The real conspiracy and how flat earthers are contributing to it

People are going to kill people no matter what and if they don't have a gun then they can use a sharp stick or even strangle them with their bare hands.  Guns can be used for defense as well as offense and if guns are illegalized then that would only take them from law abiding citizens while the criminals still have them illegally because they are criminals.  Taking away guns may decrease murder but less guns also makes the overall crime increase.  Just look at Mexico, they don't have guns and they have really bad crime even though the murder rates are lower then usual.

Learn from comparable countries.

Speaking of schools, school shootings could cause way less deaths and be way less common of teachers were aloud to have a concealed weapon because the school police officer is usually the only one in the building with a gun.  In fact, there actually was this one school shooting where the shooter was stopped quite early on after one of the staff members got a shotgun from his truck and shot the shooter, but that didn't get much media attention (for some odd reason).

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 20, 2015, 01:50:48 PM

Speaking of schools, school shootings could cause way less deaths and be way less common of teachers were aloud to have a concealed weapon because the school police officer is usually the only one in the building with a gun.  In fact, there actually was this one school shooting where the shooter was stopped quite early on after one of the staff members got a shotgun from his truck and shot the shooter, but that didn't get much media attention (for some odd reason).

School shootings could also cause way less deaths if there wasn't a gun in every freaking household.
I mean, unless the gun's accessible, it's useless: and if it's accessible, it wouldn't be too hard for the child to steal it. Given that your alternative solution is to still let some students be shot, and then shoot yet another...

It's a balancing act. Guns being widely available means impulse crimes are possible. If you can pick up a gun and shoot in a matter of seconds, you only need to consider it for that length of time: and everyone loses their temper. If guns weren't so commonly available, such crimes would need to be premeditated and pre-planned. That doesn't prevent them, but it does make them less likely to occur.

In addition, severity of crimes has to measured, not just frequency. I'm in the UK. If someone breaks into my house, I can be reasonably sure the most deadly thing they'll have is a kitchen knife. I can throw a chair at them. If I'm in the US, chances are they can hold a gun on me. Doesn't matter if I have the same, I'd still be likely to get shot.
The same crime, but the outcomes are very different. Even if a burglar gets repelled, preventing the crime, I'd be far more injured in the US than the UK. Ditto for muggings and the like: I'd rather face a mugger with a knife than a gun. Wouldn't you?
Look at the website you linked, compare the rates of violent crime. Murders occur 18 times as much.
Plus, I'd argue if the sole reason less non-gun crimes occur, is because people are terrified of being shot, that can only end badly.

I'd rather live in a place with a high rate of petty crime, rather than an astronomical rate of getting killed.

It goes both ways.  Criminals are also more afraid to commit crimes because people are better equipped to defend themselves.  Some of the "petty crime" that guns reduce are really bad things like rape.  Just think about it, wouldn't you be less likely to do a crime if you knew that the potential victim might pull a gun on you?  With a gun in every household you could just grab the nearest gun when someone breaks into your house and if you have a reason to believe that they will hurt someone then you are within your legal rights to shoot him while if the criminal shoots he would be charged with murder (or attempted murder if nobody dies).  In the US there are 48 murders per 1,000,000 people and 4,129 crimes per 1,000,000 people and in the UK there are 12 murders per 1,000,000 people and 10,996 crimes per 1,000,000 people.  Just look at how much murder the US has that the UK doesn't and how much crime the UK has that the US doesn't.

Speaking of schools, school shootings could cause way less deaths and be way less common of teachers were aloud to have a concealed weapon

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 20, 2015, 03:06:45 PM

It goes both ways.  Criminals are also more afraid to commit crimes because people are better equipped to defend themselves.  Some of the "petty crime" that guns reduce are really bad things like rape.  Just think about it, wouldn't you be less likely to do a crime if you knew that the potential victim might pull a gun on you?  With a gun in every household you could just grab the nearest gun when someone breaks into your house and if you have a reason to believe that they will hurt someone then you are within your legal rights to shoot him while if the criminal shoots he would be charged with murder (or attempted murder if nobody dies).  In the US there are 48 murders per 1,000,000 people and 4,129 crimes per 1,000,000 people and in the UK there are 12 murders per 1,000,000 people and 10,996 crimes per 1,000,000 people.  Just look at how much murder the US has that the UK doesn't and how much crime the UK has that the US doesn't.

