|
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. |
United States42008 Posts
On May 26 2018 08:11 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:06 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? You. You just smugly presented evidence showing a rate of 0.0003% as proof of your epidemic. Chicago over had 3x the rate of the UK. Dat salt. Nice cherry picking btw. The original argument was whether the UK has a knife epidemic or not. I proved it.
Just to clarify, this is the proof that indicates the 0.0003% rate? That's the proof that you're using to show the epidemic? If we were both trying to convince a third party here and you were arguing that the UK has a knife epidemic and I was arguing it doesn't then you would be putting that number, 0.0003%, in front of them and building your entire argument upon that?
|
On May 26 2018 08:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:11 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:06 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? You. You just smugly presented evidence showing a rate of 0.0003% as proof of your epidemic. Chicago over had 3x the rate of the UK. Dat salt. Nice cherry picking btw. The original argument was whether the UK has a knife epidemic or not. I proved it. Just to clarify, this is the proof that indicates the 0.0003% rate? That's the proof that you're using to show the epidemic? If we were both trying to convince a third party here and you were arguing that the UK has a knife epidemic and I was arguing it doesn't then you would be putting that number, 0.0003%, in front of them and building your entire argument upon that?
This is tantamount to bullying. I've seen the edits.
|
On May 26 2018 08:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:11 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:06 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? You. You just smugly presented evidence showing a rate of 0.0003% as proof of your epidemic. Chicago over had 3x the rate of the UK. Dat salt. Nice cherry picking btw. The original argument was whether the UK has a knife epidemic or not. I proved it. Just to clarify, this is the proof that indicates the 0.0003% rate? That's the proof that you're using to show the epidemic?
It's funny because here's your original quote
On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing.
In relation to what I stated about how criminals would choose other weapons other than firearms if they couldn't obtain them. Then you went on and insulted me multiple times such as
On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England.
Then when I proved you wrong with statistics now you want to cherry pick. Congrats on embarrassing yourself.
|
United States42008 Posts
0.0003% is not drowning in knife fights. What are you talking about?
|
On May 26 2018 08:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:11 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:06 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? You. You just smugly presented evidence showing a rate of 0.0003% as proof of your epidemic. Chicago over had 3x the rate of the UK. Dat salt. Nice cherry picking btw. The original argument was whether the UK has a knife epidemic or not. I proved it. Just to clarify, this is the proof that indicates the 0.0003% rate? That's the proof that you're using to show the epidemic? If we were both trying to convince a third party here and you were arguing that the UK has a knife epidemic and I was arguing it doesn't then you would be putting that number, 0.0003%, in front of them and building your entire argument upon that?
Interestingly (and irrelevantly) when biologists are describing the chemical composition of the human body, they don't even mention anything that makes up less than 0.0003% because they deem it unworthy of note.
|
On May 26 2018 08:20 KwarK wrote:
0.0003% is not drowning in knife fights. What are you talking about?
Yeah I'm actually done replying to you. You're just trying to bait me at this point, which is actually embarrassing.
|
On May 26 2018 08:19 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:14 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 08:11 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:06 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? You. You just smugly presented evidence showing a rate of 0.0003% as proof of your epidemic. Chicago over had 3x the rate of the UK. Dat salt. Nice cherry picking btw. The original argument was whether the UK has a knife epidemic or not. I proved it. Just to clarify, this is the proof that indicates the 0.0003% rate? That's the proof that you're using to show the epidemic? It's funny because here's your original quote Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. In relation to what I stated about how criminals would choose other weapons other than firearms if they couldn't obtain them. Then you went on and insulted me multiple times such as Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. Then when I proved you wrong with statistics now you want to cherry pick. Congrats on embarrassing yourself.
It would help if you also included your own quotes where you actually said what you're defending you said, otherwise you're not presenting all the facts that are needed to verify your argument.
For example, what statistics have proved him wrong?
|
On May 26 2018 08:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:20 KwarK wrote:
0.0003% is not drowning in knife fights. What are you talking about? Yeah I'm actually done replying to you. You're just trying to bait me at this point, which is actually embarrassing.
What is it you think he's trying to bait you into? Misrepresenting more statistics? Drawing terrible comparisons between murder rates in one country and petty crime rates in another?
As if we haven't all seen enough of that already.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 26 2018 08:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:20 KwarK wrote:
0.0003% is not drowning in knife fights. What are you talking about? Yeah I'm actually done replying to you. You're just trying to bait me at this point, which is actually embarrassing.
You found a source that showed 0.32 sharp implement homicides per 100k Brits and decided that it was proof of an epidemic. 0.32 per 100k is a low incidence, not a high incidence. The US doesn't have national stats that I could find but here are some by states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
0.32 per 100k is a lower number than, say, 3.9 per 100k which is what Michigan has. Definitely a lower number than the 18 of DC. If my math is right 0.32 is lower than the 0.9 of Rhode Island too.
If you really want to commit to 0.32 per 100k being your definition of an epidemic then you'll have to come up with some new words to describe gun violence in the US. If you could somehow get gun homicides down to the rates of sharp implement homicides in the UK that would be a major victory.
|
United States42008 Posts
Basically what happened here is you found a really low number and are now quadrupling down on convincing everyone else that low numbers are higher than high numbers rather than admit that your evidence didn't support your argument.
|
On May 26 2018 08:02 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:58 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:36 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:33 Plansix wrote:
The problem with the his argument is that he assumes I have specific stances on what guns should or should not be available. Or that I am for or against some types of guns laws over others.
