|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:05 Trollk wrote:On February 20 2012 03:53 Yongwang wrote:
What if someone breaks into his house? What if he's walking down the street and a gang banger or mugger starts threatening him? If someone breaks into his house, a dog has more effect in preventing burglary and is equally as effective as a gun in defending my home. If you are walking down the street and you are being threated by a mugger, you have a pretty high chance that the mugger has a gun too. If he does, then you would have to be a trained gunuser, who practises regularly in shooting and pulling a gun in order to have a respectable chance of winning the standoff against that mugger. It would be convenient just to hand over your wallet. It might seem 'cowardly' or 'chickenish' but dead heros don't live. That's not true at all. I don't have a link at this time, but a few years ago there was something on the news where reporters asked a bunch of convicted burglars what they feared. They pretty much all said that what they were afraid of the most was gun owning civilians. They said that they weren't afraid of the police, dogs, or security systems. Also a dog can be killed or even bypassed with ease. YOU and the government can't make the choice for the victim of the mugging though. If I feel as though I can put a hole in the mugger, then I'll do that. If I feel as though he has the upper hand, I'll give him my wallet. That's my choice to make, NOT yours and certainly NOT Obama's. Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life?
Jesus christ.. what if the guy needs 20 bucks in order to feed his family of three at home, after just loosing everything he had in the ways of work etc? Would you shoot that guy, or would you hand him the money as a friendly gesture? What i'm trying to say, and what has been said alot here already, is that guns are merely tools. The problem with this though is that anyone who doesn't "have the balls" (poor choice of words) to go rob the local market or whatever, can just get a gun. The way i see it, this raises the confidence of someone about to commit a crime greatly. Resulting in more casual, everyday people, with everyday problems and mouths to feed, finding a (what they seem to think) easy way of obtaining what they want. These people then, perhaps only using the gun to threaten, not really wanting to use it, are shot at first sight, no questions asked. "Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again!". I'm sorry, i just had to throw that in there. Meant no offence 
|
On July 30 2012 13:38 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 13:10 Focuspants wrote:On July 30 2012 11:23 Esk23 wrote:On July 30 2012 11:12 dafunk wrote:On July 30 2012 11:06 Esk23 wrote:On July 30 2012 11:01 dafunk wrote:On July 30 2012 03:55 stevarius wrote:On July 30 2012 03:25 Holy_AT wrote:On July 30 2012 03:22 stevarius wrote:On July 30 2012 03:20 Holy_AT wrote:
[quote]
Give me guns and I can kill dozens of people while on my killing spree, give a knife and I hurr durr wont even do it because I afraid.
Which is where personal responsibility comes in. Blame the criminal, not the tool. So how come grenades and rpgs or bombs or mines are illegal ? They are also tools, why are they banned or would you allow them as well ? Impractical for self-defense and shooting sports. I'm glad you asked. Cant you see the difference between drugs that are only dangerous for the ones using them and guns that, except for suicides, always involve someone else that didnt decide anything ? You're arguing the free will of self destructive drugs and the free will of shooting someone and killing him. On July 30 2012 11:00 Esk23 wrote:On July 30 2012 04:42 a3den wrote:On July 30 2012 03:27 DannyJ wrote:
This is 160 pages of the same argument happening every page... It's not a good idea to argue about that with americans to begin with, it's unfortunately a part of their culture. You can show them a comparison of homicide rates, it doesn't matter to them anyway. We live how we want, that's how it's been here. It's funny all these people who don't even live here or know anything much of the US really want to make these silly judgements. It's also funny that a lot of you take it personally that we want to be free to own firearms, as if it annoys them in some way. Maybe they're jealous we have more freedoms here in the US than in Europe. We have roughly 300,000,000 million people here and roughly 9,000 gun related deaths a year. If you paranoids think shootings or mass shootings happen often or all the time you are mistaken. Most of them happen in specifically crime ridden cities like Chicago and such. Us, Europeans, are just telling you that you're brainwashed if you think that freedom is about having a gun or not. In fact, all your "freedom" stuff is bullshit. You dont achieve freedom with less governement, less regulation, less laws. But I'm glad you can still live in your fantasy world. And a big LOL to the "roughly 9,000 gun related deaths". ROUGHLY. LOL So much jealously and stupidity in your post, made me crack up laughing. Did you say you have more freedom with bigger government and more government regulation? LOL that's a good one. Quite the opposite. You can't be free if you cant heal yourself because of lack of money. You can't be free if you cant feed yourself because of lack of money. You can't be free if you cant defend yourself with