"Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?

  • 66 Replies
  • 5458 Views
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2015, 08:42:57 AM »
Quote
I think for the sake of the thread we stick with small arms. Nukes, tanks, and cruise missiles can be another topic.
Fair enough.
This question comes down to how much firepower do you need for self defense?

It's not about self defense although that is a legit reason, its about keeping our government in check.

Do you advocate shooting up the White House?

No, of course not. The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

So, useless.

Useless because...?

Does crime happen? And how does the second amendment deter anything if you're not willing to shoot up the White House?

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2015, 09:03:11 AM »
Quote
I think for the sake of the thread we stick with small arms. Nukes, tanks, and cruise missiles can be another topic.
Fair enough.
This question comes down to how much firepower do you need for self defense?

It's not about self defense although that is a legit reason, its about keeping our government in check.

Do you advocate shooting up the White House?

No, of course not. The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

So, useless.

Useless because...?

Does crime happen? And how does the second amendment deter anything if you're not willing to shoot up the White House?

Crime happens largely at states with more gun laws. And they're other ways of detteramce than shooting up the White House, like just the fact that over 80 million Americans have about 200 million guns. If the government want to take the guns away they have a big logistical problem on they're hands.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2015, 09:09:32 AM »
Quote
I think for the sake of the thread we stick with small arms. Nukes, tanks, and cruise missiles can be another topic.
Fair enough.
This question comes down to how much firepower do you need for self defense?

It's not about self defense although that is a legit reason, its about keeping our government in check.

Do you advocate shooting up the White House?

No, of course not. The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

So, useless.

Useless because...?

Does crime happen? And how does the second amendment deter anything if you're not willing to shoot up the White House?

Crime happens largely at states with more gun laws. And they're other ways of detteramce than shooting up the White House, like just the fact that over 80 million Americans have about 200 million guns. If the government want to take the guns away they have a big logistical problem on they're hands.

Does crime happen in sttaes with police?
Oh, so the government shouldn't get involved in anything tricky. It's too hard for their tiny little heads.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2015, 09:11:31 AM »
In England they have a higher crime rate ratio than we do. Also we're not just handing guns to just anyone we're allowing people to make a choice.

I really shouldn't occasionally skim this site when I'm bored, because sometimes there's just something so terrifically false.



Let's tackle your points in reverse order. First, what choice are you allowing people to make? Whether or not to own a gun? Choices are not automatically a good thing. You'd be understandably miffed if I had the choice of whether or not to access your bank account.
Plus, ultimately, you are handing guns to everyone, because once something's available, it becomes a necessity. That's both fad-wise, and realistically. Once guns are available, anyone who breaks into your house will have a gun: of course you'd want one, for self defense. Repeat the cliche "But criminals will have guns anyway!" all you want, but that's simply not true: I'm in the UK, I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for a gun. Same for them, it's far less easy. Sure, a slim handful might, but we'll get to that in a moment. Most won't have guns, you don't need one to deal with them: throw a chair at them.
I'd much rather face a 0.001% chance an intruder will have a gun, than a 100% chance. Plus, there's no chance a domestic argument could get out of hand and lead to waving a gun around. Those who have a brief impulse to start shooting won't get the chance in the UK: they will in the US. Most who have the long-term urge to get a gun won't succeed, in the UK: in the US they just need to wander down the street.
And anyway, a gun really isn't the best thing for self defence. Few amateurs are going to be able to use one, especially in stressful situations (need to access it, aim: with sweaty and shaky hands, and have the will to fire, and if your populace has the universal ability to risk taking another's life with no hesitation, even if they're a burglar, you have even more troubles). And if a burglar breaks in with a gun, you need the element of surprise. if you don't have that, you'll be shot either way.

As for 'keeping the government in check,' that barely needs a response. It's laughable. The government has the military: it has well-trained, better-armed forces. It can cut off your supplies, it can send a plane to drop bombs, or send a tank without leaving the hatch wide open. If it gets to the stage you need protecting from the government, a few hundred poorly trained civilians aren't going to amount to anything. Wait for external aid.
The only real relevance of guns to politics is presidential assassination, and if you're arguing that's a valid tool, I really don't know where to begin. I sincerely hope you're not. (I reserve the right to change my mind if Trump gets elected).

