|
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 December 15 2012 07:12 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:59 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:52 Antyee wrote:On December 15 2012 06:50 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:47 crms wrote:On December 15 2012 06:25 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:21 Teodice wrote:
I would never even consider owning a gun since I´d just think of all the backfire situations that might occur. I can´t see how people can feel more safe with a gun in their home, then you do not feel safe in the first place and why stay at a place where it´s not safe?
The argument about your freedom and right to wear a gun... So what? Are you really prepared to shoot somebody? Since that´s what they are made for, shooting people.
As stated before. The ones who commits these shootings are not registered criminals, they appear and act like a normal person. I wouldnt really like the idea that the guy next door owns a AK47 just since it´s his "right". Then stuff like this seam to happen.
Dunno, I´m just a pussy swedish communist who likes restrictions. But sometimes I´m glad they´re there. Sweden has a very high rate of gun ownership. you have to look deeper than the superificial though. Sweden's predominate gun ownership is hunter rifles, not semi-automatic hand guns or assault rifles. I bet if you looked at the number of violent gun crimes in the US committed with bolt action hunting rifles, it would be very, very low... ummmm.... you do realize that a lot of USA guns are the same? Almost all guns are hunting rifles or handguns (designed for personal protection). It's not like the Corner Store sells a collection of AK-47s. At least, read his post before answering. He said, hunter rifles. You said, yes, the same, designed for personal protection. Hunting is not for personal protection. It's the idea that they are guns designed for peaceful use. His assumption is that Sweden's guns are OK because they are guns designed for peaceful use while the American guns aren't. That's just not true. that's not my assumption at all, infact I didn't make an assumption at all. It's common knowledge that handguns are the preferred weapon type in violent gun crimes. I'm sorry but you aren't likely going to get much damage done (or be very discrete) running around with a bolt action hunting rifle. http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdfCalifornia gun crimes report from 2010. Guns used in violent crimes (NOT homicide) 87.5% Handgun 7.7% Rifles 3.8% Shotguns 1.0% Fully Automatic Weapons Good to note also that the 7.7% of rifles even less (unspecificed) were common cailber single shot (bolt action) hunting rifles, most seemed to be .223 with mod kits or AR-15s etc. Guns used in HOMICIDES. 90% Handguns 8% Rifles 2% Shotguns Guns used in GANG Crimes 91.7% Hand Guns 8.3% Shotguns
I didn't disagree with this, if you even read my other post.
|
On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it!
|
On December 15 2012 07:07 Nagano wrote:(1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01064462?LI=truehttp://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdfMyth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crimeShow nested quote +Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Fact: It seems to be slowing down property crime (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate.
Fact: Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
62 Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994
63 Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide
Review Commission, July 13, 2009
64 Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health
and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002
65 Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997
66 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun
supply
67 Ibid Handgun Supply Millions
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, BATE firearm ownership ests.
Gun Facts
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.68
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because
they fear being shot.69
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot
burglaries”70 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the
owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot
burglary” rate of only 13%.71
Fact: Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a
murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is
less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of
the Washington, D.C. rate.72
Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime
control.73
Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least
one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.74
Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following5
• 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at
home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more
Myth: Private guns are used to commit violent crimes
Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.76
Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the
crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun.77
68 Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter
Rossi, Aldine, 1986
69 Ibid
70 A “hot burglary” is when the burglar enters a home while the residents are there
71 Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999)
72 Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998
73 Crime Against Small Business, U.S. Small Business Administration, Senate Document No. 91-14, 1969
74 Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February
1988
75 The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985,
Department of Justice
76 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998
Well according to this guns prevent crime and keep criminals from acting. By that logic the US should be super secure since there's so many guns right? And the low gun countries should be swarmed with criminals because they can do what they want without fearing for their lives.
It's a brilliant idea, let's equip our children with handguns as well. That would certainly prevent shootings right?
|
On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol.
Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right?
Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:
•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
•49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
•269,655 deaths annually among men
•173,940 deaths annually among women
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too:
“Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html
|
On December 15 2012 07:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. Per capita stats please. It's very relevant. I can't properly respond to this without it (or at least a link).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
|
On December 15 2012 07:19 iLikeRain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:07 Nagano wrote:(1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01064462?LI=truehttp://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdfMyth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crimeFact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Fact: It seems to be slowing down property crime (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate.
Fact: Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
62 Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994
63 Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide
Review Commission, July 13, 2009
64 Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health
and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002
65 Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997
66 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun
supply
67 Ibid Handgun Supply Millions
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, BATE firearm ownership ests.
Gun Facts
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.68
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because
they fear being shot.69
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot
burglaries”70 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the
owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot
burglary” rate of only 13%.71
Fact: Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a
murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is
less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of
the Washington, D.C. rate.72
Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime
control.73
Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least
one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.74
Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following5
• 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at
home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more
Myth: Private guns are used to commit violent crimes
Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.76
Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the
crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun.77
68 Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter
Rossi, Aldine, 1986
69 Ibid
70 A “hot burglary” is when the burglar enters a home while the residents are there
71 Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999)
72 Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998
73 Crime Against Small Business, U.S. Small Business Administration, Senate Document No. 91-14, 1969
74 Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February
1988
75 The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985,
Department of Justice
76 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998
Well according to this guns prevent crime and keep criminals from acting. By that logic the US should be super secure since there's so many guns right? And the low gun countries should be swarmed with criminals because they can do what they want without fearing for their lives. It's a brilliant idea, let's equip our children with handguns as well. That would certainly prevent shootings right?
You know better than cold hard facts, apparently! The U.S. is not Denmark, bro. Not all countries are the same, I hate to break it to you. There are 300 million firearms here, if you ban it, HERE, crime goes up, HERE. I know it's a hard thing to understand, facts and reason, but just try.
|
On December 15 2012 07:17 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:09 Infinite976 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:05 Benjamin99 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 Infinite976 wrote:You guys and your lists of countries... how many stabbings does Japan have per capita over the US? Banning things just makes people search all the more for an effective alternative, see: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121021a1.html Well the difference is you cant mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacrewhat about 17 people leaving 7 dead, in 2 minutes Benjamin? I'd argue you could mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife.. Well everything is possible but highly unlikely. But I could kill 200 people in 15min with an automatic rifle in a state of rage. My point is there will always be murders and mentally unstable individuals in our world. The challenge for our society should be to limit there killing potential. And removing guns would defiantly help with that. If US someday make nuclear weapons legal I guarantee you there will be nuclear bombs going off 24/7. Same with guns.
Did you see the article about Kennesaw, GA? Guns aren't just legal there, they're mandatory. Do you know how many murders they've had since 1982 when they made gun ownership mandatory?
|
Guess what kills more children per year than firearms? Swimming pools.
Someone phone a politician and have them ban the people's swimming pools! Think of the children!
|
On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html
Wow.. another bunch of useless stats that mean nothing to the topic, It seem's like any kind of logic just fly's over your head. Comparing smoking to mass shootings, its almost as bad as your natural disease post.
Where do these guys come from lol :/
|
On December 15 2012 07:19 iLikeRain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:07 Nagano wrote:(1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01064462?LI=truehttp://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdfMyth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crimeFact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Fact: It seems to be slowing down property crime (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate.
Fact: Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
62 Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994
63 Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide
Review Commission, July 13, 2009
64 Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health
and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002
65 Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997
66 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun
supply
67 Ibid Handgun Supply Millions
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, BATE firearm ownership ests.
Gun Facts
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.68
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because
they fear being shot.69
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot
burglaries”70 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the
owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot
burglary” rate of only 13%.71
Fact: Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a
murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is
less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of
the Washington, D.C. rate.72
Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime
control.73
Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least
one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.74
Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following5
• 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at
home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more
Myth: Private guns are used to commit violent crimes
Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.76
Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the
crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun.77
68 Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter
Rossi, Aldine, 1986
69 Ibid
70 A “hot burglary” is when the burglar enters a home while the residents are there
71 Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999)
72 Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998
73 Crime Against Small Business, U.S. Small Business Administration, Senate Document No. 91-14, 1969
74 Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February
1988
75 The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985,
Department of Justice
76 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998
Well according to this guns prevent crime and keep criminals from acting. By that logic the US should be super secure since there's so many guns right? And the low gun countries should be swarmed with criminals because they can do what they want without fearing for their lives. It's a brilliant idea, let's equip our children with handguns as well. That would certainly prevent shootings right?
correlation != causation.
