Poll

Is gun control an effective means of reducing violent crime

Yes.  People cannot be trusted with guns for any reason.  If the population is not armed, then there are less guns in the hands of criminals.  As a result there will be less violent crime
Yes.  But only for gun crimes, it will have no effect on other types of violent crimes
Yes and no.  It may reduce crimes commited with guns, but criminal will then resort to other weapons such as knives.  Other violent crimes will increase
No.  Criminals will get guns despite the law, it will have no effect on crime
No.  Not only will criminals ignore this law and get guns illegally, but such laws will make for easier victims since they will not be armed.  Crime rates will increase

Gun Control

  • 2002 Replies
  • 265348 Views
*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1590 on: January 18, 2013, 04:40:15 PM »
Yes they did.  They voted them in power didn't they?  I'd call that support.
Listen to Hitler's public speeches, they actually sound really, really good. No one knew Hitler wanted to murder millions.

True but they still blamed the Jews for their problems, which was the whole Nazi platform.  They didn't know the Jews were being exterminated but they damn well knew they were being moved.
Hitler released films that showed all of the Jews being moved into nice homes. How could you not support that?

In 1938 it got even easier to get a gun.
The ONLY group that got their guns banned were the Jews.

So yeah... What were you saying about the Nazi's taking guns?
Clearly the Jews having their guns taken away paved the way to a new and safer lifestyle?
People knew Hitler was murdering Jews, they just didn't realize how methodical and terrible it really was. There are plenty of autobiographies from the time that will tell you as much. There were still those who were in denial, but that's because they just didn't want to believe it was happening. The evidence was everywhere.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1591 on: January 18, 2013, 04:51:34 PM »
Yeah, they're great at killing one person but they aren't as good at killing a large group of people unless you have an isolated area and a lot of time.

>Implying that most murders involve multiple people

Population numbers are irrelevant to population density.

No, they're not. However I don't even see how that sentence is relevant.

I'm not ignoring it.  It's one of the reasons we SHOULDN'T have guns: we hate each other.  Just look at the anger over the last election.  I'm worried we'll have another civil war in a decade and I really don't want anyone armed for that.

The purpose of the guns is for uprisings. Thus they should not be removed to prevent uprisings.

God Damn Jews being put into nice homes on MY FRANK?!

Which would not represent the feelings of the time at all. Furthermore, the Germans were using the Mark, not the Franc.

I didn't hear any complaints from the majority.  Did you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Resistance_to_Nazism

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1592 on: January 18, 2013, 04:56:43 PM »
I didn't hear any complaints from the majority.  Did you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Resistance_to_Nazism
To be fair, most anti-Nazism wasn't for the sake of the Jews.

*

Lorddave

  • 17600
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1593 on: January 18, 2013, 05:03:22 PM »
Yeah, they're great at killing one person but they aren't as good at killing a large group of people unless you have an isolated area and a lot of time.

>Implying that most murders involve multiple people
Since this recent round of gun control talks resulted from a mass shooting, that's the whole point of the gun limitations.  I wouldn't agree to limiting guns if they were being used to stop the normal gun violence in the nations.  That's just stupid.  You need to ban the purchase of lethal ammo for that.

Quote
Population numbers are irrelevant to population density.
No, they're not. However I don't even see how that sentence is relevant.
Look at the crime rates in the US.  The higher numbers are located around more populated areas.

Quote
I'm not ignoring it.  It's one of the reasons we SHOULDN'T have guns: we hate each other.  Just look at the anger over the last election.  I'm worried we'll have another civil war in a decade and I really don't want anyone armed for that.
The purpose of the guns is for uprisings. Thus they should not be removed to prevent uprisings.
Hold on.  Guns were not created for uprisings.  Guns were created to kill other people in war.  A natural evolution of the cannon.

Quote
God Damn Jews being put into nice homes on MY FRANK?!
Which would not represent the feelings of the time at all. Furthermore, the Germans were using the Mark, not the Franc.
I find that hard to believe.  The Non-Jew on Jew violence to stores and the like were well documented.