So, guns don't function as any kind of anti-governmental weapon, and self defense is questionable at best. But you claimed England has a higher crime ratio than the US. Very true. let's look at the stats:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Three times as much crime per 1000 than the US. Whew, quite a lot. Except, what is that crime?
The US has eighteen times the murder rate (notably 'only' four times more the intentional homicide rate). The UK has generally at most double the US' rate on crimes like robbery and assault: which, sure, not great, but hardly compares to that staggering eighteen times the murder rate. And why is that? because crimes in the US escalate: as soon as one party pulls a gun, it'll end in murder. Home intrusion is burglary here, it's a murder waiting to happen over there where everyone has a firearm.

So the claim about the crime rate is both strictly true, and completely misleading. Generally, yes, we have more crime; more theft, more muggings, more people getting punched in the face, more cases of spilt tea. You have eighteen times as many people being shot and killed. Which would you rather happen to you?
Then there's the matter of reported crime, but this post is getting long enough.

Suffice to say, guns don't help keep the government in check, you don't scare the military, and even if it prevents a handful of crime, it escalates the rest.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2015, 09:14:01 AM »
Quote
I think for the sake of the thread we stick with small arms. Nukes, tanks, and cruise missiles can be another topic.
Fair enough.
This question comes down to how much firepower do you need for self defense?

It's not about self defense although that is a legit reason, its about keeping our government in check.

Do you advocate shooting up the White House?

No, of course not. The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

So, useless.

Useless because...?

Does crime happen? And how does the second amendment deter anything if you're not willing to shoot up the White House?

Crime happens largely at states with more gun laws. And they're other ways of detteramce than shooting up the White House, like just the fact that over 80 million Americans have about 200 million guns. If the government want to take the guns away they have a big logistical problem on they're hands.

Does crime happen in sttaes with police?
Oh, so the government shouldn't get involved in anything tricky. It's too hard for their tiny little heads.

Yes, crimes happen at all states. What I'm saying is that the states with the most gun laws has the highest crime rate. And no, I'm not saying they won't do it, I'm saying that they would need lots of planning and loyal goons to do so.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2015, 09:15:59 AM »
Quote
I think for the sake of the thread we stick with small arms. Nukes, tanks, and cruise missiles can be another topic.
Fair enough.
This question comes down to how much firepower do you need for self defense?

It's not about self defense although that is a legit reason, its about keeping our government in check.

Do you advocate shooting up the White House?

No, of course not. The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

So, useless.

Useless because...?

Does crime happen? And how does the second amendment deter anything if you're not willing to shoot up the White House?

Crime happens largely at states with more gun laws. And they're other ways of detteramce than shooting up the White House, like just the fact that over 80 million Americans have about 200 million guns. If the government want to take the guns away they have a big logistical problem on they're hands.

Does crime happen in sttaes with police?
Oh, so the government shouldn't get involved in anything tricky. It's too hard for their tiny little heads.

Yes, crimes happen at all states. What I'm saying is that the states with the most gun laws has the highest crime rate. And no, I'm not saying they won't do it, I'm saying that they would need lots of planning and loyal goons to do so.

You said "The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime."

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2015, 09:21:12 AM »
Here's my point:

Would you rob a bank in front of a SWAT team?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #37 on: December 16, 2015, 09:23:51 AM »
"Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
They provide a lucrative business for lots (approximately 93 million) of international arms dealers. 

What else needs to be said?? 

Well, most Westerners are only a few degrees of market-separation from having blood money in their pockets.  Any talk about legislating weapons behavior/markets is ignorant and naive. 

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #38 on: December 16, 2015, 09:58:18 AM »
"Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
They provide a lucrative business for lots (approximately 93 million) of international arms dealers. 

What else needs to be said?? 

Well, most Westerners are only a few degrees of market-separation from having blood money in their pockets.  Any talk about legislating weapons behavior/markets is ignorant and naive.

Insurance is a lucrative business too. It doesn't negate whether we should ban insurance or not.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #40 on: December 16, 2015, 10:28:54 AM »
Here's an article on England's crime rate after gun ban.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2015, 12:17:21 PM »
Your response, then, is to ignore the points I gave, and ignore the clear, representative data to focus on an opinion poll and a couple of points that repeat what you've already said.

