| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
On April 05 2009 08:52 Zoler wrote: If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden. That might have alot to do with the swedish police not having any tazers. | ||
|
Person514cs
1004 Posts
It is growing at a rate of 2% per year. That's 134 million more people every year. The humanity is strong as ever. I am not worried. It's just so unlucky of those people that has to run into that guy on that day. Sooooo.. unlucky. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
On April 05 2009 08:52 Railxp wrote: @Dead9: Yes but we've already established that guns are easy to acquire even if you outlaw them. I stumbled upon a juicy gem while randomly googling the issue: http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/8-Doesn-t-the-US-have-many-more-guns-and-higher-murder-rate.html + Show Spoiler + . Doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada? The higher murder rate in the USA is not caused by citizens owning firearms. If a prohibition could somehow eliminate all firearms, and, therefore, all firearm-related homicides, without _any_ weapon substitution, the US murder rate would still be roughly _double_ the Canadian murder rate. If a USA without firearms would have many more murders per person than a Canada with firearms, there must be many other factors at work. (If the firearms in the USA cause its higher murder rate, then the above example must show that firearms make Canada safer. Obviously the answer cannot really be so simple.) One must also consider that the number of firearms per person in Canada and the USA is similar, and that the laws in the USA vary greatly from state to state, with the states having fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens also most often having lower murder rates. The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates. One needs only to look at WHY the firearms are owned. Canada is more rural and therefore each firearm owning household (roughly 26%) has a variety of firearms (at least 3) for different uses. In the US, firearm owning households (about 50%) are more likely to have only one or two because they own them for self-defence and not hunting, predator control, etc. This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a firearm, those that do, have more. This confirms most government estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US, there are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per capita rates of firearm ownership). If the rates of firearm ownership are similar in countries with drastically different murder rates, then it's probably not the firearms that are the problem. Even within the US, there is no correlation between firearm ownership and murder rates. After the LA riots, there was a huge increase in sales. The following year, sales slumped because the market was saturated, yet the murder rates continued to _fall_. The US murder rate peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing. It dropped 8% from 1994 to 1995. Even as ownership increases in the US, the murder (and accident) rates decrease. Allowing citizens to possess and acquire firearms doesn't seem to be the problem. If one ignores Washington DC and the US cities that are larger than Canadian cities, the murder rates in the US are not much higher than Canadian homicide rates. Also, roughly 14 states have murder rates similar to or below the Canadian average homicide rate. Additionaly, if one compares the states next to Canada to their neighbouring provinces, the states more often have lower murder rates. [StatCan, the USDoJ and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports] comparison of Canada and the US: Province / State Homicide rate/100,000 ---------------- --------- B.C / Washington 3.7 / 5.0 Alberta / Montana 3.6 / 2.9 Saskatchewan / North Dakota 3.2 / 1.9 Manitoba / Minnesota 2.6 / 1.9 Ontario / Michigan w/o detroit / w/detroit 2.4 / 4.1 / 9.9 Quebec / NY w/o NYC / NY w/ NYC 2.4 / 3.7 / 13.2 Quebec / New Hampshire 2.4 / 1.6 New Brunswick / Maine 1.5 / 1.7 Territories / Alaska 17.8 / 7.5 [taken from: Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991.] Continue to: * prev: 7. Does gun control work? * Index * next: 9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher murder rates, just like the US? not true.. i noe fora fact in korea guns r fukin hard to acquire... it's ridiculously hard... friggin drugs r ezier than guns... maybe even money printing plates r ezier.. but guns... no can do it's just ridiculously hard...nvr heard of a gun crime in korea in my 10 yrs of living there whilst america... i think everyday there is one? more like police = 100% chance of having guns citizens = <15% chance of having guns (i made that number up) lols ED FUKIN DIT: On April 05 2009 08:52 Railxp wrote: @Dead9: Yes but we've already established that guns are easy to acquire even if you outlaw them. I stumbled upon a juicy gem while randomly googling the issue: http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/8-Doesn-t-the-US-have-many-more-guns-and-higher-murder-rate.html + Show Spoiler + . Doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada? The higher murder rate in the USA is not caused by citizens owning firearms. If a prohibition could somehow eliminate all firearms, and, therefore, all firearm-related homicides, without _any_ weapon substitution, the US murder rate would still be roughly _double_ the Canadian murder rate. If a USA without firearms would have many more murders per person than a Canada with firearms, there must be many other factors at work. (If the firearms in the USA cause its higher murder rate, then the above example must show that firearms make Canada safer. Obviously the answer cannot really be so simple.) One must also consider that the number of firearms per person in Canada and the USA is similar, and that the laws in the USA vary greatly from state to state, with the states having fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens also most often having lower murder rates. The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates. One needs only to look at WHY the firearms are owned. Canada is more rural and therefore each firearm owning household (roughly 26%) has a variety of firearms (at least 3) for different uses. In the US, firearm owning households (about 50%) are more likely to have only one or two because they own them for self-defence