Quote
I didn't hear any complaints from the majority.  Did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Resistance_to_Nazism
Yes I can see how 0.125% of the population was the majority.   ::)
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1594 on: January 18, 2013, 05:42:00 PM »
>arguing about Hitler

Stay on target..

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1595 on: January 18, 2013, 06:10:30 PM »
Hitler is relevant to every subject on earth.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1596 on: January 18, 2013, 08:39:54 PM »
Since this recent round of gun control talks resulted from a mass shooting, that's the whole point of the gun limitations.  I wouldn't agree to limiting guns if they were being used to stop the normal gun violence in the nations.  That's just stupid.  You need to ban the purchase of lethal ammo for that.

Which would make your response purely emotional and reactive. We don't ban airplanes when a single crash could kill hundreds because we need airplanes. We don't ban cars when they kill pedestrians or other drivers because we need cars. Likewise, we will not ban guns because we need guns. It is that simple.

Look at the crime rates in the US.  The higher numbers are located around more populated areas.

You're not making any sense in these posts. First you say population density is not relevant to population, now you're throwing in "crime rates" out of nowhere. Is this the section of your posts where you just vomit whatever happens to be in your mind at the moment?

Hold on.  Guns were not created for uprisings.  Guns were created to kill other people in war.  A natural evolution of the cannon.

I never said guns were created for uprisings. Seriously where are you pulling these statements from? Did your mind break mid post?

I find that hard to believe.  The Non-Jew on Jew violence to stores and the like were well documented.

You seem to have a applying major events to reality. Does 9/11 mean every Muslim on the entire planet wants to kill the U.S. or does it mean that those few terrorists did?


Yes I can see how 0.125% of the population was the majority.   ::)

Where did that number magically appear?

*

Lorddave

  • 17600
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1597 on: January 18, 2013, 09:24:53 PM »
Since this recent round of gun control talks resulted from a mass shooting, that's the whole point of the gun limitations.  I wouldn't agree to limiting guns if they were being used to stop the normal gun violence in the nations.  That's just stupid.  You need to ban the purchase of lethal ammo for that.
Which would make your response purely emotional and reactive. We don't ban airplanes when a single crash could kill hundreds because we need airplanes. We don't ban cars when they kill pedestrians or other drivers because we need cars. Likewise, we will not ban guns because we need guns. It is that simple.
Please state one "need" of a gun.  Last time I checked, you don't eat it, you don't breath it, it's not involved in sex, and it doesn't provide shelter.  In fact, the only "need" arises when someone who wants to kill you has a gun.  So by need are you saying "We only need guns when someone else needs a gun"?

Quote
Look at the crime rates in the US.  The higher numbers are located around more populated areas.
You're not making any sense in these posts. First you say population density is not relevant to population, now you're throwing in "crime rates" out of nowhere. Is this the section of your posts where you just vomit whatever happens to be in your mind at the moment?
What part of "higher density populations have higher crime rates" was too much for you?  A billion people spread over a billion square miles will have a lower crime rate than a billion people spread over a million square miles.  The fact that both areas have a billion people is irrelevant.  All that's relevant is how may people per square mile.

Quote
Hold on.  Guns were not created for uprisings.  Guns were created to kill other people in war.  A natural evolution of the cannon.
I never said guns were created for uprisings. Seriously where are you pulling these statements from? Did your mind break mid post?
Yeah, you did.

The purpose of the guns is for uprisings.

Or are you saying that guns were created with no purpose?


Quote
I find that hard to believe.  The Non-Jew on Jew violence to stores and the like were well documented.
You seem to have a applying major events to reality. Does 9/11 mean every Muslim on the entire planet wants to kill the U.S. or does it mean that those few terrorists did?
I would consider an organization large enough to give our military a problem more than "a few".

Quote
Yes I can see how 0.125% of the population was the majority.   ::)
Where did that number magically appear?

The population of Germany in 1935 was about 80 million people.
77,000 were persecuted by the Nazi's for some form of resistance.
I bumped it up to 100,000 to accommodate those not caught.

