EPThttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/#top10block
"to stop the guns we must stop the bullets" - Page 5
| Blogs > theron[wdt] |
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/#top10block | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
| ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this. ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:27 Undisputed- wrote: ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. it would make it easier though.. | ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:27 Undisputed- wrote: ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. and I also wanted to post that Chris Rock video but someone beat me to it  | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:27 Undisputed- wrote: ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_- Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime. I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns? | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43 Offenders used firearms to commit 7% of violent crime incidents in 2008. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:32 jello_biafra wrote: I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns? Explosives?! 'Triacetone triperoxide' is far worse than your conventional semi-automatic. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On February 03 2010 03:58 Undisputed- wrote: watCrime rates are actually lower in states/countries that allow citizens to arm themselves. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:42 Undisputed- wrote: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43 Offenders used firearms to commit 7% of violent crime incidents in 2008. Nonfatal crimes. Don't skip information as important as that. It is not unlikely that crimes involving firearms often lead to casualties. Especially if both the criminal and the victim have a weapon. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:46 Unstable wrote: Explosives?! 'Triacetone triperoxide' is far worse than your conventional semi-automatic. Thankfully the vast majority of the degenerates who do these types of things are incapable of either making or acquiring such things, they certainly know where to get and how to use a gun though. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:51 spinesheath wrote: Nonfatal crimes. Don't skip information as important as that. It is not unlikely that crimes involving firearms often lead to casualties. Especially if both the criminal and the victim have a weapon. True | ||
|
icclown
Denmark270 Posts
*sigh* | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:59 dope-hat wrote: I WANT MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR MACHINEGUNS AND HAND GRENADES!!! JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE IT FOR CRIMINEL PURPOSES IT DOESNT NEED TO AFFECT ME WHO ONLY WANTS TO HAVE THEM BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT AND I LIKE GRENADES AND GUNS!! *sigh* I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:32 jello_biafra wrote: likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_- Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime. I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns? Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. | ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:02 TS-Rupbar wrote: I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded. nothing beats shooting a squirrel off a tree with a .50 cal. bastards think they can just come on to my trees and eat nuts, dropping crumbs everywhere, pfffft as if. that you never know when someone is gonna break into my house. i will surely scare him away with my gun, and it sure as hell won't escalate the situation, cuz they'll be dead damn immigrants. and people who try to take away my constitutional right is a commie. its in the constitution, like the founding fathers gave this right to use, because god told them to, and without it we wouldn't be the freest greatest nation on earth. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:07 Undisputed- wrote: Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. No what I'm saying is that there are far too many guns in America and that it's a result of the retarded gun policy over the last however many decades and that having to arm 50% of the population may be a necessary step but that it's a drastic and last ditch attempt at solving a problem that should never have existed in the first place. | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:07 Undisputed- wrote: Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone. Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41 Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:07 Undisputed- wrote: Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. Arguably, every criminal-to-be that is in a desperate situation would still perform the act. It is also possible to say that whilst the cheer amount of gun-related crime could diminish by having 50% carry concealed weponry, the violence could just as well remain the same (less crimes, but the acts become more often violent). Once someone passes the ponr, being aware that it's a coinflip whether or the victim will be armed, I imagine that a good deal would simply take no risk and shoot preemptively. Furthermore; your right to bear arms, shouldn't be turned into 'the necessity to bear arms'. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
Would you really want to live in a world where you have to always be ready to shoot down any suspicious person? That's not a very nice world to live in. Unless you live in an area where crime rate is really high and murderers are rarely caught, crimials won't shoot you unless you threaten them with your own weapon. The police uses much more resources to hunt down murderers than simple robbers. A criminal who kills people is more likely to get caught and the punishment will be much harsher. Maybe the chance that you are robbed is higher if less people have a gun, but I'd be willing to accept that if the chance that I am killed is lower - even if only by a fraction of a percent. If you can't expect much from your local police department then that's a different thing, of course. | ||
| ||