More crime, even more violent crime, is a misleading claim simply because analogous crimes in the US will involve guns. That's a fact. Look at the rates of gun crime given in my link, look at the rates of murder. Repeat the claims about crime rate as much as you want, the data won't alter.
And regardless, in many cases it is far, far better to look at raw data over, for example, a site literally called 'ammoland.' Statistics can be interpreted for all kinds of means, if you spend enough time scouring the web and spend enough time working on imaginative conditions to set up. For example, you're equating all crime, and all violent crime: rather than focusing on the levels of criminality. Murder shouldn't be confused with small-scale assault.
Taking ammoland as an example, it offers no clear source. Some digging points it to the Daily Mail (and anyone in the UK would laugh if you claimed that was a reliable source), and comparison to the rest of the EU: the EU itself having invoked gun control legislation, and all countries in it having some form of gun control, some more and some less. (And there is of course the issue of alternative causes). Violent crime is too vague a term to be worth any kind of comparison.

Would you rather be assaulted or shot? You've seen the statistics that compare crime by crime, rather than generalizations.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2015, 01:15:39 PM »
"Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
They provide a lucrative business for lots (approximately 93 million) of international arms dealers. 

What else needs to be said?? 

Well, most Westerners are only a few degrees of market-separation from having blood money in their pockets.  Any talk about legislating weapons behavior/markets is ignorant and naive. 

I would like to point out that international arms dealers are not in business because of the existence of firearms; they are in business because people want firearms and can't legally obtain them.  When you make something illegal, you create jobs for criminals who will break the law in order to supply the demand. 

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2015, 04:26:57 PM »
Your response, then, is to ignore the points I gave, and ignore the clear, representative data to focus on an opinion poll and a couple of points that repeat what you've already said.

More crime, even more violent crime, is a misleading claim simply because analogous crimes in the US will involve guns. That's a fact. Look at the rates of gun crime given in my link, look at the rates of murder. Repeat the claims about crime rate as much as you want, the data won't alter.
And regardless, in many cases it is far, far better to look at raw data over, for example, a site literally called 'ammoland.' Statistics can be interpreted for all kinds of means, if you spend enough time scouring the web and spend enough time working on imaginative conditions to set up. For example, you're equating all crime, and all violent crime: rather than focusing on the levels of criminality. Murder shouldn't be confused with small-scale assault.
Taking ammoland as an example, it offers no clear source. Some digging points it to the Daily Mail (and anyone in the UK would laugh if you claimed that was a reliable source), and comparison to the rest of the EU: the EU itself having invoked gun control legislation, and all countries in it having some form of gun control, some more and some less. (And there is of course the issue of alternative causes). Violent crime is too vague a term to be worth any kind of comparison.

Would you rather be assaulted or shot? You've seen the statistics that compare crime by crime, rather than generalizations.

I'm not looking at gun crime rate I'm looking crime rate in general. Which would you rather have, one gun death per year while there's a hundred rapes and burglaries or would you rather have 100 gun deaths per year while only having one burglary and one rape per year?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #45 on: December 16, 2015, 06:22:35 PM »
Your response, then, is to ignore the points I gave, and ignore the clear, representative data to focus on an opinion poll and a couple of points that repeat what you've already said.

More crime, even more violent crime, is a misleading claim simply because analogous crimes in the US will involve guns. That's a fact. Look at the rates of gun crime given in my link, look at the rates of murder. Repeat the claims about crime rate as much as you want, the data won't alter.
And regardless, in many cases it is far, far better to look at raw data over, for example, a site literally called 'ammoland.' Statistics can be interpreted for all kinds of means, if you spend enough time scouring the web and spend enough time working on imaginative conditions to set up. For example, you're equating all crime, and all violent crime: rather than focusing on the levels of criminality. Murder shouldn't be confused with small-scale assault.
Taking ammoland as an example, it offers no clear source. Some digging points it to the Daily Mail (and anyone in the UK would laugh if you claimed that was a reliable source), and comparison to the rest of the EU: the EU itself having invoked gun control legislation, and all countries in it having some form of gun control, some more and some less. (And there is of course the issue of alternative causes). Violent crime is too vague a term to be worth any kind of comparison.

Would you rather be assaulted or shot? You've seen the statistics that compare crime by crime, rather than generalizations.

