Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
Police in the US are not as well trained and certainly not as educated as you seem to think.
In fact, American police have thrown out any sort of testing which tests intelligence or can be used as a proxy for intelligence due to "disparate impact" law in the USA.
A teacher is most likely more intelligent and trustworthy than an average police officer. People have an unfounded faith in authority figures.
On December 20 2012 11:00 farvacola wrote: So does anyone who wants to shit on cops with categorical stupidity have anything substantive behind their claims, or do they purely consist of blurry youtube videos and slanderous opinion? And no, please don't throw out cherry picked cases of police brutality or negligence, for that would display a stunning ignorance of the sheer number of police and law enforcement officers in the United States.
I'll look for some as soon as the people who were claiming teachers with weapons are more dangerous than police provide evidence of that.
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
Police in the US are not as well trained and certainly not as educated as you seem to think.
In fact, American police have thrown out any sort of testing which tests intelligence or can be used as a proxy for intelligence due to "disparate impact" law in the USA.
A teacher is most likely more intelligent and trustworthy than an average police officer. People have an unfounded faith in authority figures.
What exactly do you think a teacher is...?
which is exactly why I think some of them should be armed and trained. they are authority figures whose job it is to protect children. I don't even see why gun control people would be against this, because it's not suggesting that anyone carry a gun without a permit or even easing gun regulations. hell, you could make it way more difficult to have guns and still let some qualified teachers carry weapons in case of an emergency like Conn.
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
Police in the US are not as well trained and certainly not as educated as you seem to think.
In fact, American police have thrown out any sort of testing which tests intelligence or can be used as a proxy for intelligence due to "disparate impact" law in the USA.
A teacher is most likely more intelligent and trustworthy than an average police officer. People have an unfounded faith in authority figures.
What exactly do you think a teacher is...?
Not an authority figure to anyone who is not a child.
I was speaking from the perspective of adults. Sorry, I forgot how many kids still in school probably post here.
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
Police in the US are not as well trained and certainly not as educated as you seem to think.
In fact, American police have thrown out any sort of testing which tests intelligence or can be used as a proxy for intelligence due to "disparate impact" law in the USA.
A teacher is most likely more intelligent and trustworthy than an average police officer. People have an unfounded faith in authority figures.
What exactly do you think a teacher is...?
Someone who doesn't have authority to enforce the majority of the laws of the state?
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
Police in the US are not as well trained and certainly not as educated as you seem to think.
In fact, American police have thrown out any sort of testing which tests intelligence or can be used as a proxy for intelligence due to "disparate impact" law in the USA.
A teacher is most likely more intelligent and trustworthy than an average police officer. People have an unfounded faith in authority figures.
What exactly do you think a teacher is...?
Not an authority figure to anyone who is not a child.
I was speaking from the perspective of adults. Sorry, I forgot how many kids still in school probably post here.
On December 20 2012 08:48 SilentchiLL wrote: I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
The problem here is that the "price" of gun ownership is a figment of your deluded and paranoid imagination. You are coming to wrong conclusions based on your irrational fear of firearms, and then asking people questions based on a false premise you fabricated.
The real question is: why should innocent victims pay the price of being disarmed, just to relieve your phobia of guns?
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
What a wonderful "Harvard Study", the best type of study: a non-peer-reviewed article in a Law Review edited by right-wing Harvard Law students. This "study" is a joke, 40 pages of trash that wouldn't stand up to any reasonable form of peer-review. As an example consider the figures used for Luxembourg, citing a homocide rate of 9/100k. This figure is referred to a number of times in the "study", unfortunately the actual homicide rate in Luxembourg is actually 0.9/100k.
For some actual peer-reviewed studies from Harvard about gun violence, try http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/ Unfortunately the real peer-reviewed stuff doesn't support the conclusions made by Kates and Mauser, but you can find that out for yourself.
On December 20 2012 08:48 SilentchiLL wrote: I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
The problem here is that the "price" of gun ownership is a figment of your deluded and paranoid imagination. You are coming to wrong conclusions based on your irrational fear of firearms, and then asking people questions based on a false premise you fabricated.
The real question is: why should innocent victims pay the price of being disarmed, just to relieve your phobia of guns?
