answer to the gun problem. Especially assault rifles. Because we are worse than previous generations. Got it.
Also, the .223/5.56 ammo isn't humane enough for animals but you'll defend its use on people who are trying to enjoy a night out in a night club?? During graduation???? Explain to me how a 19 year old girl going out on the town after graduating her senior year should have to think to herself "I really need me an assault rifle before I go out to dance with my friends tonight." Then explain that to her parents. You haven't convinced me the average people needs an AR-15 type of gun. You want to hunt? Get a .22 and learn how to use it. You want to hunt people? Go fuck yourself (not you, Luke, the dickhead that shot up the Orlando club). It's unnecessary for a civilian to have an assault rifle. Period.
Of course people that are part of the American culture are different today than they were 50 years ago. We have 24-hour news coverage to glorify all the terrible things people do with weapons they shouldn't have, and channels dedicated to justifying why those terrible people should continue to have access to those very weapons. And easier-than-ever access to those weapons!
How can you, in good conscience, claim that people attending nightclubs should be armed because some asshole shot a bunch of people with a gun that no civilian should have to begin with? And then try and justify people having that sort of gun for things like hunting and safety?? Get a hunting rifle to hunt. Get a hand gun for safety. Learn how to use those guns properly and safely.
The founding fathers weren't dealing with weapons that could deal the type of carnage that we see today. Enough of this "shall not be infringed" bs. Your rights aren't infringed if you can still get a fire arm. Those teenagers' right to life was infringed, though, because some dick had a gun that shot really fast. Some of them played dead in order to avoid getting shot even more. One of them bled out while her cousins laid next to her, because they couldn't move for fear of getting shot again. Yeah, let's give more people guns. Because we need more stories like this.
Further on the 2nd amendment, having a firearm of any sort isn't going to protect you from tyranny. You think an AR-15 will protect you from the Pentagon? Get real. It's a red herring argument. A distraction from what is really happening. Let me know when you start enriching Uranium and have a real deterrent from a real government imposing on your rights. Then, tell me how you feel about your crazy neighbor or acquaintance doing the same because of whatever conspiracy theory they have in their head. After all, they have a right, right?
-
The UK has a higher rate of violent crimes for a few reasons, the most notable being that they have a much broader definition of what constitutes a violent crime.
Here is an examination of the numbers and a more accurate assessment of what they say:
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
-
Shit happens. And then you die.
Meh. ::)
-
An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons.
Necessary enough. I'll take every advantage I can in a situation where someone is breaking into my home.
*edited to fix typo
The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles.
Should the 1st amendment apply to only written documents and public speaking?
You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously?
Why not? If it's chambered in a caliber legal for hunting and with a 5 round magazine...
Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. ::)
Anything in particular?
-
Hey, 'Murica: Take your fucking "amendments" and shove them up your ass. Seriously.
You people do realize that you're living in a fucking oligarchy, right?
"Land of the free". Lol, that's so cute. More like "land of the perpetually buttfucked". ;D
Lol, the USA is such a fucking joke. ::)
-
The typical self righteous arguments I always hear on this subject. The simple fact, it's the people, not the guns. No matter which way you spin it that's the truth. I have an armory in my house AND shop, very close to a gun store. Shotguns of all sorts, pistols, rifles (hunting and sniper style), AND assault rifles.
Yet non of these weapons have assaulted me at night while I slept , they all seem quite calm. Nor have I used them to attack others, I have never even had to draw a weapon since having my chl.
My very first house , which was a waste land of shit, I had numerous occasions when I had to draw a firearm, between prowlers and home invasions. It was an interesting year and a half for sure. Out of all the times, there were 3 I could have shot and killed the person, been held of no liability because of our castle law here.
Yet did I?? No, I chose to use communication instead of violence despite the free pass. Would I have shot them, yes, though out of 100 options, it was option 100 to me. ITS THE PEOPLE NOT THE GUNS!!! GEEZ!
Hey, 'Murica: Take your fucking "amendments" and shove them up your ass. Seriously.
You people do realize that you're living in a fucking oligarchy, right?
"Land of the free". Lol, that's so cute. More like "land of the perpetually buttfucked". ;D
Lol, the USA is such a fucking joke. ::)
And what land of perfection do you come from???
Although I have to agree, I am embarrassed to call myself an American most of the time. It's horrible when I actually want trump to win...THAT is what my country has come to..when THAT is the lesser of the evils. Sigh....all our forefathers I feel so bad for them. All that hard work and torture for us to end up this way.
However, I am a citizen here....so from default I must say up yours chicken shit fucker!
-
The simple fact, it's the people, not the guns.
Right.
The more guns are around, the more deaths by guns there will be.
Also right.
No logical contradiction.
It's horrible when I actually want trump to win...THAT is what my country has come to..when THAT is the lesser of the evils.
You conservative American douchebag. And your country is full of idiots like you.
-
The simple fact, it's the people, not the guns.
Right.
The more guns are around, the more deaths by guns there will be.
Also right.
No logical contradiction.
It's horrible when I actually want trump to win...THAT is what my country has come to..when THAT is the lesser of the evils.
You conservative American douchebag. And your country is full of idiots like you.
Judgemental, arrogant , short sighted, and uninformed. Typical liberal. I love how you have to cherry pick and pull my quote out of context to even attempt to make a point (which you didn't since the quote was cherry picked and out of context).
Though I guess you are right, your liberal/ socialism hasn't has enough time to spread its cancer. Why not 4 more years with Hilary. Plus, history has shown how well socialism works...so let's do it again ::) ::) typical blowhard
-
Holy shit. This is why we can't have nice things >:(
I think there should be some common ground between the gun nuts and the gun abolitionists. Those of us who have grown up with guns, if we're being honest, know that something needs to be done. People who want the guns to go away should realize we're not going to let that happen. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. Background checks, closing gun show loopholes? How about the NSA, with all its surveillance powers, stop looking at naked selfies and start tracking people who have a history of violence? How about people who've been investigated by the FBI TWICE, how about they have to jump through some extra hoops before buying an AR-15? Or at least flag them so that once they start loading up on guns and ammo they can be watched somehow?
The NRA used to be a hunting and gun safety organization. Now they've become a political force. Their propaganda is the reason we can't have a reasonable discussion about any of this shit. Fear is a powerful tool.
-
Typical liberal.
I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.
In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.
-
Typical liberal.
I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.
In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.
Most people who use it as an insult do not know what it means either.
-
Do you really want a club full of drunk people with guns? From what I've read there were more than 300 people in there. I have worked at a big club like that, and they hire off duty police (armed and in uniform) to keep things under control. I seriously doubt security at that club want a bunch of drunk dumb asses "defending" themselves. Not to mention the ones rolling on e or any other drugs. Fuck.
And before you assume anything - I am not anti gun! In fact, I still have the gun I got for Christmas when I was 10yrs old. My entire family are a bunch of gun nuts.
In some states its illegal to have them armed as well.
-
It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.
There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.
An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons. The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles. You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously? Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. ::)
Here we go with the old muskets argument. Sorry for sounding a little snarky but I've dealing with this for a bit. The founding fathers had the state of the art weaponry of that time. In fact their Kentucky rifles were more advanced than the British. They had cannons and privately owned ships. Plus they were aware and fans of prototype multi shot firearms.
As for hunting with an AR, you can switch calibers to a more apted one since the .223/5.56 isn't powerful enough to be humane to big animals a lot of the time. Also an AR is great for home defense especially when dealing with home invasions which is usually happens with more than one guy.
Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.
And here you are talking about different cultures..........
You can't deny that we are worst than our parents and grandparents days in many ways.
So more guns are the answer to the gun problem. Especially assault rifles. Because we are worse than previous generations. Got it.
Also, the .223/5.56 ammo isn't humane enough for animals but you'll defend its use on people who are trying to enjoy a night out in a night club?? During graduation???? Explain to me how a 19 year old girl going out on the town after graduating her senior year should have to think to herself "I really need me an assault rifle before I go out to dance with my friends tonight." Then explain that to her parents. You haven't convinced me the average people needs an AR-15 type of gun. You want to hunt? Get a .22 and learn how to use it. You want to hunt people? Go f yourself (not you, Luke, the dickhead that shot up the Orlando club). It's unnecessary for a civilian to have an assault rifle. Period.
Nowhere did I claim that everybody should own and carry an AR, though it is the right for you to do that if you want. There are more apted guns for carrying like pistols. Plus you haven't really demonstrated why an AR isn't apted for anything other than mass shootings. The fact of the matter is pistols are used more so in mass shootings than the dreaded AR. In fact handguns make up the vast majority of crimes with guns in general. Rifles in general has only made up 3% of crimes with guns and the AR makes up even less. And why would I hunt with something that is less than adequate? Who said anything about hunting to begin with? The second amendment wasn't about hunting.
Of course people that are part of the American culture are different today than they were 50 years ago. We have 24-hour news coverage to glorify all the terrible things people do with weapons they shouldn't have, and channels dedicated to justifying why those terrible people should continue to have access to those very weapons. And easier-than-ever access to those weapons!
Millions of these rifles are being sold yet there only been a few crimes commited by them.
How can you, in good conscience, claim that people attending nightclubs should be armed because some asshole shot a bunch of people with a gun that no civilian should have to begin with? And then try and justify people having that sort of gun for things like hunting and safety?? Get a hunting rifle to hunt. Get a hand gun for safety. Learn how to use those guns properly and safely.
To answer you're first question is because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away and the police are not obligated to protect citizens as an individual. In Mexico they have very strict guns laws yet the cartels have RPGs. The point of self defense isn't to meet the threat with adequate force. The point of self defense is to meet the threat with equal and overwhelming force. To answer your second question why do you think we don't need this type of firearm? The VT shooter did it with pistols and ten round magazines and managed to kill 32 unarmed innocent victims.
The founding fathers weren't dealing with weapons that could deal the type of carnage that we see today. Enough of this "shall not be infringed" bs. Your rights aren't infringed if you can still get a fire arm. Those teenagers' right to life was infringed, though, because some dick had a gun that shot really fast. Some of them played dead in order to avoid getting shot even more. One of them bled out while her cousins laid next to her, because they couldn't move for fear of getting shot again. Yeah, let's give more people guns. Because we need more stories like this.
A ship loaded with cannons can do the same damage if not more so. Even one cannon loaded with shot and explosive rounds can do more damage. Yet the founding fathers had these and allowed civilians to own these.
Further on the 2nd amendment, having a firearm of any sort isn't going to protect you from tyranny. You think an AR-15 will protect you from the Pentagon? Get real. It's a red herring argument. A distraction from what is really happening. Let me know when you start enriching Uranium and have a real deterrent from a real government imposing on your rights. Then, tell me how you feel about your crazy neighbor or acquaintance doing the same because of whatever conspiracy theory they have in their head. After all, they have a right, right?
Three flaws:
1. You forgot that geurilla warfare works. It worked in Vietnam and the Middle East. You also forgot that we fought against the most powerful country in the world to gain our freedom and we won.
2. You're assuming that our military is willing to shoot on their own family to take away our rights. The greater majority would refuse and even fight against the orders. Plus a military is only affective as its flow of supplies. The vast part of the military is dependant on civilian workers. It would take an outside force to do the job.
3. A detterant to tyranny doesn't have to be violent. The mere fact that there are at least 80 million gun owners and at least 300 million privately owned guns is enough for the government to think twice.
Here are some videos for you.
-
The means to do these kinds of acts of destruction and murder are far more in number than simply guns. Look at the Boston Marathon.
-
To answer you're first question is because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away and the police are not obligated to protect citizens as an individual. In Mexico they have very strict guns laws yet the cartels have RPGs. The point of self defense isn't to meet the threat with adequate force. The point of self defense is to meet the threat with equal and overwhelming force.
The point of self-defence is to meet a threat with a plan that will extract you from the the situation with as little damage as possible. That could be shooting, but its more usually, running. I don't mean to say that shooting is never the better option, but these conversations tend to portray gun fire as the best answer to self-defence.
To answer your second question why do you think we don't need this type of firearm? The VT shooter did it with pistols and ten round magazines and managed to kill 32 unarmed innocent victims.
I think that limiting the availability of these weapons to threats takes away a better option for mass shootings. If pistols are also effective, I am all for limiting their availability to potential threats.
A ship loaded with cannons can do the same damage if not more so. Even one cannon loaded with shot and explosive rounds can do more damage. Yet the founding fathers had these and allowed civilians to own these.
A cannon is a shitty weapon because they are extremely difficult to transport and extremely conspicuous. Regardless, the constitution is not sacrosanct, and I see no reason why the 2nd amendment should be an exception. As a bible literalist, you may not agree, but the needs of societies change, and if people are unwilling to examine these needs honestly, then the tyranny of tradition takes over.
Three flaws:
1. You forgot that geurilla warfare works. It worked in Vietnam and the Middle East. You also forgot that we fought against the most powerful country in the world to gain our freedom and we won.
The most powerful country in the world at that time was still using infantry as the primary tactical tool. The gap in power now if much greater because of air superiority, cruise missiles and heavy armor. Yes guerilla tactics work, but even those are not as effective now as they were in the Vietnam war. The casualty rate in the most recent Iraq war is 10% of what it was in the Vietnam War.
2. You're assuming that our military is willing to shoot on their own family to take away our rights. The greater majority would refuse and even fight against the orders. Plus a military is only affective as its flow of supplies. The vast part of the military is dependant on civilian workers. It would take an outside force to do the job.
If you don't think the military will fire on their countrymen, then why all the hulla-balloo about defense against tyranny in the first place? You should be fine with passive resistance, no?
3. A detterant to tyranny doesn't have to be violent. The mere fact that there are at least 80 million gun owners and at least 300 million privately owned guns is enough for the government to think twice.
So not violent, but threatening violence.
The means to do these kinds of acts of destruction and murder are far more in number than simply guns. Look at the Boston Marathon.
Yes, the USA is the most violent western democracy going, yet "peace through superior firepower" always seems to be the only solution presented by pro-gun people. I really don't get it.
-
Point being banning guns is treating a symptom of the problem. It will just move those so motivated to more dangerous means of hurting others like shrapnel bombs. Thanks to the Yippie group of the 60s (not modern Yippies they are something else entirely) we see this is the case. Steal This Book has explicit instructions on creating all sorts of very dangerous molotov cocktails. The Anarchists Cookbook I imagine has just as many as well, ignoring human ingenuity and a pressure cooker.
-
Point being banning guns is treating a symptom of the problem. It will just move those so motivated to more dangerous means of hurting others like shrapnel bombs. Thanks to the Yippie group of the 60s (not modern Yippies they are something else entirely) we see this is the case. Steal This Book has explicit instructions on creating all sorts of very dangerous molotov cocktails. The Anarchists Cookbook I imagine has just as many as well, ignoring human ingenuity and a pressure cooker.
Well said, especially from someone whom comes from a country of strict control.
Thus why I said this as backing his point
I have an armory in my house AND shop, very close to a gun store. Shotguns of all sorts, pistols, rifles (hunting and sniper style), AND assault rifles.
Yet non of these weapons have assaulted me at night while I slept , they all seem quite calm. Nor have I used them to attack others, I have never even had to draw a weapon since having my chl.
My very first house , which was a waste land of shit, I had numerous occasions when I had to draw a firearm, between prowlers and home invasions. It was an interesting year and a half for sure. Out of all the times, there were 3 I could have shot and killed the person, been held of no liability because of our castle law here.
Yet did I?? No, I chose to use communication instead of violence despite the free pass. Would I have shot them, yes, though out of 100 options, it was option 100 to me. ITS THE PEOPLE NOT THE GUNS!!! GEEZ!
-
Point being banning guns is treating a symptom of the problem. It will just move those so motivated to more dangerous means of hurting others like shrapnel bombs.
Thanks to the Yippie group of the 60s (not modern Yippies they are something else entirely) we see this is the case. Steal This Book has explicit instructions on creating all sorts of very dangerous molotov cocktails. The Anarchists Cookbook I imagine has just as many as well, ignoring human ingenuity and a pressure cooker.
I can't agree with this. There are plenty of countries with strict gun laws and no incidences of pipe bomb or molotov cocktail attacks. This is mere slippery slope assertion, and has no basis in reality.
-
The basis in reality would be the counter-culture Yippie movement I cited who when they were unable to acquire weapons that were suited to mass shootings instead turned to explosive and incendiaries.
Other countries aren't the US. There are other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings like this. You are just pushing a false equivalence fallacy.
-
The basis in reality would be the counter-culture Yippie movement I cited who when they were unable to acquire weapons that were suited to mass shootings instead turned to explosive and incendiaries.
Other countries aren't the US. There are other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings like this. You are just pushing a false equivalence fallacy.
No I am suggesting that perhaps the USA should look to the example of other countries.
-
Typical liberal.
I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.
In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.
Most people who use it as an insult do not know what it means either.
Liberal ...
To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)
Or...
So open minded their brains have literally fell out.
Or...
Hypocrites who preach tolerance of all, then openly mock and ridicule people who disagree with them.
Moral elitist( even though their moral compass is so fucked up I am surprised they can navigate through a parking lot)
Hypocrites
I could keep going but will stop for now.
-
To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)
The constitution can obviously be improved upon, unless you are a fan of slavery?
-
The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings? Like Switzerland?
-
The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings? Like Switzerland?
Sure. Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?
-
To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)
The constitution can obviously be improved upon, unless you are a fan of slavery?
Absolutely not....I have a feeling you knew that. Just trying simple tactics to disqualify what I said.
Do you like socialism??? being MADE to be equal with someone. Even though you have worked your ass off and all the other did was sit on their ass, lay on their back, spread their legs or whatever? I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes, and these people get to live off my hard work..why? If you can give me a good reason I will recant everything I have said .
^^actually when you think about it, this is slavery in a way to those who actually work.
I haven't even got to their fucked up moral compass, destroying the constitution ect ect. This is just addressing one issue
-
To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)
The constitution can obviously be improved upon, unless you are a fan of slavery?
Absolutely not....I have a feeling you knew that. Just trying simple tactics to disqualify what I said.
I just don't get how you can equate chaning the 2nd amendment to "Destroying the constitution". It is so overly dramatic and borderline histrionic and I don't get where this comes from.
Do you like socialism??? being MADE to be equal with someone.
It do like some aspects about socialism. I believe in the social contract, which is what you are mistaking for "being MADE to be equal with someone". It is about taking care of your fellow man and acknowledging that a lawful government can be an efficient way to do so.
Even though you have worked your ass off and all the other did was sit on their ass, lay on their back, spread their legs or whatever? I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes, and these people get to live off my hard work..why? If you can give me a good reason I will recant everything I have said .
I just think it is more important to help other people than to bitch about money, it is about compassion rather than a sense of entitlement.
I haven't even got to their fucked up moral compass, destroying the constitution ect ect. This is just addressing one issue
Who is the "they" you are addressing? Roughly 150,000,000 million people who could be construed as liberals in the USA? How can you paint them all with the same brush? It makes no sense.
-
The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings? Like Switzerland?
Sure. Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?
I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.
To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.
The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws). Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.
The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and also deals with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.
-
I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes...
All of this only 'happened' in your imagination...
& this thread is a shitty false dialectic snore-fest...
And you are about as Texan as Michel Houellebecq...
Of whom you are doubtless a great admirer...
You dick.
The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings? Like Switzerland?
Sure. Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?
I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.
To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.
The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws). Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.
The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and dealing with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.
Yeah; false dialectic bullshit.
Good work, 'John'.
-
The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings? Like Switzerland?
Sure. Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?
I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.
Switzerland also requires all males to serve in the military, and with that comes a certain level of decorum and respect for weapons. Intuitively I would say this is a big difference between the average American and Swiss gun-owner. Although I am not 100% sure, I don't think it is legal or socially appropriate to carry weapons in public in Switzerland.
To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.
The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws). Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.
The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and also deals with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.
Yes, 100% yes. I support gun restrictions in the USA insofar as they can be a stop gap to a real solution to violent crime. If such a solution can be found, that can also respect the 2nd amendment, then it should be implemented, but ultimately socio-economic factors are probably more concerning than the availability of guns.
-
I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes...
All of this only 'happened' in your imagination...
& this thread is a shitty false dialectic snore-fest...
And you are about as Texan as Michel Houellebecq...
Of whom you are doubtless a great admirer...
You dick.
The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings? Like Switzerland?
Sure. Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?
I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.
To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.
The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws). Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.
The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and dealing with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.
Yeah; false dialectic bullshit.
Good work, 'John'.
So leave instead of being masochistic.
-
Better watch out or I'll send the illuminati after you Papa!
(http://anony.ws/i/2012/08/24/PcLoj.png)
-
Rama set...I absolutely agree with you towards compassion for others. But as you said compassion is much different than the sense of entitlement. A good friend of mine, she got delt a bad hand in life. She got a heart problem at 27, kidney failure at 29, now breast cancer at 33. She relies on the government and barely makes ends meet. This I agree with, I help her myself as well. She is a great person, worked hard before it happened, and just got dealt a shit hand.
So don't make assumptions at what I mean. Do you live in the states?
Also 55 percent of Americans rely on the government, do the math on that. How many really need it, and how many have the sense of entitlement.
The reason I ask if you live in the states is they are destroying the constitution just "unofficially". Just a random example, just to begin construction of the vacuum chamber I had to pay 1800 dollars worth of inspection fees from 3 different organizations.. Tell me how that is fair??
I lay 200k + in taxes a year , yet a sister of my friend is fully functioning person, completely able to work. Yet she has babies for a living, she got 10k back in taxes last year yet has never had a job, and all of her bills are paid for by the government. She is on her third child at 21, tell me how that is fair. The guys she screws with are all in the same situation, being paid 2k a month to do nothing.
I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes...
All of this only 'happened' in your imagination...
& this thread is a shitty false dialectic snore-fest...
And you are about as Texan as Michel Houellebecq...
Of whom you are doubtless a great admirer...
You dick.
I am about tired of you bashing on hard working people whom has done something with their life just because you are a fucking loser. I have tried to be nice to you ect. I have posted on here as proof when you make accusations, a million dollars worth of fucking play cars that I don't give a shit about..one so dusty I wrote my name on it, one that had toilet paper on it and just as damn dusty. 50k piano that is just in the shop, have its sister at my house, and one of my water jet printers which was about 400k. That is just to start off with. I came from absolutely nothing. Who do you think is a liar me or you fucking dumb ass.
And yeah I don't have a Texas accent unless I drank too much. I had to knock it down, you don't have high end customers sounding like a fucking hick.
Prove something or shut the fuck up fucking lying garbage. I am tired of you bashing everyone here when YOU are the lying piece of shit and loser, not those you accuse.
Now piss off
-
To answer you're first question is because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away and the police are not obligated to protect citizens as an individual. In Mexico they have very strict guns laws yet the cartels have RPGs. The point of self defense isn't to meet the threat with adequate force. The point of self defense is to meet the threat with equal and overwhelming force.
The point of self-defence is to meet a threat with a plan that will extract you from the the situation with as little damage as possible. That could be shooting, but its more usually, running. I don't mean to say that shooting is never the better option, but these conversations tend to portray gun fire as the best answer to self-defence.
Of course if you can run away you should, but what I said was assuming you ran out of options.
To answer your second question why do you think we don't need this type of firearm? The VT shooter did it with pistols and ten round magazines and managed to kill 32 unarmed innocent victims.
I think that limiting the availability of these weapons to threats takes away a better option for mass shootings. If pistols are also effective, I am all for limiting their availability to potential threats.
Weren't you on the other forum was mocking me for saying that every confiscation started with registration? What is you end goal for gun control?
A ship loaded with cannons can do the same damage if not more so. Even one cannon loaded with shot and explosive rounds can do more damage. Yet the founding fathers had these and allowed civilians to own these.
A cannon is a lousy weapon because they are extremely difficult to transport and extremely conspicuous. Regardless, the constitution is not sacrosanct, and I see no reason why the 2nd amendment should be an exception. As a bible literalist, you may not agree, but the needs of societies change, and if people are unwilling to examine these needs honestly, then the tyranny of tradition takes over.
But nothing needs to change. If anything we need more lax gun laws in more states and cities.
Three flaws:
1. You forgot that geurilla warfare works. It worked in Vietnam and the Middle East. You also forgot that we fought against the most powerful country in the world to gain our freedom and we won.
The most powerful country in the world at that time was still using infantry as the primary tactical tool. The gap in power now if much greater because of air superiority, cruise missiles and heavy armor. Yes guerilla tactics work, but even those are not as effective now as they were in the Vietnam war. The casualty rate in the most recent Iraq war is 10% of what it was in the Vietnam War.
Even being 10% they are still reeking havoc on our troops and we still haven't beaten them.
2. You're assuming that our military is willing to shoot on their own family to take away our rights. The greater majority would refuse and even fight against the orders. Plus a military is only affective as its flow of supplies. The vast part of the military is dependant on civilian workers. It would take an outside force to do the job.
If you don't think the military will fire on their countrymen, then why all the hulla-balloo about defense against tyranny in the first place? You should be fine with passive resistance, no?
Tyranny doesn't just comes from our own government. It can also come from foriegn sources. I find it funny that you'll say that we don't need ARs but then turn around and say essentially you can't fight city hall. If the latter is really the case then I think that proves my point of why not only we need ARs but bigger weapons as well.
3. A detterant to tyranny doesn't have to be violent. The mere fact that there are at least 80 million gun owners and at least 300 million privately owned guns is enough for the government to think twice.
So not violent, but threatening violence.
It's the same with if you come in my house to harm me or my family. You'll have a fight on you hands if you do.
The means to do these kinds of acts of destruction and murder are far more in number than simply guns. Look at the Boston Marathon.
Yes, the USA is the most violent western democracy going, yet "peace through superior firepower" always seems to be the only solution presented by pro-gun people. I really don't get it.
It's not the only one but it does work. It worked for WW2 didn't it?
-
Typical liberal.
I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.
In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.
Most people who use it as an insult do not know what it means either.
Liberal ...
To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)
Or...
So open minded their brains have literally fell out.
Or...
Hypocrites who preach tolerance of all, then openly mock and ridicule people who disagree with them.
Moral elitist( even though their moral compass is so fucked up I am surprised they can navigate through a parking lot)
Hypocrites
I could keep going but will stop for now.
Aww, this makes me sad. You really don't know what it means. Hint - it doesn't mean Democrat.
Also, why would FalseProphet give a shit about the US constitution?
-
Rama set...I absolutely agree with you towards compassion for others. But as you said compassion is much different than the sense of entitlement. A good friend of mine, she got delt a bad hand in life. She got a heart problem at 27, kidney failure at 29, now breast cancer at 33. She relies on the government and barely makes ends meet. This I agree with, I help her myself as well. She is a great person, worked hard before it happened, and just got dealt a shit hand.
So don't make assumptions at what I mean. Do you live in the states?
Also 55 percent of Americans rely on the government, do the math on that. How many really need it, and how many have the sense of entitlement.
What does that mean, "rely on the government". I really don't trust statements like that unless they are sourced and well defined.
The reason I ask if you live in the states is they are destroying the constitution just "unofficially". Just a random example, just to begin construction of the vacuum chamber I had to pay 1800 dollars worth of inspection fees from 3 different organizations.. Tell me how that is fair??
How is it not fair? How does it infringe on your constitutional rights?
I lay 200k + in taxes a year , yet a sister of my friend is fully functioning person, completely able to work. Yet she has babies for a living, she got 10k back in taxes last year yet has never had a job, and all of her bills are paid for by the government. She is on her third child at 21, tell me how that is fair. The guys she screws with are all in the same situation, being paid 2k a month to do nothing.
I know there are mooches out there, but throwing out a whole system of social welfare is not the answer, because it would be punishing the people, like your friend, who really desperately need this assistance. I am sure you will agree that that is not fair either. A real solution is somewhere in between.
-
It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.
There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.
An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons. The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles. You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously? Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. ::)
Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.
And here you are talking about different cultures..........
Should freedom of the press only apply to printing presses? Should illegal search and seizure not apply to cell phones?
AR-15 are not assault rifles. Many people do hunt with them. I can hunt with one of mine but I don't hunt.
-
Rama set......She relies on the government ??? That is pretty self explanatory. She gets 1300 from the government, another 400 from military death benefits, and another 500 for child assistance. That's it, entirely from the government. The rest comes from random work she can do with her health issues, and if I help her or her family helps when she is short. As for a citation I can have her post the same thing lol.
As for the heavy taxation needed to support for example the permits I speak of, and about 20 other things per year I have to pay not to mention income tax itself. That is so every single person can have a foot in the door for absolutely no reason. This hinders wages I can pay as well as prevents expansion or spending I might do. So perhaps Constitutional might not be 100 percent the best description but it's the closest way I could describe it. Everyone government agency wants something for nothing because they give out something for nothing. It's broad but true.
Americans rights are being stripped but that is hard to explain when you don't live here. The other countries I have been to on business is a breath of fresh air to me.
I absolutely agree.....there is a middle ground. Outreach programs should not go away, but the way the liberal minds are there is no qualifications. Just give it away, put it on the backs of the remaining who bust ass. Then wonder why we are 19 trillion in debt or whatever it is I stopped counting . There is much other useless spending as well because of people's whims, no connection with reality because the ones calling the shots already have their nut. To hell with the rest of us. Do you think they would care if I was taxed out of business or put out because of some other stupid ass rule? Not one shit will be given.
Space cowgirl.....not one shit will be given either from false prophet about the American Constitution . Which is why I answered so harshly. He just wanted to hate, that is all.
-
Weren't you on the other forum was mocking me for saying that every confiscation started with registration? What is you end goal for gun control?
I was mocking your terrible logic. As for my end goal of gun registration, I think I said it pretty succinctly:
limiting their availability to potential threats.
Even being 10% they are still reeking havoc on our troops and we still haven't beaten them.
Al-Qaeda is pretty much done. The only thing that hasn't been done is stabilizing Iraq.
Tyranny doesn't just comes from our own government. It can also come from foriegn sources.
So join the army if you are keen to kill foreigners.
I find it funny that you'll say that we don't need ARs but then turn around and say essentially you can't fight city hall.
I am not sure where I said that.
If the latter is really the case then I think that proves my point of why not only we need ARs but bigger weapons as well.
Oh good. Please count me out of your world.
It's the same with if you come in my house to harm me or my family. You'll have a fight on you hands if you do.
Sweet.
It's not the only one but it does work. It worked for WW2 didn't it?
Why no try a solution that doesn't involve the death though? As violent as the USA may be, it is not even remotely close to a war zone. Make a peaceful choice.
Rama set......She relies on the government ??? That is pretty self explanatory. She gets 1300 from the government, another 400 from military death benefits, and another 500 for child assistance. That's it, entirely from the government. The rest comes from random work she can do with her health issues, and if I help her or her family helps when she is short. As for a citation I can have her post the same thing lol.
I meant your reference to 55% of Americans relying on government assistance.
As for the heavy taxation needed to support for example the permits I speak of, and about 20 other things per year I have to pay not to mention income tax itself. That is so every single person can have a foot in the door for absolutely no reason. This hinders wages I can pay as well as prevents expansion or spending I might do.
Never said it was a perfect system, all I can ask is that you don't deny that social welfare can and is, in a lot of cases a positive element in society.
So perhaps Constitutional might not be 100 percent the best description but it's the closest way I could describe it.
It is actually a terrible way to describe it. You are having issues with governance, not with constitutionality.
Everyone government agency wants something for nothing because they give out something for nothing. It's broad but true.
It's broad and maybe occasionally true. Tell you what, why don't you look up success stories that have been achieved and see if maybe you aren't being a little too broad.
Americans rights are being stripped but that is hard to explain when you don't live here. The other countries I have been to on business is a breath of fresh air to me.
If you have an actual case of your constitutional rights being stripped, then please prosecute them, but I think you really just have a problem with governance. So become a democrat and feel the Bern ;)
I absolutely agree.....there is a middle ground. Outreach programs should not go away, but the way the liberal minds are there is no qualifications.
Not all liberals are like this. Let go of your bias and you can find allies everywhere.
Just give it away, put it on the backs of the remaining who bust ass. Then wonder why we are 19 trillion in debt or whatever it is I stopped counting .
It might have something to do with the war in Iraq too. A billion dollars a day to fight an enemy of the US governments own making. Maybe don't put all the blame on social programs.
There is much other useless spending as well because of people's whims, no connection with reality because the ones calling the shots already have their nut. To hell with the rest of us. Do you think they would care if I was taxed out of business or put out because of some other stupid ass rule? Not one shit will be given.
Again, governance, not constitutional.
Space cowgirl.....not one shit will be given either from false prophet about the American Constitution . Which is why I answered so harshly. He just wanted to hate, that is all.
[/quote]
-
. . . I am suggesting that perhaps the USA should look to the example of other countries.
::)
If the Orlando terrorist had used 5 gallons of gasoline and a match
we would not be talking about firearms right now.
-
. . . I am suggesting that perhaps the USA should look to the example of other countries.
::)
If the Orlando terrorist had used 5 gallons of gasoline and a match
we would not be talking about firearms right now.
True... And totally irrelevant.
-
not one shit will be given either from false prophet about the American Constitution . Which is why I answered so harshly. He just wanted to hate, that is all.
LOL.
Come on, babydoll, you're the one delivering hate speeches here.
-
. . . I am suggesting that perhaps the USA should look to the example of other countries.
::)
If the Orlando terrorist had used 5 gallons of gasoline and a match
we would not be talking about firearms right now.
True... And totally irrelevant.
It is relevant because everyone is talking about the tool and not the problem.
-
Rama set......She relies on the government ??? That is pretty self explanatory. She gets 1300 from the government, another 400 from military death benefits, and another 500 for child assistance. That's it, entirely from the government. The rest comes from random work she can do with her health issues, and if I help her or her family helps when she is short. As for a citation I can have her post the same thing lol.
As for the heavy taxation needed to support for example the permits I speak of, and about 20 other things per year I have to pay not to mention income tax itself. That is so every single person can have a foot in the door for absolutely no reason. This hinders wages I can pay as well as prevents expansion or spending I might do. So perhaps Constitutional might not be 100 percent the best description but it's the closest way I could describe it. Everyone government agency wants something for nothing because they give out something for nothing. It's broad but true.
Americans rights are being stripped but that is hard to explain when you don't live here. The other countries I have been to on business is a breath of fresh air to me.
I absolutely agree.....there is a middle ground. Outreach programs should not go away, but the way the liberal minds are there is no qualifications. Just give it away, put it on the backs of the remaining who bust ass. Then wonder why we are 19 trillion in debt or whatever it is I stopped counting . There is much other useless spending as well because of people's whims, no connection with reality because the ones calling the shots already have their nut. To hell with the rest of us. Do you think they would care if I was taxed out of business or put out because of some other stupid ass rule? Not one shit will be given.
Space cowgirl.....not one shit will be given either from false prophet about the American Constitution . Which is why I answered so harshly. He just wanted to hate, that is all.
This is so bizarre. I didn't realize you hated people who disagree with you so much. Do you realize how many conservatives (in US speak this is the opposite of liberals) are dependent on social welfare? What's going on in their conservative minds? Do they pretend they've earned it but those dirty "others" haven't?
Why do you see different opinions as hate? You called FalseProphet a liberal, he's not from the US! Liberal has a meaning besides the one you learned from Fox News.
You know, it's not the poor people causing you to have to pay all those permit fees and taxes. Are you as pissed at the wealthy (the truly wealthy) for avoiding their taxes? Or do you think it's the right thing for them to do?
This thread is a great example of why we face so much real violence. The people in power have convinced us to hate each other, and to see any difference as a personal attack.
-
I don't hate anyone and I don't watch the news, and if I happen to it is CNN or BBC . I draw my own conclusions.
You are getting half assed answers as I have been swamped today and also stressed from a mishap at the shop. Had a fire from cutting a sodium filled magnesium outlet channel from the tech getting in a rush. Not only setting off the alarms and getting the city out here, and will prob be shut down for a couple days and pay a inspection fee for the city to come look around. It also ruined the metal. So maybe I have some rage today.
If you live in America you will understand more if you are not a free loader. I have no issues with someone whom is doing the best of their ability , and maybe needs some help. If they are working their ass off and can't make enough, let's help them. Plus that shouldn't be, someone who works their ass off should at least be able to live a normal life. That is another problem that pisses me off.
As for the ultra rich, alot of them pay their taxes better than you think. There are many down falls for attempting to go off shore, very really chance of your money disappearing. They usually hide alot of their income in the Corp.
Now companies like Walmart ect ect that work with the government, yes they piss me off. They don't pay squat comparatively, but they do not pass this on to their workers, and source most of their product outside the US. This is another hot button.
Yet a company like mine, we did about 18million give or take total gross sales. I have been audited every year for the last 6. Not too mention I pay my ass out in taxes, fees, regulatory fees, ect ect ect. Usually the government fees and extra taxes equal or exceed the company's income tax.
Liberal to me is a mind set and has done alot of damage. Not really a party.
Ugh I need to explain my position further and more detailed, as I feel my point is completely jumbled from rushing and not thinking out thoughts. I will attempt to explain further later
-
There is no rush. That is the beauty of forums, you can think about things before you post them.
-
Weren't you on the other forum was mocking me for saying that every confiscation started with registration? What is you end goal for gun control?
I was mocking your terrible logic. As for my end goal of gun registration, I think I said it pretty succinctly:
Which as pointed out in the other thread its not so much of a fallacy once you look at history.
limiting their availability to potential threats.
Are you suggesting that we ban such rifles?
Even being 10% they are still reeking havoc on our troops and we still haven't beaten them.
Al-Qaeda is pretty much done. The only thing that hasn't been done is stabilizing Iraq.
There's the new threat of ISIS rising up.
Tyranny doesn't just comes from our own government. It can also come from foriegn sources.
So join the army if you are keen to kill foreigners.
I don't want to kill anyone. And when you compare our military to those such as Britain, we have a higher marksmanship. Why? Because our soldiers for a large part had privately owned guns and practiced with them. Plus what if our military is deployed overseas and another country attack us? With your plan we would be inadequate.
I find it funny that you'll say that we don't need ARs but then turn around and say essentially you can't fight city hall.
I am not sure where I said that.
You just did. You want to restrict our right to own ARs and in the last post you did was telling me that the AR is inadequate to stand against a tyrannical government.
If the latter is really the case then I think that proves my point of why not only we need ARs but bigger weapons as well.
Oh good. Please count me out of your world.
Sorry bud, you already live in that world. With proper licenses you can own a fully operational tank.
It's the same with if you come in my house to harm me or my family. You'll have a fight on you hands if you do.
Sweet.
It's not the only one but it does work. It worked for WW2 didn't it?
Why no try a solution that doesn't involve the death though? As violent as the USA may be, it is not even remotely close to a war zone. Make a peaceful choice.
What peaceful choice?
Rama set......She relies on the government ??? That is pretty self explanatory. She gets 1300 from the government, another 400 from military death benefits, and another 500 for child assistance. That's it, entirely from the government. The rest comes from random work she can do with her health issues, and if I help her or her family helps when she is short. As for a citation I can have her post the same thing lol.
I meant your reference to 55% of Americans relying on government assistance.
As for the heavy taxation needed to support for example the permits I speak of, and about 20 other things per year I have to pay not to mention income tax itself. That is so every single person can have a foot in the door for absolutely no reason. This hinders wages I can pay as well as prevents expansion or spending I might do.
Never said it was a perfect system, all I can ask is that you don't deny that social welfare can and is, in a lot of cases a positive element in society.
So perhaps Constitutional might not be 100 percent the best description but it's the closest way I could describe it.
It is actually a terrible way to describe it. You are having issues with governance, not with constitutionality.
Everyone government agency wants something for nothing because they give out something for nothing. It's broad but true.
It's broad and maybe occasionally true. Tell you what, why don't you look up success stories that have been achieved and see if maybe you aren't being a little too broad.
Americans rights are being stripped but that is hard to explain when you don't live here. The other countries I have been to on business is a breath of fresh air to me.
If you have an actual case of your constitutional rights being stripped, then please prosecute them, but I think you really just have a problem with governance. So become a democrat and feel the Bern ;)
I absolutely agree.....there is a middle ground. Outreach programs should not go away, but the way the liberal minds are there is no qualifications.
Not all liberals are like this. Let go of your bias and you can find allies everywhere.
Just give it away, put it on the backs of the remaining who bust ass. Then wonder why we are 19 trillion in debt or whatever it is I stopped counting .
It might have something to do with the war in Iraq too. A billion dollars a day to fight an enemy of the US governments own making. Maybe don't put all the blame on social programs.
There is much other useless spending as well because of people's whims, no connection with reality because the ones calling the shots already have their nut. To hell with the rest of us. Do you think they would care if I was taxed out of business or put out because of some other stupid ass rule? Not one shit will be given.
Again, governance, not constitutional.
Space cowgirl.....not one shit will be given either from false prophet about the American Constitution . Which is why I answered so harshly. He just wanted to hate, that is all.
[/quote]
Not directed to me.
-
It is relevant because everyone is talking about the tool and not the problem.
Incorrect. There has been plenty of discussion not about guns.
-
Are you suggesting that we ban such rifles?
No, I am suggesting we limit their availability to potential threats. Like I said.
There's the new threat of ISIS rising up.
One at a time. Your government has burn money to fight these wars, so you don't want to give it to your Chinese overlords all at once.
You just did. You want to restrict our right to own ARs and in the last post you did was telling me that the AR is inadequate to stand against a tyrannical government.
Yeah. Those aren't contradictory positions.
Sorry bud, you already live in that world. With proper licenses you can own a fully operational tank.
No, I don't. No one can own a tank where I live, nor would I want to.
What peaceful choice?
I am not the biggest bible fan, but there are quite a few passages in there that may help. Perhaps pick up a copy and read it?
Not directed to me.
Then delete it.
-
The people in power have convinced us to hate each other, and to see any difference as a personal attack.
-
The people in power have convinced us to hate each other, and to see any difference as a personal attack.
I hate no one..(ok there might be one person I could pass that to), I am one of the most open people you will meet. Which is one reason I get screwed over left and right, always giving everyone a chance.
However, the ideas of reward without consequence, modifying the rules and moral code to whatever you want, focusing entirely on personal gain instead of putting others first, or narcissism for short. Doesn't anyone see this is why america has became a joke?? People can bash me all they want for my views and it is expected. However, these views have always been present in any society that has been truly successful. So I don't care. This is all I am trying to say in this thread. This mentality is a "liberal" minded mentality. Though of course it is wide spread through the majority of Americans. Once this mentality has been spread and completely instilled into the hearts of the people, the country will fail. History has proven this on a 100 percent accuracy.
This is all I want, to stop the spread of this disease (which is already critical) before society is a complete waste.
Just examples
People shooting people...take the guns instead of addressing the issues in societies and views of moral codes causing this. (prime example is countries whom are not gun policed and have very little of this issue)
Wages- Inflation is destroying the wage gap. Continue having every other country make our products which makes the majority of available jobs wages too low to live off of. Therefore the government has to issue hand outs so people can live. Instead of issuing hand outs, lets destroy the corporate greed causing this issue to begin with. Issue monster fines for products not made in house (of course excluding things we cant make)
Majority of Americans being under educated and borderline retarded-Lets focus on education, creating wisdom between ourselves and make the country competitive with the world again. This would however, prevent corps from making maximum profit, as the more educated and intelligent, the more they are worth. Not to mention with all of our skilled jobs subbed to other countries we don't need intelligent people. Like a lady at whole foods..I wanted an even 10 back, she was beyond baffled "the computer doesn't say what to give so I am lost" literal words.
I could continue on for hours and hours. Simple fact, you can trace back Americas current failing to the root cause of narcissism. Any problem, and I feel confident I can say any problem. I just want to kill this before its life force can not be stopped.
-
Apalling. I didn't know that. The Liberals in America should really be put in their place by the open minded people.
-
Apalling. I didn't know that. The Liberals in America should really be put in their place by the open minded people.
I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not. I would respond with more as there is no way to abbreviate these issues and how the circle brought us to our current downfall. Liberal is not free thinking here as the definition would lead someone to believe. "Liberal" is raw narcissism in its purest form under the shadow of a word that used to mean progress.
-
Well, America had its great time. History must go on.
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away." (1 Peter 1:24-25)
-
I'm not sure why you blame liberals for the outsourcing of manufacturing, unless you mean neoliberals? Like Reagan? Do you also blame corporate welfare on liberals?
-
Are you suggesting that we ban such rifles?
No, I am suggesting we limit their availability to potential threats. Like I said.
And how would you do that?
There's the new threat of ISIS rising up.
One at a time. Your government has burn money to fight these wars, so you don't want to give it to your Chinese overlords all at once.
If you're saying that we are wasting our money on them (and we are unless we go full out war) and should give it up then you are proving my point. Geurilla warfare works.
You just did. You want to restrict our right to own ARs and in the last post you did was telling me that the AR is inadequate to stand against a tyrannical government.
Yeah. Those aren't contradictory positions.
How so?
Sorry bud, you already live in that world. With proper licenses you can own a fully operational tank.
No, I don't. No one can own a tank where I live, nor would I want to.
Where do you live? Just out curiosity. If you want to give that info out then look up your laws.
What peaceful choice?
I am not the biggest bible fan, but there are quite a few passages in there that may help. Perhaps pick up a copy and read it?
I do. But if all peaceful ways are exhausted then its war. I'm speaking of course of defensive wars.
Not directed to me.
Then delete it.
Too lazy.
-
Well, America had its great time. History must go on.
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away." (1 Peter 1:24-25)
It can still be saved!! It is my land and I love it, but the likelihood is so slim. Why do you hate America so much??
I'm not sure why you blame liberals for the outsourcing of manufacturing, unless you mean neoliberals? Like Reagan? Do you also blame corporate welfare on liberals?
I have been trying to show its not liberals as a "material" thing I blame. It's the "liberal" mentality, to promote raw narcissism under this disguise. Then as soon as someone with a moral compass says this is wrong they are black balled and called anti this or anti that, racists, terrorist ect ect. The usual key words that destroy people under the broad mainstream.
Corporate welfare as in unfair bankruptcy protection? Bail outs? That sort of thing?
My biggest thing is the mentality of the average American is deplorable and destined to fail. The people in charge want this as it equals momentary and instant gratification for them. Liberal agenda is one of the main weapons used to accomplish this. Narcissism really is rhe best word i can use.
-
If narcissism is the best word to describe what you are talking about, I do not understand why you keep calling it liberalism. It doesn't mean narcissism! There are really stupid things going on with some liberals right now, like calling Muslims who want Islamic reform ( like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) "islamophobic", or calling women who don't think makeup and high heels are what make them women "transphobic", but this is only part of the problem.
Corporate welfare - govt subsidies to private businesses, bail outs, tax incentives, etc. It wouldn't be bad if these corporations used govt handouts to improve working conditions and pay for their employees, but they don't.
So, are you saying the "liberal agenda" is to destroy the US? I agree there is an agenda, but it's not necessarily liberal. There's a profit agenda. Those with the power want to keep it, those who are close to power want to grasp it for themselves. The rest of us just want to live.
-
Well, America had its great time. History must go on.
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away." (1 Peter 1:24-25)
It can still be saved!! It is my land and I love it, but the likelihood is so slim. Why do you hate America so much??
Paranoid personality structure? No reason to feel ashame for that. It's widespread among conservatives. :-*
Buddy, telling you that you are not God's chosen people is not the same as hate. Don't worry, America will not become a 3rd world country so soon. Still, there is no acknowledged physical law determining that you gonna stay the most powerful nation in this world forever. We all will look back wistfully to this glorious era of mankind though, when we have ended up as Chinese provinces. :'(
"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." (Mark 3:24)
-
I don't think it is legal or socially appropriate to carry weapons in public in Switzerland.
Lol so wrong.
Enjoy your tl;dr false dialectic snore-fest anyhoo.
-
I don't think it is legal or socially appropriate to carry weapons in public in Switzerland.
Lol so wrong.
Enjoy your tl;dr false dialectic snore-fest anyhoo.
You apparently are. It's ok to participate you know. If you do it respectfully people might even be open to what you say.
So for example, instead of being an asshole, you could have pointed out that indeed, concealed carry is legal in Switzerland.
Don't be scared to make friends.
-
I don't think it is legal or socially appropriate to carry weapons in public in Switzerland.
Lol so wrong.
Enjoy your tl;dr false dialectic snore-fest anyhoo.
You apparently are. It's ok to participate you know. If you do it respectfully people might even be open to what you say.
So for example, instead of being an asshole, you could have pointed out that indeed, concealed carry is legal in Switzerland.
Don't be scared to make friends.
I'm not here to make friends.
I'm here to point out that you know precisely nothing about Swiss military culture & history...
And that this thread is a False Dialectic snore-fest.
-
The FBI admitted that Mateen had been interviewed by agents twice in 2013 due to comments made about radical jihad which were overheard by coworkers. He was interviewed for a third time one year later due to his connection to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American who had traveled from Florida to train in Syria and later to return to the United States in order to recruit other Americans to fight in the Western-backed terrorist brigades attempting to overthrow secular and legitimate government, Bashar Al Assad.
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/5-reasons-to-question-the-official-story-of-the-orlando-shooting.html
He was similar as Tsarnayev in Boston bombing.
-
I don't think it is legal or socially appropriate to carry weapons in public in Switzerland.
Lol so wrong.
Enjoy your tl;dr false dialectic snore-fest anyhoo.
You apparently are. It's ok to participate you know. If you do it respectfully people might even be open to what you say.
So for example, instead of being an asshole, you could have pointed out that indeed, concealed carry is legal in Switzerland.
Don't be scared to make friends.
As much as we gun rights advocates love to point to Switzerland as the ideal form of gun laws, they only give licenses to those who can prove there life is in imminent danger. You can also lose your gun rights to a simple traffic violation. So really the US is the only country that holds gun rights in high regard.
-
There is a reason people deplete their treasure and risk their life
to get into America.
It is not that other countries are better.
-
There is a reason people deplete their treasure and risk their life
to get into America.
It is not that other countries are better.
What is the reason?
-
Just for the record: I am in no way "anti-gun", even though I'm a Scandinavian "pinko". I started shooting at the age of ten, and now, at the age of 37, I regularily compete in Olympic Target matches, IPSC matches, PPC 1500 matches, and Steel Challenge matches. And I'm pretty damn good at it too. I fucking love guns.
That said;
1) The OP of this thread is either an idiot (in the true sense of the word, look it up), a troll, or both.