The reality is I will take ANY update to the US gun laws, state or federal. Any change would be preferable to the stale mate. The Swiss gun laws sound awesome. If people can get automatic weapons, but all those other changes get put in place, bring it on. People can have browning machine guns if I get a background check system like the Swiss.
No, I'm saying the vast majority of your side is arguing under false pretenses because you wanted to ban bump stocks before, but suddenly are ok with fully automatic weapons being much more available. On May 26 2018 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? On May 26 2018 07:22 r.Evo wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since.
Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe.
It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion.
[quote]That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns.
e:
[quote]Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that.
If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow!
Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US?
It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. The Swiss Gun laws would never pass in the U.S; there's no way gun control advocates would allow such easy access to things such as silencers, fully automatic weapons, and laser slights. Any of the gun control advocates here saying that "it would be ok" are bald face lying, because Plainsix and others just previously in this thread wanted to ban bump stocks themselves, so why would they suddenly be ok with fully automatic weapons. That's the real point I'm making; they are being hypocritical, and simply lying about their actual intentions. There's no intention here to actually try and make a healthier gun culture, improve gun control, lower crime rate, etc. All these guys are doing is trying to press for their agenda. Period. And none of that even addresses my actual point, which is that the vast majority of 'mass shooters' had zero records. No criminal history, no mental history, none of those things. They would have STILL had access to weapons, and likely would have had access to more dangerous weapons. That was the original point of me addressing Plainsix; he says "yeah that's fine" except just earlier in this thread he was totally against things like the AR-15, bumpstocks, and other things that he suddenly just agreed to. Just because you have a law, doesn't mean it will stop a bad guy. So let me get this straight: You are against Swiss-style regulations in the US because you believe people who advocate for gun control would be against them? You're genuinely trying to tell us you are against something simply because you believe people you disagree with would be against it? If I put myself in the shoes of for example Plansix I would also argue in favor smaller stuff like banning bump stocks if that's all that's even on the table. I wouldn't believe anyone who argues the "pro-gun" side would ever agree to something as strict as the regulations Switzerland has in place when it comes to firearms or weapons in general. Part of the Swiss regulations is literally taking people's guns away when entries in a federal database occur. It includes any and all weapons, all the way down to soft-airs having to be registered with the state. I'd expect someone who is afraid of "them taking our guns away" to argue anything to avoid getting these types of things on the table, even if it's something nonsensical such as: "I'm against that because people I disagree with would be against that and those who say otherwise must be lying." PS: Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Let me quote myself again: I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If I'm wrong and for example automatic rifles are actually hard to obtain and use in the US then feel free to simply correct me, I don't mind learning something. No, what I'm saying is that those who 'advocate' for Swiss Gun Reforms are arguing for them under a false pretense, because the same people who are advocating for them are the same people who argue against silencers, bump stocks, etc. In 2016/17 there were 215 homicides currently recorded using a sharp instrument, including knives and broken bottles, accounting for 30% of all homicides – a similar number as recorded in 2015/16 (213). 215 homicides with a knife in all of the UK? Some cities in the US has more deaths by summer from guns. And what's the per capita on that number? Per 100k? Or is that total? Because um, that is not a lot at all. Homicide is recorded differently in the UK; it's based on number of convictions not based on whether the person died to a knife or firearm. Look it up. Consider also that the U.S. has a firearm homicide rate of 4.62 per 100,000. London alone on that report had 137 knife crimes per 100,000. I will concede that yes, if a firearm is discharged it's definitely more deadly then a knife. But to act like criminals aren't going to find another tool to commit their crime is hilarious in itself, as the UK has seen a huge surge in knife crimes since the firearm ban. Just wanted to point out that included in the knife crimes you are listing, according to your source, is the crime of possession of an offensive weapon, and this is not even knife crime, but crime involving any sharp instrument. It doesn't really change your point, which is valid, that people will find a weapon to use, but it is disingenuous to compare crimes like possession of a knife to only homicides with a firearm and use that to say the UK has a knife crime epidemic. Considering your own government basically stated themselves that the UK has a knife crime problem, I'm going to say that I'm right and you're wrong. You're right to compare homicides by firearm to possession of a sharp instrument? Ridiculous. If you're arguing that a gun is deadlier than a knife I agree. If you're arguing that the UK doesn't have a knife epidemic problem you'd be wrong, considering your own government has stated so. Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 06:12 Simberto wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. But the U.K. is such an upstanding bastion of how to deter crime amirite? On May 26 2018 01:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:
Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense.
People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule.
Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom.
If your government has missile armed drones, tanks and planes with big nuclear bombs they have already taken away the power of the people to fight tyranny. What could the American public do to fight tyranny with guns that they couldn't do without guns? Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR. On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:On May 25 2018 12:58 Orome wrote:
The military rifles are taken home without ammunition, so that's a pretty misleading statement in the first place.