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
What's weird is that it just doesn't seem to be true. Sweden, Finland and Switzerland have a higher gun ownership than Norway. All western European countries have strict gun laws. Only hunting and sports firearms are (generally) allowed. And the most important point is that all western european countries have a murderrate between 0 and 2 on every 100 000 people. The US has 4.2. Just looking at number of guns and number of murders isn't enough. We had a shooting in a mall in Holland this year I think it was. He got the guns legally through a sport shooting membership. At once there was a lot of discussion on gun control and now we have more strict laws. Psychiatric evaluations need to be done before you can get a permit.
I just want to clarify a few things/terms for people.
You aren't allowed to own "assault rifles" for the most part. You can apply for a permit from the ATF, which is a long and expensive process, and then the weapons themselves usually cost $20,000+ The distinction is automatic vs semi-automatic. Automatic is what people think of when you think of a machine gun: IE, you hold down the trigger and the gun continuously fires shot after shot. These you need the ATF permit and a ton of money for Semi-automatic just means the gun reloads automatically, but doesn't fire automatically. You pull the trigger, it fires a single shot. You release the trigger, and pull the trigger again, it fires another shot. Pretty much every modern handgun is semi-automatic. Many rifles are as well. An "Assault Rifle" is a medium caliber rifle that is capable of automatic fire. An "Assault Weapon" is basically a made up term that generally refers to semi automatic rifles that are aesthetically similar to military weapons. A common example being the AR-15, which looks nearly identical to an M-16, despite being fundamentally different functionally.
What is being proposed is a federal assault weapon ban which will be modeled after the one in California.
These are the main features they want banned: link
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. (C) A folding or telescoping stock. (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher. (E) A flash suppressor. (F) A forward pistol grip.
Included in this bill is the use of a fixed-magazine holding more than 10 rounds.
Notice how this doesn't not affect the functionality of the weapon (except for grenade launcher, but people arguing for that are very few). These are cosmetic features that make the weapon look like a real "assault rifle". Keep in mind assault rifles have already been effectively banned per what I stated above. The "assault weapon" ban will ban "evil features" like those above.
You can still own a high-capacity magazine provided it is pre-ban (and you can modify it to a new post-ban mag with a parts kit legally, still 30 rds) as long as you do not have any of the evil features above.
Notice how it does not have any of the "evil features" above. This will still be legal. The reasoning for this is because you simply cannot ban an "assault weapon" because there's nothing that can truly define it. The best you can do is to ban a cartridge type, for example the 5.56/.223 remington. But that would be wholly ridiculous in itself.
I also welcome you to watch how moronic this "assault weapon" bill will be pertaining to large cap mags:
Take-away point: these upcoming "assault weapon" bill proposals will do nothing but further convolute the laws regarding firearm ownership for law-abiding citizens.
On December 20 2012 08:48 SilentchiLL wrote: I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
The problem here is that the "price" of gun ownership is a figment of your deluded and paranoid imagination. You are coming to wrong conclusions based on your irrational fear of firearms, and then asking people questions based on a false premise you fabricated.
The real question is: why should innocent victims pay the price of being disarmed, just to relieve your phobia of guns?
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
What a wonderful "Harvard Study", the best type of study: a non-peer-reviewed article in a Law Review edited by right-wing Harvard Law students. This "study" is a joke, 40 pages of trash that wouldn't stand up to any reasonable form of peer-review. As an example consider the figures used for Luxembourg, citing a homocide rate of 9/100k. This figure is referred to a number of times in the "study", unfortunately the actual homicide rate in Luxembourg is actually 0.9/100k.
For some actual peer-reviewed studies from Harvard about gun violence, try http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/ Unfortunately the real peer-reviewed stuff doesn't support the conclusions made by Kates and Mauser, but you can find that out for yourself.
They do seem to have made an error on the Luxembourg number.
You still have to account for countries with high rates of gun ownership that have very low gun-murder rates -- or, conversely, low-income nations like Mexico that have quite stringent gun laws and a comparatively high incidence of gun-related violence. One typo aside, the statistical analyses conducted by Kates-Mauser remain unanswered.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
are you suggesting there are no recreational and legitimate uses of firearm outside the US?? You can go target shooting in a shooting range where there will be instructors checking everyone knows what they are doing and no body takes the gun out. (China had a gold olympic medal in air gun shooting and gun ownership aren't allowed in china)
You can go hunting if you have a hunting permit in the UK.
What's so hard to understand that you aren't losing any of these usage?
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
are you suggesting there are no recreational and legitimate uses of firearm outside the US?? You can go target shooting in a shooting range where there will be instructors checking everyone knows what they are doing and no body takes the gun out. (China had a gold olympic medal in air gun shooting and gun ownership aren't allowed in china)
You can go hunting if you have a hunting permit in the UK.