an attorney because of lack of money. And it all comes down to sociology. Something that your american dream propaganda, and the "everyone can make it" ideology will never be able to overshadow. And if you think all of this is not linked, then you dont understand what makes us so different. In the US laws are seen as agression. In Europe laws are seen as equity. Because life isnt fair and the governement is here to help this flaw. And where do you get the money to pay for all these things? That's right, the people who get off their asses and work hard. Do you believe in welfare and government hand outs? What's free about one group of people who work having to pay for some people who don't. That's not freedom. "Because life isn't fair and the government is here to help this flaw." Oh god, lol. You mean they are here to take your money and give it to someone else who didn't work as hard as you or work at all to make their own money. Sounds fair. Let's not go off-topic on who's more free or who has a better government structure. Believe what you want. I hate your argument about effort=income. It is so wrong in so many ways. I dont believe I need to list the reasons why, I am hoping you are capable of understanding the flaw in that logic. The way Canada and Europe structure our government and our laws, are to protect everyone equally, by making everyone put in their equal share, relative to their income. Everyone gives up close to an equal portion of their wages, for the betterment of society. We favour the little guy, where in your country, the rich are favoured. The fact of the matter is, the rich benefit off the system, and the poor are held down. This also is not off topic, because it directly relates to the amount of crime and violence perpetrated by people in your country. This is one of the major socioeconomic issues, that affects your crime rate. It is disingenuous to state socioeconomic issues as the reason for crime, and that those need to be fixed, and not gun laws, and then support a system that allows the rich to flourish, and the poor to sink by scapegoating all of them as lazy slobs that dont deserve your support. I never understood the lack of care for fellow country mates many americans have. It is strange seeing how "patriotic" everyone is, when really, most people only care about themselves. A nation is about unity, teamwork, etc... Everyone puts their share into the system, and everyone shares in the benefits. We care for the little guy, the sick person, the poor person, the struggling single mother, the aspiring young child in a terrible neighbourhood. We dont mind giving a portion of our earnings, to help these people, and in turn, help ourselves and our society grow. Your argument is one of greed, selfishness, and a lack of care for your fellow man. You call us jealous, meanwhile we look at posters like yours words, and are stunned and amazed at how afraid, how selfish, how individualistic you are, while flying an American flag proudly. Its not jealousy, its shock and confusion. "We favor the little guy." What on earth are you even talking about. You favor people who don't want to work and want to get government aid to live? Do you know what Welfare is? What you're basically saying is you support a system where people who work are punished and people who don't want to work are rewarded? That's basically what Welfare is. So let me get this straight, you favor a system where people who work for their money have to give it away to people who want to be lazy and not work so they can live right? That's probably the reason they don't work in the first place, if they had to they would. "Your argument is one of greed, selfishness and lack of care for your fellow man". Why? Because I wouldn't want to pay for your lazy ass who doesn't want to work and pay their own bills? What? Do you think giving money to people who don't want to work helps them? It doesn't, just makes them lazy and handout dependent. You think giving money to people like that motivates them or work and find work? Who's the lazy, selfish one here? Do you have a job? Do you work or are you on government aid? I'm just curious so I can see where you are coming from. Take your little self-righteous attitude and stick it up you know where. How much money do you give personally to homeless people. What charity work have you done? What's your contribution to your fellow man? I'd like to know.
Dat argument. So we should vote to stop having wellfare? Because probably something like less than 1% of the population just sit on their asses and live off of government wellfare? I would gladly devote close to 30% of my income to taxes. In exchange, do you think that i only see the bums drinking in the park until morning, or the people who have chosen to live off of the government? Or do i see the free healthcare, the improved infrastructure, the numerous security nets that my government has provided for me, THE FREE EDUCATION, the single mothers that are able to make their children survive thanks to all of us chipping in and the ease of my mind knowing, that if everything eventually goes wrong for me, there is no way that i will starve in the street. I will get a home to call my own, i will get food to survive and every single option laid open for me to mold my life whole again.
|
Esk23 United States. July 30 2012 13:38. Posts 250
You seem to misunderstand the welfare system wich is in place in europe.