2) You americans equating modern European social-democracy with "socialism" are making complete asses of yourselves. But hey, good job living up to the whole "ignorant uninformed american" stereotype. Turn off Fox News (and no, no one believes the "I don't watch TV, I think for myself" thing) and go read a fucking book. And no, not the bible. Fairytales are for children. ;D
-
Apalling. I didn't know that. The Liberals in America should really be put in their place by the open minded people.
I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not. I would respond with more as there is no way to abbreviate these issues and how the circle brought us to our current downfall. Liberal is not free thinking here as the definition would lead someone to believe. "Liberal" is raw narcissism in its purest form under the shadow of a word that used to mean progress.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Fucking priceless, a conservative talking about "progress". If you and your kind had your way nothing would ever change. If it were up to you, we'd still be living in 1950.
What a fucking joke. ;D
-
Apalling. I didn't know that. The Liberals in America should really be put in their place by the open minded people.
I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not. I would respond with more as there is no way to abbreviate these issues and how the circle brought us to our current downfall. Liberal is not free thinking here as the definition would lead someone to believe. "Liberal" is raw narcissism in its purest form under the shadow of a word that used to mean progress.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Fucking priceless, a conservative talking about "progress". If you and your kind had your way nothing would ever change. If it were up to you, we'd still be living in 1950.
What a fucking joke. ;D
I swear ignorance is spreading like a wild fire on this site. I blame Legba for the beginning of the cancer however I don't know.
I see why some people just turn to blatant ass holes here, or just disappear and move on to something else that might actually have some sort of purpose. I see my post count already slowing.
Anyways addressing the symptom quote above. Your post did not even address what I said. However, even know it's off topic from what I said let's look at something.
The 1950s... American education system was top notch, we were competitive in the world market in jobs, production, ect ect. Wages and inflation were within reason of each other, so even the average person working an average job could at least live and survive alone without help. The moral code and compass had not been dropped to deplorable yet, nor had Americans rights started to slowly be infringed upon. I could keep going.
2016....i could name 10 counties ahead of us in education, not to mention the wisedom of their people. Number one topic is either guys dressed up as girls should be allowed to go in the ladies bathroom, or which pogo stick a Kardashian is on. Our idea of a "hero" now is the Bruce Jenner robot. Actually it would be easier to just say America is a joke now . Not to mention the world fucking hates us, and I understand why.
Simple fact America is a sinking ship, and the world will be happy to see it. Just look at false prophet, the increase in dick size he got just thinking about us falling .
So even though I was not even talking about your comment, going back to the 50's, I don't even see how that is an insult.
-
If narcissism is the best word to describe what you are talking about, I do not understand why you keep calling it liberalism. It doesn't mean narcissism! There are really stupid things going on with some liberals right now, like calling Muslims who want Islamic reform ( like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) "islamophobic", or calling women who don't think makeup and high heels are what make them women "transphobic", but this is only part of the problem.
Corporate welfare - govt subsidies to private businesses, bail outs, tax incentives, etc. It wouldn't be bad if these corporations used govt handouts to improve working conditions and pay for their employees, but they don't.
So, are you saying the "liberal agenda" is to destroy the US? I agree there is an agenda, but it's not necessarily liberal. There's a profit agenda. Those with the power want to keep it, those who are close to power want to grasp it for themselves. The rest of us just want to live.
I use "liberal" alot , as that is one of the main weapons used in the "agenda". It is used as a slightly of hand or a destraction to keep our minds off what is happening. Any time the government is doing something shady that will harm us, they start their "light show" to destract the average American. Like what is happening right now with guys in drag should be able to go into the female restroom. Or any of the other nonsense things that the government had used.
Even during the bail out times, do you think it is common knowledge that the salary of the workers had decreased along with lay offs?? While the top 1 percent of thr companies pay increased along with massive bonuses? A bonus for bankrupting a company?? However the average American was busy following for the light and magic show to look at this.
So as I said, "liberal" is just the biggest cog in the machine used against us, because they use all the hot buttons that easily ruffles feathers. Perfect distraction and waste, but it's not a "material" thing.
Well, America had its great time. History must go on.
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away." (1 Peter 1:24-25)
It can still be saved!! It is my land and I love it, but the likelihood is so slim. Why do you hate America so much??
Paranoid personality structure? No reason to feel ashame for that. It's widespread among conservatives. :-*
Buddy, telling you that you are not God's chosen people is not the same as hate. Don't worry, America will not become a 3rd world country so soon. Still, there is no acknowledged physical law determining that you gonna stay the most powerful nation in this world forever. We all will look back wistfully to this glorious era of mankind though, when we have ended up as Chinese provinces. :'(
"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." (Mark 3:24)
Yeah yeah I get it you hate America. Save your bias and hate for someone else.
I never said I thought America was gods choosen people so as always putting words into my mouth as always. Even though you say your arguments are so strong you need not resort to this sad practice even though you always do.
I also will not apologize for having hope for my country, no matter how glim it is. Your agenda is becoming more and more apparent the more you attempt to comment on things
-
Apalling. I didn't know that. The Liberals in America should really be put in their place by the open minded people.
I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not. I would respond with more as there is no way to abbreviate these issues and how the circle brought us to our current downfall. Liberal is not free thinking here as the definition would lead someone to believe. "Liberal" is raw narcissism in its purest form under the shadow of a word that used to mean progress.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Fucking priceless, a conservative talking about "progress". If you and your kind had your way nothing would ever change. If it were up to you, we'd still be living in 1950.
What a fucking joke. ;D
I swear ignorance is spreading like a wild fire on this site. I blame Legba for the beginning of the cancer however I don't know.
I see why some people just turn to blatant ass holes here, or just disappear and move on to something else that might actually have some sort of purpose. I see my post count already slowing.
Anyways addressing the symptom quote above. Your post did not even address what I said. However, even know it's off topic from what I said let's look at something.
The 1950s... American education system was top notch, we were competitive in the world market in jobs, production, ect ect. Wages and inflation were within reason of each other, so even the average person working an average job could at least live and survive alone without help. The moral code and compass had not been dropped to deplorable yet, nor had Americans rights started to slowly be infringed upon. I could keep going.
2016....i could name 10 counties ahead of us in education, not to mention the wisedom of their people. Number one topic is either guys dressed up as girls should be allowed to go in the ladies bathroom, or which pogo stick a Kardashian is on. Our idea of a "hero" now is the Bruce Jenner robot. Actually it would be easier to just say America is a joke now . Not to mention the world fucking hates us, and I understand why.
Simple fact America is a sinking ship, and the world will be happy to see it. Just look at false prophet, the increase in dick size he got just thinking about us falling .
So even though I was not even talking about your comment, going back to the 50's, I don't even see how that is an insult.
-
I swear ignorance is spreading like a wild fire on this site. I blame Legba for the beginning of the cancer however I don't know.
You can't lay all the blame on PL. You guys respond to every fucking post he makes. He flings the poop, you set it on fire.
I see why some people just turn to blatant ass holes here, or just disappear and move on to something else that might actually have some sort of purpose. I see my post count already slowing.
I know you don't like it when people disagree with you, but that's how it is. Is this the first forum you've ever posted on?
The 1950s... American education system was top notch, we were competitive in the world market in jobs, production, ect ect. Wages and inflation were within reason of each other, so even the average person working an average job could at least live and survive alone without help. The moral code and compass had not been dropped to deplorable yet, nor had Americans rights started to slowly be infringed upon. I could keep going.
The 1950s were great for white middle class people, but pretty terrible for blacks and Native Americans. You realize that a big part of the success in the 50s was due to government spending? Interstate highways, schools, veteran's benefits (like the G.I. bill). There was a housing boom, and migration to the suburbs. People thought there would be nothing but peace and prosperity after WWII. But this notion that they were more moral than we are today is silly. This was the era of McCarthyism, and lynching, and finally the civil rights movement. There were good things and there were terrible things, just like any other era.
2016....i could name 10 counties ahead of us in education, not to mention the wisedom of their people. Number one topic is either guys dressed up as girls should be allowed to go in the ladies bathroom, or which pogo stick a Kardashian is on. Our idea of a "hero" now is the Bruce Jenner robot. Actually it would be easier to just say America is a joke now . Not to mention the world fucking hates us, and I understand why.
Well, I agree there are parts of our culture that are annoying. Post modernism has morphed into batshit insane identity politics.
Simple fact America is a sinking ship, and the world will be happy to see it. Just look at false prophet, the increase in dick size he got just thinking about us falling .
When you grow up with fuck yeah America propaganda your whole life, it can be jarring to find out people in other countries don't worship us :P
-
Why do you hate America??
I don't hate America.
Yeah yeah I get it you hate America.
???
(Paranoid Personality Structure?)
-
You can't lay all the blame on PL. You guys respond to every fucking post he makes. He flings the poop, you set it on fire.
I know, am attempting to fix that, I am just as guilty. My posting has been slowing down, and it will continue as such. More than likely I will end up blocking him and a few others completely. Though most of the upper fora is either him and his cult or people responding to him and his cult. So I would have very few reasons to post anything lol.
I know you don't like it when people disagree with you, but that's how it is. Is this the first forum you've ever posted on?
I like disagreements, if they are logical. You learn by conflict, or disagreement. I own my company, and am the lead designer/fabricator. However, I have someone on staff who's title is lead fabricator /design, basically the foreman for lack of better words. Why would I do this if I am that person . It's because two heads are better than one, i do not know it all, we argue all the time. Just the other day we got into a 30 minute argument that I told him "fine! Do it then! Your ass if it fails" well it worked great, and that is why I enjoy him as a employee. He has great ideas and will fight for what he knows will work, or back down if proven incorrect, I follow the same principles.
However, here for example I have offered many times "I have extra carbon heat shielding, I will perform tests specified by people here in real time. Including using the plasma cutter to represent plasma heat, or gas cutter ect ect" yet the nay sayers go la la la la. Then continue arguing that heat shielding works using the same made up evidence, yet ignoring the offer empirical evidence. That is what pisses me off, optional ignorance then acting like you know it all. This place is full of that. And this is just one of 1000s of examples here.
And yes this is the first forum I have spent any time at. Yes it is new to me the type of mentality .
The 1950s were great for white middle class people, but pretty terrible for blacks and Native Americans. You realize that a big part of the success in the 50s was due to government spending? Interstate highways, schools, veteran's benefits (like the G.I. bill). There was a housing boom, and migration to the suburbs. People thought there would be nothing but peace and prosperity after WWII. But this notion that they were more moral than we are today is silly. This was the era of McCarthyism, and lynching, and finally the civil rights movement. There were good things and there were terrible things, just like any other era.
I never said this time period was perfect. In a general sense morality was more followed, there is exceptions to everything. I thought to mention about the treatments of minorities, I had figured that was a given of something I didn't agree with. I am 75 percent Cherokee, the rest French. Believe me I know the treatment of natives. I still have 350 acres in Oklahoma tied up in probate from land rights ect. Of course I agree with equal civil rights ect.
Yes there was government spending, but it was spending that was for equal advancement. Not for a small narcissistic group. Yes the middle class thrived (lower,middle,upper), and that is what is suppose to happen in a successful nation. The middle class pays majority of taxes, performs the majority of the labor ect ect ect. A strong middle class will lead a nation, a dying middle class destroys a nation 1950 >2016 proof is in the pudding.
Government spending is just fine if done for advancement of the people and country, or infrastructure ect. That is called an investment not a loss.
Also...look at the nation's who followed our old country model.. they are thriving just like we did. Making education affordable, focusing on making their people more intellgent, wiser, being competitive in the global marketplace, being producers not just consumers.
If you have a country of all 10 dollar an hour employees selling other countries products..how long will the consumer nation be sustainable?? Not super long..which is why we are almost 20 trillion in debt. We are trying to keep up a standard of living we do not deserve. Look at countries that are not consumer nations...their debt per capita is nothing, and it certainly isnt mandatory to survive most just investments. Even Japan whom is more in debt than we are, 90+ percent of their bonds is internal. You really don't want to know how many of America's bonds are external.
Well, I agree there are parts of our culture that are annoying. Post modernism has morphed into batshit insane identity politics.
Guess I have to agree to this. These things are usually the light and magic show while some performs a slight of hand
When you grow up with fuck yeah America propaganda your whole life, it can be jarring to find out people in other countries don't worship us :P
Yes but I was hit with this at 12, and fully aware after 2001. I openly admit how horrible we have been over the last couple decades. How deplorable the majority of Americans are. So I don't see where you get the blind patriotism you accuse me of?
Plus false prophet gets a kick out of America's down turn and possible one day demise. I want no countries to fall no matter what horrible things they have done or how shitty the majority of their people are. I always have hope they can change for the better and would rather that than their demise.
-
Just do what I do - scroll past the posts of people who are jerkfaces, unless they are fun, reply only to the people who will have a decent conversation with you, or entertain you (depending on the situation). It makes all forums more tolerable, because you will find jerks on every forum. Not taking things quite so seriously will also make the forum more fun for you, imo.
ALSO, as far as your experiments for the upper forums go, I think it's great you want to do them! I noticed there are the same people giving you shit about it all the time, but there are plenty of people who would be glad you did them. Don't worry about proving anything to the people who are only trying to make you angry. They feed on your outrage. Remember, just because someone says they are FE, it doesn't mean they have any authority on the subject. At least one of the most annoying members of this forum is FE. You don't have to please them.
Your views on government spending sound very liberal, you know? :)
I don't think you are blindly patriotic, but there's no reason to expect people from other countries to love the US. I also don't think FalseProphet wants the US to fall, but is only agreeing with you that the downfall is inevitable. Maybe you are reading a bit much into his posts? I don't know. Maybe he wants the world to burn!
-
I also don't think FalseProphet wants the US to fall, but is only agreeing with you that the downfall is inevitable. Maybe you are reading a bit much into his posts? I don't know. Maybe he wants the world to burn!
I can't see that anybody would think "losing hegemony" being the same as "downfall", except stubborn nationalists.
-
I also don't think FalseProphet wants the US to fall, but is only agreeing with you that the downfall is inevitable. Maybe you are reading a bit much into his posts? I don't know. Maybe he wants the world to burn!
I can't see that anybody would think "losing hegemony" being the same as "downfall", except stubborn nationalists.
There have been too many posts, I don't even remember what you posted :P I just know I didn't think you were cheering on the demise of this here great nation.
-
Just do what I do - scroll past the posts of people who are jerkfaces, unless they are fun, reply only to the people who will have a decent conversation with you, or entertain you (depending on the situation). It makes all forums more tolerable, because you will find jerks on every forum. Not taking things quite so seriously will also make the forum more fun for you, imo.
ALSO, as far as your experiments for the upper forums go, I think it's great you want to do them! I noticed there are the same people giving you shit about it all the time, but there are plenty of people who would be glad you did them. Don't worry about proving anything to the people who are only trying to make you angry. They feed on your outrage. Remember, just because someone says they are FE, it doesn't mean they have any authority on the subject. At least one of the most annoying members of this forum is FE. You don't have to please them.
Your views on government spending sound very liberal, you know? :)
I don't think you are blindly patriotic, but there's no reason to expect people from other countries to love the US. I also don't think FalseProphet wants the US to fall, but is only agreeing with you that the downfall is inevitable. Maybe you are reading a bit much into his posts? I don't know. Maybe he wants the world to burn!
Compare world view of us in 1950 to now. We were liked by many then, very close to no one now. Our horrible actions to the world and are egotistical narcissistic attitude about it , along with our horrible justifications for such actions have earned us the reputation .We are just tolerated because of being heavy consumers, also for the fact we sub out almost all production.
Everyone always has the target for the top dog. The world knows are struggles, and down fall right now. They also know the egotistical bubble we live in, so during this time they are doing the intelligent thing. Quietly gearing up, preparing infrastructure , educating THEIR populous ect ect.
How many movies have the underdog surprise the cocky top dog lol?? There will also be some old timers who can remember when America was the under estimated underdog, what happened then?
Maybe I am a little liberal on government spending lol. I completely believe in spending as an investment for the country. Keeping education cost down for the majority, spending to stay competitive ect ect ect.
Yeah I know I should ignore the idiots but "I" am an idiot in that aspect, always thinking I can help someone or what not. Just ask what happened when I thought I could help my ex wife..
Also, since you are one of the few here that actually inhabit somewhere in America you surely would at least see some truth in what I have been attempting to present.
And maybe false prophet does just want the world to burn and spread is sad negative outlook. Who knows?
-
I also don't think FalseProphet wants the US to fall, but is only agreeing with you that the downfall is inevitable. Maybe you are reading a bit much into his posts? I don't know. Maybe he wants the world to burn!
I can't see that anybody would think "losing hegemony" being the same as "downfall", except stubborn nationalists.
This would be a short cited cherry picked attempted retort I would expect from you.
Nothing of what I have said has indicated this was my fear.
Much posted by you show your hatred of this place. I can be pissed because I am a citizen here and ultimately want to figure something out to help stop this.
Plus you have plenty of issues to deal with in your country, including he sagging economy, not being competitive whatsoever in the world market place, extreme corruption in the government and police force ect ect.
So why don't you work on fixing those problems, and if y'all have success then let me know. I will send it to the suggestion box ::)
-
I also don't think FalseProphet wants the US to fall, but is only agreeing with you that the downfall is inevitable. Maybe you are reading a bit much into his posts? I don't know. Maybe he wants the world to burn!
I can't see that anybody would think "losing hegemony" being the same as "downfall", except stubborn nationalists.
cherry picked ... issues...
Why do you hate Non-America so much?
-
Apalling. I didn't know that. The Liberals in America should really be put in their place by the open minded people.
I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not. I would respond with more as there is no way to abbreviate these issues and how the circle brought us to our current downfall. Liberal is not free thinking here as the definition would lead someone to believe. "Liberal" is raw narcissism in its purest form under the shadow of a word that used to mean progress.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Fucking priceless, a conservative talking about "progress". If you and your kind had your way nothing would ever change. If it were up to you, we'd still be living in 1950.
What a fucking joke. ;D
I swear ignorance is spreading like a wild fire on this site. I blame Legba for the beginning of the cancer however I don't know.
I see why some people just turn to blatant ass holes here, or just disappear and move on to something else that might actually have some sort of purpose. I see my post count already slowing.
Anyways addressing the symptom quote above. Your post did not even address what I said. However, even know it's off topic from what I said let's look at something.
The 1950s... American education system was top notch, we were competitive in the world market in jobs, production, ect ect. Wages and inflation were within reason of each other, so even the average person working an average job could at least live and survive alone without help. The moral code and compass had not been dropped to deplorable yet, nor had Americans rights started to slowly be infringed upon. I could keep going.
2016....i could name 10 counties ahead of us in education, not to mention the wisedom of their people. Number one topic is either guys dressed up as girls should be allowed to go in the ladies bathroom, or which pogo stick a Kardashian is on. Our idea of a "hero" now is the Bruce Jenner robot. Actually it would be easier to just say America is a joke now . Not to mention the world fucking hates us, and I understand why.
Simple fact America is a sinking ship, and the world will be happy to see it. Just look at false prophet, the increase in dick size he got just thinking about us falling .
So even though I was not even talking about your comment, going back to the 50's, I don't even see how that is an insult.
You do realise that there is an entire planet outside of America, right?
-
You do realise that there is an entire planet outside of America, right?
You are more intelligent than that comment symptom.
I have simply compared where american used to be and where it is now...with itself as well as its position in the world.
You know that. Two drink MAX to post in here. Other areas no worries as it requires no actually thought process.
cherry picked ... issues...
Why do you hate Non-America so much?
They are just issues I chose at random...I can list many more if you would like. Just saying while you shout from your high horse, the ground is not blessed beneath you.
Saying I want no country to collapse no matter what they have done or doing...that I want all to thrive ect ect. You are right, sounds like A LOT of hate there. The next thing I am going to say is I want a rainbow of over one..I am a real son of a bitch.
Think out your answers before just spewing nonsense as the norm of your "rebuttals"
-
I am a real son of a bitch ... just spewing nonsense.
Indeed, as someone, who does not know much about America and American conservatives, I can just guess what's going on in your head.
-
However, here for example I have offered many times "I have extra carbon heat shielding, I will perform tests specified by people here in real time. Including using the plasma cutter to represent plasma heat, or gas cutter ect ect" yet the nay sayers go la la la la. Then continue arguing that heat shielding works using the same made up evidence, yet ignoring the offer empirical evidence. That is what pisses me off, optional ignorance then acting like you know it all. This place is full of that.
This probably has nothing to do with that . . .
New plasma table, 20 years ago.
Cutting 22ga sheet metal parts as fast as possible.
Corners melted round. WTF? Faster!
Got worse.
Huh? . . . slow down? Yep.
-
(http://)
-
(http://)
There is absolutely nothing better than listening to some butt fuck drone on
incoherently about his personal opinion.
-
However, here for example I have offered many times "I have extra carbon heat shielding, I will perform tests specified by people here in real time. Including using the plasma cutter to represent plasma heat, or gas cutter ect ect" yet the nay sayers go la la la la. Then continue arguing that heat shielding works using the same made up evidence, yet ignoring the offer empirical evidence. That is what pisses me off, optional ignorance then acting like you know it all. This place is full of that.
This probably has nothing to do with that . . .
New plasma table, 20 years ago.
Cutting 22ga sheet metal parts as fast as possible.
Corners melted round. WTF? Faster!
Got worse.
Huh? . . . slow down? Yep.
LMFAO!!!!!
Did you not read the drink limit I set for Symptom lol??? Well I am certainly not talking cutting carbon-carbon with a plasma cutter. I would have better luck using my butt cheek. Just more of demo of how the material deals with plasma and heat dissipation.
As to the rest of the comment...you are showing your age old man lol. Back when computer guidance was some axis written on a DOS computer screen (yes I know I still have one machine with dirt old programming as we spoke about before) but they do come with a color screen and WIFI now. Soon enough I will watch youtube while working, doesn't sound like safety hazard.
Despite any form of equipment...I HATE CUTTING THIN SHEET METAL with anything plasma based, or welding it, or bending it, did I mention I hate welding it. Get all the bends perfect and suddenly from the heat of the last weld the entire assembly warps just a hair. Finding that perfect voltage to get a solid weld but not blowing a hole through it.
-
I am a real son of a bitch ... just spewing nonsense.
Indeed, as someone, who does not know much about America and American conservatives, I can just guess what's going on in your head.
Well I don't remember saying that??? At least you don't misquote by content now, you just blatantly throw it out there. Though I didn't actually expect any sort of an actual reply with substance so no problem.
YEAH!!! GO Malaysia!!! Malaysia NUMBER 1!!! Better??
-
However, here for example I have offered many times "I have extra carbon heat shielding, I will perform tests specified by people here in real time. Including using the plasma cutter to represent plasma heat, or gas cutter ect ect" yet the nay sayers go la la la la. Then continue arguing that heat shielding works using the same made up evidence, yet ignoring the offer empirical evidence. That is what pisses me off, optional ignorance then acting like you know it all. This place is full of that.
This probably has nothing to do with that . . .
New plasma table, 20 years ago.
Cutting 22ga sheet metal parts as fast as possible.
Corners melted round. WTF? Faster!
Got worse.
Huh? . . . slow down? Yep.
LMFAO!!!!!
Did you not read the drink limit I set for Symptom lol???
I thought that was Symptom specific.
-
I thought that was Symptom specific.
Maybe I am just jealous as I am only on number 1
-
I thought that was Symptom specific.
Maybe I am just jealous as I am only on number 1
Every time Bubba says spazshup, take a drink.
Then go win Hiawa's game.
The fun never ends.
-
My liver is strong like bull......................however it is not super man.
-
I am a real son of a bitch ... just spewing nonsense.
Indeed, as someone, who does not know much about America and American conservatives, I can just guess what's going on in your head.
YEAH!!! GO Malaysia!!! Malaysia NUMBER 1!!! Better??
No, still wrong. Try again.
-
I am a real son of a bitch ... just spewing nonsense.
Indeed, as someone, who does not know much about America and American conservatives, I can just guess what's going on in your head.
YEAH!!! GO Malaysia!!! Malaysia NUMBER 1!!! Better??
No, still wrong. Try again.
Malaysia #2? Not much better.
(in America #2 is a euphemism for shit.)
-
There are two solutions to the gun problem in the USA;
1. Everyone in the US becomes more responsible/reasonable/educated
2. No guns
The closer you get to either or both, the less instances of gun violence there will be.
Neither seem even remotely possible in the short term, so we will continue to see more and more gun violence.
-
There are two solutions to the gun problem in the USA;
1. Everyone in the US becomes more responsible/reasonable/educated
2. No guns
The closer you get to either or both, the less instances of gun violence there will be.
Neither seem even remotely possible in the short term, so we will continue to see more and more gun violence.
Take away the second amendment.
Then take away assault knifes.
Take away assault bitch slaps.
Take away assault dirty looks.
-
Wait... There's a drink limit? Fuck.
-
Wait... There's a drink limit? Fuck.
It's all about pacing one's self.
Which, if you read me above, I failed to do. ;D
-
There are two solutions to the gun problem in the USA;
1. Everyone in the US becomes more responsible/reasonable/educated
2. No guns
The closer you get to either or both, the less instances of gun violence there will be.
Neither seem even remotely possible in the short term, so we will continue to see more and more gun violence.
The first one is more sensible and more probable than the second one. People will still find a way to kill each other. Plus it'll only be the criminals who will have guns if you do the second one.
-
People will still find a way to kill each other. Plus it'll only be the criminals who will have guns if you do the second one.
They'll struggle a hell of a lot more though.
And you know not all criminals have guns, right? Criminal isn't a grand umbrella term, embezzlers and drug dealers and even a fair few thieves and serial killers etc aren't going to keep a gun around the house because, when it's illegal, it's an instant arrest: too much of a risk. Only a handful would hold on to guns, and the rest, where would you get them from? I'm in the UK, no guns here, wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for them. Even if I had the urge to go out on a shooting spree I literally can't. Impulsive shooting sprees like America has in schools, and in Orlando, are impossible.
Sure, some might have guns, but they're limited. Can't walk down the street with it visible, can't have it accessible or visible in the home...
If guns were illegal, what would you propose the Orlando shooter do? Even if they had a knife, they wouldn't be able to hurt anywhere near as many people, and they'd be overpowered with less serious injuries.
-
People will still find a way to kill each other. Plus it'll only be the criminals who will have guns if you do the second one.
They'll struggle a hell of a lot more though.
Not really. Someone killed I think twelve people in China with a knife. Plus look at the actrocities of ancient times.
And you know not all criminals have guns, right?
Right. But the criminals who have them aren't going to give them up because of a law banning them. Look at Mexico. They have strict gun control yet the cartels have RPGs.
Criminal isn't a grand umbrella term, embezzlers and drug dealers and even a fair few thieves and serial killers etc aren't going to keep a gun around the house because, when it's illegal, it's an instant arrest: too much of a risk. Only a handful would hold on to guns, and the rest, where would you get them from?
The black market.
I'm in the UK, no guns here, wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for them. Even if I had the urge to go out on a shooting spree I literally can't. Impulsive shooting sprees like America has in schools, and in Orlando, are impossible.
Sure, some might have guns, but they're limited. Can't walk down the street with it visible, can't have it accessible or visible in the home...
Interesting that you have more violent crime than we do and when your handgun ban went into affect your gun crimes sky rocketed before finally settling down. In fact you guys are one the most crime ridden places in the EU before you left.
If guns were illegal, what would you propose the Orlando shooter do?
Build a bomb (not all that hard to do), pour gasoline at the exits and set it on fire, ram them all with a truck when they leave, or simply get a gun on the black market as the Paris attacks show'd us.
Even if they had a knife, they wouldn't be able to hurt anywhere near as many people, and they'd be overpowered with less serious injuries.
Like I said, I believe twelve people died from a knife attack in China.
-
Not really. Someone killed I think twelve people in China with a knife. Plus look at the actrocities of ancient times.
If you're talking about the Kunming attack, that took a small gang all armed. A far cry from a lone shooter: ditto for most historical events. An army could do anything, and guns wouldn't help much against numbers.
Right. But the criminals who have them aren't going to give them up because of a law banning them.
Some criminals won't, most would. Criminals aren't inherently gun-toting murderers, and I mentioned before. You can't just claim
The black market.
Great for cartels, not so much for the vast majority of people. Do you have any idea how to access your local black market? I know I don't.
Interesting that you have more violent crime than we do and when your handgun ban went into affect your gun crimes sky rocketed before finally settling down. In fact you guys are one the most crime ridden places in the EU before you left.
If you look at the stats, we have more 'garden variety' crime, because all of the analogous crimes in the US would escalate simply by the presence of a gun. Breaking and entering becomes armed robbery, muggings become shootings...
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Four times as many murders per million people in the US than the UK. We have three times the general crime rate, you have four times the murder rate. So, would you rather be burgled or shot?
Build a bomb (not all that hard to do), pour gasoline at the exits and set it on fire, ram them all with a truck when they leave, or simply get a gun on the black market as the Paris attacks show'd us.
Building a bomb: not impossible but still pretty hard to get the instructions, substances required, and time. I'm fairly sure, for example, one of the more accessible bomb-making methods produces a poisonous gas. Not really safe for amateurs, and still needs a detonation method. Plus homemade bombs are hardly professional grade: if they work (not certain) they're very limited in the space they can affect, and probably wouldn't cause much more than burns.
Gasoline: good luck getting away with that. It's the vapour that burns if memory serves, so it's a little while before you can set it on fire, and when someone sees you pouring it I doubt you'll get the chance.
Car or truck: very, very limited in where they can go, not always fatal, and likely wouldn't hurt more than two or three people.
And been over black market above.
So seems like guns are the only real way for that kind of tragedy to happen on a regular basis. And it's worth pointing out guns wouldn't help in any of your cases either: if he's built a bomb then shooting him might not make a difference. If he's pouring gasoline, shooting could be a spectacularly stupid thing to do. If he's in a truck, good luck hitting him. He'll probably hit more people even if you do.
-
Going by the graph she posted this is the typical crime in the U.K.
I will say this jane, I have never read so many I thinks or probably in one of your posts. You are better than that and certainly usually more thorough...quit guessing or assuming. That is not what a mathematician does.
-
My thoughts are they've should've had a means of defense.
Heck no! The 3 prime resons for this trajedey are: Islams, lose gun laws, and Republicen homofobea!!!!!!!
1) Islam: Sinse that Islam is a religon that teches its folowers that kiling pepel is good ,all Islams are flippin TERORISTS (and going to hell for that mater!)!!!!!!!!!!! Look I hate Donald Dumb but the won thing I agre with him on is the ban on Mohamadens!!!! Moslums are EVIL and we need to get them owt of are countrey!!!!! Ether cunvert to Suthern Baptist or your OWT OF HERE BUCKO!!!!!!!! We shuld actuley go furthur and kick owt all Islams that are alredey here they cant be flippin trustid!!!!!!!!!!!!
2) Guns: The fact that Republicen legaslaters refuse to enack gun contrul is PROOF that they aprove of this masacur!!! We need a MASIVE increse in gun contrul in fact we shuld just BAN guns in generul!!!!! The store shuld also be held acowntabul and the ownur held in jail for the rest of his flippin LIFE!!!!!!!!!! The NRA shuld be labuld as a TERORIST ORGINIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
3) Homofobea: Evil conservastupit Republicens have a DAREC role in the shoting!!!!! Had the homofobick Republicen congresmin not ben spreding there HATFUL reterick this almost certinely wuld have NEVER hapend!!! Everey Republicen in Congres shuld be LOCKD UP IN JAIL for inspireing this nieve me to comit this horibul act ,and they may evan be more giltey than the shoter himself for this!!!!!!!! In fact EVEREY person who oposis the naturel human rite of same-sex marige shuld be punishd for influinsing Omar Mateen!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In cunclusin the Orlando shoting is the result of Islams Guns and Republicens!!!!!!!!!! BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Holy shit I hope this dribble is all in sarcasm ^^^^^
-
Going by the graph she posted this is the typical crime in the U.K.
Meh, not too far off.
Certainly some worse things, especially lately in the wake of racists feeling supported by the brexit vote, but that's very much situation-based.
I will say this jane, I have never read so many I thinks or probably in one of your posts. You are better than that and certainly usually more thorough...quit guessing or assuming. That is not what a mathematician does.
It's just how I talk. When we're talking about hypothetical situations, I can only really say 'probably,' and 'I think' isn't inherently a hedging term.
Holy shit I hope this dribble is all in sarcasm ^^^^^
Just ignore EJ, everyone else does.
-
Holy shit I hope this dribble is all in sarcasm ^^^^^
No its not in flippin sarcasim you IDIOT!!!!!!!!! This is the truth! Islams Gun nuts and Republicens are all equeley rasponisbul for the shoting and if you dont think so then your a ignorent DIPFLIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *drops mike*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just ignore EJ, everyone else does.
Aw Jane I forgot how much of a MORON you are!!!! And pepel dont ignor me they cant stop lisining and talking to me becuz im such a genus!!!!!!!!! SHA-BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Not really. Someone killed I think twelve people in China with a knife. Plus look at the actrocities of ancient times.
If you're talking about the Kunming attack, that took a small gang all armed. A far cry from a lone shooter: ditto for most historical events. An army could do anything, and guns wouldn't help much against numbers.
Actually there are many stories of stand alone soldiers fending off pretty large forces. If numbers is the only answer then we would still be under rule of you and we would've won Vietnam. So while guns make it easier to kill, it doesn't make people kill.
Right. But the criminals who have them aren't going to give them up because of a law banning them.
Some criminals won't, most would. Criminals aren't inherently gun-toting murderers, and I mentioned before. You can't just claim
But the ones who do would have an advantage over the citizens.
The black market.
Great for cartels, not so much for the vast majority of people. Do you have any idea how to access your local black market? I know I don't.
The same way people get drugs? Just a guess. Though why give the cartels that advantage by disarming the honest citizens?
Interesting that you have more violent crime than we do and when your handgun ban went into affect your gun crimes sky rocketed before finally settling down. In fact you guys are one the most crime ridden places in the EU before you left.
If you look at the stats, we have more 'garden variety' crime, because all of the analogous crimes in the US would escalate simply by the presence of a gun. Breaking and entering becomes armed robbery, muggings become shootings...
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Four times as many murders per million people in the US than the UK. We have three times the general crime rate, you have four times the murder rate. So, would you rather be burgled or shot?
I rather have the security to defend my home. It's interesting that you guys have a higher rate of home invasions than we do. You guys call them hot burglaries.
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
Build a bomb (not all that hard to do), pour gasoline at the exits and set it on fire, ram them all with a truck when they leave, or simply get a gun on the black market as the Paris attacks show'd us.
Building a bomb: not impossible but still pretty hard to get the instructions, substances required, and time. I'm fairly sure, for example, one of the more accessible bomb-making methods produces a poisonous gas. Not really safe for amateurs, and still needs a detonation method. Plus homemade bombs are hardly professional grade: if they work (not certain) they're very limited in the space they can affect, and probably wouldn't cause much more than burns.
Gasoline: good luck getting away with that. It's the vapour that burns if memory serves, so it's a little while before you can set it on fire, and when someone sees you pouring it I doubt you'll get the chance.
Yet as the Boston bombing and Paris attacks show'd you don't need a gun to cause damage. And BTW France, particularly Paris has some of the strictest gun laws in the EU if I'm not mistaken.
Car or truck: very, very limited in where they can go, not always fatal, and likely wouldn't hurt more than two or three people.
And been over black market above.
If they are in a crowd then you can kill a lot of people with a truck.
So seems like guns are the only real way for that kind of tragedy to happen on a regular basis. And it's worth pointing out guns wouldn't help in any of your cases either: if he's built a bomb then shooting him might not make a difference. If he's pouring gasoline, shooting could be a spectacularly stupid thing to do. If he's in a truck, good luck hitting him. He'll probably hit more people even if you do.
That's why we need lax gun laws. I don't want some nut detonating a bomb because he can't get a gun. At least with a gun you have the chance of someone shooting back. Also I forgot to mention that most of the gun crimes are caused by gangs in large cities with strict gun laws. If guns are the issue then why Waco, Texas isn't the top of the list of violent crimes.
-
Actually there are many stories of stand alone soldiers fending off pretty large forces. If numbers is the only answer then we would still be under rule of you and we would've won Vietnam. So while guns make it easier to kill, it doesn't make people kill.
I've never said guns are the only reason people kill. The fact they make it easier is the issue: they make it accessible. You'd have to really want to kill someone to find some black market weapon or use a knife or any other means. You'd need a brief whim to do it with a gun.
Most lone soldiers in the army have both training and often guns. None of that is relevant to civilians.
But the ones who do would have an advantage over the citizens.
So? That's the case even if everyone's armed. The person who pulls a gun out first has an advantage over everyone in the room. You'd need a very specific situation where the criminal wouldn't have an advantage, such as a burglar, and in those cases a gun wouldn't be too much of an advantage anyway. Even assuming you can find and access it quickly, it's about as useful as throwing a chair at the burglar, even assuming you've got good enough aim and are sneaky enough to get close, and wouldn't suffer a lifetime of trauma after.
And it still doesn't change the fact that it'd be only a tiny sliver who'd have guns, and an even tinier sliver who'd use them in any such situation and add much more to their sentence. I'd rather have one in a million criminals have a gun rather than literally the entire population.
The same way people get drugs? Just a guess. Though why give the cartels that advantage by disarming the honest citizens?
People get drugs from a shady guy at a corner of a party who doesn't look suspicious because you can fill your jacket and bag with packets of powders and plants and no one would notice. good luck sneaking around with a gun. Even more good luck for swallowing it to avoid arrest.
And do you think cartels are cartoon villains?
I rather have the security to defend my home. It's interesting that you guys have a higher rate of home invasions than we do. You guys call them hot burglaries.
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
Uh, did you read that?
"This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US."
"Britain doesn’t just have fewer gun-related homicides–it has a dramatically lower murder rate all around."
Is it security to defend your home by making it certain the guy breaking in is going to be able to shoot you?
Let's thought experiment this. You're sitting exactly where you are now. Where's your nearest gun? How quickly can you reach it? Is it always loaded? Is it in a safe of any kind?
A burglar breaks in through the window, knowing where you are by having seen you through a window. They have a gun. How do you plan to reach your gun in time? How do you plan to shoot them before they can shoot you? Actually think about what you're proposing.
(Note, also, that anyone who has a family would necessarily have a gun non-loaded and/or in some kind of locked cabinet to avoid children getting ahold of it, and so would need quite a lot of time to react).
How, exactly, do you plan to defend your home?
Yet as the Boston bombing and Paris attacks show'd you don't need a gun to cause damage. And BTW France, particularly Paris has some of the strictest gun laws in the EU if I'm not mistaken.
Sure, there are more ways to hurt people than just a gun, no one's denying that. That's not what's under discussion. Guns plainly didn't help matters in Boston, and would you suggest we let football fans carry guns during a game? Can promise that'll end badly. And how exactly are they meant to stop a bomb threat anyway? By the time you notice a guy's in a bomb vest it'll be too late.
All you're saying is that people can hurt people. you're not providing anything in favour of guns.
If they are in a crowd then you can kill a lot of people with a truck.
Very rare to find a crowd that's accessible with a truck. And again, how do you plan to use a gun to stop that? If you can't use a gun to stop it, then guns remain unnecessary.
That's why we need lax gun laws. I don't want some nut detonating a bomb because he can't get a gun. At least with a gun you have the chance of someone shooting back. Also I forgot to mention that most of the gun crimes are caused by gangs in large cities with strict gun laws. If guns are the issue then why Waco, Texas isn't the top of the list of violent crimes.
Bombs are easier to deal with. Your average person isn't going to have a clue how to even start making one, let alone actually getting it down successfully without hurting themselves. Why are you so concerned with unlikely, near-imaginary people rather than the very real fact that every single person near you has the means to pull out a gun and shoot you before you could blink?
Look at the facts. Not some imaginary situation you've concocted. Seriously. We have a hell of a lot fewer murders than the US. That is a fact. Our violent crime rate is less than you'd expect, because the UK's definition of violent crime is more lax than the US. We might have a few more minor crimes. You have dramatically more murders. End of. Guns plainly don't help deter crime: so what is the point of them?
-
I love you Jane.
-
An interesting video of several simulations of mass shootings and how students with varying firearm experience (mostly low) react to the situation:
Also, some food for thought: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gun-science-proves-arming-untrained-citizens-bad-idea/
Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.”
-
HA!!!!!!!!!!! Just more and more proof that guns KILL pepel and need to be BANED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wile were talking abowt the shortcumings of gun nut IDIOTS, I think we shuld discus the fact that gun shop ownurs shuld be held crimanuley acowntabul for the crimes comitid using them!!!!!!!!!! As well as the legislaters that alow these gun nuts to go buy guns and KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Actually there are many stories of stand alone soldiers fending off pretty large forces. If numbers is the only answer then we would still be under rule of you and we would've won Vietnam. So while guns make it easier to kill, it doesn't make people kill.
I've never said guns are the only reason people kill. The fact they make it easier is the issue: they make it accessible. You'd have to really want to kill someone to find some black market weapon or use a knife or any other means. You'd need a brief whim to do it with a gun.
Most gun crimes are done with illegal guns and gang members so that point is rather moot. In fact if you take out the gangs and states with restrictive gun laws America as a whole would have a crime rate like Waco, Texas.
Most lone soldiers in the army have both training and often guns. None of that is relevant to civilians.
Except for the fact that we have guns and can seek training for civilians. Not only that but its not just trained soldiers but guerrilla warriors
But the ones who do would have an advantage over the citizens.
So? That's the case even if everyone's armed. The person who pulls a gun out first has an advantage over everyone in the room.
Not really. If a guy pull a gun in a room where there are ten good guys with guns the badguy would be outgunned.
You'd need a very specific situation where the criminal wouldn't have an advantage, such as a burglar, and in those cases a gun wouldn't be too much of an advantage anyway.
There have been up to and over 2 million cases were people defended themselves with a gun. And that includes burglaries.
Even assuming you can find and access it quickly, it's about as useful as throwing a chair at the burglar, even assuming you've got good enough aim and are sneaky enough to get close, and wouldn't suffer a lifetime of trauma after.
I'm pretty sure I can deal with that. He's in my house uninvited and can do me harm. I'll shoot to stop the threat and if that kills him then so be it.
And it still doesn't change the fact that it'd be only a tiny sliver who'd have guns, and an even tinier sliver who'd use them in any such situation and add much more to their sentence. I'd rather have one in a million criminals have a gun rather than literally the entire population.
If guns are the problem then why is are crime rate dropping?
The same way people get drugs? Just a guess. Though why give the cartels that advantage by disarming the honest citizens?
People get drugs from a shady guy at a corner of a party who doesn't look suspicious because you can fill your jacket and bag with packets of powders and plants and no one would notice. good luck sneaking around with a gun. Even more good luck for swallowing it to avoid arrest.
And do you think cartels are cartoon villains?
It's very easy to conceal a gun. That's why there's a thing called concealed carry. You'd be amaze just how many people carry if you are here.
I rather have the security to defend my home. It's interesting that you guys have a higher rate of home invasions than we do. You guys call them hot burglaries.
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
Uh, did you read that?
"This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US."
"Britain doesn’t just have fewer gun-related homicides–it has a dramatically lower murder rate all around."
I linked to it before and didn't see that. But to the last sentence we have a higher death rate period. We have a higher car accident deaths, cancer, etc.
Is it security to defend your home by making it certain the guy breaking in is going to be able to shoot you?
Let's thought experiment this. You're sitting exactly where you are now. Where's your nearest gun? How quickly can you reach it? Is it always loaded? Is it in a safe of any kind?
A burglar breaks in through the window, knowing where you are by having seen you through a window. They have a gun. How do you plan to reach your gun in time? How do you plan to shoot them before they can shoot you? Actually think about what you're proposing.
I rather not disclose my defenses but I will say God got my back. Also I will say that a lot of people carry around the house.
(Note, also, that anyone who has a family would necessarily have a gun non-loaded and/or in some kind of locked cabinet to avoid children getting ahold of it, and so would need quite a lot of time to react).
How, exactly, do you plan to defend your home?
Another option is to carry or have quick access safes placed in key locations.
Yet as the Boston bombing and Paris attacks show'd you don't need a gun to cause damage. And BTW France, particularly Paris has some of the strictest gun laws in the EU if I'm not mistaken.
Sure, there are more ways to hurt people than just a gun, no one's denying that. That's not what's under discussion. Guns plainly didn't help matters in Boston, and would you suggest we let football fans carry guns during a game?
No because I realize some things guns can't fix. However our soldiers are sometimes under artillery fire yet they have guns. Do you suggest that they drop their guns when they are being bombed?
Can promise that'll end badly. And how exactly are they meant to stop a bomb threat anyway? By the time you notice a guy's in a bomb vest it'll be too late.
All you're saying is that people can hurt people. you're not providing anything in favour of guns.
Explained above.
If they are in a crowd then you can kill a lot of people with a truck.
Very rare to find a crowd that's accessible with a truck. And again, how do you plan to use a gun to stop that? If you can't use a gun to stop it, then guns remain unnecessary.
How about at the end of school at the crossings?
That's why we need lax gun laws. I don't want some nut detonating a bomb because he can't get a gun. At least with a gun you have the chance of someone shooting back. Also I forgot to mention that most of the gun crimes are caused by gangs in large cities with strict gun laws. If guns are the issue then why Waco, Texas isn't the top of the list of violent crimes.
Bombs are easier to deal with. Your average person isn't going to have a clue how to even start making one, let alone actually getting it down successfully without hurting themselves. Why are you so concerned with unlikely, near-imaginary people rather than the very real fact that every single person near you has the means to pull out a gun and shoot you before you could blink?
But if ones goes off then you can't do anything.
Look at the facts. Not some imaginary situation you've concocted. Seriously. We have a hell of a lot fewer murders than the US. That is a fact. Our violent crime rate is less than you'd expect, because the UK's definition of violent crime is more lax than the US. We might have a few more minor crimes. You have dramatically more murders. End of. Guns plainly don't help deter crime: so what is the point of them?
Lets see your definition of a violent crime compared to ours.
-
Here's an entire thread that im in of people defending themselves. Go second amendment!
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/438886-2016-what-armed-self-defense-looks-like.html
-
Lets see your definition of a violent crime compared to ours.
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
This page has an apples to apples comparison of crime in the UK and the US. It provides sources for statistics as well as the definitions and criteria used for what data is included.
-
Most gun crimes are done with illegal guns and gang members so that point is rather moot. In fact if you take out the gangs and states with restrictive gun laws America as a whole would have a crime rate like Waco, Texas.
True for certain forms of crimes, but so what? More legal guns directly means guns are going to be easily available illegally. One guy can walk into a gun shop, buy it properly, hand it off to a friend outside and claim it was stolen. Hardly comparable in trying to pick up a gun where they're not sold on every high street. Your garden variety shoplifter could pick one up.
Not really. If a guy pull a gun in a room where there are ten good guys with guns the badguy would be outgunned.
So? If they draw first, they could probably shoot two or three people before anyone else drew. Then the 'good guys with guns' would need to be able to identify the shooter, aim, and fire, pray desperately no one was on the other side of the shooter, and have good aim, and even then the shooter could keep firing.
Compare: the assailant has a knife, in a room full of unarmed people. He might be able to manage a likely non-fatal wound on one person, and would immediately be restrained by nine able-bodied people. Even if they had a gun, it'd be faster to just restrain them unarmed anyway: two people to grab his wrist and point it at the ground. No collateral damage, and would happen a lot less often anyway.
There have been up to and over 2 million cases were people defended themselves with a gun. And that includes burglaries.
How many of those cases couldn't have been settled by simply hitting the burglar with a chair? And how many were only particularly dangerous because the burglar had a gun themselves?
If guns are the problem then why is are crime rate dropping?
Because it's not the exclusive problem? How is that relevant? No one has ever claimed guns are the sole cause of all crime. I literally said as much in the post you're responding to. Fact is, they definitely help the worst criminals.
It's very easy to conceal a gun. That's why there's a thing called concealed carry. You'd be amaze just how many people carry if you are here.
Sure, but again, compare. Much easier to hide a packet, much easier to swallow it if the police pop buy, and there's a context for getting drugs, where would you go to get a gun?
I linked to it before and didn't see that. But to the last sentence we have a higher death rate period. We have a higher car accident deaths, cancer, etc.
Murder's the relevant statistic.
I rather not disclose my defenses but I will say God got my back. Also I will say that a lot of people carry around the house.
If you've got God, why do you need a gun?
As for people carrying around the house, remember that isn't an option for a lot of people (families etc) so you're purposefully putting them in danger by ensuring every home invader is armed, and that I'm pretty sure I remember reading a lot of stories of it ending badly.
Another option is to carry or have quick access safes placed in key locations.
Which still take a vital few seconds to open (given that the burglar could shoot you), likely aren't silent which is dangerous when it comes to, say, a burglar sneaking in at night, and isn't an option for people without a lot of money to burn.
So, basically, guns are only feasible in a handful of idealised situations, and only to sufficiently well-off people with no kids at home. Lot of people you're hanging out to dry by making sure everyone who'd go after them has a gun.
No because I realize some things guns can't fix. However our soldiers are sometimes under artillery fire yet they have guns. Do you suggest that they drop their guns when they are being bombed?
If you're comparing your hometown to a war zone, you have problems.
If guns can't fix the problems you brought up, why mention those problems?
How about at the end of school at the crossings?
Like I said, rare, and fairly sure most schools would notice a giant honking truck parked by the side of a road with a driver watching carefully. Seriously, any car parked next to a school with a driver by the wheel staring at the students is going to attract unwanted attention.
And again, a) irrelevant because a gun wouldn't help matters, b) rather unlikely especially once you consider motive.
But if ones goes off then you can't do anything.
If a guy pulls out a pair of automatic weapons and started shooting everything in sight you're likely screwed too.
And why the focus on such purposefully unlikely scenarios? i'm talking about the fact guns are readily accessible. And they still wouldn't help deal with a bomb vest, so why is that case relevant? If one goes off, there's nothing you can do, whether or not you have a gun. If you see a guy in a bomb vest, he'd still be able to trigger it even if you shoot him in the head.
Lets see your definition of a violent crime compared to ours.
From the source you linked:
the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”
So our definition is hugely more open. Three times as much is pretty much what I'd expect given the looseness of our definition.
Here's an entire thread that im in of people defending themselves. Go second amendment!