For all the befuddling American right-wing insistence that any type of gun control is the mother of all evil though, I'm almost equally annoyed by the lazy 'gun control would fix all problems' approach. Appears to me that the problematic culture the US has built around guns runs much deeper than just accessability. I'm all for better forms of gun control, but I can't help feel that the endless and superficial discussions around it prevent questions that are just as important. Why so many Americans on this forum (over the years) have seriously and proudly proclaimed their need and right to shoot any robbers or burglars for example (should said burglars ever appear). While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/999714805333147650 edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 06:21 Nixer wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. Fairly certain they're converted into semi-automatic rifles. If they choose to purchase a rifle when they finish their service that is. There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians). On May 25 2018 06:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. The reddit poster you linked even says the military rifles are converted to semi-auto. What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. It is a dude on stairs in a video. He might be in switzerland, he might actually have guns, the guns might be fully automatic or not. They might even not be real guns at all. I have no idea, and so far your sources have been horribly shit, so i have no reason to believe some random dude on youtube. I could grab a camera, site myself on a bunch of stairs and say that it is impossible to get any guns in switzerland, and upload that onto youtube right now. That doesn't make any of that true. Similarly with regards to the UK crime statistic you mentioned earlier: Please source that stuff. I have no interest in digging after any of your statistics to see if they are in any way correct or random bullshit some dude invented. You have so far not been the greatest source of information, so please cite your sources. Just wanted to point out that if you owned firearms, you can easily tell those firearms are real. Airsoft guns don't look like that, and Airsoft guns AFAIK are actually heavily regulated in the EU for some weird reason. But hey, use that Trump defense. It's fake news! Btw, golden from the guy who purposely cut off the last portion stating you can have fully automatic firearms with a permit. Real golden.
Stop lying, i didn't do that. I assume you are talking about this post
On May 24 2018 08:13 Simberto wrote:From the Wiki i just linked: Show nested quote +Generally prohibited arms are:
Automatic firearms such as machine guns, etc.
Automatic knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Butterfly knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Throwing knives; regardless of the shape and size
Symmetrical daggers where blade length is less than 30 cm
Brass knuckles
Shock rods or stun guns
Throwing Stars
Buttstock-equipped slingshots German: Schleudern mit Armstütze
Tasers
Hidden firearms that imitate an object of utility, such as shooting phones
So no automatic firearms, sorry. Original quote from the law, article 5 paragraph 1, sourceShow nested quote + Verboten sind die Übertragung, der Erwerb, das Vermitteln an Empfänger und Empfängerinnen im Inland sowie das Verbringen in das schweizerische Staatsgebiet von:
a.
Seriefeuerwaffen und zu halbautomatischen Feuerwaffen umgebauten Seriefeuerwaffen sowie ihren wesentlichen und besonders konstruierten Bestandteilen;
I am not that good at legalese, but 28b seems to talk about exceptions which are in some point in the law more exactly defined, and seem to mostly talk about sports shooting as a reason for some exceptions. I am not a swiss lawyer, so i can't exactly say what those exceptions are exceptions from, but they are very clearly not exceptions from the whole of the law.
You complained about me not mentioning 28bb and 28bc, but none of those were in any way relevant. Both actually reduce the amount of people to which special permits may be issued , 28bb by saying that they may not be issued to people who conflict with 8,2 and 28bc saying that they can only be issued if special provisions within the law are true for the case.
If you are talking about my quote, you might notice that i actually provided a link, and no, i didn't think it reasonable to quote the whole text of the law here. I also explicitly stated that i am not a lawyer. When i read: "x ist forbidden", i don't search the total of the law to see if there are some loopholes. I assume that it means that "x is forbidden".
It would be easier to talk about this if you could for once actually quote the stuff you take offense with. It is incredibly infuriating trying to guess what you are currently talking about.
You might notice that i actually give sources for the stuff i talk about, which makes it easy for you to check if i missed something or misrepresented something.
You give no sources whatsoever, so people have a harder time figuring out shit like you comparing total knife crime statistics to gun homicides, which is absurd. Stuff like this means that you are a completely unreliable source, and i have no idea how much of the stuff you confidently state is actually complete and utter nonsense like that. This means that at this point, i trust nothing that you write. Especially not if it is without a source.
And with regards to the second point: Good job picking out one single thing without ignoring the major underlying statement of the post: Random dudes on Youtube are not a good source. Random dudes on youtube which you link are even worse sources than random dudes on youtube in general, because you have a history of completely distorting the truth, as can be seen basically any time anyone tries to actually get to the ground of your statement and does not give you the benefit of the doubt, which you at this point clearly do not deserve.
|
On May 26 2018 08:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:02 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:58 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:36 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:33 Plansix wrote:
The problem with the his argument is that he assumes I have specific stances on what guns should or should not be available. Or that I am for or against some types of guns laws over others.
The reality is I will take ANY update to the US gun laws, state or federal. Any change would be preferable to the stale mate. The Swiss gun laws sound awesome. If people can get automatic weapons, but all those other changes get put in place, bring it on. People can have browning machine guns if I get a background check system like the Swiss.
No, I'm saying the vast majority of your side is arguing under false pretenses because you wanted to ban bump stocks before, but suddenly are ok with fully automatic weapons being much more available. On May 26 2018 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? On May 26 2018 07:22 r.Evo wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD.
The Swiss Gun laws would never pass in the U.S; there's no way gun control advocates would allow such easy access to things such as silencers, fully automatic weapons, and laser slights. Any of the gun control advocates here saying that "it would be ok" are bald face lying, because Plainsix and others just previously in this thread wanted to ban bump stocks themselves, so why would they suddenly be ok with fully automatic weapons. That's the real point I'm making; they are being hypocritical, and simply lying about their actual intentions. There's no intention here to actually try and make a healthier gun culture, improve gun control, lower crime rate, etc.
All these guys are doing is trying to press for their agenda. Period.