80 million divided by 100,000 is .00125 or 0.125% of the population actively resisted the Nazis.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1598 on: January 18, 2013, 09:53:42 PM »
Please state one "need" of a gun.  Last time I checked, you don't eat it, you don't breath it, it's not involved in sex, and it doesn't provide shelter.  In fact, the only "need" arises when someone who wants to kill you has a gun.  So by need are you saying "We only need guns when someone else needs a gun"?
No one ever claimed that and he did not say that. But, yes, the 2nd amendment is there to protect me from people that have guns. Doesn't matter if they are foreign or domestic. But actually, they don't have to have a gun.
Other non amendment protected uses include hunting and target practice. In fact, I have a youtube video where I show off my shooting. And don't say you don't "need" a gun for the last two points, as you will find you don't "need" much.     



What part of "higher density populations have higher crime rates" was too much for you?  A billion people spread over a billion square miles will have a lower crime rate than a billion people spread over a million square miles.  The fact that both areas have a billion people is irrelevant.  All that's relevant is how may people per square mile.

You guys are argument about whatever but the type of people will also matter. Statistically speaking in the US, minorities are involved in more crime.

Quote
Hold on.  Guns were not created for uprisings.  Guns were created to kill other people in war.  A natural evolution of the cannon.
Quote
I never said guns were created for uprisings. Seriously where are you pulling these statements from? Did your mind break mid post?
Quote
Yeah, you did.
Guns have shaped the entire world. You may think they are just to kill, but you are missing just what they have done.
Quote
The purpose of the guns is for uprisings.

Or are you saying that guns were created with no purpose?
In colonial times, one use of a gun was to arm a militia to you know, win the Revolutionary War. That was an uprising.



The population of Germany in 1935 was about 80 million people.
77,000 were persecuted by the Nazi's for some form of resistance.
I bumped it up to 100,000 to accommodate those not caught.

80 million divided by 100,000 is .00125 or 0.125% of the population actively resisted the Nazis.
I sure hope that not all citizens that resisted the Nazis were captured and killed. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1599 on: January 18, 2013, 10:21:28 PM »
Please state one "need" of a gun.  Last time I checked, you don't eat it, you don't breath it, it's not involved in sex, and it doesn't provide shelter.  In fact, the only "need" arises when someone who wants to kill you has a gun.  So by need are you saying "We only need guns when someone else needs a gun"?

If that is your requirements for needing something, then I assume you think we should ban airplanes and cars as well, as I definitely can't eat or hump either one.
What part of "higher density populations have higher crime rates" was too much for you?  A billion people spread over a billion square miles will have a lower crime rate than a billion people spread over a million square miles.  The fact that both areas have a billion people is irrelevant.  All that's relevant is how may people per square mile.

So you're admitting that guns have nothing to do with the crime rate? Okay.

Yeah, you did.

No, I didn't.

Or are you saying that guns were created with no purpose?

Where did I use the term "created" in my sentence structure? Can you really think of no better argument than this one?


I would consider an organization large enough to give our military a problem more than "a few".

Guerilla warfare is extremely effective in small numbers, which is why arming a country's citizens is always a good idea. By the way, you also avoided the point. You believe everyone with a weapon uncontrollably murders innocents, there is no other reason you would judge the actions of an entire nation based on a few men.


The population of Germany in 1935 was about 80 million people.
77,000 were persecuted by the Nazi's for some form of resistance.
I bumped it up to 100,000 to accommodate those not caught.

80 million divided by 100,000 is .00125 or 0.125% of the population actively resisted the Nazis.

LOL. You really used the number of convicted people as the percentage of the population that was against Nazis?

*

Lorddave

  • 17600
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1600 on: January 19, 2013, 08:12:50 AM »
If that is your requirements for needing something, then I assume you think we should ban airplanes and cars as well, as I definitely can't eat or hump either one.
Clearly someone doesn't know about Maslo's Hierarchy. 

Quote
So you're admitting that guns have nothing to do with the crime rate? Okay.
I never said otherwise.
They do, however, make fatalities easier.

Quote
Yeah, you did.

Quote
No, I didn't.

Where did I use the term "created" in my sentence structure? Can you really think of no better argument than this one?
An object's purpose is given when it's created.  You claimed a gun's purpose was to win uprisings.  Therefore, the gun was created with the purpose to win uprisings, which is completely false.