You are not getting monney if you can work but dont want to work,
We have our social insurances against unemployment like the usa, this isnt welfare as all workers pay for these insurances themselves.
These only last for a few months up to 2 years, depending on how long you have worked and after that you are down to state welfare.
To receive state welfare you are forced to look for a job,and also accept anny job offerd.
Meanwhile you are also forced to do some social labour work (usually simple production work) in some special centre every bigger city has.
You can not simply collect your monney and do nothing all day,though it used to be like that till ~ 15 years ago.
I do agree that the work ethics of the europeans are far lower then the work ethics of americans or asians but it is not as bad as you say.
We in europe should look at the usa though, to be prepared.
Since that is exactly where we are going in the coming 10-20 years.
Forced by global competition and more and more countys becomming "rich" we will not be able to afford our current system for much longer and the process of declining solidarity with weaker people in society will unfortunatly continue.
Forcing europe to become more efficient and more competitive,forcing it to be more like america , is one of the major drives behind this financial crisis we have.
|
On July 30 2012 13:38 Ohyra wrote:Jesus christ.. what if the guy needs 20 bucks in order to feed his family of three at home, after just loosing everything he had in the ways of work etc? Would you shoot that guy, or would you hand him the money as a friendly gesture? + Show Spoiler +What i'm trying to say, and what has been said alot here already, is that guns are merely tools. The problem with this though is that anyone who doesn't "have the balls" (poor choice of words) to go rob the local market or whatever, can just get a gun. The way i see it, this raises the confidence of someone about to commit a crime greatly. Resulting in more casual, everyday people, with everyday problems and mouths to feed, finding a (what they seem to think) easy way of obtaining what they want. These people then, perhaps only using the gun to threaten, not really wanting to use it, are shot at first sight, no questions asked. "Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again!". I'm sorry, i just had to throw that in there. Meant no offence
This way of thinking annoys me to no end. What if they needed to feed their families!!?! Then they should have went to the numerous places that give out free food monthly. The worse the financial situation in your county, the less there is available, but I have never seen people go hungry when they actually use the opportunities available to them. They should have went to their local churches. They should have talked to their neighbors. I know, because I have helped out numerous people who needed help with food.
Rarely are people robbing to 'feed their families'. It is a cute idea but it simply doesn't happen often, and when it does normally those same people have plenty of options that they didn't even put forth the small amount of effort necessary to use them. Who do you think deserves you charity more, someone who asks for it or someone who demands it under the threat of bodily harm?
|
Zurich15310 Posts
Can you stop derailing this into a general government / laissez faire debate please.
|
On July 30 2012 13:38 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 13:10 Focuspants wrote:On July 30 2012 11:23 Esk23 wrote:On July 30 2012 11:12 dafunk wrote:On July 30 2012 11:06 Esk23 wrote:On July 30 2012 11:01 dafunk wrote:On July 30 2012 03:55 stevarius wrote:On July 30 2012 03:25 Holy_AT wrote:On July 30 2012 03:22 stevarius wrote:On July 30 2012 03:20 Holy_AT wrote:
[quote]
Give me guns and I can kill dozens of people while on my killing spree, give a knife and I hurr durr wont even do it because I afraid.