And none of that even addresses my actual point, which is that the vast majority of 'mass shooters' had zero records. No criminal history, no mental history, none of those things. They would have STILL had access to weapons, and likely would have had access to more dangerous weapons. That was the original point of me addressing Plainsix; he says "yeah that's fine" except just earlier in this thread he was totally against things like the AR-15, bumpstocks, and other things that he suddenly just agreed to. Just because you have a law, doesn't mean it will stop a bad guy. So let me get this straight: You are against Swiss-style regulations in the US because you believe people who advocate for gun control would be against them? You're genuinely trying to tell us you are against something simply because you believe people you disagree with would be against it? If I put myself in the shoes of for example Plansix I would also argue in favor smaller stuff like banning bump stocks if that's all that's even on the table. I wouldn't believe anyone who argues the "pro-gun" side would ever agree to something as strict as the regulations Switzerland has in place when it comes to firearms or weapons in general. Part of the Swiss regulations is literally taking people's guns away when entries in a federal database occur. It includes any and all weapons, all the way down to soft-airs having to be registered with the state. I'd expect someone who is afraid of "them taking our guns away" to argue anything to avoid getting these types of things on the table, even if it's something nonsensical such as: "I'm against that because people I disagree with would be against that and those who say otherwise must be lying." PS: Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Let me quote myself again: I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If I'm wrong and for example automatic rifles are actually hard to obtain and use in the US then feel free to simply correct me, I don't mind learning something. No, what I'm saying is that those who 'advocate' for Swiss Gun Reforms are arguing for them under a false pretense, because the same people who are advocating for them are the same people who argue against silencers, bump stocks, etc. In 2016/17 there were 215 homicides currently recorded using a sharp instrument, including knives and broken bottles, accounting for 30% of all homicides – a similar number as recorded in 2015/16 (213). 215 homicides with a knife in all of the UK? Some cities in the US has more deaths by summer from guns. And what's the per capita on that number? Per 100k? Or is that total? Because um, that is not a lot at all. Homicide is recorded differently in the UK; it's based on number of convictions not based on whether the person died to a knife or firearm. Look it up. Consider also that the U.S. has a firearm homicide rate of 4.62 per 100,000. London alone on that report had 137 knife crimes per 100,000. I will concede that yes, if a firearm is discharged it's definitely more deadly then a knife. But to act like criminals aren't going to find another tool to commit their crime is hilarious in itself, as the UK has seen a huge surge in knife crimes since the firearm ban. Just wanted to point out that included in the knife crimes you are listing, according to your source, is the crime of possession of an offensive weapon, and this is not even knife crime, but crime involving any sharp instrument. It doesn't really change your point, which is valid, that people will find a weapon to use, but it is disingenuous to compare crimes like possession of a knife to only homicides with a firearm and use that to say the UK has a knife crime epidemic. Considering your own government basically stated themselves that the UK has a knife crime problem, I'm going to say that I'm right and you're wrong. You're right to compare homicides by firearm to possession of a sharp instrument? Ridiculous. If you're arguing that a gun is deadlier than a knife I agree. If you're arguing that the UK doesn't have a knife epidemic problem you'd be wrong, considering your own government has stated so. On May 26 2018 06:12 Simberto wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. But the U.K. is such an upstanding bastion of how to deter crime amirite? On May 26 2018 01:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:
Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense.
People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule.
Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom.
If your government has missile armed drones, tanks and planes with big nuclear bombs they have already taken away the power of the people to fight tyranny. What could the American public do to fight tyranny with guns that they couldn't do without guns? Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR. On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:On May 25 2018 12:58 Orome wrote:
The military rifles are taken home without ammunition, so that's a pretty misleading statement in the first place.
For all the befuddling American right-wing insistence that any type of gun control is the mother of all evil though, I'm almost equally annoyed by the lazy 'gun control would fix all problems' approach. Appears to me that the problematic culture the US has built around guns runs much deeper than just accessability. I'm all for better forms of gun control, but I can't help feel that the endless and superficial discussions around it prevent questions that are just as important. Why so many Americans on this forum (over the years) have seriously and proudly proclaimed their need and right to shoot any robbers or burglars for example (should said burglars ever appear). While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/999714805333147650 edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 06:21 Nixer wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. Fairly certain they're converted into semi-automatic rifles. If they choose to purchase a rifle when they finish their service that is. There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians). On May 25 2018 06:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. The reddit poster you linked even says the military rifles are converted to semi-auto. What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. It is a dude on stairs in a video. He might be in switzerland, he might actually have guns, the guns might be fully automatic or not. They might even not be real guns at all. I have no idea, and so far your sources have been horribly shit, so i have no reason to believe some random dude on youtube. I could grab a camera, site myself on a bunch of stairs and say that it is impossible to get any guns in switzerland, and upload that onto youtube right now. That doesn't make any of that true. Similarly with regards to the UK crime statistic you mentioned earlier: Please source that stuff. I have no interest in digging after any of your statistics to see if they are in any way correct or random bullshit some dude invented. You have so far not been the greatest source of information, so please cite your sources. Just wanted to point out that if you owned firearms, you can easily tell those firearms are real. Airsoft guns don't look like that, and Airsoft guns AFAIK are actually heavily regulated in the EU for some weird reason. But hey, use that Trump defense. It's fake news! Btw, golden from the guy who purposely cut off the last portion stating you can have fully automatic firearms with a permit. Real golden. Stop lying, i didn't do that. I assume you are talking about this postShow nested quote +On May 24 2018 08:13 Simberto wrote:From the Wiki i just linked: Generally prohibited arms are:
Automatic firearms such as machine guns, etc.