I'd also feel more secure in doing a crime if I had a gun. Guns can only stop minor crimes. They clearly aren't a perfect deterrent: instead, they prevent people who aren't too concerned one way or the other from doing a crime. Small-scale theft, and the like. For larger crimes, which are often done from desperation, the presence of a gun isn't going to make a difference, because desperation is and will always be the key factor.
You can't ignore the severity of crimes: and, like you said, it goes both ways. A gun in the house means there's also a gun in any burglar's hand. It doesn't matter if they get charged with assault or murder when I've still been shot, which would not have happened if they did not have a gun. Having a gun is not an advantage: at best it's an equal playing field, given that the criminal too will be armed. Then it's just a matter of them noticing you first and warning you not to move. Even if you pull a gun on them, they're still going to get a chance to shoot back.

The US has twice the violent assault rate as the UK, way more murder, 1.5x-2x the suicide rate (also made easier from guns). The only two relevant stats which favored the US were robbery (a small number, far overshadowed by the murders and assaults), and rape, which is a crime famously under-reported, making such statistics unreliable. The US is where Steubenville happened, it seems very much likely there's a separate cause at work.
This is from your own statistics.

A gun does not help. A gun could only work if you had one, and they did not: that's not going to be the case if they're publically available. Plus, even if you could somehow enforce that (near impossible), they'd just borrow or steal a gun from someone who did have one.

• Use capital letters, see the magic you can do with the ShIfT kEy!
• Spell correctly
• Explain things, like what is causing us to be "debt slaves"

Quote from: BiJane on April 20, 2015, 03:49:08 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 20, 2015, 03:06:45 PM

It goes both ways.  Criminals are also more afraid to commit crimes because people are better equipped to defend themselves.  Some of the "petty crime" that guns reduce are really bad things like rape.  Just think about it, wouldn't you be less likely to do a crime if you knew that the potential victim might pull a gun on you?  With a gun in every household you could just grab the nearest gun when someone breaks into your house and if you have a reason to believe that they will hurt someone then you are within your legal rights to shoot him while if the criminal shoots he would be charged with murder (or attempted murder if nobody dies).  In the US there are 48 murders per 1,000,000 people and 4,129 crimes per 1,000,000 people and in the UK there are 12 murders per 1,000,000 people and 10,996 crimes per 1,000,000 people.  Just look at how much murder the US has that the UK doesn't and how much crime the UK has that the US doesn't.

I'd also feel more secure in doing a crime if I had a gun. Guns can only stop minor crimes. They clearly aren't a perfect deterrent: instead, they prevent people who aren't too concerned one way or the other from doing a crime. Small-scale theft, and the like. For larger crimes, which are often done from desperation, the presence of a gun isn't going to make a difference, because desperation is and will always be the key factor.
You can't ignore the severity of crimes: and, like you said, it goes both ways. A gun in the house means there's also a gun in any burglar's hand. It doesn't matter if they get charged with assault or murder when I've still been shot, which would not have happened if they did not have a gun. Having a gun is not an advantage: at best it's an equal playing field, given that the criminal too will be armed. Then it's just a matter of them noticing you first and warning you not to move. Even if you pull a gun on them, they're still going to get a chance to shoot back.

The US has twice the violent assault rate as the UK, way more murder, 1.5x-2x the suicide rate (also made easier from guns). The only two relevant stats which favored the US were robbery (a small number, far overshadowed by the murders and assaults), and rape, which is a crime famously under-reported, making such statistics unreliable. The US is where Steubenville happened, it seems very much likely there's a separate cause at work.
This is from your own statistics.

A gun does not help. A gun could only work if you had one, and they did not: that's not going to be the case if they're publically available. Plus, even if you could somehow enforce that (near impossible), they'd just borrow or steal a gun from someone who did have one.

So we should only let those who have lied to us for years & turned us in to corporate legal deadman  fiction , legislated our rights away to ownship of anything &turned us all in to their debt slaves . Hid & legislated restriction on rights of redemption.  You are phucken insane. The only thing stopping theses asswipes from total control , is the fear of an armed uprising.If & when  the public wise up to the fact they have been inslaved by the banksters & their political lackeys ( plantation manergers ).

Tips for being taken seriously:

• Use capital letters, see the magic you can do with the ShIfT kEy!
• Spell correctly
• Explain things, like what is causing us to be "debt slaves"

http://www.teaparty.org/impeach-obama-petition/

Rather be paid in food, would you?