Which is where personal responsibility comes in. Blame the criminal, not the tool. So how come grenades and rpgs or bombs or mines are illegal ? They are also tools, why are they banned or would you allow them as well ? Impractical for self-defense and shooting sports. I'm glad you asked. Cant you see the difference between drugs that are only dangerous for the ones using them and guns that, except for suicides, always involve someone else that didnt decide anything ? You're arguing the free will of self destructive drugs and the free will of shooting someone and killing him. On July 30 2012 11:00 Esk23 wrote:On July 30 2012 04:42 a3den wrote:On July 30 2012 03:27 DannyJ wrote:
This is 160 pages of the same argument happening every page... It's not a good idea to argue about that with americans to begin with, it's unfortunately a part of their culture. You can show them a comparison of homicide rates, it doesn't matter to them anyway. We live how we want, that's how it's been here. It's funny all these people who don't even live here or know anything much of the US really want to make these silly judgements. It's also funny that a lot of you take it personally that we want to be free to own firearms, as if it annoys them in some way. Maybe they're jealous we have more freedoms here in the US than in Europe. We have roughly 300,000,000 million people here and roughly 9,000 gun related deaths a year. If you paranoids think shootings or mass shootings happen often or all the time you are mistaken. Most of them happen in specifically crime ridden cities like Chicago and such. Us, Europeans, are just telling you that you're brainwashed if you think that freedom is about having a gun or not. In fact, all your "freedom" stuff is bullshit. You dont achieve freedom with less governement, less regulation, less laws. But I'm glad you can still live in your fantasy world. And a big LOL to the "roughly 9,000 gun related deaths". ROUGHLY. LOL So much jealously and stupidity in your post, made me crack up laughing. Did you say you have more freedom with bigger government and more government regulation? LOL that's a good one. Quite the opposite. You can't be free if you cant heal yourself because of lack of money. You can't be free if you cant feed yourself because of lack of money. You can't be free if you cant defend yourself with an attorney because of lack of money. And it all comes down to sociology. Something that your american dream propaganda, and the "everyone can make it" ideology will never be able to overshadow. And if you think all of this is not linked, then you dont understand what makes us so different. In the US laws are seen as agression. In Europe laws are seen as equity. Because life isnt fair and the governement is here to help this flaw. And where do you get the money to pay for all these things? That's right, the people who get off their asses and work hard. Do you believe in welfare and government hand outs? What's free about one group of people who work having to pay for some people who don't. That's not freedom. "Because life isn't fair and the government is here to help this flaw." Oh god, lol. You mean they are here to take your money and give it to someone else who didn't work as hard as you or work at all to make their own money. Sounds fair. Let's not go off-topic on who's more free or who has a better government structure. Believe what you want. I hate your argument about effort=income. It is so wrong in so many ways. I dont believe I need to list the reasons why, I am hoping you are capable of understanding the flaw in that logic. The way Canada and Europe structure our government and our laws, are to protect everyone equally, by making everyone put in their equal share, relative to their income. Everyone gives up close to an equal portion of their wages, for the betterment of society. We favour the little guy, where in your country, the rich are favoured. The fact of the matter is, the rich benefit off the system, and the poor are held down. This also is not off topic, because it directly relates to the amount of crime and violence perpetrated by people in your country. This is one of the major socioeconomic issues, that affects your crime rate. It is disingenuous to state socioeconomic issues as the reason for crime, and that those need to be fixed, and not gun laws, and then support a system that allows the rich to flourish, and the poor to sink by scapegoating all of them as lazy slobs that dont deserve your support. I never understood the lack of care for fellow country mates many americans have. It is strange seeing how "patriotic" everyone is, when really, most people only care about themselves. A nation is about unity, teamwork, etc... Everyone puts their share into the system, and everyone shares in the benefits. We care for the little guy, the sick person, the poor person, the struggling single mother, the aspiring young child in a terrible neighbourhood. We dont mind giving a portion of our earnings, to help these people, and in turn, help ourselves and our society grow. Your argument is one of greed, selfishness, and a lack of care for your fellow man. You call us jealous, meanwhile we look at posters like yours words, and are stunned and amazed at how afraid, how selfish, how individualistic you are, while flying an American flag proudly. Its not jealousy, its shock and confusion. "We favor the little guy." What on earth are you even talking about. You favor people who don't want to work and want to get government aid to live? Do you know what Welfare is? What you're basically saying is you support a system where people who work are punished and people who don't want to work are rewarded? That's basically what Welfare is. So let me get this straight, you favor a system where people who work for their money have to give it away to people who want to be lazy and not work so they can live right? That's probably the reason they don't work in the first place, if they had to they would. "Your argument is one of greed, selfishness and lack of care for your fellow man". Why? Because I wouldn't want to pay for your lazy ass who doesn't want to work and pay their own bills? What? Do you think giving money to people who don't want to work helps them? It doesn't, just makes them lazy and handout dependent. You think giving money to people like that motivates them or work and find work? Who's the lazy, selfish one here? Do you have a job? Do you work or are you on government aid? I'm just curious so I can see where you are coming from. Take your little self-righteous attitude and stick it up you know where. How much money do you give personally to homeless people. What charity work have you done? What's your contribution to your fellow man? I'd like to know.
Ok, first off, you claim to not like it when people take things personally and say rude things, then you proceed to do the same.