Automatic knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Butterfly knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Throwing knives; regardless of the shape and size
Symmetrical daggers where blade length is less than 30 cm
Brass knuckles
Shock rods or stun guns
Throwing Stars
Buttstock-equipped slingshots German: Schleudern mit Armstütze
Tasers
Hidden firearms that imitate an object of utility, such as shooting phones
So no automatic firearms, sorry. Original quote from the law, article 5 paragraph 1, source Verboten sind die Übertragung, der Erwerb, das Vermitteln an Empfänger und Empfängerinnen im Inland sowie das Verbringen in das schweizerische Staatsgebiet von:
a.
Seriefeuerwaffen und zu halbautomatischen Feuerwaffen umgebauten Seriefeuerwaffen sowie ihren wesentlichen und besonders konstruierten Bestandteilen;
I am not that good at legalese, but 28b seems to talk about exceptions which are in some point in the law more exactly defined, and seem to mostly talk about sports shooting as a reason for some exceptions. I am not a swiss lawyer, so i can't exactly say what those exceptions are exceptions from, but they are very clearly not exceptions from the whole of the law. You complained about me not mentioning 28bb and 28bc, but none of those were in any way relevant. Both actually reduce the amount of people to which special permits may be issued , 28bb by saying that they may not be issued to people who conflict with 8,2 and 28bc saying that they can only be issued if special provisions within the law are true for the case. If you are talking about my quote, you might notice that i actually provided a link, and no, i didn't think it reasonable to quote the whole text of the law here. I also explicitly stated that i am not a lawyer. When i read: "x ist forbidden", i don't search the total of the law to see if there are some loopholes. I assume that it means that "x is forbidden". It would be easier to talk about this if you could for once actually quote the stuff you take offense with. It is incredibly infuriating trying to guess what you are currently talking about. You might notice that i actually give sources for the stuff i talk about, which makes it easy for you to check if i missed something or misrepresented something. You give no sources whatsoever, so people have a harder time figuring out shit like you comparing total knife crime statistics to gun homicides, which is absurd. Stuff like this means that you are a completely unreliable source, and i have no idea how much of the stuff you confidently state is actually complete and utter nonsense like that. This means that at this point, i trust nothing that you write. Especially not if it is without a source. And with regards to the second point: Good job picking out one single thing without ignoring the major underlying statement of the post: Random dudes on Youtube are not a good source. Random dudes on youtube which you link are even worse sources than random dudes on youtube in general, because you have a history of completely distorting the truth, as can be seen basically any time anyone tries to actually get to the ground of your statement and does not give you the benefit of the doubt, which you at this point clearly do not deserve.
Ask anyone else in this thread who is a gun owner whether those firearms are real or not. Better yet ask anyone from Switzerland or has been there whether the guy in the video is lying or not. Be my guest.
|
On May 26 2018 08:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:33 Simberto wrote:On May 26 2018 08:02 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:58 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:36 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:33 Plansix wrote:
The problem with the his argument is that he assumes I have specific stances on what guns should or should not be available. Or that I am for or against some types of guns laws over others.
The reality is I will take ANY update to the US gun laws, state or federal. Any change would be preferable to the stale mate. The Swiss gun laws sound awesome. If people can get automatic weapons, but all those other changes get put in place, bring it on. People can have browning machine guns if I get a background check system like the Swiss.
No, I'm saying the vast majority of your side is arguing under false pretenses because you wanted to ban bump stocks before, but suddenly are ok with fully automatic weapons being much more available. On May 26 2018 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was.
He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? On May 26 2018 07:22 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
So let me get this straight: You are against Swiss-style regulations in the US because you believe people who advocate for gun control would be against them?
You're genuinely trying to tell us you are against something simply because you believe people you disagree with would be against it?
If I put myself in the shoes of for example Plansix I would also argue in favor smaller stuff like banning bump stocks if that's all that's even on the table. I wouldn't believe anyone who argues the "pro-gun" side would ever agree to something as strict as the regulations Switzerland has in place when it comes to firearms or weapons in general. Part of the Swiss regulations is literally taking people's guns away when entries in a federal database occur. It includes any and all weapons, all the way down to soft-airs having to be registered with the state.
I'd expect someone who is afraid of "them taking our guns away" to argue anything to avoid getting these types of things on the table, even if it's something nonsensical such as: "I'm against that because people I disagree with would be against that and those who say otherwise must be lying."
PS: [quote]Let me quote myself again:
[quote]If I'm wrong and for example automatic rifles are actually hard to obtain and use in the US then feel free to simply correct me, I don't mind learning something. No, what I'm saying is that those who 'advocate' for Swiss Gun Reforms are arguing for them under a false pretense, because the same people who are advocating for them are the same people who argue against silencers, bump stocks, etc. In 2016/17 there were 215 homicides currently recorded using a sharp instrument, including knives and broken bottles, accounting for 30% of all homicides – a similar number as recorded in 2015/16 (213). 215 homicides with a knife in all of the UK? Some cities in the US has more deaths by summer from guns. And what's the per capita on that number? Per 100k? Or is that total? Because um, that is not a lot at all. Homicide is recorded differently in the UK; it's based on number of convictions not based on whether the person died to a knife or firearm. Look it up. Consider also that the U.S. has a firearm homicide rate of 4.62 per 100,000. London alone on that report had 137 knife crimes per 100,000. I will concede that yes, if a firearm is discharged it's definitely more deadly then a knife. But to act like criminals aren't going to find another tool to commit their crime is hilarious in itself, as the UK has seen a huge surge in knife crimes since the firearm ban. Just wanted to point out that included in the knife crimes you are listing, according to your source, is the crime of possession of an offensive weapon, and this is not even knife crime, but crime involving any sharp instrument. It doesn't really change your point, which is valid, that people will find a weapon to use, but it is disingenuous to compare crimes like possession of a knife to only homicides with a firearm and use that to say the UK has a knife crime epidemic. Considering your own government basically stated themselves that the UK has a knife crime problem, I'm going to say that I'm right and you're wrong. You're right to compare homicides by firearm to possession of a sharp instrument? Ridiculous. If you're arguing that a gun is deadlier than a knife I agree. If you're arguing that the UK doesn't have a knife epidemic problem you'd be wrong, considering your own government has stated so. On May 26 2018 06:12 Simberto wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. But the U.K. is such an upstanding bastion of how to deter crime amirite? On May 26 2018 01:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:
Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense.