What's so hard to understand that you aren't losing any of these usage?
Because the laws do not make sense. See my post above.
Outright ban of firearms has already been ruled unconstitutional. What they are trying to do now is go after "assault weapons".
On December 20 2012 08:48 SilentchiLL wrote: I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
The problem here is that the "price" of gun ownership is a figment of your deluded and paranoid imagination. You are coming to wrong conclusions based on your irrational fear of firearms, and then asking people questions based on a false premise you fabricated.
The real question is: why should innocent victims pay the price of being disarmed, just to relieve your phobia of guns?
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
What's weird is that it just doesn't seem to be true. Sweden, Finland and Switzerland have a higher gun ownership than Norway. All western European countries have strict gun laws. Only hunting and sports firearms are (generally) allowed. And the most important point is that all western european countries have a murderrate between 0 and 2 on every 100 000 people. The US has 4.2. Just looking at number of guns and number of murders isn't enough. We had a shooting in a mall in Holland this year I think it was. He got the guns legally through a sport shooting membership. At once there was a lot of discussion on gun control and now we have more strict laws. Psychiatric evaluations need to be done before you can get a permit.
I agree about the need for stricter regulations about guns in the states I think the Canadian model for gun control is really well done w/tight restriction on anything other than hunting rifles really and a mental health check. But something to take into consideration with those numbers you posted is that the deaths by Gun rate includes suicides. Something like 80% of suicides in the US are carried out by firearms so the actual Murder w/firearms rate is drastically lower than the firearms related death would make it appear.
Another factor is the Europe is fairly homogeneous regarding it's population while the US has a much more varied racial make up. Some of the minorities in the US are statistically more likely to be stuck in deep poverty and the gang culture in a lots of large cities is pretty intense. One side of the street your okay to be on the other side your taking your life into your own hands. Part of the problem is that there is no real social safety net so people are stuck wallowing in poverty. It's easier to join a violent gang for protection/income/a sense of family than it is to go through school and work in a legitimate occupation.
Edit: Oops I thought that was a graph I saw earlier that didn't separate Suicides/Murders from the total. Suicides=6.1/100,000 Murders=3.7
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
are you suggesting there are no recreational and legitimate uses of firearm outside the US?? You can go target shooting in a shooting range where there will be instructors checking everyone knows what they are doing and no body takes the gun out. (China had a gold olympic medal in air gun shooting and gun ownership aren't allowed in china)
You can go hunting if you have a hunting permit in the UK.
What's so hard to understand that you aren't losing any of these usage?
Before you try to criticize someone you should try reading the posts they are responding to so you can understand this thing called 'context'. And if you did read the previous posts well you're just lacking in reading comprehension because at no time did I claim anything you are ranting about.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
are you suggesting there are no recreational and legitimate uses of firearm outside the US?? You can go target shooting in a shooting range where there will be instructors checking everyone knows what they are doing and no body takes the gun out. (China had a gold olympic medal in air gun shooting and gun ownership aren't allowed in china)
You can go hunting if you have a hunting permit in the UK.
What's so hard to understand that you aren't losing any of these usage?
But look at Canada we have shit loads of guns with 30 guns per person in Canada and our Deaths from firearms is like 4.76/100,000 compared to a country like Brazil where they have 8 guns a person but 19.1/100,000 deaths from guns. Obviously Canada is a "First world country" while Brazil is a third world country but I think it could easily be argued some ghettos in the US could be considered nearly on the same level as Brazil.
Idk how to look this up tbh but I think wealthier areas of the US would have a drastically lower gun death rate than areas that are poverty stricken like certain parts of Miami/Detroit.
Some of these proposed gun laws remind me of how during the SOPA bill debates tons of the Senators admitted to having no clue how the internet worked rofl.
everyone knows the internet is a series of tubes and if someone sends you an internet while someone else is streaming 10 movies well that internet has to wait it's turn because the tubes are full.
On December 20 2012 08:48 SilentchiLL wrote: I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
The problem here is that the "price" of gun ownership is a figment of your deluded and paranoid imagination. You are coming to wrong conclusions based on your irrational fear of firearms, and then asking people questions based on a false premise you fabricated.
The real question is: why should innocent victims pay the price of being disarmed, just to relieve your phobia of guns?