Second, taxes dont just pay for "lazy people that dont want to work". In fact, to collect government welfare cheques, you need to actively be pursuing a job, by meeting with an agency, that aids in your search for a job. You have no clue what welfare is.
As for the rest of your post. No country can have a 100% employment rate. By nature, some people are left jobless. These people need to be looked after. You can search as hard as you want, if there isnt a job available, then you cant work. Next, taxes dont only pay for welfare. They subsidize many things such as infrastructure, health care, education, pensions, etc.... The list is incredibly long.
It is true, not everyone benefits (directly) from the system equally. However that isnt necessarily a negative. You can be assured that saftey nets and regulations are in place to protect you and help you incase of an emergency. I dont know what kind of fantasy world you believe in, one where there is a 100% employment rate opportunity that people just dont take advantage of, and all people are taxed $0 and everything just gets done, but I can assure you, such a place doesnt exist. For there to be wealthy people, there naturally have to be poor people. The two go hand in hand, and are inseperable. If there is one, there is the other. Because of this very fact, those with more, end up giving more (in value not % in all cases) because those that cant afford to always keep themselves afloat, may need that support.
Furthermore, things like expensive medical surgeries, cant be afforded by 90% of the population. Is it better to take a couple % of each persons income yearly, and distribute it based on needs (knowing of course if you need to use the system, it will be there for you) or to allow people to die or bankrupt their families because their family member happened to get sick? You say "they arent my problem, why should I pay for it?" while we say "that is quite unfortunate, and the little bit of my money which has little to no negative effect on my life, is worth helping that person, knowing I may one day be in that position."
As for your attack on me as a person, and trying to get my credentials, I dont actually need to respond to you, but I will since it seems like you really want to know. I grew up in a house, where I had an extremely strict father, who expected me to work hard for everything I wanted. I had 3 paper routes form the age of 10, which I was responsible for doing on my own. I have worked at various jobs, for my entire life. I am now 24, married, studied history and political science in university, and a specialitsts in Philosophy. I have a cat (2 as of tomorrow) and work in sales and marketing for a wine agency. I have volunteered as an event organizer at university for 6 years for incoming students, I have worked the taste of Toronto event run by second harvest 4 years, I am going to be coaching a little league baseball team next year (I dont have kids, but baseball did a lot for me as I played at the highest level until the age of 16), as well as a plethora of other responsibilities I carry day to day. I work my ass off to make my life better, my wifes life better, and my friends lives better. I also have no problem putting money into a system that allowed me to get a top notch education, has kept me healthy, and provided me and my family (who emigrated here escaping from a russian camp during the Hungarian Revolution by WALKING to Austria) the chance to live a comfortable life. They started with $5 and a promise for a chance to live a good life, and I am here now thanks to the work of them, and every other citizen that put time and effort into building this country. The least I can do is put in my fair share, and hope that the next generations lives improve as much as mine did over my grandparents, and my parents.
If you would like to call me a self-righteous asshole again, feel free. It doesnt bother me, because I know that where I live is a great place, and that I can count on others, and they can count on me.
Edit*** Just saw Zatics post, this will be the last post I make not directly related to the ownership or carrying of firearms.
|
^ I'm not going to go off-topic anymore, especially on a topic you're mostly wrong about, I neither care about debating it with you and reading what your opinion is on the subject.
Back to whether control helps reduce crime or makes it worse:
"The attacks in Europe might not get as much attention in the U.S. or even in other countries in Europe besides where the attack occurred as the attack in the U.S., but multiple victim public shootings appear to be at least as common in Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks occurring in Europe since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed":
- Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament.
- Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
- Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
- Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
- Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
- Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
- Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
- Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school.
- Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
- Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia).
- Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
- Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
- Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
- Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
- Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year's Eve.
- Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/#ixzz225NSmMlp
|
|
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On July 30 2012 15:47 Esk23 wrote:^ I'm not going to go off-topic anymore, especially on a topic you're mostly wrong about, I neither care about debating about with you and reading what your opinion is on the subject. Back to whether control helps reduce crime or makes it worse: "The attacks in Europe might not get as much attention in the U.S. or even in other countries in Europe besides where the attack occurred as the attack in the U.S., but multiple victim public shootings appear to be at least as common in Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks occurring in Europe since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed": - Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament. - Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city. - Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting. - Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school. - Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded. - Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city. - Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from. - Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school. - Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school. - Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia). - Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college. Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers. - Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school. - Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college. - Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe. Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple. - Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year's Eve. - Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/#ixzz225NSmMlp
There is so much wrong in this article it makes my head spin. Like the Emsdetten case where they slightly upped the casualty count from 1 (one guy committing suicide) to 11, making it the supposedly 5th worst killing spree in younger history. Other casualty numbers are off too, but not quite as much (Turin, Winnenden, Erfurt).