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 20, 2015, 04:51:24 PM

Quote from: BiJane on April 20, 2015, 03:49:08 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 20, 2015, 03:06:45 PM

It goes both ways.  Criminals are also more afraid to commit crimes because people are better equipped to defend themselves.  Some of the "petty crime" that guns reduce are really bad things like rape.  Just think about it, wouldn't you be less likely to do a crime if you knew that the potential victim might pull a gun on you?  With a gun in every household you could just grab the nearest gun when someone breaks into your house and if you have a reason to believe that they will hurt someone then you are within your legal rights to shoot him while if the criminal shoots he would be charged with murder (or attempted murder if nobody dies).  In the US there are 48 murders per 1,000,000 people and 4,129 crimes per 1,000,000 people and in the UK there are 12 murders per 1,000,000 people and 10,996 crimes per 1,000,000 people.  Just look at how much murder the US has that the UK doesn't and how much crime the UK has that the US doesn't.

I'd also feel more secure in doing a crime if I had a gun. Guns can only stop minor crimes. They clearly aren't a perfect deterrent: instead, they prevent people who aren't too concerned one way or the other from doing a crime. Small-scale theft, and the like. For larger crimes, which are often done from desperation, the presence of a gun isn't going to make a difference, because desperation is and will always be the key factor.
You can't ignore the severity of crimes: and, like you said, it goes both ways. A gun in the house means there's also a gun in any burglar's hand. It doesn't matter if they get charged with assault or murder when I've still been shot, which would not have happened if they did not have a gun. Having a gun is not an advantage: at best it's an equal playing field, given that the criminal too will be armed. Then it's just a matter of them noticing you first and warning you not to move. Even if you pull a gun on them, they're still going to get a chance to shoot back.

The US has twice the violent assault rate as the UK, way more murder, 1.5x-2x the suicide rate (also made easier from guns). The only two relevant stats which favored the US were robbery (a small number, far overshadowed by the murders and assaults), and rape, which is a crime famously under-reported, making such statistics unreliable. The US is where Steubenville happened, it seems very much likely there's a separate cause at work.
This is from your own statistics.

A gun does not help. A gun could only work if you had one, and they did not: that's not going to be the case if they're publically available. Plus, even if you could somehow enforce that (near impossible), they'd just borrow or steal a gun from someone who did have one.

So we should only let those who have lied to us for years & turned us in to corporate legal deadman  fiction , legislated our rights away to ownship of anything &turned us all in to their debt slaves . Hid & legislated restriction on rights of redemption.  You are phucken insane. The only thing stopping theses asswipes from total control , is the fear of an armed uprising.If & when  the public wise up to the fact they have been inslaved by the banksters & their political lackeys ( plantation manergers ).

Charles, the gummint aint afraid of you or anyone else. We only have gun rights because the gummint wants us to feel good. Gummint = plantation managers.

So we should only let those who have lied to us for years & turned us in to corporate legal deadman  fiction , legislated our rights away to ownship of anything &turned us all in to their debt slaves . Hid & legislated restriction on rights of redemption.  You are phucken insane. The only thing stopping theses asswipes from total control , is the fear of an armed uprising.If & when  the public wise up to the fact they have been inslaved by the banksters & their political lackeys ( plantation manergers ).

They have that coverd as well . Good & service tax .If not on selected food stock it self .On every & anything used to produce it.
Then there is G.M Food crops that doesn't produce seed , so the seed has to be bought from them every year if you want to grow a crop .Backed up by them developing G.M crops resistant to herbicides & pesticides. To wipe out non G.M farming, ensuring they have the monopoly & total control. There will be no argument , the foods making people & live stock sick. You wont have an alternative. 

In the Inited States there have been many people saying that the only way the government will get their guns is if they pry them from their cold dead hands.  Attempting to take away guns would be enough to start many armed uprisings which will probobaly result in a civil war.

Australians only have to worry about spiders and kangaroos. 

Where I live, practically everyone has firearms.  Contrary to popular belief, people do not just run around shooting each other, like a real life game of Call of Duty.  People can be responsible. 

Some people can be: not everyone. Some people do indeed just shoot each other

Quote from: BiJane on April 21, 2015, 10:34:30 AM

Some people can be: not everyone. Some people do indeed just shoot each other

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014