Quote
Guerilla warfare is extremely effective in small numbers, which is why arming a country's citizens is always a good idea. By the way, you also avoided the point. You believe everyone with a weapon uncontrollably murders innocents, there is no other reason you would judge the actions of an entire nation based on a few men.
I'm sorry if I've given you that impression.  I believe that since we can't tell the crazy people from the non-crazy people prior to them opening up on random strangers, that we need to ensure that the level of damage they can do is minimized while still allowing personal protection.  Which is why I support concealed carry permits of pistols but also support a ban on assault rifles.


Quote
LOL. You really used the number of convicted people as the percentage of the population that was against Nazis?
Got any better numbers?



No one ever claimed that and he did not say that. But, yes, the 2nd amendment is there to protect me from people that have guns. Doesn't matter if they are foreign or domestic. But actually, they don't have to have a gun.
I'm not against guns, I'm against assault rifles.  A pistol is just fine with me.

Quote
Other non amendment protected uses include hunting and target practice. In fact, I have a youtube video where I show off my shooting. And don't say you don't "need" a gun for the last two points, as you will find you don't "need" much.     
All humans need is air, water, food, shelter, and companionship.  Everything else is a want.

Quote
You guys are argument about whatever but the type of people will also matter. Statistically speaking in the US, minorities are involved in more crime.
And?

Quote
In colonial times, one use of a gun was to arm a militia to you know, win the Revolutionary War. That was an uprising.
No, the use of the gun was to kill more of the enemy than the enemy did of you.  It just so happens that a gun makes it much easier. 

Quote
I sure hope that not all citizens that resisted the Nazis were captured and killed. 
Which is why I took the 77,000 and added an extra 23,000 who weren't.
I figure that was an acceptable number considering the resistance was mostly from non-German nations like Poland, Norway, and France.   I'm also not counting people who sat quietly and disagreed.  That's not resistance, that's apathy.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 09:49:17 AM by Lorddave »
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1601 on: January 19, 2013, 09:18:16 AM »
Something I've noticed is that most mass shooters got their weapons from a gun store, whether by proxy or by going there themselves and not having an adequate background check.  Nobody has been buying guns off the black market to do this type of thing.  Remember, criminals are stupid.  This is why I think an assault weapons ban would be a good thing.  Nobody needs that firepower (if a shotgun, pistol, or bolt/lever action rifle isn't doing it for you, then you're doing it wrong), and it would help keep them out of the hands of those who would abuse the privilege.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1602 on: January 19, 2013, 11:59:14 AM »
Clearly someone doesn't know about Maslo's Hierarchy.
I can't eat or hump a car or airplane, also neither one makes me safe. Therefore according to Maslow's pyramid, guns are more important than cars or airplanes because guns are a safety necessity, so we should ban cars and airplanes before banning guns.

I never said otherwise.
They do, however, make fatalities easier.
And yet they are ultimately irrelevant to crime. The amount of guns in the U.S. is constantly going up but crime is declining.

An object's purpose is given when it's created.  You claimed a gun's purpose was to win uprisings.  Therefore, the gun was created with the purpose to win uprisings, which is completely false.
Right. An object only has a singular purpose when it is created and never changes that purpose or finds new purposes, ever. What a strange world you live in where everything is so linear.

I'm sorry if I've given you that impression.  I believe that since we can't tell the crazy people from the non-crazy people prior to them opening up on random strangers, that we need to ensure that the level of damage they can do is minimized while still allowing personal protection.  Which is why I support concealed carry permits of pistols but also support a ban on assault rifles.
I assume you also support changing the 2nd amendment, since it states you can not infringe on someone's right to own arms.

Got any better numbers?

Lorddave, I really thought you were better than this. If I wanted to find out how many people smoke pot in the US, would I use the amount of people convicted for the crime? No, it wouldn't even scratch the surface of how many people smoke pot in the US. All statisticians in the country would laugh in my face. That is why, as a statistician, I am obligated to laugh at yours.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 12:01:57 PM by Rushy »

*

Lorddave

  • 17600
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1603 on: January 19, 2013, 04:54:08 PM »
I can't eat or hump a car or airplane, also neither one makes me safe. Therefore according to Maslow's pyramid, guns are more important than cars or airplanes because guns are a safety necessity, so we should ban cars and airplanes before banning guns.
Except that the safety a gun gives is mainly due to the lack of safety a gun gives.  (ie. You need a gun for safety because someone else has a gun)
But since I'm not advocating a total ban on guns, just assault rifles, then your point is irrelevant.