The part about German gun laws is simply wrong.
"As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed:"
Gun free zones? Switzerland, Germany, Finland, France have the highest rate of guns per capita in Europe; Finland and Switzerland even the highest worldwide after the US. If you actually discount countries with high number of guns from that list those you are left with:
- Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.
- Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
- Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
- Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
Mind you Spain, Italy, Netherlands, and England aren't "gun-free" zones either, but at least have a reasonably low number of guns per capita and private gun owners.
|
Reference to whether gun bans in Chicago helped crime there:
"Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City's handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html
|
Esk, you are impossible to debate with. You ignore every counter post to yours by discrediting the person who responds to you, and saying they arent worth your time. Zatic just pointed out inconsistencies in the information you posted, and you simply ignored it, and engaged in debate with me, and when I responded, told me you didnt care about my opinion, and said im just wrong.
If you want to claim to be an expert, you should be able to easily disprove or counter other peoples arguments. You dont even attempt to do so, you just brush people off. You have no credibility.
Here is another issue with your little list you posted. The US is a single country, your list accounts for an entire continents worth of events.About 750 million people live in Europe (2.5 times as many people as live in the US), in around 50 different countries. As for rates of death by firearms, Europe and the US are nowhere near each other.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf
"When responding countries are grouped by region, firearm mortality
is highest in the Americas and lowest in Asia (Figure 2). In
fact, the overall firearm mortality rate is five to six times higher
in the Americas (12.72 per 100 000) than in Oceania (2.57) or
Europe (2.17), and it is 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). In
the Americas most (58%) firearm deaths are homicides.
deaths that are homicides (46%) is almost equal to the proportion
that are suicides (48%). In the HI countries, however, the
proportion of firearm deaths that are suicides is much greater
(71%) than the proportion of such deaths that are homicides (19%)."
That is with Canada actually lowering the firearm related deaths average per 100 000 for the US as part of "the Americas". Not only are there more gun deaths, but a MUCH higher percentage of those are due to homicide, and not suicide. I think you really need to check your facts and stop making blatantly false statements.
|
On July 30 2012 16:09 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 15:47 Esk23 wrote:^ I'm not going to go off-topic anymore, especially on a topic you're mostly wrong about, I neither care about debating about with you and reading what your opinion is on the subject. Back to whether control helps reduce crime or makes it worse: "The attacks in Europe might not get as much attention in the U.S. or even in other countries in Europe besides where the attack occurred as the attack in the U.S., but multiple victim public shootings appear to be at least as common in Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks occurring in Europe since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed": - Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament. - Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city. - Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting. - Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school. - Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded. - Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city. - Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from. - Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school. - Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school. - Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia). - Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college. Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers. - Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school. - Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college. - Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe. Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple. - Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year's Eve. - Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/#ixzz225NSmMlp There is so much wrong in this article it makes my head spin. Like the Emsdetten case where they slightly upped the casualty count from 1 (one guy committing suicide) to 11, making it the supposedly 5th worst killing spree in younger history. Other casualty numbers are off too, but not quite as much (Turin, Winnenden, Erfurt). The part about German gun laws is simply wrong. "As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed:" Gun free zones? Switzerland, Germany, Finland, France have the highest rate of guns per capita in Europe; Finland and Switzerland even the highest worldwide after the US. If you actually discount countries with high number of guns from that list those you are left with: - Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver. - Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe. - Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from. - Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city. Mind you Spain, Italy, Netherlands, and England aren't "gun-free" zones either, but at least have a reasonably low number of guns per capita and private gun owners.
I'm not quite sure %100 about gun laws in Germany, but as a citizen aren't you NOT allowed to use firearms for self-defense purposes specifically? I know you can own guns if you have licenses but those guns are specifically for sporting and hunting. Germany is a "gun-free" country in the sense that you can't own them for self defense? In the UK you can have rifles/shotguns for sporting/hunting purposes only, it's a gun free country in the that you can't use them for self defense, like for example if you robbed at your home. I could be wrong, I'm just curious.
|
"gun free" doesn't mean that gun's don't exist or per capita rates and stuff. "gun free" means that people are not allowed to have guns there.