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
What a wonderful "Harvard Study", the best type of study: a non-peer-reviewed article in a Law Review edited by right-wing Harvard Law students. This "study" is a joke, 40 pages of trash that wouldn't stand up to any reasonable form of peer-review. As an example consider the figures used for Luxembourg, citing a homicide rate of 9/100k. This figure is referred to a number of times in the "study", unfortunately the actual homicide rate in Luxembourg is actually 0.9/100k.
For some actual peer-reviewed studies from Harvard about gun violence, try http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/ Unfortunately the real peer-reviewed stuff doesn't support the conclusions made by Kates and Mauser, but you can find that out for yourself.
They do seem to have made an error on the Luxembourg number.
You still have to account for countries with high rates of gun ownership that have very low gun-murder rates -- or, conversely, low-income nations like Mexico that have quite stringent gun laws and a comparatively high incidence of gun-related violence. One typo aside, the statistical analyses conducted by Kates-Mauser remain unanswered.
I took the time to have a look at the "Harvard study" you put up, and showed it to be tripe. Any statistical analyses performed by these two in this non-peer-reviewed paper is absolutely moot. The data they started with is bogus. Please have a look at the actual data used in the analyses, the only European country (in the data) with a homicide rate above 2.22 (except the incorrect Luxembourg number) is Russia with 20.54. The fact that they couldn't see for themselves that such a large homicide rate was clearly incorrect, and never felt the need to double-check that statistic, means that there is no need to 'answer' the statistical analyses of Kates-Mauser because they have used bad data. If they were to re-publish this (even without the peer-review) after correcting the Luxembourg figure (and the subsequent analysis), then we can look deeper.
Since I was nice enough to have a look at your article and the original "study", please take the time to check out the actual firearm research that has been conducted by Harvard. They have actual peer-reviewed work there, with real statistical analysis. You're argument may not be wrong, but citing these types of 'studies' does not help your case.
On December 20 2012 08:48 SilentchiLL wrote: I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
The problem here is that the "price" of gun ownership is a figment of your deluded and paranoid imagination. You are coming to wrong conclusions based on your irrational fear of firearms, and then asking people questions based on a false premise you fabricated.
The real question is: why should innocent victims pay the price of being disarmed, just to relieve your phobia of guns?
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
What a wonderful "Harvard Study", the best type of study: a non-peer-reviewed article in a Law Review edited by right-wing Harvard Law students. This "study" is a joke, 40 pages of trash that wouldn't stand up to any reasonable form of peer-review. As an example consider the figures used for Luxembourg, citing a homicide rate of 9/100k. This figure is referred to a number of times in the "study", unfortunately the actual homicide rate in Luxembourg is actually 0.9/100k.
For some actual peer-reviewed studies from Harvard about gun violence, try http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/ Unfortunately the real peer-reviewed stuff doesn't support the conclusions made by Kates and Mauser, but you can find that out for yourself.
They do seem to have made an error on the Luxembourg number.
You still have to account for countries with high rates of gun ownership that have very low gun-murder rates -- or, conversely, low-income nations like Mexico that have quite stringent gun laws and a comparatively high incidence of gun-related violence. One typo aside, the statistical analyses conducted by Kates-Mauser remain unanswered.
I took the time to have a look at the "Harvard study" you put up, and showed it to be tripe. Any statistical analyses performed by these two in this non-peer-reviewed paper is absolutely moot. The data they started with is bogus. Please have a look at the actual data used in the analyses, the only European country (in the data) with a homicide rate above 2.22 (except the incorrect Luxembourg number) is Russia with 20.54. The fact that they couldn't see for themselves that such a large homicide rate was clearly incorrect, and never felt the need to double-check that statistic, means that there is no need to 'answer' the statistical analyses of Kates-Mauser because they have used bad data. If they were to re-publish this (even without the peer-review) after correcting the Luxembourg figure (and the subsequent analysis), then we can look deeper.
Since I was nice enough to have a look at your article and the original "study", please take the time to check out the actual firearm research that has been conducted by Harvard. They have actual peer-reviewed work there, with real statistical analysis. You're argument may not be wrong, but citing these types of 'studies' does not help your case.
I did take the time to look at the page you linked, and found it to be tripe. It has 24 markup errors! Obviously these errors make it acceptable to ignore everything contained in the website.
You still have to account for countries with high rates of gun ownership that have very low gun-murder rates -- or, conversely, low-income nations like Mexico that have quite stringent gun laws and a comparatively high incidence of gun-related violence. One typo aside, the statistical analyses conducted by Kates-Mauser remain unanswered.
EPT