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/438886-2016-what-armed-self-defense-looks-like.html
Anecdotal evidence hardly counts for much. And again, so what? With the sheer number of crimes that would occur over a population as large as the US, the rare cases guns would be useful would happen: so? If the criminal didn't have a gun, a lot of the danger would be removed from the situation, and there are a lot of separate ways to defend yourself without a gun. Throw a chair, buy a bat...
Go second amendment (http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/).
-
Lets see your definition of a violent crime compared to ours.
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
This page has an apples to apples comparison of crime in the UK and the US. It provides sources for statistics as well as the definitions and criteria used for what data is included.
I noticed that your still more likely to be raped and knifed in the UK than we are. Does that mean you should ban or restrict knives? Plus that site didnt compare hot burglaries to us which is higher.
http://futurewire.blogspot.com/2004/12/home-invasions-us-vs-uk.html?m=1
I will say that we do have a higher murder rate but its by gangs in large gun restrictive cities like New York and Chicago.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
-
HA!!!!!!!!!!! Just more and more proof that guns KILL pepel and need to be BANED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to ignore this (regretting it now as I type) because of the spelling errors but I decided to give it a shot (pun intended). If guns kill people do pencils or keyboards misspell words? And if we are going to ban guns lets first start with the president's bodyguards. You see, in order to ban guns you need guns to enforce that ban. Plus look at the results of bans. Hitler, Stalin, pol pot, etc.
Wile were talking abowt the shortcumings of gun nut IDIOTS, I think we shuld discus the fact that gun shop ownurs shuld be held crimanuley acowntabul for the crimes comitid using them!!!!!!!!!!
If someone does 200 mph in a 20 mph zone in a Lamborghini, is Lamborghini accountable for him breaking the speed limit?
As well as the legislaters that alow these gun nuts to go buy guns and KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of the crime are done with illegal guns. Nobody is allowing criminals to shoot up people. I just discovered a new reason why I ignored you at first. You're so easy to beat.
-
I noticed that your still more likely to be raped and knifed in the UK than we are. Does that mean you should ban or restrict knives? Plus that site didnt compare hot burglaries to us which is higher.
Rape is a famously under-reported crime: given that the US is where things like Steubenville happened it seems likely there are other causes at work, and the only reason knife attacks are more common here is because you guys have freaking guns. Who'd use a knife?!
I will say that we do have a higher murder rate but its by gangs in large gun restrictive cities like New York and Chicago.
'Gun restrictive' by US standards still means a lot more guns than here.
-
I noticed that your still more likely to be raped and knifed in the UK than we are. Does that mean you should ban or restrict knives? Plus that site didnt compare hot burglaries to us which is higher.
Maybe we should just ban or restrict penises.
-
I noticed that your still more likely to be raped and knifed in the UK than we are. Does that mean you should ban or restrict knives? Plus that site didnt compare hot burglaries to us which is higher.
Maybe we should just ban or restrict penises.
I'm down with that.
-
NO! I'm quite attached to mine.
-
Most gun crimes are done with illegal guns and gang members so that point is rather moot. In fact if you take out the gangs and states with restrictive gun laws America as a whole would have a crime rate like Waco, Texas.
True for certain forms of crimes, but so what? More legal guns directly means guns are going to be easily available illegally. One guy can walk into a gun shop, buy it properly, hand it off to a friend outside and claim it was stolen. Hardly comparable in trying to pick up a gun where they're not sold on every high street. Your garden variety shoplifter could pick one up.
Yet we still aren't on the top 25 on most violent nations. And that's the price of freedom.
Not really. If a guy pull a gun in a room where there are ten good guys with guns the badguy would be outgunned.
So? If they draw first, they could probably shoot two or three people before anyone else drew. Then the 'good guys with guns' would need to be able to identify the shooter, aim, and fire, pray desperately no one was on the other side of the shooter, and have good aim, and even then the shooter could keep firing.
Not all that hard to do especially to those trained. We don't hear of too many friendly fire incidents with citizens carrying guns.
Compare: the assailant has a knife, in a room full of unarmed people. He might be able to manage a likely non-fatal wound on one person, and would immediately be restrained by nine able-bodied people. Even if they had a gun, it'd be faster to just restrain them unarmed anyway: two people to grab his wrist and point it at the ground. No collateral damage, and would happen a lot less often anyway.
How often does that happen? The shooter at Orlando reloaded several times and nobody charged him.
There have been up to and over 2 million cases were people defended themselves with a gun. And that includes burglaries.
How many of those cases couldn't have been settled by simply hitting the burglar with a chair? And how many were only particularly dangerous because the burglar had a gun themselves?
Probably very few. When you're determined enough to greatly harm or mirder someone few things deter you like lethal force.
If guns are the problem then why is are crime rate dropping?
Because it's not the exclusive problem?
Then why are we talking about guns?
How is that relevant? No one has ever claimed guns are the sole cause of all crime. I literally said as much in the post you're responding to. Fact is, they definitely help the worst criminals.
Only because nobody shoots back. Interesting fact that up to 92% of mass shootings happens at gun free zones. Why would that be the case?
It's very easy to conceal a gun. That's why there's a thing called concealed carry. You'd be amaze just how many people carry if you are here.
Sure, but again, compare. Much easier to hide a packet, much easier to swallow it if the police pop buy, and there's a context for getting drugs, where would you go to get a gun?
I don't know since I'm not on the wrong side of the law but I'm willing to guess that it envolves straw purchases and gang membership.
I linked to it before and didn't see that. But to the last sentence we have a higher death rate period. We have a higher car accident deaths, cancer, etc.
Murder's the relevant statistic.
Yes but in context it's not like its the only thing we surpass you in deaths.
I rather not disclose my defenses but I will say God got my back. Also I will say that a lot of people carry around the house.
If you've got God, why do you need a gun?
For the same reason why I lock my doors, buckle my seatbelt, have insurance, etc. precuation. And also my username.
As for people carrying around the house, remember that isn't an option for a lot of people (families etc) so you're purposefully putting them in danger by ensuring every home invader is armed, and that I'm pretty sure I remember reading a lot of stories of it ending badly.
If its on you, your children would have to be very sneaky or bold to try and take it from your holster especially if its concealed.
Another option is to carry or have quick access safes placed in key locations.
Which still take a vital few seconds to open (given that the burglar could shoot you), likely aren't silent which is dangerous when it comes to, say, a burglar sneaking in at night, and isn't an option for people without a lot of money to burn.
Actually they are rather cheap.
So, basically, guns are only feasible in a handful of idealised situations, and only to sufficiently well-off people with no kids at home. Lot of people you're hanging out to dry by making sure everyone who'd go after them has a gun.
That's not true.
No because I realize some things guns can't fix. However our soldiers are sometimes under artillery fire yet they have guns. Do you suggest that they drop their guns when they are being bombed?
If you're comparing your hometown to a war zone, you have problems.
If guns can't fix the problems you brought up, why mention those problems?
I'm saying it could be worse.
How about at the end of school at the crossings?
Like I said, rare, and fairly sure most schools would notice a giant honking truck parked by the side of a road with a driver watching carefully. Seriously, any car parked next to a school with a driver by the wheel staring at the students is going to attract unwanted attention.
And again, a) irrelevant because a gun wouldn't help matters, b) rather unlikely especially once you consider motive.
It could be spontaneous. See a group of children cross the street and gun the engine.
But if ones goes off then you can't do anything.
If a guy pulls out a pair of automatic weapons and started shooting everything in sight you're likely screwed too.
Not if I situate myself to not be the first target. If you'll notice police don't like to be near windows or have their backs to the main entrance.
And why the focus on such purposefully unlikely scenarios? i'm talking about the fact guns are readily accessible. And they still wouldn't help deal with a bomb vest, so why is that case relevant? If one goes off, there's nothing you can do, whether or not you have a gun. If you see a guy in a bomb vest, he'd still be able to trigger it even if you shoot him in the head.
Lets see your definition of a violent crime compared to ours.
From the source you linked:
the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”
So our definition is hugely more open. Three times as much is pretty much what I'd expect given the looseness of our definition.
Here's an entire thread that im in of people defending themselves. Go second amendment!
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/438886-2016-what-armed-self-defense-looks-like.html
Anecdotal evidence hardly counts for much. And again, so what? With the sheer number of crimes that would occur over a population as large as the US, the rare cases guns would be useful would happen: so? If the criminal didn't have a gun, a lot of the danger would be removed from the situation, and there are a lot of separate ways to defend yourself without a gun. Throw a chair, buy a bat...
They are a lot of anecdotes that stack into stats. And the stats are that up to 2 million cases a year someone defended himself with a gun.
Go second amendment (http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/).
Yeah, about that...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
-
Lets see your definition of a violent crime compared to ours.
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
This page has an apples to apples comparison of crime in the UK and the US. It provides sources for statistics as well as the definitions and criteria used for what data is included.
I noticed that your still more likely to be raped and knifed in the UK than we are.
You mis read. Robbery and knife crimes are higher in the UK. Everything else is higher in the US with murders and assaults more prevalent by an order of magnitude than the more susceptible crimes in the UK. Does that mean you should ban or restrict knives?
No, because knives are used for purposes aside from killing.
Plus that site didnt compare hot burglaries to us which is higher.
http://futurewire.blogspot.com/2004/12/home-invasions-us-vs-uk.html?m=1
These are robberies which are covered.
I will say that we do have a higher murder rate but its by gangs in large gun restrictive cities like New York and Chicago.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
Nope. Chicago, New York and LA actually do not have a high murder rate for their population:
Big Cities With The Highest Murder Rates
St. Louis, Missouri 49.91
Detroit, Michigan 43.52
New Orleans, Louisiana 38.75
Baltimore, Maryland 33.84
Newark, New Jersey 33.32
Buffalo, New York 23.22
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 22.43
Memphis, Tennessee 21.38
Atlanta, Georgia 20.47
Cincinati, Ohio 20.16
Chicago had a murder rate of 15.09, New York had a rate of 3.93 and Los Angeles had a rate of 6.66 (well, 6.65511 if you don’t round to the nearest hundredth).
You will notice quite a few cities with loose gun laws on that list, including St. Louis, the 2014 winner.
Can we please get rid of this myth that gun laws make murder more prevalent? Why don't you pay more attention to poverty and marginalization statistics? I would bet money that most of these murders are occuring in poor, ghettoized neighborhoods with poor community support, whether social or governmental.
-
HA!!!!!!!!!!! Just more and more proof that guns KILL pepel and need to be BANED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to ignore this (regretting it now as I type) because of the spelling errors but I decided to give it a shot (pun intended). If guns kill people do pencils or keyboards misspell words? And if we are going to ban guns lets first start with the president's bodyguards. You see, in order to ban guns you need guns to enforce that ban. Plus look at the results of bans. Hitler, Stalin, pol pot, etc.
Furst off I spel flippin fine BIRD FOR BRANES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im saying ban guns for the PUBLICK, not Mr. Presidint Barack Obama (the Grete)s bodeygards you flippin IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Howevur I do beleive the police shuld be disarmd sinse that they obvousley cant be trustid not to targit pepel of coler like myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Hitler and Stalin arent the same flippin thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe your just a IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wile were talking abowt the shortcumings of gun nut IDIOTS, I think we shuld discus the fact that gun shop ownurs shuld be held crimanuley acowntabul for the crimes comitid using them!!!!!!!!!!
If someone does 200 mph in a 20 mph zone in a Lamborghini, is Lamborghini accountable for him breaking the speed limit?
Cars are difrint. They arent bilt to flippin KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *drops mike*!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As well as the legislaters that alow these gun nuts to go buy guns and KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of the crime are done with illegal guns. Nobody is allowing criminals to shoot up people. I just discovered a new reason why I ignored you at first. You're so easy to beat.
*BEEP* RONGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most shotings are by your tipicul wite privligd rascist redneck targiting pepel of coler (such as myself) and LGBTQQ2 individuels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the reson why ilegal guns are geting owt is becuz legal gun makurs are giveing them the guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well looks like wunce agen youve goten your bootey bahind handid over to you by the EXCELSIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Says the douche!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Cars are difrint. They arent bilt to flippin KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*drops mike*!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*picks up mic*
YAWN
*shoves mic up your ass*
-
Another set up.
Before Omar Mateen Committed Mass Murder, the FBI Tried To Lure Him Into a Terror Plot
New revelations raise questions about the FBI’s role in shaping Mateen’s lethal mindset.
By Max Blumenthal, Sarah Lazare / AlterNet June 19, 201
after Mateen threatened a courthouse deputy in 2013 by claiming he could order Al Qaeda operatives to kill his family, the FBI dispatched an informant to "lure Omar into some kind of act and Omar did not bite."
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/omar-mateen-committed-mass-murder-fbi-tried-lure-him-terror-plot
-
Aw Jane I forgot how much of a MORON you are!!!! And pepel dont ignor me they cant stop lisining and talking to me becuz im such a genus!!!!!!!!! SHA-BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even though her and I have agreed on nothing, and at times she has irritated me (sometimes more than others)...ONE thing I can say for her is she is intelligent. I would put a large some of money your IQ is closer to a standardized lab rat than her. Just from a pure mathematical standpoint.
Maybe we should just ban or restrict penises.
Well considering I have been practicing celibacy while I have been waiting for that RIGHT one to come around. You know, that smart intelligent one, with a good heart, actually would care if I lived or die, yet with a creative streak...and yadda yadda...going on a year and a half now..and going by the pool of women in this area, we will be adding some more time to this clock....sooooo
I would say this wouldn't effect me much. Plus seriously simplify my life without having to worry about all that re positioning and stuff....
As for all the gun stuff, we are going to have to cure stupid, narcissism, and the failing moral compass before there is any real progress. All any of these ideas in this thread will do is just help the symptoms, the pain reducer for the tumor as it grows. Then eventually you will die a painless death unless you get at the root cause.
-
Yet we still aren't on the top 25 on most violent nations. And that's the price of freedom.
Given that most of the top 25 most violent and dangerous countries are at war, not exactly a meaningful comparison.
Not all that hard to do especially to those trained. We don't hear of too many friendly fire incidents with citizens carrying guns.
Oh believe me there are plenty of accidents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11932821/toddler-shooting-gun-controls-america.html), just not many relating to the situation you described because it's such an unlikely situation.
Probably very few. When you're determined enough to greatly harm or mirder someone few things deter you like lethal force.
How many burglars do you imagine break in to try and hurt or murder someone? Generally they'll just be trying to steal something and get away with it. Knock them out, problem solved.
Then why are we talking about guns?
Only because nobody shoots back. Interesting fact that up to 92% of mass shootings happens at gun free zones. Why would that be the case?
Because they're undeniably part of the problem. Something does't have to be the sole cause to be the contributing factor. Given that you have a simply absurd amount of gun violence, and that none of the situations you're complaining about are helped by guns, it's a pretty clear conclusion that they do more harm than good.
It happens at gun free zones because shooters aren't idiots. Of course they'd go for where people couldn't fight back as stereotypically easily (note; it's the impression that matters more than the reality). What do you propose, give every student a gun and hope that sorts out school shootings? Give teachers readily accessible weapons and pray no disgruntled student picks it up? Let drunken people in night clubs wave them around?
There are always going to need to be gun free zones. The only reason mass shootings happen there is because the shooter could easily pick up a gun somewhere else.
I don't know since I'm not on the wrong side of the law but I'm willing to guess that it envolves straw purchases and gang membership.
Bingo: you don't know. Even if it does involve gang membership, any idea where a gang is and how to join it? Awful lot of work for a one-off shooting or a minor edge in a burglary or whatever.
Seems to me like banning guns is actually going to have a pretty substantial effect.
For the same reason why I lock my doors, buckle my seatbelt, have insurance, etc. precuation. And also my username.
So if you need to take precaution, why not take the precaution of not having a gun-wielding maniac bursting into your house?
If its on you, your children would have to be very sneaky or bold to try and take it from your holster especially if its concealed.
Have you ever been near a child? They grab at anything that interests them. Lift up a toddler, as many parents do, they'd happily end up feeling it. And the holster has to come off at some point.
And of course there are other issues: like jumpiness, because you'd need to shoot first if there was a home invader, so let's see how that can end (http://www.theledger.com/article/20131214/NEWSCHIEF/131219509). Note of course, if she hadn't shot first, and there was actually an armed burglar coming in, she could be dead.
Actually they are rather cheap.
What's your definition of cheap? The cheapest ones I can find are close to $100 if not more, which is a fair bit of money to burn, especially given you'd likely need more than one if you're meant to be able to quickly access it at any point in the house.
I'm saying it could be worse.
So? We're talking about guns. if guns don't fix the problems, then it doesn't matter how worse it could be, guns aren't helping. Talk about all the worst-case scenarios you want, if guns won't help in the slightest in dealing with them, why do you want one?
It could be spontaneous. See a group of children cross the street and gun the engine.
Like I said, unlikely, both in terms of timing and motive. And if it's spontaneous, there wouldn't be much time to accelerate so there's actually less chance of a fatal incident than, you know, wandering down the street, seeing a group of children, and shooting.
Not if I situate myself to not be the first target. If you'll notice police don't like to be near windows or have their backs to the main entrance.
Do you spend every waking second working out what'd happen if someone immediately pulled out a gun and started shooting and acting as such? if not, that's not much of a helpful addition. if so, seems as though there are plenty of dangerous side-effects to guns.
They are a lot of anecdotes that stack into stats. And the stats are that up to 2 million cases a year someone defended himself with a gun.
And yet you still have statistically more murders etc in comparison to use, of a more significant amount than we have violent crime more than you, and our definition of violent crime is substantially looser.
That is, four times the murder rate vs three times the violent crime rate, and the latter is severely biased towards you.
So a lot of anecdotes that don't give the full picture, and give no indication as to how much easier it would've been if, you know, the assailant didn't have a gun too. You know you can defend yourself with ways other than a gun, right?
Yeah, about that...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
So? All that really says is mass shootings occur elsewhere. It agrees that the US has far more and far more deaths due to such shootings.
If your argument has become "Well at least we're not the worst place in the world," that really says it all.
-
NO! I'm quite attached to mine.
Just relax, it'll be over before you know it.
-
Cars are difrint. They arent bilt to flippin KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*drops mike*!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*picks up mic*
YAWN
*shoves mic up your ass*
*picks up mike and ANIYILATES bulwinkul in dabate becuz hes a flippin idiot and the Excelsior is a GENUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aw Jane I forgot how much of a MORON you are!!!! And pepel dont ignor me they cant stop lisining and talking to me becuz im such a genus!!!!!!!!! SHA-BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even though her and I have agreed on nothing, and at times she has irritated me (sometimes more than others)...ONE thing I can say for her is she is intelligent. I would put a large some of money your IQ is closer to a standardized lab rat than her. Just from a pure mathematical standpoint.
No Jane is a giant flippin IDIOT and im a GENUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have penguininyued to absiluteley and uterley DASTROY her in everey dabate and she has nevar ben abel to proof me rong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a far more superor intalect and am a inovative thinkur and scientist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now how abowt you actuley try (and fail) to disproof my evadinse BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *drops mike*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
No Jane is a giant flippin IDIOT and im a GENUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have penguininyued to absiluteley and uterley DASTROY her in everey dabate and she has nevar ben abel to proof me rong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to the search function, I have engaged in any kind of discussion with you a total of three times. One time we were inexplicably on the same side and so there was no debate, one time I literally said a total of one word to you, and the last time was this. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63891.msg1698014#msg1698014)
You haven't penguined to do a thing to me.
NO! I'm quite attached to mine.
Not for long.
-
No Jane is a giant flippin IDIOT and im a GENUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have penguininyued to absiluteley and uterley DASTROY her in everey dabate and she has nevar ben abel to proof me rong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to the search function, I have engaged in any kind of discussion with you a total of three times. One time we were inexplicably on the same side and so there was no debate, one time I literally said a total of one word to you, and the last time was this. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63891.msg1698014#msg1698014)
You haven't penguined to do a thing to me.
Well your stil a IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And for some reson the site censurd what I sayed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
What surprises me the most is that the US has a 25% higher firearm death rate that Mexico, which is basically at war with itself.
-
What surprises me the most is that the US has a 25% higher firearm death rate that Mexico, which is basically at war with itself.
Is this total or per 1000 people?
No Jane is a giant flippin IDIOT and im a GENUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have penguininyued to absiluteley and uterley DASTROY her in everey dabate and she has nevar ben abel to proof me rong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a far more superor intalect and am a inovative thinkur and scientist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now how abowt you actuley try (and fail) to disproof my evadinse BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *drops mike*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good Lord I hope you are a troll...if you are not I truly pray you do not procreate.
-
Yes, but it's mostly due to suicides in the US.
-
Yes, but it's mostly due to suicides in the US.
Yes....to which one lol???? Is that statistic total overall, or total per 1000 people, as in to adjust for population differential.
Suicides yes, also remember mexico are horrible at "bookkeeping", also many things happen there that are not reported.
-
Oh sorry, misread your question. It's per 1000.
-
Just relax, it'll be over before you know it.
Not for long.
Why are you ganging up on me? IT MUST STAY! I don't use it for evil. >:(
As for all the gun stuff, we are going to have to cure stupid, narcissism, and the failing moral compass before there is any real progress. All any of these ideas in this thread will do is just help the symptoms, the pain reducer for the tumor as it grows. Then eventually you will die a painless death unless you get at the root cause.
This sounds to me an awful lot like saying "if we can't fix it 100%, we may as well not even bother." People getting killed in mass shootings is a problem that needs to get fixed. Bad stuff happens, but mass shootings are happening all the flipping time in the US and it's tragic and also embarrassing. How many kids need to get shot up at school, or people in theaters or nightclubs, or whatever messed up thing happens next, before SOMETHING is done to at least take the first step towards making people safer? Why is there so much resistance to trying to do something meaningful? The great thing about the way American law is supposed to work is that, if we try something and it doesn't work, the law can be changed or even repealed. So let's start trying some stuff to fix the problem of psychopaths having easy access to really dangerous weapons that they use to terrorize the rest of the population, instead of trying nothing because you think the first step won't fix everything all at once.
-
Good Lord I could tell my last couple post were heat soaked, Brain no function well lol.
Anyways, I am not saying not do anything, I am saying let's focus on actions that address the real issues. Find out why people are so mad, what is causing it to build up to that level, what is the catalyst. Focus on moral code and helping others. Show me a TV show made in even the last 5 years that does not promote complete narcissistic behavior, or music, or anything in the media anywhere. We are being bred from a pup to be this way and encourage it. Then, when slightly bad is raising a child it is only going to multiply in the child (yes I know there are rare exceptions to the rule) This really started a couple decades ago and gradually blossomed.
I heavily believe that narcissism is the root cause. Truly not caring about another individual and only caring about your own ass. Look at the marriage situation in america, I can bet by another 10 years it will be close to the mid 80 percent or more on divorce. It was only people like my grandparents that held the number lower for a while. Now, that generation is dying of so the statistics are going on continue to climb.
Let's just look at this shooter, he was filled with rage and cared not who he effected. As long as someone hurt like he did, he cared not. Or corporate greed "well I got mine fuck everyone else", cheating, well I m mad so fuck the other person I got mine. America with their fake wars, well I got mine so screw an entire country . I could continue on and on.. .
So anyways, that is just my thoughts, maybe baby steps to inform people with the narcissism virus, or with anger hate ect ect. Though much of the time anger and hate is fueled as a child from being raised by narcissistic people or situations, it just builds and grows over time (yes I understand some people are just bad seeds, I however see that as not a very common occurrence, usually it is bred)
I hope all this makes sense, and please excuse he grade school writing and grammar I am heat fried. Taking a nap right...now lol
-
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
-
Good Lord I could tell my last couple post were heat soaked, Brain no function well lol.
Anyways, I am not saying not do anything, I am saying let's focus on actions that address the real issues. Find out why people are so mad, what is causing it to build up to that level, what is the catalyst. Focus on moral code and helping others. Show me a TV show made in even the last 5 years that does not promote complete narcissistic behavior, or music, or anything in the media anywhere. We are being bred from a pup to be this way and encourage it. Then, when slightly bad is raising a child it is only going to multiply in the child (yes I know there are rare exceptions to the rule) This really started a couple decades ago and gradually blossomed.
I heavily believe that narcissism is the root cause. Truly not caring about another individual and only caring about your own ass. Look at the marriage situation in america, I can bet by another 10 years it will be close to the mid 80 percent or more on divorce. It was only people like my grandparents that held the number lower for a while. Now, that generation is dying of so the statistics are going on continue to climb.
Let's just look at this shooter, he was filled with rage and cared not who he effected. As long as someone hurt like he did, he cared not. Or corporate greed "well I got mine fuck everyone else", cheating, well I m mad so fuck the other person I got mine. America with their fake wars, well I got mine so screw an entire country . I could continue on and on.. .
So anyways, that is just my thoughts, maybe baby steps to inform people with the narcissism virus, or with anger hate ect ect. Though much of the time anger and hate is fueled as a child from being raised by narcissistic people or situations, it just builds and grows over time (yes I understand some people are just bad seeds, I however see that as not a very common occurrence, usually it is bred)
I hope all this makes sense, and please excuse he grade school writing and grammar I am heat fried. Taking a nap right...now lol
If you are saying it is a people problem, I thoroughly agree.
(every problem is essentially a people problem).
-
Anyways, I am not saying not do anything, I am saying let's focus on actions that address the real issues. Find out why people are so mad, what is causing it to build up to that level, what is the catalyst. Focus on moral code and helping others. Show me a TV show made in even the last 5 years that does not promote complete narcissistic behavior, or music, or anything in the media anywhere. We are being bred from a pup to be this way and encourage it. Then, when slightly bad is raising a child it is only going to multiply in the child (yes I know there are rare exceptions to the rule) This really started a couple decades ago and gradually blossomed.
I heavily believe that narcissism is the root cause. Truly not caring about another individual and only caring about your own ass. Look at the marriage situation in america, I can bet by another 10 years it will be close to the mid 80 percent or more on divorce. It was only people like my grandparents that held the number lower for a while. Now, that generation is dying of so the statistics are going on continue to climb.
Let's just look at this shooter, he was filled with rage and cared not who he effected. As long as someone hurt like he did, he cared not. Or corporate greed "well I got mine fuck everyone else", cheating, well I m mad so fuck the other person I got mine. America with their fake wars, well I got mine so screw an entire country . I could continue on and on.. .
So anyways, that is just my thoughts, maybe baby steps to inform people with the narcissism virus, or with anger hate ect ect. Though much of the time anger and hate is fueled as a child from being raised by narcissistic people or situations, it just builds and grows over time (yes I understand some people are just bad seeds, I however see that as not a very common occurrence, usually it is bred)
I hope all this makes sense, and please excuse he grade school writing and grammar I am heat fried. Taking a nap right...now lol
That might well be a root cause, but it still couldn't happen without readily available guns. Plus the kind of change you're talking about a) may not even be possible, and b) even if it is, will take a lot of time. Over a generation at least.
What do you intend to be done in the mean time? Just let people die?
Even if you think something like narcissism is a root cause, it seems to me that's perfectly in line with wanting to ban guns until it's no longer an issue. After all, angrily glaring at someone isn't going to kill nearly fifty people. Feeling superior wouldn't kill your classmates. You'd need a weapon: with guns all but inaccessible the best you could really wouldn't compare.
-
Anyways, I am not saying not do anything, I am saying let's focus on actions that address the real issues. Find out why people are so mad, what is causing it to build up to that level, what is the catalyst. Focus on moral code and helping others. Show me a TV show made in even the last 5 years that does not promote complete narcissistic behavior, or music, or anything in the media anywhere. We are being bred from a pup to be this way and encourage it. Then, when slightly bad is raising a child it is only going to multiply in the child (yes I know there are rare exceptions to the rule) This really started a couple decades ago and gradually blossomed.
I heavily believe that narcissism is the root cause. Truly not caring about another individual and only caring about your own ass. Look at the marriage situation in america, I can bet by another 10 years it will be close to the mid 80 percent or more on divorce. It was only people like my grandparents that held the number lower for a while. Now, that generation is dying of so the statistics are going on continue to climb.
Let's just look at this shooter, he was filled with rage and cared not who he effected. As long as someone hurt like he did, he cared not. Or corporate greed "well I got mine fuck everyone else", cheating, well I m mad so fuck the other person I got mine. America with their fake wars, well I got mine so screw an entire country . I could continue on and on.. .
So anyways, that is just my thoughts, maybe baby steps to inform people with the narcissism virus, or with anger hate ect ect. Though much of the time anger and hate is fueled as a child from being raised by narcissistic people or situations, it just builds and grows over time (yes I understand some people are just bad seeds, I however see that as not a very common occurrence, usually it is bred)
I hope all this makes sense, and please excuse he grade school writing and grammar I am heat fried. Taking a nap right...now lol
That might well be a root cause, but it still couldn't happen without readily available guns. Plus the kind of change you're talking about a) may not even be possible, and b) even if it is, will take a lot of time. Over a generation at least.
What do you intend to be done in the mean time? Just let people die?
Even if you think something like narcissism is a root cause, it seems to me that's perfectly in line with wanting to ban guns until it's no longer an issue. After all, angrily glaring at someone isn't going to kill nearly fifty people. Feeling superior wouldn't kill your classmates. You'd need a weapon: with guns all but inaccessible the best you could really wouldn't compare.
Explosives are easy to formulate and quite effective.
-
Making explosives takes time and premeditation. It's not a good gun substitute. Most shootings are unplanned: robberies that went wrong, mishandlings, suicides, rash decisions, etc. If someone gets really mad during a football match they can grab a gun and start shooting. If there were no gun and they tried to make a bomb, their mood would have cooled down by the time they get to search in internet the materials needed.
Unless you think, of course, that everyone would have a couple bombs in their house in case someone wants to break and enter with another bomb.
-
I never knew about the Brady law. Not only is Chicago, NY and LA not as violent as gun-rights supporters would like you to believe, but it is not difficult to acquire legal guns without a background check either.
-
Good Lord I hope you are a troll...if you are not I truly pray you do not procreate.
Im not a flippin troll you IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am an FE GENUS and just spend my day intalectueley BOSSING evereywon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHA-BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Explosives are easy to formulate and quite effective.
GlaringEye was pretty much spot on.
Explosives hardly match the ease of a gun. You'd have to find the means to make one, have to be able to safely make it (I remember reading a generally well-researched book that had a scene with a homemade bomb is, one of the dangers was that the process released a poisonous gas), and you'd need a good trigger mechanism. Even if you can get all the right ingredients, instructions, parts, and assemble it perfectly without blowing yourself up, then what?
It's a lot of work for a one use only thing, so you're not going to get any spur of the moment things. If you're angry for five minutes you can shoot up a club: it's probably more than a day's work to make an explosive. And then what? Not everyone'll want to blow themselves up, so you'd need a decently adept trigger: plant the bomb in a good place, get out, blow it up... Anyone could find it and call in a bomb threat in the interim.
Plus it lacks the venting effect that seems to appeal to more shooters: if you're using a bomb, that's cold, calculated planning. Might be impressive for a couple of seconds, but wouldn't really satisfy any anger. Going to town with a pair of semi-automatics would, though: there's a reason that appeals to a terrifying number of people.
-
Not only that, there would be a window for law enforcement to intervene.
-
Not only that, there would be a window for law enforcement to intervene.
Unfortunately, there is a complicating factor with your statement. Namely, law enforcement relations with civilians in certain communities are not exactly at an all-time high. The past few days have seen a lot of unnecessary, life-ending interactions between officers and civilians, with neither side looking free of guilt. It's absolutely disgusting how many people, especially black people, are being killed at the hands of police officers during interactions that quite frankly wouldn't result in death if the civilian were white. And to think, someone would think the best way to seek retribution for the people who died unnecessarily at the hands of police officers would be to kill other police officers who had nothing to do with the first incident is also sickening.
On both sides of the issue, it's not just that people died. It's much more. Their families have to cope with the loss. Someone's daughter, wife, brother, sister, child - whatever - someone's family just got smaller, no one even had a chance to say goodbye and there is no real justice. Even if someone won a lawsuit, that doesn't fix anything. And more often than not, in a display that just rubs salt on fresh wounds, a police officer fails to even be indicted. Say what you want about any single one of the recent cases where an officer was cleared without charges, the pattern is what should stand out. And believe me, to the people in the communities where civilian/officer relations are strained, they notice. Worse, they expect it. Like a child expecting their parent to come home drunk and pass out before making dinner, this is a story that should disgust anyone. And yet we spend so much time arguing about where to draw the line on gun control that no line gets drawn at all and the problem persists.
People who are killing other people for no good reason are assholes. I think we can all agree on that, no matter your opinion on guns. They are all terrorists in their own right. And their weapon of choice, by a huge margin, is a gun. Owning a gun comes with responsibility. These latest shootings are a disgrace, they are anything but responsible actions, and yet it continues to happen day after day with seemingly no end in sight. So the terrorists win, because everyone else is so busy arguing among themselves that nothing happens, except for the wedge driving the people who aren't terrorists further and further apart.
-
The shooting was so fake. Check the mom with stage lighting in her glasses, when she is supposed to be outside.
-
The shooting was so fake. Check the mom with stage lighting in her glasses, when she is supposed to be outside.
Think that's bad?
49 people supposedly died & the Orlando Police release this:
What...
The...
FUCK.
Was.
THAT?!?!
-
The shooting was so fake. Check the mom with stage lighting in her glasses, when she is supposed to be outside.
Think that's bad?
49 people supposedly died & the Orlando Police release this:
What...
The...
FUCK.
Was.
THAT?!?!
What the absolute effing hell was that all about. For eff's sake. ???
-
The cops have irl bob-ombs now.
-
You people need to keep your trolling more subtle. It's like you're not even trying anymore.
-
Wow....the lady was clearly in a studio. Though I am not sure that automatically means it was faked. Though certainly does not help the cause.
-
You people need to keep your trolling more subtle. It's like you're not even trying anymore.
Hi sokarul!
You people need to keep your sock-shilling, gaslighting & mirroring more subtle. It's like you're not even trying any more.
Don't worry though; you won't get banned for it, cos this forum is your special shill safe-space!
Here; go dance with a bunch of coppers to celebrate 49 people being shot, or whatever twisted shit this is supposed to be that you seem to find completely normal behaviour you mental freak:
-
That video was published 18 days after the Orlando shooting. People are allowed to move one.
-
People are allowed to move one.
Oh they certainly 'moved one'...
Moved a big fat deuce right onto everyone's heads.
Btw, only a shill would defend that bullshit...
But don't worry, you won't be banned; this forum is your special shill safe-space isn't it?
-
As for the "studio" argument, unless we are going to profess an expertise in live broadcast production, I don't think anything other than agnosticism is appropriate.
-
(http://img01.deviantart.net/df92/i/2012/177/6/8/rarity_crying_by_eumy-d54yg3g.png)
Btw, only a shill would defend that bullshit...
But don't worry, you won't be banned; this forum is your special shill safe-space isn't it?
Shilling is not against the rules.
-
(http://img01.deviantart.net/df92/i/2012/177/6/8/rarity_crying_by_eumy-d54yg3g.png)
Btw, only a shill would defend that bullshit...
But don't worry, you won't be banned; this forum is your special shill safe-space isn't it?
Shilling is not against the rules.
Thank goodness too. I get paid $1000 per word shilling this forum. In fact it's the only one I get paid on so if there's a rule against shilling then I'm out of a job. Sorry for the delay Jane. Subscription issues.
-
Thank goodness too. I get paid $1000 per word shilling this forum. In fact it's the only one I get paid on so if there's a rule against shilling then I'm out of a job. Sorry for the delay Jane. Subscription issues.
It's fine, shilling's always the priority.
-
Lets see your definition of a violent crime compared to ours.
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
This page has an apples to apples comparison of crime in the UK and the US. It provides sources for statistics as well as the definitions and criteria used for what data is included.
I noticed that your still more likely to be raped and knifed in the UK than we are.
You mis read. Robbery and knife crimes are higher in the UK. Everything else is higher in the US with murders and assaults more prevalent by an order of magnitude than the more susceptible crimes in the UK.
Even then what would be the cause of a higher robbery rate? Just something to bring up but when your hangun ban took place gun crimes skyrocketed before dropping and I've yet to find out why it plummeted but my guess is more policing rather than criminals turning in their guns.
Does that mean you should ban or restrict knives?
No, because knives are used for purposes aside from killing.
It doesn't really matter the purpose of something. Guns on one hand are designed to send projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal, or human. On the other hand sportscars are specifically designed to go fast. Should we ban them since you can't legally in the USA put the pedal to the metal?
Plus that site didnt compare hot burglaries to us which is higher.
http://futurewire.blogspot.com/2004/12/home-invasions-us-vs-uk.html?m=1
These are robberies which are covered.
Ok.
I will say that we do have a higher murder rate but its by gangs in large gun restrictive cities like New York and Chicago.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
Nope. Chicago, New York and LA actually do not have a high murder rate for their population:
Big Cities With The Highest Murder Rates
St. Louis, Missouri 49.91
Detroit, Michigan 43.52
New Orleans, Louisiana 38.75
Baltimore, Maryland 33.84
Newark, New Jersey 33.32
Buffalo, New York 23.22
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 22.43
Memphis, Tennessee 21.38
Atlanta, Georgia 20.47
Cincinati, Ohio 20.16
Chicago had a murder rate of 15.09, New York had a rate of 3.93 and Los Angeles had a rate of 6.66 (well, 6.65511 if you don’t round to the nearest hundredth).
You will notice quite a few cities with loose gun laws on that list, including St. Louis, the 2014 winner.
Actually only a few if any of the cities listed had loose gun laws. Detroit for example has restrictive gun laws and high crime. If anything you only proved that guns do not contribute to high crime rates. Plus even if all of them had loose gun laws what is that saying? That everybody goes to cities to commit crimes because of loose guns laws while leaving the rest of the state alone?
Can we please get rid of this myth that gun laws make murder more prevalent?
Yes and no. Yes, more gun laws doesn't automatically make crime more prevalent. No, while it doesn't automatically contributes it still contributes more often than not. Probably for every country you list that gun control "works" I can find maybe 5 that didn't.
Why don't you pay more attention to poverty and marginalization statistics?
That's what I've been saying all along. Guns aren't the problem.
I would bet money that most of these murders are occuring in poor, ghettoized neighborhoods with poor community support, whether social or governmental.
I would too.
-
I forgot to add links to my last post.
Here's some stats on Chicago compared to the national average.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html
Here's something about gun laws in Detroit.
https://m.mic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control
-
HA!!!!!!!!!!! Just more and more proof that guns KILL pepel and need to be BANED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to ignore this (regretting it now as I type) because of the spelling errors but I decided to give it a shot (pun intended). If guns kill people do pencils or keyboards misspell words? And if we are going to ban guns lets first start with the president's bodyguards. You see, in order to ban guns you need guns to enforce that ban. Plus look at the results of bans. Hitler, Stalin, pol pot, etc.
Furst off I spel flippin fine BIRD FOR BRANES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm assuming sarcasm for the moment. However in case you aren't being sarcastic get a dictionary or spell check.
Im saying ban guns for the PUBLICK, not Mr. Presidint Barack Obama (the Grete)s bodeygards you flippin IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? If we are to endure gun confiscation then so should the president. After all if gun bans are so effective then after the gun ban he has nothing to fear. Plus, I'm having a hard time believing that a flat earther who believes the government is corrupted and lying to us about even the very shape of our earth should have all the guns.
Howevur I do beleive the police shuld be disarmd sinse that they obvousley cant be trustid not to targit pepel of coler like myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you think guns is what makes a cop moral or not? Does the gun have some sort of spirit that attaches to the owner? And again, if you can't trust the government with guns then who can you trust?
And Hitler and Stalin arent the same flippin thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How are they NOT the same thing?
Maybe your just a IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess you should know since you are one.
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[golf clap]
Wile were talking abowt the shortcumings of gun nut IDIOTS, I think we shuld discus the fact that gun shop ownurs shuld be held crimanuley acowntabul for the crimes comitid using them!!!!!!!!!!
If someone does 200 mph in a 20 mph zone in a Lamborghini, is Lamborghini accountable for him breaking the speed limit?
Cars are difrint. They arent bilt to flippin KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *drops mike*!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But they are built for speed and kill more people accidentally than guns.
As well as the legislaters that alow these gun nuts to go buy guns and KILL pepel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of the crime are done with illegal guns. Nobody is allowing criminals to shoot up people. I just discovered a new reason why I ignored you at first. You're so easy to beat.
*BEEP* RONGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most shotings are by your tipicul wite privligd rascist redneck targiting pepel of coler (such as myself) and LGBTQQ2 individuels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The guy at Orlando was Muslim born to migrants. There are more black on black and black on white crimes than white on blacks. And I can only think of one shooting that was targeted against blacks. Plus even if you are targeted shouldn't that be more reason to get a gun and defend yourself?
And the reson why ilegal guns are geting owt is becuz legal gun makurs are giveing them the guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No they aren't. Criminals get guns via straw purchase, black market, or stealing them. Try getting a gun without a background check.
Well looks like wunce agen youve goten your bootey bahind handid over to you by the EXCELSIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Says the douche!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On the contrary, I've defeated you. And no comment on the last one. If you want to call yourself that then go right ahead.
-
Even then what would be the cause of a higher robbery rate? Just something to bring up but when your hangun ban took place gun crimes skyrocketed before dropping and I've yet to find out why it plummeted but my guess is more policing rather than criminals turning in their guns.
1. I'm Canadian. 2. You're probably right 3. Why would you expect otherwise?
It doesn't really matter the purpose of something. Guns on one hand are designed to send projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal, or human. On the other hand sportscars are specifically designed to go fast. Should we ban them since you can't legally in the USA put the pedal to the metal?
of course it matters. Guns have no redeeming value except causing injury and harm. Knives have multiple different values that mitigate the small number of incidents vs the total times knives are used everyday. As for your sports car analogy, this is just a straw man; I have never said guns should be banned. For an accurate analogy, I would agree that the use of extremely fast cars should be limited in public.
Actually only a few if any of the cities listed had loose gun laws. Detroit for example has restrictive gun laws and high crime. If anything you only proved that guns do not contribute to high crime rates. Plus even if all of them had loose gun laws what is that saying? That everybody goes to cities to commit crimes because of loose guns laws while leaving the rest of the state alone?
No, it says that cities is where most violent crime happens.
Yes and no. Yes, more gun laws doesn't automatically make crime more prevalent.
Great!
[quite]No, while it doesn't automatically contributes it still contributes more often than not.
Source?
Probably for every country you list that gun control "works" I can find maybe 5 that didn't.
Great, I will start: Canada.
That's what I've been saying all along. Guns aren't the problem.
They are part of the problem.
I would too.
Guns are not doing these people any favors. Let's make sure only responsible people can get them and work on the other issues at the same time.
-
Yet we still aren't on the top 25 on most violent nations. And that's the price of freedom.
Given that most of the top 25 most violent and dangerous countries are at war, not exactly a meaningful comparison.
You said "most", meaning they are some who aren't at war.
Not all that hard to do especially to those trained. We don't hear of too many friendly fire incidents with citizens carrying guns.
Oh believe me there are plenty of accidents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11932821/toddler-shooting-gun-controls-america.html), just not many relating to the situation you described because it's such an unlikely situation.
Actually accidents are rather low. Only about 500 per year are fatal and only about 19,000 injured. That's with a population of at least 80 million gun owners and 400 million privately owned guns known. Compare that to say cars with I believe 200 million registered cars and licensed drivers with a staggering 2 million injuries and 32-37,000 fatalities and gun accidents are minute.
Probably very few. When you're determined enough to greatly harm or murder someone few things deter you like lethal force.
How many burglars do you imagine break in to try and hurt or murder someone? Generally they'll just be trying to steal something and get away with it. Knock them out, problem solved.
Yet they are in my house while I'm in it. If they staked out the area as you said they probably knew I was inside during the break in.
Then why are we talking about guns?
Only because nobody shoots back. Interesting fact that up to 92% of mass shootings happens at gun free zones. Why would that be the case?
Because they're undeniably part of the problem. Something does't have to be the sole cause to be the contributing factor. Given that you have a simply absurd amount of gun violence, and that none of the situations you're complaining about are helped by guns, it's a pretty clear conclusion that they do more harm than good.
It happens at gun free zones because shooters aren't idiots. Of course they'd go for where people couldn't fight back as stereotypically easily (note; it's the impression that matters more than the reality). What do you propose, give every student a gun and hope that sorts out school shootings?
If they are old enough then I would allow it. If I ran a private school I would require it.
Give teachers readily accessible weapons and pray no disgruntled student picks it up?
The teachers could carry them. Plus if some disgruntled student manages to take the teachers gun and start shooting at best he would only shoot up his own class. The other teachers would hear the shooting and either intervine or defend their positions.
Let drunken people in night clubs wave them around?
Have designated defenders. It works with cars doesn't it? Not everybody at a bar drinks. Plus there are already states that allow carrying in bars and don't hear much of an uproar.
There are always going to need to be gun free zones.
Why?
The only reason mass shootings happen there is because the shooter could easily pick up a gun somewhere else.
The only reason why they happen us because people can't/won't defend themselves.
I don't know since I'm not on the wrong side of the law but I'm willing to guess that it envolves straw purchases and gang membership.
Bingo: you don't know. Even if it does involve gang membership, any idea where a gang is and how to join it? Awful lot of work for a one-off shooting or a minor edge in a burglary or whatever.
You forgot straw purchases. A legal person buying for an illegal person.
Seems to me like banning guns is actually going to have a pretty substantial effect.
Every gun ban was enforced with government with guns and ended with death by criminals or criminal government.
For the same reason why I lock my doors, buckle my seatbelt, have insurance, etc. precuation. And also my username.
So if you need to take precaution, why not take the precaution of not having a gun-wielding maniac bursting into your house?
I do, by having a gun. When seconds count the police are just minutes away.
If its on you, your children would have to be very sneaky or bold to try and take it from your holster especially if its concealed.
Have you ever been near a child? They grab at anything that interests them. Lift up a toddler, as many parents do, they'd happily end up feeling it.
Can you point to a specific instance of that happening. Gun accidents by themselves are at a all time low and most gun accidents by children are from the result of unsecured guns found in drawers and such. Not only that but a lot of the times the parent thought it was better to hide the gun, this inducing a forbidden fruit mentality for the child rather than teaching the child the safety rules and letting them handle them with supervision and only under supervision.
And the holster has to come off at some point.
Usually when its time to go to bed. Then it can go into a quick access safe.
And of course there are other issues: like jumpiness, because you'd need to shoot first if there was a home invader, so let's see how that can end (http://www.theledger.com/article/20131214/NEWSCHIEF/131219509). Note of course, if she hadn't shot first, and there was actually an armed burglar coming in, she could be dead.
Note the article said more training is needed rather than banning guns. Plus for every one incident like that there are hundreds to thousands of successful defensive gun uses.
https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
How come when I post to a thread listing the many times guns are used in defense it's all anecdotes but when you post to a rare incident it's the norm?
Actually they are rather cheap.
What's your definition of cheap? The cheapest ones I can find are close to $100 if not more, which is a fair bit of money to burn, especially given you'd likely need more than one if you're meant to be able to quickly access it at any point in the house.
Most people in the "poverty" zone have a tv and car. I'm pretty sure if they can afford that they can save for a gun. You can get a decent shotgun for $200.
I'm saying it could be worse.
So? We're talking about guns. if guns don't fix the problems, then it doesn't matter how worse it could be, guns aren't helping. Talk about all the worst-case scenarios you want, if guns won't help in the slightest in dealing with them, why do you want one?
Because they actually do help.
It could be spontaneous. See a group of children cross the street and gun the engine.
Like I said, unlikely, both in terms of timing and motive. And if it's spontaneous, there wouldn't be much time to accelerate so there's actually less chance of a fatal incident than, you know, wandering down the street, seeing a group of children, and shooting.
Ok, but exactly how many spontaneous shootings without cause happen? Keep in mind just how many gun owners and guns are there in the US.
Not if I situate myself to not be the first target. If you'll notice police don't like to be near windows or have their backs to the main entrance.
Do you spend every waking second working out what'd happen if someone immediately pulled out a gun and started shooting and acting as such?
No, what I do is run a plan for a particular scenario, keep it in the back of my head, and carry on with my business.
if not, that's not much of a helpful addition. if so, seems as though there are plenty of dangerous side-effects to guns.
Like what?
They are a lot of anecdotes that stack into stats. And the stats are that up to 2 million cases a year someone defended himself with a gun.
And yet you still have statistically more murders etc in comparison to use, of a more significant amount than we have violent crime more than you, and our definition of violent crime is substantially looser.
That is, four times the murder rate vs three times the violent crime rate, and the latter is severely biased towards you.
So a lot of anecdotes that don't give the full picture, and give no indication as to how much easier it would've been if, you know, the assailant didn't have a gun too. You know you can defend yourself with ways other than a gun, right?
Actually defensive gun use happens more often than crime with a gun even on conservative levels.
Yeah, about that...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
So? All that really says is mass shootings occur elsewhere. It agrees that the US has far more and far more deaths due to such shootings.
If your argument has become "Well at least we're not the worst place in the world," that really says it all.
It was saying that per victim Finland has more.
-
Could you fix your post Ram? Thank you.
-
I live in Spain, a country a bit more restrictive on guns than USA. Here, to own a gun you must be in the police, Civil Guard or armed forces, be in extreme danger of assault or participate in gun sports. Not even private security guards can carry guns, other than those in charge of the protection of money, guns or in isolated areas, instances where they are supposed to be in extreme necessity of one.
Aside from them, gun possession is prohibited. Further on, even if you have a license, the number, kind and ammunition you can use is restricted. Military intended weapons are banned. Incendiary, armor-pearcing and expanding ammunition is also prohibited.
And here's the comparative rate during the 90's for gun mortality:
(https://www.loc.gov/law/images/image002_0000.jpg)
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/spain.php
-
You said "most", meaning they are some who aren't at war.
No, it means "I don't know what list you're using and didn't want to go through every country on every one." And quite frankly if your argument is "We're not quite as bad as places in the middle of a civil war!" you're still not doing wonders for the merits of guns.
Actually accidents are rather low. Only about 500 per year are fatal and only about 19,000 injured. That's with a population of at least 80 million gun owners and 400 million privately owned guns known. Compare that to say cars with I believe 200 million registered cars and licensed drivers with a staggering 2 million injuries and 32-37,000 fatalities and gun accidents are minute.