So while a certain midwestern state in america may have easy CCW, a movie theater prohibiting firearms is "gun free."
There's an interesting statistic though. If you look at the number of active shooter incidents, the average number of casualties when the police stop the shooter is just over 18. The average number of casualties when an armed citizen stops the shooter is 2.2
|
On July 30 2012 16:31 Focuspants wrote:Esk, you are impossible to debate with. You ignore every counter post to yours by discrediting the person who responds to you, and saying they arent worth your time. Zatic just pointed out inconsistencies in the information you posted, and you simply ignored it, and engaged in debate with me, and when I responded, told me you didnt care about my opinion, and said im just wrong. If you want to claim to be an expert, you should be able to easily disprove or counter other peoples arguments. You dont even attempt to do so, you just brush people off. You have no credibility. Here is another issue with your little list you posted. The US is a single country, your list accounts for an entire continents worth of events.About 750 million people live in Europe (2.5 times as many people as live in the US), in around 50 different countries. As for rates of death by firearms, Europe and the US are nowhere near each other. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf"When responding countries are grouped by region, firearm mortality is highest in the Americas and lowest in Asia (Figure 2). In fact, the overall firearm mortality rate is five to six times higher in the Americas (12.72 per 100 000) than in Oceania (2.57) or Europe (2.17), and it is 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). In the Americas most (58%) firearm deaths are homicides. deaths that are homicides (46%) is almost equal to the proportion that are suicides (48%). In the HI countries, however, the proportion of firearm deaths that are suicides is much greater (71%) than the proportion of such deaths that are homicides (19%)." That is with Canada actually lowering the firearm related deaths average per 100 000 for the US as part of "the Americas". Not only are there more gun deaths, but a MUCH higher percentage of those are due to homicide, and not suicide. I think you really need to check your facts and stop making blatantly false statements.
Are you in your own little wonderland or something? Nothing I have said has to do with gun related deaths in comparison to other countries, my posts were about gun control/bans and how they relate to overall crime statistics. Do they make you safer or less safe? United States has more guns per capita than any other country I believe, so it makes sense there'd be more gun related incidents in the US than other countries, but that's gun related incidents and not overall crime rate. It's hard to have a specific formula or method to determine how gun laws affect overall crime rates that can be applied to every country. I think each country is different in how and what affects crime rates there.
If you're debating whether to ban guns because of mass shootings I think it's a failed argument considering it's twice as likely you'll get struck by lightning than die in a mass shooting, considering %99.99999975 of firearms owners in the US DO NOT go on mass shooting rampages, considering you're 3 times as likely to die from a car accident than by a gun incident.
|
On July 30 2012 16:53 dogabutila wrote:
"gun free" doesn't mean that gun's don't exist or per capita rates and stuff. "gun free" means that people are not allowed to have guns there.
So while a certain midwestern state in america may have easy CCW, a movie theater prohibiting firearms is "gun free."
There's an interesting statistic though. If you look at the number of active shooter incidents, the average number of casualties when the police stop the shooter is just over 18. The average number of casualties when an armed citizen stops the shooter is 2.2
Of course the government does things better than the citizens do themeslves... oh wait.