That's half the problem with this debate. There are correlations that break both ways, and each side of the debate will argue that certain correlations == causation, but the other ones can be explained away.
I know I've taken a certain side in this debate, but I fully support logical controls on guns. I would like it if everyone had to complete hunter's safety and be certified in firearm safety from a range before they can own a gun. However, I don't think banning guns outright makes any sense.
|
On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html
Those things have other uses than harming other things. Guns were designed to kill with. While you can do recreational shooting that is not what these things were developed for.
You are stawmanning pretty hard.
|
On December 15 2012 07:19 iLikeRain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:07 Nagano wrote:(1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01064462?LI=truehttp://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdfMyth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crimeFact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Fact: It seems to be slowing down property crime (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate.
Fact: Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
62 Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994
63 Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide
Review Commission, July 13, 2009
64 Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health
and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002
65 Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997
66 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun
supply
67 Ibid Handgun Supply Millions
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, BATE firearm ownership ests.
Gun Facts
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.68
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because
they fear being shot.69
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot
burglaries”70 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the
owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot
burglary” rate of only 13%.71
Fact: Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a
murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is
less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of
the Washington, D.C. rate.72
Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime
control.73
Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least
one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.74
Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following5
• 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at
home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more
Myth: Private guns are used to commit violent crimes
Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.76
Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the
crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun.77
68 Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter
Rossi, Aldine, 1986
69 Ibid
70 A “hot burglary” is when the burglar enters a home while the residents are there
71 Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999)
72 Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998
73 Crime Against Small Business, U.S. Small Business Administration, Senate Document No. 91-14, 1969
74 Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February
1988
75 The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985,
Department of Justice
76 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998
It's a brilliant idea, let's equip our children with handguns as well. That would certainly prevent shootings right?
Lifting the ban on alcohol or marijuana does not mean I want children to have alcohol or marijuana. Stop playing stupid.
|
On December 15 2012 07:19 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Notice the countries with stronger gun country policies have less deaths. Show me your "facts" now. I imagine you're going to just attack mine without any evidence of your own, though.
|
In regards to the most recent school shooting in Connecticut, the problem isn't firearms, the problem is the mental unstable people who are able to get access to them. The mental health system is poor in this country and help isn't very easy to obtain unless you have the financial means to do so. Furthermore, unless a doctor thinks you are an immediate threat to yourself/others you cannot be institutionalized unless you admit yourself. If someone wants to go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people they will find a way to do it, firearms or no firearms. School attacks in China, for instance, seem to always been done with some kind of knife/blade. Mentally unstable people will just use whatever is available to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011)
|
On December 15 2012 07:23 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:19 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateNotice the countries with stronger gun country policies have less deaths. Show me your "facts" now. I imagine you're going to just attack mine without any evidence of your own, though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
while there is a correlation there, it's rather weak.
|
On December 15 2012 07:18 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:26 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:20 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On December 15 2012 06:10 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 06:08 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:01 revel8 wrote:
Guns should be controlled. The current situation is not really working in America. How many more times must these sort of things happen there before people realise that? From reading this thread, still some way to go.