I can tell you how to save 500 lives and prevent 19000 injuries. That not good enough?
Cars have another purpose, guns do not.
Yet they are in my house while I'm in it. If they staked out the area as you said they probably knew I was inside during the break in.
That was giving you a best case scenario. A more likely case would be them waiting until you're out, at which point a gun wouldn't help, or going in during night in which case you'd need to be able to hear, need to have easy access to guns, no creaky floorboards...
If they are old enough then I would allow it. If I ran a private school I would require it.
Ok, define old enough? Aside from the fact teenagers are hardly renowned as the most responsible group, what do you propose to do for the younger?
The teachers could carry them. Plus if some disgruntled student manages to take the teachers gun and start shooting at best he would only shoot up his own class. The other teachers would hear the shooting and either intervine or defend their positions.
A teacher can't carry it all through the working day. Do you propose they tape a pen to the end to write on the board?
And what is the culture like in America that losing a class full of children is 'acceptable losses?!'
There are always going to need to be gun free zones.
Why?
Did you not read anything I just said?
The only reason mass shootings happen there is because the shooter could easily pick up a gun somewhere else.
The only reason why they happen us because people can't/won't defend themselves.
They wouldn't need to defend themselves if there wasn't someone with a gun coming after them.
You forgot straw purchases. A legal person buying for an illegal person.
Which can't happen if guns can't be legally bought.
Every gun ban was enforced with government with guns and ended with death by criminals or criminal government.
Just what?
For the same reason why I lock my doors, buckle my seatbelt, have insurance, etc. precuation. And also my username.
So if you need to take precaution, why not take the precaution of not having a gun-wielding maniac bursting into your house?
I do, by having a gun. When seconds count the police are just minutes away.
Seconds would count far more if you need an ambulance.
Can you point to a specific instance of that happening. Gun accidents by themselves are at a all time low and most gun accidents by children are from the result of unsecured guns found in drawers and such. Not only that but a lot of the times the parent thought it was better to hide the gun, this inducing a forbidden fruit mentality for the child rather than teaching the child the safety rules and letting them handle them with supervision and only under supervision.
These (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/)for a start. Note that several occur, for example, when a parent is asleep: they can't watch it all the time, and if they want to be prepared for burglars as you insist they'd need it easily accessible. Others occur when the gun's in the car, because apparently people in America feel the need to carry them around outside despite the fact there are barely any incidents they could prevent in those cases.
Usually when its time to go to bed. Then it can go into a quick access safe.
As before: not always accessible, not always usable especially if you need a quiet one, and only the fingerprint-type ones would be of any use because I remember being a kid, I worked out the passcodes to the keysafe etc around the house easily.
Note the article said more training is needed rather than banning guns. Plus for every one incident like that there are hundreds to thousands of successful defensive gun uses.
https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
How come when I post to a thread listing the many times guns are used in defense it's all anecdotes but when you post to a rare incident it's the norm?
Because I don't exclusively post anecdotes, I provided plenty of statistics. When you ask for a specific example, I'll give a specific example. You've seen the raw numbers, and you've apparently decided a huge murder rate is better than a minor bump in less harmful crimes.
Most people in the "poverty" zone have a tv and car. I'm pretty sure if they can afford that they can save for a gun. You can get a decent shotgun for $200.
Quotation marks, really? They mostly have a TV and car because the former are gifts and second hand, the latter are often required for work. A gun alone is fairly expensive, and then you'd want a good quick access safe that's the right size, and in turn only some of those would be particularly effective at keeping children out, and those are far more expensive. When you need to shell out that much (more than one gun, more than one good safe, bullets...) to be 'safe' from being shot in your country, maybe give it a rethink.
Because they actually do help.
Not in any of the situations you gave, you said as much.
Ok, but exactly how many spontaneous shootings without cause happen? Keep in mind just how many gun owners and guns are there in the US.
Over four fifths of all days seem to have a mass shooting in the US, so hey...
if not, that's not much of a helpful addition. if so, seems as though there are plenty of dangerous side-effects to guns.
Like what?
Are you serious? Have you just missed what we've been talking about?
Actually defensive gun use happens more often than crime with a gun even on conservative levels.
Actually it's rarer than you think,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262
And still doesn't help that much:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/
Like I said, you can use a gun in self-defence, sure, but it doesn't make a huge difference in terms of how many situations it works in. (How big is your house that you need a ranged weapon to defend it?!)
It was saying that per victim Finland has more.
And also said "We’ll note that all of these countries had one or two particularly big attacks and have relatively small populations, which have pushed up their per-capita rates." Hardly representative.
-
I live in Spain, a country a bit more restrictive on guns than USA. Here, to own a gun you must be in the police, Civil Guard or armed forces, be in extreme danger of assault or participate in gun sports. Not even private security guards can carry guns, other than those in charge of the protection of money, guns or in isolated areas, instances where they are supposed to be in extreme necessity of one.
Aside from them, gun possession is prohibited. Further on, even if you have a license, the number, kind and ammunition you can use is restricted. Military intended weapons are banned. Incendiary, armor-pearcing and expanding ammunition is also prohibited.
And here's the comparative rate during the 90's for gun mortality:
(https://www.loc.gov/law/images/image002_0000.jpg)
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/spain.php
We may have higher gun deaths but what about homicides and violent crimes in general?
-
This website (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime) shows a comparison between both countries.
I'd like to highlight the ones you've mentioned:
Total crimes per 1000: Spain - 22.35 USA - 41.29
Murders per million people: Spain - 8.47 USA - 42.01
-
You said "most", meaning they are some who aren't at war.
No, it means "I don't know what list you're using and didn't want to go through every country on every one." And quite frankly if your argument is "We're not quite as bad as places in the middle of a civil war!" you're still not doing wonders for the merits of guns.
Ok then.
Actually accidents are rather low. Only about 500 per year are fatal and only about 19,000 injured. That's with a population of at least 80 million gun owners and 400 million privately owned guns known. Compare that to say cars with I believe 200 million registered cars and licensed drivers with a staggering 2 million injuries and 32-37,000 fatalities and gun accidents are minute.
I can tell you how to save 500 lives and prevent 19000 injuries. That not good enough?
Cars have another purpose, guns do not.
If you are propose a gun ban that's impossible for one. You are not going to get the criminals to surrender their guns. And two, every gun ban led to the deaths of citizens by its own government. As for guns not having any other purpose, for one that's really not the issue. I can argue that nobody needs cars and everybody should ride taxis, buses, trolleys, and trains. Two, guns are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. They provide a means of defense against aggressive animals and humans, provide a means of getting food, and a means of recreation. In other words guns are used for every legal and lawful purposes.
Yet they are in my house while I'm in it. If they staked out the area as you said they probably knew I was inside during the break in.
That was giving you a best case scenario. A more likely case would be them waiting until you're out, at which point a gun wouldn't help, or going in during night in which case you'd need to be able to hear, need to have easy access to guns, no creaky floorboards...
I'm a pretty light sleeper, and I can have a gun on the nightstand in a quick access safe or by itself. And unless you have family in other rooms I highly advise you stay put and call the police but have the gun ready until they arrive.
If they are old enough then I would allow it. If I ran a private school I would require it.
Ok, define old enough?
The legal age to carry in most states is 21. Some states allow 18 year olds to carry. Funny thing though that there's no blood running in the streets in the states that allow 18 year olds to carry. Interesting fact: you are more likely to be shot by police than a legal gun carrier.
Aside from the fact teenagers are hardly renowned as the most responsible group, what do you propose to do for the younger?
There used to be a time when children would bring their hunting rifles to school and nobody shot anyone. But then it was at a time when children were mature and had morals. What I advise now is to have gun safety classes and shooting clubs.
The teachers could carry them. Plus if some disgruntled student manages to take the teachers gun and start shooting at best he would only shoot up his own class. The other teachers would hear the shooting and either intervine or defend their positions.
A teacher can't carry it all through the working day.
Actually a lot of people who carry do that.
Do you propose they tape a pen to the end to write on the board?
I'm having trouble understanding this one.
And what is the culture like in America that losing a class full of children is 'acceptable losses?!'
It's not acceptable, but it is better than having the entire school or a large part of it lost to an unhindered maniac.
There are always going to need to be gun free zones.
Why?
Did you not read anything I just said?[/quote]
Yes, which is why I asked.
The only reason mass shootings happen there is because the shooter could easily pick up a gun somewhere else.
The only reason why they happen us because people can't/won't defend themselves.
They wouldn't need to defend themselves if there wasn't someone with a gun coming after them.
Which is impossible to guarantee.
You forgot straw purchases. A legal person buying for an illegal person.
Which can't happen if guns can't be legally bought.
Which again, that's something you can't promise.
Every gun ban was enforced with government with guns and ended with death by criminals or criminal government.
Just what?
Gun bans leads to mass murders by both government and criminals.
For the same reason why I lock my doors, buckle my seatbelt, have insurance, etc. precuation. And also my username.
So if you need to take precaution, why not take the precaution of not having a gun-wielding maniac bursting into your house?
I do, by having a gun. When seconds count the police are just minutes away.
Seconds would count far more if you need an ambulance.
What?
Can you point to a specific instance of that happening. Gun accidents by themselves are at a all time low and most gun accidents by children are from the result of unsecured guns found in drawers and such. Not only that but a lot of the times the parent thought it was better to hide the gun, this inducing a forbidden fruit mentality for the child rather than teaching the child the safety rules and letting them handle them with supervision and only under supervision.
These (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/)for a start. Note that several occur, for example, when a parent is asleep: they can't watch it all the time, and if they want to be prepared for burglars as you insist they'd need it easily accessible.
As I said quick access safes are the solution to that.
Others occur when the gun's in the car, because apparently people in America feel the need to carry them around outside despite the fact there are barely any incidents they could prevent in those cases.
Those weren't instances of people carrying guns. Those were instances of people storing guns improperly.
Usually when its time to go to bed. Then it can go into a quick access safe.
As before: not always accessible, not always usable especially if you need a quiet one, and only the fingerprint-type ones would be of any use because I remember being a kid, I worked out the passcodes to the keysafe etc around the house easily.
Which probably led to things that you were never allowed to touch. Children won't feel the need to play with daddy's gun when they already know how to operate and fire it under supervision. That's the main way of teaching respect towards guns.
Note the article said more training is needed rather than banning guns. Plus for every one incident like that there are hundreds to thousands of successful defensive gun uses.
https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
How come when I post to a thread listing the many times guns are used in defense it's all anecdotes but when you post to a rare incident it's the norm?
Because I don't exclusively post anecdotes, I provided plenty of statistics. When you ask for a specific example, I'll give a specific example. You've seen the raw numbers, and you've apparently decided a huge murder rate is better than a minor bump in less harmful crimes.
Our murder rate isn't caused by guns.
Most people in the "poverty" zone have a tv and car. I'm pretty sure if they can afford that they can save for a gun. You can get a decent shotgun for $200.
Quotation marks, really? They mostly have a TV and car because the former are gifts and second hand, the latter are often required for work. A gun alone is fairly expensive, and then you'd want a good quick access safe that's the right size, and in turn only some of those would be particularly effective at keeping children out, and those are far more expensive. When you need to shell out that much (more than one gun, more than one good safe, bullets...) to be 'safe' from being shot in your country, maybe give it a rethink.
Most people in the poverty level are on welfare and refuse to work. Not only that but when you compare us to poorer counties then we really aren't that poor after all.
Because they actually do help.
Not in any of the situations you gave, you said as much.
I was referring to things like robberies and assaults.
Ok, but exactly how many spontaneous shootings without cause happen? Keep in mind just how many gun owners and guns are there in the US.
Over four fifths of all days seem to have a mass shooting in the US, so hey...
Of all days of what?
if not, that's not much of a helpful addition. if so, seems as though there are plenty of dangerous side-effects to guns.
Like what?
Are you serious? Have you just missed what we've been talking about?
No.
Actually defensive gun use happens more often than crime with a gun even on conservative levels.
Actually it's rarer than you think,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262
And still doesn't help that much:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/
Like I said, you can use a gun in self-defence, sure, but it doesn't make a huge difference in terms of how many situations it works in. (How big is your house that you need a ranged weapon to defend it?!)
The problem is they are only looking at homicides. Defensive gun use could mean that I show'd my gun and he fled. And when the assail isn't had a ranged weapon I would want the upper hand.
It was saying that per victim Finland has more.
And also said "We’ll note that all of these countries had one or two particularly big attacks and have relatively small populations, which have pushed up their per-capita rates." Hardly representative.
So Finland would have a higher victim rate per capita than we do.
-
Ok, as this is starting to get unwieldy/long, I'm going to respond to the points that seem as though they're a more prominent/major topic, and would allow for an actual discussion. As it is, if I quoted I'd probably just end up with more one line snarks than meaningful comments.
Let me know if I missed anything you wanted to see a reply to.
First, an overview of the currently established facts.
The murder rate in, say, the UK, a country with strict gun control, is a quarter of that in the US: while the violent crime rate is technically three times greater: except the UK's definition of violent crime is much more lax, meaning the increase isn't really that large.
While guns could theoretically be used in self-defence, they provide no actual benefit. As far as preventing property theft or harm goes, you'd be better off hiding in your room and calling a police. Having a gun does not help: you saw the source for that last time, and I'm not sure why you said they were only talking about homicides, they weren't. (Plus accessible guns ensures anyone who breaks in will themselves be armed similarly).
Four out of every five days (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence) (Link refers to 5/6, but the figure they give is 0.006 from 4/5) in the US see a mass shooting: lone people using a gun to kill in a decision that simply wouldn't be possible to make if guns weren't accessible. Australia used to have mass shootings, albeit not on that scale, and after enacting gun control the number of them was reduced to a flat zero (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/).
None of that is up for debate: they are brute facts.
An overview of what you've said, now:
Guns would not cause accidental harm, but only if they were accompanied by a number of secondary elements: presumably classes/lessons to teach proper storage and uses, fingerprint-type gun-safes... Presumably then, at the very least, you'd advocate the step of making it mandatory for people to pass certain tests to own a gun, so that they can store responsible etc. That's gun control: and it's exactly in line with what you're saying.
Things other than guns are dangerous: you said, for example, that your murder rate isn't due to guns. However, the only thing even close to guns just in terms of accessibility are cars, and not only do they have a purpose beyond causing grievous bodily harm, but you still need to pass a few tests to be able to own one: and they're only dangerous in certain locations. Plus guns don't help with them as a threat. If you're proposing the people who would go on shooting sprees would instead resort to hit and runs, I'd point out that'd still rule out disgruntled schoolkids killing their classmates in such a grand fashion: and that cars wouldn't last long like that. Plus the cliches of a mass shooting aren't possible: the killer can't kill themselves to escape capture, the killer can't target specific people... The only example of such a rampage I can think of anyway was the guy with the bulldozer in Colorado, 2004, and he still shot himself.
You mentioned also that police shoot more people than typical criminals, I'm not sure as to the source of that, but I would point out even in the UK police are rarely armed. We've had a total of 58 incidents where the police fired a gun over ten years (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-police-use-of-firearms-in-england-and-wales-2011-2012)(Germany fired all of 85 in just one year). And yet our crime rate isn't substantially larger than yours (once variations in definitions are accounted for). In the US, 90 bullets were shot into one person. They're authorised to use guns often, but they only need to less than 0.05% of the time it's allowed, generally. Just because it's a policeman holding a gun doesn't stop it being a gun problem: and I suspect the only reason they have such accessible guns is because they need to given the fact everyone they go up against would be armed themselves.
So, to conclude, the aftereffects of gun control.
You've said the criminals would keep their guns. As shown by, say, Australia and their hugely curtailed number of mass shootings (ie: reduced to zero), a lot of the dangerous people still don't have theirs. And they had a lot of the same rhetoric as America, lobbyists who opposed the idea, who were very vocal: and by now most seem to think they overreacted. And of course, how many criminals would keep a gun? Not all criminals are armed robbers or killers etc. Most would only be armed because they were afraid of their victim having a gun too: and generally burglars and the like need to keep a close watch on the law most of the time to avoid getting caught. And of course, once bullets are no longer sold there are only so many times you can use a gun, especially if you want to get in training to actually be able to aim.
So, the worst case scenario is a slight spike in crime shortly after gun control is enacted: but that'd wear out quickly once the new status quo gets adjusted to, and the handful that kept guns would be caught. We've been over how getting guns illegally is hardly doable for your average criminal once they're not sold on every street. As such, it is very easy to promise a hugely reduced proportion of criminals will themselves have firearms. How many people would keep a gun on the offchance they want to get into housebreaking one day? How many career criminals even would want to keep firearms around knowing it's an instant arrest?
Last issue's your claim "every gun ban led to the deaths of citizens by its own government." Love to see a source so I know what you're trying to refer to. Can't say much otherwise. I mean there's the fact the Second Amendment was originally written so citizens could create a militia to overthrow the government, but that's not really feasible nowadays because if your government did decide to end up malevolent, a handgun wouldn't do much against a drone strike.
-
Ok, as this is starting to get unwieldy/long, I'm going to respond to the points that seem as though they're a more prominent/major topic, and would allow for an actual discussion. As it is, if I quoted I'd probably just end up with more one line snarks than meaningful comments.
I didn't intended them to be snarks but my apologies if they were received that way.
Let me know if I missed anything you wanted to see a reply to.
Ok, but looking at your post it seems to be longer than my response. But then again you are deleting the previous quotes to save space and that can be time consuming.
First, an overview of the currently established facts.
The murder rate in, say, the UK, a country with strict gun control, is a quarter of that in the US: while the violent crime rate is technically three times greater: except the UK's definition of violent crime is much more lax, meaning the increase isn't really that large.
When comparing specific crimes such as robbery as Rama set linked to it shows that you have a higher rate than we do. Not only that but as I said before your gun crimes skyrocketed just after the gun ban. It was only due to more police being hired to quell it did it went down. Plus on the same token our crime rate is plummeting and yet guns sales are rising. I'm not saying that's the cause but it does dispels the myth of more guns equals more crime.
While guns could theoretically be used in self-defence, they provide no actual benefit. As far as preventing property theft or harm goes, you'd be better off hiding in your room and calling a police.
They provide great benefits. Just read the stories I've linked. In fact a lot of them had they not been armed they wouldn't be here today. Plus I'm not about to wait for the police without something to hold the assailants off if they get to me before the police.
Having a gun does not help: you saw the source for that last time, and I'm not sure why you said they were only talking about homicides, they weren't.
I didn't see that, but the link I gave refuted that. Kleck's studies are peered reviewed and sound. Even Wikipedia quoted someone on the other side saying such.
(Plus accessible guns ensures anyone who breaks in will themselves be armed similarly).
Quick access safes can be anchored.
Four out of every five days (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence) (Link refers to 5/6, but the figure they give is 0.006 from 4/5) in the US see a mass shooting: lone people using a gun to kill in a decision that simply wouldn't be possible to make if guns weren't accessible.
Actually that's been the average for a long time. In fact it spiked during the assault weapons ban.
Australia used to have mass shootings, albeit not on that scale, and after enacting gun control the number of them was reduced to a flat zero (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/).
None of that is up for debate: they are brute facts.
Actually they can. Australia had ten mass shootings since the ban and their crime went up.
An overview of what you've said, now:
Guns would not cause accidental harm, but only if they were accompanied by a number of secondary elements: presumably classes/lessons to teach proper storage and uses, fingerprint-type gun-safes... Presumably then, at the very least, you'd advocate the step of making it mandatory for people to pass certain tests to own a gun, so that they can store responsible etc.
It's one thing to advocate. I'm all for more training and securing guns in safes. It's another to mandate it. There are states with no requirements to train in order to carry and we don't see a spike in accidents. Also you can't enforce a mandatory safe storage without infringing on many rights. And that's another thing. Our constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms so any law banning guns is a infringement.
That's gun control: and it's exactly in line with what you're saying.
The difference is I advocate but you want it to mandatory. You can't mandate responsibility.
Things other than guns are dangerous: you said, for example, that your murder rate isn't due to guns. However, the only thing even close to guns just in terms of accessibility are cars, and not only do they have a purpose beyond causing grievous bodily harm, but you still need to pass a few tests to be able to own one: and they're only dangerous in certain locations. Plus guns don't help with them as a threat. If you're proposing the people who would go on shooting sprees would instead resort to hit and runs, I'd point out that'd still rule out disgruntled schoolkids killing their classmates in such a grand fashion: and that cars wouldn't last long like that. Plus the cliches of a mass shooting aren't possible: the killer can't kill themselves to escape capture, the killer can't target specific people... The only example of such a rampage I can think of anyway was the guy with the bulldozer in Colorado, 2004, and he still shot himself.
Before guns we killed each with knives and swords.
You mentioned also that police shoot more people than typical criminals, I'm not sure as to the source of that, but I would point out even in the UK police are rarely armed. We've had a total of 58 incidents where the police fired a gun over ten years (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-police-use-of-firearms-in-england-and-wales-2011-2012)
I'm not sure where I said that but I think I was trying to say that police kill more people than law abiding armed citizens here in the US.
(Germany fired all of 85 in just one year). And yet our crime rate isn't substantially larger than yours (once variations in definitions are accounted for). In the US, 90 bullets were shot into one person. They're authorised to use guns often, but they only need to less than 0.05% of the time it's allowed, generally. Just because it's a policeman holding a gun doesn't stop it being a gun problem: and I suspect the only reason they have such accessible guns is because they need to given the fact everyone they go up against would be armed themselves.
Which is exactly why I want to arm myself. The police responds to the same scenarios as the civilian victims. Even if you are to say that tomorrow all guns are banned how are you going to do it? Their are at least 400 million privately owned guns and at least 80 million gun owners. Most of our military and police will refuse to obey and confiscate the weapons on moral and safety basis.
So, to conclude, the aftereffects of gun control.
You've said the criminals would keep their guns. As shown by, say, Australia and their hugely curtailed number of mass shootings (ie: reduced to zero), a lot of the dangerous people still don't have theirs. And they had a lot of the same rhetoric as America, lobbyists who opposed the idea, who were very vocal: and by now most seem to think they overreacted. And of course, how many criminals would keep a gun? Not all criminals are armed robbers or killers etc. Most would only be armed because they were afraid of their victim having a gun too: and generally burglars and the like need to keep a close watch on the law most of the time to avoid getting caught. And of course, once bullets are no longer sold there are only so many times you can use a gun, especially if you want to get in training to actually be able to aim.
As pointed out they actually had ten mass shootings since the ban and their crime rate went up. If you ban guns here there would be a civil war or a dead law unenforced.
So, the worst case scenario is a slight spike in crime shortly after gun control is enacted: but that'd wear out quickly once the new status quo gets adjusted to, and the handful that kept guns would be caught.
Actually it was a rather large spike in crimes.
We've been over how getting guns illegally is hardly doable for your average criminal once they're not sold on every street. As such, it is very easy to promise a hugely reduced proportion of criminals will themselves have firearms. How many people would keep a gun on the offchance they want to get into housebreaking one day?
If it works so well then why isn't it working with Mexico?
How many career criminals even would want to keep firearms around knowing it's an instant arrest?
Last issue's your claim "every gun ban led to the deaths of citizens by its own government." Love to see a source so I know what you're trying to refer to.
Nazi germany, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Can't say much otherwise. I mean there's the fact the Second Amendment was originally written so citizens could create a militia to overthrow the government, but that's not really feasible nowadays because if your government did decide to end up malevolent, a handgun wouldn't do much against a drone strike.
The second amendment also allows for the private citizen to own guns. Also as shown in Vietnam guerrilla warfare works. It works especially when the other side are hesitant to fire on their own people and it works even more when a large portion of the other side defects and bring some of the goodies. Plus if what your saying is true then that would be even more reason to have more and bigger guns.
-
Robbery may be 25% higher in UK but murders are 300% higher in the US. Think about that... 300% is a massive difference. You guys have the highest rates of homicide in the western world and don't think that every country that has a -much- lower rate has anything valuable to say on the topic. It's weird, in my kindest evaluation.
-
Looks like my answers were ignored. It's okay, I'm used to it by now. I'd like to point out my government hasn't mass murdered anyone yet, and the gun law here is a ban to all guns, with little exception.
-
This website (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime) shows a comparison between both countries.
I'd like to highlight the ones you've mentioned:
Total crimes per 1000: Spain - 22.35 USA - 41.29
Murders per million people: Spain - 8.47 USA - 42.01
Are you comparing the entire United States or states with gun laws similar to yours?
-
Robbery may be 25% higher in UK but murders are 300% higher in the US. Think about that... 300% is a massive difference. You guys have the highest rates of homicide in the western world and don't think that every country that has a -much- lower rate has anything valuable to say on the topic. It's weird, in my kindest evaluation.
That's becuase of the gang violence. It would be interesting to see a comparison between states with similar gun laws as you are.
-
Robbery may be 25% higher in UK but murders are 300% higher in the US. Think about that... 300% is a massive difference. You guys have the highest rates of homicide in the western world and don't think that every country that has a -much- lower rate has anything valuable to say on the topic. It's weird, in my kindest evaluation.
That's becuase of the gang violence. It would be interesting to see a comparison between states with similar gun laws as you are.
I've heard this said, but never any proof that your high murder rate is exclusively due to gangs. We have gangs in Toronti as well. And you will never find a comparable place for gun laws because of the Brady law.
-
This website (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime) shows a comparison between both countries.
I'd like to highlight the ones you've mentioned:
Total crimes per 1000: Spain - 22.35 USA - 41.29
Murders per million people: Spain - 8.47 USA - 42.01
Are you comparing the entire United States or states with gun laws similar to yours?
Not even the strictest state (California) is even close to Spanish gun laws. You simply can't buy a gun in Spain unless you're in extreme danger of assault (and have proven it).
-
Robbery may be 25% higher in UK but murders are 300% higher in the US. Think about that... 300% is a massive difference. You guys have the highest rates of homicide in the western world and don't think that every country that has a -much- lower rate has anything valuable to say on the topic. It's weird, in my kindest evaluation.
That's becuase of the gang violence. It would be interesting to see a comparison between states with similar gun laws as you are.
I've heard this said, but never any proof that your high murder rate is exclusively due to gangs. We have gangs in Toronti as well. And you will never find a comparable place for gun laws because of the Brady law.
Then here's some evidence.
-
Just saying: Anyone who has a profile picture of a gun on top of a bible has to be a troll.
I'd take it seriously anywhere else. But here on the FES? Fuck no. Trollolololol.
-
Also; is that a Glock on that bible? A shitty plastic girls-gun made in pinko socialist europe? Get a fucking grip.
At least make it a 1911 or a S&W Model 29 or something. It's like you're not even trying. Commie.
-
Just saying: Anyone who has a profile picture of a gun on top of a bible has to be a troll.
I'd take it seriously anywhere else. But here on the FES? no. Trollolololol.
I use it as a signature sorta. People will know I'm the same person. I'm in several other forums and have the the same avatar. Also I could say the same thing about your avatar.
-
You could say what about my avatar? Please elaborate.
-
And again: A Glock? Seriously? There are so many awesome guns to choose from, and you go with that plastic piece of crap?
Baby Jesus does not approve.
-
I didn't intended them to be snarks but my apologies if they were received that way.
Ok, but looking at your post it seems to be longer than my response. But then again you are deleting the previous quotes to save space and that can be time consuming.
I was talking about my posts too: but generally one-line points can hardly be in depth. The idea was just to try to refresh it, get the topics into vaguely organised sections rather than popping up multiple times over a post, and ideally I was hoping we wouldn't get into a debate on the brute facts which would certainly shrink the posts, but hey :P
When comparing specific crimes such as robbery as Rama set linked to it shows that you have a higher rate than we do. Not only that but as I said before your gun crimes skyrocketed just after the gun ban. It was only due to more police being hired to quell it did it went down. Plus on the same token our crime rate is plummeting and yet guns sales are rising. I'm not saying that's the cause but it does dispels the myth of more guns equals more crime.
Aside from the fact robbery is notably less severe than, you know, murder, that's still pretty much covered by what I said.
But sure, let's look at stats. The year in the UK is 1997 where firearms were banned:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control
There are several instances there. And sure, you see the rate of crimes involving guns increasing from that date: wow, does that refute everything I've been saying? Not really, because note what the statistics are actually saying. It is the quantity of offences involving guns, not the quality of them. Nothing like, for example, the school shooting that prompted the gun laws have happened since. Someone firing once into the air as a warning shot would be counted as an offence on that list: and would certainly happen more frequently because after that point a gun would become a more efficient means of intimidation. It doesn't mean more people were hurt.
And regardless, even if you could point out that this in fact means even more gun crime happened, and people went around shooting everyone, you just need to look further ahead to see the rate plummets. Not slowly decreases, outright plummets.
Skip down to Scotland, beyond an 05-07 year increase (which was a bad year for crime all around here) the average since the tremendous spike in crime before the gun laws were enacted, there's an undeniable decrease of the average, which would only be more obvious if more data was shown on what came before.
And honestly the homicide rates compared by country says a lot.
Then go down to Australia, the time of the gun control enacted there is marked and you can see a very clear decrease. And you can see yet another source for the fact Australia has had zero mass shootings since the ban, I have no idea why you claimed they had ten.
While guns could theoretically be used in self-defence, they provide no actual benefit. As far as preventing property theft or harm goes, you'd be better off hiding in your room and calling a police.
They provide great benefits. Just read the stories I've linked. In fact a lot of them had they not been armed they wouldn't be here today. Plus I'm not about to wait for the police without something to hold the assailants off if they get to me before the police.
I didn't see that, but the link I gave refuted that. Kleck's studies are peered reviewed and sound. Even Wikipedia quoted someone on the other side saying such.
You can find anecdotes for anything, and those situations are still pointless because we don't know what would have happened if they didn't have a gun. You can't just ignore the actual statistics and facts in favour of a few personal experiences which don't even say what you're claiming. Guns don't help, end of.
(Plus accessible guns ensures anyone who breaks in will themselves be armed similarly).
Quick access safes can be anchored.
So? A criminal can get a gun elsewhere. Given that straw purchases are the only accessible illegal means for getting a gun, and that they're only possible if it's easy for someone else to buy a gun, you're going to have armed assailants pretty much all the time.
Four out of every five days (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence) (Link refers to 5/6, but the figure they give is 0.006 from 4/5) in the US see a mass shooting: lone people using a gun to kill in a decision that simply wouldn't be possible to make if guns weren't accessible.
Actually that's been the average for a long time. In fact it spiked during the assault weapons ban.
And you think that's a good thing why?
Plus: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png
It's one thing to advocate. I'm all for more training and securing guns in safes. It's another to mandate it. There are states with no requirements to train in order to carry and we don't see a spike in accidents. Also you can't enforce a mandatory safe storage without infringing on many rights. And that's another thing. Our constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms so any law banning guns is a infringement.
If your arguments rely on the fact these steps are needed to actually prevent, you know, toddlers shooting themselves, I'd point out that definitely would imply training's a good thing. Take cars: would you propose people be able to buy and drive around because freedom, or should they actually know how to use the otherwise dangerous machines?
Plus, sure, your constitution lets people have guns, in something quite literally called an amendment. Amend it.
Before guns we killed each with knives and swords.
In armies, yeah. So?
I'm not sure where I said that but I think I was trying to say that police kill more people than law abiding armed citizens here in the US.
Still not a good thing.
Which is exactly why I want to arm myself. The police responds to the same scenarios as the civilian victims. Even if you are to say that tomorrow all guns are banned how are you going to do it? Their are at least 400 million privately owned guns and at least 80 million gun owners. Most of our military and police will refuse to obey and confiscate the weapons on moral and safety basis.
If you ban guns here there would be a civil war or a dead law unenforced.
If your military and police won't follow the law, you've got problems, and that really shouldn't be a defence. Do it the same way Australia did it: didn't take too long, and went pretty easily. Organise a buy-back, get people to hand their guns in.
And seriously, if you're worried as to people being shot who would try to enforce gun control, that there is perfect evidence of why you definitely need it.
If it works so well then why isn't it working with Mexico?
Because America sells guns like candy and it's right next door.
How many career criminals even would want to keep firearms around knowing it's an instant arrest?
Last issue's your claim "every gun ban led to the deaths of citizens by its own government." Love to see a source so I know what you're trying to refer to.
Nazi germany, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Nazi Germany loosened gun regulations: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/
With the exception, of course, of Jews: hardly what's being proposed.
Really hard to find any actual source on Stalin, but from what I can see the reason he got into power was a bunch of civilians with guns.
In fact, Mao similarly only got into power because of the wide availability of guns, from what I can see. Not seeing any evidence of Pol Pot enforcing any gun legislation: a few people seem to quote 1956 as a major year, but as Pol Pot only lead the Khmer Rouge from 1963 on... And can't find evidence of much in 1956 either. Looks more like internet meme propaganda than actual facts.
The second amendment also allows for the private citizen to own guns. Also as shown in Vietnam guerrilla warfare works. It works especially when the other side are hesitant to fire on their own people and it works even more when a large portion of the other side defects and bring some of the goodies. Plus if what your saying is true then that would be even more reason to have more and bigger guns.
More and bigger guns still wouldn't help against drones. Guerilla warfare isn't going to work against drones. It's an obsolete argument (much like the Second Amendment which, after all, was written in an era in which the best guns were muskets). And I would genuinely love to see someone defect with a drone hidden under their jumper. And if it got to the stage your government was a dangerous enough threat that you needed a violent revolution, I doubt they'd hesitate to fire on the people who would, from their perspective, be terrorists.
-
I can't believe this thread is still going....what the hell is the point? The people who want gun control have their minds made up, and they have some points as well.
The people who don't want gun control have their minds made up, and they have some points also.
Soooo....the point here???
Also symptom, come on now...try harder. There is no evidence Luke is a troll. Though I i do agree with the hatred for glocks....i always hated their long un predictable trigger action, very inaccurate.
-
I can't believe this thread is still going....what the hell is the point? The people who want gun control have their minds made up, and they have some points as well.
The people who don't want gun control have their minds made up, and they have some points also.
Soooo....the point here???
Passing the time, learning. If you only talk to try and change peoples' minds this really isn't the site for you.
-
You could say what about my avatar? Please elaborate.
That it indicates that you're a troll.
-
And again: A Glock? Seriously? There are so many awesome guns to choose from, and you go with that plastic piece of crap?
Baby Jesus does not approve.
I wanted to choose a generic gun and plus I like Glocks.
-
I didn't intended them to be snarks but my apologies if they were received that way.
Ok, but looking at your post it seems to be longer than my response. But then again you are deleting the previous quotes to save space and that can be time consuming.
I was talking about my posts too: but generally one-line points can hardly be in depth. The idea was just to try to refresh it, get the topics into vaguely organised sections rather than popping up multiple times over a post, and ideally I was hoping we wouldn't get into a debate on the brute facts which would certainly shrink the posts, but hey :P
Ok then.
When comparing specific crimes such as robbery as Rama set linked to it shows that you have a higher rate than we do. Not only that but as I said before your gun crimes skyrocketed just after the gun ban. It was only due to more police being hired to quell it did it went down. Plus on the same token our crime rate is plummeting and yet guns sales are rising. I'm not saying that's the cause but it does dispels the myth of more guns equals more crime.
Aside from the fact robbery is notably less severe than, you know, murder, that's still pretty much covered by what I said.
Which I'll restate that most of our murder and crime rates come from big cities usually with strict gun control.
But sure, let's look at stats. The year in the UK is 1997 where firearms were banned:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control
There are several instances there. And sure, you see the rate of crimes involving guns increasing from that date: wow, does that refute everything I've been saying? Not really, because note what the statistics are actually saying. It is the quantity of offences involving guns, not the quality of them. Nothing like, for example, the school shooting that prompted the gun laws have happened since. Someone firing once into the air as a warning shot would be counted as an offence on that list: and would certainly happen more frequently because after that point a gun would become a more efficient means of intimidation. It doesn't mean more people were hurt.
And regardless, even if you could point out that this in fact means even more gun crime happened, and people went around shooting everyone, you just need to look further ahead to see the rate plummets. Not slowly decreases, outright plummets.
Skip down to Scotland, beyond an 05-07 year increase (which was a bad year for crime all around here) the average since the tremendous spike in crime before the gun laws were enacted, there's an undeniable decrease of the average, which would only be more obvious if more data was shown on what came before.
And honestly the homicide rates compared by country says a lot.
Then go down to Australia, the time of the gun control enacted there is marked and you can see a very clear decrease. And you can see yet another source for the fact Australia has had zero mass shootings since the ban, I have no idea why you claimed they had ten.
Actually they were already low when the gun laws was passed.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
While guns could theoretically be used in self-defence, they provide no actual benefit. As far as preventing property theft or harm goes, you'd be better off hiding in your room and calling a police.
They provide great benefits. Just read the stories I've linked. In fact a lot of them had they not been armed they wouldn't be here today. Plus I'm not about to wait for the police without something to hold the assailants off if they get to me before the police.
I didn't see that, but the link I gave refuted that. Kleck's studies are peered reviewed and sound. Even Wikipedia quoted someone on the other side saying such.
You can find anecdotes for anything, and those situations are still pointless because we don't know what would have happened if they didn't have a gun.
I'm not one to find out the intentions of my assailant. When my life is in immediate danger and I need to take care of the situation fast. He may just be showing off to his friends and had no intention to harm or he hated me for some reason and wanted to kill me. It's not the victim's job to judge that. You can't judge that even if you wanted to because these things happens fast.
You can't just ignore the actual statistics and facts in favour of a few personal experiences which don't even say what you're claiming. Guns don't help, end of.
But they do and I gave stats. Up to 2 million times per year someone used a gun in self defense.
(Plus accessible guns ensures anyone who breaks in will themselves be armed similarly).
Quick access safes can be anchored.
So? A criminal can get a gun elsewhere.
Exactly. Which is why gun control doesn't work. Plus if he gets it somewhere else then its not my problem.
Given that straw purchases are the only accessible illegal means for getting a gun, and that they're only possible if it's easy for someone else to buy a gun, you're going to have armed assailants pretty much all the time.
Mexico has strict gun laws and the cartel has RPGs.
Four out of every five days (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence) (Link refers to 5/6, but the figure they give is 0.006 from 4/5) in the US see a mass shooting: lone people using a gun to kill in a decision that simply wouldn't be possible to make if guns weren't accessible.
Actually that's been the average for a long time. In fact it spiked during the assault weapons ban.
And you think that's a good thing why?
No, it terrible but its not something to ban guns over. In fact my point was that during the ban our crime increased. Mass shootings alone are at the tail end of all crimes.
Plus: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png
Forgot to look at the link.
It's one thing to advocate. I'm all for more training and securing guns in safes. It's another to mandate it. There are states with no requirements to train in order to carry and we don't see a spike in accidents. Also you can't enforce a mandatory safe storage without infringing on many rights. And that's another thing. Our constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms so any law banning guns is a infringement.
If your arguments rely on the fact these steps are needed to actually prevent, you know, toddlers shooting themselves, I'd point out that definitely would imply training's a good thing. Take cars: would you propose people be able to buy and drive around because freedom, or should they actually know how to use the otherwise dangerous machines?
Here in the US you only need a license to drive on public roads. Children can drive tractors on their parents property. So I'm for responsible drivers, but a license doesn't promise that. In fact most of all car accidents are caused by licensed drivers.
Plus, sure, your constitution lets people have guns, in something quite literally called an amendment. Amend it.
It doesn't let's people have guns reminds government that we already have that right.
Before guns we killed each with knives and swords.
In armies, yeah. So?
If you make all guns dissappear then the strongest gang on the block has control. The gun is the great equalizer.
I'm not sure where I said that but I think I was trying to say that police kill more people than law abiding armed citizens here in the US.
Still not a good thing.
I agree. But still it shows that armed law abiding citizens are not the problem.
Which is exactly why I want to arm myself. The police responds to the same scenarios as the civilian victims. Even if you are to say that tomorrow all guns are banned how are you going to do it? Their are at least 400 million privately owned guns and at least 80 million gun owners. Most of our military and police will refuse to obey and confiscate the weapons on moral and safety basis.
If you ban guns here there would be a civil war or a dead law unenforced.
If your military and police won't follow the law, you've got problems, and that really shouldn't be a defence. Do it the same way Australia did it: didn't take too long, and went pretty easily. Organise a buy-back, get people to hand their guns in.
Australia doesn't view guns rights as highly as we do if you noticed.
And seriously, if you're worried as to people being shot who would try to enforce gun control, that there is perfect evidence of why you definitely need it.
Why? That's exactly why the founding fathers put in the second amendment. To deter a tyrannical government.
If it works so well then why isn't it working with Mexico?
Because America sells guns like candy and it's right next door.
Then why don't we have the same problem as Mexico?
How many career criminals even would want to keep firearms around knowing it's an instant arrest?
Last issue's your claim "every gun ban led to the deaths of citizens by its own government." Love to see a source so I know what you're trying to refer to.
Nazi germany, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Nazi Germany loosened gun regulations: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/
With the exception, of course, of Jews: hardly what's being proposed.
Really hard to find any actual source on Stalin, but from what I can see the reason he got into power was a bunch of civilians with guns.
In fact, Mao similarly only got into power because of the wide availability of guns, from what I can see.
And then when in power disarmed everybody.
Not seeing any evidence of Pol Pot enforcing any gun legislation: a few people seem to quote 1956 as a major year, but as Pol Pot only lead the Khmer Rouge from 1963 on... And can't find evidence of much in 1956 either. Looks more like internet meme propaganda than actual facts.
Look at the gun laws of that time.
The second amendment also allows for the private citizen to own guns. Also as shown in Vietnam guerrilla warfare works. It works especially when the other side are hesitant to fire on their own people and it works even more when a large portion of the other side defects and bring some of the goodies. Plus if what your saying is true then that would be even more reason to have more and bigger guns.
More and bigger guns still wouldn't help against drones. Guerilla warfare isn't going to work against drones. It's an obsolete argument (much like the Second Amendment which, after all, was written in an era in which the best guns were muskets). And I would genuinely love to see someone defect with a drone hidden under their jumper. And if it got to the stage your government was a dangerous enough threat that you needed a violent revolution, I doubt they'd hesitate to fire on the people who would, from their perspective, be terrorists.
First of all its still working in the Middle East and second, most of our soldiers identify as conservative.
-
Two things jumped out at me:
1. St. Louis and New Orleans consistently compete for too murder in the country. Chicago, New York and LA arent even in the top 20. These two cities have very lax gun laws. Lax gun laws do not promote safety.
2. Mexico has issues with corruption that inhibit the enforcement of laws on the books. The laws are not the problem.
-
Which I'll restate that most of our murder and crime rates come from big cities usually with strict gun control.
Beyond Rama's point, same issue as the Mexico case: gun laws in one place don't help if they're being given out like candy down the block. Sweeping reforms, such as in Australia, and you can see the effect just by comparing crime rates with the US.
Actually they were already low when the gun laws was passed.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
I would really recommend looking at raw stats rather than obviously biased sources. They're lower now than they were before, and have been for a while (spike from 05 and so not withstanding).
I'm not one to find out the intentions of my assailant. When my life is in immediate danger and I need to take care of the situation fast. He may just be showing off to his friends and had no intention to harm or he hated me for some reason and wanted to kill me. It's not the victim's job to judge that. You can't judge that even if you wanted to because these things happens fast.
But they do and I gave stats. Up to 2 million times per year someone used a gun in self defense.
If they've got a gun, it's highly unlikely you can kill him instantly. Wouldn't be hard for them to turn around and shoot.
People use guns in self-defence, sure, but remember the stats I gave: it doesn't actually stop property theft or harm. If they'd used a bat they have pretty much the same rate of success, and if they hid and called the police they were far safer. Guns don't help. Stop ignoring that.
Exactly. Which is why gun control doesn't work. Plus if he gets it somewhere else then its not my problem.
When they're bursting into your house with a gun then yeah, is your problem. And typically they can only get it elsewhere when they're being sold accessibly all over.
Here in the US you only need a license to drive on public roads. Children can drive tractors on their parents property. So I'm for responsible drivers, but a license doesn't promise that. In fact most of all car accidents are caused by licensed drivers.
Car accidents are caused by licensed drivers because they make up the vast majority of those on the road. So? Public roads are most roads. Would you propose, then, that you need a license to carry a gun outside of your property? After all, if it's only about home defence, then that would be reasonable. And if the government turns tyrannical they'll have a readily prepared stockpile.
It doesn't let's people have guns reminds government that we already have that right.
And the 21st amendment repealed the 18th, the purpose of an amendment is to amend.
If you make all guns dissappear then the strongest gang on the block has control. The gun is the great equalizer.
No, you're thinking of death. Death is the great equaliser. Plugging 'the gun' into that proverb isn't exactly helping your case. And sure, if the gang has a gun, maybe they'd have control: but if you've got an armed gang wandering around you're in trouble anyway. One person, even armed, couldn't defend themselves from a group: even more so if that group's trained. And you're assuming that not only would they keep guns, but that they wouldn't jam or break indefinitely, and that they'd somehow keep an endless supply of ammo. Without both, they're not going to be particularly dangerous.
I agree. But still it shows that armed law abiding citizens are not the problem.
It shows guns and gun culture are, though.
Australia doesn't view guns rights as highly as we do if you noticed.
Let's see. Their PM committed political suicide to enact the legislation, and announced it in a bullet proof vest. Signs reading "What rights will they take away next?" "What next, concentration camps?" Huge rallies of people insisting they'd never give up their guns, pretty clear threats of assassination...
Difference is, by now they realise it was a huge overreaction and so of course they wouldn't view it as highly. Back then, though...
And then when in power disarmed everybody.
Look at the gun laws of that time.
Seriously, where are your sources for these claims? Literally all I can find is an internet meme which doesn't seem to be remotely accurate. If you're going to make such a grand claim, please back it up.
First of all its still working in the Middle East and second, most of our soldiers identify as conservative.
In the Middle East they're hiding from drones. Only reason drones don't work is that they can't find the targets: it'd take a lot of preparation for that to be feasible here, and guns still wouldn't help. Political alignment of soldiers doesn't really enter into it, their job is literally to follow orders, and it only takes one person to control drones. And if one bit of legislation would cause that level of civil war then you seriously can't be trusted with guns.
-
Two things jumped out at me:
1. St. Louis and New Orleans consistently compete for too murder in the country. Chicago, New York and LA arent even in the top 20. These two cities have very lax gun laws. Lax gun laws do not promote safety.
And as this video points out that's more of the exception and not the rule.
2. Mexico has issues with corruption that inhibit the enforcement of laws on the books. The laws are not the problem.
Don't we have the same thing here with our gangs? And yet they aren't armed with RPGs.
-
Which I'll restate that most of our murder and crime rates come from big cities usually with strict gun control.
Beyond Rama's point, same issue as the Mexico case: gun laws in one place don't help if they're being given out like candy down the block. Sweeping reforms, such as in Australia, and you can see the effect just by comparing crime rates with the US.
Which I'll restate. If we're causing the spike in gun crimes in Mexico then how come the same thing isn't happening here?
Actually they were already low when the gun laws was passed.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
I would really recommend looking at raw stats rather than obviously biased sources. They're lower now than they were before, and have been for a while (spike from 05 and so not withstanding).
This one is from BBC, something you might consider neutral and I would consider left leaning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
This one shows the graphs before and after the gun ban.
http://mygunculture.com/uk-gun-ban-creates-more-interesting-graphs/
As you can see the bans overall either did nothing or the crimes skyrocketed and hasn't came down since.
I'm not one to find out the intentions of my assailant. When my life is in immediate danger and I need to take care of the situation fast. He may just be showing off to his friends and had no intention to harm or he hated me for some reason and wanted to kill me. It's not the victim's job to judge that. You can't judge that even if you wanted to because these things happens fast.
But they do and I gave stats. Up to 2 million times per year someone used a gun in self defense.
If they've got a gun, it's highly unlikely you can kill him instantly.
Yet hundreds to thousands have done so successfully. They may not have killed the assailant (which isn't the point anyway) but they stopped the attack.
Wouldn't be hard for them to turn around and shoot.
Which rarely happens. Even when it did the vast majority of the time the defender was successful.
People use guns in self-defence, sure, but remember the stats I gave: it doesn't actually stop property theft or harm.
Yes it did as my stats show'd.
If they'd used a bat they have pretty much the same rate of success, and if they hid and called the police they were far safer. Guns don't help. Stop ignoring that.
Having a bat causes pain but stop the threat immediately. Hiding only works if the assailant doesn't find you. Like I said when seconds count the police are minutes to even an hour or so away. And if guns don't help then why do the bodyguards of your queen have them? Don't you live in a country where guns are hard to get and pistols are outright banned?
Exactly. Which is why gun control doesn't work. Plus if he gets it somewhere else then its not my problem.
When they're bursting into your house with a gun then yeah, is your problem.
Then I would want an equalizer. My mentality is to not ask politely for the criminals to disarm to my level. My mentality is to arm up to his.
And typically they can only get it elsewhere when they're being sold accessibly all over.
Not in Mexico, or the many middle eastern countries.
Here in the US you only need a license to drive on public roads. Children can drive tractors on their parents property. So I'm for responsible drivers, but a license doesn't promise that. In fact most of all car accidents are caused by licensed drivers.
Car accidents are caused by licensed drivers because they make up the vast majority of those on the road. So? Public roads are most roads. Would you propose, then, that you need a license to carry a gun outside of your property?
No, because the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly lined out in the bill of rights. States like Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, and others have no requirements to have a license to carry and we don't see a spike in crime in any of those places because of it.
After all, if it's only about home defence, then that would be reasonable. And if the government turns tyrannical they'll have a readily prepared stockpile.
So would we. We have the largest army in the world if you count all the private citizens.
It doesn't let's people have guns reminds government that we already have that right.
And the 21st amendment repealed the 18th, the purpose of an amendment is to amend.
Then set the legal process to repel it.
If you make all guns dissappear then the strongest gang on the block has control. The gun is the great equalizer.
No, you're thinking of death. Death is the great equaliser. Plugging 'the gun' into that proverb isn't exactly helping your case.
Even if you weigh 200 lb., bench press, and are a black belt you can be beaten by a grandmother with a .38.
And sure, if the gang has a gun, maybe they'd have control: but if you've got an armed gang wandering around you're in trouble anyway. One person, even armed, couldn't defend themselves from a group: even more so if that group's trained.