and not hunting, predator control, etc. This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a firearm, those that do, have more. This confirms most government estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US, there are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per capita rates of firearm ownership). If the rates of firearm ownership are similar in countries with drastically different murder rates, then it's probably not the firearms that are the problem. Even within the US, there is no correlation between firearm ownership and murder rates. After the LA riots, there was a huge increase in sales. The following year, sales slumped because the market was saturated, yet the murder rates continued to _fall_. The US murder rate peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing. It dropped 8% from 1994 to 1995. Even as ownership increases in the US, the murder (and accident) rates decrease. Allowing citizens to possess and acquire firearms doesn't seem to be the problem. If one ignores Washington DC and the US cities that are larger than Canadian cities, the murder rates in the US are not much higher than Canadian homicide rates. Also, roughly 14 states have murder rates similar to or below the Canadian average homicide rate. Additionaly, if one compares the states next to Canada to their neighbouring provinces, the states more often have lower murder rates. [StatCan, the USDoJ and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports] comparison of Canada and the US: Province / State Homicide rate/100,000 ---------------- --------- B.C / Washington 3.7 / 5.0 Alberta / Montana 3.6 / 2.9 Saskatchewan / North Dakota 3.2 / 1.9 Manitoba / Minnesota 2.6 / 1.9 Ontario / Michigan w/o detroit / w/detroit 2.4 / 4.1 / 9.9 Quebec / NY w/o NYC / NY w/ NYC 2.4 / 3.7 / 13.2 Quebec / New Hampshire 2.4 / 1.6 New Brunswick / Maine 1.5 / 1.7 Territories / Alaska 17.8 / 7.5 [taken from: Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991.] Continue to: * prev: 7. Does gun control work? * Index * next: 9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher murder rates, just like the US? dude.. it's a friggin personal webpage... by a guy w/ no credible name... y r we even believing this thing? also it only makes it worse that he cites sources in his other works but he doesn't in this one... actually that particular page has zero quotes... | ||
GTR
51696 Posts
The apparent motivation for the incident was Wong's feelings of being "degraded and disrespected" for his poor English language ability, and his inability to find work in New York.  | ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
On April 05 2009 05:40 KaasZerg wrote: The number of illegal guns is very low. It is very hard to steal a gun because there are not that many guns around outside law enforcement and the militairy. How do you get water in the middle of the dessert. It is a lot harder to rob a store with a knife or a bat. There is less deterent from gunowners in the store sure but also far less oppertunity for criminals by lack of guns. Domestic violence (almost) never ends with someone getting killed by a gun in a flash of rage. I have never in my live seen a gun that was privately owned. Someone carrying or owning gun(s) would be more likely to become a target because the criminals here are that desparate to get a gun over here. Ehm...not enterily true I'm afraid. The european Union basically has no internal borders between countries, so "importing" illigal guns isn't that hard. Countries like former Yugoslavia and Czech republic are good sources for guns. edit: The Dutch NRA has 42000 members so it is safe to say that they all have a permit for at least one firearm. But this is for sporting/hunting purposes and certainly not for self defense. You will get in a lot of trouble if you shoot a burglar | ||
|
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
The discussion that such things also happened in EU is quite funny - take a look at countries with real gun control - did such things happen in China, or Korea? I dont think so... The truth is that it is impossible to prevent 100% of such killing sprees, but allowing everyone to have a gun definitely does not help to stop it. Also - what I dont understand - is why did the police NOT enter the building for 60-90 minutes. Ok, I know that noone is an idiot and will not enter a building where some guy is shooting, but well, isnt it the job of police officers in the first place? I mean, shouldnt the police enter the building ASAP? I think they would enter if there was a shootout between mafia. And even if they consider this guy a "terrorist", you should think how many terrorist attacks did america have? I remember only 9/11 and it did not include any guns.. | ||
|
Elvin_vn
Vietnam2038 Posts
Binghamton's police chief, Joseph Zikuski, said that until a month ago Wong had taken English classes at the immigration centre but quit after complaining that he had been made fun of. Mr Zikuski said Wong felt other students had mocked him because of his poor English. Damn I'd think twice about mocking other people's English EDIT: and so do you | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
So.. unfortunate I don't even want to use that word as I don't feel it justifies the victims' deaths but I have nothing else to say except ... I donno. Just RIP | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 05 2009 17:54 closed wrote: What's with all the shootings? There were at least 2-3 other in 2009. Well.. USA has 300 million people, so it's "still not much"... but I think it will be getting worse and worse. The discussion that such things also happened in EU is quite funny - take a look at countries with real gun control - did such things happen in China, or Korea? I dont think so... The truth is that it is impossible to prevent 100% of such killing sprees, but allowing everyone to have a gun definitely does not help to stop it. Also - what I dont understand - is why did the police NOT enter the building for 60-90 minutes. Ok, I know that noone is an idiot and will not enter a building where some guy is shooting, but well, isnt it the job of police officers in the first place? I mean, shouldnt the police enter the building ASAP? I think they would enter if there was a shootout between mafia. And even if they consider this guy a "terrorist", you should think how many terrorist attacks did america have? I remember only 9/11 and