A very sad day. They are controlled. Quite a bit actually. Evidently not enough. It doesn't matter how controlled guns are.. if some sick fuck wants to walk into a school and shoot/kill people they will find a way to do it. End of story, when anything is banned/controlled heavily there will ALWAYS be a black market to get said banned thing. Banning guns will not stop these kinds of things, the only real way to stop shit like this from happening is to notice the signs of a family member/friend. It takes some form of mental illness to pull of something that horrible. To stop it, people need to pick up on when others around them seem off or start acting off or showing signs of psychotic behaviour and step in then before hand. People who want to use a gun to kill people will always find a way to get a gun. Heavily gun control will only stop the people who want a fire arm to defend themselves. But..that's why countries with heavily regulated federal level gun control are much more dangerous right? I find the US is beyond help. Their marketplace is already too over-saturated with guns. But we see the failures in their current system way too often in the news. this. sorry to bring it to you but your country is doomed already and there is NOTHING you can do about it except just leave. you made mistakes in the past and you are suffering the consequences. the question "should a person be allowed to carry his own gun?" doesnt make any sense at all. its the same question as "should a nation be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" of course not. there could always be someone mad enough who doesnt value his own life or the ones of others to press the button or pull the trigger. so why do you think the whole world fears an iranian a-bomb? because people fear they would use it despite the consequences that would have for themselves. so ask yourself this question: do you want a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of people who dont care at all about their own life or the life of others? no you dont. there are and will always be people who dont fear retaliation so what do you do to minimize the risks of weapons of mass destruction to be used? u put heavy regulations on it and let as few countries as possible have it to achieve a balance of power. its the same thing with guns just on a much smaller scale. how do you minimize the risk of someone shooting another person with a gun? you hand out as few guns as possible and make them really hard to obtain isnt that just pure logic? ofc now u will argue that insane people will not care about laws and get the gun anyways. im not saying things like the tradegy would cease to exist because of strict gunlaws but ask yourself when was the last time you heard about a tragedy like this and the shooter was killed by a law abiding citizen who just happened to be around with his gun? dont you think minimizing the number of guns and making them illegal would prevent more deaths than people having their own guns to defend themselves? sadly in case of the u.s....well this country is so oversaturated with guns already that i dont think any strict gun laws would do anything so you are fucked anyways. my point is the question being asked here is wrong. it should not be "should a person be allowed to carry his own gun?"(no there is no sane reason to) it should be "why is it necessary to carry your own gun in a society with so many guns" you shouldnt be proud of your amendment/freedom to carry your own gun you should be ashamed of your country that u obviously dont trust enough that you have to carry your own gun to defend yourself fromehatever evils may be out there.
I actually did read through that wall.
I think you misunderstood my sarcasm.
Also I'm Canadian. 
And I'm glad I live in a country where there is much stricter gun laws. Get this..we also have a lower rate of crime and lower gun related homicides. Now isn't that an idea.
|
On December 15 2012 07:23 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html Those things have other uses than harming other things. Guns were designed to kill with. While you can do recreational shooting that is not what these things were developed for. You are stawmanning pretty hard.
+1. Esk do yourself a favour and listen to this guy, just stop posting.
|
On December 15 2012 07:22 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html Wow.. another bunch of useless stats that mean nothing to the topic, It seem's like any kind of logic just fly's over your head. Comparing smoking to mass shootings, its almost as bad as your natural disease post. Where do these guys come from lol :/
His point is that the number of deaths is relevant to the argument. If we are going by deaths, then why do you not feel as strongly about obesity, or smoking, or vehicle deaths than you do about guns? Because the nature of guns has "shock value" to it. When someone is killed by a gun it makes the news. When half a million people are killed annually by tobacco, it's business as usual. That's how that post is relevant. The shock value will alter your perception of reality.
|
On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html
To go off-topic: Smoking should be banned simply for the fact that it makes OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU sick. By smoking you're hurting other people. And smoking is not a societal necessity as being able to drive cars, or fly planes, or whatever else.
If I had any say, it would be banned already. 
|
On December 15 2012 07:22 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html Wow.. another bunch of useless stats that mean nothing to the topic, It seem's like any kind of logic just fly's over your head. Comparing smoking to mass shootings, its almost as bad as your natural disease post. Where do these guys come from lol :/
Your posts are full of exactly what you just posted. You can't argue or debate anything, neither do you understand statistics properly. You are from a different country than ours, things are different here. You are arguing on something that is different here than where you live.
It's funny how you keep bringing up the "natural diesease" post because for one thing, you didn't even understand my point in brining it up, 2nd, most of the "natural dieseses" I listed, something can be done about. Should we ban fast food restaurants as they grossly contribute to those statistics? Post something worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