Most gangs aren't trained and there have been cases of civilians thwarting off multiple attackers. Not only that but are you seriously saying that an unarmed gang in an unarmed populace can't control the block?
And you're assuming that not only would they keep guns, but that they wouldn't jam or break indefinitely, and that they'd somehow keep an endless supply of ammo. Without both, they're not going to be particularly dangerous.
Then the cartels in Mexico should only have broken empty guns by now if what you're saying is true.
I agree. But still it shows that armed law abiding citizens are not the problem.
It shows guns and gun culture are, though.
No it doesn't. If it was we would've had this problem back when the founding fathers birthed this country. It would've been a problem even before for just about everyone had a gun.
Australia doesn't view guns rights as highly as we do if you noticed.
Let's see. Their PM committed political suicide to enact the legislation, and announced it in a bullet proof vest. Signs reading "What rights will they take away next?" "What next, concentration camps?" Huge rallies of people insisting they'd never give up their guns, pretty clear threats of assassination...
Difference is, by now they realise it was a huge overreaction and so of course they wouldn't view it as highly. Back then, though...
Let me clarify, Australia as a whole doesn't view their gun rights as highly as we do. Plus just before the ban every gun had to be registered. Which is why here in America we fight against registration for the most part.
And then when in power disarmed everybody.
Look at the gun laws of that time.
Seriously, where are your sources for these claims? Literally all I can find is an internet meme which doesn't seem to be remotely accurate. If you're going to make such a grand claim, please back it up.
Ok.
First of all its still working in the Middle East and second, most of our soldiers identify as conservative.
In the Middle East they're hiding from drones. Only reason drones don't work is that they can't find the targets: it'd take a lot of preparation for that to be feasible here, and guns still wouldn't help. Political alignment of soldiers doesn't really enter into it, their job is literally to follow orders, and it only takes one person to control drones. And if one bit of legislation would cause that level of civil war then you seriously can't be trusted with guns.
Their job is to uphold the constitution as their oath stipulates.
-
You could say what about my avatar? Please elaborate.
That it indicates that you're a troll.
The avatar I had before this one was an actual troll. Better late than never, I guess.
Also; we are all trolls here. Anyone who takes this place seriously is a sucker. Are you a sucker?
-
You could say what about my avatar? Please elaborate.
That it indicates that you're a troll.
The avatar I had before this one was an actual troll. Better late than never, I guess.
Also; we are all trolls here. Anyone who takes this place seriously is a sucker. Are you a sucker?
No! Never! Ok, maybe at first I thought people are serious and I sorta still feel that way with certain flat earthers but still, I'm not a sucker.
-
Which I'll restate. If we're causing the spike in gun crimes in Mexico then how come the same thing isn't happening here?
Then the cartels in Mexico should only have broken empty guns by now if what you're saying is true.
Once again, Mexico has a higher rate because they're being handed out like candy close by in the US, and there's a major organised crime presence. So, yes, you are stuck with a system where the criminals tend to have guns while the innocent don't, because the US gun-ho culture makes straw purchases and smuggling easy. (Worth pointing out though, the US still has more crime in general than Mexico:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Mexico/United-States/Crime
See total crimes per 1000. And note that, on the next page, the US still has more firearm murders than Mexico).
It's not really a comparable situation. "More people die in a place with cartels roaming around," isn't much of a case.
This one is from BBC, something you might consider neutral and I would consider left leaning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
This one shows the graphs before and after the gun ban.
http://mygunculture.com/uk-gun-ban-creates-more-interesting-graphs/
As you can see the bans overall either did nothing or the crimes skyrocketed and hasn't came down since.
The BBC's a neutral source, but note that the statistics themselves come from a rather clearly biased location. Plus if you look at the full report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334274/Gun-crime-rises-despite-Dunblane-pistol-ban.html
The sponsors of the study themselves state "The long-term impact that the 1997 legislation is likely to have on the use of handguns in crime cannot be judged with any accuracy at this time."
As for your second link, seriously, read your sources.
“Initially when we implemented gun ban measures, we hoped for an arse about face change in murder and other violent crimes” observed Ed Balls, Shadow Home Secretary. While we really didn’t see that outcome, which kind of brassed me off, what we did find was far more brilliant. Really.”
Fun fact: british politicians don't talk like that. I doubt any politicians talk like that. I seriously doubt that site contributes anything but satire.
People use guns in self-defence, sure, but remember the stats I gave: it doesn't actually stop property theft or harm.
Yes it did as my stats show'd.
If they'd used a bat they have pretty much the same rate of success, and if they hid and called the police they were far safer. Guns don't help. Stop ignoring that.
Having a bat causes pain but stop the threat immediately. Hiding only works if the assailant doesn't find you. Like I said when seconds count the police are minutes to even an hour or so away. And if guns don't help then why do the bodyguards of your queen have them? Don't you live in a country where guns are hard to get and pistols are outright banned?
Your statistics showed no such thing: they referenced guns being used. However, my statistics compared the rates at which guns were used successfully with the rates people defended themselves without guns, and there was no meaningful difference. End of, there's seriously no more debate to have. Guns don't help.
As for the Queen's guard, generally their guns are ceremonial. Aside from the fact they're actual soldiers so you lose a number of the issues with letting any idiot get ahold of a gun, when they stand guard at palaces their guns aren't loaded. It's for the look as much as anything (just look at the hats).
Then I would want an equalizer. My mentality is to not ask politely for the criminals to disarm to my level. My mentality is to arm up to his.
Personally I wouldn't class potential jail time as asking politely. Besides, the only reason they're armed to that kind of a level is because guns are readily accessible, plain and simple.
No, because the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly lined out in the bill of rights. States like Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, and others have no requirements to have a license to carry and we don't see a spike in crime in any of those places because of it.
Keep and bear them at your home. This is just following from your logic, if you want to compare guns to cars.
So would we. We have the largest army in the world if you count all the private citizens.
Army presupposes a certain amount of training: you've already said you wouldn't support making that necessary. A large group of armed, untrained people is typically called a mob, rather than an army.
Even if you weigh 200 lb., bench press, and are a black belt you can be beaten by a grandmother with a .38.
Only if you're a certain distance away. Close range, like most home invasions would be, could go either way. Plus, of course, with the accessibility over there you're very unlikely to get into your ideal situation of one unarmed criminal and one armed innocent victim.
Most gangs aren't trained and there have been cases of civilians thwarting off multiple attackers. Not only that but are you seriously saying that an unarmed gang in an unarmed populace can't control the block?
Gangs typically would be better trained than your average civilian: they'd practise at least. An unarmed gang might be able to take control, but they'd do markedly less harm and would be markedly easily for the armed police to face.
No it doesn't. If it was we would've had this problem back when the founding fathers birthed this country. It would've been a problem even before for just about everyone had a gun.
Just about everyone had a musket, good luck going on a shooting spree with one of those.
Let me clarify, Australia as a whole doesn't view their gun rights as highly as we do. Plus just before the ban every gun had to be registered. Which is why here in America we fight against registration for the most part.
You've been shown the former isn't the case, and the latter seems to be reaching.
Their job is to uphold the constitution as their oath stipulates.
And to obey the orders of the President and their superior officers. Same oath.
-
Which I'll restate. If we're causing the spike in gun crimes in Mexico then how come the same thing isn't happening here?
Then the cartels in Mexico should only have broken empty guns by now if what you're saying is true.
Once again, Mexico has a higher rate because they're being handed out like candy close by in the US, and there's a major organised crime presence. So, yes, you are stuck with a system where the criminals tend to have guns while the innocent don't, because the US gun-ho culture makes straw purchases and smuggling easy. (Worth pointing out though, the US still has more crime in general than Mexico:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Mexico/United-States/Crime
See total crimes per 1000. And note that, on the next page, the US still has more firearm murders than Mexico).
It's not really a comparable situation. "More people die in a place with cartels roaming around," isn't much of a case.
Which again I'll restate. If that was really the case then it should be the same thing in our case. Why is southern Texas overrun by the cartels to the extant of Mexico? And its not just outside our borders. Why is Chicago more crime ridden than neighboring states?
This one is from BBC, something you might consider neutral and I would consider left leaning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
This one shows the graphs before and after the gun ban.
http://mygunculture.com/uk-gun-ban-creates-more-interesting-graphs/
As you can see the bans overall either did nothing or the crimes skyrocketed and hasn't came down since.
The BBC's a neutral source, but note that the statistics themselves come from a rather clearly biased location. Plus if you look at the full report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334274/Gun-crime-rises-despite-Dunblane-pistol-ban.html
The sponsors of the study themselves state "The long-term impact that the 1997 legislation is likely to have on the use of handguns in crime cannot be judged with any accuracy at this time."
As for your second link, seriously, read your sources.
“Initially when we implemented gun ban measures, we hoped for an arse about face change in murder and other violent crimes” observed Ed Balls, Shadow Home Secretary. While we really didn’t see that outcome, which kind of brassed me off, what we did find was far more brilliant. Really.”
Fun fact: british politicians don't talk like that. I doubt any politicians talk like that. I seriously doubt that site contributes anything but satire.
Alright then watch this.
I don't expect you to respond to everything in a 19 minute video but I do ask that you address his statements on how gun control didn't affect the crime positively. And in this video its shows that if our crime rate was like that of Plano, Texas (a gun filled city) then we would indeed be lower than some of the western countries gun control advocates like to point to.
People use guns in self-defence, sure, but remember the stats I gave: it doesn't actually stop property theft or harm.
Yes it did as my stats show'd.
If they'd used a bat they have pretty much the same rate of success, and if they hid and called the police they were far safer. Guns don't help. Stop ignoring that.
Having a bat causes pain but stop the threat immediately. Hiding only works if the assailant doesn't find you. Like I said when seconds count the police are minutes to even an hour or so away. And if guns don't help then why do the bodyguards of your queen have them? Don't you live in a country where guns are hard to get and pistols are outright banned?
Your statistics showed no such thing: they referenced guns being used. However, my statistics compared the rates at which guns were used successfully with the rates people defended themselves without guns, and there was no meaningful difference.
As you pointed out earlier a lot of these instances go unreported.
End of, there's seriously no more debate to have. Guns don't help.
As for the Queen's guard, generally their guns are ceremonial.
I was talking about the queen's personal detail. I highly doubt they are only armed with sticks even though they live in a gun free zone.
Aside from the fact they're actual soldiers so you lose a number of the issues with letting any idiot get ahold of a gun, when they stand guard at palaces their guns aren't loaded. It's for the look as much as anything (just look at the hats).
I wasn't talking about them. We have something similar here with the tomb of the unknown soldier. I was talking about your equivalent to our secret service. As to your comment about idiots with guns, they run few and far between.
Then I would want an equalizer. My mentality is to not ask politely for the criminals to disarm to my level. My mentality is to arm up to his.
Personally I wouldn't class potential jail time as asking politely.
With lenient sentences, early parol, and the fact that in most cases they drop the charges on illegal possession of a firearm for lighter sentences you can pretty say that we are asking them politely to give up their guns.
Besides, the only reason they're armed to that kind of a level is because guns are readily accessible, plain and simple.
Yet gangs don't exist in places like Plano, Texas. Why?
No, because the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly lined out in the bill of rights. States like Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, and others have no requirements to have a license to carry and we don't see a spike in crime in any of those places because of it.
Keep and bear them at your home. This is just following from your logic, if you want to compare guns to cars.
I'm not. There's no reason to put such a restriction on good law abiding citizens.
So would we. We have the largest army in the world if you count all the private citizens.
Army presupposes a certain amount of training: you've already said you wouldn't support making that necessary. A large group of armed, untrained people is typically called a mob, rather than an army.
True but we've seen what damage a mob can do.
Even if you weigh 200 lb., bench press, and are a black belt you can be beaten by a grandmother with a .38.
Only if you're a certain distance away. Close range, like most home invasions would be, could go either way.
So you rather have granny beaten to death?
Plus, of course, with the accessibility over there you're very unlikely to get into your ideal situation of one unarmed criminal and one armed innocent victim.
Which would again prove my point. There have been cases where multiple attackers were thwarted by one individual with a gun.
Most gangs aren't trained and there have been cases of civilians thwarting off multiple attackers. Not only that but are you seriously saying that an unarmed gang in an unarmed populace can't control the block?
Gangs typically would be better trained than your average civilian: they'd practise at least. An unarmed gang might be able to take control, but they'd do markedly less harm and would be markedly easily for the armed police to face.
But your police aren't armed.
No it doesn't. If it was we would've had this problem back when the founding fathers birthed this country. It would've been a problem even before for just about everyone had a gun.
Just about everyone had a musket, good luck going on a shooting spree with one of those.
That's not the makeup of our crimes with guns. Most of our crimes are gang related so a musket would do rather nicely. Plus lone muggings can be done with with a flintlock as well. And the irony is you made my point in your own sentence. Everyone was armed. Even if you're right it wasn't long before we had repeating firearms and in fact we had them even before the founding fathers though they weren't in mass production, though the founding fathers were aware and fans of the technology.
Let me clarify, Australia as a whole doesn't view their gun rights as highly as we do. Plus just before the ban every gun had to be registered. Which is why here in America we fight against registration for the most part.
You've been shown the former isn't the case, and the latter seems to be reaching.
Name me one confiscation that didn't start with registration.
Their job is to uphold the constitution as their oath stipulates.
And to obey the orders of the President and their superior officers. Same oath.
If such orders are constitutional. "To defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic".
-
I find gang violence is common in big cities and rare in small cities irrespective of gun laws.
-
Wow out of all the places to speak of Plano,tx is brought up lol. This is actually where my house is. It is a gun filled place however you need to understand the city to understand why crime rate is so low.
It is a VERY strict town surpassed only by Allen and Frisco. There is also ALOT of money in the town and the city wants that money to stay. Just look at West Plano, it starts at the upper middle class and goes to .1 percenters income wise. There are also alot of big names that reside here from entertainment, sports and political.
The city actively works at keeping the area updated and in control. There is only one part in East Plano that there are "average" or "low" income people. Even In that area, the city works very hard to keep it "upscale", updated, and quality people, plus, there is almost a policeman at every corner.
Speaking of police, they are everywhere as stated, they are also some of the highest paid in the country. They are fair yet firm, and most attempt to keep the vision of Plano as a quality city. I know the chief personally, and he attempts to instill his attitude and vision upon all of the officers and this in charge. Now Allen the rival of plano next door, those cops have god complex but that is another story.
Anyways, my whole point, gun control is very little to do with Plano's current success as a city and low crime rate. They focus and spend tons of money on infrastructure, including getting quality businesses to the city, which in turn gets quality people. Such as spending millions to win the bid for Toyotas headquarters, communications corridor which before the tech bust in 01 housed almost every communication company's head quarters, even now still has a serious presence. I could continue on but you get the picture.
Is the place a pain to live in at times, yes because it is a strict place, pricey taxes and commerce, but some things are necessary when you want a desired consequence.
Whole point, competent city leaders, a strong arm, proper policing, strong focus on infrastructure and attracting quality habitants(business/personal), and so forth is the causation of the cities result...not federal or Texas gun laws.
Oh and I am not insinuating the town is perfect, nor that people of "average" income are bad people or trouble makers. The part of town that is average or below average income is still quality people. Trouble makers (of all income status) lives are made very difficult by the city and policing until it becomes a better scenario to take it else where. Gangs and crime try to make its way in at times, but the city goes after it heavily and as the stats say, we are very heavily armed lol. Plus a large populous of chl's .
Sorry for the rant, I have just heard plano come up a few times (more than just here) for the side of gun advocates (which I am one myself as I have said before). But the people running the city, police, and it's habitants deserve the credit, not gun laws.
-
Which again I'll restate. If that was really the case then it should be the same thing in our case. Why is southern Texas overrun by the cartels to the extant of Mexico? And its not just outside our borders. Why is Chicago more crime ridden than neighboring states?
As Rama pointed out, gangs and the like favour big cities for multiple reasons. They're not going to be particularly concerned with a town with no real benefit for them.
I don't expect you to respond to everything in a 19 minute video but I do ask that you address his statements on how gun control didn't affect the crime positively. And in this video its shows that if our crime rate was like that of Plano, Texas (a gun filled city) then we would indeed be lower than some of the western countries gun control advocates like to point to.
If I'm not meant to watch a 19 minute video, how am I meant to find the section referring to what you're talking about? The way I see it, there are multiple answers, most coming back to good old statistical analysis.
I'm assuming he gives a source. in which case, it'd be much easier of you simply mentioned that rather than linked to a video: raw data's much more useful. If he gives no source, then the claim's meaningless in the face of the data you've already seen. Just assertion.
If he does give a source, then there are potential issues. It's easy to artificially inflate readings if you try, so if the source is biased it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. Plus then we get onto technicalities: crime involving firearms may well increase in the wake of gun control because the definition of such a crime would change. Few extra people who tried to keep a gun for bragging rights or ego or whatever, that'd be counted among crime involving firearms. Further, shootings involving firearms doesn't mean a higher death rate: it'd likely be one-on-one instances, maybe between gangs, rather than mass shootings: I'd still count that as reduced harm. And then there's the matter of long-term impact. Plus, on the topic of misrepresenting, our crime did reach a peak after gun control: but quite a lot of years after the legislation was enacted, so there's no causative factor, and it went away just as suddenly. Still, it'd be easy to phrase that in an accusative fashion.
As for comparing to one town out of thousands, that's hardly meaningful.
As you pointed out earlier a lot of these instances go unreported.
Actually it was the opposite: typically people overreport the times they've used guns in self-defence, purely because it's such a politically charged issue (for example).
I was talking about the queen's personal detail. I highly doubt they are only armed with sticks even though they live in a gun free zone.
I wasn't talking about them. We have something similar here with the tomb of the unknown soldier. I was talking about your equivalent to our secret service. As to your comment about idiots with guns, they run few and far between.
Guards of the Prime Minister would likely be a better analogy. Hardly comparable though: they're trained, well armed, little to no possibility of abusing the system, and the setting is completely different to your typical home invasion. Someone running along the grounds of Buckingham Palace or down Downing Street would be noticed long before they get into the building, and would be stopped just as quickly.
And, fun fact, historically (up to 1991) Downing Street was open to the public, and had a total of one police officer standing guard. That's the equivalent of being to walk up to the front door of the White House passing just one guard. The security was simple: there's no keyhole on the outside, someone had to open it from within. The sheer unwieldiness of sneaking inside would deter most people: you wouldn't need a gun to stop someone taking half an hour to break through a door or window. There are guards now since a 1991 attack by the IRA (probably the most dangerous terrorist threat the UK's faced) just to be careful, but even now the doors go unguarded on weekends, with just a few extra sitting inside. And for reference as to how effective this was, we've had a total of one PM assassinated, two centuries ago.
Regardless, it's notably a completely different situation. Training, certainty, relevance, an actual use for long range arms...
With lenient sentences, early parol, and the fact that in most cases they drop the charges on illegal possession of a firearm for lighter sentences you can pretty say that we are asking them politely to give up their guns.
Which is a result of less stringent laws on owning guns. Hardly comparable. Also, source?
Keep and bear them at your home. This is just following from your logic, if you want to compare guns to cars.
I'm not. There's no reason to put such a restriction on good law abiding citizens.
Why couldn't I make the same argument about cars?
True but we've seen what damage a mob can do.
Which is my point exactly.
Even if you weigh 200 lb., bench press, and are a black belt you can be beaten by a grandmother with a .38.
Only if you're a certain distance away. Close range, like most home invasions would be, could go either way.
So you rather have granny beaten to death?
You'd rather have her shot? Besides, older people might struggle with guns, particularly if their hands shake or their eyes aren't perfect (both likely). Home invader? Scrabble to find glasses, find gun, pray you can aim... Not a great equaliser when the burglar would still likely have an advantage.
But your police aren't armed.
Most aren't, some are, they're just not needed for every little situation here because every small-time crook wouldn't be able to wave a gun around.
That's not the makeup of our crimes with guns. Most of our crimes are gang related so a musket would do rather nicely. Plus lone muggings can be done with with a flintlock as well. And the irony is you made my point in your own sentence. Everyone was armed. Even if you're right it wasn't long before we had repeating firearms and in fact we had them even before the founding fathers though they weren't in mass production, though the founding fathers were aware and fans of the technology.
No irony, just quoting you. So, would you support legislation to limit the Second Amendment to refer to the weapons of the time it was written, if they're just as effective?
Name me one confiscation that didn't start with registration.
Name me one confiscation/registration that didn't start with guns being legally available. Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason.
Their job is to uphold the constitution as their oath stipulates.
And to obey the orders of the President and their superior officers. Same oath.
If such orders are constitutional. "To defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic".
And if it gets to the point where the government is enough of a threat that you need to take up arms against them, how hard do you think it'd be for them to add another amendment?
-
And if it gets to the point where the government is enough of a threat that you need to take up arms against them, how hard do you think it'd be for them to add another amendment?
There is already an amendment that covers weaponry.
And the reason for the need of a free people to enjoy that right.
First two of ten built in amendments. Part of the original Constitution from day one.
Amendment I(paraphrasing), Free, uncontrolled, unrestricted, unapologetic speech.
Amendment IIA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is the Second Amendment, in it's entirety.
At the time, regulated meant outfitted. Militia was every adult male.
Our government exists at the feet of our people. We allow our government to exist.
We do not serve our rulers. They serve us. We, the people, are the government.
How hard do you think it'd be to add another amendment?
It is an arduous process. By design. . . .
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
The United States of America is not a fiefdom or feudal system left over from
the dark past. Adapted and modified to make the population believe they
have a stake in the current world.
The United States of America is the reason that Europe doesn't speak
German and Russian. I am tired of the United States of America
pissing away treasure and young men to protect nations that
refuse to protect themselves.
(I may have run a bit off track there.)
-
And if it gets to the point where the government is enough of a threat that you need to take up arms against them, how hard do you think it'd be for them to add another amendment?
There is already an amendment that covers weaponry.
And the reason for the need of a free people to enjoy that right.
First two of ten built in amendments. Part of the original Constitution from day one.
And twenty seven total in the constitution, with ones such as the 21st which repealed the 18th.
And the Second Amendment's not unlimited. take US v Miller, and a number of other SCOTUS cases. Plus the amendment word for word states 'a well regulated' militia, as you pointed out. Sounds like it advocates a fair amount of, well, regulation: ie, gun control.
Quite rare that that something from over two hundred years ago is perfectly suited for the present.
-
And if it gets to the point where the government is enough of a threat that you need to take up arms against them, how hard do you think it'd be for them to add another amendment?
There is already an amendment that covers weaponry.
And the reason for the need of a free people to enjoy that right.
First two of ten built in amendments. Part of the original Constitution from day one.
And twenty seven total in the constitution, with ones such as the 21st which repealed the 18th.
And the Second Amendment's not unlimited. take US v Miller, and a number of other SCOTUS cases. Plus the amendment word for word states 'a well regulated' militia, as you pointed out. Sounds like it advocates a fair amount of, well, regulation: ie, gun control.
Quite rare that that something from over two hundred years ago is perfectly suited for the present.
What I pointed out was that 240 years ago "regulated" meant
"outfitted" or "equipped". And "militia" was every civilian man.
So it means "a well armed population".
And the reason was to keep the government on it's toes.
I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not trying to.
I respect your position.
-
What I pointed out was that 240 years ago "regulated" meant
"outfitted" or "equipped". And "militia" was every civilian man.
So it means "a well armed population".
And the reason was to keep the government on it's toes.
I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not trying to.
I respect your position.
Yep, just trying to emphasise how the amendment in those times doesn't really mean what you can read. After all, it's not taken to only mean "Every adult male," nowadays, women are allowed guns too under an amendment not written with them in mind.
Similarly for keeping the government on its toes: feasible in those times when officials wandered about on horseback, less so now. The guy with a car with five inch thick bullet proof glass and countermeasures to RPGs isn't going to be particularly intimidated by a guy with a handheld gun.
I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind either, i just enjoy discussion.
-
Which again I'll restate. If that was really the case then it should be the same thing in our case. Why is southern Texas overrun by the cartels to the extant of Mexico? And its not just outside our borders. Why is Chicago more crime ridden than neighboring states?
As Rama pointed out, gangs and the like favour big cities for multiple reasons. They're not going to be particularly concerned with a town with no real benefit for them.
Then that would negate the whole guns enables crime. It's not the guns but the people and economy.
I don't expect you to respond to everything in a 19 minute video but I do ask that you address his statements on how gun control didn't affect the crime positively. And in this video its shows that if our crime rate was like that of Plano, Texas (a gun filled city) then we would indeed be lower than some of the western countries gun control advocates like to point to.
If I'm not meant to watch a 19 minute video, how am I meant to find the section referring to what you're talking about?
I believe it's around the five or seven minute mark.
The way I see it, there are multiple answers, most coming back to good old statistical analysis.
I'm assuming he gives a source. in which case, it'd be much easier of you simply mentioned that rather than linked to a video: raw data's much more useful. If he gives no source, then the claim's meaningless in the face of the data you've already seen. Just assertion.
If he does give a source, then there are potential issues. It's easy to artificially inflate readings if you try, so if the source is biased it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. Plus then we get onto technicalities: crime involving firearms may well increase in the wake of gun control because the definition of such a crime would change. Few extra people who tried to keep a gun for bragging rights or ego or whatever, that'd be counted among crime involving firearms.
That wasn't the only thing that rose shortly after the ban. In Australia violent crime rose shortly after.
Further, shootings involving firearms doesn't mean a higher death rate: it'd likely be one-on-one instances, maybe between gangs, rather than mass shootings: I'd still count that as reduced harm. And then there's the matter of long-term impact. Plus, on the topic of misrepresenting, our crime did reach a peak after gun control: but quite a lot of years after the legislation was enacted, so there's no causative factor, and it went away just as suddenly. Still, it'd be easy to phrase that in an accusative fashion.
As for comparing to one town out of thousands, that's hardly meaningful.
My original point was that gun control didnt affect crime. It either went back to its original state or it skyrocketed.
As you pointed out earlier a lot of these instances go unreported.
Actually it was the opposite: typically people overreport the times they've used guns in self-defence, purely because it's such a politically charged issue (for example).
How do you know this?
I was talking about the queen's personal detail. I highly doubt they are only armed with sticks even though they live in a gun free zone.
I wasn't talking about them. We have something similar here with the tomb of the unknown soldier. I was talking about your equivalent to our secret service. As to your comment about idiots with guns, they run few and far between.
Guards of the Prime Minister would likely be a better analogy. Hardly comparable though: they're trained, well armed, little to no possibility of abusing the system, and the setting is completely different to your typical home invasion. Someone running along the grounds of Buckingham Palace or down Downing Street would be noticed long before they get into the building, and would be stopped just as quickly.
Usually by armed force. Same with our president. In fact recently someone climbed over the fence at the White House and was shot down.
And, fun fact, historically (up to 1991) Downing Street was open to the public, and had a total of one police officer standing guard. That's the equivalent of being to walk up to the front door of the White House passing just one guard. The security was simple: there's no keyhole on the outside, someone had to open it from within. The sheer unwieldiness of sneaking inside would deter most people: you wouldn't need a gun to stop someone taking half an hour to break through a door or window. There are guards now since a 1991 attack by the IRA (probably the most dangerous terrorist threat the UK's faced) just to be careful, but even now the doors go unguarded on weekends, with just a few extra sitting inside. And for reference as to how effective this was, we've had a total of one PM assassinated, two centuries ago.
Wasn't this before the handgun ban? Even so the guards are armed no matter how few of them there may be. And while not every situation would call for them to draw their guns they still have them.
Regardless, it's notably a completely different situation. Training, certainty, relevance, an actual use for long range arms...
Most gun owners here are responsible with their guns. Also we have long range arms. Btw, why would the guards have long range weapons if the gun laws are so effective?
With lenient sentences, early parol, and the fact that in most cases they drop the charges on illegal possession of a firearm for lighter sentences you can pretty say that we are asking them politely to give up their guns.
Which is a result of less stringent laws on owning guns. Hardly comparable. Also, source?
It's illegal for a felon to be in possession of a firearm. I believe the minimum is 5 years behind bars. After that he is barred for life from ever owning a firearm unless he pleas to the legal system to restore his rights or the charges are dropped. If that's not stringent then I don't know what is. And in our case a felon could be someone who dropped something off a high rise or forgot to add $5 to his tax statements (depending on how vigil the IRS is). As for source I forgot to put in slink but its not that hard to look up.
Keep and bear them at your home. This is just following from your logic, if you want to compare guns to cars.
I'm not. There's no reason to put such a restriction on good law abiding citizens.
Why couldn't I make the same argument about cars?
For one its not directly listed as a right in the constitution. For another when you drive a car you are actively operating it. It would be like me holding my gun up and keeping my finger on the trigger at all times. Firearms on the other hand when they are in a holster, safe, or sock drawer it's not going to do anything and its not a danger to anyone until someone picks it up.
True but we've seen what damage a mob can do.
Which is my point exactly.
Even with our lenient gun laws you haven't seen too many mobs armed.
Even if you weigh 200 lb., bench press, and are a black belt you can be beaten by a grandmother with a .38.
Only if you're a certain distance away. Close range, like most home invasions would be, could go either way.
So you rather have granny beaten to death?
You'd rather have her shot?
I rather have granny have a fighting chance. The criminal is going to get the gun either way.
Besides, older people might struggle with guns, particularly if their hands shake or their eyes aren't perfect (both likely). Home invader? Scrabble to find glasses, find gun, pray you can aim... Not a great equaliser when the burglar would still likely have an advantage.
There have been cases where granny fought off intruders with a gun.
But your police aren't armed.
Most aren't, some are, they're just not needed for every little situation here because every small-time crook wouldn't be able to wave a gun around.
Then how come Australian cops wear guns?
That's not the makeup of our crimes with guns. Most of our crimes are gang related so a musket would do rather nicely. Plus lone muggings can be done with with a flintlock as well. And the irony is you made my point in your own sentence. Everyone was armed. Even if you're right it wasn't long before we had repeating firearms and in fact we had them even before the founding fathers though they weren't in mass production, though the founding fathers were aware and fans of the technology.
No irony, just quoting you. So, would you support legislation to limit the Second Amendment to refer to the weapons of the time it was written, if they're just as effective?
No, muskets can do the job but modern weaponry can do it better. It gives the individual the capability to thwart off multiple attackers with the same technology if tactics are applied.
Name me one confiscation that didn't start with registration.
Name me one confiscation/registration that didn't start with guns being legally available. Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason.
Japan never had a large ownership.
Their job is to uphold the constitution as their oath stipulates.
And to obey the orders of the President and their superior officers. Same oath.
If such orders are constitutional. "To defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic".
And if it gets to the point where the government is enough of a threat that you need to take up arms against them, how hard do you think it'd be for them to add another amendment?
Very hard. It takes a two thirds vote to add or retract and amendment.
-
Here's an article about Delaware dropping most of their gun charges.
-
Which again I'll restate. If that was really the case then it should be the same thing in our case. Why is southern Texas overrun by the cartels to the extant of Mexico? And its not just outside our borders. Why is Chicago more crime ridden than neighboring states?
As Rama pointed out, gangs and the like favour big cities for multiple reasons. They're not going to be particularly concerned with a town with no real benefit for them.
Then that would negate the whole guns enables crime. It's not the guns but the people and economy.
That is kind of the point.
-
Here's the Vox rebuttal with sources.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/vox-gun-rebuttal/
-
Then that would negate the whole guns enables crime. It's not the guns but the people and economy.
There's never only one cause for anything. Nothing is ever that simple. Crime favours certain areas, but guns definitely make it a lot easier: and note that that's only one aspect of the danger they pose.
That wasn't the only thing that rose shortly after the ban. In Australia violent crime rose shortly after.
My original point was that gun control didnt affect crime. It either went back to its original state or it skyrocketed.
And the number of mass shootings dropped to zero. So. Which would you rather be a victim of? Violent crime might rise because the criminals who'd otherwise be shooting are restricted to hands and fists.
Recall how easy it is to manipulate statistics too.
How do you know this?
Stats already posted: it's a matter of record that error snuck in, whether because people misremembered the time since they used a gun, so it didn't belong in the timeframe of the survey, or created an event. The sheer number of tales reported that mathematically couldn't have happened...
Usually by armed force. Same with our president. In fact recently someone climbed over the fence at the White House and was shot down.
Wasn't this before the handgun ban? Even so the guards are armed no matter how few of them there may be. And while not every situation would call for them to draw their guns they still have them.
Yep, and someone got inside the White House with a knife, I think. Looks like guns actually weren't that great compared to the drastic notion of locking doors and windows.
Most gun owners here are responsible with their guns. Also we have long range arms. Btw, why would the guards have long range weapons if the gun laws are so effective?
Most isn't all, and you've opposed licenses to ensure responsibility so you don't get to play the "Most are responsible!" card given you're apparently perfectly happy putting them in the hands of the irresponsible.
Guards of major places like Downing Street and Buckingham Palace have to protect sizeable grounds rather than a few tiny rooms. Pretty different.
For one its not directly listed as a right in the constitution. For another when you drive a car you are actively operating it. It would be like me holding my gun up and keeping my finger on the trigger at all times. Firearms on the other hand when they are in a holster, safe, or sock drawer it's not going to do anything and its not a danger to anyone until someone picks it up.
Ninth amendment, something doesn't need to be specifically listed in the constitution to be considered a right. Ability to travel seems pretty key to me. A car's no danger to anyone in a garage, it's no danger to anyone unless you're using it: just like a gun. It just so happens that it needs to be used more often than a gun: so surely that's an argument for them to be made more accessible?
Even with our lenient gun laws you haven't seen too many mobs armed.
Well, there's the mob, but hey.
I rather have granny have a fighting chance. The criminal is going to get the gun either way.
Fighting chance would be letting her hide and call the police and not worry about someone breaking into her house and shooting her, given that a younger person is always going to be able to outdraw and aim at someone that older.
There have been cases where granny fought off intruders with a gun.
And it remains a fact that guns have no advantage over generic weapons like bats, and are vastly inferior to hiding and calling the police: and even having a gun in the latter case gives you no advantage. Stop ignoring those statistics.
Then how come Australian cops wear guns?
Because they have a right-wing government who encourages it. By the sound of it a fair few officers are reluctant to have to work with that sort of unnecessary firepower.
No, muskets can do the job but modern weaponry can do it better. It gives the individual the capability to thwart off multiple attackers with the same technology if tactics are applied.
And on the flipside allows attackers to target multiple victims: or to fire again quickly if they miss.
Very hard. It takes a two thirds vote to add or retract and amendment.
Note the caveat: if the government is corrupt to the point you need to take up arms against it, I doubt that'd prevent much.
-
What I pointed out was that 240 years ago "regulated" meant
"outfitted" or "equipped". And "militia" was every civilian man.
So it means "a well armed population".
And the reason was to keep the government on it's toes.
I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not trying to.
I respect your position.
Yep, just trying to emphasise how the amendment in those times doesn't really mean what you can read. After all, it's not taken to only mean "Every adult male," nowadays, women are allowed guns too under an amendment not written with them in mind.
Similarly for keeping the government on its toes: feasible in those times when officials wandered about on horseback, less so now. The guy with a car with five inch thick bullet proof glass and countermeasures to RPGs isn't going to be particularly intimidated by a guy with a handheld gun.
I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind either, i just enjoy discussion.
Perhaps we can agree on this . . .
If there was a simple solution, government would still have trouble solving it.
;D
-
Perhaps we can agree on this . . .
If there was a simple solution, government would still have trouble solving it.
;D
Isn't that always the case?
-
Then that would negate the whole guns enables crime. It's not the guns but the people and economy.
There's never only one cause for anything. Nothing is ever that simple. Crime favours certain areas, but guns definitely make it a lot easier: and note that that's only one aspect of the danger they pose.
Which even if that's true it's a small factor. More people are killed by hands and feet then they are with long guns and for certain the dreaded "assault rifle". The majority of gun crimes are caused by pistols.
That wasn't the only thing that rose shortly after the ban. In Australia violent crime rose shortly after.
My original point was that gun control didnt affect crime. It either went back to its original state or it skyrocketed.
And the number of mass shootings dropped to zero.
Which is demonstratively false. There have been ten mass shot things since the ban. In fact mass shootings weren't even a big issue in the first place. Same here. When we enacted the "assault" weapons ban we had an increase in mass shootings.
So. Which would you rather be a victim of? Violent crime might rise because the criminals who'd otherwise be shooting are restricted to hands and fists.
Recall how easy it is to manipulate statistics too.
Wouldn't being shot be considered a violent crime as well?
How do you know this?
Stats already posted: it's a matter of record that error snuck in, whether because people misremembered the time since they used a gun, so it didn't belong in the timeframe of the survey, or created an event. The sheer number of tales reported that mathematically couldn't have happened...
Actually as this link shows the 2 million cases of defensive gun use is valid.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-3-25-million-defensive-gun-uses-each-year-cant-be-accurate
Usually by armed force. Same with our president. In fact recently someone climbed over the fence at the White House and was shot down.
Wasn't this before the handgun ban? Even so the guards are armed no matter how few of them there may be. And while not every situation would call for them to draw their guns they still have them.
Yep, and someone got inside the White House with a knife, I think. Looks like guns actually weren't that great compared to the drastic notion of locking doors and windows.
How many doors and windows are on a fence? Sure, lock your doors but have a plan B.
Most gun owners here are responsible with their guns. Also we have long range arms. Btw, why would the guards have long range weapons if the gun laws are so effective?
Most isn't all, and you've opposed licenses to ensure responsibility so you don't get to play the "Most are responsible!" card given you're apparently perfectly happy putting them in the hands of the irresponsible.
A license doesn't ensure safety. Drive through Chicago and you'll see my point. A license is permission from the government to excercise a right promised to me by the constitution. In fact I'm willing the bet that percentage wise there are more responsible gun owners then there are lisenced drivers.
Guards of major places like Downing Street and Buckingham Palace have to protect sizeable grounds rather than a few tiny rooms. Pretty different.
And your point is?
For one its not directly listed as a right in the constitution. For another when you drive a car you are actively operating it. It would be like me holding my gun up and keeping my finger on the trigger at all times. Firearms on the other hand when they are in a holster, safe, or sock drawer it's not going to do anything and its not a danger to anyone until someone picks it up.
Ninth amendment, something doesn't need to be specifically listed in the constitution to be considered a right. Ability to travel seems pretty key to me. A car's no danger to anyone in a garage, it's no danger to anyone unless you're using it: just like a gun. It just so happens that it needs to be used more often than a gun: so surely that's an argument for them to be made more accessible?
For what to be more accessible? Cars? I would say that you shouldn't need a license to drive. The license doesn't ensure that you're a safe driver. It only shows that you memorized traffic laws for the test and were on your best behavior during the road test. I think a better solution is you take responsibility on the road and if you cause damage to someone else then you pay out of your own pocket double the amount to repair it. The idea of potentially paying for two new cars if you cause an accident would keep people on there toes.
Even with our lenient gun laws you haven't seen too many mobs armed.
Well, there's the mob, but hey.
I rather have granny have a fighting chance. The criminal is going to get the gun either way.
Fighting chance would be letting her hide and call the police and not worry about someone breaking into her house and shooting her, given that a younger person is always going to be able to outdraw and aim at someone that older.
If she's too slow to draw then wouldn't she be too slow to run and hide? I'm not advocating going out and confronting the intruder but it'll be a little nerve racking for me if I had to depend on my hiding skills.
There have been cases where granny fought off intruders with a gun.
And it remains a fact that guns have no advantage over generic weapons like bats, and are vastly inferior to hiding and calling the police: and even having a gun in the latter case gives you no advantage. Stop ignoring those statistics.
Actually I found something interesting. It's easier to get an illegal firearm in England than it is to get one here.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/smuggling_guns_and_ammunition/194
Then how come Australian cops wear guns?
Because they have a right-wing government who encourages it. By the sound of it a fair few officers are reluctant to have to work with that sort of unnecessary firepower.
How much is a few?
No, muskets can do the job but modern weaponry can do it better. It gives the individual the capability to thwart off multiple attackers with the same technology if tactics are applied.
And on the flipside allows attackers to target multiple victims: or to fire again quickly if they miss.
Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.
Very hard. It takes a two thirds vote to add or retract and amendment.
Note the caveat: if the government is corrupt to the point you need to take up arms against it, I doubt that'd prevent much.
Ok.
-
That wasn't the only thing that rose shortly after the ban. In Australia violent crime rose shortly after.
My original point was that gun control didnt affect crime. It either went back to its original state or it skyrocketed.
And the number of mass shootings dropped to zero.
Which is demonstratively false. There have been ten mass shot things since the ban. In fact mass shootings weren't even a big issue in the first place. Same here. When we enacted the "assault" weapons ban we had an increase in mass shootings.
You've made that claim before and didn't give a source when asked, despite the fact I provided several to the contrary. Mass shootings were a big issue, they just don't compare to the US's ridiculous level.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/australia-20-years-after-gun-reform-no-mass-shootings-declining-firearm-deaths
And if memory serves you made that exact assault weapons claim before, and retracted it when I provided the actual numbers. Typical number of deaths (outlier omitted) was reduced, and even that outlier didn't reach the peaks seen outside he ban.
Wouldn't being shot be considered a violent crime as well?
More likely to be considered murder.
Actually as this link shows the 2 million cases of defensive gun use is valid.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-3-25-million-defensive-gun-uses-each-year-cant-be-accurate
Look. Pay attention. That link only covers one possible issue, and if you look at the actual numbers:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262
If the NCVS is accurate, then the best possible case scenario (of cases where a home was robbed when the owner was present and awake, assuming every burglar robbed a home with a gun owner and every homeowner used their gun) accounts for 21.3% of the people who claimed to do so. That's less than a quarter. No amount of minor errors in the NCVS is going to account for a gap of that size. Telescoping and false reporting are pretty much required.
And regardless this is all irrelevant because of the fact you keep ignoring:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/
Comparing situations where people used a gun to when people didn't, there is no meaningful benefit to using a gun. Read that fact. Pay attention to it. Stop ignoring it. if you want to have a discussion you actually have to engage. Anecdotes of people using a gun, or even accounts of people using a gun, don't mean a thing because no one's denying that guns can be used in self-defence, there's just no benefit compared to the alternatives.
A license doesn't ensure safety. Drive through Chicago and you'll see my point. A license is permission from the government to excercise a right promised to me by the constitution. In fact I'm willing the bet that percentage wise there are more responsible gun owners then there are lisenced drivers.
For what to be more accessible? Cars? I would say that you shouldn't need a license to drive. The license doesn't ensure that you're a safe driver. It only shows that you memorized traffic laws for the test and were on your best behavior during the road test. I think a better solution is you take responsibility on the road and if you cause damage to someone else then you pay out of your own pocket double the amount to repair it. The idea of potentially paying for two new cars if you cause an accident would keep people on there toes.
Getting a license also shows you know how to use a car. Admittedly I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK there's the theory portion, and a section in the practical where, for example, you have to know how to identify certain issues with a car, such as how to refill the windscreen cleaner. You need to know how to use something before you can be trusted with it. Memorising the laws, memorising the guidelines of how to use something, is a good thing.
And seriously, making drivers, particularly new drivers, perpetually nervous is not going to reduce accidents in the slightest.
Guards of major places like Downing Street and Buckingham Palace have to protect sizeable grounds rather than a few tiny rooms. Pretty different.
And your point is?
That trained guards protecting sizeable grounds from meaningful threats have a use for long-range weapons. Homeowners who can typically cross the largest room in their house in seconds, less so.
If she's too slow to draw then wouldn't she be too slow to run and hide? I'm not advocating going out and confronting the intruder but it'll be a little nerve racking for me if I had to depend on my hiding skills.
She'd be too slow to run and hide only if she's in the same room as the burglar, in which case trying to draw a gun wouldn't do any good either. Sure, hiding might be nerve wracking, pretty sure having a gun pointed at you would be the same, as would seriously injuring another human being with the potential of killing them.
Actually I found something interesting. It's easier to get an illegal firearm in England than it is to get one here.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/smuggling_guns_and_ammunition/194
That's about smuggling, not illegal firearms in general. There's not going to be much smuggling in the US because it's utterly unnecessary. Most can legally own one, and those that can't could borrow a friend's. Hardly compares.
How much is a few?
No idea, it's late, i'll look up the article again later if you want. Had to go through a few citations to find, and not easy to find references before/after bills were enacted etc.
Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...
-
That wasn't the only thing that rose shortly after the ban. In Australia violent crime rose shortly after.
My original point was that gun control didnt affect crime. It either went back to its original state or it skyrocketed.
And the number of mass shootings dropped to zero.
Which is demonstratively false. There have been ten mass shot things since the ban. In fact mass shootings weren't even a big issue in the first place. Same here. When we enacted the "assault" weapons ban we had an increase in mass shootings.
You've made that claim before and didn't give a source when asked, despite the fact I provided several to the contrary. Mass shootings were a big issue, they just don't compare to the US's ridiculous level.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/australia-20-years-after-gun-reform-no-mass-shootings-declining-firearm-deaths
And if memory serves you made that exact assault weapons claim before, and retracted it when I provided the actual numbers. Typical number of deaths (outlier omitted) was reduced, and even that outlier didn't reach the peaks seen outside he ban.
I didnt retract that. In fact here's an article on it.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1
While I will retract the "mass" in mass shootings the fact remains that there are shootings in Australia.
Wouldn't being shot be considered a violent crime as well?
More likely to be considered murder.
Actually as this link shows the 2 million cases of defensive gun use is valid.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-3-25-million-defensive-gun-uses-each-year-cant-be-accurate
Look. Pay attention. That link only covers one possible issue, and if you look at the actual numbers:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262
If the NCVS is accurate, then the best possible case scenario (of cases where a home was robbed when the owner was present and awake, assuming every burglar robbed a home with a gun owner and every homeowner used their gun) accounts for 21.3% of the people who claimed to do so. That's less than a quarter. No amount of minor errors in the NCVS is going to account for a gap of that size. Telescoping and false reporting are pretty much required.
You're assuming that all cases of DGU (defensive gun use) was in response to burglaries. We have rapes, attempted murders, kidnappings, muggings, etc.
And regardless this is all irrelevant because of the fact you keep ignoring:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/
Comparing situations where people used a gun to when people didn't, there is no meaningful benefit to using a gun. Read that fact. Pay attention to it. Stop ignoring it. if you want to have a discussion you actually have to engage. Anecdotes of people using a gun, or even accounts of people using a gun, don't mean a thing because no one's denying that guns can be used in self-defence, there's just no benefit compared to the alternatives.
What alternatives? A stun gun is best used in offense to subdue someone or if your opponent is an 80 year old grandma beating you with a purse because you're taking too long in line. When your life is in danger you need lethal force. After this post I'll post a video explaining it better. Also here's Kleck's response.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082
And here's some more gun myths debunked for added measure.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-5-myths-public-shootings-gun-control/
A license doesn't ensure safety. Drive through Chicago and you'll see my point. A license is permission from the government to excercise a right promised to me by the constitution. In fact I'm willing the bet that percentage wise there are more responsible gun owners then there are lisenced drivers.
For what to be more accessible? Cars? I would say that you shouldn't need a license to drive. The license doesn't ensure that you're a safe driver. It only shows that you memorized traffic laws for the test and were on your best behavior during the road test. I think a better solution is you take responsibility on the road and if you cause damage to someone else then you pay out of your own pocket double the amount to repair it. The idea of potentially paying for two new cars if you cause an accident would keep people on there toes.
Getting a license also shows you know how to use a car. Admittedly I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK there's the theory portion, and a section in the practical where, for example, you have to know how to identify certain issues with a car, such as how to refill the windscreen cleaner. You need to know how to use something before you can be trusted with it. Memorising the laws, memorising the guidelines of how to use something, is a good thing.
And seriously, making drivers, particularly new drivers, perpetually nervous is not going to reduce accidents in the slightest.
All the more reason to pay attention and to be absolutely sure before hitting the road. Here in my state to get a permit (a licensed driver over 21 must be riding shotgun with you) all you have to do is past the written exam. Legally as soon one past he can jump in a car, drive cross country, and the guy riding shotgun doesn't do a thing to aid in his driving.
Guards of major places like Downing Street and Buckingham Palace have to protect sizeable grounds rather than a few tiny rooms. Pretty different.
And your point is?
That trained guards protecting sizeable grounds from meaningful threats have a use for long-range weapons. Homeowners who can typically cross the largest room in their house in seconds, less so.
Our SWAT teams accross America our arming themselves with M4 and AR carbines because it penetrates less walls than pistol rounds. So howmowners have as much if not more reason to own such weaponry since they don't know how many intruders there are and there intentions. Also most homeowners don't have backup.
If she's too slow to draw then wouldn't she be too slow to run and hide? I'm not advocating going out and confronting the intruder but it'll be a little nerve racking for me if I had to depend on my hiding skills.
She'd be too slow to run and hide only if she's in the same room as the burglar, in which case trying to draw a gun wouldn't do any good either. Sure, hiding might be nerve wracking, pretty sure having a gun pointed at you would be the same, as would seriously injuring another human being with the potential of killing them.
Better him than me. I'm quote sure that even as slow grandma is she still can draw faster than hiding, calling the police, and explaining to them what's happening.
Actually I found something interesting. It's easier to get an illegal firearm in England than it is to get one here.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/smuggling_guns_and_ammunition/194
That's about smuggling, not illegal firearms in general.
I thought smuggling would entail that.
There's not going to be much smuggling in the US because it's utterly unnecessary. Most can legally own one, and those that can't could borrow a friend's. Hardly compares.
Which the latter would be considered smuggling. The fact is your gun laws aren't denting the smuggling industry.
How much is a few?
No idea, it's late, i'll look up the article again later if you want. Had to go through a few citations to find, and not easy to find references before/after bills were enacted etc.
Ok.
Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...
I'll com back with a link disproving that.
-
Here's the link.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html?m=1
Here's the video.
-
I didnt retract that. In fact here's an article on it.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1
While I will retract the "mass" in mass shootings the fact remains that there are shootings in Australia.
A dramatically reduced amount, sure. I'd class less people being shot in rarer shootings as a good change, wouldn't you?
Also, gun control's always been about long term change. A few people might have hung onto guns, and a few people might need to adjust, but you do inevitably see long-term change, and there's no notable increase typically. The robbery case is the only outlier, though the U-shapes curve at the peak would seem to imply other factors at work. Even so there's no gauge of success or damage related to those crimes: I'd guess a fair few were likely down to robbers hoping certain people still had guns and trying to steal them, or trying to make use of the guns they'd kept illegally. With no increase in homicide rate, seems pretty clear guns didn't help.