People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule.
Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom.
If your government has missile armed drones, tanks and planes with big nuclear bombs they have already taken away the power of the people to fight tyranny. What could the American public do to fight tyranny with guns that they couldn't do without guns? Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR. On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:
[quote]
While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/999714805333147650 edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 06:21 Nixer wrote:
[quote]
Fairly certain they're converted into semi-automatic rifles. If they choose to purchase a rifle when they finish their service that is. There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians). On May 25 2018 06:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
The reddit poster you linked even says the military rifles are converted to semi-auto. What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. It is a dude on stairs in a video. He might be in switzerland, he might actually have guns, the guns might be fully automatic or not. They might even not be real guns at all. I have no idea, and so far your sources have been horribly shit, so i have no reason to believe some random dude on youtube. I could grab a camera, site myself on a bunch of stairs and say that it is impossible to get any guns in switzerland, and upload that onto youtube right now. That doesn't make any of that true. Similarly with regards to the UK crime statistic you mentioned earlier: Please source that stuff. I have no interest in digging after any of your statistics to see if they are in any way correct or random bullshit some dude invented. You have so far not been the greatest source of information, so please cite your sources. Just wanted to point out that if you owned firearms, you can easily tell those firearms are real. Airsoft guns don't look like that, and Airsoft guns AFAIK are actually heavily regulated in the EU for some weird reason. But hey, use that Trump defense. It's fake news! Btw, golden from the guy who purposely cut off the last portion stating you can have fully automatic firearms with a permit. Real golden. Stop lying, i didn't do that. I assume you are talking about this postOn May 24 2018 08:13 Simberto wrote:From the Wiki i just linked: Generally prohibited arms are:
Automatic firearms such as machine guns, etc.
Automatic knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Butterfly knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Throwing knives; regardless of the shape and size
Symmetrical daggers where blade length is less than 30 cm
Brass knuckles
Shock rods or stun guns
Throwing Stars
Buttstock-equipped slingshots German: Schleudern mit Armstütze
Tasers
Hidden firearms that imitate an object of utility, such as shooting phones
So no automatic firearms, sorry. Original quote from the law, article 5 paragraph 1, source Verboten sind die Übertragung, der Erwerb, das Vermitteln an Empfänger und Empfängerinnen im Inland sowie das Verbringen in das schweizerische Staatsgebiet von:
a.
Seriefeuerwaffen und zu halbautomatischen Feuerwaffen umgebauten Seriefeuerwaffen sowie ihren wesentlichen und besonders konstruierten Bestandteilen;
I am not that good at legalese, but 28b seems to talk about exceptions which are in some point in the law more exactly defined, and seem to mostly talk about sports shooting as a reason for some exceptions. I am not a swiss lawyer, so i can't exactly say what those exceptions are exceptions from, but they are very clearly not exceptions from the whole of the law. You complained about me not mentioning 28bb and 28bc, but none of those were in any way relevant. Both actually reduce the amount of people to which special permits may be issued , 28bb by saying that they may not be issued to people who conflict with 8,2 and 28bc saying that they can only be issued if special provisions within the law are true for the case. If you are talking about my quote, you might notice that i actually provided a link, and no, i didn't think it reasonable to quote the whole text of the law here. I also explicitly stated that i am not a lawyer. When i read: "x ist forbidden", i don't search the total of the law to see if there are some loopholes. I assume that it means that "x is forbidden". It would be easier to talk about this if you could for once actually quote the stuff you take offense with. It is incredibly infuriating trying to guess what you are currently talking about. You might notice that i actually give sources for the stuff i talk about, which makes it easy for you to check if i missed something or misrepresented something. You give no sources whatsoever, so people have a harder time figuring out shit like you comparing total knife crime statistics to gun homicides, which is absurd. Stuff like this means that you are a completely unreliable source, and i have no idea how much of the stuff you confidently state is actually complete and utter nonsense like that. This means that at this point, i trust nothing that you write. Especially not if it is without a source. And with regards to the second point: Good job picking out one single thing without ignoring the major underlying statement of the post: Random dudes on Youtube are not a good source. Random dudes on youtube which you link are even worse sources than random dudes on youtube in general, because you have a history of completely distorting the truth, as can be seen basically any time anyone tries to actually get to the ground of your statement and does not give you the benefit of the doubt, which you at this point clearly do not deserve. Ask anyone else in this thread who is a gun owner whether those firearms are real or not.
Not my point.
Also,
On May 26 2018 08:06 superstartran wrote:
The UK statistically has more violent crime then the U.S. so what I stated wouldn't actually be false.