Quote
And yet they are ultimately irrelevant to crime. The amount of guns in the U.S. is constantly going up but crime is declining.
So why are you so afraid to be without one?  Crime is decreasing and thus so is firearm crime.  Therefore, the need for a gun for safety is also decreasing.

Quote
Right. An object only has a singular purpose when it is created and never changes that purpose or finds new purposes, ever. What a strange world you live in where everything is so linear.
Last time I checked, guns are still used to kill things.  Has that stopped since last I checked?

Quote
I assume you also support changing the 2nd amendment, since it states you can not infringe on someone's right to own arms.
Is a pistol not an armament?  Is a sword not an armament?  Is a mace not an armament?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns, just weapons in general.  So as long as we don't prevent someone from having weapons, we're fine.  We can, however, limit the type of weapon they can have.
It's fine if you believe we should be entitled to all sorts of weapons like missiles, weaponized diseases, and nuclear bombs, but the majority of us don't see it that way.

Quote
Lorddave, I really thought you were better than this. If I wanted to find out how many people smoke pot in the US, would I use the amount of people convicted for the crime? No, it wouldn't even scratch the surface of how many people smoke pot in the US. All statisticians in the country would laugh in my face. That is why, as a statistician, I am obligated to laugh at yours.
Only because you're going from a position of knowledge.  You KNOW that most people don't get caught with pot.  We also know that there isn't a military campaign to weed out pot smokers.  We have a very light police division but we don't exactly have the Gestapo breaking down doors of suspected pot dealers.  And while I'm sure the number 77,000 is not all of them, history shows that there weren't that many actual attempts on Hitler's life.  Nor did the German resistance do much good.

We must also consider that the only real protest was of 6,000 people, mostly women in 1943.

Considering that, the 77,000 people is likely far too high for an accurate count and likely represents many false positives. 

The simple truth is that there was not a lot of public resistance.  Anything that wasn't public was too insignificant to do any real harm to the 3rd reich.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1604 on: January 19, 2013, 05:47:16 PM »
You'd think that people at a gun show would at least understand how to safely handle guns. But nope. Today on "Gun Appreciation Day" five different people got shot. So much for the argument that you'd never see someone get shot at a gun show.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/19/1473881/two-people-accidentally-shot-at-a-gun-show-safety-checkpoint-on-gun-appreciation-day/?mobile=nc

Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1605 on: January 19, 2013, 06:11:33 PM »
one of my local gun dealers has a hole in the ceiling of his shop from an off duty police officer demonstrating that his weapon wasn't loaded.
true wisdom is always concise

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1606 on: January 19, 2013, 06:22:07 PM »
Except that the safety a gun gives is mainly due to the lack of safety a gun gives.  (ie. You need a gun for safety because someone else has a gun)
But since I'm not advocating a total ban on guns, just assault rifles, then your point is irrelevant.

That is not true. No one needs a gun for the sole reason that other people have guns. That is circular logic that not only you made up, but you claim I follow. Don't put words in my mouth.

So why are you so afraid to be without one?  Crime is decreasing and thus so is firearm crime.  Therefore, the need for a gun for safety is also decreasing.

I am not afraid to be without one. It is my right to have one, so says the 2nd amendment. If you wish to change that then say so.

Last time I checked, guns are still used to kill things.  Has that stopped since last I checked?

Guns are used in a much more meaningful way than "killing things." Stop boiling their use down to sound generic. I could just as easily say guns defend things or guns uphold the law.

Is a pistol not an armament?  Is a sword not an armament?  Is a mace not an armament?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns, just weapons in general.  So as long as we don't prevent someone from having weapons, we're fine.  We can, however, limit the type of weapon they can have.
It's fine if you believe we should be entitled to all sorts of weapons like missiles, weaponized diseases, and nuclear bombs, but the majority of us don't see it that way.