|
On July 30 2012 17:25 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 16:31 Focuspants wrote:Esk, you are impossible to debate with. You ignore every counter post to yours by discrediting the person who responds to you, and saying they arent worth your time. Zatic just pointed out inconsistencies in the information you posted, and you simply ignored it, and engaged in debate with me, and when I responded, told me you didnt care about my opinion, and said im just wrong. If you want to claim to be an expert, you should be able to easily disprove or counter other peoples arguments. You dont even attempt to do so, you just brush people off. You have no credibility. Here is another issue with your little list you posted. The US is a single country, your list accounts for an entire continents worth of events.About 750 million people live in Europe (2.5 times as many people as live in the US), in around 50 different countries. As for rates of death by firearms, Europe and the US are nowhere near each other. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf"When responding countries are grouped by region, firearm mortality is highest in the Americas and lowest in Asia (Figure 2). In fact, the overall firearm mortality rate is five to six times higher in the Americas (12.72 per 100 000) than in Oceania (2.57) or Europe (2.17), and it is 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). In the Americas most (58%) firearm deaths are homicides. deaths that are homicides (46%) is almost equal to the proportion that are suicides (48%). In the HI countries, however, the proportion of firearm deaths that are suicides is much greater (71%) than the proportion of such deaths that are homicides (19%)." That is with Canada actually lowering the firearm related deaths average per 100 000 for the US as part of "the Americas". Not only are there more gun deaths, but a MUCH higher percentage of those are due to homicide, and not suicide. I think you really need to check your facts and stop making blatantly false statements. Are you in your own little wonderland or something? Nothing I have said has to do with gun related deaths in comparison to other countries, my posts were about gun control/bans and how they relate to overall crime statistics. Do they make you safer or less safe? United States has more guns per capita than any other country I believe, so it makes sense there'd be more gun related incidents in the US than other countries, but that's gun related incidents and not overall crime rate. It's hard to have a specific formula or method to determine how gun laws affect overall crime rates that can be applied to every country. I think each country is different in how and what affects crime rates there. If you're debating whether to ban guns because of mass shootings I think it's a failed argument considering it's twice as likely you'll get struck by lightning than die in a mass shooting, considering %99.99999975 of firearms owners in the US DO NOT go on mass shooting rampages, considering you're 3 times as likely to die from a car accident than by a gun incident.
I have already proven your statement about being hit by lioghtning and being killed in a mass shooting wrong. The odds of being hit by lightning twice in one year is 1 in 480 billion. Twice that is 1 in 960 billion. More than 1 in 960 billion people get killed in a mass shooting in the states each year. I showed you a statistic that there are ~20 mass shootings a year. You ignored all of this.
My argument is that gun ownership relates to gun crime. Therefore, strict regulations and lower ownership, are better, as less people tget shot. Crime rates may be the same, but mortality rates due to firearms will be significantly lower (based on global statistics of Europe and Canada, about 10 in 100 000 lower).
Edit* Oh now youve changed it to just being hit by lightning. Unfortunately, comparing your likelihood of getting injured from something, versus killed by something else is relatively pointless, so I will look at deaths per year as a result of both. Under 30 people a year on average die from lightning strikes in the US, and far more than 30 people die in mass shootings per year (considering they average ~20 per year, and have done so since 1978 as I linked to you in a previous post). In fact the absolute minimum amount of victims per year would be 80 (which it is not, it is significantly higher) as mass shootings are considered shootings with 4+ victims. So you are certainly more likely to be killed in a mass shooting than by lightning.
|
This thread is more entertainment than Nada's body and automated ban list combined.
|
On July 29 2012 23:51 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 21:00 sereniity wrote:On July 29 2012 20:34 bOneSeven wrote:
anti-drug, anti-gun people make me really really sad. One is a very important piece of technology, and the other is a neccessary tool in this world of dominating monkeys. Whoever fails to see it as that, is probably out of his mind. I'm ailing to make sense of your post... "necessary tool in this world of dominating monkeys"? I shall attempt to translate. "People who are anti-drug and anti-gun make me really sad. Of drugs and guns, one is a necessary in order to protect our civilisations from the warlike nature of our species and the other is a technology of great importance to society. I cannot see how anyone thinking rationally can come to any conclusion on the subject of guns and drugs than this." I hope this helps.
haha, thanks, I'm usually horrible at experssing myself, even in my native language in real life. Maybe because I'm not that smart, but I'm almost sure I follow the right smart people
|
About the argument that some of you seem to favor that criminals are never going to be deterred by gun-owning laws, I think it's relevant to note that many homicide are actually impulsive in nature. Someone who do not own a gun might never plan to murder someone and so will never go to buy a gun, especially if it's very difficult to do so because of laws. But if he already owns a gun, in a given situation, because of anger or fear or drunkenness he might actually use it. Restriction to gun ownership will prevent these murders.
(I hope I'm not repeating something that was already said!)
|
People should stop quoting stats from other countries and trying to relate it to the states. Our society is different, our gun saturation is different, our crime's and criminal's are different, our entire culture is different. It's not so simple as "good for the goose good for the gander". Issues much more complicated than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