Source please. If you claim that something is statistically true, link the statistics.
|
On May 26 2018 08:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:33 Simberto wrote:On May 26 2018 08:02 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 08:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:58 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 07:36 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:33 Plansix wrote:
The problem with the his argument is that he assumes I have specific stances on what guns should or should not be available. Or that I am for or against some types of guns laws over others.
The reality is I will take ANY update to the US gun laws, state or federal. Any change would be preferable to the stale mate. The Swiss gun laws sound awesome. If people can get automatic weapons, but all those other changes get put in place, bring it on. People can have browning machine guns if I get a background check system like the Swiss.
No, I'm saying the vast majority of your side is arguing under false pretenses because you wanted to ban bump stocks before, but suddenly are ok with fully automatic weapons being much more available. On May 26 2018 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 26 2018 07:29 superstartran wrote:[quote] https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now? [quote] No, what I'm saying is that those who 'advocate' for Swiss Gun Reforms are arguing for them under a false pretense, because the same people who are advocating for them are the same people who argue against silencers, bump stocks, etc. In 2016/17 there were 215 homicides currently recorded using a sharp instrument, including knives and broken bottles, accounting for 30% of all homicides – a similar number as recorded in 2015/16 (213). 215 homicides with a knife in all of the UK? Some cities in the US has more deaths by summer from guns. And what's the per capita on that number? Per 100k? Or is that total? Because um, that is not a lot at all. Homicide is recorded differently in the UK; it's based on number of convictions not based on whether the person died to a knife or firearm. Look it up. Consider also that the U.S. has a firearm homicide rate of 4.62 per 100,000. London alone on that report had 137 knife crimes per 100,000. I will concede that yes, if a firearm is discharged it's definitely more deadly then a knife. But to act like criminals aren't going to find another tool to commit their crime is hilarious in itself, as the UK has seen a huge surge in knife crimes since the firearm ban. Just wanted to point out that included in the knife crimes you are listing, according to your source, is the crime of possession of an offensive weapon, and this is not even knife crime, but crime involving any sharp instrument. It doesn't really change your point, which is valid, that people will find a weapon to use, but it is disingenuous to compare crimes like possession of a knife to only homicides with a firearm and use that to say the UK has a knife crime epidemic. Considering your own government basically stated themselves that the UK has a knife crime problem, I'm going to say that I'm right and you're wrong. You're right to compare homicides by firearm to possession of a sharp instrument? Ridiculous. If you're arguing that a gun is deadlier than a knife I agree. If you're arguing that the UK doesn't have a knife epidemic problem you'd be wrong, considering your own government has stated so. On May 26 2018 06:12 Simberto wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. But the U.K. is such an upstanding bastion of how to deter crime amirite? On May 26 2018 01:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:
Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense.
People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule.
Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom.
If your government has missile armed drones, tanks and planes with big nuclear bombs they have already taken away the power of the people to fight tyranny. What could the American public do to fight tyranny with guns that they couldn't do without guns? Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR. On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:
[quote]
Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him.
End of story.
Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter...
My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/999714805333147650 edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians).
[quote]
What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. It is a dude on stairs in a video. He might be in switzerland, he might actually have guns, the guns might be fully automatic or not. They might even not be real guns at all. I have no idea, and so far your sources have been horribly shit, so i have no reason to believe some random dude on youtube. I could grab a camera, site myself on a bunch of stairs and say that it is impossible to get any guns in switzerland, and upload that onto youtube right now. That doesn't make any of that true. Similarly with regards to the UK crime statistic you mentioned earlier: Please source that stuff. I have no interest in digging after any of your statistics to see if they are in any way correct or random bullshit some dude invented. You have so far not been the greatest source of information, so please cite your sources. Just wanted to point out that if you owned firearms, you can easily tell those firearms are real. Airsoft guns don't look like that, and Airsoft guns AFAIK are actually heavily regulated in the EU for some weird reason. But hey, use that Trump defense. It's fake news! Btw, golden from the guy who purposely cut off the last portion stating you can have fully automatic firearms with a permit. Real golden. Stop lying, i didn't do that. I assume you are talking about this postOn May 24 2018 08:13 Simberto wrote:From the Wiki i just linked: Generally prohibited arms are:
Automatic firearms such as machine guns, etc.
Automatic knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Butterfly knives when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Throwing knives; regardless of the shape and size
Symmetrical daggers where blade length is less than 30 cm
Brass knuckles
Shock rods or stun guns
Throwing Stars
Buttstock-equipped slingshots German: Schleudern mit Armstütze
Tasers
Hidden firearms that imitate an object of utility, such as shooting phones
So no automatic firearms, sorry. Original quote from the law, article 5 paragraph 1, source Verboten sind die Übertragung, der Erwerb, das Vermitteln an Empfänger und Empfängerinnen im Inland sowie das Verbringen in das schweizerische Staatsgebiet von:
a.