You're assuming that all cases of DGU (defensive gun use) was in response to burglaries. We have rapes, attempted murders, kidnappings, muggings, etc.
Typically kidnappings etc would take place at the home, but regardless home invasion was the primary example you gave, and was all your results seemed to refer to. Being attacked by someone walking down the street plainly doesn't offer much, because they'd inevitably out-draw you. You'd have to rely either on short-range self-defence or pray a passer by comes by: and guns don't help the former, and aren't particularly needed in the latter either especially given if they shot a close-range attacker there's a fair chance they'd shoot you.
What alternatives? A stun gun is best used in offense to subdue someone or if your opponent is an 80 year old grandma beating you with a purse because you're taking too long in line. When your life is in danger you need lethal force. After this post I'll post a video explaining it better. Also here's Kleck's response.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082
Typically your life is only in danger if it's someone with a gun coming after you. And seriously, read your sources, there was a rebuttal to Kleck's rebuttal: he did nothing but offer insults with very little substance, lied, and quoted out-of-date and questionable studies.
Our SWAT teams accross America our arming themselves with M4 and AR carbines because it penetrates less walls than pistol rounds. So howmowners have as much if not more reason to own such weaponry since they don't know how many intruders there are and there intentions. Also most homeowners don't have backup.
How, exactly, does that follow? Supposing a rare worst-case-scenario doesn't benefit anyone. And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that homeowners who used guns to defend their homes don't have any advantage over those that don't.
Better him than me. I'm quote sure that even as slow grandma is she still can draw faster than hiding, calling the police, and explaining to them what's happening.
She can draw fine if she's in another room, sure, but she'd still need to be able to slowly sneak to where the burglar is and aim and fire. Much harder than staying in the same room and tapping three numbers.
I thought smuggling would entail that.
Smuggling is typically cross-border. There was no indication I could see of what definition that site used, so I assume the default.
Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...
I'll com back with a link disproving that.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1-1.pdf/view
FBI report on active shooter incidents. Your link wasn't a disproof, it was a handful of anecdotes.
For the summary: 56.3% ended when the shooter killed themselves or fled. Generally though, only 40.6% ended before law enforcement arrived, and of those 23.1% were down to shooter-suicide, 13.1% ended when unarmed citizens intervened. 1.3% were ended down to off-duty police officers present.
Which leaves your grand claim of a good guy with a gun helping at a whopping 3.1% of cases. Unarmed citizens do better.
It's about what you'd expect, really. An armed civilian present is untrained generally, so if they pull out a gun they might miss, or might be too slow: after all the shooter's already present. if it's in a school-type setting with rooms and corridors then they'd have to navigate them and not shoot at just anyone passing by because it might be another civilian fleeing, but it might also be the shooter who could kill them on the spot. You'd need split-second recognition and decision making which law enforcement take years to learn, and you don't pick up on the spot when it's convenient. Real life doesn't work like that. And then of course even if said good guy doesn't get killed by the shooter, they're still someone running around waving a gun at a place there's known to be a shooter so they'd probably be shot themselves by some other supposed good-guy or law enforcement.
And even if logic isn't enough, the stats remain. Armed citizens don't help.
-
I didnt retract that. In fact here's an article on it.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1 (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1)
While I will retract the "mass" in mass shootings the fact remains that there are shootings in Australia.
A dramatically reduced amount, sure. I'd class less people being shot in rarer shootings as a good change, wouldn't you?
Also, gun control's always been about long term change. A few people might have hung onto guns, and a few people might need to adjust, but you do inevitably see long-term change, and there's no notable increase typically. The robbery case is the only outlier, though the U-shapes curve at the peak would seem to imply other factors at work. Even so there's no gauge of success or damage related to those crimes: I'd guess a fair few were likely down to robbers hoping certain people still had guns and trying to steal them, or trying to make use of the guns they'd kept illegally. With no increase in homicide rate, seems pretty clear guns didn't help.
You're assuming that all cases of DGU (defensive gun use) was in response to burglaries. We have rapes, attempted murders, kidnappings, muggings, etc.
Typically kidnappings etc would take place at the home, but regardless home invasion was the primary example you gave, and was all your results seemed to refer to. Being attacked by someone walking down the street plainly doesn't offer much, because they'd inevitably out-draw you. You'd have to rely either on short-range self-defence or pray a passer by comes by: and guns don't help the former, and aren't particularly needed in the latter either especially given if they shot a close-range attacker there's a fair chance they'd shoot you.
What alternatives? A stun gun is best used in offense to subdue someone or if your opponent is an 80 year old grandma beating you with a purse because you're taking too long in line. When your life is in danger you need lethal force. After this post I'll post a video explaining it better. Also here's Kleck's response.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082)
Typically your life is only in danger if it's someone with a gun coming after you. And seriously, read your sources, there was a rebuttal to Kleck's rebuttal: he did nothing but offer insults with very little substance, lied, and quoted out-of-date and questionable studies.
Our SWAT teams accross America our arming themselves with M4 and AR carbines because it penetrates less walls than pistol rounds. So howmowners have as much if not more reason to own such weaponry since they don't know how many intruders there are and there intentions. Also most homeowners don't have backup.
How, exactly, does that follow? Supposing a rare worst-case-scenario doesn't benefit anyone. And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that homeowners who used guns to defend their homes don't have any advantage over those that don't.
Better him than me. I'm quote sure that even as slow grandma is she still can draw faster than hiding, calling the police, and explaining to them what's happening.
She can draw fine if she's in another room, sure, but she'd still need to be able to slowly sneak to where the burglar is and aim and fire. Much harder than staying in the same room and tapping three numbers.
I thought smuggling would entail that.
Smuggling is typically cross-border. There was no indication I could see of what definition that site used, so I assume the default.
Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222)
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...
I'll com back with a link disproving that.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1-1.pdf/view (https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1-1.pdf/view)
FBI report on active shooter incidents. Your link wasn't a disproof, it was a handful of anecdotes.
For the summary: 56.3% ended when the shooter killed themselves or fled. Generally though, only 40.6% ended before law enforcement arrived, and of those 23.1% were down to shooter-suicide, 13.1% ended when unarmed citizens intervened. 1.3% were ended down to off-duty police officers present.
Which leaves your grand claim of a good guy with a gun helping at a whopping 3.1% of cases. Unarmed citizens do better.
It's about what you'd expect, really. An armed civilian present is untrained generally, so if they pull out a gun they might miss, or might be too slow: after all the shooter's already present. if it's in a school-type setting with rooms and corridors then they'd have to navigate them and not shoot at just anyone passing by because it might be another civilian fleeing, but it might also be the shooter who could kill them on the spot. You'd need split-second recognition and decision making which law enforcement take years to learn, and you don't pick up on the spot when it's convenient. Real life doesn't work like that. And then of course even if said good guy doesn't get killed by the shooter, they're still someone running around waving a gun at a place there's known to be a shooter so they'd probably be shot themselves by some other supposed good-guy or law enforcement.
And even if logic isn't enough, the stats remain. Armed citizens don't help.
A firearm can up my chance of survival from 0% to 1%.
That is a statistically significant difference.
-
A firearm can up my chance of survival from 0% to 1%.
That is a statistically significant difference.
Evidence? Which situation do you believe you'd only have 0% chance to survive in without a handgun? Home invasion, in the middle of a mass shooting...? Guns don't really seem to help.
And as a side note, 1% is very rarely statistically significant, with statistics you need to account for standard deviation: errors that inevitably arise from the fact you're judging by samples and not every possible situation.
-
A firearm can up my chance of survival from 0% to 1%.
That is a statistically significant difference.
Evidence? Which situation do you believe you'd only have 0% chance to survive in without a handgun?
A life or death situation in which my opponent is hell bent on my demise.
And as a side note, 1% is very rarely statistically significant, with statistics you need to account for standard deviation: errors that inevitably arise from the fact you're judging by samples and not every possible situation.
Life or death. Sample size one.
Any outcome which includes me being alive is statistically significant to me.
I should have used more appropriate terminology,
sometimes I wish I was not so intellectually lazy. ;)
-
A life or death situation in which my opponent is hell bent on my demise.
Life or death. Sample size one.
When do you believe such a situation would develop? If it's not going to happen, you're not really in danger.
How would you determine that such behaviour was their motive and take action to shoot them before they killed you? If you want to ensure they'd be armed with a gun too, you'd better have a solution beyond pre-emptive strike. For all you'd know it could be a hostage situation and trying to take action would get others killed.
-
A life or death situation in which my opponent is hell bent on my demise.
Life or death. Sample size one.
When do you believe such a situation would develop? If it's not going to happen, you're not really in danger.
How would you determine that such behaviour was their motive and take action to shoot them before they killed you? If you want to ensure they'd be armed with a gun too, you'd better have a solution beyond pre-emptive strike. For all you'd know it could be a hostage situation and trying to take action would get others killed.
This is the Embarcadero Pier in San Diego bay.
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/U3nefn.ZlmPyA4.PYu30ig--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NTAwO3E9OTU7dz03NDc-/http://sdfish.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/embarcadero-park-pier.jpg)
Here is an overhead shot.
(http://www.oceanlight.com/stock-photo/san-diego-embarcadero-marina-aerial-photograph-22387-592589.jpg)
So, a long time ago, in the middle of the night, I was alone fishing at the end
near the "c" in "com".
At the other end of the T were two dudes disagreeing over a drug deal.
They were loud enough that it was obvious what they were yelling about.
Two shots rang out and one of the men came running to my end of the pier.
He was running with a gun in his hand. I was stationary.
If I had my 9mm in my pocket he would be dead.
Turns out he was able to spend several seconds with his gun to my head
deciding whether I live or die. His choice.
-
So, a long time ago, in the middle of the night, I was alone fishing at the end
near the "c" in "com".
At the other end of the T were two dudes disagreeing over a drug deal.
They were loud enough that it was obvious what they were yelling about.
Two shots rang out and one of the men came running to my end of the pier.
He was running with a gun in his hand. I was stationary.
If I had my 9mm in my pocket he would be dead.
Turns out he was able to spend several seconds with his gun to my head
deciding whether I live or die. His choice.
Or you'd be dead because a drug dealer running around with a gun in his hand is unlikely to respond well to someone pulling a weapon out of their pocket.
-
So, a long time ago, in the middle of the night, I was alone fishing at the end
near the "c" in "com".
At the other end of the T were two dudes disagreeing over a drug deal.
They were loud enough that it was obvious what they were yelling about.
Two shots rang out and one of the men came running to my end of the pier.
He was running with a gun in his hand. I was stationary.
If I had my 9mm in my pocket he would be dead.
Turns out he was able to spend several seconds with his gun to my head
deciding whether I live or die. His choice.
Or you'd be dead because a drug dealer running around with a gun in his hand is unlikely to respond well to someone pulling a weapon out of their pocket.
His arms were flailing as he ran, I was stationary.
It would have been femptoseconds between raising my weapon
and reducing the threat to zero.
Give me an internet hug, I was traumatized. :'(
-
His arms were flailing as he ran, I was stationary.
It would have been femptoseconds between raising my weapon
and reducing the threat to zero.
Give me an internet hug, I was traumatized. :'(
How long do you think he'd have flailed for if he saw you pulling out a weapon? Best case scenario I'd give your odds as fifty-fifty. You'd have to pull your weapon out, aim and fire. Few orders of magnitude more than femptoseconds. He'd just have to react, aim and fire.
I'm sorry for your trauma. I hope this helps.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/NcK0Arww9YWg8/giphy.gif)
-
His arms were flailing as he ran, I was stationary.
It would have been femptoseconds between raising my weapon
and reducing the threat to zero.
Give me an internet hug, I was traumatized. :'(
How long do you think he'd have flailed for if he saw you pulling out a weapon? Best case scenario I'd give your odds as fifty-fifty.
The key to self defense is not waiting until the odds are even.
He wouldn't have noticed anything until the pointy end of my weapon started flashing.
I would have dropped him while he was still running at me full speed.
45 feet or so. Not when he was on me and in control.
I'm no bad ass, just pragmatic.
I'm sorry for your trauma. I hope this helps.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/NcK0Arww9YWg8/giphy.gif)
Awww, he's so cute. :D
-
You can make a kill shot in the dark at 45 ft while under pressure? Yes, you are a bad ass. Or think you are a bad ass. One of the two. Probably the latter.
-
You can make a kill shot in the dark at 45 ft while under pressure? Yes, you are a bad ass. Or think you are a bad ass. One of the two. Probably the latter.
He could have turned right at 150' and fled the scene.
He chose to bring his terror 150' further to threaten me.
I would have had plenty of time to prepare my defense.
He was not sneaking up on me. At all.
I am in no way a bad ass.
-
The key to self defense is not waiting until the odds are even.
He wouldn't have noticed anything until the pointy end of my weapon started flashing.
I would have dropped him while he was still running at me full speed.
45 feet or so. Not when he was on me and in control.
I'm no bad ass, just pragmatic.
Here's the thing: we're leaving behind alternative possibilities. If you were fishing you likely weren't keenly watching or eavesdropping, so for all you know the man running at you acted in self defence: the only reason you'd have to think otherwise would be when he had his gun pointed at your head. Hindsight's great, but at the time for all you knew you'd be shooting a scared innocent who was running because they were disturbed by having shot someone in self-defence.
But even if we grant you this incredible knowledge, Rama has the key point. Managing an accurate shot at 45 feet right at a running target after a quick draw doesn't strike me as exactly easy, especially in the dark. The time it'd take you would mark you as a threat to the person who decided already to go up and threaten you and had a gun in hand already. The odds weren't even to start with. Given that they evidently noticed you, you're banking on being able to draw and aim before they could just aim at a stationary target.
-
The key to self defense is not waiting until the odds are even.
He wouldn't have noticed anything until the pointy end of my weapon started flashing.
I would have dropped him while he was still running at me full speed.
45 feet or so. Not when he was on me and in control.
I'm no bad ass, just pragmatic.
Here's the thing: we're leaving behind alternative possibilities. If you were fishing you likely weren't keenly watching or eavesdropping, so for all you know the man running at you acted in self defence: the only reason you'd have to think otherwise would be when he had his gun pointed at your head. Hindsight's great, but at the time for all you knew you'd be shooting a scared innocent who was running because they were disturbed by having shot someone in self-defence.
But even if we grant you this incredible knowledge, Rama has the key point. Managing an accurate shot at 45 feet right at a running target after a quick draw doesn't strike me as exactly easy, especially in the dark. The time it'd take you would mark you as a threat to the person who decided already to go up and threaten you and had a gun in hand already. The odds weren't even to start with. Given that they evidently noticed you, you're banking on being able to draw and aim before they could just aim at a stationary target.
From 300 feet away I clearly understood . . .
One criminal wanted to pay $2000 for four pounds of marijuana.
The other criminal wanted to receive $3500.
Neither one was the Pope.
There was nothing ambiguous or confusing about what was happening.
He was clearly not coming to ask me how the fishing was going.
I'm not going to play a game of "what if".
I was there.
This happened over 18 years ago.
Unbelievably, overwhelmingly traumatic.
-
From 300 feet away I clearly understood . . .
One criminal wanted to pay $2000 for four pounds of marijuana.
The other criminal wanted to receive $3500.
Neither one was the Pope.
There was nothing ambiguous or confusing about what was happening.
He was clearly not coming to ask me how the fishing was going.
I'm not going to play a game of "what if".
I was there.
This happened over 18 years ago.
Unbelievably, overwhelmingly traumatic.
No one's questioning how traumatic it was. Just seems like, even in such a rarer situation as that, a gun isn't going to help. Indeed, it'd probably increase the risk of you getting hurt.
-
From 300 feet away I clearly understood . . .
One criminal wanted to pay $2000 for four pounds of marijuana.
The other criminal wanted to receive $3500.
Neither one was the Pope.
There was nothing ambiguous or confusing about what was happening.
He was clearly not coming to ask me how the fishing was going.
I'm not going to play a game of "what if".
I was there.
This happened over 18 years ago.
Unbelievably, overwhelmingly traumatic.
No one's questioning how traumatic it was. Just seems like, even in such a rarer situation as that, a gun isn't going to help. Indeed, it'd probably increase the risk of you getting hurt.
I understand.
We both can agree there is a problem.
We just disagree on the solution.
I'm not suggesting everyone should be armed at all times.
Because I'm not that insane. :P
I would have no problem with a proficiency test or some other method
of judging competence to own and operate a defensive tool.
-
I didnt retract that. In fact here's an article on it.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1
While I will retract the "mass" in mass shootings the fact remains that there are shootings in Australia.
A dramatically reduced amount, sure. I'd class less people being shot in rarer shootings as a good change, wouldn't you?
I would if it wasn't for the fact that Australia didn't had that big of a mass shooting problem to begin with.
Also, gun control's always been about long term change. A few people might have hung onto guns, and a few people might need to adjust, but you do inevitably see long-term change, and there's no notable increase typically. The robbery case is the only outlier, though the U-shapes curve at the peak would seem to imply other factors at work. Even so there's no gauge of success or damage related to those crimes: I'd guess a fair few were likely down to robbers hoping certain people still had guns and trying to steal them, or trying to make use of the guns they'd kept illegally. With no increase in homicide rate, seems pretty clear guns didn't help.
As the stats show'd gun control didn't affected crime overall. It made it spiked and then through more police being hired (and more taxes to support the police) dwindled it down to more or less the same before the ban. An interesting point is that your ban only cut gun injuries from 13,000 to 7,000 and fatalities from around forty to I believe 29 according to wikepedia. So a number that wasn't all that high to begin with was cut by less than half. Another point is England was the most violent country in the EU before they left.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz0Z7pjqpJC
You're assuming that all cases of DGU (defensive gun use) was in response to burglaries. We have rapes, attempted murders, kidnappings, muggings, etc.
Typically kidnappings etc would take place at the home, but regardless home invasion was the primary example you gave, and was all your results seemed to refer to. Being attacked by someone walking down the street plainly doesn't offer much, because they'd inevitably out-draw you.
Which even in those cases the person was able to defend him/herself with a gun. I highly recomend reading John Lott's book "more guns, less crime". It's full of stories of people defending themselves with guns.
You'd have to rely either on short-range self-defence or pray a passer by comes by: and guns don't help the former, and aren't particularly needed in the latter either especially given if they shot a close-range attacker there's a fair chance they'd shoot you.
You haven't proved that guns are for the most part useless at close range.
What alternatives? A stun gun is best used in offense to subdue someone or if your opponent is an 80 year old grandma beating you with a purse because you're taking too long in line. When your life is in danger you need lethal force. After this post I'll post a video explaining it better. Also here's Kleck's response.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082
Typically your life is only in danger if it's someone with a gun coming after you. And seriously, read your sources, there was a rebuttal to Kleck's rebuttal: he did nothing but offer insults with very little substance, lied, and quoted out-of-date and questionable studies.
I read the rebuttal and I didn't see where he lied.
Our SWAT teams accross America our arming themselves with M4 and AR carbines because it penetrates less walls than pistol rounds. So howmowners have as much if not more reason to own such weaponry since they don't know how many intruders there are and there intentions. Also most homeowners don't have backup.
How, exactly, does that follow? Supposing a rare worst-case-scenario doesn't benefit anyone. And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that homeowners who used guns to defend their homes don't have any advantage over those that don't.
You haven't demonstrated that they don't have an advantage.
Better him than me. I'm quote sure that even as slow grandma is she still can draw faster than hiding, calling the police, and explaining to them what's happening.
She can draw fine if she's in another room, sure, but she'd still need to be able to slowly sneak to where the burglar is and aim and fire. Much harder than staying in the same room and tapping three numbers.
As I said. I don't advocate sneaking around and hunting for the burglar. Stay put, have your gun ready, and call the police. If he storm in while you're calling then shoot.
I thought smuggling would entail that.
Smuggling is typically cross-border. There was no indication I could see of what definition that site used, so I assume the default.
Then please provide the correct stats of illegal guns.
Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...
I'll com back with a link disproving that.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1-1.pdf/view
FBI report on active shooter incidents. Your link wasn't a disproof, it was a handful of anecdotes.
For the summary: 56.3% ended when the shooter killed themselves or fled. Generally though, only 40.6% ended before law enforcement arrived, and of those 23.1% were down to shooter-suicide, 13.1% ended when unarmed citizens intervened. 1.3% were ended down to off-duty police officers present.
Which leaves your grand claim of a good guy with a gun helping at a whopping 3.1% of cases. Unarmed citizens do better.
Because armed citizens weren't there.
It's about what you'd expect, really. An armed civilian present is untrained generally, so if they pull out a gun they might miss, or might be too slow: after all the shooter's already present. if it's in a school-type setting with rooms and corridors then they'd have to navigate them and not shoot at just anyone passing by because it might be another civilian fleeing, but it might also be the shooter who could kill them on the spot.
Do you have evidence of this happening at a large scale?
You'd need split-second recognition and decision making which law enforcement take years to learn, and you don't pick up on the spot when it's convenient.
Actually here in my state it takes two semesters in the academy and a year of on the job training as an officer. And police shoot the wrong person more often than armed citizens. Mostly because the citizen is there and knows who the threat and who's not.
Real life doesn't work like that. And then of course even if said good guy doesn't get killed by the shooter, they're still someone running around waving a gun at a place there's known to be a shooter so they'd probably be shot themselves by some other supposed good-guy or law enforcement.
When has that happened?
And even if logic isn't enough, the stats remain. Armed citizens don't help.
Armed citizens do help when they are present.
-
I would if it wasn't for the fact that Australia didn't had that big of a mass shooting problem to begin with.
I think it was averaging two every three years, which I'd class as a big problem compared to zero. Just because it doesn't compare to the US' absurd rate doesn't make it not a problem. How exactly is a flat reduction to zero not notable? We should've had a whole host if the rate wouldn't have altered.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds
Plus other crimes fell as well, and note "the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide."
As the stats show'd gun control didn't affected crime overall. It made it spiked and then through more police being hired (and more taxes to support the police) dwindled it down to more or less the same before the ban. An interesting point is that your ban only cut gun injuries from 13,000 to 7,000 and fatalities from around forty to I believe 29 according to wikepedia. So a number that wasn't all that high to begin with was cut by less than half. Another point is England was the most violent country in the EU before they left.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz0Z7pjqpJC
Already gone over how stats can be misleading, and the importance of long-term changes. you've mentioned police hiring before, i'd like to see a source on it: you may well be right but I haven't been able to find any specific instance of a major change in the number of police that correlates. And regardless, that's six thousand people who'd be rather relieved I think. How is that bad?
You've also already been told that the UK has a rather lax definition of violent crime etc. Comparing apples to oranges isn't going to manage much. Plus, seriously, the daily mail is a laughable source: just look at all their recommended stories down the right and tell me that looks like a serious, reliable publication.
Which even in those cases the person was able to defend him/herself with a gun. I highly recomend reading John Lott's book "more guns, less crime". It's full of stories of people defending themselves with guns.
You haven't proved that guns are for the most part useless at close range.
Are you being serious? Individual anecdotes are unreliable because a) they don't give any indication as to how successful they'd be without a gun, b) they're just one-off stories, c) on a contentious topic people will inevitably embellish. Guns aren't useless at close range, but they're unnecessary. You'd be better off using your keys.
You haven't demonstrated that they don't have an advantage.
Yes. I have. The stats hold despite your wilful disregard for them. People who used a gun had no advantage over those that did not. End of. A page of insults which misrepresents the people referred to is not a rebuttal.
As I said. I don't advocate sneaking around and hunting for the burglar. Stay put, have your gun ready, and call the police. If he storm in while you're calling then shoot.
Staying put isn't going to help if the burglar comes in with their gun raised. With a phone in one hand and a gun in the other, they'd have the advantage. Hide under the bed or in the wardrobe (hiding have the highest rate of success). If they get close enough to open the wardrobe, punch them. A gun's obsolete.
Then please provide the correct stats of illegal guns.
How, exactly, is it meant to be possible to know the number of guns that are held without the government's knowledge?
Because armed citizens weren't there.
Given how prevalent guns are in America (I remember being there are pretty much everyone on the street seemed to be carrying one) do you seriously think that over multiple instances, with multiple people at each one, there was only ever even one person with a gun 3.1% of the time?
Do you have evidence of this happening at a large scale?
Actually here in my state it takes two semesters in the academy and a year of on the job training as an officer. And police shoot the wrong person more often than armed citizens. Mostly because the citizen is there and knows who the threat and who's not.
When has that happened?
Given how rarely a 'good guy with a gun' is of any use, what larger scale would be possible?
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/11/dallas-police-chief-debunks-conservative-medias-good-guy-gun-myth/211488
The civilian trying to help plainly something police mark as an issue: like you said, as they're not there they have no idea who's a threat.
-
I would if it wasn't for the fact that Australia didn't had that big of a mass shooting problem to begin with.
I think it was averaging two every three years, which I'd class as a big problem compared to zero. Just because it doesn't compare to the US' absurd rate doesn't make it not a problem. How exactly is a flat reduction to zero not notable? We should've had a whole host if the rate wouldn't have altered.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds
Plus other crimes fell as well, and note "the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide."
Actually according to this link murder is still pretty much the same.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
And as the video and link debunking Vox pointed out suicide isn't due to guns.
As the stats show'd gun control didn't affected crime overall. It made it spiked and then through more police being hired (and more taxes to support the police) dwindled it down to more or less the same before the ban. An interesting point is that your ban only cut gun injuries from 13,000 to 7,000 and fatalities from around forty to I believe 29 according to wikepedia. So a number that wasn't all that high to begin with was cut by less than half. Another point is England was the most violent country in the EU before they left.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz0Z7pjqpJC
Already gone over how stats can be misleading, and the importance of long-term changes. you've mentioned police hiring before, i'd like to see a source on it: you may well be right but I haven't been able to find any specific instance of a major change in the number of police that correlates. And regardless, that's six thousand people who'd be rather relieved I think. How is that bad?
It's not bad but its not enough to ban guns. More people die from cars. And my link was from an unbiased to left leaning source.
You've also already been told that the UK has a rather lax definition of violent crime etc. Comparing apples to oranges isn't going to manage much. Plus, seriously, the daily mail is a laughable source: just look at all their recommended stories down the right and tell me that looks like a serious, reliable publication.
There are other sources but just look at the robbery rates. Yours is higher than ours.
Which even in those cases the person was able to defend him/herself with a gun. I highly recomend reading John Lott's book "more guns, less crime". It's full of stories of people defending themselves with guns.
You haven't proved that guns are for the most part useless at close range.
Are you being serious? Individual anecdotes are unreliable because a) they don't give any indication as to how successful they'd be without a gun, b) they're just one-off stories, c) on a contentious topic people will inevitably embellish. Guns aren't useless at close range, but they're unnecessary. You'd be better off using your keys.
Anyone taught in self defense are told to never give up the advantage. Sure. In SOME instances you can fight off the attacker rather than shooting him but why would I do that? The one who wins is the one who's more determined, stronger, or more fluent in martial arts. Like I said before the gun is the great equalizer and gives you the advantage.
You haven't demonstrated that they don't have an advantage.
Yes. I have. The stats hold despite your wilful disregard for them. People who used a gun had no advantage over those that did not. End of. A page of insults which misrepresents the people referred to is not a rebuttal.
Which link are you reffering to?
As I said. I don't advocate sneaking around and hunting for the burglar. Stay put, have your gun ready, and call the police. If he storm in while you're calling then shoot.
Staying put isn't going to help if the burglar comes in with their gun raised.
First off it'll be even worse if she wasn't armed. Second, if she had her gun ready she would be able to fire first. Third, it doesn't matter who has the gun raised first. It's all about relation time. And speaking of being defenseless.
With a phone in one hand and a gun in the other, they'd have the advantage. Hide under the bed or in the wardrobe (hiding have the highest rate of success). If they get close enough to open the wardrobe, punch them. A gun's obsolete.
So grandma is going to have the strength to deliver a incapacitating blow? What vitamins is she taking? Excuse the sarcasm but I couldn't resist. If guns are obsolete then why are police and military uses them? At the same time if they're obsolete then why ban or restrict them? It seems that at one instances you're saying that guns are too powerful and dangerous for the general public and only trained professionals (which police aren't. They maybe around guns but that doesn't mean they train with them often) while on the other hand you're saying that guns aren't needed to protect life. Which is it? Also I found this story.
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/07/armed-grandmother-scares-off-home-invaders/
Then please provide the correct stats of illegal guns.
How, exactly, is it meant to be possible to know the number of guns that are held without the government's knowledge?
All one needs to look at is the number of guns reported stolen.
Because armed citizens weren't there.
Given how prevalent guns are in America (I remember being there are pretty much everyone on the street seemed to be carrying one) do you seriously think that over multiple instances, with multiple people at each one, there was only ever even one person with a gun 3.1% of the time?
They are rare in gun free zones.
Do you have evidence of this happening at a large scale?
Actually here in my state it takes two semesters in the academy and a year of on the job training as an officer. And police shoot the wrong person more often than armed citizens. Mostly because the citizen is there and knows who the threat and who's not.
When has that happened?
Given how rarely a 'good guy with a gun' is of any use, what larger scale would be possible?
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/11/dallas-police-chief-debunks-conservative-medias-good-guy-gun-myth/211488
The civilian trying to help plainly something police mark as an issue: like you said, as they're not there they have no idea who's a threat.
And that rarely happens. Even if we are to be conservative using VCP guns are used in defense over a hundred times per day.
-
I found thes two videos. Within the first five or ten minutes of the first one it debunks "Australia never had a massacre since gun ban"
The second one shows gun control advocates how to argue.
-
Actually according to this link murder is still pretty much the same.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
And as the video and link debunking Vox pointed out suicide isn't due to guns.
Can't just ignore external influences. Plus if you look at those stats you can observe a much steeper decline beginning after guns were banned, it's just not as striking due to how little data is given on the post-ban incidents.
Something doesn't need to be entirely due to guns for guns to make it easier. It's a fair effort to commit suicide without a gun, and can be more easily prevented: a gun takes a five-second depressive spell and would nearly always succeed.
It's not bad but its not enough to ban guns. More people die from cars. And my link was from an unbiased to left leaning source.
Ok, please tell me you seriously didn't just claim the Daily Mail was left-leaning. And again, cars have a separate purpose that's actually useful: the sole purpose of guns is to shoot people, and you claim self-defence is a good use but there is no evidence of that.
There are other sources but just look at the robbery rates. Yours is higher than ours.
Better that than four times the murder rate.
Anyone taught in self defense are told to never give up the advantage. Sure. In SOME instances you can fight off the attacker rather than shooting him but why would I do that? The one who wins is the one who's more determined, stronger, or more fluent in martial arts. Like I said before the gun is the great equalizer and gives you the advantage.
Which link are you referring to?
First off it'll be even worse if she wasn't armed. Second, if she had her gun ready she would be able to fire first. Third, it doesn't matter who has the gun raised first. It's all about relation time. And speaking of being defenseless.
So grandma is going to have the strength to deliver a incapacitating blow? What vitamins is she taking? Excuse the sarcasm but I couldn't resist. If guns are obsolete then why are police and military uses them? At the same time if they're obsolete then why ban or restrict them? It seems that at one instances you're saying that guns are too powerful and dangerous for the general public and only trained professionals (which police aren't. They maybe around guns but that doesn't mean they train with them often) while on the other hand you're saying that guns aren't needed to protect life. Which is it? Also I found this story.
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/07/armed-grandmother-scares-off-home-invaders/
Anecdotes don't trump stats. I'm not watching a long video because at this stage I'm not entirely sure you read your own sources; summarise and link to citations, otherwise it feels more like a waste of time.
If it's down to reaction time, how is an older person meant to have a faster one? Hiding in a wardrobe gives you better chances than using a gun, the stats remain no matter how much you'd like to ignore them. Sure, some people might struggle more, but typically they're the same people who'd struggle just as much if faced with someone with a gun, whether or not they were themselves armed. Plus this isn't a movie, I'm not proposing a fair fight. Hide, you won't get hurt. if they find you, you have the element of surprise if you're careful, and a baseball bat or something. Comes down to more than just generic fighting skills.
Link reminder, once again:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/
All one needs to look at is the number of guns reported stolen.
Except that's only how it works in the US, as I pointed out before. in the UK the main source of guns would be overseas smuggling because they're far from as common here. No way to gauge that.
They are rare in gun free zones.
Which is where a grand total of 13% of shootings occur
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
So you'd still expect more than 3.1% of settings to have a lone gun present.
And that rarely happens. Even if we are to be conservative using VCP guns are used in defense over a hundred times per day.
It rarely happens because guns are next to never used to prevent such shootings. But sure, ok, let's hear your reasoning. The police arrive on the scene where they know there's been gunfire, they don't have any real description of the shooter, and they see someone running down the hallway holding a gun. How would they tell the difference?
Bear in mind if they take so much as a second to ask, they could well get shot if it is the shooter.
And again, claiming guns can be used in defence is meaningless when far more mundane objects have been statistically observed to do the exact same job just as well. (See: above stats again, and the FBI stats, demonstrating that in the cases of home invasion and mass shootings unarmed citizens do as well if not better than their gun-toting counterparts. You're running out of ground to stand on).
-
Actually according to this link murder is still pretty much the same.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
And as the video and link debunking Vox pointed out suicide isn't due to guns.
Can't just ignore external influences. Plus if you look at those stats you can observe a much steeper decline beginning after guns were banned, it's just not as striking due to how little data is given on the post-ban incidents.
Something doesn't need to be entirely due to guns for guns to make it easier. It's a fair effort to commit suicide without a gun, and can be more easily prevented: a gun takes a five-second depressive spell and would nearly always succeed.
New Zealand experienced the same decline and compared to Australia they have lax gun laws. Did you watched the videos yet?
It's not bad but its not enough to ban guns. More people die from cars. And my link was from an unbiased to left leaning source.
Ok, please tell me you seriously didn't just claim the Daily Mail was left-leaning. And again, cars have a separate purpose that's actually useful: the sole purpose of guns is to shoot people, and you claim self-defence is a good use but there is no evidence of that.
First of all despite there use for transportation they still kill more than guns. Second, guns are used for target practice, hunting, protection from tyranny, and self defense and stats have shown that they are useful in that case and you haven't shown that they could've defended themselves by other means in the majority of the time.
There are other sources but just look at the robbery rates. Yours is higher than ours.
Better that than four times the murder rate.
Actually, you guys define a murder if there's a conviction. We define a murder as is.
Anyone taught in self defense are told to never give up the advantage. Sure. In SOME instances you can fight off the attacker rather than shooting him but why would I do that? The one who wins is the one who's more determined, stronger, or more fluent in martial arts. Like I said before the gun is the great equalizer and gives you the advantage.
Which link are you referring to?
First off it'll be even worse if she wasn't armed. Second, if she had her gun ready she would be able to fire first. Third, it doesn't matter who has the gun raised first. It's all about relation time. And speaking of being defenseless.
So grandma is going to have the strength to deliver a incapacitating blow? What vitamins is she taking? Excuse the sarcasm but I couldn't resist. If guns are obsolete then why are police and military uses them? At the same time if they're obsolete then why ban or restrict them? It seems that at one instances you're saying that guns are too powerful and dangerous for the general public and only trained professionals (which police aren't. They maybe around guns but that doesn't mean they train with them often) while on the other hand you're saying that guns aren't needed to protect life. Which is it? Also I found this story.
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/07/armed-grandmother-scares-off-home-invaders/
Anecdotes don't trump stats. I'm not watching a long video because at this stage I'm not entirely sure you read your own sources; summarise and link to citations, otherwise it feels more like a waste of time.
If it's down to reaction time, how is an older person meant to have a faster one?
Many factors can come into play, as the story in my link shows.
Hiding in a wardrobe gives you better chances than using a gun, the stats remain no matter how much you'd like to ignore them.
What stats? Even according to an anti gun site people defend themselves with guns 118 times a day. That adds up to 4 instances per hour. Like I said, you should hide, however if that doesn't work then have a plan B. exactly what would you do if someone with a gun finds you in the closet?
Sure, some people might struggle more, but typically they're the same people who'd struggle just as much if faced with someone with a gun, whether or not they were themselves armed. Plus this isn't a movie, I'm not proposing a fair fight. Hide, you won't get hurt. if they find you, you have the element of surprise if you're careful, and a baseball bat or something.
A gun is quicker and requires less force to operate it. Plus you'll need a good amount of space to deliver a incapacitating blow with a bat and last I check the closet does give you that option.
Comes down to more than just generic fighting skills.
Link reminder, once again:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/
All one needs to look at is the number of guns reported stolen.
Except that's only how it works in the US, as I pointed out before. in the UK the main source of guns would be overseas smuggling because they're far from as common here. No way to gauge that.
Ok.
They are rare in gun free zones.
Which is where a grand total of 13% of shootings occur
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
So you'd still expect more than 3.1% of settings to have a lone gun present.
Which have been debunked. Also that's an anti gun site. I lost the link but I'll post it after this.
And that rarely happens. Even if we are to be conservative using VCP guns are used in defense over a hundred times per day.
It rarely happens because guns are next to never used to prevent such shootings. But sure, ok, let's hear your reasoning. The police arrive on the scene where they know there's been gunfire, they don't have any real description of the shooter, and they see someone running down the hallway holding a gun. How would they tell the difference?
Bear in mind if they take so much as a second to ask, they could well get shot if it is the shooter.
And again, claiming guns can be used in defence is meaningless when far more mundane objects have been statistically observed to do the exact same job just as well. (See: above stats again, and the FBI stats, demonstrating that in the cases of home invasion and mass shootings unarmed citizens do as well if not better than their gun-toting counterparts. You're running out of ground to stand on).
For one thing it rarely happens. When the Dallas shooting took place there was an open carrier in the region and the only thing that happened was he got detained. As to how to tell the difference, those who carry are taught to put the gun down once the threat is subdued. Announce that you're a CCW holder.
-
Here's the link I'm talking about.
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occurred-in-gun-free-zones/
-
New Zealand experienced the same decline and compared to Australia they have lax gun laws. Did you watched the videos yet?
Like I said, I'm not watching long videos. I'm happy to read links. Speaking of links:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand
"The regulation of guns in New Zealand is categorised as restrictive." Not as strict is Australia, sure, but hardly lax.
I'd point out that due to the close relationship between New Zealand and Australia, it's likely gun laws in one place would affect the other: it'd limit smuggling, for example.
First of all despite there use for transportation they still kill more than guns. Second, guns are used for target practice, hunting, protection from tyranny, and self defense and stats have shown that they are useful in that case and you haven't shown that they could've defended themselves by other means in the majority of the time.
Target practise is hardly as beneficial as getting to work, hunting is questionable as any kind of benefit, we've already gone over how if a government turns tyrannical guns wouldn't help you, and the self-defence stats are clear.
You've provided anecdotes, not stats, and actual stats did directly show that those without a gun could defend themselves just as well as those that did. Why is this so hard to understand, seriously?
A gun is quicker and requires less force to operate it. Plus you'll need a good amount of space to deliver a incapacitating blow with a bat and last I check the closet does give you that option.
Doesn't need to be incapacitating. Simple forwards-thrust would likely scare off your typical intruder, and would certainly do damage and push them back. There's your space.
Which have been debunked. Also that's an anti gun site. I lost the link but I'll post it after this.
Anti-gun site, sure, but at least it gives its source. Sure, everytown was misleading in a few respects, primarily in that it was broader in its definition of mass shooting, but I'd point out that shootings in general are just as relevant. The source of your link made a few false claims (for example: it said they relied on news reports to gauge whether it was a gun-free zone, but if you look at their source you see they were fairly careful. Springfield, MO, 11/15/14 they, for example, specifically called up the motel in question to ensure there were no prohibitions against guns). Plus they complained that referring to police being armed doesn't make fire-arms legal: ignoring the fact that as far as I can tell the only time that happened were in situations where the victims and typically the people nearby were police, so that was all that was required.
Even if you did the worst case scenario, you get far more than 8% in gun-free zones.
You might also find Tucson, AZ, 1/8/11 of interest: "An armed bystander, Joe Zamudio, mistook someone else as the shooter and prepared to fire on him before he was stopped by other bystanders." One of the issues I've pointed out previously.
Plus if we're comparing rebuttals:
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/
The source of your article comes from someone who doesn't count as a shooting an event where someone was committing another crime at the time (such as armed robbery), and limits the shootings referred to improperly, among other errors. The 92% statistic remains thoroughly unsupported.
For one thing it rarely happens. When the Dallas shooting took place there was an open carrier in the region and the only thing that happened was he got detained. As to how to tell the difference, those who carry are taught to put the gun down once the threat is subdued. Announce that you're a CCW holder.
It rarely happens: that's my exact point. The situation where people in the scene get a gun and try to help the police is so rare, of course you're not going to get odd situations. Note that you still got one detained, demonstrating a mistake can be made; open carry doesn't mean holding and wielding it though.
Plus, how would they know the threat was subdued? There's every chance they haven't made it to the shooter yet, for example. They should still be holding their gun aloft: and in a case where there's a mass shooter, how often do you think the police would let them get a sentence out when they're brandishing a gun? And for that matter, why would the police take them at their word given the shooter could say the exact same?
-
. . . exactly what would you do if someone with a gun finds you in the closet?
-
New Zealand experienced the same decline and compared to Australia they have lax gun laws. Did you watched the videos yet?
Like I said, I'm not watching long videos. I'm happy to read links. Speaking of links:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand
"The regulation of guns in New Zealand is categorised as restrictive." Not as strict is Australia, sure, but hardly lax.
I'd point out that due to the close relationship between New Zealand and Australia, it's likely gun laws in one place would affect the other: it'd limit smuggling, for example.
Still, compared to Australia New Zealand is less more laced. And btw Australia has as much if not more guns now than it did before the ban. Once you have 30 minutes to spare please watch at least one of them.
First of all despite there use for transportation they still kill more than guns. Second, guns are used for target practice, hunting, protection from tyranny, and self defense and stats have shown that they are useful in that case and you haven't shown that they could've defended themselves by other means in the majority of the time.
Target practise is hardly as beneficial as getting to work, hunting is questionable as any kind of benefit, we've already gone over how if a government turns tyrannical guns wouldn't help you, and the self-defence stats are clear.
You've provided anecdotes, not stats, and actual stats did directly show that those without a gun could defend themselves just as well as those that did. Why is this so hard to understand, seriously?
As I said before. Even conservative estimates say that people defend themselves 118 times a day. That's more than how many murders there are by more than 5 times.
A gun is quicker and requires less force to operate it. Plus you'll need a good amount of space to deliver a incapacitating blow with a bat and last I check the closet does give you that option.
Doesn't need to be incapacitating. Simple forwards-thrust would likely scare off your typical intruder, and would certainly do damage and push them back. There's your space.
First of all you'll need the strength. Second if you push him off and he has a gun now he has distance for an advantage and if I was a badguy I would unload.
Which have been debunked. Also that's an anti gun site. I lost the link but I'll post it after this.
Anti-gun site, sure, but at least it gives its source. Sure, everytown was misleading in a few respects, primarily in that it was broader in its definition of mass shooting, but I'd point out that shootings in general are just as relevant. The source of your link made a few false claims (for example: it said they relied on news reports to gauge whether it was a gun-free zone, but if you look at their source you see they were fairly careful. Springfield, MO, 11/15/14 they, for example, specifically called up the motel in question to ensure there were no prohibitions against guns). Plus they complained that referring to police being armed doesn't make fire-arms legal: ignoring the fact that as far as I can tell the only time that happened were in situations where the victims and typically the people nearby were police, so that was all that was required.
Even if you did the worst case scenario, you get far more than 8% in gun-free zones.
You might also find Tucson, AZ, 1/8/11 of interest: "An armed bystander, Joe Zamudio, mistook someone else as the shooter and prepared to fire on him before he was stopped by other bystanders." One of the issues I've pointed out previously.
Plus if we're comparing rebuttals:
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/
The source of your article comes from someone who doesn't count as a shooting an event where someone was committing another crime at the time (such as armed robbery), and limits the shootings referred to improperly, among other errors. The 92% statistic remains thoroughly unsupported.
For one thing it rarely happens. When the Dallas shooting took place there was an open carrier in the region and the only thing that happened was he got detained. As to how to tell the difference, those who carry are taught to put the gun down once the threat is subdued. Announce that you're a CCW holder.
It rarely happens: that's my exact point. The situation where people in the scene get a gun and try to help the police is so rare, of course you're not going to get odd situations. Note that you still got one detained, demonstrating a mistake can be made; open carry doesn't mean holding and wielding it though.
Plus, how would they know the threat was subdued? There's every chance they haven't made it to the shooter yet, for example. They should still be holding their gun aloft: and in a case where there's a mass shooter, how often do you think the police would let them get a sentence out when they're brandishing a gun? And for that matter, why would the police take them at their word given the shooter could say the exact same?
There are stories like these of armed citizens helping officers.
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/02/261748/
-
Anecdotes don't trump the stats given that the stats typically take those anecdotes into consideration.
Seriously, that alone pretty much rebuts your entire post.
Though:
As I said before. Even conservative estimates say that people defend themselves 118 times a day. That's more than how many murders there are by more than 5 times.
At this stage you have to be doing this on purpose. That doesn't matter. The stats remain. It doesn't matter if you can find ten billion examples of people using guns to defend themselves, there are also plenty of instances with people not using guns to defend themselves, and when you compare the two guns offered no advantage. End of. End of discussion. Stop repeating yourself, stop wasting time, read, acknowledge, pay attention. Anecdotes don't trump stats.
And finally:
Still, compared to Australia New Zealand is less more laced. And btw Australia has as much if not more guns now than it did before the ban. Once you have 30 minutes to spare please watch at least one of them.
I'm in my MSc year, if I get 30 minutes free it'll be to sleep. If you can't be bothered to quote a linked source or write down a point, why should I take the time to watch and write down a rebuttal?
-
Anecdotes don't trump the stats given that the stats typically take those anecdotes into consideration.
If your life is being threatened by an old math professor wielding a graphing calculator,
stats may be an effective defense. Or, just tighten his bow tie until he passes out.
Defense is a choice. If you think stats will protect you, fine.
One can be on the evening news telling a survival story,
or, be on the news being loaded into the coroner's van.
Stats just document winners and losers.
-
Stats just document winners and losers.
Bingo. And they document that whether or not you have a gun doesn't really decide whether you'd be a winner or a loser. Why is that hard to grasp? If I'm going to be lugged into a coroner's van having a gun wouldn't actually make a difference. End of. You can't just ignore observed facts about the world based on arbitrary feeling.
-
Stats just document winners and losers.
Bingo. And they document that whether or not you have a gun doesn't really decide whether you'd be a winner or a loser. Why is that hard to grasp? If I'm going to be lugged into a coroner's van having a gun wouldn't actually make a difference. End of. You can't just ignore observed facts about the world based on arbitrary feeling.
If your attacker was the one being sent off to be processed
that would represent a difference.
-
If your attacker was the one being sent off to be processed
that would represent a difference.
Which doesn't happen because, yet again, the statistics demonstrate explicitly and undeniably whether or not you have a gun will not alter your fate.
-
Stats just document winners and losers.
Bingo. And they document that whether or not you have a gun doesn't really decide whether you'd be a winner or a loser. Why is that hard to grasp? If I'm going to be lugged into a coroner's van having a gun wouldn't actually make a difference. End of. You can't just ignore observed facts about the world based on arbitrary feeling.
Luke can, he is a YEC. I'm not sure why Bullwinkle is having trouble though.
-
If your attacker was the one being sent off to be processed
that would represent a difference.
Which doesn't happen because, yet again, the statistics demonstrate explicitly and undeniably whether or not you have a gun will not alter your fate.
:P
-
Anecdotes don't trump the stats given that the stats typically take those anecdotes into consideration.
Seriously, that alone pretty much rebuts your entire post.
32,000 people dying in car accidents is a stat but people defending themselves with guns 118 times a day isn't? How does that work?
Though:
As I said before. Even conservative estimates say that people defend themselves 118 times a day. That's more than how many murders there are by more than 5 times.
At this stage you have to be doing this on purpose. That doesn't matter. The stats remain. It doesn't matter if you can find ten billion examples of people using guns to defend themselves, there are also plenty of instances with people not using guns to defend themselves, and when you compare the two guns offered no advantage. End of. End of discussion. Stop repeating yourself, stop wasting time, read, acknowledge, pay attention. Anecdotes don't trump stats.
I haven't found the source saying that people defend themselves as much without guns as with. Do you have a link?
And finally:
Still, compared to Australia New Zealand is less more laced. And btw Australia has as much if not more guns now than it did before the ban. Once you have 30 minutes to spare please watch at least one of them.
I'm in my MSc year, if I get 30 minutes free it'll be to sleep. If you can't be bothered to quote a linked source or write down a point, why should I take the time to watch and write down a rebuttal?
Ok, here's the sources.
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/34837-
http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/
-
32,000 people dying in car accidents is a stat but people defending themselves with guns 118 times a day isn't? How does that work?
I haven't found the source saying that people defend themselves as much without guns as with. Do you have a link?
No, the stats are that guns don't help. And you have seen the source, I've linked to it multiple time already, and you only ever ignore it. If you want the direct study for clarity:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
If you want the highlights:
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU (Self-defense gun use).
After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured.
In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
And the whole things covers both at and away from home incidents.
Ok, here's the sources.
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/34837-
http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/
First of those is just a link spam, most of which seems to be things we've already covered. Second link doesn't seem to understand how stats work. First graph's too poorly defined to be of use, second cuts off everything before the gun control legislation and so is useless for comparison, and the third shows the opposite of what they're claiming. Immediately after the ban there's a decrease. Yes, there's an upwards spike later, but there always is (just like there are before): any stats have uneven lines like that. indeed, the largest spike is 2001, long after the ban, and since then it's plummeted. What matters is the average, and I recall seeing another source which pointed out that the rate of change after gun control is actually a much steeper decrease, which I think I've linked to before.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/gun-control-did-it-reduce-suicides-and-homocides-in-australia/
Not the source I was thinking of, and biased, but you don't have to read it: just scroll down to the charts resulting from plain, unbiased stats. There's no increase, and no sign of people relying on other means to do harm: and it's a much more reliable form of graph too, plotting simply the data points rather than taking the freedom to imagine whatever curves you want between them.
-
32,000 people dying in car accidents is a stat but people defending themselves with guns 118 times a day isn't? How does that work?