I'm not looking at gun crime rate I'm looking crime rate in general. Which would you rather have, one gun death per year while there's a hundred rapes and burglaries or would you rather have 100 gun deaths per year while only having one burglary and one rape per year?
The United States' crime rate is higher than, for instance, Germany's, or Australia's.
The US has the highest gun ownership in the world.
Ergo, high gun ownership doesn't reduce crime rates.

Sorry if that was off topic, I kinda just jumped into the conversation.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2015, 06:35:20 PM »
Your response, then, is to ignore the points I gave, and ignore the clear, representative data to focus on an opinion poll and a couple of points that repeat what you've already said.

More crime, even more violent crime, is a misleading claim simply because analogous crimes in the US will involve guns. That's a fact. Look at the rates of gun crime given in my link, look at the rates of murder. Repeat the claims about crime rate as much as you want, the data won't alter.
And regardless, in many cases it is far, far better to look at raw data over, for example, a site literally called 'ammoland.' Statistics can be interpreted for all kinds of means, if you spend enough time scouring the web and spend enough time working on imaginative conditions to set up. For example, you're equating all crime, and all violent crime: rather than focusing on the levels of criminality. Murder shouldn't be confused with small-scale assault.
Taking ammoland as an example, it offers no clear source. Some digging points it to the Daily Mail (and anyone in the UK would laugh if you claimed that was a reliable source), and comparison to the rest of the EU: the EU itself having invoked gun control legislation, and all countries in it having some form of gun control, some more and some less. (And there is of course the issue of alternative causes). Violent crime is too vague a term to be worth any kind of comparison.

Would you rather be assaulted or shot? You've seen the statistics that compare crime by crime, rather than generalizations.

I'm not looking at gun crime rate I'm looking crime rate in general. Which would you rather have, one gun death per year while there's a hundred rapes and burglaries or would you rather have 100 gun deaths per year while only having one burglary and one rape per year?
The United States' crime rate is higher than, for instance, Germany's, or Australia's.
The US has the highest gun ownership in the world.
Ergo, high gun ownership doesn't reduce crime rates.

Sorry if that was off topic, I kinda just jumped into the conversation.

Are you taking into account the ratio? Btw this article says otherwise for autralia.
http://extranosalley.com/?p=37279
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2015, 06:43:28 PM »
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2015, 08:23:11 PM »
Quote
I think for the sake of the thread we stick with small arms. Nukes, tanks, and cruise missiles can be another topic.
Fair enough.
This question comes down to how much firepower do you need for self defense?

It's not about self defense although that is a legit reason, its about keeping our government in check.

Do you advocate shooting up the White House?

No, of course not. The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

So, useless.
Let's give all the police in the country a week off at the same time.  What could go wrong?  After all, they're useless, right?

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2015, 08:30:12 PM »
Quote
I think for the sake of the thread we stick with small arms. Nukes, tanks, and cruise missiles can be another topic.
Fair enough.
This question comes down to how much firepower do you need for self defense?

It's not about self defense although that is a legit reason, its about keeping our government in check.

Do you advocate shooting up the White House?

No, of course not. The second amendment is suppose to be a deterrent just like a police officer is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

So, useless.
Let's give all the police in the country a week off at the same time.  What could go wrong?  After all, they're useless, right?

And lets announce to the entire nation too. And while we're at it, lets let Obama's security off as well and announce that to the whole wide world and let the military off too. NOBODY is armed for a whole week.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1982
  • Show me the evidence
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #50 on: December 16, 2015, 08:52:10 PM »
I doubt there is much relation between gun ownership and crime. Crime is not caused by lack of or existence of arms, but by the lack of a properly functioning society. If you want to stop all crime, you need to fix society.
Im pro people allowed to own arms. But I think the most of the arms awnership discussions are mostly losing the point.


*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #53 on: December 17, 2015, 08:47:31 PM »
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #54 on: December 17, 2015, 09:12:58 PM »
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

Most cases yeah. Can you point where its not the case at least with law abiding armed citizens lowering crime rates?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #55 on: December 18, 2015, 12:58:35 AM »
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

Most cases yeah. Can you point where its not the case at least with law abiding armed citizens lowering crime rates?
Japan's gun ownership rate is lower than the US.
Japan's murder and overall crime rate is lower than the US.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #56 on: December 18, 2015, 08:51:12 AM »
This article shows that Germany has more crime rate.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=35064



This says otherwise.