Seriefeuerwaffen und zu halbautomatischen Feuerwaffen umgebauten Seriefeuerwaffen sowie ihren wesentlichen und besonders konstruierten Bestandteilen;
I am not that good at legalese, but 28b seems to talk about exceptions which are in some point in the law more exactly defined, and seem to mostly talk about sports shooting as a reason for some exceptions. I am not a swiss lawyer, so i can't exactly say what those exceptions are exceptions from, but they are very clearly not exceptions from the whole of the law. You complained about me not mentioning 28bb and 28bc, but none of those were in any way relevant. Both actually reduce the amount of people to which special permits may be issued , 28bb by saying that they may not be issued to people who conflict with 8,2 and 28bc saying that they can only be issued if special provisions within the law are true for the case. If you are talking about my quote, you might notice that i actually provided a link, and no, i didn't think it reasonable to quote the whole text of the law here. I also explicitly stated that i am not a lawyer. When i read: "x ist forbidden", i don't search the total of the law to see if there are some loopholes. I assume that it means that "x is forbidden". It would be easier to talk about this if you could for once actually quote the stuff you take offense with. It is incredibly infuriating trying to guess what you are currently talking about. You might notice that i actually give sources for the stuff i talk about, which makes it easy for you to check if i missed something or misrepresented something. You give no sources whatsoever, so people have a harder time figuring out shit like you comparing total knife crime statistics to gun homicides, which is absurd. Stuff like this means that you are a completely unreliable source, and i have no idea how much of the stuff you confidently state is actually complete and utter nonsense like that. This means that at this point, i trust nothing that you write. Especially not if it is without a source. And with regards to the second point: Good job picking out one single thing without ignoring the major underlying statement of the post: Random dudes on Youtube are not a good source. Random dudes on youtube which you link are even worse sources than random dudes on youtube in general, because you have a history of completely distorting the truth, as can be seen basically any time anyone tries to actually get to the ground of your statement and does not give you the benefit of the doubt, which you at this point clearly do not deserve. Ask anyone else in this thread who is a gun owner whether those firearms are real or not. Not my point. Also, Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 08:06 superstartran wrote:
The UK statistically has more violent crime then the U.S. so what I stated wouldn't actually be false.
Source please. If you claim that something is statistically true, link the statistics.
You wanted the validity of the guy in the video, go find out. You'll find that he's pretty much right.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017#how-is-violent-crime-defined-and-measured
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/violent-crime
UK reports 1.2 million violent crime events, US reported 1.2 million. When you start adjusting per 100,000 you'll find that the violent crime rate of the UK is about 4x the rate of the US. Obviously this is due to the way the UK records violent crime, but you guys also love to conveniently leave out the fact that the UK also happens to record homicide very differently from the U.S.
Can find how they record crime statistics here
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/userguidetocrimestatisticsforenglandandwales
And just for good measure, since people want to always say I'm lying
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2016/homicide
Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place, this is not always the case. Caution is therefore needed when looking at longer-term homicide trend figures. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003. Also, where several people are killed by the same suspect, the number of homicides counted is the total number of victims killed rather than the number of incidents. For example, the victims of the Cumbrian shootings committed by Derrick Bird on 2 June 2010 are counted as 12 homicides rather than one incident in the year ending March 2011 data.
|
United States42008 Posts
The National Lottery in the UK reported 358 million pound + lottery wins in 2017. See here
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing
There were 188 sharp instrument (knives + others) homicides in the UK in 2016. See here
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/knifecrime
By my count that suggests that the average Brit will have won the lottery twice by the time that they get fatally stabbed (this does not mean that all lottery winners will die of stab injuries or that all stab victims are millionaires). Obviously both are low incidence events and lifespans are finite so most people die of something else before they get their lottery wins and fatal stabbing, but it puts it into perspective. Walking down the street in the UK I'd be more likely to be worrying about how winning the lottery twice might change my life than I would be about being killed by a knife.
|
Thanks for the sources. As you might notice if you look at your sources beyond the numbers, you are once again comparing apples and oranges.
US definition of violent crimes: "The violent crime figures include the offenses of murder, rape (legacy definition), robbery, and aggravated assault." source
UK i can't find the exact definition quickly, but "Violent crime covers a wide range of offences from minor assaults (such as pushing and shoving), harassment and abuse (that result in no physical harm), through to wounding and homicide."
If you can not see why these two are in no way comparable, i can't help you. Nonetheless, thanks for providing sources.
|
On May 26 2018 09:02 Simberto wrote:Thanks for the sources. As you might notice if you look at your sources beyond the numbers, you are once again comparing apples and oranges. US definition of violent crimes: "The violent crime figures include the offenses of murder, rape (legacy definition), robbery, and aggravated assault." sourceUK i can't find the exact definition quickly, but "Violent crime covers a wide range of offences from minor assaults (such as pushing and shoving), harassment and abuse (that result in no physical harm), through to wounding and homicide." If you can not see why these two are in no way comparable, i can't help you. Nonetheless, thanks for providing sources.
It's like I actually stated that in my original statement.
Just like how you can't compare UK homicide vs US homicide because of the way the UK records them vs the US records them, but everyone here sure loves to do that.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 26 2018 09:02 Simberto wrote:
UK i can't find the exact definition quickly, but "Violent crime covers a wide range of offences from minor assaults (such as pushing and shoving), harassment and abuse (that result in no physical harm), through to wounding and homicide."
From the year ending March 2013, the selected offences consisted of attempted murder; threats to kill; assault with injury; assault with intent to cause serious harm; robbery; rape; and sexual assault.
It also noted that some police forces included threats made with an unbroken bottle within sharp implement stats, although in fairness that was a low incidence.
|
The US stats would be amazing if they included basic harassment and simple assault.
Edit: and now we are back to we can’t compare the crime rates, even though we have the raw data. This is tedious.
|
On May 26 2018 09:11 Plansix wrote:
The US stats would be amazing if they included basic harassment and simple assault.
And the UK homicide stats would look quite differently if they recorded them like the FBI does. As would many other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