I haven't found the source saying that people defend themselves as much without guns as with. Do you have a link?
No, the stats are that guns don't help. And you have seen the source, I've linked to it multiple time already, and you only ever ignore it. If you want the direct study for clarity:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
If you want the highlights:
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU (Self-defense gun use).
Right off the bat that's not true. There was over a million violent crimes and thus a million victims in 2009 alone.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured.
In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
And the whole things covers both at and away from home incidents.
Which is also not true.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Ok, here's the sources.
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/34837-
http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/
First of those is just a link spam, most of which seems to be things we've already covered. Second link doesn't seem to understand how stats work. First graph's too poorly defined to be of use, second cuts off everything before the gun control legislation and so is useless for comparison, and the third shows the opposite of what they're claiming. Immediately after the ban there's a decrease. Yes, there's an upwards spike later, but there always is (just like there are before): any stats have uneven lines like that. indeed, the largest spike is 2001, long after the ban, and since then it's plummeted. What matters is the average, and I recall seeing another source which pointed out that the rate of change after gun control is actually a much steeper decrease, which I think I've linked to before.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/gun-control-did-it-reduce-suicides-and-homocides-in-australia/
Not the source I was thinking of, and biased, but you don't have to read it: just scroll down to the charts resulting from plain, unbiased stats. There's no increase, and no sign of people relying on other means to do harm: and it's a much more reliable form of graph too, plotting simply the data points rather than taking the freedom to imagine whatever curves you want between them.
Japan has a high suicide rate and they have strict gun control. In fact their suicide rate is higher than ours. As to Australian gun ownership they had around 3 million guns before the ban and roughly the same after.
-
Right off the bat that's not true. There was over a million violent crimes and thus a million victims in 2009 alone.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
Which is also not true.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
First, statistics crash course: in many cases you need to analyse millions of incidents. This may as well be impossible, because typically the detailed data isn't available in these situations, as it isn't in this case: you can find a lot of lists of how many crimes occur, but never any details into all of them. And even if that information was available, that's way too many cases to sort through. So, instead, analysts take samples: a sufficiently large random sample ought to give a good indication of the overall behaviour. That's what this study did. It's how stats work: it's what the second link did, for that matter.
Secondly, that second link is the definition of a biased source. It gives literally no reason for rejecting the data beyond "It doesn't feel right compared with our agenda," and you just need to look at the data to realise it's a mess. Apparently over five years gun are used barely over twice the rate of the last year. Either there's some serious misremembering going on, or false positives.
Japan has a high suicide rate and they have strict gun control. In fact their suicide rate is higher than ours. As to Australian gun ownership they had around 3 million guns before the ban and roughly the same after.
Japan also literally works people to death, alternative factors are definitely at play. Someone desperate for suicide can take any option: the usual depressive explanation usually involves people essentially making the attempt on the spur of the moment.
I'd point out that the requirement for licenses etc, ie gun control, still seems to have worked just fine in Australia.
-
Defend yourself once.
100% success rate.
-
Defend yourself once.
100% success rate.
You're not the only one in the world. And sorry, doesn't work like that.
-
Defend yourself once.
100% success rate.
You're not the only one in the world. And sorry, doesn't work like that.
Billions of folks on the planet.
Victim is a choice.
-
Defend yourself once.
100% success rate.
You're not the only one in the world. And sorry, doesn't work like that.
Billions of folks on the planet.
Victim is a choice.
No. Nothing works like that. And the stats remain, having a gun doesn't help, end of, no matter what you'd like to be true.
-
Defend yourself once.
100% success rate.
You're not the only one in the world. And sorry, doesn't work like that.
Billions of folks on the planet.
Victim is a choice.
No. Nothing works like that. And the stats remain, having a gun doesn't help, end of, no matter what you'd like to be true.
I have a feeling we are not going to agree on this. ;)
You make passionate arguments. I respect that.
-
You make passionate arguments. I respect that.
And fact-based rather than feeling-based, I'm afraid.
-
You make passionate arguments. I respect that.
And fact-based rather than feeling-based, I'm afraid.
Don't be afraid. Someone will come to your defense well after the fact. Just too late.
-
You make passionate arguments. I respect that.
And fact-based rather than feeling-based, I'm afraid.
Don't be afraid. Someone will come to your defense well after the fact. Just too late.
And having a gun wouldn't help me in any way, so hey, sorry about the facts.
-
You make passionate arguments. I respect that.
And fact-based rather than feeling-based, I'm afraid.
Don't be afraid. Someone will come to your defense well after the fact. Just too late.
And having a gun wouldn't help me in any way, so hey, sorry about the facts.
Self defense never works. ::)
-
Self defense never works. ::)
Self defence is fine, but as the stats show guns don't help with that. Facts matter more than feelings. And given you're just ensuring every criminal will have them...
-
Self defence is fine, but as the stats show guns don't help with that.
What does?
-
Self defence is fine, but as the stats show guns don't help with that.
What does?
Are you really saying you don't know how to defend yourself without a gun? Arms, legs, bats...
-
Self defence is fine, but as the stats show guns don't help with that.
What does?
Are you really saying you don't know how to defend yourself without a gun? Arms, legs, bats...
None of those things will deflect a bullet. Statistically.
-
Self defence is fine, but as the stats show guns don't help with that.
What does?
Are you really saying you don't know how to defend yourself without a gun? Arms, legs, bats...
None of those things will deflect a bullet. Statistically.
You can deflect a bullet with a gun? That's impressive.
-
Bullwinkle vs dealer, unarmed: Both alive and unscratched, because unarmed Bullwinkle was seen as not a threat.
Bullwinkle vs dealer, armed: one or both of them either injured or dead, as Bullwinkle would have felt compelled to use the weapon and start a fight.
Sounds like a good example to show how guns don't exactly help. Thank you, Bullwinkle, to share your experience with us.
-
Self defence is fine, but as the stats show guns don't help with that.
What does?
Are you really saying you don't know how to defend yourself without a gun? Arms, legs, bats...
None of those things will deflect a bullet. Statistically.
You can deflect a bullet with a gun? That's impressive.
You're just being silly for no reason.
I'm disabled.
Left knee ACL, PCL, MCL and a wee bit of meniscus damage.
I ambulate at a comfortable pace. I can't run away.
Flail your arms and legs and bat all you want.
Not at all effective if your attacker is more than three feet away.
I would never, ever, use my defensive tool to protect anyone else.
You want to hide and hope and shout out stats? Your choice.
-
Self defence is fine, but as the stats show guns don't help with that.
What does?
Are you really saying you don't know how to defend yourself without a gun? Arms, legs, bats...
I prefer something that gives me the greatest advantage over whatever is attacking me. Fair fights are for the ring, backyard "who's the better fighter" fights, or perhaps the bar.
I was up in the mountains over the weekend, and was carrying a large caliber handgun, because going up with bare fists against a mountain goat is pretty much guaranteed to result in one's death.
-
Bullwinkle vs dealer, unarmed: Both alive and unscratched, because unarmed Bullwinkle was seen as not a threat.
Bullwinkle vs dealer, armed: one or both of them either injured or dead, as Bullwinkle would have felt compelled to use the weapon and start a fight.
Sounds like a good example to show how guns don't exactly help. Thank you, Bullwinkle, to share your experience with us.
I understand what you are saying.
It was way more dynamic than that.
I saw what was coming and I was powerless to participate in my survival.
He chose to not kill me. His choice. His whim.
I don't want to sound trite, but you really had to be there.
So far, I've lived happily ever after. :)
-
Bullwinkle vs dealer, unarmed: Both alive and unscratched, because unarmed Bullwinkle was seen as not a threat.
Bullwinkle vs dealer, armed: one or both of them either injured or dead, as Bullwinkle would have felt compelled to use the weapon and start a fight.
Sounds like a good example to show how guns don't exactly help. Thank you, Bullwinkle, to share your experience with us.
I understand what you are saying.
It was way more dynamic than that.
I saw what was coming and I was powerless to participate in my survival.
He chose to not kill me. His choice. His whim.
I don't want to sound trite, but you really had to be there.
So far, I've lived happily ever after. :)
Exactly, you're alive. Had you been armed, things would have been different. Even if everything had gone right, you would have killed someone. That's not something I'd want to live with. Do you?
-
Look, the facts are these: when it comes to self defence, no matter what you may want to be the case, the stats are in and demonstrate clearly guns offer no advantage.
It's a rare civilian that could aim and fire accurately any meaningful distance when they think they're in danger. Even more so one that could do it quickly enough that the criminal wouldn't notice and aim in turn. There's the thought-experiment for you, but even beyond that the stats remain.
Selfishness is no argument. Sure, maybe you'd feel comfier with a gun, and maybe you're even one of the rare few with the necessary skills to use it in such a setting, but that's no excuse to make it easier for every criminal coming after you to be armed.
If you can run to hide or attack, do so. If you have a medical condition that prevents you from doing so, then you'd be a stationary target with or without a gun so your best bet would be to not come across as a threat.
Stats aren't a defence, they just give a better picture than a one-off incident. End of. That's how they work, and there's no ignoring them. The fact you had a bad experience is no excuse to just outright ignore facts.
-
Bullwinkle vs dealer, unarmed: Both alive and unscratched, because unarmed Bullwinkle was seen as not a threat.
Bullwinkle vs dealer, armed: one or both of them either injured or dead, as Bullwinkle would have felt compelled to use the weapon and start a fight.
Sounds like a good example to show how guns don't exactly help. Thank you, Bullwinkle, to share your experience with us.
I understand what you are saying.
It was way more dynamic than that.
I saw what was coming and I was powerless to participate in my survival.
He chose to not kill me. His choice. His whim.
I don't want to sound trite, but you really had to be there.
So far, I've lived happily ever after. :)
Exactly, you're alive. Had you been armed, things would have been different. Even if everything had gone right, you would have killed someone. That's not something I'd want to live with. Do you?
This is not easy to describe.
I would be way more comfortable with him dead than me.
-
Bullwinkle vs dealer, unarmed: Both alive and unscratched, because unarmed Bullwinkle was seen as not a threat.
Bullwinkle vs dealer, armed: one or both of them either injured or dead, as Bullwinkle would have felt compelled to use the weapon and start a fight.
Sounds like a good example to show how guns don't exactly help. Thank you, Bullwinkle, to share your experience with us.
I understand what you are saying.
It was way more dynamic than that.
I saw what was coming and I was powerless to participate in my survival.
He chose to not kill me. His choice. His whim.
I don't want to sound trite, but you really had to be there.
So far, I've lived happily ever after. :)
Exactly, you're alive. Had you been armed, things would have been different. Even if everything had gone right, you would have killed someone. That's not something I'd want to live with. Do you?
This is not easy to describe.
I would be way more comfortable with him dead than me.
What about both alive and well?
It's easy to say "I'll kill him". Doing so, and dealing with the consequences, is completely different. Even profesional soldiers tend to miss on purpose to avoid such an experience. I doubt we're any different. And neither are petty criminals. The only reason they use weapons is because the chances their victim is armed are also high. They're defending themselves of you, or at most just trying to scare you, to be able to leave with some money and do whatever they need it for.
-
Bullwinkle vs dealer, unarmed: Both alive and unscratched, because unarmed Bullwinkle was seen as not a threat.
Bullwinkle vs dealer, armed: one or both of them either injured or dead, as Bullwinkle would have felt compelled to use the weapon and start a fight.
Sounds like a good example to show how guns don't exactly help. Thank you, Bullwinkle, to share your experience with us.
I understand what you are saying.
It was way more dynamic than that.
I saw what was coming and I was powerless to participate in my survival.
He chose to not kill me. His choice. His whim.
I don't want to sound trite, but you really had to be there.
So far, I've lived happily ever after. :)
Exactly, you're alive. Had you been armed, things would have been different. Even if everything had gone right, you would have killed someone. That's not something I'd want to live with. Do you?
This is not easy to describe.
I would be way more comfortable with him dead than me.
What about both alive and well?
What about rainbows and unicorn farts?
Criminals don't give a shit about their victims.
It's about intimidation, domination and threat.
And, if they're in the mood, they fuckin' kill you.
If you miss your opportunity to thwart and eliminate the attack you must submit.
If you have no desire to protect and defend yourself, don't. It is a choice.
It would suck to kill someone. It would be devastating.
Absolutely, overwhelmingly devastating.
I am not suggesting it would be a proud moment. Far from it.
It would suck worse for my family and friends to bury me
and endure a trial where my killer sits in a rented suit and pretends
to be an alter boy.
If one is scared of simple tools, they may freely choose to avoid them.
Their option.
-
You're alive and didn't have a gun to protect yourself, right? Where's the problem? You both left the scene alive and well, no unicorn needed.
Do you really think criminals aren't human? Thay they wouldn't suffer the same consequences? That they don't have a family and friends who will have to bury them?
Do you think the family of the dealer would like to sit in a trial, hearing you say you killed him in selfdefence?
-
Right off the bat that's not true. There was over a million violent crimes and thus a million victims in 2009 alone.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
Which is also not true.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
First, statistics crash course: in many cases you need to analyse millions of incidents. This may as well be impossible, because typically the detailed data isn't available in these situations, as it isn't in this case: you can find a lot of lists of how many crimes occur, but never any details into all of them. And even if that information was available, that's way too many cases to sort through. So, instead, analysts take samples: a sufficiently large random sample ought to give a good indication of the overall behaviour. That's what this study did.
That's what Kleck did in his survey. Yet you scoffed it.
It's how stats work: it's what the second link did, for that matter.
Secondly, that second link is the definition of a biased source. It gives literally no reason for rejecting the data beyond "It doesn't feel right compared with our agenda," and you just need to look at the data to realise it's a mess. Apparently over five years gun are used barely over twice the rate of the last year. Either there's some serious misremembering going on, or false positives.
The same goes for your side of the argument. Here is some more sources.
http://danaloeschradio.com/anti-gun-group-publishes-rehashes-claim-on-defensive-gun-use
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/robert-farago/how-many-dgus-are-there-anyway/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/09/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-do-unarmed-victims-of-violence-bear-any-responsibility-for-their-attack/#
Japan has a high suicide rate and they have strict gun control. In fact their suicide rate is higher than ours. As to Australian gun ownership they had around 3 million guns before the ban and roughly the same after.
Japan also literally works people to death, alternative factors are definitely at play. Someone desperate for suicide can take any option: the usual depressive explanation usually involves people essentially making the attempt on the spur of the moment.
Exactly my point. Guns don't enable high suicides, the situation at hand does.
I'd point out that the requirement for licenses etc, ie gun control, still seems to have worked just fine in Australia.
And I'd point out that violent crime rose, not fall, and even when it did fall it was to its original state.
-
That's what Kleck did in his survey. Yet you scoffed it.
The same goes for your side of the argument. Here is some more sources.
Not entirely sure what the point of those links were. First just quotes things you've already given, so it's pointless. Second was little more than speculation, and irrelevant to the studies we're discussing. Third didn't even give a conclusion and wasn't on the right topic.
Note that in my survey the source of the data was a neutral organisation with no bias: it was the subsequent analysis of this data which justified their point of view, but those writing up the study had no power over how the data was gained and so no way to influence it.
Far from the case with your link, or with Kleck. Even if you want to argue that the people responsible had a bias, which is far harder to do (no obvious conflicts of interest), you'd need to explain how they could alter data that they had no control over. On the flipside, a study commissioned for the express purpose of refuting another, where the writers had complete control over all data input, is inherently skeevy.
There are all kinds of ways you can influence the data you get. For example, if you survey members of the NRA, you'd get results skewed from what might be the American norm. A little forward planning and thinking about the people you call and there you go. Even just the questions you ask can have an effect. if you want a video link, then have a fun one: maybe a minute of relevant material, and admittedly from a british comedy show and about national service, but it's nonetheless a remarkable example of how easy it is to affect the data you get simply by asking the right questions:
Less serious, sure, but have a lighter hearted break.
Exactly my point. Guns don't enable high suicides, the situation at hand does.
Did you even read my post? For people that desperately want to commit suicide (from the situation at hand), they'd do anything. That's not everyone. For people who aren't in such a ceaselessly bleak situation, a gun makes suicide the result of a couple of minutes' contemplation rather than a serious, sustained effort.
And I'd point out that violent crime rose, not fall, and even when it did fall it was to its original state.
It rose with questionable relationship to the gun ban, given that we observed such spikes before the ban as well, and that it fell to a much lower level, and I recall seeing a source that mentioned it falling faster than would have been expected pre-ban.
-
That's what Kleck did in his survey. Yet you scoffed it.
The same goes for your side of the argument. Here is some more sources.
Not entirely sure what the point of those links were. First just quotes things you've already given, so it's pointless. Second was little more than speculation, and irrelevant to the studies we're discussing. Third didn't even give a conclusion and wasn't on the right topic.
Ok.
Note that in my survey the source of the data was a neutral organisation with no bias: it was the subsequent analysis of this data which justified their point of view, but those writing up the study had no power over how the data was gained and so no way to influence it.
Far from the case with your link, or with Kleck. Even if you want to argue that the people responsible had a bias, which is far harder to do (no obvious conflicts of interest), you'd need to explain how they could alter data that they had no control over. On the flipside, a study commissioned for the express purpose of refuting another, where the writers had complete control over all data input, is inherently skeevy.
There are all kinds of ways you can influence the data you get. For example, if you survey members of the NRA, you'd get results skewed from what might be the American norm. A little forward planning and thinking about the people you call and there you go. Even just the questions you ask can have an effect. if you want a video link, then have a fun one: maybe a minute of relevant material, and admittedly from a british comedy show and about national service, but it's nonetheless a remarkable example of how easy it is to affect the data you get simply by asking the right questions:
Less serious, sure, but have a lighter hearted break.
This link shows that armed victims are more successful than unarmed victims.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/09/robert-farago/armed-vs-unarmed-robbery-targets/
Exactly my point. Guns don't enable high suicides, the situation at hand does.
Did you even read my post? For people that desperately want to commit suicide (from the situation at hand), they'd do anything. That's not everyone. For people who aren't in such a ceaselessly bleak situation, a gun makes suicide the result of a couple of minutes' contemplation rather than a serious, sustained effort.
Our suicide rates isn't due to guns just as Japan's suicide rates isn't due to ropes. People who want to commit suicide will do it by whatever means.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201302/the-gun-suicide-myth
The comments are interesting.
And I'd point out that violent crime rose, not fall, and even when it did fall it was to its original state.
It rose with questionable relationship to the gun ban, given that we observed such spikes before the ban as well, and that it fell to a much lower level, and I recall seeing a source that mentioned it falling faster than would have been expected pre-ban.
At the same time the gun ownership is rising.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504
-
You're alive and didn't have a gun to protect yourself, right? Where's the problem? You both left the scene alive and well, no unicorn needed.
Do you really think criminals aren't human? Thay they wouldn't suffer the same consequences? That they don't have a family and friends who will have to bury them?
Do you think the family of the dealer would like to sit in a trial, hearing you say you killed him in selfdefence?
Some criminals do what they do because they feel they need to. Other criminals do what they do because they enjoy it. If someone ever tries to rob you, tell them you need the money they want to take because it's barely enough to buy food and gas after the rent. See if they're truly a human and say "oh, sorry, I won't bother you then."
Quite frankly I doubt most criminals give a crap about their victim or their concerns.
There are criminals who break into homes and actually hope their victims are home so they can beat them down, rape, wreck the place, and just generally completely traumatize someone because they enjoy it.
If someone is trying to break into my home, I will have to assume the latter. I'll call the police, tell them someone is trying to break in, that I am armed, and that I am fearing for my life, please hurry. If they don't stop as soon as they're inside, too bad for them.
Will they have friends and family that might be upset, probably. I'm sorry your friend/relative chose the path they did and no one tried to talk them out of that behavior sooner, but I happen to put my well-being before theirs.
The more criminals that are killed, the better off society is anyway.
-
You're alive and didn't have a gun to protect yourself, right? Where's the problem? You both left the scene alive and well, no unicorn needed.
Do you really think criminals aren't human? Thay they wouldn't suffer the same consequences? That they don't have a family and friends who will have to bury them?
Do you think the family of the dealer would like to sit in a trial, hearing you say you killed him in selfdefence?
Some criminals do what they do because they feel they need to. Other criminals do what they do because they enjoy it. If someone ever tries to rob you, tell them you need the money they want to take because it's barely enough to buy food and gas after the rent. See if they're truly a human and say "oh, sorry, I won't bother you then."
Quite frankly I doubt most criminals give a crap about their victim or their concerns.
There are criminals who break into homes and actually hope their victims are home so they can beat them down, rape, wreck the place, and just generally completely traumatize someone because they enjoy it.
If someone is trying to break into my home, I will have to assume the latter. I'll call the police, tell them someone is trying to break in, that I am armed, and that I am fearing for my life, please hurry. If they don't stop as soon as they're inside, too bad for them.
Will they have friends and family that might be upset, probably. I'm sorry your friend/relative chose the path they did and no one tried to talk them out of that behavior sooner, but I happen to put my well-being before theirs.
The more criminals that are killed, the better off society is anyway.
No, dead criminals don't lead to a better society. Spain doesn't have a death sentence, and yet our society is not any more violent than USA's, where criminals are still executed. Of course, that may be because in Spain criminals, unless they're in a organization, are unarmed, and those who have weapons are too busy trying to smuggle drugs. Guns are so rare, that when a band is caught with a couple of handguns and a hunting rifle it makes it in the news. In the USA that's what you can find in any home.
-
This link shows that armed victims are more successful than unarmed victims.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/09/robert-farago/armed-vs-unarmed-robbery-targets/
That link is no more than an embedded deleted video. Doesn't exactly show anything.
So I'm sticking with my link.
Did you even read my post? For people that desperately want to commit suicide (from the situation at hand), they'd do anything. That's not everyone. For people who aren't in such a ceaselessly bleak situation, a gun makes suicide the result of a couple of minutes' contemplation rather than a serious, sustained effort.
Our suicide rates isn't due to guns just as Japan's suicide rates isn't due to ropes. People who want to commit suicide will do it by whatever means.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201302/the-gun-suicide-myth
The comments are interesting.
Comments on the internet don't mean much. Are you going to respond to what I'm actually saying, or are you just going to keep asserting the same thing over and over?
Even your link said exactly what I'm, saying: if someone's determined to do it, they can commit suicide. However, the accessibility of guns lowers the threshold of 'determined': rather than needing to make a sustained effort with the chance of someone finding and calling 911, they need, what, thirty seconds?
At the same time the gun ownership is rising.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504
Which is a) acknowledged as a problem, and b) still with gun control in effect. With a licensing system you'd expect it to rise anyway; more time means more people can get a license.
-
This link shows that armed victims are more successful than unarmed victims.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/09/robert-farago/armed-vs-unarmed-robbery-targets/
That link is no more than an embedded deleted video. Doesn't exactly show anything.
So I'm sticking with my link.
Did you even read my post? For people that desperately want to commit suicide (from the situation at hand), they'd do anything. That's not everyone. For people who aren't in such a ceaselessly bleak situation, a gun makes suicide the result of a couple of minutes' contemplation rather than a serious, sustained effort.
Our suicide rates isn't due to guns just as Japan's suicide rates isn't due to ropes. People who want to commit suicide will do it by whatever means.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201302/the-gun-suicide-myth
The comments are interesting.
Comments on the internet don't mean much. Are you going to respond to what I'm actually saying, or are you just going to keep asserting the same thing over and over?
Even your link said exactly what I'm, saying: if someone's determined to do it, they can commit suicide. However, the accessibility of guns lowers the threshold of 'determined': rather than needing to make a sustained effort with the chance of someone finding and calling 911, they need, what, thirty seconds?
I won't deny that guns do make for a quick death but if guns are enabling more suicides then we would have more than Japan. Not only that but in Australia suicide by gun went down but suicide by other means went up. Besides, as heartless as this sounds taking your own life is your own business. I don't see why I need to give up my right to firearms just for those who would kill themselves by any means. Even if you say that we should force everyone to keep guns in safes (a) how are you going to enforce that without violating other rights listed in the constitution and (b) even if your successful, from what I recall the US consider a spur of the moment decision to commit suicide is about five to ten minutes. You can open a safe well within five minutes.
At the same time the gun ownership is rising.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504
Which is a) acknowledged as a problem, and b) still with gun control in effect. With a licensing system you'd expect it to rise anyway; more time means more people can get a license.
My point is its not the number of guns that's rose the crime rate.
-
I won't deny that guns do make for a quick death but if guns are enabling more suicides then we would have more than Japan. Not only that but in Australia suicide by gun went down but suicide by other means went up. Besides, as heartless as this sounds taking your own life is your own business. I don't see why I need to give up my right to firearms just for those who would kill themselves by any means. Even if you say that we should force everyone to keep guns in safes (a) how are you going to enforce that without violating other rights listed in the constitution and (b) even if your successful, from what I recall the US consider a spur of the moment decision to commit suicide is about five to ten minutes. You can open a safe well within five minutes.
No, that's not how anything works. There are two things that are required for suicide. if you want to write it mathematically, M+A=S. Motive plus ability gives suicide. If there's less motive, you'd only go for more accessible methods. If there's more motive, you'd be happier even doing things that need a major exertion. So in places like Japan, where there's more motive, ability isn't as key. In places like the US, where A skyrockets, people would need far less motive. It's connected. Just because Japan has more doesn't really matter because it's a fundamentally different environment. you can't focus on A and ignore M, both play a part.
And, yes, you should give up your quotation-marks-emphasised 'right' if it benefits no one and increases the rate of suicide and the like. Something like that should not be considered a right. Free speech is a right, freedom of expression, freedom of choice... They're rights. Being able to easily get a weapon with no purpose beyond killing is not a right.
My point is its not the number of guns that's rose the crime rate.
And yet the crime rate's fallen since the gun control legislation, rather than risen as you'd expect if guns were somehow preventative, and seems to be falling faster than we would have expected beforehand. So, maybe making guns less accessible actually helps stop criminals getting ahold of them, who'd have thought?
Even if gun ownership increases, compare that with population growth, and remember the substantial difficulties in getting a gun, and note that there is worry about what that would entail. It's not a happy ending if it's still ongoing.
There are a whole host of changes that could be made to the US, and given you've had a whole amendment repealed before now it's perfectly justifiable to propose alterations to the second. That's what amendments are for. That's how your system fundamentally works. Propose people pass mental health checks, background checks etc before they get a gun. Scrap the Dickey Amendment, which in practise prevents neutral organisations from studying and possibly aiding with gun violence. Let organisations like the ATF use databases to actually keep track of guns sold so they can, you know, do their job. Make mandatory learning about and following basic safety measures. Limit the weapons made accessible.
And this is all minor: likely wouldn't even touch what the second amendment covers. You can still keep and bear arms if you want to, there are just common sense limitations, like there are for even freedom of religion: you can practise whatever religion you want so long as it doesn't feature a tenet that hurts others, like sacrifice. There are always common sense caveats.
But really, this all comes down to one simple question: why do you want a gun?
Because it's your right doesn't mean anything alone. There should be a reason for it to be considered a right: there is for everything else considered a right.
Does it help you? Well, no, we've seen it doesn't. No advantage when it comes to preventing crime, at-home or otherwise, according to a neutral source and neutral numbers. As far as preventing a tyrannical government goes, you'd be thoroughly outgunned regardless because we don't live in the time of when the second amendment was written: the best armaments are not handheld.
There is no actual benefit to having a gun. End of. Your best-case stats agree; the best you could argue from them would be that gun control doesn't decrease crime, as there was certainly no statistically relevant increase. At this stage your only recourse, of the points you've brought up, seems to be to point at the recreational uses. If you want to do that, fine, but a) typically you wouldn't need to have it at your house, pick it up at a shooting range or whatever like you would with bowling, and b) hardly raises it to the calibre of a right.
-
I won't deny that guns do make for a quick death but if guns are enabling more suicides then we would have more than Japan. Not only that but in Australia suicide by gun went down but suicide by other means went up. Besides, as heartless as this sounds taking your own life is your own business. I don't see why I need to give up my right to firearms just for those who would kill themselves by any means. Even if you say that we should force everyone to keep guns in safes (a) how are you going to enforce that without violating other rights listed in the constitution and (b) even if your successful, from what I recall the US consider a spur of the moment decision to commit suicide is about five to ten minutes. You can open a safe well within five minutes.
No, that's not how anything works. There are two things that are required for suicide. if you want to write it mathematically, M+A=S. Motive plus ability gives suicide. If there's less motive, you'd only go for more accessible methods. If there's more motive, you'd be happier even doing things that need a major exertion. So in places like Japan, where there's more motive, ability isn't as key. In places like the US, where A skyrockets, people would need far less motive. It's connected. Just because Japan has more doesn't really matter because it's a fundamentally different environment. you can't focus on A and ignore M, both play a part.
And, yes, you should give up your quotation-marks-emphasised 'right' if it benefits no one and increases the rate of suicide and the like. Something like that should not be considered a right. Free speech is a right, freedom of expression, freedom of choice... They're rights. Being able to easily get a weapon with no purpose beyond killing is not a right.
According to the CDC men are more likely to kill themselves with guns but women are more likely to use poision.
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide-DataSheet-a.pdf
This link shows that mental illness is the main cause of suicides not impulsive suicides.
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-causes.html
This link shows that even within the impulsive suivide attempts a violent method (which I'll assume guns are a violent method) is not what is chosen.
https://msrc.fsu.edu/system/files/Simon%20et%20al%202001%20Characteristics%20of%20impulsive%20suicide%20attempts%20and%20attempters.pdf
My point is its not the number of guns that's rose the crime rate.
And yet the crime rate's fallen since the gun control legislation, rather than risen as you'd expect if guns were somehow preventative, and seems to be falling faster than we would have expected beforehand. So, maybe making guns less accessible actually helps stop criminals getting ahold of them, who'd have thought?
Even if gun ownership increases, compare that with population growth, and remember the substantial difficulties in getting a gun, and note that there is worry about what that would entail. It's not a happy ending if it's still ongoing.
What I found out is that the crime rate was already falling to begin with.
There are a whole host of changes that could be made to the US, and given you've had a whole amendment repealed before now it's perfectly justifiable to propose alterations to the second. That's what amendments are for. That's how your system fundamentally works. Propose people pass mental health checks, background checks etc before they get a gun. Scrap the Dickey Amendment, which in practise prevents neutral organisations from studying and possibly aiding with gun violence. Let organisations like the ATF use databases to actually keep track of guns sold so they can, you know, do their job. Make mandatory learning about and following basic safety measures. Limit the weapons made accessible.
And this is all minor: likely wouldn't even touch what the second amendment covers. You can still keep and bear arms if you want to, there are just common sense limitations, like there are for even freedom of religion: you can practise whatever religion you want so long as it doesn't feature a tenet that hurts others, like sacrifice. There are always common sense caveats.
All of which violates the bill of rights.
But really, this all comes down to one simple question: why do you want a gun?
Yes.
Because it's your right doesn't mean anything alone. There should be a reason for it to be considered a right: there is for everything else considered a right.
Does it help you? Well, no, we've seen it doesn't. No advantage when it comes to preventing crime, at-home or otherwise, according to a neutral source and neutral numbers. As far as preventing a tyrannical government goes, you'd be thoroughly outgunned regardless because we don't live in the time of when the second amendment was written: the best armaments are not handheld.
There is no actual benefit to having a gun. End of. Your best-case stats agree; the best you could argue from them would be that gun control doesn't decrease crime, as there was certainly no statistically relevant increase. At this stage your only recourse, of the points you've brought up, seems to be to point at the recreational uses. If you want to do that, fine, but a) typically you wouldn't need to have it at your house, pick it up at a shooting range or whatever like you would with bowling, and b) hardly raises it to the calibre of a right.
I've shown many times that guns do help even using your own sources. Also as a side note this link shows that in Australia people switched from guns to hanging when it came to suicides.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12882416/
-
According to the CDC men are more likely to kill themselves with guns but women are more likely to use poision.
This link shows that mental illness is the main cause of suicides not impulsive suicides.
Also as a side note this link shows that in Australia people switched from guns to hanging when it came to suicides.
This link shows that even within the impulsive suivide attempts a violent method (which I'll assume guns are a violent method) is not what is chosen.
None of which even approached a contradiction to what I've been saying. Besides, mental illness and impulsive suicides aren't mutually exclusive, mental illness doesn't translate to "Wants to die 100% of the time." As for the last point, I would genuinely love to hear how you plan to ask someone how long they planned to commit suicide after they've shot themselves, firearms having a higher success rate. The results are naturally skewed.
What I found out is that the crime rate was already falling to begin with.
I've shown many times that guns do help even using your own sources.
Former doesn't contradict anything, and given it continued to fall at the same or greater rate, plainly guns offered no benefit. And at no point have you shown guns helped: my main source on this result you've done nothing but ignore and post up a flawed and biased study, offering no defence of it when those flaws were pointed out.
Neutral and wide-ranging stats are always going to mean more than specifically targeted surveys from a source with a bias, end of.
All of which violates the bill of rights.
If your bill of rights violates common sense, that's probably a good thing.
There are always going to be caveats. Take my freedom of religion example: the first amendment prohibits any limitation of the free exercise of religion, but plainly you can't get away with a crime just because it's done in the name of a religion. The multiple belief systems throughout history that advocate human and animal sacrifice are a good example: the USA specifically limits the latter, and outright forbids the former. So, turns out you can prohibit the free exercise of religion.
How does it infringe upon someone's right to keep and bear arms to allow the ATF to have a database of what guns are sold where, or to allow the CDC to investigate gun violence? Both of those things are effectively prohibited in the US.
How does it infringe on someone's rights to keep and bear arms for them to have a bit of training first? Nothing prevents them from getting the gun whatsoever. If, as the amendment states, the purpose is the formation of a militia, this ought to be perfectly in line with it.
And of course, note that it does not specify 'all arms.'
Plenty of gun control is fine even taking into account the second amendment. Allow honest study, allow law enforcement agencies to do their jobs, ensure people actually know how to use a gun safely, and have consequences if they use a gun improperly. None of that prevents someone from keeping and bearing arms.
And then there are the common-sense caveats. Eg: convicts. Would you propose we arm prisoners simply because their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or is there a bit of common sense at play too?
And all that's assuming the amendment's immutable, which it isn't.
-
You're alive and didn't have a gun to protect yourself, right? Where's the problem? You both left the scene alive and well, no unicorn needed.
Do you really think criminals aren't human? Thay they wouldn't suffer the same consequences? That they don't have a family and friends who will have to bury them?
Do you think the family of the dealer would like to sit in a trial, hearing you say you killed him in selfdefence?
Going down the list.
1. He is trying to say it was not under his power or choice. It was the criminal. Yes things would have been different if he had a gun, but he would have had a chance to make his own future and decision. Maybe he would suck under pressure, maybe suck with a gun or both and get himself killed. Or maybe he will be a Billy bad ass, either way, it was him making his decisions and making his own future. Instead of relying on the criminal's decision, just like things would have been different if he had a gun, the same difference would have happened if the criminal had decided it was his time to die. Either being scared, pumped up, or some people just like to kill others for shits and giggles.
2 and 3. Some are no longer human, some are. This is a case by case basis. In my opinion, if the moral compass, conscience, compassion, care or respect of another human etc has left, been destroyed, or was never there in the first place, they cease to be a human. This criminal that he came across was more than likely human still making bad decisions, thus why he did not pull the trigger. However, he could have just as likely been a non human that would have pulled it to watch what happened.
Either way, it was the criminal making the actions and decisions. For every action there is a consequence, could be good or bad. If one of my boys was saving peoples lives and someone shot him just because, I would hunt them down and end their existence.
However, if he was robbing a liquor store, armed, threatening people and so forth and he was shot doing such a thing. I would still mourn him ,miss him dearly and never be the same, but I would not hate the person whom shot him. I would understand, would not be pleasant, but I would still understand.
I feel any family whom is capable of rational thought would feel the same.
My first place was horrible, absolutely horrible. Beautiful area, last house in a park, but at night, horrible because it was that last house (I understood later why it was so cheap and available). I had about 15 or so confrontations ranging from simple trespassing to full blown attempted armed invasions. Reactions were slow at first, but grew with time to as close to automation as possible, you learn alot about yourself how you react in a life and death situation.
Any ways, point being, I never chose to kill anyone, even though in Texas, in about 7 of the mentioned situations, with castle law I could have without facing consequence. Even though if all other options were removed I would have, but Fortunately, was able to use words with the combination of fire arm enforcement.
Not all firearm situations have to result in someone's death, or even a single shot fired.
It seems to me you are being short sited and biased to reinforce your views.
I have never seen the big deal with the "good guy" not wanting to be the underdog.
-
You're alive and didn't have a gun to protect yourself, right? Where's the problem? You both left the scene alive and well, no unicorn needed.
Do you really think criminals aren't human? Thay they wouldn't suffer the same consequences? That they don't have a family and friends who will have to bury them?
Do you think the family of the dealer would like to sit in a trial, hearing you say you killed him in selfdefence?
Going down the list.
1. He is trying to say it was not under his power or choice. It was the criminal. Yes things would have been different if he had a gun, but he would have had a chance to make his own future and decision. Maybe he would suck under pressure, maybe suck with a gun or both and get himself killed. Or maybe he will be a Billy bad ass, either way, it was him making his decisions and making his own future. Instead of relying on the criminal's decision, just like things would have been different if he had a gun, the same difference would have happened if the criminal had decided it was his time to die. Either being scared, pumped up, or some people just like to kill others for shits and giggles.
2 and 3. Some are no longer human, some are. This is a case by case basis. In my opinion, if the moral compass, conscience, compassion, care or respect of another human etc has left, been destroyed, or was never there in the first place, they cease to be a human. This criminal that he came across was more than likely human still making bad decisions, thus why he did not pull the trigger. However, he could have just as likely been a non human that would have pulled it to watch what happened.
Either way, it was the criminal making the actions and decisions. For every action there is a consequence, could be good or bad. If one of my boys was saving peoples lives and someone shot him just because, I would hunt them down and end their existence.
However, if he was robbing a liquor store, armed, threatening people and so forth and he was shot doing such a thing. I would still mourn him ,miss him dearly and never be the same, but I would not hate the person whom shot him. I would understand, would not be pleasant, but I would still understand.
I feel any family whom is capable of rational thought would feel the same.
My first place was horrible, absolutely horrible. Beautiful area, last house in a park, but at night, horrible because it was that last house (I understood later why it was so cheap and available). I had about 15 or so confrontations ranging from simple trespassing to full blown attempted armed invasions. Reactions were slow at first, but grew with time to as close to automation as possible, you learn alot about yourself how you react in a life and death situation.
Any ways, point being, I never chose to kill anyone, even though in Texas, in about 7 of the mentioned situations, with castle law I could have without facing consequence. Even though if all other options were removed I would have, but Fortunately, was able to use words with the combination of fire arm enforcement.
Not all firearm situations have to result in someone's death, or even a single shot fired.
It seems to me you are being short sited and biased to reinforce your views.
I have never seen the big deal with the "good guy" not wanting to be the underdog.
So what if it wasn't his decision? We're ALWAYS at the hands of others. We're a society, not isolated individuals. And if he had a gun and had the time and preparation to shoot, the other person's life would have been in his hands. With the situation reversed, Bullwinkle wouldn't be the "good guy" anymore. He has stated he would have shot, and maybe killed, the dealer. The dealer did no such thing. Who's human and who isn't, now? Which leads us to the second point. How can you deny humanity to someone else? By saying they're not human, you're stripping them of human rights and allowing their murder. It's horrible and, by your own standards, makes you equally inhuman, even if you won't be the one pulling the trigger.
I'm not being naive and saying we should all hold hands and sing together. I live in a country where not a decade ago there was a terrorist group operating nationwide. People who would shoot a politician in the face and blow up an entire mall to make themselves heard. Go back in time a little more and you'll find we had several terrorist groups operating at the same time, everywhere, almost daily. But, you know what? Killing them is not the solution. It doesn't solve anything. It only creates more monsters.
-
So what if it wasn't his decision? We're ALWAYS at the hands of others. We're a society, not isolated individuals. And if he had a gun and had the time and preparation to shoot, the other person's life would have been in his hands. With the situation reversed, Bullwinkle wouldn't be the "good guy" anymore. He has stated he would have shot, and maybe killed, the dealer. The dealer did no such thing. Who's human and who isn't, now? Which leads us to the second point. How can you deny humanity to someone else? By saying they're not human, you're stripping them of human rights and allowing their murder. It's horrible and, by your own standards, makes you equally inhuman, even if you won't be the one pulling the trigger.
I'm not being naive and saying we should all hold hands and sing together. I live in a country where not a decade ago there was a terrorist group operating nationwide. People who would shoot a politician in the face and blow up an entire mall to make themselves heard. Go back in time a little more and you'll find we had several terrorist groups operating at the same time, everywhere, almost daily. But, you know what? Killing them is not the solution. It doesn't solve anything. It only creates more monsters.
Well I don't know the exact situation Bullwinkle was in. If I saw a guy running with a gun I certainly would not shoot the person. I would prepare myself to draw my firearm. Then if I felt threatened I would draw it to let him know to run the other way. However, if he began to aim at me, I surely would shoot him. That is not taking away someone's humanity, that is a reaction to someone's action. They are being held accountable. The situation would not even exist if it was not for their actions.
Just because I think some people have lost their humanity in my eyes, I said no such thing about killing anyone whom I judge to be in this situation, so let's not add context. I pray for them to regain what they lost, and if they present no harm to others or myself, then let them be and exist. I do not believe in any unnecessary loss of life, I hate it.
However, if someone is threatening my friends, family, my own, or even someone I do not know safety or overall life then it becomes jungle rules. Just the way it is, and I will become much more ruthless if it is another being threatened instead of just myself. I make no apologies for this.
People make decisions, they do drugs and jump off a building thinking they can fly..it is horrible, but it was their choice. Just like a guy who would threaten me, family, friends, or someone in my general area...it was that person's choice, I hope it can be ended diplomatically, but if push comes to shove, it will be them first. Sucks, but at the end, THEY caused it, sometimes they might get the upper hand, other times they are turned to a statistic. Part of rolling the dice like that.
Though it should be obvious I am not a shoot em up type of person, if I was could have at least shot or possibly killed legally 7 different people yet I have none.
I just have no problem bring prepared for the worst and hoping for the best. Just like in business and all other facets of my life, I try and hold the upper hand. To me..what could be more important than trying to have the upper hand when dealing with protecting your life or anothers?
-
According to the CDC men are more likely to kill themselves with guns but women are more likely to use poision.
This link shows that mental illness is the main cause of suicides not impulsive suicides.
Also as a side note this link shows that in Australia people switched from guns to hanging when it came to suicides.
This link shows that even within the impulsive suivide attempts a violent method (which I'll assume guns are a violent method) is not what is chosen.
None of which even approached a contradiction to what I've been saying. Besides, mental illness and impulsive suicides aren't mutually exclusive, mental illness doesn't translate to "Wants to die 100% of the time." As for the last point, I would genuinely love to hear how you plan to ask someone how long they planned to commit suicide after they've shot themselves, firearms having a higher success rate. The results are naturally skewed.
As it turns out, head shot with a shotgun just beats cynanide by 2%.
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
And that's only considering one study. Other studies may show that gunshots may be lower. And I doubt even you would call for the ban of shotguns. Would you?
What I found out is that the crime rate was already falling to begin with.
I've shown many times that guns do help even using your own sources.
Former doesn't contradict anything, and given it continued to fall at the same or greater rate, plainly guns offered no benefit.
Or it shows that guns DID benefit and government meddled with it and caused a temporary spike in crime. For example in Chicago when they finally allowed concealed carry they had the lowest crime rate since ever.
And at no point have you shown guns helped: my main source on this result you've done nothing but ignore and post up a flawed and biased study, offering no defence of it when those flaws were pointed out.
Even with your own sources there's a slight benifit in owning firearms. And while your source may be in biased their sources was.
Neutral and wide-ranging stats are always going to mean more than specifically targeted surveys from a source with a bias, end of.
Ok?
All of which violates the bill of rights.
If your bill of rights violates common sense, that's probably a good thing.
Why should police have the ability to search your home without a warrent?
There are always going to be caveats. Take my freedom of religion example: the first amendment prohibits any limitation of the free exercise of religion, but plainly you can't get away with a crime just because it's done in the name of a religion.
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
The multiple belief systems throughout history that advocate human and animal sacrifice are a good example: the USA specifically limits the latter, and outright forbids the former. So, turns out you can prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Again, that's because it infringes on the rights of others. Also there's laws against animal cruelty.
How does it infringe upon someone's right to keep and bear arms to allow the ATF to have a database of what guns are sold where, or to allow the CDC to investigate gun violence?
It's none of the ATF's business. Plus there have been too many cases where registration lead to confiscation of either certain guns or all guns. For example your handgun ban. Before they banned them they had them registered.
Both of those things are effectively prohibited in the US.
How does it infringe on someone's rights to keep and bear arms for them to have a bit of training first?
Prior restraint to exercise an unalienable right. Do you need to take an English class to post on forums?
Nothing prevents them from getting the gun whatsoever. If, as the amendment states, the purpose is the formation of a militia, this ought to be perfectly in line with it.
And of course, note that it does not specify 'all arms.'
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed".
Plenty of gun control is fine even taking into account the second amendment. Allow honest study, allow law enforcement agencies to do their jobs, ensure people actually know how to use a gun safely, and have consequences if they use a gun improperly.
I'm fine with punishment of illegal use of a gun. In fact I call for most if not all gun crimes to be punishable by death. After all the idea of threatening people with a gun is "if you don't do what I say then I'm going to kill you". If you cause a negligental then you pay double the cost of repair or hospital bill.
None of that prevents someone from keeping and bearing arms.
They do however violate other rights.
And then there are the common-sense caveats. Eg: convicts. Would you propose we arm prisoners simply because their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or is there a bit of common sense at play too?
And all that's assuming the amendment's immutable, which it isn't.
It depend on the convict. Non voilent felons should have there gun rights restored. Otherwise if you don't trust them with a firearm then what is he doing out of prison? Either restore ALL rights, keep him in prison, or execute him.
-
Well I don't know the exact situation Bullwinkle was in. If I saw a guy running with a gun I certainly would not shoot the person. I would prepare myself to draw my firearm. Then if I felt threatened I would draw it to let him know to run the other way. However, if he began to aim at me, I surely would shoot him. That is not taking away someone's humanity, that is a reaction to someone's action. They are being held accountable. The situation would not even exist if it was not for their actions.
Just because I think some people have lost their humanity in my eyes, I said no such thing about killing anyone whom I judge to be in this situation, so let's not add context. I pray for them to regain what they lost, and if they present no harm to others or myself, then let them be and exist. I do not believe in any unnecessary loss of life, I hate it.
However, if someone is threatening my friends, family, my own, or even someone I do not know safety or overall life then it becomes jungle rules. Just the way it is, and I will become much more ruthless if it is another being threatened instead of just myself. I make no apologies for this.
People make decisions, they do drugs and jump off a building thinking they can fly..it is horrible, but it was their choice. Just like a guy who would threaten me, family, friends, or someone in my general area...it was that person's choice, I hope it can be ended diplomatically, but if push comes to shove, it will be them first. Sucks, but at the end, THEY caused it, sometimes they might get the upper hand, other times they are turned to a statistic. Part of rolling the dice like that.
Though it should be obvious I am not a shoot em up type of person, if I was could have at least shot or possibly killed legally 7 different people yet I have none.
I just have no problem bring prepared for the worst and hoping for the best. Just like in business and all other facets of my life, I try and hold the upper hand. To me..what could be more important than trying to have the upper hand when dealing with protecting your life or anothers?
Saying they're not human is assuming they do not have human rights, hence killing them is completely okay. That, coupled with you saying you'd shoot at them (no matter the situation -you may only shoot if he's aiming at you, but you'll pull the trigger nonetheless) is what in turn strips you, using your moral codes, of your own humanity. This set of views puts you above them, making you care less about their lives than others.
I won't ever shoot anyone, even if they put a gun on my mother's temple. I won't kill nor injure. It's not what I want. Such a capital punishment is something I can't endorse. It's not what my mother would like me to do. If I can get away with words and making myself as non-threatening as possible, I'll do. If not, well, I guess that will be it. Defending oneself and one's family and being a hero is cool and all that, in films. But we're in the real world, and taking a life will weight on your shoulders till the day you die.
-
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.
-
As it turns out, head shot with a shotgun just beats cynanide by 2%.
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
And that's only considering one study. Other studies may show that gunshots may be lower. And I doubt even you would call for the ban of shotguns. Would you?
Consider accessibility, and note how high the pain count is in comparison. You get past 7 before time to die and pain level are low with accessibility still high, and all the top options are guns.
And unless you can give an actual benefit of them, then yeah, I would.
Or it shows that guns DID benefit and government meddled with it and caused a temporary spike in crime. For example in Chicago when they finally allowed concealed carry they had the lowest crime rate since ever.
Even with your own sources there's a slight benifit in owning firearms. And while your source may be in biased their sources was.
At best that's a one-off example, given that typically no such thing is observed. Concealed/right to carry laws in fact seem to increase the rate of assault, as per a neutral source:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599
Further, none of my stats indicate what you claim. There was one situation where guns offered a 0.1% advantage in one specific situation, but I suspect that's well within the standard deviation, so it's really meaningless. Basic statistical knowledge; there's always potential error, 0.1% is not a reasonable difference to draw a conclusion from.
Why should police have the ability to search your home without a warrent?
Never said they should. Would you have complained that the people who wanted to repeal the 18th amendment didn't also repeal the 13th?
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
Again, that's because it infringes on the rights of others. Also there's laws against animal cruelty.
It's none of the ATF's business. Plus there have been too many cases where registration lead to confiscation of either certain guns or all guns. For example your handgun ban. Before they banned them they had them registered.
Prior restraint to exercise an unalienable right. Do you need to take an English class to post on forums?
Um, the ATF's business is pretty much exactly being able to place an owner to a gun. Remember what the F stands for. And before guns were banned they were legal, a slippery slope is not an argument.
Common sense caveats are not restraint. Would you propose guns be given out for free to avoid 'restraining' the people who can't afford it? Would you suggest handing them out to two year olds regardless of whether their parents have the time or ability to reach them safety, to avoid prior restraint?
The potential danger of posting on a forum is very, very slight. not so much with a gun.