Can I just ask, though.
Are you saying that lack of guns increases crime rate; or that presence of guns reduces crime rate; or both?

The link didnt work but yes, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decrease crime and the lack of guns increase crime.
Do you hold that this rule will work in all cases?

Sorry about the link, it was working when I embedded it.

Most cases yeah. Can you point where its not the case at least with law abiding armed citizens lowering crime rates?
Japan's gun ownership rate is lower than the US.
Japan's murder and overall crime rate is lower than the US.

Japan also has a higher suicide rate than the US.  Doesn't that imply that not owning enough guns causes people to commit suicide? 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2015, 09:58:21 AM »
I'm not looking at gun crime rate I'm looking crime rate in general. Which would you rather have, one gun death per year while there's a hundred rapes and burglaries or would you rather have 100 gun deaths per year while only having one burglary and one rape per year?

That's not how it works, unfortunately. As a general rule, criminals don't expect to be caught. Certainly, there may be a reduction in crime: but what crime there is escalates due to the universal presence of firearms. Assault becomes assault with a deadly weapon, robbery becomes armed robbery.

I refer you to the statistics I previously gave, also:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

The reduction is far from as grand as you propose. Typically there are twice as many burglaries, rapes etc committed in the UK (though rape is a terrible example: the statistics are notoriously unreliable, it's well known as an under-reported crime). If you look at overall crimes, per million, the UK has three times as many as the US. Your one vs one hundred is far from accurate.

Brief correction to my earlier statement: eighteen times the murder rate was incorrect, that wasn't adjusted for variations in population size. The US, however, does still have four times the murder rate of the UK. And really, that's the important thing. We have three times as much more minor crime, you have four times as much murder.
That's not up for debate.

So, let's say, the options are: six cases of assault, one case of murder, vs two cases of assault, four of murder.
Which would you rather?
Don't forget why murder is a worse crime. You can't get better from that; but you can typically recover from an assault. And the victims for murder are more than just the direct; you have children left behind, lovers or spouses, siblings, family, friends: everyone in that person's life who's now lost them, some of whom may have relied on them. Murder is a huge crime.
There's not just one victim of murder.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #58 on: December 18, 2015, 10:17:50 AM »
I'm not looking at gun crime rate I'm looking crime rate in general. Which would you rather have, one gun death per year while there's a hundred rapes and burglaries or would you rather have 100 gun deaths per year while only having one burglary and one rape per year?

That's not how it works, unfortunately. As a general rule, criminals don't expect to be caught. Certainly, there may be a reduction in crime: but what crime there is escalates due to the universal presence of firearms. Assault becomes assault with a deadly weapon, robbery becomes armed robbery.

I refer you to the statistics I previously gave, also:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

The reduction is far from as grand as you propose. Typically there are twice as many burglaries, rapes etc committed in the UK (though rape is a terrible example: the statistics are notoriously unreliable, it's well known as an under-reported crime). If you look at overall crimes, per million, the UK has three times as many as the US. Your one vs one hundred is far from accurate.

Brief correction to my earlier statement: eighteen times the murder rate was incorrect, that wasn't adjusted for variations in population size. The US, however, does still have four times the murder rate of the UK. And really, that's the important thing. We have three times as much more minor crime, you have four times as much murder.
That's not up for debate.

So, let's say, the options are: six cases of assault, one case of murder, vs two cases of assault, four of murder.
Which would you rather?
Don't forget why murder is a worse crime. You can't get better from that; but you can typically recover from an assault. And the victims for murder are more than just the direct; you have children left behind, lovers or spouses, siblings, family, friends: everyone in that person's life who's now lost them, some of whom may have relied on them. Murder is a huge crime.
There's not just one victim of murder.
It depends on how often both of those scenarios happens. As I meant to say earlier I rather have 100 gun deaths per year and only one burglary per year than 1 gun death per year and a hundred burglaries per day.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: "Assault" weapons, what do you think about them?
« Reply #59 on: December 18, 2015, 10:23:22 AM »
It depends on how often both of those scenarios happens. As I meant to say earlier I rather have 100 gun deaths per year and only one burglary per year than 1 gun death per year and a hundred burglaries per day.

And you wouldn't get that. I've given the statistics, and the relative ratios. At no point are you going to get a hundred times the amount of anything.

Is this a thread for discussion, or are you just interested in repeating your opinion?