If the majority of Americans don't see it that way, then I suggest changing the amendment. Why is that so hard? Right, because the majority of Americans really do see it that way.


Only because you're going from a position of knowledge.  You KNOW that most people don't get caught with pot.  We also know that there isn't a military campaign to weed out pot smokers.  We have a very light police division but we don't exactly have the Gestapo breaking down doors of suspected pot dealers.  And while I'm sure the number 77,000 is not all of them, history shows that there weren't that many actual attempts on Hitler's life.  Nor did the German resistance do much good.

Not everyone gets caught. You act like Hitler was omnipotent or something.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 06:46:13 PM by Rushy »

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11801
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1607 on: January 19, 2013, 06:39:38 PM »
one of my local gun dealers has a hole in the ceiling of his shop from an off duty police officer demonstrating that his weapon wasn't loaded.
He shouldn't allow those hillbillies in the store.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1608 on: January 19, 2013, 06:49:53 PM »
it wasn't a red letter day for california's finest, that's for sure.
true wisdom is always concise

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1609 on: January 19, 2013, 08:53:01 PM »
Can you guys stop talking about Nazis?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1610 on: January 19, 2013, 09:26:59 PM »
Can you guys stop talking about Nazis?

Godwin's Law says no.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1611 on: January 19, 2013, 10:06:47 PM »

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1612 on: January 20, 2013, 12:20:38 PM »
This week no one was shot in the netherlands.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

?

Thork

Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1613 on: January 20, 2013, 12:23:01 PM »
This week no one was shot in the netherlands.
Good. Shooting a guy down there is just a bitch move.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1614 on: January 20, 2013, 09:04:07 PM »
This week no one was shot in the netherlands.
That's cray cray. Someone dies just about every other day from a shoot-out just in Nashville, TN.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1615 on: January 20, 2013, 11:12:27 PM »
That's cray cray. Someone dies just about every other day from a shoot-out just in Nashville, TN.

http://www.tbi.tn.gov/tn_crime_stats/publications/Crime%20in%20Tennessee%202011.pdf

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime&all=1


The Netherlands literally destroys Tennessee's crime rate. Tennessee has a rate of 9% while the Netherlands hovers in at 25.2%. One in four people in the Netherlands are the victim of a crime. That is outrageous.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1616 on: January 20, 2013, 11:22:44 PM »
That's cray cray. Someone dies just about every other day from a shoot-out just in Nashville, TN.

http://www.tbi.tn.gov/tn_crime_stats/publications/Crime%20in%20Tennessee%202011.pdf

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime&all=1


The Netherlands literally destroys Tennessee's crime rate. Tennessee has a rate of 9% while the Netherlands hovers in at 25.2%. One in four people in the Netherlands are the victim of a crime. That is outrageous.
Okay... I don't know what to tell ya. I could post all gun related violence reported by the local news if you're interested? It happens quite frequently.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1617 on: January 20, 2013, 11:29:49 PM »
Okay... I don't know what to tell ya. I could post all gun related violence reported by the local news if you're interested? It happens quite frequently.

It's okay. According to the statistics the Dutch are doing a pretty good job at killing themselves before getting murdered.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1618 on: January 21, 2013, 11:22:03 AM »
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

This video is great. I really like how he brings up America's super paranoid safety precautions in all other facets of life. We don't even have Kinder Surprise...

"Holy shit. No one is taking away all the guns."

Again, it's not about taking away all the guns. It's about some safety precautions. I can't even believe how many bills there are that make buying and carrying a gun so easy and with little to zero accountability. YOU CAN BUY GUNS AT A GUNSHOW WITH NO PERMIT OR BACKGROUND CHECK. Have I mentioned how upsetting that is to me?

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1619 on: January 21, 2013, 12:15:40 PM »
The point about the muskets doesn't really hold up - as one of the comments pointed out, if we're going to say that rights don't extend beyond the technology at the time of the writing, then freedom of speech shouldn't extend to anything beyond pen and paper.  Everything else I agree with, though.  It really does just seem to come down this bizarre paranoia that any form of regulation or restriction, no matter how reasonable, is a slippery slope to the government just rounding up all guns.