Nothing prevents them from getting the gun whatsoever. If, as the amendment states, the purpose is the formation of a militia, this ought to be perfectly in line with it.
And of course, note that it does not specify 'all arms.'
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed".
So? At no point does it bring up the quality of arms.
None of that prevents someone from keeping and bearing arms.
They do however violate other rights.
Would love to hear which ones.
It depend on the convict. Non voilent felons should have there gun rights restored. Otherwise if you don't trust them with a firearm then what is he doing out of prison? Either restore ALL rights, keep him in prison, or execute him.
I specified 'prisoners.' "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed," your words. I don't see a caveat mentioning that people in prison lose the right, but seems like it's a fair enough common-sense caveat.
-
Saying they're not human is assuming they do not have human rights, hence killing them is completely okay. That, coupled with you saying you'd shoot at them (no matter the situation -you may only shoot if he's aiming at you, but you'll pull the trigger nonetheless) is what in turn strips you, using your moral codes, of your own humanity. This set of views puts you above them, making you care less about their lives than others.
I won't ever shoot anyone, even if they put a gun on my mother's temple. I won't kill nor injure. It's not what I want. Such a capital punishment is something I can't endorse. It's not what my mother would like me to do. If I can get away with words and making myself as non-threatening as possible, I'll do. If not, well, I guess that will be it. Defending oneself and one's family and being a hero is cool and all that, in films. But we're in the real world, and taking a life will weight on your shoulders till the day you die.
I can respect your way of living here, as I love peace. I will say, if my life, loved ones life, friend, or even someone I don't know is being threatened by another for sinister reasons. Then yes, their life is less important than the one they are threatening. They have made this decision of action, and an opposite action will ensue. Of course I would love to talk my way out the peaceful way, if I didn't, I would be able to say I have shot some folks. I did not for moral reasons not legal, I wanted to do everything possible before risking the chance of taking another's life. Fortunately it worked.
If you could take watching someone blow your mother's brains on the floor when you had a chance to stop it, then I don't know if you are the most peaceful person I have came across, or insane. I do admire the fact you believe you could accept that, as that does say alot about your love of peace.
I know myself, if I let someone be killed when I had a chance to stop it I would NEVER be ok. Compared to killing someone who was the evil doer..I would come to peace eventually with that
-
The way I see it, it's not a chance to stop it, it just swaps the victim: my mother, or someone else's son. You can't stop a shooting with a shooting. You or them, there's going to be victims.
You argue that they made the choice to act in a violent way, and as such their life is, quoting your words, "less important". But then you go on and say that you are allowed to respond in an equally violent way. You're doing the same as them. Should we consider your life less important for that?
When you say you'd hunt down whoever hurt your family or friends, can we still consider it a response, or does it turn you into the "less human" attacker?
-
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.
Cars do a better job at it. The mere ownership of a weapon doesn't endanger your life in any way.
-
As it turns out, head shot with a shotgun just beats cynanide by 2%.
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
And that's only considering one study. Other studies may show that gunshots may be lower. And I doubt even you would call for the ban of shotguns. Would you?
Consider accessibility, and note how high the pain count is in comparison. You get past 7 before time to die and pain level are low with accessibility still high, and all the top options are guns.
And unless you can give an actual benefit of them, then yeah, I would.
Your sentence didn't made much sense. Certain chemicals like bleach is far more accessible than guns and like I said earlier women tend to use chemicals as a means to commit suicide while men a little more than half the time will choose a firearm. As for benifits for a shotgun there's hunting which keeps animal populations from over growing, there's home defense, and there's defense against tyranny. Another thing to consider is by banning guns you affect the police too. They can no longer but from the local gun shop and buy an AR for example and save their department money. In fact it'll affect the manufacturers as well since they can't sell to private citizens which is their bread and butter and therefore can't supply the police and military the arms they need.
Or it shows that guns DID benefit and government meddled with it and caused a temporary spike in crime. For example in Chicago when they finally allowed concealed carry they had the lowest crime rate since ever.
Even with your own sources there's a slight benifit in owning firearms. And while your source may be in biased their sources was.
At best that's a one-off example, given that typically no such thing is observed. Concealed/right to carry laws in fact seem to increase the rate of assault, as per a neutral source:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599
Further, none of my stats indicate what you claim. There was one situation where guns offered a 0.1% advantage in one specific situation, but I suspect that's well within the standard deviation, so it's really meaningless. Basic statistical knowledge; there's always potential error, 0.1% is not a reasonable difference to draw a conclusion from.
Still on average states with right to carry laws are either slightly above or lower in crimes compared to those who didn't had right to carry laws.
http://people.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/09/matt-gaetz/violent-crime-lower-states-open-carry/
Also I found this link showing that indeed criminals fear armed citizens more than police.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html
Why should police have the ability to search your home without a warrent?
Never said they should. Would you have complained that the people who wanted to repeal the 18th amendment didn't also repeal the 13th?
I'm having trouble understanding your statement.
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
Again, that's because it infringes on the rights of others. Also there's laws against animal cruelty.
It's none of the ATF's business. Plus there have been too many cases where registration lead to confiscation of either certain guns or all guns. For example your handgun ban. Before they banned them they had them registered.
Prior restraint to exercise an unalienable right. Do you need to take an English class to post on forums?
Um, the ATF's business is pretty much exactly being able to place an owner to a gun. Remember what the F stands for.
Actually for the most part they shouldn't even exist if they're to follow the constitution.
And before guns were banned they were legal, a slippery slope is not an argument.
Canada before the ban of all things that look like an AK 47 had there guns registered. Germany before the disarmament of the Jews had all guns registered. Communist Russia before they banned all firearms had their guns registered. Australia before the mandatory but back had all guns registered. California before the ban on so called assault rifles had them registered. I'm not saying that ALL registrations lead to confiscation but it sure helps in that process.
Common sense caveats are not restraint. Would you propose guns be given out for free to avoid 'restraining' the people who can't afford it?
No because its a product. However denying a person who has money until he passes a BC is prior restraint without due process.
Would you suggest handing them out to two year olds regardless of whether their parents have the time or ability to reach them safety, to avoid prior restraint?
Children are denied a lot of rights. There's rights are/should be given unto them when they are an adult.
The potential danger of posting on a forum is very, very slight. not so much with a gun.
The pen is mightier than the sword. The wrong idea drilled into someone's mind can kill millions.
Nothing prevents them from getting the gun whatsoever. If, as the amendment states, the purpose is the formation of a militia, this ought to be perfectly in line with it.
And of course, note that it does not specify 'all arms.'
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed".
So? At no point does it bring up the quality of arms.
If the right to keep and bears are not to be infringed then I'm allowed to own enough weapons to put the US military to shame.
None of that prevents someone from keeping and bearing arms.
They do however violate other rights.
Would love to hear which ones.
The fourth and fifth amendment for starters.
It depend on the convict. Non voilent felons should have there gun rights restored. Otherwise if you don't trust them with a firearm then what is he doing out of prison? Either restore ALL rights, keep him in prison, or execute him.
I specified 'prisoners.' "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed," your words. I don't see a caveat mentioning that people in prison lose the right, but seems like it's a fair enough common-sense caveat.
The constitution gives the caveat in the fifth and sixth amendment about due process.
-
The way I see it, it's not a chance to stop it, it just swaps the victim: my mother, or someone else's son. You can't stop a shooting with a shooting. You or them, there's going to be victims.
You argue that they made the choice to act in a violent way, and as such their life is, quoting your words, "less important". But then you go on and say that you are allowed to respond in an equally violent way. You're doing the same as them. Should we consider your life less important for that?
When you say you'd hunt down whoever hurt your family or friends, can we still consider it a response, or does it turn you into the "less human" attacker?
Let's say a person has to shoot someone whom is about to murder their sweet mother. Cold blood out of rage or what not. Yes there is a victim either way. Though one person was just minding her own business, not stepping in on anyone's personal God given liberties. Something so simple and easy to follow "don't murder".
The other person is violating this basic of human rights....so you bet damn right if there is going to be a "victim" here, I would do everything in my power to make sure it's not the innocent lady whoms basic right of living and not to be murdered is being put in danger by a selfish bastard.
Even in the eyes of the law, if someone is killed commiting a crime such as robbery, rape, murder etc...the person killed is not considered a victim, still considered an assailant. The person the assailant was violating is still considered a victim.
Granted I would never shoot someone who was just robbing me or someone unless I genuinely thought that person or my own life was in danger. As I don't believe anyone should lose their life over money.
And I wouldn't just hunt someone down for murdering my son or loved one if I could prosecute them through the legal system.
If you want to call me not human for believing in such things that is fine, I will take that. I myself find there is a question for ones humanity if they can watch their own mother, loved one, or anyone be murdered in cold blood when they had a chance to stop it or could stop it, even if it ended in the demise of the assailant. This is something I could never comprehend.
There is a big difference between murder and being killed.
I mean the two men that broke through the garage and into the house when they KNEW people were there...and my wife and kiddo was home with me. If I just set on the couch and let them do what they wanted to do..i could never comprehend that. Maybe they just wanted money,maybe they would rape my wife one at a time while the other held me and my boy up..maybe they were going to kill us all. Only a deranged person will break into a home when there are known occupants. If it was for my alarm beepers in the garage I would have been completely taken off guard.
I will not apologize for protecting my family and for not taking the chance of what a deranged person motives and plans are.
If I LET something happen to my wife at the time or either one of my boys when I could have stopped it. I would end up killing myself over the eventual mental torment and flashbacks.
I mean my dog knocked my youngest in the pool years ago on accident. I was right there with him and turned around for a second and he was only in for maybe a second , but when I heard the splash and turned around. Seeing him floating hopelessly staring at me, that still causes a tear in my eye thinking of that look. Now if I think of that right before a piece of shit is about to take their life, that last moment of life while they look at the man whom was suppose to protect them letting them be murdered. NO FUCKING THANK YOU I will pass on that.
I mean just seeing the fear in my youngest and my wife at the times eyes when I said get in the closet. There was a a gun in there as well and a phone, that was always the plan in emergency for a fall out. Retreat, lock the reinforced door to the closet, call the police, and if they make entry open fire as that means they got past me. Seeing their eyes when I walk in telling them to open up its me, I am fine police got here and took over, everything is good. Just seeing that look in their eyes...no, I could never let anything happen to someone if I could stop it, sorry. I would much rather I be the victim than someone else.
-
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.
Cars do a better job at it. The mere ownership of a weapon doesn't endanger your life in any way.
Cars are used to go from a place to another, and the deaths caused by cars are accidents. Guns are made specifically to hurt.
-
Let's say a person has to shoot someone whom is about to murder their sweet mother. Cold blood out of rage or what not. Yes there is a victim either way. Though one person was just minding her own business, not stepping in on anyone's personal God given liberties. Something so simple and easy to follow "don't murder".
The other person is violating this basic of human rights....so you bet damn right if there is going to be a "victim" here, I would do everything in my power to make sure it's not the innocent lady whoms basic right of living and not to be murdered is being put in danger by a selfish bastard.
Even in the eyes of the law, if someone is killed commiting a crime such as robbery, rape, murder etc...the person killed is not considered a victim, still considered an assailant. The person the assailant was violating is still considered a victim.
Granted I would never shoot someone who was just robbing me or someone unless I genuinely thought that person or my own life was in danger. As I don't believe anyone should lose their life over money.
And I wouldn't just hunt someone down for murdering my son or loved one if I could prosecute them through the legal system.
If you want to call me not human for believing in such things that is fine, I will take that. I myself find there is a question for ones humanity if they can watch their own mother, loved one, or anyone be murdered in cold blood when they had a chance to stop it or could stop it, even if it ended in the demise of the assailant. This is something I could never comprehend.
There is a big difference between murder and being killed.
I mean the two men that broke through the garage and into the house when they KNEW people were there...and my wife and kiddo was home with me. If I just set on the couch and let them do what they wanted to do..i could never comprehend that. Maybe they just wanted money,maybe they would rape my wife one at a time while the other held me and my boy up..maybe they were going to kill us all. Only a deranged person will break into a home when there are known occupants. If it was for my alarm beepers in the garage I would have been completely taken off guard.
I will not apologize for protecting my family and for not taking the chance of what a deranged person motives and plans are.
If I LET something happen to my wife at the time or either one of my boys when I could have stopped it. I would end up killing myself over the eventual mental torment and flashbacks.
I mean my dog knocked my youngest in the pool years ago on accident. I was right there with him and turned around for a second and he was only in for maybe a second , but when I heard the splash and turned around. Seeing him floating hopelessly staring at me, that still causes a tear in my eye thinking of that look. Now if I think of that right before a piece of shit is about to take their life, that last moment of life while they look at the man whom was suppose to protect them letting them be murdered. NO FUCKING THANK YOU I will pass on that.
I mean just seeing the fear in my youngest and my wife at the times eyes when I said get in the closet. There was a a gun in there as well and a phone, that was always the plan in emergency for a fall out. Retreat, lock the reinforced door to the closet, call the police, and if they make entry open fire as that means they got past me. Seeing their eyes when I walk in telling them to open up its me, I am fine police got here and took over, everything is good. Just seeing that look in their eyes...no, I could never let anything happen to someone if I could stop it, sorry. I would much rather I be the victim than someone else.
Even if someone is violating human rights, you can't violate theirs. There already are mechanisms of protection in place. You can get into the closet with your family while you wait for the police. From how you describe it, it sounds like you converted it into a safe room. Use it instead of trying to be a hero. A TV, the furniture, the car, everything can be replaced. You can't be. Putting yourself in danger won't help your family.
What is the difference between murdering someone and killing them? You have a gun, you point it at someone, you pull the trigger. There may be legal differences, but those don't exist on our psyque. You shot someone and now they're lying on the floor, dead, because of you.
I guess we've reached a point where both of us know the other's position, and we can't make the other change his mind. You have your view and I have mine. For the record, I won't ever consider you, or anyone else, less human than me. We're all the same, with the same rights and the same duties.
-
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/09/matt-gaetz/violent-crime-lower-states-open-carry/
Read you sources. You look stupid if you don't:
This is a fact that experts say is largely meaningless and shouldn’t weigh into any serious policy discussion.
There may be less crime in those states, but there’s no way the single data point Gaetz gave can provide clues as to the effects of open carry laws.
Gaetz’s statement is a one-year snapshot that is misleading. We rate it Half True.
Their conclusion is that the fact that open carry states have less violent crime is largely meaningless and there are other data points to conisder.
-
Your sentence didn't made much sense. Certain chemicals like bleach is far more accessible than guns and like I said earlier women tend to use chemicals as a means to commit suicide while men a little more than half the time will choose a firearm. As for benifits for a shotgun there's hunting which keeps animal populations from over growing, there's home defense, and there's defense against tyranny. Another thing to consider is by banning guns you affect the police too. They can no longer but from the local gun shop and buy an AR for example and save their department money. In fact it'll affect the manufacturers as well since they can't sell to private citizens which is their bread and butter and therefore can't supply the police and military the arms they need.
Cyanide is not 'certain chemicals.' Remember that we were comparing success rates of suicide.
We've already seen in quite a bit of details that guns give no advantage to home defence, and wouldn't help at all with defence from tyranny. And hunting's actually more likely to make the animal population go out of control; predator-prey systems are naturally in balance. I did a whole module on modelling their behaviour. Start killing the predator, the prey population goes out of control: start killing the prey, predators would seek out other sources of food. If you just want to keep animals out, lock your doors and windows. Or just use a hunting license system, because animals are only an issue in certain places.
Shrinking the gun industry would hardly be the end of the world. In what world is the success of a business more important than lives?
Still on average states with right to carry laws are either slightly above or lower in crimes compared to those who didn't had right to carry laws.
'Slightly' is meaningless. See: standard deviation, again. Rama put it just fine.
Actually for the most part they shouldn't even exist if they're to follow the constitution.
Then you really ought to give your constitution a rethink if it hamstrings people investigating shootings. There is a reason for the amendment system.
I'm not saying that ALL registrations lead to confiscation but it sure helps in that process.
So? A slippery slope isn't an argument. You can't deny common sense measures just because of something that might happen.
No because its a product. However denying a person who has money until he passes a BC is prior restraint without due process.
Children are denied a lot of rights. There's rights are/should be given unto them when they are an adult.
If the right to keep and bears are not to be infringed then I'm allowed to own enough weapons to put the US military to shame.
The constitution gives the caveat in the fifth and sixth amendment about due process.
So, you agree that the right of people people to keep and bear arms should be infringed in certain cases. For one, people lose this 'right' if they don't have much money, for starters. Doesn't sound much like a right to me.
None of that prevents someone from keeping and bearing arms.
They do however violate other rights.
Would love to hear which ones.
The fourth and fifth amendment for starters.
I didn't advocate searches and seizures, and didn't propose making anyone testify against themselves, so they really don't seem relevant.
-
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.
Cars do a better job at it. The mere ownership of a weapon doesn't endanger your life in any way.
Cars are used to go from a place to another, and the deaths caused by cars are accidents. Guns are made specifically to hurt.
This may sound crude but why should that matter? A death is a death either way and by taking guns you only allow people to switch to other means to kill each other. In fact you may even increase it because now the little old lady who before at least had a .38 revolver to give her the best chance of surviving an attack is now exposed to any young punk who's bored and looking for trouble. Besides, hurting someone may actually be a good thing when you're being attacked.
-
Your sentence didn't made much sense. Certain chemicals like bleach is far more accessible than guns and like I said earlier women tend to use chemicals as a means to commit suicide while men a little more than half the time will choose a firearm. As for benifits for a shotgun there's hunting which keeps animal populations from over growing, there's home defense, and there's defense against tyranny. Another thing to consider is by banning guns you affect the police too. They can no longer but from the local gun shop and buy an AR for example and save their department money. In fact it'll affect the manufacturers as well since they can't sell to private citizens which is their bread and butter and therefore can't supply the police and military the arms they need.
Cyanide is not 'certain chemicals.' Remember that we were comparing success rates of suicide.
Which cyanide is only beaten by shotgun by two percent. If 1% isn't enough to justify self defense then 2% isn't enough to ban guns. When it comes down to it there's either no benefit either way or there's a benefit to owning guns. Either way I win. Why implement a useless law?
We've already seen in quite a bit of details that guns give no advantage to home defence, and wouldn't help at all with defence from tyranny.
Not quite. How many of the unarmed victims were attacked a second time compared to the armed victims? How hang of the armed victims was killed compared to unarmed? Plus as I stated before guerrilla warfare, even against modern technology, works. A large portion of the military are civilians and another large portion of the uniformed military would refuse to obey a confiscation.
And hunting's actually more likely to make the animal population go out of control; predator-prey systems are naturally in balance.
That's the problem. We don't have too many natural predators especially on the east coast.
I did a whole module on modelling their behaviour. Start killing the predator, the prey population goes out of control: start killing the prey, predators would seek out other sources of food. If you just want to keep animals out, lock your doors and windows. Or just use a hunting license system, because animals are only an issue in certain places.
Shrinking the gun industry would hardly be the end of the world. In what world is the success of a business more important than lives?
Those lives are dependent on the gun industry. Aside from job making without guns are military and police are less affective. Not having an affective military and police leaves us exposed to a more aggressive country.
Still on average states with right to carry laws are either slightly above or lower in crimes compared to those who didn't had right to carry laws.
'Slightly' is meaningless. See: standard deviation, again. Rama put it just fine.
That was one link about open carry. I've linked to other sites about concealed carry. Here's another example.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
Actually for the most part they shouldn't even exist if they're to follow the constitution.
Then you really ought to give your constitution a rethink if it hamstrings people investigating shootings. There is a reason for the amendment system.
Its fine to investigate shootings with a proper warrant, but don't assume everybody is guilty until proven innocent.
I'm not saying that ALL registrations lead to confiscation but it sure helps in that process.
So? A slippery slope isn't an argument. You can't deny common sense measures just because of something that might happen.
They're not common sense and that "might" is more of a "will".
No because its a product. However denying a person who has money until he passes a BC is prior restraint without due process.
Children are denied a lot of rights. There's rights are/should be given unto them when they are an adult.
If the right to keep and bears are not to be infringed then I'm allowed to own enough weapons to put the US military to shame.
The constitution gives the caveat in the fifth and sixth amendment about due process.
So, you agree that the right of people people to keep and bear arms should be infringed in certain cases. For one, people lose this 'right' if they don't have much money, for starters. Doesn't sound much like a right to me.
They should only be infringed by either due process or if not old enough.
None of that prevents someone from keeping and bearing arms.
They do however violate other rights.
Would love to hear which ones.
The fourth and fifth amendment for starters.
I didn't advocate searches and seizures, and didn't propose making anyone testify against themselves, so they really don't seem relevant.
By registering your forced to testify the fact that you have a gun and by searches and seizures if they find a unregistered gun they'll confiscate it without due process.
-
Which cyanide is only beaten by shotgun by two percent. If 1% isn't enough to justify self defense then 2% isn't enough to ban guns. When it comes down to it there's either no benefit either way or there's a benefit to owning guns. Either way I win. Why implement a useless law?
Not quite. How many of the unarmed victims were attacked a second time compared to the armed victims? How hang of the armed victims was killed compared to unarmed? Plus as I stated before guerrilla warfare, even against modern technology, works. A large portion of the military are civilians and another large portion of the uniformed military would refuse to obey a confiscation.
That's the problem. We don't have too many natural predators especially on the east coast.
Those lives are dependent on the gun industry. Aside from job making without guns are military and police are less affective. Not having an affective military and police leaves us exposed to a more aggressive country.
Are you just ignoring everything I say now? Accessibility is just as important as deadliness to suicide: cyanide isn't exactly what I'd call accessible. Guerilla warfare works to exhaust not overthrow. A military who won't obey their oath to serve their Commander in Chief is not a safe military. And given plenty of other countries seem to get guns for their military just fine (and police really don't need that many guns, America's plainly make a mess of them) that last bit's hardly an issue.
And we've been over multiple benefits: Australia's total lack of mass shootings since enacting gun control, dramatically lower crime rates in countries with gun control, faster declining crime after gun control, a removal of the 'accidental' shootings... As well as indirect benefits such as not needing every police officer to go around armed and the news-filling murders that result, for one.
That was one link about open carry. I've linked to other sites about concealed carry. Here's another example.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
It was your summary of the facts. (And if you really want to look at your links from last time: you had a student paper, one that said the opposite of what you claimed, and one by an author with a terrible track record and made no claim about facts). And you really might need to think about why all your key results stem from clearly motivated sources, while I've been able to find a number of neutral studies with neutral sources. I'm still struggling to work out what half of that one means; the graphs are incoherent and definitions are woefully lacking. Plus neutral sources, like the one you yourself provided, plainly demonstrate there's no noticeable change in crime rate.
Its fine to investigate shootings with a proper warrant, but don't assume everybody is guilty until proven innocent.
They're not investigating things without cause, it just helps to be, you know, capable of actually investigating when the need arises. Knowing who bought a gun is the most basic thing to expect from a law enforcement agency, and it doesn't impact on your rights in the slightest, until your gun is used for a crime. For crying out loud, cars are more heavily regulated than guns in the US, does that seriously not bother you?!
They should only be infringed by either due process or if not old enough.
So, it can be infringed. It's that simple. The 'shall NOT' is not absolute .
By registering your forced to testify the fact that you have a gun and by searches and seizures if they find a unregistered gun they'll confiscate it without due process.
They'd still need a warrant to search your house for an unregistered gun, that's not going to change. And the fifth amendment is to prevent you from testifying in order to incriminate yourself only, people are often still compelled to testify (and held in contempt if they don't) so even if that was a reasonable depiction of the situation, it doesn't violate the fifth amendment because owning a gun is not incriminating. Using that in a crime is incriminating, but it's no more a fifth amendment violation than having a photo of you circulated.
As for being confiscated without due process, given that it would be a crime to possess an unregistered gun, the situation is analogous to having a stolen gun. What would you propose happen then?
-
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.
Cars do a better job at it. The mere ownership of a weapon doesn't endanger your life in any way.
Cars are used to go from a place to another, and the deaths caused by cars are accidents. Guns are made specifically to hurt.
This may sound crude but why should that matter? A death is a death either way and by taking guns you only allow people to switch to other means to kill each other. In fact you may even increase it because now the little old lady who before at least had a .38 revolver to give her the best chance of surviving an attack is now exposed to any young punk who's bored and looking for trouble. Besides, hurting someone may actually be a good thing when you're being attacked.
It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well. Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt. And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun. Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.
-
It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well. Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt. And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun. Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.
Holy mackerel.... you sure you are not living in a fantasy world of sunshine and buttercups?? People will always find a way to kill each other...you can remove all weapons, blunt objects, salt and spices. Then you will just have a massive spike in martial arts, MMA, and the 5 finger death Punch.
Humans have a vital flaw and it has nothing to do with guns or any other type of weapon. The only way to fix anything is mentally within ourselves and that is very difficult and takes work and determination most are not willing to dedicate. So it is much easier to blame the superficial things, then blame other superficial things when removing the previous didn't work.
Simple fact, people have murdered other people, people are currently murdering other people, and people will always murder other people...saying that will stop is as likely as animals not fighting over their territory. It could happen, at least brought down to a minimal occurrence, however I have already stated what it would take and the likely hood I see that happening.
However, someone who lives in a magic meadow of rainbows, or someone that is ok with letting someone murder their own birthing mother, I don't expect this concept to be grasp.
Nor will there ever be any apology for me attempting to be a step ahead of people with ill intent, or protecting anyone from a person with ill intent. For every action...
For the record, I won't ever consider you, or anyone else, less human than me. We're all the same, with the same rights and the same duties.
For the record I will always return the favor...UNLESS you try to harm or murder a loved one, friend, myself, or anyone generally around my vicinity...however, seeing you won't squish a fly, I think we will be safe here lol.
-
It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well. Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt. And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun. Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.
Holy mackerel.... you sure you are not living in a fantasy world of sunshine and buttercups?? People will always find a way to kill each other...you can remove all weapons, blunt objects, salt and spices. Then you will just have a massive spike in martial arts, MMA, and the 5 finger death Punch.
Humans have a vital flaw and it has nothing to do with guns or any other type of weapon. The only way to fix anything is mentally within ourselves and that is very difficult and takes work and determination most are not willing to dedicate. So it is much easier to blame the superficial things, then blame other superficial things when removing the previous didn't work.
Simple fact, people have murdered other people, people are currently murdering other people, and people will always murder other people...saying that will stop is as likely as animals not fighting over their territory. It could happen, at least brought down to a minimal occurrence, however I have already stated what it would take and the likely hood I see that happening.
However, someone who lives in a magic meadow of rainbows, or someone that is ok with letting someone murder their own birthing mother, I don't expect this concept to be grasp.
Nor will there ever be any apology for me attempting to be a step ahead of people with ill intent, or protecting anyone from a person with ill intent. For every action...
For the record, I won't ever consider you, or anyone else, less human than me. We're all the same, with the same rights and the same duties.
For the record I will always return the favor...UNLESS you try to harm or murder a loved one, friend, myself, or anyone generally around my vicinity...however, seeing you won't squish a fly, I think we will be safe here lol.
People may have evil intentions, but they're also lazy by nature. Guns make killing anyone really easy, so they're predisposed to kill more readily than if they had to run around with a knife making sure every stab is lethal. Compare the number of mass shootings and mass stabbings. Compare the casualties, too.
And as people have the will to hurt and kill, wouldn't it be better to make sure they can't have any easy way to do so? You can't excuse their behaviour saying killing is normal and it always has happened. Societies advance. It is our duty to make sure we don't fall back to darker ages. We have to try and bring down the number of violent crimes and the deaths they bring with them. It will be harder? Hell yes. But that's no excuse.
As I said before, in Spain gun laws are restrictive to the point you can only get a gun if you're in mortal danger. Our murder rate is 0.9, while the US has a rate of 5 [1 (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime)].
-
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?
It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.
Cars do a better job at it. The mere ownership of a weapon doesn't endanger your life in any way.
Cars are used to go from a place to another, and the deaths caused by cars are accidents. Guns are made specifically to hurt.
This may sound crude but why should that matter? A death is a death either way and by taking guns you only allow people to switch to other means to kill each other. In fact you may even increase it because now the little old lady who before at least had a .38 revolver to give her the best chance of surviving an attack is now exposed to any young punk who's bored and looking for trouble. Besides, hurting someone may actually be a good thing when you're being attacked.
It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well.
That's demonstratively not true. For one no one is perfect 100% of the time and secondly even if you are you can still get creamed by a runaway semi truck. The best you can do is pray. Not only that but its irrelevant. Guns aren't dangerous unless you're irresponsible.
Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt.
Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal or human. Plus even if it was designed to kill the Chevy corvette is designed to go faster than the legal speed limit in the US. Should we ban fast cars? One more point is that assuming that's the only purpose for guns its still valid in defensive situations.
And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun.
So you rather have granny be beaten to death? If the aggressor dies so be it. In fact he got what he deserved.
Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.
Sometimes you need to harm someone in order to stop an assailant. What's wrong with that?
-
Which cyanide is only beaten by shotgun by two percent. If 1% isn't enough to justify self defense then 2% isn't enough to ban guns. When it comes down to it there's either no benefit either way or there's a benefit to owning guns. Either way I win. Why implement a useless law?
Not quite. How many of the unarmed victims were attacked a second time compared to the armed victims? How hang of the armed victims was killed compared to unarmed? Plus as I stated before guerrilla warfare, even against modern technology, works. A large portion of the military are civilians and another large portion of the uniformed military would refuse to obey a confiscation.
That's the problem. We don't have too many natural predators especially on the east coast.
Those lives are dependent on the gun industry. Aside from job making without guns are military and police are less affective. Not having an affective military and police leaves us exposed to a more aggressive country.
Are you just ignoring everything I say now? Accessibility is just as important as deadliness to suicide: cyanide isn't exactly what I'd call accessible.
If accessibility is the key then we should have a higher suicide rate than Japan. In fact suicides by guns for males should be 70-90% instead of a little more than 50%. The fact is guns do not enable more suicides.
Guerilla warfare works to exhaust not overthrow.
Either way it works and we win. The only way for it to not work is to nuke everything and I highly doubt that's practical for an army to do to its own people and country.
A military who won't obey their oath to serve their Commander in Chief is not a safe military.
Their oath is to defend the constitution and country from enemies foriegn and domestic.
And given plenty of other countries seem to get guns for their military just fine (and police really don't need that many guns, America's plainly make a mess of them) that last bit's hardly an issue.
Name one NATO military that is not heavily funded by the US. Name one major gun company that doesn't have a robust civilian market.
And we've been over multiple benefits: Australia's total lack of mass shootings since enacting gun control, dramatically lower crime rates in countries with gun control, faster declining crime after gun control, a removal of the 'accidental' shootings... As well as indirect benefits such as not needing every police officer to go around armed and the news-filling murders that result, for one.
Australia had ten massecres since the ban and had a growing gun ownership.
That was one link about open carry. I've linked to other sites about concealed carry. Here's another example.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
It was your summary of the facts. (And if you really want to look at your links from last time: you had a student paper, one that said the opposite of what you claimed, and one by an author with a terrible track record and made no claim about facts). And you really might need to think about why all your key results stem from clearly motivated sources, while I've been able to find a number of neutral studies with neutral sources. I'm still struggling to work out what half of that one means; the graphs are incoherent and definitions are woefully lacking. Plus neutral sources, like the one you yourself provided, plainly demonstrate there's no noticeable change in crime rate.
I think I found what you're looking for.
http://defendandcarry.com/the-trace-debunked-finds-no-advantages-to-using-a-firearm-in-self-defense/
Also gun sales are rising but crime is falling. Why?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#534ac9dd7de9
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
Its fine to investigate shootings with a proper warrant, but don't assume everybody is guilty until proven innocent.
They're not investigating things without cause, it just helps to be, you know, capable of actually investigating when the need arises. Knowing who bought a gun is the most basic thing to expect from a law enforcement agency, and it doesn't impact on your rights in the slightest, until your gun is used for a crime.
The criminals sand off the serial numbers. How are you going to trace the gun now?
For crying out loud, cars are more heavily regulated than guns in the US, does that seriously not bother you?!
Nope. And yet we have more fatal car accident than all guns deaths combined when talking about ratio.
They should only be infringed by either due process or if not old enough.
So, it can be infringed. It's that simple. The 'shall NOT' is not absolute .
Those are the only exceptions to "shall not" as listed in the constitution.
By registering your forced to testify the fact that you have a gun and by searches and seizures if they find a unregistered gun they'll confiscate it without due process.
They'd still need a warrant to search your house for an unregistered gun, that's not going to change.
I'm reffering more so to unexpected inspections.
And the fifth amendment is to prevent you from testifying in order to incriminate yourself only, people are often still compelled to testify (and held in contempt if they don't) so even if that was a reasonable depiction of the situation, it doesn't violate the fifth amendment because owning a gun is not incriminating.
It is if its linked to a crime.
Using that in a crime is incriminating, but it's no more a fifth amendment violation than having a photo of you circulated.
As for being confiscated without due process, given that it would be a crime to possess an unregistered gun, the situation is analogous to having a stolen gun. What would you propose happen then?
Why it should be illegal to have an unregistered gun?
-
Maybe I can sum up a little between Jane, luke, glaring eye and myself.
I agree there would be less deaths without fire arms. However, as the UK shows, people will just attack each other in other ways which goes back to my sarcastic comments of MMA and the five finger death Punch. I mean the UK is number 1 for violent crimes in that part of the world...even above South Africa.
So this goes to show it is a mentality issue as I believe glaring and I both agree on.
However in the U.S. where I am located and guns are plenty, I prefer to stay armed and attempt to stay a step ahead of someone who has ill intent for loved ones safety, my own and anyone around me.
Also one more thing...it should be shown high fire arm possession and low crime rate/murder can exist. Such as the town I live in and the town many gun advocates use Plano,tx. However, it is a mentality and many other things, stuff I listed in detail a page or two back and don't feel like rehashing. However, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of firearms is one of the least contributing factors.
-
It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well.
That's demonstratively not true. For one no one is perfect 100% of the time and secondly even if you are you can still get creamed by a runaway semi truck. The best you can do is pray. Not only that but its irrelevant. Guns aren't dangerous unless you're irresponsible.
Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt.
Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal or human. Plus even if it was designed to kill the Chevy corvette is designed to go faster than the legal speed limit in the US. Should we ban fast cars? One more point is that assuming that's the only purpose for guns its still valid in defensive situations.
And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun.
So you rather have granny be beaten to death? If the aggressor dies so be it. In fact he got what he deserved.
Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.
Sometimes you need to harm someone in order to stop an assailant. What's wrong with that?
Accidents happen, but you can't use that as excuse for carrying weapons around. The original target for guns is humans. Don't tell me the fact bullets are designed to break or spin inside the body and cause the largets amount of damage possible is irrelevant. They're intended to hit living targets, and I doubt people hunt with ak's. What about armor piercing rounds? are those to shoot cardboard? The corvette may be designed to run fast to the point it can surpass US speed limits, but they're also sold in Germany, where those speed limits don't exist.
And did you just say a gun in the hands of a trained soldier is not dangerous? I thought they were supposed to fight and kill enemies, but I guess I'm wrong.
The granny versus the thug... I can't understand how someone who has a Bible as their avatar is ok with people killing people. But most of the time, the aggressor doesn't want to hurt, they only want to leave a bit richer. Capital punisment for that is a bit too much.
And shooting an assailant turns you into the aggressor. that's what's wrong. You can't stop violence with violence. You can't do anything with violence in a modern society. I'm pretty sure there's something about it even in the Bible...
Maybe I can sum up a little between Jane, luke, glaring eye and myself.
I agree there would be less deaths without fire arms. However, as the UK shows, people will just attack each other in other ways which goes back to my sarcastic comments of MMA and the five finger death Punch. I mean the UK is number 1 for violent crimes in that part of the world...even above South Africa.
So this goes to show it is a mentality issue as I believe glaring and I both agree on.
However in the U.S. where I am located and guns are plenty, I prefer to stay armed and attempt to stay a step ahead of someone who has ill intent for loved ones safety, my own and anyone around me.
Also one more thing...it should be shown high fire arm possession and low crime rate/murder can exist. Such as the town I live in and the town many gun advocates use Plano,tx. However, it is a mentality and many other things, stuff I listed in detail a page or two back and don't feel like rehashing. However, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of firearms is one of the least contributing factors.
Violence in the UK is usually non-lethal. Sure, there are brawls and fights and robberies, but there aren't guns around to make violence escalate to lethal levels. That's the thing. Even in a country with those levels of crime, deaths are lower than in the US because there aren't guns involved. It helps more than you think. Would you rather go to the hospital with a broken arm or with a bullet in your gut?
Yes, it is a mentality issue. There is a lot of tension between communities in the US, to the point they see each other as strangers. There's also high glorification of everything to do with war, as it has everything to do with the country's history. We all can see almost everyday in the news there's been a violent incident between communities. Taking weapons off the map would at least make it easier for the police and harder for the criminals in those places, and it wouldn't make it more dangerous in places already peaceful.
-
If accessibility is the key then we should have a higher suicide rate than Japan. In fact suicides by guns for males should be 70-90% instead of a little more than 50%. The fact is guns do not enable more suicides.
So you are just ignoring everything I say. Once again:
The key issue in Japan is motive. Particularly the working environment there encourages stress, which encourages suicide. Motive alone is not enough to commit suicide, ability must also be present. However, with a very high motive, trickier means to commit suicide would be attempted. They'd be more willing to go through painful means, for example.
In the US, there is less motive, so we would expect different statistics. However, the accessibility of suicide goes up, so people only slightly inclined in that direction can far more easily access the means to kill themselves. Remove the accessibility in the US, it wouldn't increase the level of motive, it would decrease the level of accessibility.
All you're showing is that there's more then one cause for suicide. No one is denying that. The key is that guns are a factor.
Either way it works and we win. The only way for it to not work is to nuke everything and I highly doubt that's practical for an army to do to its own people and country.
Or just drone strike. Crops need to grow outside, for example. The reason guerilla warfare works in another country is that supply lines are limited; in the US it'd be easy to starve out any supposed insurgents. Tinned food wouldn't last that long when shared between a whole militia.
Their oath is to defend the constitution and country from enemies foriegn and domestic.
"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States."
Name one NATO military that is not heavily funded by the US. Name one major gun company that doesn't have a robust civilian market.
Gun-wise, which ultimately is the real key:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_brands
Plenty aren't US based, and further a lot have other products so even if gun sales went down it wouldn't hurt them that much.
Australia had ten massecres since the ban and had a growing gun ownership.
Fewer than before, and of a markedly less dangerous standard, hence not calling them mass shootings.
I think I found what you're looking for.
http://defendandcarry.com/the-trace-debunked-finds-no-advantages-to-using-a-firearm-in-self-defense/
Also gun sales are rising but crime is falling. Why?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#534ac9dd7de9
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
Crime levels are falling globally, irrespective of gun ownership. As for that supposed rebuttal, it's pretty much just a rant, there's no actual substantive criticism of the survey in question beyond "I want it to be wrong," and "Here's a survey already discussed and dealt with."
The criminals sand off the serial numbers. How are you going to trace the gun now?
Aside from the fact you'd need a career criminal for them to sand off numbers, which is far from always the case (so even if that was all that mattered, it's a good advantage), make and model would naturally narrow it down.
Besides, that's about as meaningful as saying "Criminals can get fake license plates/take them off, what's the point of license plates?" a) not all criminals, b) other purposes.
Nope. And yet we have more fatal car accident than all guns deaths combined when talking about ratio.
Because cars have a purpose beyond shooting things.
Those are the only exceptions to "shall not" as listed in the constitution.
Where in the second amendment are these exceptions?
I'm reffering more so to unexpected inspections.
Which isn't relevant here given that there wouldn't be any inspection without due cause as it is.
It is if its linked to a crime.
See what I said in literally the next sentence.
Why it should be illegal to have an unregistered gun?
Why would someone want an unregistered gun? No difference in function, use... The only reason would be to try and hide the fact you have a gun. Given none of those people complain about having, say, a social security number, has to be more than simply being in a database that worries them.
-
It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well.
That's demonstratively not true. For one no one is perfect 100% of the time and secondly even if you are you can still get creamed by a runaway semi truck. The best you can do is pray. Not only that but its irrelevant. Guns aren't dangerous unless you're irresponsible.
Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt.
Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal or human. Plus even if it was designed to kill the Chevy corvette is designed to go faster than the legal speed limit in the US. Should we ban fast cars? One more point is that assuming that's the only purpose for guns its still valid in defensive situations.
And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun.
So you rather have granny be beaten to death? If the aggressor dies so be it. In fact he got what he deserved.
Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.
Sometimes you need to harm someone in order to stop an assailant. What's wrong with that?
Accidents happen, but you can't use that as excuse for carrying weapons around. The original target for guns is humans. Don't tell me the fact bullets are designed to break or spin inside the body and cause the largets amount of damage possible is irrelevant. They're intended to hit living targets, and I doubt people hunt with ak's.
Actually you can.
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2013/11/05/deer-hog-rifle-ak-47/
Not only that but there's the AK hunter which looks like an average hunting rifle but can accept AK rounds and magazines.
What about armor piercing rounds? are those to shoot cardboard?
It's designed to pierce armor. Plus I was talking about the gun, you're talking about the rounds.
The corvette may be designed to run fast to the point it can surpass US speed limits, but they're also sold in Germany, where those speed limits don't exist.
So why sell a car capable of exceeding the speed limit here? Why not curb it back to 80 mph? And plus I don't think that entirely true about the speed limit in Germany.
And did you just say a gun in the hands of a trained soldier is not dangerous? I thought they were supposed to fight and kill enemies, but I guess I'm wrong.
Something that is dangerous implies that it can be hazardous to the owner even when operated correctly. Cars are dangerous. A soldier should be deadly, not dangerous otherwise he might blow up his own HQ.
The granny versus the thug... I can't understand how someone who has a Bible as their avatar is ok with people killing people.
For one my avatar and username also suggest that the Bible is for just killing. And also I'm not saying granny should purposely kill the aggressor but to defend herself from him and if he dies so be it.
But most of the time, the aggressor doesn't want to hurt, they only want to leave a bit richer. Capital punisment for that is a bit too much.
How do you expect for granny to know that when she is punched and pushed to the ground? She is within her rights to assume the assailant wants to beat or kill her.
And shooting an assailant turns you into the aggressor. that's what's wrong. You can't stop violence with violence. You can't do anything with violence in a modern society. I'm pretty sure there's something about it even in the Bible...
Tell that to the military and police. If you really want to live by that standard then if you get mugged you won't call the police because they might use deadly force to stop the suspect. No, you don't become the aggressor when you're defending yourself from great bodily harm or death. And the Bible only condemns vengeance, not self defense.
Maybe I can sum up a little between Jane, luke, glaring eye and myself.
I agree there would be less deaths without fire arms. However, as the UK shows, people will just attack each other in other ways which goes back to my sarcastic comments of MMA and the five finger death Punch. I mean the UK is number 1 for violent crimes in that part of the world...even above South Africa.
So this goes to show it is a mentality issue as I believe glaring and I both agree on.
However in the U.S. where I am located and guns are plenty, I prefer to stay armed and attempt to stay a step ahead of someone who has ill intent for loved ones safety, my own and anyone around me.
Also one more thing...it should be shown high fire arm possession and low crime rate/murder can exist. Such as the town I live in and the town many gun advocates use Plano,tx. However, it is a mentality and many other things, stuff I listed in detail a page or two back and don't feel like rehashing. However, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of firearms is one of the least contributing factors.
Violence in the UK is usually non-lethal. Sure, there are brawls and fights and robberies, but there aren't guns around to make violence escalate to lethal levels. That's the thing. Even in a country with those levels of crime, deaths are lower than in the US because there aren't guns involved. It helps more than you think. Would you rather go to the hospital with a broken arm or with a bullet in your gut?
Yes, it is a mentality issue. There is a lot of tension between communities in the US, to the point they see each other as strangers. There's also high glorification of everything to do with war, as it has everything to do with the country's history. We all can see almost everyday in the news there's been a violent incident between communities. Taking weapons off the map would at least make it easier for the police and harder for the criminals in those places, and it wouldn't make it more dangerous in places already peaceful.
Not to me.
-
If accessibility is the key then we should have a higher suicide rate than Japan. In fact suicides by guns for males should be 70-90% instead of a little more than 50%. The fact is guns do not enable more suicides.
So you are just ignoring everything I say. Once again:
The key issue in Japan is motive. Particularly the working environment there encourages stress, which encourages suicide. Motive alone is not enough to commit suicide, ability must also be present. However, with a very high motive, trickier means to commit suicide would be attempted. They'd be more willing to go through painful means, for example.
In the US, there is less motive, so we would expect different statistics. However, the accessibility of suicide goes up, so people only slightly inclined in that direction can far more easily access the means to kill themselves. Remove the accessibility in the US, it wouldn't increase the level of motive, it would decrease the level of accessibility.
No it doesn't. Australia had an increase in suicides recently.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/highest-australian-suicide-rate-in-13-years-driven-by-men-aged-40-to-44
Not only that we have a lower suicide rate than France, Finland, and Iceland which all have lower gun ownership.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
All you're showing is that there's more then one cause for suicide. No one is denying that. The key is that guns are a factor.
Not to the extent you describe.
Either way it works and we win. The only way for it to not work is to nuke everything and I highly doubt that's practical for an army to do to its own people and country.
Or just drone strike. Crops need to grow outside, for example.
As useful as they are they need logistics. You can't send a million dollar glorified RC plane out to every suspension of guerrilla activity. They need spotters on the ground, perfect weather conditions, enough fuel, mechanics to repair them, etc.
The reason guerilla warfare works in another country is that supply lines are limited; in the US it'd be easy to starve out any supposed insurgents. Tinned food wouldn't last that long when shared between a whole militia.
There are ways to grow a garden to make it look like its apart of nature.
Their oath is to defend the constitution and country from enemies foriegn and domestic.
"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States."
Which doesn't go against the constitution. Over here the constitution is the surpreme law of the land and every law and order must be in agreement of it. If not then its legally null and void.
Name one NATO military that is not heavily funded by the US. Name one major gun company that doesn't have a robust civilian market.
Gun-wise, which ultimately is the real key:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_brands
Plenty aren't US based, and further a lot have other products so even if gun sales went down it wouldn't hurt them that much.
I didn't asked for a gun company not based in the US. I asked for a major gun company that didn't had a robust civilian market.
Australia had ten massecres since the ban and had a growing gun ownership.
Fewer than before, and of a markedly less dangerous standard, hence not calling them mass shootings.
Actually no. The past 18 years since the ban they had 11 massacres. 18 years before the ban they had 8.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
I think I found what you're looking for.
http://defendandcarry.com/the-trace-debunked-finds-no-advantages-to-using-a-firearm-in-self-defense/
Also gun sales are rising but crime is falling. Why?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#534ac9dd7de9
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
Crime levels are falling globally, irrespective of gun ownership.
So if anything we shouldn't implement gun control simply becuase its unaffective.
As for that supposed rebuttal, it's pretty much just a rant, there's no actual substantive criticism of the survey in question beyond "I want it to be wrong," and "Here's a survey already discussed and dealt with."
Even the CDC rejects the method your link used.
The criminals sand off the serial numbers. How are you going to trace the gun now?
Aside from the fact you'd need a career criminal for them to sand off numbers, which is far from always the case (so even if that was all that mattered, it's a good advantage), make and model would naturally narrow it down.
It doesn't take but a few dollars at Home Depot to pick up a good sanding block.
Besides, that's about as meaningful as saying "Criminals can get fake license plates/take them off, what's the point of license plates?" a) not all criminals, b) other purposes.
What other purposes?
Nope. And yet we have more fatal car accident than all guns deaths combined when talking about ratio.
Because cars have a purpose beyond shooting things.
So because cars have another purpose it makes them more dangerous?
Those are the only exceptions to "shall not" as listed in the constitution.
Where in the second amendment are these exceptions?
It's not there but it's explained elsewhere in the constitution.
I'm reffering more so to unexpected inspections.
Which isn't relevant here given that there wouldn't be any inspection without due cause as it is.
Is that the case over where you're at?
It is if its linked to a crime.
See what I said in literally the next sentence.
Why it should be illegal to have an unregistered gun?
Why would someone want an unregistered gun?
Becuase its my own business how many guns I have.
No difference in function, use... The only reason would be to try and hide the fact you have a gun. Given none of those people complain about having, say, a social security number, has to be more than simply being in a database that worries them.
I complain about having SS number because its useless to preform its original purpose.
-
Taking a brief hiatus from responding Luke, sorry, project-work's getting out of control and it takes a fair bit of time to write up replies.
-
Taking a brief hiatus from responding Luke, sorry, project-work's getting out of control and it takes a fair bit of time to write up replies.
Ok.
-
Why did I get a notification for a dead thread?
-
Why did you revive a dead thread just because you got a notification?
-
Let's all post in a dead thread!
-
Wow that brief hiatus has been almost two years!
-
Alright then. Let's pick up the discussion where it left off.
I believe that if trump wins the republican nomination then it'll be a disaster for gun control. I'm really hoping it's Kasich vs sanders.
-
Let's all post in a dead thread!
OK, for what it's worth: Gun laws stopped mass shootings in Australia, 13 March 2018, Gun control is back on the agenda. (https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/03/13/gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-in-australia.html)
Despite the title, "Gun laws stopped mass shootings in Australia", the answer is only a resounding "maybe".
And there have been plenty of shootings, though mostly with illegal (stolen, smuggled or made) weapons and with few enough casualties in each case to avoid being classed as a "mass shooting".
"Gun laws" have only a limited effect on those who ignore the law.
-
Alright then. Let's pick up the discussion where it left off.
I believe that if trump wins the republican nomination then it'll be a disaster for gun control. I'm really hoping it's Kasich vs sanders.
I doubt there's any real chance of Trump losing the nomination.
-
3-D printed guns are illegal. It has never been about the right to keep and bear arms, it is about the right of lobbiers to sell them to you.
-
Make your own gun in America is quite easy to do.
-
Alright then. Let's pick up the discussion where it left off.
I believe that if trump wins the republican nomination then it'll be a disaster for gun control. I'm really hoping it's Kasich vs sanders.
I'm voting for Bill Clinton.
Wait, what year is this? Sorry, confused since the brain injury.
-
"Gun laws" have only a limited effect on those who ignore the law.
There are few law abiding criminals. ;)
-
Why did you revive a dead thread just because you got a notification?
Because...