it did not include any guns.. It's not even possible to have 100% prevention of killing sprees or 100% of prevention of deaths or 100% prevention of violence. It is just impossible. Ban guns and most murders are knife crimes - eg UK. And it doesn't address the most prevalent evil of intimidation by aggressive threat of force in society. While most people in China don't have guns, they have a lot of violence and intimidation. Most of the violence is done with knives or fists rather than with guns. Most of the intimidation is done by corrupt government officials that have the backing of the communist government. The problem with police is today is that they are more concerned about their own safety. The progression of rules concerning proper police behavior highlights the fact that policemen think their line of work is "dangerous" and aren't willing to put themselves in danger or they get trigger happy at the slightest hint of danger. That is why private citizens should have the power to fend for themselves. So that they have a chance against violent criminals and to ward off intimidation. Trusting the powers that be to defend them in times of danger is folly. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4927 Posts
| ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
I'm scared nonetheless. I went to the liquor store the other day in a not so great area in Westchester, and I felt scared because of this attack. The fact that this could happen an hour and a half away from me disturbs me a bit. Binghamton isn't really a bad place either, it's just a normal town in upstate New York. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
On April 05 2009 17:54 closed wrote: What's with all the shootings? There were at least 2-3 other in 2009. Well.. USA has 300 million people, so it's "still not much"... but I think it will be getting worse and worse. The discussion that such things also happened in EU is quite funny - take a look at countries with real gun control - did such things happen in China, or Korea? I dont think so... The truth is that it is impossible to prevent 100% of such killing sprees, but allowing everyone to have a gun definitely does not help to stop it. Also - what I dont understand - is why did the police NOT enter the building for 60-90 minutes. Ok, I know that noone is an idiot and will not enter a building where some guy is shooting, but well, isnt it the job of police officers in the first place? I mean, shouldnt the police enter the building ASAP? I think they would enter if there was a shootout between mafia. And even if they consider this guy a "terrorist", you should think how many terrorist attacks did america have? I remember only 9/11 and it did not include any guns.. sry apparently there's no clear indication on how long it latsed... but it seems to be roughly 3 min ish since police arrived within 2 min and Wong shot himself when he heard the sirens | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
That's more disconcerting. That's protection against getting killed by the police on a single shot to the body. He'd have to be a lot stronger than he looks to avoid getting knocked out and bruised by the bullet. Maybe he wanted to get into a shootout. Horrible stuff. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008989617_webgraham06m.html Its in Graham, which is south of Seattle. Economic pressures will fuel events like this more and more, and I bet it may be somewhat behind this. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32159 Posts
On April 05 2009 08:52 Zoler wrote: If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden. If anything, that's more indicative of stupid righteous dipshits who think they have some kind of authority over... authority? | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 07 2009 00:13 Hawk wrote: If anything, that's more indicative of stupid righteous dipshits who think they have some kind of authority over... authority? Arrogant self-righteous cops. Those cops should be put on trial for involuntary manslaughter. They won't though because the police union will protect their own. But that's your typical government agent. Someone your "kind, wonderful, benevolent, moral authority" is here to help. Run away in fear. | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
2. Guns are tools designed to kill (1) 3. Humans are the operators of the tool: gun 4. Guns do not have free will to preform their intended operation (1 & 2) 5. people who own guns have the intention to preform the intended operation of killing. (1,2,3 &4) 6. Gun is not the only tool that can preform the operation of killing 7. Therefore, removal of the tool "Gun" does not stop or prevent the intention nor the operation of killing (5 & 6) | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32159 Posts
On April 07 2009 02:42 TanGeng wrote: Arrogant self-righteous cops. Those cops should be put on trial for involuntary manslaughter. They won't though because the police union will protect their own. But that's your typical government agent. Someone your "kind, wonderful, benevolent, moral authority" is here to help. Run away in fear. Oh yeah, that's right. Every instance where some twit got tazered for resisting arrest was the cops fault! Silly me! | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 07 2009 05:52 Hawk wrote: Oh yeah, that's right. Every instance where some twit got tazered for resisting arrest was the cops fault! Silly me! Maybe in your world, it's morally A-OK to for an agent of the government to kill criminal suspects on suspicion alone. Forget the legal system!! Kill them on the spot!! Now the policeman is Judge, Jury, and Executioner!! And all crimes big and small are punished with the Death Penalty!! Once upon a time there was something called rule of law. Now policeman are above the law. Get punished for irresponsible use of tasers!? No way! Morally reprehensible!? No way! Policemen by definition are morality. That said there are rare individual cops out there that are decent people and moral. But more often than not the policeman is a mediocre specimen of society with a predilection to demand, "Respect My Authoritah!!" "AUTHORITAH!!" | ||
| ||
|
|
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
MilkiCow vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Light
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Soulkey
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
